Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | DocTrinsograce | 154101 | ||
Dear Bob, Thank you for asking for clarification. I'll do my best. Deliberation in anthropological ontology has been around a long time. Men have asked the question regarding their uniqueness as far back as you can search. No doubt such questions even go back farther. Aristotle (2400 years ago) thought that men were unique in their ability to reason. A few hundred years later Cicero picked up that thought and expanded on it, adding the ability to anticipate. Since then there's been a running debate about what makes man distinct from beasts. In the last 150 years the secular world has concluded that there is no distinction. One of the wonderful things about Christian theology is that we have the Scriptures. The Word of God forms a foundation of indisputable truth. God has graciously chosen to reveal certain things to us through His Word. We understand that all Scripture is true, but that it does not contain all that is true. In some areas we are left to our rationality. :-) Christians have often been at the forefront of philosophical thought. Reasoning from the Word, believers have discussed the question of the Imago Dei (i.e., image of God). No believer was satisfied with the Greek/Roman view; those guys lacked solid ground on which to stand. Augustine discussed this very issue (see "City of God"). He argued that the Imago Dei was manifest in the trichotomy of man, reflecting the triune nature of God. Augustine believed that man exists in body, soul, and spirit. He likened the body to the Son, the spirit to the Holy Spirit, and the soul to the Father. (This view persists today, although many since the Reformation have argued for a dichotomy, asserting that the soul and spirit are synonymous.) Aspects of gnosticism gradually influenced the church, so the Augustinian view tended to be get side stepped over time. There was some discussion in the Middle Ages, but tended to be much more gnostic. Martin Luther, if I recall, embraced the Augustinian view. While John Calvin argued that the Imago Dei was a matter of moral perfection. Only the believer truly reflected the image of God. In the Fall, man was so horribly marred by sin that nothing remained of the Imago Dei until God provided for the Redemption of man in Christ -- Who was the very image of God (Col 1:15). Meanwhile, in the Roman Catholic circles, Rene Descartes -- careful to always support the Papal stance -- focused very carefully on the gnostic view, regarding pure reason as distinct from "baser" attributes. There was extensive discussion among the Puritans on the subject, who carefully defined their terms. Near the end of their day in the historical limelight, one Puritan in particular swayed philosophical thinking in anthropological ontology: Jonathan Edwards. Edwards argues that the human mind is that which reasons in man, while the heart (in Biblical terms) is where the affections reside. He explained how the affections influence reason, even to the point of full control! The will or volition, he asserts, is not so much an attribute of rationality, but is what takes place as the mind makes choices. Sort of like the distinction between a computer program and the output it generates. Both reason and the affections contribute to the operation of the will. So much for history... I have read your view of volition being the distinction between man and beast in contemporary Presbyterian writing. Of course, that stands to reason as they would tend to embrace John Calvin's perspective of the Imago Dei. Lionstrong's view harkens back to ancient gnosticism. (I do not say this by way of denigration, by the way.) Rationality simply means the ability to reason. It is commonly understood today that some animals actually do reason. This is particularly true for animals that approach human levels of complexity. Not only do they exhibit the ability to reason, but they also show the ability to anticipate and plan. Of course, none of this to the extent of humans. Furthermore, people exhibit different levels of rationality. If the Imago Dei is simply a matter of the ability to reason, does it mean that smarter people are more like God than slower people? Ouch! My argument with Augustine, Calvin, and Lionstrong is that they tend to be too narrow in defining the Imago Dei. I'd ask the question, "Why?" Aren't their many ways in which God and man are similar? Yes, we are both rational and volitional, but we are also emotive and spiritual. Indeed, theology proper, we talk about communicable attributes (i.e., those attributes that God shares to some degree with human beings). Why not affirm all of those in the question of the Imago Dei. Those things, clearly, also make us quite distinctive from beasts. I hope I've cleared things up. I'm sure, at least, I prove I can put people to sleep in 5000 characters! :-) In Him, Doc |
||||||
2 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154129 | ||
