Does Theology Make God An Impersonal Force?

[Yozavan]

Does theology make God an impersonal force?

In the words of Nebuchadnezzar: " none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, what doest Thou?" Daniel 4:35.

This concept is the consensus of traditional theologians and Christian philosophers, and the parameters of the debate. For brevity, I'll put it simply as God's sovereignty is beyond human understanding or manipulation

If God is a personal being, whose sovereignty is ungovernable apart from His will , completely independent from the will of others, then theology seems to define a static will, an impersonal force.

Focus of debate:

1) Theology cannot define an active will, a dynamic sovereign will, so it settles for a static one, an impersonal one.

2) Does theology, by default of limitation, reduce God to an impersonal force?

3) If theology is indeed, as a matter of necessity, reducing God to an impersonal force, then an impersonal force is its only stock and store. Quoth the raven, nevermore.

Addendum:I'm not familiar with Catholic theologians, but several Protestant theologians have lamented how theology reduces God to an impersonal force. I'd feel remise without adding that detail. An Impersonal god is not my own devising, but rather the sentiment of such theologians as Charles Hodge, Matthew Henry and John Brown, to name a few.

[Yozavan]

The God of the bible is not an impersonal force but rather a loving Father with an appezling personality (1 John 4:8)

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

...How does this negate the trappings of theological speculations?

I'm sorry I don't understand your question, could you ask in more simple words?

I'll put this as simply as I can: If God is a person, and the myriads of Christian denominations denounce people to hell for not meeting their conflicting theological proclamations, than God is reduced to an impersonal force, who is bound by the parameters of their specific theology.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Yozavan in post #4]

If saying God has a dynamic, sovereign will is theology 101, then doesn’t that contradict focus #1, where you say theology can’t define a dynamic sovereign will and, therefore, settles for a static, impersonal one? If theology can lead to believing in a dynamic, sovereign will for God, then it doesn’t limit God or reduce God to an impersonal force.

As to ‘practical theology’, many understand that term to refer to an academic discipline that involves theologically examining the practices of Christians and connecting theological learning (including systematic theology) to the actual experience and practices of Christian communities. It is called ‘practical’ because it seeks how systematic theology can be of practical use to the average Christian.

[JehovahsWitness]

...If God is a person, and the myriads of Christian denominations denounce people to hell for not meeting their conflicting theological proclamations, than God is reduced to an impersonal force, who is bound by the parameters of their specific theology.

Its still not entirely clear ... are you asking :

If God is a person, and people argue about the teaching of hell or other doctine, then their arguing must stop God being a person?

Is that about right ?

[theophile]

Does theology make God an impersonal force?

In the words of Nebuchadnezzar: " none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, what doest Thou?" Daniel 4:35.

This concept is the consensus of traditional theologians and Christian philosophers, and the parameters of the debate. For brevity, I'll put it simply as God's sovereignty is beyond human understanding or manipulation

If God is a personal being, whose sovereignty is ungovernable apart from His will , completely independent from the will of others, then theology seems to define a static will, an impersonal force.

Focus of debate:

1) Theology cannot define an active will, a dynamic sovereign will, so it settles for a static one, an impersonal one.

2) Does theology, by default of limitation, reduce God to an impersonal force?

3) If theology is indeed, as a matter of necessity, reducing God to an impersonal force, then an impersonal force is its only stock and store. Quoth the raven, nevermore.

The argument I take you to be making is that theology, which is essentially the rational effort to codify and express God (theos) in words (logos), as such has as its goal the containment of what is uncontainable, i.e., putting a person in words, and in the process necessarily makes its subject impersonal or voided of personhood.

You could replace God in this argument with any person and the same would hold. e.g., the study of Yozavan (Yozovanology) would have the same effect, and necessarily cut off the surplus that is your personhood, reducing you to something that is ultimately impersonal, i.e., a set of interrelated words; a system of ideas. (Further, the same would hold for geology and any other field. The rocks that it studies essentially lose their rock-hood once put into words...)

Is that fair?

If so, I would say that is generally true. No logos could fully contain or express its subject, especially if that subject is a person, which includes, as you suggest, a sovereignty that is ungovernable apart from its own will (or in more simple terms, free choice, and the limitlessness that this entails).

The problem I see though is that God does not have free choice (as if God has a certain arbitrariness at God's core...). Nor is God a person as such, insofar as a person means something along the line of a conscious individual. I would rather say that God is pure will (or better, spirit) rooted in an unwavering (/highly static!) purpose that makes God, in fact, highly scrutable and suited to words. (This is the knowability of God, and how God traverses the gap from impersonal to personal. i.e., a spirit we can all personally join in and become part of... One that can personally reach us and change our lives through those devoted to it.)

Recognizing what that unwavering purpose is gives theology real meaning, since its job is to express that will and purpose through a logos that can then become action and real impact on the world... (Focusing more on the activating versus reductive power of logos...) (Take as a prime example Solomon, when he calls for the sword to find the true mother of the child. That is real theology, not all the philosophical mumbo-jumbo most of us identify as such...)

This kind of theology is the only way to bring God to life, versus a theology that necessarily destroys its subject on arrival per the argument you laid out.

In other words, I fundamentally disagree with the parameters you set for the debate

[Yozavan]

Does theology make God an impersonal force?

In the words of Nebuchadnezzar: " none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, what doest Thou?" Daniel 4:35.

This concept is the consensus of traditional theologians and Christian philosophers, and the parameters of the debate. For brevity, I'll put it simply as God's sovereignty is beyond human understanding or manipulation

If God is a personal being, whose sovereignty is ungovernable apart from His will , completely independent from the will of others, then theology seems to define a static will, an impersonal force.

