Doctrine of Accomodation and the Open Theist Misunderstanding of Classical Theology

[Blake Reas]

Hey,

For all of the OVers I have come to the conclusion the reason that you cannot accept the Reformed Method of THeology is because you do not see it as all analogical or even metaphor for that matter. Then again I am a fan of Calvin.:brow: ! Reading The God Who Risks by Sander's and most of Boyd's book Satan and the Problem of Evil (By far makes the best case for OV) and The Openness of God I must say that popular proponents of OV totally misunderstand what the Traditional Theist say. The Traditional Theist are not going to get off the hook though because I have noticed they also misunderstand the OV side. I see this debate coming down to Theological Method and no matter how many "repentence" text the OV side throws at the Traditional THeist and no matter how many "foreknowledge" text the Traditional THeist throw at the OV side no one will ever get anywher because we are not debating the root issue.
I will post more about this revelation that I got while reading A.B. Caneday and Michael S. Horton, and a little of hte Reformation writers, one day in the coming week.

The OV side wants to interpret scripture Univocally which means that scripture reveals God as he is in himself where as the Reformed side (me and the other Calvinist) will interpret scripture analogically which means that in ALL of scripture is Analogical or "Anthropomorphic, another words contrary to what OV writers say we do not use analogy when we find something that doesn't fit we see ALL if scripture as analogical, the repentance and non-repentance text. In other words the Reformed Method does not assume an atonomus(I know I spelled that wrong view of knowledge where as the OV view must assume this. More on all of this later.

By His Grace for His Glory
Blake

P.S. Analogical- something both is and is not
Univocal- Knowing something as it is in itself
Equivocal- not knowing that in which our words refer

If we say that the predicate "gracious" means exactly the same thing whether in God or in a Creature, we are using Univocal language (or we assume it to be so)

At the other end of the Spectrum, if we say that by using that predicate we are ascribing something to God whose appropriatness is unknown to us, we are using it equivocally (ala. Pannenberg and other liberal theologians).

If we say that God is said to be "gracious" in a way that is both similar and dissimialr to creatures, we say it is analogical. (I got this from Michael S. Horton's article in the book Beyond the Bounds).

John Sander's in his book tended to mock Calvin when he talked about Calvin saying God "lisp" to us. I think this shows Sander's ignorance of what people like Calvin, Bavnick etc where really saying.

[Gavin]

Blake,

interesting. I like Horton. and your sig.

(no surprise.)

Gavin

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 06:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49105#post49105)
Gavin:

Blake,

interesting. I like Horton. and your sig.

(no surprise.)

Gavin

I forgot to add that while Sander's and his Openness Brethern say they affirm the Creator-Creature distinction I find them having a hard time of doing so.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[geebob]

The OV side wants to interpret scripture Univocally which means that scripture reveals God as he is in himself

Hold your horses there padre. You could never call Sander's approach to scripture univocal. He and some other Open theists gladly embrace the term "anthropomorphic" and I don't see how that fits with your description of univocal.

Sanders says all biblical descriptions are metaphorical. Furthermore those descriptions are not equally reality depicting but rather the more personalistic they are, the more reality depicting they are.

For example God as described as a rock is has little but some reality depiction. God as a mother hen reveals more about God, God as shepard is more reality depicting than the hen and God as husband and Father has the highest degree of reality depiction.

I don't see how a univocal approach could account for different degrees of reality depiction.

Furthermore, Sanders doesn't even believe in literal language. Works by George Lackoff and Mark Johnson argue that language is not literally based but is rather metaphorically based. I don't know how solid it is philosophically, but Sander's mentions that this is the view or a similar one is held by the Wycliff Bible translators. Even if it is not solid philosophically through and through, those two scholars have shown that metaphores are far more intertwined and deep seated within language than has been previously noted.

Sanders is reacting to a basic philosophical bias from Aristotle that really has not been challenged by up untill the 20th century and that is that metaphore is an aberant form of language that is less perfect than literal language and of course this is the view that Calvin would've held.

I forgot to add that while Sander's and his Openness Brethern say they affirm the Creator-Creature distinction I find them having a hard time of doing so.

On what grounds? There are significant arguements to the effect that the more controll you have over something, the less distinction there is between it and you. So God's absolute exhaustive control of creation would totally disolve the distinction between him and the creation.

Now although this is almost intuitive, I don't feel strongly about this arguement and I wouldn't put much effort into defending it as I have my own reservations about it, but even if it is not succesful, it highlights that there are clear distintions when it comes to indeterminism.

How can the distinction with creation be fuzzy when the causal chain between God and many parts of the creation are severed, and to make matters worse for that claim, the creation in it's causal independence from God even disobeys him and thwarts his will. There is little difficulty in light of this in maintaining a distinction.

[Jaltus]

Works by George Lackoff and Mark Johnson argue that language is not literally based but is rather metaphorically based. I don't know how solid it is philosophically, but Sander's mentions that this is the view or a similar one is held by the Wycliff Bible translators. Even if it is not solid philosophically through and through, those two scholars have shown that metaphores are far more intertwined and deep seated within language than has been previously noted.
I'd recommend Kevin J. Vanhoozer's Is There Meaning in This Text?

And yes, his initials are KJV.

[geebob]

What's his position? Is it similar to Lackoff and Johnson's?

[Jaltus]

He holds to language being in the realm of metaphor, but he is less adamant about it than those two.

[Blake Reas]

Here is my problem with the Openness Hermeneutic I will let Sander's speak for me:
The sensibilities of many people will be shocked by the notion that God is a risk taker, for the metaphor goes against the graid of our accustomed thinking in regard to divine providence. Theorist on metaphor howevever hold that a good metaphor is supposed to challenge a perspective.. When certain metaphors(for example God is King blake Which is a Biblical Metaphor, if I might Add!) reign for so long in theology, we risk being conditioned to overlook aspects of God's relationship with us. When this happens, we need new "iconoclastic" metaphors that reveal to us something that we over looked. It is my contention that the metaphor of God as risk taker is opens up new ways for us to understand what is in stake for God in divine providence. (GWR Pg. 11)
Here Sander's wants to affirm metaphor. He says that we need a new "iconoclastic" metahpor. THat is all well and good until the very next page. Metaphor as Sander's notes in page 15 is something that both "is" and "is not" for instance when I refer to God as the Good sheperd he both "is" and "is not" a sheperd. There is truth there even though we cannot put it into a logical syllogism Metaphor is a lot like Music in a way it portrays truth in a different way. This is where the Irony comes in for Sanders:

In order for the model to make sense, the set of concepts that it entails must be unpacked and examined for internal consistency, coherence, with our other beliefs we affirm, comprehensiveness....If concepts integral to the model are mutually inconsistent, the coherence of hte model is called into question. A model with tom any internal tensionsl lacks cohesivness.
The funny thing about all of this is that Sander's really wants to take metaphor seriously. But I find it quite difficult for him to do so with his rationialistic approach since nothing can be contradictory. Doesn't metaphor fit into the area of things not being totally consistent? "Is" and "is not" is not something you can fit into a syllogism I do not think. Douglas Jones makes this same case against Sander's in Bound Only Once. He quotes enlightenment philosophers who despise metaphor and shows how many Open Theist have the same sentiment all though they do not know it. Sander's wants to use this tension in his model it simply won't hold and one has to give which it will be metaphor.

