Combox for:
Biblical Evidence for Anthropopathism and God Condescending to Human Limitations of Understanding
[22 January 2009]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...opopathism.html
Ummm, Dave, I see that, among the instances of anthropopathism, you include God SPEAKING.
Is it your position that it is heretical to maintain that God actually SPOKE the WORDS "This is My Beloved Son", at Jesus' baptism?
Is it instead necessary to read this passage as an anthropopathic "condescension"; since God's immutability logically requires us to believe that God could never do anything like saying human words, one after the other, as He is reported to have done over and over again in Holy Scripture?
Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 540 - 604): "God is called jealous, angered, repentant, merciful, and foreknowing. These simply mean that, because He guards the chastity of every soul, He can, in human fashion, be called jealous, although He is not subject to any mental torment. Because He moves against faults, He is said to be angered, although He is moved by no disturbance of equanimity. And because He that is immutable CHANGES WHAT HE WILLED, He is said to repent, although what changes is a thing and not His counsel."
That quote from Pope Gregory the Great seems to be in line with what I have been discussing by the use of the term "the mind of God ad extra", meaning the mind of God in a secondary sense as it relates to events.
When the Pope says God "changes what he wills", it is actually a pretty good way of saying what I was trying to say.
A few days ago when I attempted to explain myself by say that "God had a mind to destroy Nineveh", I actually meant He had a will (desire) to destroy Nineveh at the time (before they repented). After Nineveh repented, the "ad extra mind of God" - his will - changed.
And didn't another quote you provided from a Church Father say that God's mind is inseparable from His will?
It still seems to me that there is a way to say that God "changed his mind" in a secondary sense. Not that God, who knows all things, truly had a change of mind, but that His mind (or will) changed due to a change in events. Whereas one day He had a mind to destroy Nineveh, after they repented He no longer willed to do so.
Hi Rick,
Welcome back!
Ummm, Dave, I see that, among the instances of anthropopathism, you include God SPEAKING.
That's incorrect. It is under the category of anthropomorphism.
Is it your position that it is heretical to maintain that God actually SPOKE the WORDS "This is My Beloved Son", at Jesus' baptism?
Why in the world would I think that?
Is it instead necessary to read this passage as an anthropopathic "condescension"; since God's immutability logically requires us to believe that God could never do anything like saying human words, one after the other, as He is reported to have done over and over again in Holy Scripture?
God can create words supernaturally, just as He could appear in the theophanies in the Old Testament in human form, before the incarnation. Where's the beef?
People obviously heard the words. But God the Father is a spirit so He didn't speak them with an actual physical mouth. Therefore, they had to be produced supernaturally. That would be my take on it, anyway. Words, yes. Mouth and lips and teeth and tongue, no.
That quote from Pope Gregory the Great seems to be in line with what I have been discussing by the use of the term "the mind of God ad extra", meaning the mind of God in a secondary sense as it relates to events.
When the Pope says God "changes what he wills", it is actually a pretty good way of saying what I was trying to say.
Dear Robert,
I take this phrase as meaning God "changes what He wills to change."
About God "speaking," I think it was St Augustine (in the Confessions) who said something to the effect that to suggest literal speaking means energy left God and became attenuated ('died off') to the point of insignificance (which is obviously erroneous). So when God said "let there be light," those very words - of the eternal God - would have died off.
Also, sound is a function of creation, thus St Augustine said it is impossible that actual sound came forth as God was creating.
My memory is rusty on just how he put it, because the way St A phrases it, it sounds pretty cool.
Dave:
Thanks for your response, I am delighted that we agree.
Let's see if we can continue the roll here...
Would you agree with the following?
"When the Bible says God has a "change of Mind” it is not communicating that God is exactly like an earthly mind-changer. Meanwhile, it also not communicating that He is so unlike an earthly mind-changer that the statement means nothing. It means that God is similar to an earthly mind changer—He is a judge, an authority, a reviewer of fidelity to covenant, a punisher of iniquity and rewarder of virtue, etc. When the Bible does this it is like “baby-talk” it is condescending (or getting down) to our level."
I think it is the "baby talk" without the actual change of mind.
It's also like phenomenological language, such as saying that the sun went down, when in actuality the earth went round and round. It's language designed for the perspective of man. It is really men that changed, but the Bible describes it as God changing His mind.
An omniscient, immutable, simple, impassible being cannot do this, by definition.
Dear Robert,
I take this phrase as meaning God "changes what He wills to change."
