Neo-Orthodoxy Pt1 R.C. Sproul

[OPC'n]

Here is a great sermon/teaching by Sproul on why God isn't wholly other. Enjoy!

 

[Grymir]

Way Cool!!! Sproul smash's Barth. In WWF style even!

 

[OPC'n]

Yep, he's da man!!!!

 

[Houchens]

Thanks Sarah! Pt 2 is up now as well.

 

[DMcFadden]

Yep, he's da man!!!!

AMEN!

Spoul helped me to leave broad evangelicalism for a more consistent 5pt Calvinism, he helped me (Providence of God MP3) deal with one of my sons who was a prodigal, and he re-energized my passion for theology.

I'm traveling between Fayetteville (2nd son's house) and Joplin to visit my son in the hospital today. Jeanette and I will listen to both parts of his lecture.

 

[OPC'n]

Yep, he's da man!!!!

AMEN!

Spoul helped me to leave broad evangelicalism for a more consistent 5pt Calvinism, he helped me (Providence of God MP3) deal with one of my sons who was a prodigal, and he re-energized my passion for theology.

I'm traveling between Fayetteville (2nd son's house) and Joplin to visit my son in the hospital today. Jeanette and I will listen to both parts of his lecture.

He was the one who who brought me into the reformed faith. This subject he has taught on before, and I remember when I first heard it I had to recognize that what Paul Washer had taught about God being wholly other was wrong. That's when I realized that emtionally charged sermons are not always correct just bc they make you cry. One must be a berean and make sure what is taught is correct. I really like Sproul bc he is passionate about the Word of God but calm and balanced much like my own pastor.

 

[Andres]

I am sorry for my ignorance here, but could someone please expand on what the phrase "wholly other" means, specifically in this context?

 

[OPC'n]

I am sorry for my ignorance here, but could someone please expand on what the phrase "wholly other" means, specifically in this context?

Some preacher such as Paul Washer believe that God is so holy (which in the Hebrew language means to cut and separate) that He is NOTHING like us. While it is true that God is very holy and we could never measure up to Him, He indeed is something like us otherwise (as Sproul teaches) not only would we not know anything of Him we couldn't know anything of Him. He would speak in a language we could not understand for instance. We would be without love, peace, joy etc attributes that are who He is which are commutable attributes to us. If He were wholly other (remembering that holy means to cut and separate and that's why Paul thinks He is nothing like us), then we would not have any of the attributes that He is and we could never strive via the Holy Spirit to attain them through sanctification. Listen to his sermon he makes more sense than I do.

 

[Andres]

I am sorry for my ignorance here, but could someone please expand on what the phrase "wholly other" means, specifically in this context?

Some preacher such as Paul Washer believe that God is so holy (which in the Hebrew language means to cut and separate) that He is NOTHING like us. While it is true that God is very holy and we could never measure up to Him, He indeed is something like us otherwise (as Sproul teaches) not only would we not know anything of Him we couldn't know anything of Him. He would speak in a language we could not understand for instance. We would be without love, peace, joy etc attributes that are who He is which are commutable attributes to us. If He were wholly other (remembering that holy means to cut and separate and that's why Paul thinks He is nothing like us), then we would not have any of the attributes that He is and we could never strive via the Holy Spirit to attain them through sanctification. Listen to his sermon he makes more sense than I do.

Thank you Sarah for your brief explanation. I presume that Washer and Sproul are limiting the discussion to the attributes of God the Father only and therefore any thoughts on the duality of Christ are withheld?
Finally, wouldn't the phrase be "holy other" or is it "wholly" as in complete. Sorry, but I guess I have not given this much thought before, but thank you as I now will and I am definitely interested in hearing the sermon.

 

[OPC'n]

It is wholly other and here's why: holy in the Hebrew language means "to cut and separate" because of this definition ppl like Paul Washer take that definition and come up with yet another definition and say that since God is holy (cut and separated from us) then that must mean that He is wholly (entirely) different or nothing like us. I believe that Paul Washer believes the wholly other of Christ would be His divine nature and wouldn't include His human nature. Which if he thought hard about that one wouldn't be able to come to his conclusion bc if God were wholly other than us He would have never been able to become man. God is other than us just not wholly other than us.

