Here is a video featuring R. C. Sproul, a middle voice who I can’t recognize (maybe you can), and then John Piper. They are all reflecting upon God’s holiness, and indeed, God is Holy, Holy, Holy! But something that should stand out to you, especially with Sproul’s opening declaration, is that God’s holiness is thought of as one of the attributes of God that makes God, God. Which presupposes upon the idea that there must be a God behind the back of God; viz. there is God’s holiness (as the supreme attribute, according to this video), then his love, his “omnis,” his mercy, his grace, etc. In other words, the supposition seems to be that God’s attributes can be abstracted from God’s person; and at the same time the attributes added together (to be crude) become the composite picture of “what” God is in His person. So there is a dialectic that posits an idea of God, and then this God’s attributes, as revealed in “creation”, and as negations of the creation, become what shapes the idea of God presumed upon in the first place. This then collapses the idea of godness into the creation, and thus shapes who God is (even his holiness) through the analogy of creation itself. This is the classic way of thinking about God, that is apart from grounding it where it should be grounded; viz. in his Self-revelation, Self-interpreting Word, Jesus Christ! Here’s the video:
Athanasian Reformed
πππππ’π π·ππ πππππ‘ ππ πππ‘ππππ’π. ππ‘π ππ¨π«π π¨π ππ¨π π°π’π₯π₯ π₯ππ¬π ππ¨π«ππ―ππ«.
Yes. And then that his definition of sin becomes finding satisfaction outside of God. He actually denies the relational/human component of sin–which is the wrong direction. Sin is always relationally defined and experienced.
Hey Rob,
Great to hear from you! I hope you and your family are doing well, and enjoying the new venture of life that you guys are on!!
Good observation about the relationality of sin. Yeah, this is also corollary of following a so called analogy of being approach. Sin becomes that which is used to define God’s holiness; as becomes clear in the video. God’s holiness is understood as man negates what he is not — i.e. a sinner — and then this is used as the ground upon which deductive inference is made about what God’s holiness looks like. Versus looking at Christ’s revelation in the Incarnation and cross/resurrection etc.
Good words, Rob!
Bobby,
According to the comments in the original YouTube clip, the other speaker is CJ Mahaney.
“Godβs holiness is understood as man negates what he is not β i.e. a sinner β and then this is used as the ground upon which deductive inference is made about what Godβs holiness looks like.”
Playing off of Psalm 50:21 “thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself” KJV, we could say “thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself, but I am what thou art not.” God as anti-anthro-unholiness? Is that how you’re interpreting the video?
Steve,
I’m suggesting that Piper and Sproul operate from a known theological method known as the analogy of being (or entis). That this method starts with creation, instead of Christ; and philosophically posits a concept of godness based upon inference from what man is not. So man is finite, God is infinite; man is unholy, God is holy; man is limited in power, God is all powerful; man is emotional, God is not emotional (classic impassibility); and so on and so on. So I am saying that Piper and Sproul operate from what has also been called “negative theology;” and what I am asserting is that this is defunct, and that we should start with Jesus as God’s self-interpreting Word; so that when we wonder what holiness means we look at what this looks like in Jesus’ relation to the Father as the Son, and not without the Holy Spirit. I’m saying Piper and Sproul and Maheny (thank you) clearly operate from an analogy of being as does all of classical calvinism/arminianism etc.
Bobby ponder me this, If Jesus is fully human, how are we to understand him (God) apart from the analogy of being? Again, as I asked before in another post, doesn’t creation need to be taken into account when God is spoken about especially if God is human. And if God is Human isn’t there a ‘God behind the back’ of God? I know you’ll say something about the relational ontology of the trinity and so forth, but how does this work with a real human (jesus) in space and time and now in heaven? I can understand this in the abstract, but in the concrete I always find myself going to creation for examples. I don’t really understand the ‘analogy of faith’ posited by theologians.
I just don’t see why the separation from creation is such a strong point of opposition for you- I understand why a person like Barth, who lived under two world wars would want to distance the D.O.G. from German liberal theology and the way that state used the theology as a justification for it’s actions, but maybe the baby got thrown out with the bath water.
Bobby,
Do you see any practical problems with the analogy of being?
Kenny,
The issue has more to do with how an order of being impinges upon an order of knowing. And beyond that the idea of the “scientific” nature of inquiry that inheres in “Christian theological” engagement. In other words, the object under consideration determines its own modes of inquiry. If we are endeavoring to know the Christian God we do this through Christ alone (Jn 1.18). The fact that Christ has assumed a human nature, does not entail that He is now a “creation” (God forbid it!); albeit, w/o his assumption of a human nature there would be no point of contact for “humans” with God, soteriologically, and thus ontologically/epistemologically.
That “analogy of faith” has been around a lot longer, conceptually, than Barth or Martin Luther (both using this language, the latter in contrast to the “Catholic” regula fidei, and the former working constructively from Luther’s coinage of the language, in principled ways . . . i.e. our knowledge of God must start with Christian revelation etc.). We can call the way back to someone like Athanasius (in his Contra the Arians) to see a conceptual “analogia fidei” at work; indeed, Barth, TFT, and others are beholden to this kind of ‘Patristic’ conceptuality.
So our knowledge of God is not detached from the self-knowledge that God has of Himself; instead it is grounded in him both ontologically/epistmeologically in the homoousion person, Jesus of Nazareth. So our knowledge of God is a mediated, revealed knowledge, contingent upon our union with the God-Man as our mediator and high priest.
That’s, in a nutshell what this is all about. Of course the “analogy” language is still present; so there’s no denying that accommodation is a reality, but this all takes place in the hypostatic person of Jesus Christ — and we participate with Him, through, adoption, with His kind of knowledge (sui generis) of God — not one based upon negation as the analogy of being provides for us.
Steve,
Yes, of course. Primary of which is that it is not a Christ-conditioned knowledge, and that it gives humanity epistemological ground over and against God (you know the anecdote: “God precedes man, ontologically; but man precedes God epistemologically” — that’s problematic, because if this is the case we have just created a situation wherein Christ in the incarnation must be “Nestorian”. The practical problem is that this places us over God instead of under and in him.
Thanks Bobby. I still have problems with this Theological method though. I guess the main one is seeing the two models being in complete opposition. Doesn’t it seem to you that there is a bit of one in the other and vice versa? Ontology and epistemology and which has primacy and why seems to be completely intertwined, seems like nature/nurture, chicken and egg.
I want to affirm the postmodern idea about the particular story and know the characters from what it reveals about them, but on the other hand I want to believe in some universal truth not governed by a particular story (is that possible?)
Kenny,
You could go with Emil Brunner who tries to have both the analogy of being/faith in a nuanced way. Arguing that there is a moral hook left in man (maybe something like Calvin’s sensus divinitatis) wherein man has the capacity to know God.
I think you can have the universal particularized in the story of the man from Nazareth, if that helps π .
yeah, i was hinting at Calvin in my comments. I would like to read that book of yours though, will it be on kindle?
I’m not sure if it will be on kindle, hopefully π . . . I’ll have to find that out for you; I’ll let you know.