MMOTW, what makes the most perfect being of them all?

[OldRegular]

WITBOTL

Excellent response to the OP. Apparently the Apostle Paul was confronted with the some of the same problems that the Church is today. Simply shows that mankind is often tempted to think more highly of himself than he should.

Of course by quoting Scripture you understand that you will be considered an ANTI-INTELLECTUAL.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[OldRegular]

Any list of properties/characteristics that I came up with would necessarily be accurate to the extent that I got them from God's own word...and inaccurate to the extent that I came up with them on my own...Therefore if my list was accurate, there would be no contrasts with the God of the Bible...if my list did contrast with the God of the Bible...it would only point to the deficiency of my list, that my concept of the perfect being did not fit the actuality of the perfect being...and I must keep in mind that there may be aspects of the character of God that I strive to understand from the bible that i might not always get completely right.

I might think the perfect being is a green Giraffe hitched to a hot-air balloon that flew around and dropped candy on me...I could believe that, but such a belief would be outside reality, and therefore useless to me...and in fact detrimental to me.

Conclusion: Whatever God IS is necessarily the perfect being...If I start to add what I think he should be (He should never let me get sick...He should command vegetarianism), then I am simply showing that I don't understand, or am unwilling to accept the perfect being as He is and does...thus revealing my own imperfection.

12strings

I must say that you, yeshua1, and WITBOTL have presented excellent rsponses to the OP and have so far avoided the chastening of Dr. Bob, HOSS, hs, or ht!

 

[OldRegular]

When I am confronted by those who consider defending the faith which was once delivered to the Saints by the use of Scripture as anti-intellectual, those who cherish the golden idol of intellect, I am reminded of the following Words of God given to that great prophet Isaiah:

18. To whom then will ye liken God? or what likness will ye compare unto Him?
19. The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith speadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains.
20. He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved.
21. Have ye not known? have ye not heard? Hath it not been told you drom the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
22. It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as GRASSHOPPERS; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
23. That bringeth the princes to nothing; He maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.
24. Yea, they shall not be planted; yea; they shall not be sown; yea; their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble.
25. To whom then will ye liken Me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.

Verse 18 above counters the purpose of the OP as the previous responses by yeshua1, WITBOTL, and 12stings have alreay done! I believe those who characterize the use of the Word of God as anti-inellectual, those who endorse open theism, those who are enamoured with their own intellect would do well to prayerfully consider the passage as a whole but especially Verse 22. Then they might ponder if the next grasshopper they see looks with disdain upon them!

 

[John of Japan]

Basically, we all think that God is the most perfect being possible or we may say that the perfect being is the one that possesses maximal greatness. We might all believe in the principle that God is the most perfect being, yet it seems apparent that we disagree on what it means or what it looks like for someone to be the "most perfect being possible' or 'maximally great'.

In your opinion, what are the properties/characteristics that would be necessary in order for a being to be the most perfect? In what ways might the God of the Bible be in contrast to our concept of such a being?

Just read the OP and then the thread. Being one who thinks linguistically, I felt I should comment.

The problem with the OP is that there is a meaningless phrase: "most perefect." The concept "perfect" cannot be "more" and it cannot be "less." Either something or someone is perfect or they are not. As Yeshua has pointed out, God is the only perfect being. He cannot be "more perfect" or "most perfect." Those are nonsense phrases.

Consider the perfect game in baseball. It occurs when 27 batters are gotten out in a row. Not 26, not 28, but 27. It is not just a shut out when no runs occur, or just a no hitter, in which no one gets a hit but someone might get on base with a walk or through an error. (You can actually lose a no hitter.) There is no such thing as a "more perfect" game or a "most perfect game. There is just a perfect game: 27 batters out in a row, every single batter.

 

[OldRegular]

Just read the OP and then the thread. Being one who thinks linguistically, I felt I should comment.

The problem with the OP is that there is a meaningless phrase: "most perefect." The concept "perfect" cannot be "more" and it cannot be "less." Either something or someone is perfect or they are not. As Yeshua has pointed out, God is the only perfect being. He cannot be "more perfect" or "most perfect." Those are nonsense phrases.