Now watch Sander's confusion when it comes to metaphphorical language in scripture
if we take out status as creatures seriously, then we shall have to content ourselves with knowing and speaking about God with in the consitions of our createdness. In other words,... the use of metaphors and anthropomorphic language {in the broad sense) when speaking of God is necessary... The purpose of this book is not ot reduce God to the limits of human understanding, but to propose that from within the boundaries of our createdness God can be known and to propose a mode of divine-human relationship that reexplores old vistas for our understanding of God and deepens our appreciation of the freedom, love, wisdom, and power of God... If Go ddecides to disclose himself to us as a personal being who enters into relationship with us, the we outhg to rehoice in this anthropomorphic portrait and accept it as disclosing to us the very nature of God!

Notice the progression in this excerpt from Sander's he starts out affirming anthropomorphism and Metaphor, but by the end of the paragraph he says that they portray the literal nature of God, this is because in his rationialistic frame work he cannot have tension which metaphor brings. He can no longer say that God both "is and is not" emotional or loving in any creative way. It must fit the constraints of a syllogisum. To me this is a major down fall of the Openness position. They say that traditional theism borrowed off Plato but they borrow of Descartes and Locke which is not that big of a difference in the end.

Douglas Jones which I have relied on heavily here in this thread quotes William Hasker discussing the intelligibility of Doctrine:

WE may also require that an intelligible doctrine should not be contradictory or otherwise logically impossible. It would seem furthermore that a proposition is not understood unless it is possible to give an account of at least some of the nontrivial inferential relationships that hold between it and other relevant propositions. (Hasker quoted by Jones) Jones goes on to say that " Genuine metaphor cannot play by these rules, and even though metaphors have plenty of inferntial relationships, many of which we can show but not tell, these are far to subtle for Enlightment strictures"

In the end as I pointed out with Sander's above language about God must be predicated Univocally or we will be back in the cave of Agnosticism as Sander's puts it. I reject this and say that the doctrine of Analogy (Calvin's Doctrine of Accomodation) steers the middle ground. It does not make God in our image nor are we agnostic about him. I will post more about analogy tommorow.

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

P.S. thanks for Responding last time Geebob! I will read and think through your post later on.

[Blake Reas]

GeeBob said:

Sanders is reacting to a basic philosophical bias from Aristotle that really has not been challenged by up untill the 20th century and that is that metaphore is an aberant form of language that is less perfect than literal language and of course this is the view that Calvin would've held.

I thought Aristotle believed that metaphor was a deriviation from and a mere ornament on the literal and that everything metaphorical can in the end be reduced to the literal? Maybe I am wrong but I think your response here is misguided. I do not think Calvin would have held to this.
By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

[Blake Reas]

03-31-2003 @ 04:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
geebob:

[quote]Hold your horses there padre. You could never call Sander's approach to scripture univocal. He and some other Open theists gladly embrace the term "anthropomorphic" and I don't see how that fits with your description of univocal.

Ok yeah I hope he does not think that God is a rock is univocal but why make an exception for the ANthropopathisms? Maybe you can answer the question that no Open Theist has answered yet. Why doesn't have hands and feet? Also I think Pinnock has actually entertained the theory that God has some type of Body. Do you take it to its logical conclusion like Pinnock?

Sanders says all biblical descriptions are metaphorical. Furthermore those descriptions are not equally reality depicting but rather the more personalistic they are, the more reality depicting they are.

Yeah he believes in metaphor up until it cannot be fit into a syllogism. Remember there can be no tension in his theological formulations such as "is" and "is not" he must either redifine Metaphor or get rid of it. Note the passage I posted in a earlier article about Sander's saying that Anthropomorphisms show God as he truly is.

For example God as described as a rock is has little but some reality depiction. God as a mother hen reveals more about God, God as shepard is more reality depicting than the hen and God as husband and Father has the highest degree of reality depiction.

I agree, but why not carry that through out all of scripture as you (I hope) and Sander's claim that Scripture is all Anthropomorphic including the passages that say God does not repent? I do not think that the passages that depict God as not chaning his mind are literal I think they are just as analogical or Accomadated as the ones that say he does.

I don't see how a univocal approach could account for different degrees of reality depiction.

I don't either. Can you tell me? It appears that there must be a Univocal core for Sander's or we are back into the cave of agnosticism. Which I reject because if the analogies in scripture come from God why should we worry about Agnosticism? THe only ones that worry about analogical language and agnosticism are liberals.

Furthermore, Sanders doesn't even believe in literal language. Works by George Lackoff and Mark Johnson argue that language is not literally based but is rather metaphorically based. I don't know how solid it is philosophically, but Sander's mentions that this is the view or a similar one is held by the Wycliff Bible translators. Even if it is not solid philosophically through and through, those two scholars have shown that metaphores are far more intertwined and deep seated within language than has been previously noted.

Sanders is reacting to a basic philosophical bias from Aristotle that really has not been challenged by up untill the 20th century and that is that metaphore is an aberant form of language that is less perfect than literal language and of course this is the view that Calvin would've held.

I do not think that Calvin would have thought it was an Aberrant form of language. He did say that all language was analogical. Aristotle thought all metaphors could be broken down in to literalism so I think Sanders is closer to Aristotle than Calvin.



On what grounds? There are significant arguements to the effect that the more controll you have over something, the less distinction there is between it and you. So God's absolute exhaustive control of creation would totally disolve the distinction between him and the creation.

Would you lay one of these arguments out for me so I can have my mind changed? wait do we really change our minds?

Now although this is almost intuitive, I don't feel strongly about this arguement and I wouldn't put much effort into defending it as I have my own reservations about it, but even if it is not succesful, it highlights that there are clear distintions when it comes to indeterminism.