 

[DMcFadden]

19th Century Liberalism emphasized the immanence of God. The supernatural was neutered, denied, and re-explained. A typical lib explanation of the miracle of the loaves, for example, suggests that Jesus used moral susasion to get his listeners to share their lunches with their less well off neighbors on the hillside.

Neo-orthodoxy placed the stress upon the transcendence of God. He was not the Father of us all and our bud, he was "wholly other" ("totaliter aliter" - totally other). The emphasis was upon the "otherness" of God, the mysterium tremendum.

The problem with such a construction is that if God is truly wholly other, then there is no basis for communication between God and us. In place of orthodoxy and its emphasis upon an "analogy of being" (analogia entis), neo-orthodoxy posited an analogy of relationship.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Moved to Theological forum.

Great synopsis on Neo-Orthodoxy by Sproul if anyone hasn't listened to it. It's actually a good teaching series in general covering Contemporary Theological issues.

 

[awretchsavedbygrace]

It is wholly other and here's why: holy in the Hebrew language means "to cut and separate" because of this definition ppl like Paul Washer take that definition and come up with yet another definition and say that since God is holy (cut and separated from us) then that must mean that He is wholly (entirely) different or nothing like us. I believe that Paul Washer believes the wholly other of Christ would be His divine nature and wouldn't include His human nature. Which if he thought hard about that one wouldn't be able to come to his conclusion bc if God were wholly other than us He would have never been able to become man. God is other than us just not wholly other than us.

Sarah, Just to be fair. I think you should find out what Paul Washer means when he says God is wholly other than our selves. If you 've heard his explanation and have a mp3 I would be happy to hear it...

 

[OPC'n]

It is wholly other and here's why: holy in the Hebrew language means "to cut and separate" because of this definition ppl like Paul Washer take that definition and come up with yet another definition and say that since God is holy (cut and separated from us) then that must mean that He is wholly (entirely) different or nothing like us. I believe that Paul Washer believes the wholly other of Christ would be His divine nature and wouldn't include His human nature. Which if he thought hard about that one wouldn't be able to come to his conclusion bc if God were wholly other than us He would have never been able to become man. God is other than us just not wholly other than us.

Sarah, Just to be fair. I think you should find out what Paul Washer means when he says God is wholly other than our selves. If you 've heard his explanation and have a mp3 I would be happy to hear it...

I have heard and I will try to find it for you.

 

[awretchsavedbygrace]

It is wholly other and here's why: holy in the Hebrew language means "to cut and separate" because of this definition ppl like Paul Washer take that definition and come up with yet another definition and say that since God is holy (cut and separated from us) then that must mean that He is wholly (entirely) different or nothing like us. I believe that Paul Washer believes the wholly other of Christ would be His divine nature and wouldn't include His human nature. Which if he thought hard about that one wouldn't be able to come to his conclusion bc if God were wholly other than us He would have never been able to become man. God is other than us just not wholly other than us.

Sarah, Just to be fair. I think you should find out what Paul Washer means when he says God is wholly other than our selves. If you 've heard his explanation and have a mp3 I would be happy to hear it...

I have heard and I will try to find it for you.

Your the best.

 

[Marrow Man]

How much does neo-orthodoxy and the concept of God being "wholly other" factor into the van Tillian-Clark disputes?

 

[OPC'n]

Sarah, Just to be fair. I think you should find out what Paul Washer means when he says God is wholly other than our selves. If you 've heard his explanation and have a mp3 I would be happy to hear it...

I have heard and I will try to find it for you.

Your the best.

Hey, thanks! Here is the sermon of Paul about which I'm talking. In this sermon, he states that God is nothing like us and is completely different from us. I've heard the sermon before awhile ago so I didn't listen to the whole thing again. I only got to the part where he says this and where he starts talking about the "other" of God and meshed the two together....then I stopped listening since I don't agree with his belief system on this subject.

 

[awretchsavedbygrace]

I have heard and I will try to find it for you.

Your the best.