Consider the perfect game in baseball. It occurs when 27 batters are gotten out in a row. Not 26, not 28, but 27. It is not just a shut out when no runs occur, or just a no hitter, in which no one gets a hit but someone might get on base with a walk or through an error. (You can actually lose a no hitter.) There is no such thing as a "more perfect" game or a "most perfect game. There is just a perfect game: 27 batters out in a row, every single batter.

John

I had not noticed the misuse of the term "most Perfect". My young grandson pointed that out to me this evening!

 

[humblethinker]

Just read the OP and then the thread. Being one who thinks linguistically, I felt I should comment.

The problem with the OP is that there is a meaningless phrase: "most perefect." The concept "perfect" cannot be "more" and it cannot be "less." Either something or someone is perfect or they are not. As Yeshua has pointed out, God is the only perfect being. He cannot be "more perfect" or "most perfect." Those are nonsense phrases.

Consider the perfect game in baseball. It occurs when 27 batters are gotten out in a row. Not 26, not 28, but 27. It is not just a shut out when no runs occur, or just a no hitter, in which no one gets a hit but someone might get on base with a walk or through an error. (You can actually lose a no hitter.) There is no such thing as a "more perfect" game or a "most perfect game. There is just a perfect game: 27 batters out in a row, every single batter.

Haha! It is less my wording and more Rene Descartes, so, you can take it up with him (and other philosophers... What do they know anyway?... Wait, don't ask them... ;-) )

I can see how 'most perfect' serves a purpose beyond the restricted use that you're requiring. Plato talked of perfect forms, a perfect chair, for instance. The perfect chair could not be one that actually existed. In reference to God, I think the point and reason for using "most perfect" is that the perfect being that actually exists is 'more" perfect than the one that doesn't exist and since God does exist then he is the "most" perfect of the two.

JoJ, I definitely get what you're saying and think that your post speaks to the nature of this post, which is (in my view) about how the 'perfect being' should ideally be vs the 'perfect being' that actually exists. Imo, there is often a difference and only one 'perfect being' can exist, as you point out. The depictions and descriptions in the Bible are of the most perfect being, and NOT of the ideal 'perfect being'. Some people have a problem with this and they force their ideal 'perfect being' onto God (as He is described in the Bible) and therefore they presume that God is not and can not be as described in the Bible.

 

[John of Japan]

Haha! It is less my wording and more Rene Descartes, so, you can take it up with him (and other philosophers... What do they know anyway?... Wait, don't ask them... ;-) )

Sorry, I don't have much use for philosophers (and yes I've taken a course and done some reading). Biblically speaking they get you in trouble (Col. 2:8). Someone once told me (on the BB maybe?) that verse didn't mean what we think of as philosophy. It is to laugh! As if an educated Jew writing in the 1st century didn't know about the Greek philosophers.

And I know that systematic theology often refers to philosophy. Sys. theo. IMO is only useful so far as it is studying the true God and noting mistakes made about Him by the philosophers.

I can see how 'most perfect' serves a purpose beyond the restricted use that you're requiring. Plato talked of perfect forms, a perfect chair, for instance. The perfect chair could not be one that actually existed. In reference to God, I think the point and reason for using "most perfect" is that the perfect being that actually exists is 'more" perfect than the one that doesn't exist and since God does exist then he is the "most" perfect of the two.

I'm familiar with Plato and his talk of the perfect form. I still think he was nuts.

JoJ, I definitely get what you're saying and think that your post speaks to the nature of this post, which is (in my view) about how the 'perfect being' should ideally be vs the 'perfect being' that actually exists. Imo, there is often a difference and only one 'perfect being' can exist, as you point out. The depictions and descriptions in the Bible are of the most perfect being, and NOT of the ideal 'perfect being'. Some people have a problem with this and they force their ideal 'perfect being' onto God (as He is described in the Bible) and therefore they presume that God is not and can not be as described in the Bible.

Try this. Talk about the perfect God instead of the perfect being. To me it then becomes obvious what you are talking about. As long as you talk about beings, it might be a human, angel, demon or alien from outer space. An angel or a human might be perfect in the sense that they are free from sin. But that is a limited perfection, like comparing a soccer game (in which true perfection doesn't exist but a perfect shot might) to the perfect game in baseball. It's apples and oranges.