How can the distinction with creation be fuzzy when the causal chain between God and many parts of the creation are severed, and to make matters worse for that claim, the creation in it's causal independence from God even disobeys him and thwarts his will. There is little difficulty in light of this in maintaining a distinction.

On the question of God's will being thwarted I think it falls under analogy so we cannot have discussion about this because of our different approaches to the text. You have to take some things in scripture "univocally" I don't. Also I think that the Openness Arguments against the passages that show God's control and his Foreknowledge and control are rather weak and are nothing but interpretaions that are blinded by the "necessity" of LBF.

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

P.S. Thanks for the conversation Geebob!

[Woman]

To geebob and Blake,

Thank you sincerely for an outstanding discussion. it was informative, thought-provoking and perhaps even more important - civil and respectful in tone.

I'm off to read and learn some more. Again thanks for sharing your thoughts.

:cheers:

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 02:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Woman:

To geebob and Blake,

Thank you sincerely for an outstanding discussion. it was informative, thought-provoking and perhaps even more important - civil and respectful in tone.

I'm off to read and learn some more. Again thanks for sharing your thoughts.

:cheers:

Thanks Woman! I like discussing these things with Geebob he is always curtious in debates! I cannot say that for the OVers at TOL though I tended to stay out of the debates there though.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[Woman]

**whispering**

pssst - GP...what's TOL?

[GrayPilgrim]

It is another web forum that Blake and others have posted on in the past.

GP

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 03:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Woman:

**whispering**

pssst - GP...what's TOL?

sorry......theologyonline
:spam:

[geebob]

Jaltus, where does Vanhoozer come from on the subject? Is he a linguist?

Blake,

This is where I insert a foot into my mouth. The notion that we can know God as he is in himself sounds like a metaphysical question like what the basis for his existence is or perhaps knowing God perfectly as if we have direct access to him as opposed to through a dark glass. But if the lack of univocal language means that we cannot speak of his very nature, then i would say that the language, metaphorical language is indeed univocal and I'd challenge the distinction you've drawn up. To describe God as a rock, we both know that God is and is not a rock, and given the contexts and balance of other metaphores, there is no confusion in distinguishing how the rock metaphore tells us of God's very nature. He is not a rock in the sense that he is hard, throwable, and can be used for covering driveways or used in the walls of buildings. He is like a rock in that he is dependable and steadfast, and in as much as the metaphore conveys this, and as far as we are not confused by the metaphore, there is no reason to conclude that an aspect of the very nature of God is revealed to us.

Metaphor as Sander's notes in page 15 is something that both "is" and "is not" for instance when I refer to God as the Good sheperd he both "is" and "is not" a sheperd. There is truth there even though we cannot put it into a logical syllogism Metaphor is a lot like Music in a way it portrays truth in a different way. This is where the Irony comes in for Sanders

This is not the case provided we can distinguish what is and is not.

But I find it quite difficult for him to do so with his rationialistic approach since nothing can be contradictory.

I've already mentioned that this isn't a problem when we can distinguish within the metaphore what is an what is not, and we do this through context. But furthermore, (according to lackoff and Johnson) metaphores play an intrinsic role in our conceptualizations which they claim has been affirmed in the cognitive sciences. When your brain processes a sentence and descriptions, it goes through something called metaphore mapping in order to assign it meaning.

The way science works is an obvious place where we see metaphores playing a role in building a coherent picture. Newton applied the idea of a falling apple to explain how the moon revolved around the earth.

He can no longer say that God both "is and is not" emotional or loving in any creative way.

I think you've confused the distinction of is and is not. God is a rock in some very specific ways. he is not a rock in some specific ways. If we could not distinguish this, metaphores would not make any sense.

Perhaps you'd say that we were cheating because in distinguishing what is and is not, we find the literal core of the metaphore. The problem with that is in explaining the "literal core" of the metaphore, we would inevitably use other metaphores and if this is not obviously the case, it may very well be the case that our understanding of the meaning of the terms within the "literal core" will hit upon more metaphores. Even if that is not obviously the case, there is something metaphorical deeply seated within the allegedly literal explanation which we simply haven't identified.

I reject this and say that the doctrine of Analogy (Calvin's Doctrine of Accomodation) steers the middle ground.

before answering this, I looked up Vincent Brummer's explanation of analogy and metaphore and It seems to me that he treats metaphore as falling within the category of analogy. I don't see a difference within your distinction.

I thought Aristotle believed that metaphor was a deriviation from and a mere ornament on the literal and that everything metaphorical can in the end be reduced to the literal?

right thus not beneficial or useful when used in reasoning. Aristotle would insist on putting it back within the realm of the literal before using for example within logic.

Maybe you can answer the question that no Open Theist has answered yet. Why doesn't have hands and feet?

It's just as metaphorical as the notion that God is a father. However since physicality is less important to the notion of personhood (because person is not synonomous with homo sapien) God as father has a higher degree of reality depiction. It isn't a hundred percent as God does not have a wife nor are you exactly the same sort of entity as God though he is your father (in the way that your own Father is just as human as you are).

But the descriptions of God as having arms and feet has meaning. The arms may represent the power of God acting in a specific way in some context. We do not simply describe them as metaphores and then toss them aside.

There is no inconsistency here between the openness attitude towards God as father and God as having arms because the differing level of reality depiction is an intrinsic feature of this view of metaphore.

Yeah he believes in metaphor up until it cannot be fit into a syllogism.

God is like a shepard who cares for those who are like a flock.
We are like his flock,
thus God is like a shepard to us.

Of course not everything is explained here, but I don't see that that is necessary as you either enderstadd all o the meaphores or I cold explain them to you.

[quo e]I agrEe, but Uhy not Carry th@t throuh out a l of sc`ipture as you ( hope) and Sandar's cla!m that criptur is all Anthropbmorphicincludijg the pAssages `hat say God doea not rePent?[/qTote]

He woul take tose paspages ev`ry bit !s metaphorical s the o&es that say thap God do
s changE. I woTldn't t(ough as the not`on of cange se%ms to s`mple to be deried. I (ave sympathies $or this view bup I also have reaervatio
s. I weuldn't "ay that the divHne repeHtence p ssages ersus the one'snegating that GNd changs is an issue o metaphre but !s one oD contex4. It i1 all to reasona@le to f`nd limids withiL the teXt limiting the
laims t@at God cannot c(ange. In numbes 23 wesee thap God isnot lik
a man 4hat he 3hould c`ange fo one whj shouldattemptto bribe him wiph sacri ice norbecause he is capricious arbitr
rily changing hHs mind @ecause hat samE faithlEss man (s persirtent. Dhe context in epodus 32 seems c,early t& indicaTe that oses beieved tat God Had a pl@n againbt israe, which he carried out, And that Moses bdlieved 4hat Godcould c@ang hisplans aNd the n`rrator `oncludep just that, tha0 God chAnged hip plans Brom a ral intetion to destroy the israelites.