Ben,
I could help chuckling when I read that statement, because of our earlier discussion on free will and the actions of grace moving it. Your thoughts on what Pope Gregory meant fit in perfectly with your theology. I'm not saying your wrong. I'm just saying your interpretation seems to flow from your theology.
To comment more specifically, I would say God changes what he wills because of a change in the actions of man. You would respond by saying God changes the actions of man so that He can change what He wills.
The slight difference between my thoughts and your is that I see the cooperation of the free will of man as a necessary secondary cause that brings about the change.
So, while it is true that God is the primary cause in man's change for the better, the change does not occur without man cooperating. And since the cooperation of man's free will is necessary, man, in a sense, does play a part in the change of God's will - "the ad extra mind of God".
Dear Dave:
With respect, may I ask you to reflect very seriously upon where the dialogue now stands.
You have your opinion.
Bob has his.
It is absurd, in my view, at this stage, to continue this accusation of heresy against Bob, who has explicitly accepted an interpretation of this question completely consistent with, for example, Mr. Siscoe's above, and with your own source's example, which I paraphrased.
There might indeed be room for healthy debate and disagreement, but Bob's position simply is not outside the traditions of the dispute between the Thomist and Molinarist views on free will.
Last word:
I think you might set one extremely powerful, useful, humbling, and helpful example to a lot of high-powered Catholic apologetics-type folks if you were to take this opportunity to publicly stand down on the heresy accusation, while retaining (OF COURSE) complete freedom to engage the issue from your standpoint.
I think such an action might be contagious.
All the best!
I can't say something is not heretical when it contradicts several clear de fide dogmas of the Church. Sorry. You guys have not demonstrated to my satisfaction at all that what Bob is espousing is not heresy with regard to theology proper (theology of God). My arguments (which I consider pretty strong: and believe me, I know what an argument is, and when it is strong or weak) have been mostly ignored.
You are hung up on the word heretical. It simply means "error" or "heterodox." Were you the one who was making overtures to their bishop, to see what they think? I encourage you to do so. I'm fairly confident that my perspective on this will be upheld in every respect. If you don't believe me, then ask bishops and orthodox theologians (not liberal ones who accept open theism).
So be it, Dave.
As far as I can see, it was all a lot of huffing and puffing over perfectly acceptable variations on the free will/predestination question.
Certainly expect Bob would be delighted to respond to any inquiry from the Church's pastors on this, but as far as this hole, it looks to me to be about as dry as they come.
All the best!
This is not simply a free will / predestination issue. No; this is far more fundamental: is God simple; is He immutable and what does that mean?: is it no change at all or do we start introducing exceptions, so that the term means a lot less than it did? What does omniscience mean? What does being outside of time mean?
It's obviously not merely the Thomistic / Molinist debate, because I am a Molinist, yet I agree with St. Thomas on this issue all down the line in these matters (and with Augustine the strong predestinarian), and Bob doesn't.
This discussion is so broad that even most Protestants agree with what I am saying (and with the Church). Bob's view is so off that he goes beyond what Luther, Calvin, and most great Protestant thinkers have thought, in agreement with Catholics. This is about dogma that all must accept: not about options of Thomist vs. Molinist predestination, that are not dogmas at all. So, nice try to pigeonhole it into that, but no cigar.
Meanwhile, the actual issues aren't discussed, as usual. It's another of the endless mutual monologues.
It frustrates me to no end, but I will continue to defend Catholic truth, as best I can make it out to be, with the guidance of the Church. If we can't have a simple dialogue, where both sides are interacted with, then we can't. It wasn't because of me, though, I know that. I've done a ton of work on this and have systematically addressed every major argument that Bob has made, insofar as he has responded at all.
It's hypocritical too, for Bob and his comrades like you to be complaining about my daring to call theological error "heresy" when he sits there and judges popes and EWTN and people like Karl Keating and Jimmy Akin and Mark Shea and Scott Hahn, using all kinds of terms like "modernist" and "neo-Catholic" (as if those don't mean heresy?).
Apparently Bob studiously avoids the term "heresy" but so what: "modernism" is a heresy itself and he freely slings that around. "Neo-Catholic" is an extreme insult. He shows no reluctance to use those words. But let someone dare disagree with his views and call it heresy and it is Chicken Little.
My ONLY concern in all this is Catholic truth. If someone shows me that I am wrong in my position I'll gladly change it to comply with the Church.You guys haven't done that. But I've seen a host of illogical arguments and self-contradictions and obscurantism and obfuscation.
May God bless you abundantly.
>>Apparently Bob studiously avoids the term "heresy" but so what>>
Who said he was shy about using the word "heresy"? He's even used it on his bishop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Rob...Robert_Sungenis
"Mr. Shea doesn’t regard it as a departure from Catholic doctrine because he believes the same heresy that Bishop Rhoades believes."