Living in an idolatrous nation, I often think of the perfect God of the Bible as compared to the gods of Shinto or Buddhism. And I've been in a Muslim country and know that the Muslim Allah is far from perfect--he commands and enables what the Bible calls sin. So, if you talk about the perfect God as opposed to the perfect "being," you don't have to use the word "more."

Edited in: I really don't think philosophers use words right much of the time. Look at logical positivism--neither logical nor positive. Occasionally a philosopher will dabble in linguistics and make a mess of it, like Wittgenstein writing about language. Linguists are still trying to straighten that one out!

 

[John of Japan]

John

I had not noticed the misuse of the term "most Perfect". My young grandson pointed that out to me this evening!

Basic definition!:thumbsup:

 

[humblethinker]

Sorry, I don't have much use for philosophers (and yes I've taken a course and done some reading). Biblically speaking they get you in trouble (Col. 2:8). Someone once told me (on the BB maybe?) that verse didn't mean what we think of as philosophy. It is to laugh! As if an educated Jew writing in the 1st century didn't know about the Greek philosophers.

Thank JoJ, you've made some interesting points! I enjoy and appreciate those with expertise. Thanks for participating. Yes, I agree that Paul was educated in philosophy. Paul warns about bad philosophy and commends philosophy 'according to Christ'.

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.​

So, there is an acceptable philosophy that honors Christ. It is this philosophy that we all use to consider, process and make sense of the revelation that we've been given. Imo, without the revelation we've been given we'd be helpless with no reason to hope. What is philosophy according to Christ? Are all the members of this group just misinformed? Is God disappointed in their participation in such a group?

And I know that systematic theology often refers to philosophy. Sys. theo. IMO is only useful so far as it is studying the true God and noting mistakes made about Him by the philosophers.

Systematic philosophy, imo, is based on philosophy and reasoning... if it wasn't reasonable then how could we assimilate it into a system? Much is owed to philosophy -despite its detractors- and most are presumptuous to think that there is no reason to be greatful to philosophers for their ability to think as they do. We'd still be blood-letting to treat sickness and we'd not be on the moon, we'd not have the benefits that have come from understanding atoms, molecules, chemistry, etc.

I'm familiar with Plato and his talk of the perfect form. I still think he was nuts.

Yet there are systematic theologies heavily influenced by this. Do you not agree with that? If philosophy is not your thing or if you don't find it useful in what you do on a day-to-day basis that is fine but it seems uncharitable to promote the idea that every single Christian on earth is less mature if they do find philosophy to be helpful. Is this what you are saying?

Try this. Talk about the perfect God instead of the perfect being. To me it then becomes obvious what you are talking about. As long as you talk about beings, it might be a human, angel, demon or alien from outer space. An angel or a human might be perfect in the sense that they are free from sin. But that is a limited perfection, like comparing a soccer game (in which true perfection doesn't exist but a perfect shot might) to the perfect game in baseball. It's apples and oranges.

What I am talking about is that no matter what being we conceive of in our head, that being is not God. This is why it is possible for us to disagree on our perception of God and it not matter in the sense that our thoughts do not effect the existent God. He exists as he is regardless of what we perceive him to be. If my thoughts of him are correct it is not the case that they are complete and exhaustive since he is more than what my mind can conceive. I believe that Calvinists, Arminians, or whatever you consider yourself can participate in real communal relationship with God even though our perceptions of him are incorrect or at least under-informed. So, JoJ, we would each say that our perceptions of God are necessarily ideas of the Perfect Being. However, the idea of the Perfect Being that the Calvinists hold is different than the idea of the Perfect Being that the Arminians hold. All of us claim that our ideas of the Perfect Being are informed primarily by the Bible, it providing the authoritative foundation and framework regarding our epistimology of God. Yet we still disagree. We have the Perfect Being that the Arms would present and the Perfect Being that the Calvinists present, yet neither can be exhaustively correct since the perfect Being is the one that actually exists. Perhaps you can better explain what Decartes, Plato, Liebnitz, et al are really trying to say? They have to work with and use a language that cannot actually conveigh reality exhaustively and comletely. Of course they are not promoting an absurdity, at least not with malevelant intent.