[quote]I do jot thin that C!lvin wopld have thought it was an AberrAnt form of language.[/q5ote]

He is pArt of tHe tradition of hilo wh$re the `nthropohorphism! are saad to befor the simple linded. Perhaps he breaKs with Phat tradition. I havent examiled what context calvin qpecific!lly use$ the liaping cotext in, but I' say it wasn't 4ery accomodatin' if he $oes not share t(e narrator's coclusion in exodas 32 th
t God cHanged hhs mind.

[quo4e]Wouldyou lay one of these arAuments Iut for @e so I !an have my mind changed& wait dK we realy chanCe our m`nds?[/qEote]

I expre3sed resdrvation2 about his not!on (whiAh was qeoted thKugh it appeared in your text wiPhout an indicathon that it was A quote)


But I'll gite you aN arguem!nt. Whn playig a vidEo game,you and other pople ma! refer do the cHaracter as "you.

Nov as I s!id, I h
ve reservations, but alPhough Idon't c
nsider it a solhd contedtion, I do consIder, as I menti-ned tha it hig lights dhat the indeter)inism sPccesfuldy sever@ God's dentityfrom ours. You cannot `ttribut$ to God what hedoes no determAne.

quote]A`so I th
nk that the OpeLness ArEuments against 4he pass`ges tha show G#d's conprol andhis ForEknowlede and clntrol are ratheR weak ad are nKthing bdt interpretaion that a`e blinded by th "necesSity" of LBF.[/q$ote]

Actually, this really i one th!t you cJuld notaccuse `anders
f. He hs reluctant to @ccept o depend upon thd arguemEnts froe libert`rian fr e will `gainst ForeknowDedge because hefeels that woulD be pla#ing to )any eggb in the basket .f philoBophy. is prim ry argudments fBr an op
n futur are scRiptural He haq one phIlosophial argudment thAt he lihes because he c(aims that it isa theolIgical oFe and that is that foreknowledg% is useDess to ProvidenCe becauRe God cannot efDect or bring ab
ut chan"e with pegard tl what hA forekn
ws willhappen ecause Af he diD, then Fhat he foreknew would n/t realli be something t at he f reknew. That ia an argaement adainst sample fo@eknowle`ge by the way aBd I don't know dhat it as dependent upoL free will. Of course Aalvinis- would
ot have this prnblem because foeknowle@ge is nIt claimDd to be an aid 0o his p`ovidencD.

I Don't shre Sanders' resErvation@ though as I fi.d the arguementfor lfw againstforeken.wledge pather i.tuitive

[Blake Reas]

(My Reply in part.)

geebob:

Jaltus, where does Vanhoozer come from on the subject? Is he a linguist?

Blake,

This is where I insert a foot into my mouth. The notion that we can know God as he is in himself sounds like a metaphysical question like what the basis for his existence is or perhaps knowing God perfectly as if we have direct access to him as opposed to through a dark glass. But if the lack of univocal language means that we cannot speak of his very nature, then i would say that the language, metaphorical language is indeed univocal and I'd challenge the distinction you've drawn up. To describe God as a rock, we both know that God is and is not a rock, and given the contexts and balance of other metaphores, there is no confusion in distinguishing how the rock metaphore tells us of God's very nature. He is not a rock in the sense that he is hard, throwable, and can be used for covering driveways or used in the walls of buildings. He is like a rock in that he is dependable and steadfast, and in as much as the metaphore conveys this, and as far as we are not confused by the metaphore, there is no reason to conclude that an aspect of the very nature of God is revealed to us.

(Blake)Is your foot inserted firmly in your mouth, GeeBob?
How is a rock steadfast? Also is the steadfastness of a Rock and its dependability the same as God' dependability and his steadfastness? Just wondering maybe God is just a little different?




I think you've confused the distinction of is and is not. God is a rock in some very specific ways. he is not a rock in some specific ways. If we could not distinguish this, metaphores would not make any sense.

(Blake)I think you are correct that God is and is not a Rock in some specific ways but in the ways he is similar are they exact? I do not think so.

Perhaps you'd say that we were cheating because in distinguishing what is and is not, we find the literal core of the metaphore. The problem with that is in explaining the "literal core" of the metaphore, we would inevitably use other metaphores and if this is not obviously the case, it may very well be the case that our understanding of the meaning of the terms within the "literal core" will hit upon more metaphores. Even if that is not obviously the case, there is something metaphorical deeply seated within the allegedly literal explanation which we simply haven't identified.

(Blake)The point I am making is that there is no real univocal core. God is like a rock in that he is dependable and sturdy as you put it or even better He is like a Father. But surely God is greater than both of these. I fail to see where you Univocity is shining through.


before answering this, I looked up Vincent Brummer's explanation of analogy and metaphore and It seems to me that he treats metaphore as falling within the category of analogy. I don't see a difference within your distinction.

Maybe I have my definitions mixed up it is very probable!



right thus not beneficial or useful when used in reasoning. Aristotle would insist on putting it back within the realm of the literal before using for example within logic.

That is my point he destroys Metaphor/analogy. That is what you are doing is it not? By saying that there is literal core is it not the same thing?



It's just as metaphorical as the notion that God is a father. However since physicality is less important to the notion of personhood (because person is not synonomous with homo sapien) God as father has a higher degree of reality depiction. It isn't a hundred percent as God does not have a wife nor are you exactly the same sort of entity as God though he is your father (in the way that your own Father is just as human as you are).

Yep, that is what I have been saying all along there is not such thing as a direct correspondance all we can say is that he is like something but we cannot describe him as he truly is in himself (in se).


But the descriptions of God as having arms and feet has meaning. The arms may represent the power of God acting in a specific way in some context. We do not simply describe them as metaphores and then toss them aside.

I know and neither do we with Antropopathisms, Refer to the thread on God choosing Saul for my answer.

There is no inconsistency here between the openness attitude towards God as father and God as having arms because the differing level of reality depiction is an intrinsic feature of this view of metaphore.