In a subsequent revision of this article, Sungenis has equivocated on the heresy charge he leveled against Bishop Rhoades:
"Mr. Shea doesn't regard it as a departure from Catholic doctrine because he believes the same heresy that Bishop Rhoades has not clearly renounced and so presumably still believes."
He's used the word on Jewish converts, too.
"And because He that is immutable CHANGES WHAT HE WILLED, He is said to repent, although what changes is a thing and not His counsel."
His will and His mind did not change. Rather, what He had willed to exist had changed.
Dave, be careful which emotions you ascribe to anthropopathism. For instance I note the one concerning God rejoicing i.e having joy.
Amongst the eleven traditional passions some of them can be attributed properly to God while others can not be so attributed except metaphorically.
I started to realise this when I reflected on the fact that love is one of the traditional passions and God is said to be love (and no one ever means it as a metaphor!). This had me searching the Summa Theologicae where I found some very key passages from Aquinas which seem to never be quoted in this debate. In these passages Aquinas outlines WHY he believes (as quoted in some other passages in this discussion) that anger etc are metaphorical but love (and joy) are not (and intellect and will for that matter).
Firstly I want to make absolutely clear that according to Aquinas there are no emotions or passions in God (sorry, being Thomistic in outlook I prefer the word passion as emotion tends to refer to what is traditionally called consequent passion as opposed to antecedent passion). This is because passion is defined as movement of the sensitive appetite. That is its definition and hence something must be a body to have passion (and one animated by at least a sensitive soul of course). Intellect and will are not so tied down in their definition.
The first objection Aquinas faces to the idea of there being love in God is that love is a passion and there aren't any passions in God. Aquinas answers that in God love is not a passion (movement of the sensitive appetite) but an act of the intellectual appetite (will). So while God can have love he does not have [i]as a passion[/i].
The second objection he has to face is well, we don't say the same regarding anger and desire and those kinds of passions. They are regarded as metaphorical so why should love be any different?
Aquinas' answer consists in distinguishing between the material and formal elements in passion. The material element is the bodily change. The formal element is on the part of the appetite.
Aquinas then says that regarding certain passions (desire, anger, fear, sorrow, despair) a certain imperfection in the formal element is implied.
However in other passions (he lists love and joy) no imperfection is implied in their formal element.
Just as no passion can be properly attributed to God so far as its material side is concerned neither can those whose formal element implies imperfection.
Whereas says Thomas "those that do not imply imperfection, such as love and joy, can be properly predicated of God, though without attributing passion to Him, as said before."
The last part is true because passion as such requires both material and formal element.
Moving on from the passions the same applies to notions such as intellect and will which in themselves imply no imperfection.
So sometimes the attribution can be literal and sometimes anthropopathic.
I think this is a good point. I will modify my list a bit, accordingly.
Matthew,
What do you think about references to the "mind of God" being an anthropomorphism?
Since God has a mind, how would it be an anthrophomorphism to say "the mind of God"?
Robert, is this you?
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/
a...istic_Body.html
Not to sidetrack, but if it is, nicely done. I've had priests throw that same argument at me. Thanks.
Yes, I wrote that.
I just re-read the article. I actually developed the distinction further after writing that using the distinction between substance and accidents, as St. Thomas does.
The divine nature (grace) adheres to our human soul as a supernatural accident. With God, it is His substance.
We are, by nature, human. Our "substance" is human, but we possess, as an "accident", the divine nature. The Person of Jesus, on the other hand, is Divine substantially.
Excellent. I had some thoughts along those lines myself but never developed them. I can't believe when priests say such nonsense.
Hi Robert,
"Mind" is one of those ambiguous terms especially when speaking of man. Sometimes it's just another word for intellect sometimes it's wider in scope referring to both the intellect and the imagination and memory.
At any rate in this context it's a synonym for intellect. So following what I said above it can be properly predicated of God.
Have you, by chance, read what I've had to say here about God changing his mind? I have attempted to distinguish between, what I called "the mind of God ad intra", and "the mind of God ad extra".
The mind of God ad intra would be God's actual unchanging mind, while the mind of God ad extra would be the mind of God as it relates to events as they are in time. In other words, how God judges events, and how He will or would respond to events as they exist in time. For example, God said he would destroy Nineveh. While implicit in the statement is that he would not destroy Nineveh if they repented, nevertheless, he did say he had a mind to do so.