Regarding the grammer issue, do you see what I'm saying? If not, then how else would you describe the difference between the Perfect Being that we think of in our mind and the Perfect Being that actually exists? The one that exists is the most perfect. Help the philosophers out... how would you describe the one that exists?

Can you not give the philosopher some space and grace? How are they to discuss ideas for which their language has never had a need to describe or graple with? This reminds me of the idea of orthodoxy... Is theology exhaustively complete in how it can inform us about God, eschatology, death, life and reality? If so, when did it reach that mark of completion? So, regarding grammar: Is grammar exhaustively complete in how we must discuss, write, and express ourselves about existence? If so, when did it reach this mark? Is that only for the English language? It seems that only the most advanced language would be able to have reached such a mark... is that English? Are there a such things as exhaustively complete perfect grammar and language? Is this then to never undergo change regardless of advances in the sciences?

Living in an idolatrous nation, I often think of the perfect God of the Bible as compared to the gods of Shinto or Buddhism. And I've been in a Muslim country and know that the Muslim Allah is far from perfect--he commands and enables what the Bible calls sin. So, if you talk about the perfect God as opposed to the perfect "being," you don't have to use the word "more."

Edited in: I really don't think philosophers use words right much of the time. Look at logical positivism--neither logical nor positive. Occasionally a philosopher will dabble in linguistics and make a mess of it, like Wittgenstein writing about language. Linguists are still trying to straighten that one out!

So, the revelation that we have in the Bible informs our philosophy such that we know that God cannot command or enable sin, yet God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as a burn offering. Does not our philosophy according to Christ help us reason this out?

It seems that philosophy can be used as a tool then to those in Japan, just as Paul used it at Mars Hill, no?

The purpose of this thread was to discuss how western thought (we) consider how God must be and how that way of thinking contrasts with the descriptions and depictions of the God of the Bible. There are other, what seem to be contradictions besides using 'most perfect'. As long as the meaning is understood I think it's best to accommodate philosophers, though as you point out, there are those who should be criticized.

The perfect God that actually exists is the one of which the Bible informs us. Though there is much we Christians agree on due to revelation in the scriptures, there is much we disagree on due to our philosophy... we all have and use philosophy.

(I didn't have much time to proof this so hopefully the meaning I intended is the meaning that you have assigned to my words... that is the point of language afterall, is it not... a medium for meaning?)

 

[OldRegular]

Basic definition!:thumbsup:

Frankly, I did not look much at the verbiage of ht's OP but wondered about the intent of his thread??????????????

In recent years I have noticed that frquently the talking heads on TV will provide a modifier to the word "unique"! Also the terms "win win" and "lose lose" are in common usage, particularly in some business groups.

 

[humblethinker]

Frankly, I did not look much at the verbiage of ht's OP but wondered about the intent of his thread??????????????

In recent years I have noticed that frquently the talking heads on TV will provide a modifier to the word "unique"! Also the terms "win win" and "lose lose" are in common usage, particularly in some business groups.

You question the intent (motive?) of my thread but you don't know what "win win" and "lose lose" means? Haha, I think I'm in a no-win situation here!

 

[Benjamin]

We describe God the best way we can, but our human language is inadequate to define the “infinite” magnitude of His Greatness. If we are growing in the knowledge of God, which we should be, then the most we can know and understand about His Perfect Loving Nature is ever expanding into an even more perfect understanding of who He is. Likewise, if the infinity of God’s Love had been reached there would not even be a need for us to be here receiving it, there would be nothing to expand and there would be no glory for God to gain. So in a sense, in human terms, I would say God’s Love becomes more infinitively perfect everyday while understanding there is no end to an infinitive journey for either, us receiving God’s Love or Him giving it. Thus, Love becomes more perfect.

How bout dat?! :type:

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank JoJ, you've made some interesting points! I enjoy and appreciate those with expertise. Thanks for participating. Yes, I agree that Paul was educated in philosophy. Paul warns about bad philosophy and commends philosophy 'according to Christ'.

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.​

So, there is an acceptable philosophy that honors Christ. It is this philosophy that we all use to consider, process and make sense of the revelation that we've been given. Imo, without the revelation we've been given we'd be helpless with no reason to hope. What is philosophy according to Christ? Are all the members of this group just misinformed? Is God disappointed in their participation in such a group?