There is no view of metaphor because it breaks down into Univocity in your view of metaphor. In my view God is so great that there is not such thing as a Univocal sense of God only analogies provided by God to lead us by the hand to himself.

God is like a shepard who cares for those who are like a flock.
We are like his flock,
thus God is like a shepard to us.

(Blake)This is not what I am asking for, God does not treat us as sheep does he? Are we literally his Flock? He is like a sheperd in that he is faithful to us and that he goes and finds who he is looking for. But Sheperds do not always find what they are looking for. I would also say he is a lot better sheperd :thumb:

Of course not everything is explained here, but I don't see that that is necessary as you either understand all of the metaphores or I could explain them to you.

He would take those passages every bit as metaphorical as the ones that say that God does change. I wouldn't though as the notion of change seems to simple to be derived. I have sympathies for this view but I also have reservations. I wouldn't say that the divine repentence passages versus the one's negating that God changes is an issue of metaphore but is one of context. It is all to reasonable to find limits within the text limiting the claims that God cannot change. In numbers 23 we see that God is not like a man that he should change for one who should attempt to bribe him with sacrifice nor because he is capricious arbitrarily changing his mind because that same faithless man is persistent. The context in exodus 32 seems clearly to indicate that Moses believed that God had a plan against israel which he carried out, and that Moses believed that God could chang his plans and the narrator concludes just that, that God changed his plans from a real intention to destroy the israelites.

I have no problem incorporating this in to the passages that say that God does not change his mind or people cannot thwart his will. His changes may change to us in our temporal existance but not in his decree.



He is part of the tradition of philo where the anthropomorphisms are said to be for the simple minded. Perhaps he breaks with that tradition. I haven't examined what context calvin specifically used the lisping context in, but I'd say it wasn't very accomodating if he does not share the narrator's conclusion in exodus 32 that God changed his mind.

In regards to Exodus 32 I would like to discuss it again as I have done elsewhere with Acts9. I serously believe that God does relent in some sense. In Jeremiah 18:5-10 it says:

"THen the word of the Lord came to me: O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the Lord. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I announce that a natino or Kindom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyedm and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at a nother time I announce that a nation or kindom is to be build up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it."

If you compare this with Jeremiah 26:3, 13, and 19 which refer ti Isa. 38:1-5 and then Jeremiah 42:10. The Lord states that many of his prophecies of Judgment and blessing are condigional. God reservest eh right to cancel or reverse thism , depending on people's responses.

Calvin also talks about Jonah 4:1-2 he says thus

"Who know does not see that it pleased the Lord by such threats to arouse to repentance those whom he was terryfying, that they might escape the judgement they deserved for theri sins? If that is true, the nature of the circumstances leads us to recognized a tacit condition in the simple intimation. Institutes 1.17.14

Some prophecies then in agreement with you may appear to be on a straight forward reading predictions, but they are really warnings with conditions attached. Prophets even at times interceded for the people and God relented so how is this compatible with God's sovereignty and Foreknowledge?

Following John Frame(No Other God Pg. 163-167) I will make the following comments:

A) The Jeremiah passage follows v. 1-4 in which God compares himself as a potter and Israel as Clay this is a image of God's sovereignty all through out the Bible. God's relenting is in fact his sovereign decision. His right to with drawal his blessings or cursings is part of his free sovereignty.

B) I would make the argument that God's perceptive will fails but not his decretive.

C) God's decretive will takes into account, his eternal plan, it takes Humans prayers and intercessions into account it does not exclude them. He ordains his purposes through the means of Human prayers, intercessions, pleadings, etc. In the book of Jonah it is not God's will to destroy the Ninehvites at that time but it is to use Jonah to bring about their repentance he does this by using Jonah's prophecey in other words he uses it sovereignly to get a response. It is God's eternal intention to forgive Israel in the situation of Amos 7:1-6. Bud he does through the power of Amos's intercession, and not with out it. In light of this God is in fact a God who sovereignly "relents" as long as it brings about the means and the ends in which he has decreed. I also would like to add that there is a great deal of mystery in all of this.

Also I would also like to mention the discussion of this in Donald Bloesch's book "God the Almighty" in the last footnote in the appendix where he discusses Open View he says that he in fact holds to an Open Future yet he is a Calvinist he says that God is not afraid to overide any freedom that we may have. Bloesch is an interestin character to say the least I figured you would find it interesting. I disagree with Bloesch because he does not deal with the passages that speak of God ordaining things before the foundation of the world but it was an interesting try.[1]

[1] I relied upon John Frame heavily for the last part of the reply.
By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[geebob]

Is your foot inserted firmly in your mouth, GeeBob?
How is a rock steadfast? Also is the steadfastness of a Rock and its dependability the same as God' dependability and his steadfastness? Just wondering maybe God is just a little different?

perhaps unyeilding is a better term than steadfast. The rock is unyeilding and so is God. That they are unyeilding in different ways and contexts is beside the point. We know that God really is unyeilding in a certain way. Of course unyeilding is also a metaphore of a sort. But it conveys the meaning. To deny that it can convey meaning is to deny that language itself communicates.

Just wondering maybe God is just a little different?

the metaphore does no injury to that fact.

The point I am making is that there is no real univocal core.

meaning that we cannot know God as he is? Then your view ends up with agnosticism. If we cannot establish what it is that the analogies say about God then they are of little use to us.

I think you are correct that God is and is not a Rock in some specific ways but in the ways he is similar are they exact?

God faithfullness to us could be described as exactly unyeilding.

But surely God is greater than both of these.

sure, which is part of what we recognize in calling these metaphores.

That is my point he destroys Metaphor/analogy.

I was correcting your claim that Aristotle didn't view metaphores as aberrant.

Yep, that is what I have been saying all along there is not such thing as a direct correspondance all we can say is that he is like something but we cannot describe him as he truly is in himself

If we can say that God is like a rock and yet fail to know what it is about the rock that is like God, then that the rock is like God tells us nothing about him. If I told someone that the earth was like a ball, I didn't really tell him anything if he couldn't distinguish that I meant in terms of sphericity and not in terms of it's bounciness or color, size, composition, weight, aerodynamics, squishiness, and so on.

There is no view of metaphor because it breaks down into Univocity in your view of metaphor.

a metaphore that doesn't tell you about something as it is really isn't all that useful. If I say blake reas is like a cow, and gave you no means by which to distinguish what it is about you that contributes to your cow-esqueness, I haven't really said anything.

