Walking home yesterday, a thought struck me in a fresh way: we (i.e. all small 'o' orthodox Christians) proclaim that God is human. Not that God temporarily threw on a "meat suit". God IS NOW human, literally.
An interesting thought, indeed. My first response to that thought was to question, "Does that mean then, that God lacked understanding/experience of being human? Does that mean that omniscience is in need of review?"
Yikes! I for one can't figure out whether the Lutheran or Calvinist position is the right one, RE: communication of natures and all the rest. Or maybe they're both wrong!
Both theological presentations (Lutheranism, and Calvinism) are closed systems. Just like Catholicism. In that sense, neither of them are right. Lutheranism considers Calvinism wrong and boarderline heretical. And Calvinism doesn't regard Lutheranism as having gone far enough in its theology, and is therefore lacking.
You could always dive into open theology. Perhaps the communication of God's nature and attributes would make more sense through the lense of neotheology?
No, I'm not so provincial to suggest that closed = wrong, though I can understand why someone might take up that concern. What I mean by wrong is simply that it is a self-defined system that absorbs and conforms everything into its own context; things are not simply what they are, but are necessarily altered to fit into the parameters of an unwavering set of propositions, or expectations.
"Neither of them are right" because they are not open (i.e. they are closed) to self-correction in view of reality? They insulate themselves from reality?
OK, I get that. But what do you mean by "self-defined system"?
What I mean by 'self-defined' is that the institutions in question (e.g., Lutheranism and Calvinism) have made themselves up, pared down the realities they're willing to incorporate in order contruct a view consonant with propositions they've selectively adopted (e.g., supralapsarianism in the case of Calvinism), and worked out standards of orthodoxy and orthopraxy to reflect those selective adoptions and propositions. Esesntially, by self-defined I intend to say that their respective systems are tautological such that they are self-referential, and refuse to take into account other realities and expressions of those realities (e.g., Calvin denies the 'real presence' doctrine of Luther; Luther denies the memorialism of Calvin, ad nauseum).
Grab ahold of the Book of Concord, the original documents of the Reformers. In it, they basically steer their way through the ECFs and RC theology, picking and choosing what they believe and what they don't. Then they justify their reasons for doing so in long, and tedious explanations.
Still, why do you think it "seems plainly false that these groups just 'selected', by a shear act of the will, propositions to adopt"?
In any case, I'm not isolating these groups as if to say that they're making stuff up ex nihilo. I'm suggesting that they cherry-pick their beliefs just like everyone in existence. The only difference is that they organise around the fruit of their picking. Thus they are self-defined, and self-selecting.
Haha! Yes, it is probably more like hermeneutics, you're right. Lutherans and Calvinists "are arguing over the grammer [sic] of worship." Perfectly stated, sir.
You're also right that Calvin wasn't a memorialist. I mixed him up with Zwingli. As the common idiotum states, "my bad."
Absolutely. Perhaps my use of the terms self-defining, and self-selecting come across as pejoratives. I don't mean them to be.
Yes, people who wish to organise must make selections who they wish to organise with. People who organise must define what they have organised, and what that means to them. In this regard all groupings intending to be groupings tend to self-select, and self-define.
When those same groupings come up against other groupings with different claims, however, and inter-group dialogues begin, then people start shoring up opinions that agree with other opinions, and opinions that disagree with other opinions. More, people start shunting this-or-that opinion off to the proverbial side in favour of this-or-that other opinion.
This is all common sense, and part of all group dynamics. Where it begins to fall apart, say, in the case of the Roman Catholic grouping, is when a certain group (RCs) identifies itself as not just a self-defined group, but also a group that defines others while rejecting the self-definition of the group they are examining. That's when a self-selected, self-defining group (e.g., RCC) sets itself into a closed loop, or an intellectual vaccuum.
Am I making sense? This is more intuitive for me than formal, so your probing is helpful to me.
12 comments:
An interesting thought, indeed. My first response to that thought was to question, "Does that mean then, that God lacked understanding/experience of being human? Does that mean that omniscience is in need of review?"