I realize that God knows all things, including all possible outcomes and the final outcome. Therefore, there is no gain in knowledge or change of God's mind "ad intra". What I have sought to do is to consider if there is a way to speak of the mind of God in the sense of how it views things in time. This seems to be a very valid and scriptural way to thing.
It would explain why God said he would destroy Nineveh, yet didn't do it. Although He knew from all eternity it would not be destroyed, nevertheless, he did say he would do so. I would not call this an anthropomorphism since God does have a mind; rather, I would consider it to be the mind of God as it relates to events – what I called the mind of God ad extra. Do you see what I am getting at? The distinction seems to clear up an apparent contradiction, without having to argue that God was using an anthropomorphism – especially when anthropomorphism would not seem to apply, since God does have a mind. Thoughts?
Yes, I have read a bit of what you had to say. I find it very interesting.
My own thinking on this so far is very similar to yours (I think, that depends on how good my understanding is). I would say that unfortunately (in some respects) there are two ways we normally speak of a change of mind and only one of them applies to God (and even then it is not a change in the mind as such as I hope to show).
Firstly, there is the "whoops, my mistake" change of mind. God being perfectly wise knows precisely how he wants to act given any situation X. You'll never find God saying "man, I sure wish I hadn't done that" !
Secondly, there is the change of mind wherein one's decision at this moment differs from their decision in a previous moment. For example, I don't have enough money to buy that car. But then I win the lotto (change in external circumstances) so then I "change my mind" about buying the car. But it not a change regarding the same thing in the same respect.
The difference with God, unlike our man winning the the lotto, is he already knows from all eternity what decision he is going to make and how all the contingencies are going to work out (as well as knowing what he would have done had they worked out differently).
So what we are really dealing with is the working out in time of the eternal decrees of his will as they manifest themselves to us with respect to different circumstances. As we move from one manifestation to another we speak of that as a change in mind because it is referring to a different decision he made with the eternal resolve of his will.
So in a way it is literally true without any consequences for his immutability etc.
Nor does it involve any "play acting." Man really did have to repent. And if he hadn't God would have no doubt done differently.
I only wish I had the ability to express it better. And I can only sincerely hope that this is what both sides are trying to say despite the disagreement on the surface.
"And I can only sincerely hope that this is what both sides are trying to say despite the disagreement on the surface."
What I think is that they are viewing it from two different angles. Dave is completely correct in his thinking that God cannot truly have a change of mind in the sense of a true substantial change. God knows all things. He knows, not only what will happen, but even what would happen if man made a different decision. God knows absolutely everything. Dave's thinking along these terms and his conclusions are absolutely correct.
With respect to Robert, I could be wrong, but I don't think he has a clear understanding of his thoughts. In other words, he has not been able to work through his thoughts on ths subject in such a way that he is clear in his thinking. He is on track to something, but has not sorted it out completely. I think this is clear in that he has not given much of a defense of his position. My guess is that if he read what I had to say, and what you wrote above, it would help him to sort things out. But I do think he is on to something.
I'm still thinking about it myself, but I am making some progress.
I e-mailed my thoughts to one of the most intelligent (and holy) Priests that I know, and he agreed with what I wrote.
There is still some clarification that remains, but I do think that speaking of God's mind in the sense of how he "thinks" about certain things as they exist at a certain point in time is valid. That is not to say that he does not know what will happen in the "future" (which is the present to God), but he does have a "mind" in respect to events as they are happening in time.
Along the lines of what you were saying, a change of mind does not necessarily imply that it is based on an increase of knowledge, or on unforseen circumstances. It can be due to a change of will (for one reason or another); and it would seem that, on some level, God's will would change in resepct to events as the events themselves changed. For example, he would have a mind to destroy Nineveh if they continued on their sinful path, and have a mind not to if they repented.
Like you said, these things are not easy to express. We are near the limit of human reason to comprehend, and as such, words often fail to express what we are still trying to uderstand.
I am all for strong debate on dogmatic points, but when it comes to subtle points of speculative theology, I think it is best to progress carefully.
Just on one of your last points I'm not sure I would say it can be due to a change in will. That's keeps us with the same problem more or less. Of course when we say someone had a change of mind we mean a change of heart or will but the operations of intellect and will are so closely connected with one another and are only distinguished when we try to do a detailed analysis of the human act. In God his intellect is his will so there would be even less difference.
Our very discussion shows the difficulty the author has in trying to express this. I have spoken of his change in mind as a change in the manifestation of his mind (or will) to us regarding the circumstances presently obtaining in relation to what obtained previously. Each decision with respect to the matter at hand however had been made from all eternity because known from all eternity.
Commenting by HaloScan