Hey, thanks! Here is the sermon of Paul about which I'm talking. In this sermon, he states that God is nothing like us and is completely different from us. I've heard the sermon before awhile ago so I didn't listen to the whole thing again. I only got to the part where he says this and where he starts talking about the "other" of God and meshed the two together....then I stopped listening since I don't agree with his belief system on this subject.

Check your inbox.

 

[MW]

Of course God is wholly other. Westminster Confession 7.1. Rejecting God's incomprehensibility is not a legitimate way to refute neo-orthodoxy's affirmation of it. It is rather in the area of God's knowability through condescending revelation that neo-orthodoxy must be challenged.

 

[OPC'n]

Of course God is wholly other. Westminster Confession 7.1. Rejecting God's incomprehensibility is not a legitimate way to refute neo-orthodoxy's affirmation of it. It is rather in the area of God's knowability through condescending revelation that neo-orthodoxy must be challenged.

If God were wholly other, we couldn't know anything about Him. It would be impossible for us to understand anything He had to say. He isn't wholly other. Have you listened to Sproul's sermon? Stating that God is not wholly other isn't rejecting His incomprehensibility. Although we don't comprehend Him completely, we do know something of Him. If He were wholly other then He would be completely and utterly incomprehensible and we would know nothing of Him

 

[MW]

If God were wholly other, we couldn't know anything about Him. It would be impossible for us to understand anything He had to say. He isn't wholly other. Have you listened to Sproul's sermon?

"Condescension" is the missing link here and provides a sound solution to your false dilemma. I don't have time to listen to this particular message by Sproul at the moment, but I am well acquainted with the Gerstner-Sproul-Ligonier evidential apologetic method.

 

[OPC'n]

If God were wholly other, we couldn't know anything about Him. It would be impossible for us to understand anything He had to say. He isn't wholly other. Have you listened to Sproul's sermon?

"Condescension" is the missing link here and provides a sound solution to your false dilemma. I don't have time to listen to this particular message by Sproul at the moment, but I am well acquainted with the Gerstner-Sproul-Ligonier evidential apologetic method.

I don't think it's a false dilemma....it's very logical. If God is nothing like us, then He would be completely incapable of communicating to us anything about who He is. We would be unable to receive His communicable attributes etc. I think you should take the time to listen to his sermon it's not that long. I think once you heard it you would agree.

 

[MW]

I don't think it's a false dilemma....it's very logical. If God is nothing like us, then He would be completely incapable of communicating to us anything about who He is. We would be unable to receive His communicable attributes etc. I think you should take the time to listen to his sermon it's not that long. I think once you heard it you would agree.

I will have a listen on Monday morning but it would have to be a remarkable collection of arguments to overturn a fundamental metaphysic of the reformed tradition. As for communicable attributes, these are predicated of God in such a way as they belong properly and only to Him. "Thou only art holy;" "the only wise God."

 

[OPC'n]

I don't think it's a false dilemma....it's very logical. If God is nothing like us, then He would be completely incapable of communicating to us anything about who He is. We would be unable to receive His communicable attributes etc. I think you should take the time to listen to his sermon it's not that long. I think once you heard it you would agree.

I will have a listen on Monday morning but it would have to be a remarkable collection of arguments to overturn a fundamental metaphysic of the reformed tradition. As for communicable attributes, these are predicated of God in such a way as they belong properly and only to Him. "Thou only art holy;" "the only wise God."

God not being wholly other is of the reformed faith. A man named Barth was trying to fight the liberals of his time when they were trying to pull God down to an inappropriate level. He went overboard in his doctrine of wholly other. He basically was fighting both the liberals on their beliefs and the reformed on their beliefs. I might not be understanding what you are saying but are you saying that God doesn't have any attributes that are communicable to mankind? They of course belong to God since His attributes are who He is. But they don't belong only to Him only bc He decided to give us some of His attributes.....do we defile them?....yes, our love, peace etc are riddled with sin but they are indeed attributes given to us by God. When we are glorified we will exhibit these attributes perfectly. His non-communicable attributes are attributes we will never have. Perhaps you mean something different from what I got from your sentence though.

 

[TeachingTulip]

They of course belong to God since His attributes are who He is. But they don't belong only to Him only bc He decided to give us some of His attributes.....

Uh?