Systematic philosophy, imo, is based on philosophy and reasoning... if it wasn't reasonable then how could we assimilate it into a system? Much is owed to philosophy -despite its detractors- and most are presumptuous to think that there is no reason to be greatful to philosophers for their ability to think as they do. We'd still be blood-letting to treat sickness and we'd not be on the moon, we'd not have the benefits that have come from understanding atoms, molecules, chemistry, etc.

Yet there are systematic theologies heavily influenced by this. Do you not agree with that? If philosophy is not your thing or if you don't find it useful in what you do on a day-to-day basis that is fine but it seems uncharitable to promote the idea that every single Christian on earth is less mature if they do find philosophy to be helpful. Is this what you are saying?



What I am talking about is that no matter what being we conceive of in our head, that being is not God. This is why it is possible for us to disagree on our perception of God and it not matter in the sense that our thoughts do not effect the existent God. He exists as he is regardless of what we perceive him to be. If my thoughts of him are correct it is not the case that they are complete and exhaustive since he is more than what my mind can conceive. I believe that Calvinists, Arminians, or whatever you consider yourself can participate in real communal relationship with God even though our perceptions of him are incorrect or at least under-informed. So, JoJ, we would each say that our perceptions of God are necessarily ideas of the Perfect Being. However, the idea of the Perfect Being that the Calvinists hold is different than the idea of the Perfect Being that the Arminians hold. All of us claim that our ideas of the Perfect Being are informed primarily by the Bible, it providing the authoritative foundation and framework regarding our epistimology of God. Yet we still disagree. We have the Perfect Being that the Arms would present and the Perfect Being that the Calvinists present, yet neither can be exhaustively correct since the perfect Being is the one that actually exists. Perhaps you can better explain what Decartes, Plato, Liebnitz, et al are really trying to say? They have to work with and use a language that cannot actually conveigh reality exhaustively and comletely. Of course they are not promoting an absurdity, at least not with malevelant intent.

Regarding the grammer issue, do you see what I'm saying? If not, then how else would you describe the difference between the Perfect Being that we think of in our mind and the Perfect Being that actually exists? The one that exists is the most perfect. Help the philosophers out... how would you describe the one that exists?

Can you not give the philosopher some space and grace? How are they to discuss ideas for which their language has never had a need to describe or graple with? This reminds me of the idea of orthodoxy... Is theology exhaustively complete in how it can inform us about God, eschatology, death, life and reality? If so, when did it reach that mark of completion? So, regarding grammar: Is grammar exhaustively complete in how we must discuss, write, and express ourselves about existence? If so, when did it reach this mark? Is that only for the English language? It seems that only the most advanced language would be able to have reached such a mark... is that English? Are there a such things as exhaustively complete perfect grammar and language? Is this then to never undergo change regardless of advances in the sciences?



So, the revelation that we have in the Bible informs our philosophy such that we know that God cannot command or enable sin, yet God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as a burn offering. Does not our philosophy according to Christ help us reason this out?

It seems that philosophy can be used as a tool then to those in Japan, just as Paul used it at Mars Hill, no?

The purpose of this thread was to discuss how western thought (we) consider how God must be and how that way of thinking contrasts with the descriptions and depictions of the God of the Bible. There are other, what seem to be contradictions besides using 'most perfect'. As long as the meaning is understood I think it's best to accommodate philosophers, though as you point out, there are those who should be criticized.

The perfect God that actually exists is the one of which the Bible informs us. Though there is much we Christians agree on due to revelation in the scriptures, there is much we disagree on due to our philosophy... we all have and use philosophy.

(I didn't have much time to proof this so hopefully the meaning I intended is the meaning that you have assigned to my words... that is the point of language afterall, is it not... a medium for meaning?)

god NEVER changes, so by definition, he has been and shall always be perfect, as He is ONLY God, and He never has to learn anything, get more powerful, get more wisdom etc, as He ALONE is self existant and Eternal, and He is complete and perfect, PERIOD!

 

[humblethinker]

god NEVER changes, so by definition, he has been and shall always be perfect, as He is ONLY God, and He never has to learn anything, get more powerful, get more wisdom etc, as He ALONE is self existant and Eternal, and He is complete and perfect, PERIOD!