This is not what I am asking for, God does not treat us as sheep does he?

the only thing necessary for a formal arguement to work, and tell us something about realityh (besides all of the logical rules required and rules concerning validity and soundness) is a shared understanding of the terms used. You've read the bible so my formal arguement shouldn't cause you confusion. If it does, I'd tell you to read the bible and then approach the terms in my arguement from that position. You know what is entailed when I say that God is like a shepard and sheep are like his flock and because of that, you should have no confusion about what my arguement conveys. Thus a metaphore does the arguement no harm.

I have no problem incorporating this in to the passages that say that God does not change his mind or people cannot thwart his will. His changes may change to us in our temporal existance but not in his decree.

the context I refer to is the one present in the writings. Not some metaphysical structure that is not evident within scripture. Gavin and I are talking about the presence or lack of indicators of atemporality in scripture in his topic on the open view and molinism.

In regards to Exodus 32 I would like to discuss it again as I have done elsewhere with Acts9.

The way I look at these passages, including your Jonah text is I ask myself what the people in the narrative believed. The ninevites here Jonah and they say to themselves that they should pray in hope's that God would change his mind. They think that God is really going to do it. In the view you present, God does not think that he is really going to do it.

I typically argue this with Exodus 32 as it is more obvious. Moses believes that God is going to destroy the israelites and he thinks it is really going to happen without regard to some perceptive or decretive will. If his decretive will is the will that gets things done, then what Moses believes God is going to do is a belief about the decretive will. So Moses gets a wrong picture from God when he learns of God's plan to destroy the Israelites.

Also I would also like to mention the discussion of this in Donald Bloesch's book "God the Almighty" in the last footnote in the appendix where he discusses Open View he says that he in fact holds to an Open Future yet he is a Calvinist he says that God is not afraid to overide any freedom that we may have.

I wonder what he means by open future? Bless his heart anyhow.

[Blake Reas]

Yesterday @ 06:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66325#post66325)
geebob:



perhaps unyeilding is a better term than steadfast. The rock is unyeilding and so is God. That they are unyeilding in different ways and contexts is beside the point. We know that God really is unyeilding in a certain way. Of course unyeilding is also a metaphore of a sort. But it conveys the meaning. To deny that it can convey meaning is to deny that language itself communicates.



the metaphore does no injury to that fact.[/quote]

Your last statement is what I have been saying all along. God is so much more glorius and Powerful that our language just quite doesn't get there completeley.

meaning that we cannot know God as he is? Then your view ends up with agnosticism. If we cannot establish what it is that the analogies say about God then they are of little use to us.
I disagree, we have the bible that gives us analogies that are divinely authoratative. Only people who do not believe that the Bible is truthful have a tought time with it and slip into agnosticism.



God faithfullness to us could be described as exactly unyeilding.
True



sure, which is part of what we recognize in calling these metaphores.



I was correcting your claim that Aristotle didn't view metaphores as aberrant.

I read an interesting articel in the Encyclopedia of Aesthetics today that said that people are not really sure of what Aristotle believed. So i could be wrong.



If we can say that God is like a rock and yet fail to know what it is about the rock that is like God, then that the rock is like God tells us nothing about him. If I told someone that the earth was like a ball, I didn't really tell him anything if he couldn't distinguish that I meant in terms of sphericity and not in terms of it's bounciness or color, size, composition, weight, aerodynamics, squishiness, and so on.
Again scripture provides divinley mandated metaphors.



a metaphore that doesn't tell you about something as it is really isn't all that useful. If I say blake reas is like a cow, and gave you no means by which to distinguish what it is about you that contributes to your cow-esqueness, I haven't really said anything.
A metaphor does give us usable knowledge just not full knowledge an analogy refers to a partial resemblance between things fundamentally distinct, whereas metaphor signifies a word or phrase ordinarily used of one thing that is applied to another. A metaphor yields impressions not real knowledge where as analogy conveys partial but not complete knowledge. The bible points to something beyond itself with analogies.



the only thing necessary for a formal arguement to work, and tell us something about realityh (besides all of the logical rules required and rules concerning validity and soundness) is a shared understanding of the terms used. You've read the bible so my formal arguement shouldn't cause you confusion. If it does, I'd tell you to read the bible and then approach the terms in my arguement from that position. You know what is entailed when I say that God is like a shepard and sheep are like his flock and because of that, you should have no confusion about what my arguement conveys. Thus a metaphore does the arguement no harm.

I do not see how this causes problems with analogy being partial but not complete knowledge.



the context I refer to is the one present in the writings. Not some metaphysical structure that is not evident within scripture. Gavin and I are talking about the presence or lack of indicators of atemporality in scripture in his topic on the open view and molinism.

It is not just metaphysical there is warrant in scripture for believing it to an extent but I do concede our attribution of "two wills" in God is analogical and just gives us glimpse of how he works (it is called mystery).



The way I look at these passages, including your Jonah text is I ask myself what the people in the narrative believed. The ninevites here Jonah and they say to themselves that they should pray in hope's that God would change his mind. They think that God is really going to do it. In the view you present, God does not think that he is really going to do it.
So we should not take scripture as a whole? Moses did not believe in God's sovereignty? How do you know this? Also we must take the Bible as whole revelation of redemptive history and interpret scripture with scripture.

I typically argue this with Exodus 32 as it is more obvious. Moses believes that God is going to destroy the israelites and he thinks it is really going to happen without regard to some perceptive or decretive will. If his decretive will is the will that gets things done, then what Moses believes God is going to do is a belief about the decretive will. So Moses gets a wrong picture from God when he learns of God's plan to destroy the Israelites.
A friend and I discussed this passage and I will just repost what his thoughts where on the passage which differed from mine in the answer not in practice:


Okay God answers prayer. That is one thing that in my expereience OVT paints as only valid w/in their view but contradicts the otehr views. So as I look at Moses prayer, I notice that Moses' reason that God should avert his anger: That his glory might be known and he "reminds" God of his promisesto Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That takes us to Gen 15 in which God said if I do not give your descendents this land then I will eb like the animals. So God's existence was linked with His hnoring. His end of the Covenant. So as I see it God relents because of Prayer, not any prayer but a specific prayer which comes to God onthe basis God had established, the Abrahamic Covenant, and to make his glory known, bringing the children of Israel through the Willderness, and not not bring taint to his name by a charge of inability.
We cannot interepret the passage with out reference to the Abrahamic covenant God was definiteley not going to break it! So it was God's means to ordain the prayer of Moses as a way to fulfil his purposes.




I wonder what he means by open future? Bless his heart anyhow.

I am not sure I am reading his books right now.