Yikes! I for one can't figure out whether the Lutheran or Calvinist position is the right one, RE: communication of natures and all the rest. Or maybe they're both wrong!
Ed,
Both theological presentations (Lutheranism, and Calvinism) are closed systems. Just like Catholicism. In that sense, neither of them are right. Lutheranism considers Calvinism wrong and boarderline heretical. And Calvinism doesn't regard Lutheranism as having gone far enough in its theology, and is therefore lacking.
You could always dive into open theology. Perhaps the communication of God's nature and attributes would make more sense through the lense of neotheology?
Closed systems? Explain.
Closed = wrong?
Ed,
No, I'm not so provincial to suggest that closed = wrong, though I can understand why someone might take up that concern. What I mean by wrong is simply that it is a self-defined system that absorbs and conforms everything into its own context; things are not simply what they are, but are necessarily altered to fit into the parameters of an unwavering set of propositions, or expectations.
"Neither of them are right" because they are not open (i.e. they are closed) to self-correction in view of reality? They insulate themselves from reality?
OK, I get that. But what do you mean by "self-defined system"?
Ed,
What I mean by 'self-defined' is that the institutions in question (e.g., Lutheranism and Calvinism) have made themselves up, pared down the realities they're willing to incorporate in order contruct a view consonant with propositions they've selectively adopted (e.g., supralapsarianism in the case of Calvinism), and worked out standards of orthodoxy and orthopraxy to reflect those selective adoptions and propositions. Esesntially, by self-defined I intend to say that their respective systems are tautological such that they are self-referential, and refuse to take into account other realities and expressions of those realities (e.g., Calvin denies the 'real presence' doctrine of Luther; Luther denies the memorialism of Calvin, ad nauseum).
It's seems plainly false that these groups just "selected", by a shear act of the will, propositions to adopt.
Isn't this all more like reading a text, like hermeneutics? Lutherans and Calvinists are arguing over the grammer of worship?
BTW, Calvin wasn't a memorialist. Though, yikes, I don't want to get into it!!!
Ed,
Grab ahold of the Book of Concord, the original documents of the Reformers. In it, they basically steer their way through the ECFs and RC theology, picking and choosing what they believe and what they don't. Then they justify their reasons for doing so in long, and tedious explanations.
Still, why do you think it "seems plainly false that these groups just 'selected', by a shear act of the will, propositions to adopt"?
In any case, I'm not isolating these groups as if to say that they're making stuff up ex nihilo. I'm suggesting that they cherry-pick their beliefs just like everyone in existence. The only difference is that they organise around the fruit of their picking. Thus they are self-defined, and self-selecting.
Haha! Yes, it is probably more like hermeneutics, you're right. Lutherans and Calvinists "are arguing over the grammer [sic] of worship." Perfectly stated, sir.
You're also right that Calvin wasn't a memorialist. I mixed him up with Zwingli. As the common idiotum states, "my bad."
"it is probably more like hermeneutics" I'm quite serious about that.
I still don't follow this "Thus they are self-defined, and self-selecting." business.
Somebody must do the defining and selecting, but that's obvious, no? I'm missing something.
Absolutely. Perhaps my use of the terms self-defining, and self-selecting come across as pejoratives. I don't mean them to be.
Yes, people who wish to organise must make selections who they wish to organise with. People who organise must define what they have organised, and what that means to them. In this regard all groupings intending to be groupings tend to self-select, and self-define.
When those same groupings come up against other groupings with different claims, however, and inter-group dialogues begin, then people start shoring up opinions that agree with other opinions, and opinions that disagree with other opinions. More, people start shunting this-or-that opinion off to the proverbial side in favour of this-or-that other opinion.
This is all common sense, and part of all group dynamics. Where it begins to fall apart, say, in the case of the Roman Catholic grouping, is when a certain group (RCs) identifies itself as not just a self-defined group, but also a group that defines others while rejecting the self-definition of the group they are examining. That's when a self-selected, self-defining group (e.g., RCC) sets itself into a closed loop, or an intellectual vaccuum.
Am I making sense? This is more intuitive for me than formal, so your probing is helpful to me.
Post a Comment