Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty (subtle, skilled in deceit) than any living creature of the field which the LORD God had made. And the serpent (Satan) said to the woman, "Can it really be that God has said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" [Rev 12:9-11] |
Subject: Distiction in "will" not "rationality" |
Bible Note: 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 |