Sorry, . . .but creatures . . .even redeemed creatures . . .can never possess the attributes of God. They can only reflect the Creator's attributes and benefit from them.

do we defile them?

We SURE would, if they were ours to defile. But the creature cannot ever defile the attributes of their Maker. Not even the fall of mankind, affected the holiness, power, or excellency of God Almighty!

....yes, our love, peace etc are riddled with sin but they are indeed attributes given to us by God.

Grace is given to us by God, that gives us access to heaven and a sharing in the glory of God . . .but creatures remain creatures, even in glory. God does not ever transer divinity to the works of His hands, except through divine representation.

When we are glorified we will exhibit these attributes perfectly.

No. We will only benefit from and reflect God's glory. Divine attributes will never be inherent to those created by Him.

His non-communicable attributes are attributes we will never have.

Right.

 

[MW]

God not being wholly other is of the reformed faith.

No, it is not; please read WCF 7.1.

I might not be understanding what you are saying but are you saying that God doesn't have any attributes that are communicable to mankind?

No; what I am saying is that they are "communicated;" the very fact that they are communicated means that the creature can never possess them essentially. If God only "possesses" them essentially then it is obvious that God is wholly other even in the "possession" of these communicable attributes. Which is why reformed divines prefer to say that He "is" them rather than "possesses" them.

 

[OPC'n]

They of course belong to God since His attributes are who He is. But they don't belong only to Him only bc He decided to give us some of His attributes.....

Uh?

No, creatures . . .even redeemed creatures . . .can never possess the attributes of God. They can only reflect the Creator's attributes and benefit from them.

do we defile them?

We SURE would, if they were ours to defile. But the creature cannot ever defile the attributes of their Maker. Not even the fall of mankind, affected the holiness, power, or excellency of God Almighty!




Grace is given to us by God, that gives us access to heaven and a sharing in the glory of God . . .but creatures remain creatures, even in glory. God does not share His divine attributes with the works of His hands.

When we are glorified we will exhibit these attributes perfectly.

No. We will only benefit from and reflect God's glory. Divine attributes will never be inherent to those created by Him.

His non-communicable attributes are attributes we will never have.

Right.

I will point you to Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology (or any other reformer's work) where he talks about the communicable attributes of God. I do have one question for you, however. If we are being made into God's imagine and "we shall be like Him when He appears" which part of that is untrue? We will never have a divine nature....so we won't be like Him in that manner and we are not being made into His image of divineness. So how do you think we are being made into His image? Are we only going to be mirrors who reflect Who God is or are we going to actually be made into His image by being perfectly loving etc? To not have these attributes and to only mirror them, is to not be a new creation. When sin is finally defeated in you and me what will we be?....mirrors? The change that will come about us will be a sure change. I'm not sure where you get your theology....

 

[TeachingTulip]

They of course belong to God since His attributes are who He is. But they don't belong only to Him only bc He decided to give us some of His attributes.....

Uh?

No, creatures . . .even redeemed creatures . . .can never possess the attributes of God. They can only reflect the Creator's attributes and benefit from them.





We SURE would, if they were ours to defile. But the creature cannot ever defile the attributes of their Maker. Not even the fall of mankind, affected the holiness, power, or excellency of God Almighty!




Grace is given to us by God, that gives us access to heaven and a sharing in the glory of God . . .but creatures remain creatures, even in glory. God does not share His divine attributes with the works of His hands.




No. We will only benefit from and reflect God's glory. Divine attributes will never be inherent to those created by Him.

His non-communicable attributes are attributes we will never have.

Right.

I will point you to Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology (or any other reformer's work) where he talks about the communicable attributes of God. I do have one question for you, however. If we are being made into God's imagine and "we shall be like Him when He appears" which part of that is untrue? We will never have a divine nature....so we won't be like Him in that manner and we are not being made into His image of divineness. So how do you think we are being made into His image? Are we only going to be mirrors who reflect Who God is or are we going to actually be made into His image by being perfectly loving etc? To not have these attributes and to only mirror them, is to not be a new creation. When sin is finally defeated in you and me what will we be?....mirrors? The change that will come about us will be a sure change. I'm not sure where you get your theology....

I hope my theology and beliefs are biblical and according to Holy Scripture!