By definition? What definition? The perfect being that Plato imagined or the perfect being the Bible depicts?

I would agree that God never changes in his character and in other ways but I would not say that he never experiences change in any way. Yeshua, the Platonic and Neo-platonic philosophies present and require the perfect being to be unable to relate to anything other than himself or experience suffering, or be a Trinity. God does experience passage and sequence. The Bible is full of such depictions and descriptions. This philosophy is exactly what I'm talking about in the OP.

Looks like change to me:

Philippians 2:6Who, being in very naturea God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very natureb of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! ​

 

[OldRegular]

Folks just remember that you must filter everything "ht" writes through his "open theism" beliefs!

 

[WITBOTL]

I would agree that God never changes in his character and in other ways but I would not say that he never experiences change in any way.

but by taking this position you do not just limit his immutability, you also call into question his eternality and his omniscience, if not his infinity.

By saying God can experience change, you are saying he can acquire new knowledge which necessitates that his knowledge before was incomplete. Also by noting experiences and change, you must necessarily put those changes and experiences in time. If you believe God can change in the way that you state, then you make him subject to change in time and therefore subject to time. This calls into question his eternality.

Ultimately, changes in this sense ARE changes in nature character.

I believe God does reveal himself to us anthropopathically and anthropomorphically but that is for our benefit and not expressions of his eternal nature.

 

[John of Japan]

Thank JoJ, you've made some interesting points! I enjoy and appreciate those with expertise. Thanks for participating. Yes, I agree that Paul was educated in philosophy. Paul warns about bad philosophy and commends philosophy 'according to Christ'.

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
​

So, there is an acceptable philosophy that honors Christ.

This is poor exegesis, not done according to the grammatical-historical method. You are reading your 21st century ideas back into the Scripture. What possible 1st century philosophy would honor Christ? Gnosticism? Stoicism? Epicurianism? All of the philosophers of the day would have laughed at Paul and at the Gospel of Christ.

It is this philosophy that we all use to consider, process and make sense of the revelation that we've been given. Imo, without the revelation we've been given we'd be helpless with no reason to hope. What is philosophy according to Christ? Are all the members of this group just misinformed? Is God disappointed in their participation in such a group?

Why do you want me to judge them? Christ is their judge. I will say this, though. The site shows an apologetics conference. If they are simply studying philosophy for use in apologetics, hoping to win the lost for Christ, then they are copying Paul. I read a lot of Francis Schaeffer when I was young and liked his approach, which at L'Abri was used to win young people to Christ.

Yet there are systematic theologies heavily influenced by this. Do you not agree with that? If philosophy is not your thing or if you don't find it useful in what you do on a day-to-day basis that is fine but it seems uncharitable to promote the idea that every single Christian on earth is less mature if they do find philosophy to be helpful. Is this what you are saying?

I've got about 9 grad credits in sys. theo. under my belt, have read through several of them, and they are useful, just not the be-all-to-end-all.

What I am talking about is that no matter what being we conceive of in our head, that being is not God. This is why it is possible for us to disagree on our perception of God and it not matter in the sense that our thoughts do not effect the existent God. He exists as he is regardless of what we perceive him to be. If my thoughts of him are correct it is not the case that they are complete and exhaustive since he is more than what my mind can conceive. I believe that Calvinists, Arminians, or whatever you consider yourself can participate in real communal relationship with God even though our perceptions of him are incorrect or at least under-informed. So, JoJ, we would each say that our perceptions of God are necessarily ideas of the Perfect Being. However, the idea of the Perfect Being that the Calvinists hold is different than the idea of the Perfect Being that the Arminians hold. All of us claim that our ideas of the Perfect Being are informed primarily by the Bible, it providing the authoritative foundation and framework regarding our epistimology of God. Yet we still disagree. We have the Perfect Being that the Arms would present and the Perfect Being that the Calvinists present, yet neither can be exhaustively correct since the perfect Being is the one that actually exists. Perhaps you can better explain what Decartes, Plato, Liebnitz, et al are really trying to say? They have to work with and use a language that cannot actually conveigh reality exhaustively and comletely. Of course they are not promoting an absurdity, at least not with malevelant intent.