Hey Doc! Man, how do keep all that history in your head?! That's awesome! I must admit, I am guilty of coveting a mind like that. You didn't put me to sleep anyway. I found that to be a very helpful post. I was sure that many other people in history have considered this question, but I had no clue as to who, or as to how they answered it. Thanks! From your concluding paragraph: "Aren't their many ways in which God and man are similar? ... Why not affirm all of those in the question of the Imago Dei. Those things, clearly, also make us quite distinctive from beasts." Yes, there are many ways in which we are a reflection of the image of God (intellect, emotion, relational capacity, etc.). I guess the question I am trying to raise (and propose an answer for) is whether or not any of those "ways" (qualities, characteristics) are entirely unique or distinctive to humans. The question is important (or so it seems to me) because of what God said in Ge. 1.26 _after_ having created all of the other animals: "Let Us make man in Our image...." That says that there was something _different_ that was going to happen, doesn't it? Or would you suggest that it is just differences of "degree" rather than some differnce of "kind?" Thanks again for your most informative repsonse. have a good day. Bob |
||||||
3 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | DocTrinsograce | 154156 | ||
Dear Bob, Thank you for your encouragement. Citing Genesis 1:26, you wrote, "That says that there was something _different_ that was going to happen, doesn't it? Or would you suggest that it is just differences of 'degree' rather than some difference of 'kind?'" You are correct in deeming the creation of man as distinct, unique, and unprecedented in respect to the rest of creation. You are also correct in demonstrating this fact from this particular passage in Scripture. I also agree that the question is important, blessing those who carefully deliberate it from the Word of God. Finally, I do not think that the answer lies entirely in kind or degree. God has created an exquisitely complex universe. Indeed, we are discovering that the complexity is mind-boggling at macroscopically, microscopically, and everything in between. Of course, this is only the natural universe. We know very little of the supernatural world, certainly very few of its details. Beyond these things, we know nothing. However, we do know that making galaxies and butterflies is peanuts compared to the redemption of fallen man! The inescapable conclusion is that God Himself it thoroughly complex. Indeed, we would barely know anything of Him had He not graciously revealed Himself through His Word. God has to approach us on a level we can understand. John Calvin described Scripture as an example of divine accommodation to weak and puny humans. He asserted that God uses baby-talk to us. :-) Humans have a penchant for simple answers. Some of the statements of Scripture are deceptively simple. However, the details or mechanics behind those statements are either entirely mysterious or, more likely, utterly inscrutable (Deuteronomy 29:29). Christ explains this sort of thing in John chapter 3 as He describes the second birth to Nicodemus. Humans spent quite a little time trying to fit the platonic solids into the orbits of the planets. Although they thought the explanation was straightforward and elegant, the truth ended up being a lot more complex. Now all that said, there are some "simple" distinctions between man and beast: no beast sins, no beast can repent, no beast can pray, no beast can be redeemed, no beast lives forever, no beast is the temple of the Holy Spirit. I guess what I'm saying is that unless the Scripture gives a clear, definitive answer, the answer is probably either beyond our ability to understand or God has chosen not to reveal it to us. Perhaps one day believers will ferret out the answers, but that seems unlikely to me. I love Jonathan Edwards, but he tended to push pretty hard for answers. John Calvin would often say something along the lines of "...beyond this the Scripture is silent, therefore I can say no more." I'm sorry I can't shed much more light on this question... and thanks for not going to sleep! :-) In Him, Doc |
||||||
4 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | Hank | 154163 | ||
"Some of the statements of Scripture are deceptively simple." ...... Doc, I'll say 'Amen' to that and give an example. There is a statement -- "He made the stars also" -- tagged on to Genesis 1:16 almost as if it were an after thought, as if to say, And by the way, I almost forgot, God also made the stars. What a simple little addendum to Genesis 1:16, and yet scientists today are saying that there are billions and billions of stars and, yes, even billions of galaxies much bigger than our Milky Way. And yet Scripture dismisses this mind-boggling item of God's creation with a statement so simple, and, tucked as it is on the end of a verse, we're apt to miss it unless we're looking for it. I stand in absolute awe of the vastness of God's universe, yet He sees fit to comment on it merely by saying in Holy Scripture, "He created the stars also." All this poor mortal can say is, "My God, how great Thou art!" --Hank | ||||||
5 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | seedling | 154170 | ||
The universe is very, very large. I am amazed that God created this whole universe, Gen 1, and HE still takes time to care for me and others. Isn't that amazing! I am so grateful for this!!!! Psalms 8: 3-4 Seedling |
||||||