If Christ was willing to humble Himself, to merely reflect the image of God, in order to identify with creatures . . .why would creatures redeemed by that act of humility, attempt to elevate themselves to divine status?

For myself, I hope, and am happy to anticipate living in the reflected glory of God forever.

I do not desire to be like God.

I am satisfied that Holy God has condescended to be like me, in order to redeem my soul.

 

[OPC'n]

Uh?

No, creatures . . .even redeemed creatures . . .can never possess the attributes of God. They can only reflect the Creator's attributes and benefit from them.





We SURE would, if they were ours to defile. But the creature cannot ever defile the attributes of their Maker. Not even the fall of mankind, affected the holiness, power, or excellency of God Almighty!




Grace is given to us by God, that gives us access to heaven and a sharing in the glory of God . . .but creatures remain creatures, even in glory. God does not share His divine attributes with the works of His hands.




No. We will only benefit from and reflect God's glory. Divine attributes will never be inherent to those created by Him.





Right.

I will point you to Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology (or any other reformer's work) where he talks about the communicable attributes of God. I do have one question for you, however. If we are being made into God's imagine and "we shall be like Him when He appears" which part of that is untrue? We will never have a divine nature....so we won't be like Him in that manner and we are not being made into His image of divineness. So how do you think we are being made into His image? Are we only going to be mirrors who reflect Who God is or are we going to actually be made into His image by being perfectly loving etc? To not have these attributes and to only mirror them, is to not be a new creation. When sin is finally defeated in you and me what will we be?....mirrors? The change that will come about us will be a sure change. I'm not sure where you get your theology....

I hope my theology and beliefs are biblical and according to Holy Scripture!

If Christ was willing to humble Himself, to merely reflect the image of God, in order to identify with creatures . . .why would creatures redeemed by that act of humility, attempt to elevate themselves to divine status?

For myself, I hope, and am happy to anticipate living in the reflected glory of God forever.

I do not desire to be like God.

I am satisfied that Holy God has condescended to be like me, in order to redeem my soul.

I just got through saying that we would never be divine...slow down and read what I write. Christ never just merely reflected the image of God....He was the image of God He never lost His divinity. Read Colossians 1:15 "He is the imagine of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." He was always God Who became fully man. He didn't reflect God's imagine He was that image. And I'm not saying that we should desire to be like God in His divine nature but like it or not we shall be like Him. 1John 3:2 "Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is."

-----Added 9/11/2009 at 10:00:33 EST-----

God not being wholly other is of the reformed faith.

No, it is not; please read WCF 7.1.

I might not be understanding what you are saying but are you saying that God doesn't have any attributes that are communicable to mankind?

No; what I am saying is that they are "communicated;" the very fact that they are communicated means that the creature can never possess them essentially. If God only "possesses" them essentially then it is obvious that God is wholly other even in the "possession" of these communicable attributes. Which is why reformed divines prefer to say that He "is" them rather than "possesses" them.

Yes it is. And I agree that He is His attributes and there lies the difference between Him and His creation. We will never be the source of His attributes but we will certainly possess them. There is a difference between being an attribute and merely possessing an attribute. God has non-communicable attributes and communicable attributes. All of the reformed writers that I have read agrees with this.

-----Added 9/11/2009 at 10:08:10 EST-----

The WCF states:

The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

God could have never voluntarily condescended if He were wholly other than us. The WCF doesn't support the doctrine of wholly other in its statement here.

 

[MW]

And I'm not saying that we should desire to be like God in His divine nature but like it or not we shall be like Him. 1John 3:2 "Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is."

The text also says that He shall appear. Surely you do not think the divine nature shall appear. The referent must be to Christ. Therefore the conformity shall be to Christ's likeness.

Yes it is. And I agree that He is His attributes and there lies the difference between Him and His creation.

How is it not wholly other "to be" rather than "to become?" I think you may be so determined to defend Sproul on this point that you are not taking time to think through the ramifications of what you are affirming.

God could have never voluntarily condescended if He were wholly other than us. The WCF doesn't support the doctrine of wholly other in its statement here.

How does one "condescend" to what he already is? God must be other than what He condescended to do.