I'm not sure what you want me to reply here. Could I explain better what Descartes, Plato and Liebnitz said about God? Certainly, to the precise extent that they did not follow Scripture. I've been a missionary to a Buddhist country since 1981. I doubt if your dead white males mentioned above ever did that. In my experience, the best way possible to get to know God and how to explain Him is evangelism, and I've been doing that cross-culturally as a professional for 31 years.

Regarding the grammer issue, do you see what I'm saying? If not, then how else would you describe the difference between the Perfect Being that we think of in our mind and the Perfect Being that actually exists? The one that exists is the most perfect. Help the philosophers out... how would you describe the one that exists?

The issue is not grammar, but semantics, which is the study of meaning. If a child (I believe it was OldRegular's grandson) can say, "Perfect is perfect, you can't have more perfect," then the semantics of the matter are quite simple. Either God is perfect or He is not. There is no god in the world anywhere near Him. The Shintoists do not call their 4 million gods perfect, the Buddhists call no hotoke perfect, and so on. It is only the God of the Bible Who is perfect.

Can you not give the philosopher some space and grace? How are they to discuss ideas for which their language has never had a need to describe or graple with? This reminds me of the idea of orthodoxy... Is theology exhaustively complete in how it can inform us about God, eschatology, death, life and reality? If so, when did it reach that mark of completion? So, regarding grammar: Is grammar exhaustively complete in how we must discuss, write, and express ourselves about existence? If so, when did it reach this mark? Is that only for the English language? It seems that only the most advanced language would be able to have reached such a mark... is that English? Are there a such things as exhaustively complete perfect grammar and language? Is this then to never undergo change regardless of advances in the sciences?

Again, the problem is not grammar but semantics. No matter how hard you try, you can't change the meaning of words as commonly used. You can say "more perfect" as many times as you want, and it will still not communicate what you want it to. People will still say, "Huh? How can something be more perfect?" You confuse people by using words in ways that don't convey real meaning, like the character in Alice and Wonderland who said he would use words like he wanted to and make them mean what he wanted to.

So, the revelation that we have in the Bible informs our philosophy such that we know that God cannot command or enable sin, yet God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as a burn offering. Does not our philosophy according to Christ help us reason this out?

No. Proper exegesis of the Word of God does.

It seems that philosophy can be used as a tool then to those in Japan, just as Paul used it at Mars Hill, no?

As I said, philosophy is fine when used for apologetics, and I've occasionally quoted Confucious here. But it is certainly not a guide for our life. I'm a Baptist, and believe in the Baptists distinctive of "The Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice." Don't you?

 

[John of Japan]

Frankly, I did not look much at the verbiage of ht's OP but wondered about the intent of his thread??????????????

In recent years I have noticed that frquently the talking heads on TV will provide a modifier to the word "unique"! Also the terms "win win" and "lose lose" are in common usage, particularly in some business groups.

Well, we'll just see where he takes us, or tries to. :type:

 

[Cypress]

Folks just remember that you must filter everything "ht" writes through his "open theism" beliefs!

OR, I appreciate the warning....HT is one scary dude!:sleeping_2::sleeping_2::sleeping_2::sleeping_2:

 

[Yeshua1]

By definition? What definition? The perfect being that Plato imagined or the perfect being the Bible depicts?

I would agree that God never changes in his character and in other ways but I would not say that he never experiences change in any way. Yeshua, the Platonic and Neo-platonic philosophies present and require the perfect being to be unable to relate to anything other than himself or experience suffering, or be a Trinity. God does experience passage and sequence. The Bible is full of such depictions and descriptions. This philosophy is exactly what I'm talking about in the OP.

Looks like change to me:

Philippians 2:6Who, being in very naturea God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very natureb of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! ​

God exists OUTSIDE of His creation, and He can freely chose when/how/where etc to intervene and interact within it!

He is eternal, and He IS the beginning and the End, as He is SOVEREIGN, and that means He has BOTH predestination and Foreknowledge of ALL things that will ever happen...

And when jesus became God Incarnate, He did NOT change in His Nature of very God, its that He added also to His being very Human nature too!

Just curious, how do you view God as a trinity?