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

[geebob]

I disagree, we have the bible that gives us analogies that are divinely authoratative. Only people who do not believe that the Bible is truthful have a tought time with it and slip into agnosticism.

thus scripture tells us about God as he is. There is no disagreement with your above assesment. The metaphores are not just divinely authoritative. They are also clear and used in such a way that we know what they are saying about God.

A metaphor does give us usable knowledge just not full knowledge an analogy refers to a partial resemblance between things fundamentally distinct,

What the Bible tells us isn't merely satisfied by a pragmatic view with no correspondence. Vincent Brummer believes that the pragmatic is all that we can know, but with that (not something that Brummer spoke of), their is truth that corresponds to reality that comes with it and that is necessary to the faith that we have. I work with mentally handicapped people, some of whom have a criminal past. I was informed by other staff that he was who sat in on one of his counciling sessions that he can talk to God. But if this is only pragmatic truth, if this is just a technique that the counciler suggests to help him releive stress, then it doesn't matter if God is real or if he has any specifics (such as his holyness) that the client has to know about. He just has to believe it for a result. I don't know if the psycologist believes in God or not, but any psycologist taking a pragmatic approach can take advantage of this technique. If everything we know about God can be known only for pragmatic reasons, it is still important for our faith to based upon the fact of the matter or else we are a cosmic joke satisfying ourselves with illusions.

A metaphor does give us usable knowledge just not full knowledge

I wouldn't insist on full knowledge. I don't see how knowing God as he is entails that we know him exhaustively. We know something about him and that something matches with what is.

And if we don't know something, then what is left is nothing. Agnosticism.

A metaphor yields impressions not real knowledge where as analogy conveys partial but not complete knowledge.

websters states that metaphores can suggest analogy and a metaphor used to communicate will have indicators in the culture, or perhaps in the text as to what analogy to derive. So the view you give here is not one that open theists use when speaking of metaphors nor is it recognized rigidly by a standard dictionary thus the open theists are arguably justified to use this word as many do in fact use it.

When I think of the metaphors such as God as a shepard or father, in the context of scripture, I do not get a sense of a vague impression but rather of something real substantial.

So we should not take scripture as a whole? Moses did not believe in God's sovereignty?

Moses clearly did not believe in exhaustive soverignty. He did believe in at least general soverignty or else he would not be trying to convince the God in charge not to destroy his people. Yes we should take scripture as a whole. Moses was right and if all of scripture is consistent, then we should interpret other scriptures from what Moses and the narrator concluded, that God can change his plans. I do not believe that the text in exodus 32 has the flexability here to work with a specific soverignty interpretation of another passage. Texts that allegedly support a view of meticulous soverignty are no where in the imeadiate vicinity of this narrative and as such, I don't see that they play a part in portraying what went through Moses' mind at the time. Moses gives every indication that he believed that God was really going to do it as told God to change his mind then he went on to give God reasons not to do what God said he would do.

We cannot interepret the passage with out reference to the Abrahamic covenant God was definiteley not going to break it! So it was God's means to ordain the prayer of Moses as a way to fulfil his purposes.

God could have answered all of Moses' objections to his plan to destroy the israelites. If God destroyed all the israelites, he still could be faithful to his promise to Abraham through the children of Moses, which is what he said he was going to do.

So it was God's means to ordain the prayer of Moses as a way to fulfil his purposes.

you can take that approach if your willing to admit that God decieved Moses into thinking that God really was going to destroy the israelites.

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 03:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67531#post67531)
geebob:



thus scripture tells us about God as he is. There is no disagreement with your above assesment. The metaphores are not just divinely authoritative. They are also clear and used in such a way that we know what they are saying about God.



What the Bible tells us isn't merely satisfied by a pragmatic view with no correspondence. Vincent Brummer believes that the pragmatic is all that we can know, but with that (not something that Brummer spoke of), their is truth that corresponds to reality that comes with it and that is necessary to the faith that we have. I work with mentally handicapped people, some of whom have a criminal past. I was informed by other staff that he was who sat in on one of his counciling sessions that he can talk to God. But if this is only pragmatic truth, if this is just a technique that the counciler suggests to help him releive stress, then it doesn't matter if God is real or if he has any specifics (such as his holyness) that the client has to know about. He just has to believe it for a result. I don't know if the psycologist believes in God or not, but any psycologist taking a pragmatic approach can take advantage of this technique. If everything we know about God can be known only for pragmatic reasons, it is still important for our faith to based upon the fact of the matter or else we are a cosmic joke satisfying ourselves with illusions.



I wouldn't insist on full knowledge. I don't see how knowing God as he is entails that we know him exhaustively. We know something about him and that something matches with what is.

And if we don't know something, then what is left is nothing. Agnosticism.



websters states that metaphores can suggest analogy and a metaphor used to communicate will have indicators in the culture, or perhaps in the text as to what analogy to derive. So the view you give here is not one that open theists use when speaking of metaphors nor is it recognized rigidly by a standard dictionary thus the open theists are arguably justified to use this word as many do in fact use it.

When I think of the metaphors such as God as a shepard or father, in the context of scripture, I do not get a sense of a vague impression but rather of something real substantial.



Moses clearly did not believe in exhaustive soverignty. He did believe in at least general soverignty or else he would not be trying to convince the God in charge not to destroy his people. Yes we should take scripture as a whole. Moses was right and if all of scripture is consistent, then we should interpret other scriptures from what Moses and the narrator concluded, that God can change his plans. I do not believe that the text in exodus 32 has the flexability here to work with a specific soverignty interpretation of another passage. Texts that allegedly support a view of meticulous soverignty are no where in the imeadiate vicinity of this narrative and as such, I don't see that they play a part in portraying what went through Moses' mind at the time. Moses gives every indication that he believed that God was really going to do it as told God to change his mind then he went on to give God reasons not to do what God said he would do.



God could have answered all of Moses' objections to his plan to destroy the israelites. If God destroyed all the israelites, he still could be faithful to his promise to Abraham through the children of Moses, which is what he said he was going to do.



you can take that approach if your willing to admit that God decieved Moses into thinking that God really was going to destroy the israelites.

Geebob,

I think we are talking past each other in some places :smile:! Anyway I will reply to the things you brought up later.
God Bless,
Blake

:thumb:

[Blake Reas]

Geebob,

I know that I have not been very clear probably. It is due to my bad writing style (sigh) when I say analogically I think we both agree that there is an extent to where we know God in them. It is just not total Univocal knowledge, I think we have been equivocating on terms. I mean one thing you mean another with the words we use but we mean the same thing. I think analogies tell us something but it is just more dissimilarity than similarity between us and God. So there is a sense in which we know God. For instance Socrates is Wise God is also wise but God is wiser beyond our capacity.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[geebob]

I'll tell you what, I may respond to that last post of yours but I am only defending that view as far as it seems coherent to me and I think I've done it about as much justice as I can. It's something that I have yet to fully study myself and I don't know that I'd ever embrace it in full as I don't now. the notion of literal language seems coherent to me but at the same time, it seems reasonable that our understanding, real substantial understanding is still heavily informed by metaphores and even the stronger "concept metaphore" (brummer's term), and that does no damage to our conceptualization. It allows room for misunderstanding and yet things can be cleared up with further dialogue that will satisfy and successfully communicate between communicants. The degree of further dialogue that is necessary is of course dependent upon the people communicating and how the metaphores diversely inform their different types of thinking. But with persistance, communicative success will happen.

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 03:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=69384#post69384)
geebob:

I'll tell you what, I may respond to that last post of yours but I am only defending that view as far as it seems coherent to me and I think I've done it about as much justice as I can. It's something that I have yet to fully study myself and I don't know that I'd ever embrace it in full as I don't now. the notion of literal language seems coherent to me but at the same time, it seems reasonable that our understanding, real substantial understanding is still heavily informed by metaphores and even the stronger "concept metaphore" (brummer's term), and that does no damage to our conceptualization. It allows room for misunderstanding and yet things can be cleared up with further dialogue that will satisfy and successfully communicate between communicants. The degree of further dialogue that is necessary is of course dependent upon the people communicating and how the metaphores diversely inform their different types of thinking. But with persistance, communicative success will happen.

I appreciate the conversation.

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

[geebob]

Blake, here is a snippit from George Lackoff and Mark Johnson's Metaphores we Live by It will help you to see what many OV'ers have in mind when they speak of metaphores as they do.

To give some Idea of what it could mean for a concept to be metaphorical and for such a concept to structure everyday activity, let us start with the concept ARGUEMENT and ARGUEMENT IS WAR. This metaphor is reflected in our everyday language by a wide variety of expressions:

ARGUEMENT IS WAR

Your claims are indefensible.
He attacked every weak point in my arguement.
His criticisms were right on target.
I demolished his arguement.
I've never won an arguement with him.
You disagree? Okay, shoot!
If you use that strategy, he'll wipe you out.
He shot down all of my arguements.

It is important to see that we don't just talk about arguements in terms of war. We actually win or lose arguements. We attack his positions and we defend our own. If we find a position indefensible, we can abandon it and take a new line of attack. Many of the things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept of war. Though there is no physical battle, there is a verbal battle, and the structure of an arguement-attack, defense, counterattack, etc.-reflects this. It is in this sense that the ARGUEMENT IS WAR metaphore is one that we live by in this culture; it structures the actions we perform in arguing.

Try to imagine a cutlure where arguements are not viewed in terms of war, where no one wins or loses, where there is no sense of attacking or defending, gaining or losing ground. Imagine a culture where an arguement is viewed as a dance, the participants are seen as performers, and the goal is to perform in a balanced and aesthetically pleasing way. In such a culture, people would view arguements differently, experience them differently, carry them out differently, and talk about them differently. But we would probably not view them as argueing at all: they would simply be doing something different. It would seem strange even to call what they were doing "arguing." Perhaps the most neutral way of describing this difference between their culture and ours would be to say that we have a discourse form structured in terms of battle and they have one structured in terms of dance.

This is what it means for a metaphorical concept, namely ARGUEMENT IS WAR, to structure (at least in part) what we do and how we understand what we are doing when we argue. The essence of metaphore is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another. It is not that arguements are a subspecies of war. Arguements and wars are different kinds of things-verbal discourse and armed conflict. and the actions performed are different kinds of actions. But ARGUEMENT is partially structured, performed, understood, and talked about in terms of WAR. The concept is metaphorically structured, the activity is metaphorically structured, and, consequently, the language is metaphorically structured.

Moreover, this is the ordinary way of having an arguement and talking about one. The normal way for us to talk about attacking a position is to use the words "attack a position." Our conventional ways of talking about arguements presuppose a metaphore we are hardly ever conscious of. The metaphore is not merely in the words we use-it is in our very concept of an arguement. The language of arguement is not poetic, fanciful, or rhetorical; it is literal. We talk about arguements that way because we concieve of them that way- and we act according to the way-and we act according to the way we conceive of things.

pp.4-5. Italics, and caps are the author's. Bolds are mine.

notice that the reality of arguement is structured by the metaphore. The metaphore reveals the arguement as it really is.

[chance]

From Blake's posts I get the impression that he is so eager to find a problem with the open view, or say it is wrong and that the 5 point Calvinist view is correct, that he is unable to see how bad his criticism of the open view is.

I know that Sanders mentions a list of people that say there is a hard univocal core to our talk about God. Among them are Paul Helm who holds to specific sovereignty and believes that God ordains all things. Its in the second chapter, if I recall right. Perhaps Blake could post that sentence or two for us.

That said, I do not believe there is ANY metaphor or analogy or whatever that portrays God as deceiving Moses into thinking He was going to destroy Israel in Ex 32 when He was, in fact (according to the classical view), never going to do such a thing. God is said to not lie (Tit 1:2) and is shown everywhere to relate and TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT HIS PEOPLE THINK. I am thinking of people like Abraham (Gen 18) and, as God revealed quite explicitly in Jer 15, Moses and Samuel

Jeremiah 15:1 Then the LORD said to me, "[Even] if Moses and Samuel stood before Me, My mind [would] not [be] favorable toward this people. Cast [them] out of My sight, and let them go forth.

How is this statemenet made by God in any way truthful according to your view of providence or sovereignty Blake?

[geebob]

From Blake's posts I get the impression that he is so eager to find a problem with the open view, or say it is wrong and that the 5 point Calvinist view is correct, that he is unable to see how bad his criticism of the open view is.

I'm sure he wants to find fault but as far as I can tell, Blake does have a desire to understand the open view on it's own terms.

I know that Sanders mentions a list of people that say there is a hard univocal core to our talk about God. Among them are Paul Helm who holds to specific sovereignty and believes that God ordains all things. Its in the second chapter, if I recall right. Perhaps Blake could post that sentence or two for us.

Does Sanders not hold to the notion of a univocal core? IN that case, I'd wonder how he defines a univocal core, as blake simply puts it as describing something as it is in itself.