Focus of debate:

1) Theology cannot define an active will, a dynamic sovereign will, so it settles for a static one, an impersonal one.

2) Does theology, by default of limitation, reduce God to an impersonal force?

3) If theology is indeed, as a matter of necessity, reducing God to an impersonal force, then an impersonal force is its only stock and store. Quoth the raven, nevermore.

The argument I take you to be making is that theology, which is essentially the rational effort to codify and express God (theos) in words (logos), as such has as its goal the containment of what is uncontainable, i.e., putting a person in words, and in the process necessarily makes its subject impersonal or voided of personhood.

You could replace God in this argument with any person and the same would hold. e.g., the study of Yozavan (Yozovanology) would have the same effect, and necessarily cut off the surplus that is your personhood, reducing you to something that is ultimately impersonal, i.e., a set of interrelated words; a system of ideas. (Further, the same would hold for geology and any other field. The rocks that it studies essentially lose their rock-hood once put into words...)

Is that fair?

If so, I would say that is generally true. No logos could fully contain or express its subject, especially if that subject is a person, which includes, as you suggest, a sovereignty that is ungovernable apart from its own will (or in more simple terms, free choice, and the limitlessness that this entails).

The problem I see though is that God does not have free choice (as if God has a certain arbitrariness at God's core...). Nor is God a person as such, insofar as a person means something along the line of a conscious individual. I would rather say that God is pure will (or better, spirit) rooted in an unwavering (/highly static!) purpose that makes God, in fact, highly scrutable and suited to words. (This is the knowability of God, and how God traverses the gap from impersonal to personal. i.e., a spirit we can all personally join in and become part of... One that can personally reach us and change our lives through those devoted to it.)

Recognizing what that unwavering purpose is gives theology real meaning, since its job is to express that will and purpose through a logos that can then become action and real impact on the world... (Focusing more on the activating versus reductive power of logos...) (Take as a prime example Solomon, when he calls for the sword to find the true mother of the child. That is real theology, not all the philosophical mumbo-jumbo most of us identify as such...)

This kind of theology is the only way to bring God to life, versus a theology that necessarily destroys its subject on arrival per the argument you laid out.

In other words, I fundamentally disagree with the parameters you set for the debate

You seem to grasp the dilemma: " personhood is replaced by a system of ideas ", yet negate it de facto by stipulating, " God is not a conscious will, but rather pure will, and hence highly scrutable".

I believe the spirit of your argument is : Sovereignty has no autonomy, and Divine personality and will, are not independent from religious scrutiny, but on the contrary, God's personhood can be known through methodical interpretation of His modus operandi._


This pure will seems elusive! Innumerable theological sects have their own style of scrutiny. God's personality can hardly reflect them all.

[Yozavan]

Does theology make God an impersonal force?

In the words of Nebuchadnezzar: " none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, what doest Thou?" Daniel 4:35.

This concept is the consensus of traditional theologians and Christian philosophers, and the parameters of the debate. For brevity, I'll put it simply as God's sovereignty is beyond human understanding or manipulation

If God is a personal being, whose sovereignty is ungovernable apart from His will , completely independent from the will of others, then theology seems to define a static will, an impersonal force.

Focus of debate:

1) Theology cannot define an active will, a dynamic sovereign will, so it settles for a static one, an impersonal one.

2) Does theology, by default of limitation, reduce God to an impersonal force?

3) If theology is indeed, as a matter of necessity, reducing God to an impersonal force, then an impersonal force is its only stock and store. Quoth the raven, nevermore.

The argument I take you to be making is that theology, which is essentially the rational effort to codify and express God (theos) in words (logos), as such has as its goal the containment of what is uncontainable, i.e., putting a person in words, and in the process necessarily makes its subject impersonal or voided of personhood.

You could replace God in this argument with any person and the same would hold. e.g., the study of Yozavan (Yozovanology) would have the same effect, and necessarily cut off the surplus that is your personhood, reducing you to something that is ultimately impersonal, i.e., a set of interrelated words; a system of ideas. (Further, the same would hold for geology and any other field. The rocks that it studies essentially lose their rock-hood once put into words...)

Is that fair?

If so, I would say that is generally true. No logos could fully contain or express its subject, especially if that subject is a person, which includes, as you suggest, a sovereignty that is ungovernable apart from its own will (or in more simple terms, free choice, and the limitlessness that this entails).

The problem I see though is that God does not have free choice (as if God has a certain arbitrariness at God's core...). Nor is God a person as such, insofar as a person means something along the line of a conscious individual. I would rather say that God is pure will (or better, spirit) rooted in an unwavering (/highly static!) purpose that makes God, in fact, highly scrutable and suited to words. (This is the knowability of God, and how God traverses the gap from impersonal to personal. i.e., a spirit we can all personally join in and become part of... One that can personally reach us and change our lives through those devoted to it.)

Recognizing what that unwavering purpose is gives theology real meaning, since its job is to express that will and purpose through a logos that can then become action and real impact on the world... (Focusing more on the activating versus reductive power of logos...) (Take as a prime example Solomon, when he calls for the sword to find the true mother of the child. That is real theology, not all the philosophical mumbo-jumbo most of us identify as such...)

This kind of theology is the only way to bring God to life, versus a theology that necessarily destroys its subject on arrival per the argument you laid out.

In other words, I fundamentally disagree with the parameters you set for the debate

I crashed, and it posted my reply twice. Disregard this one .

[Yozavan]

[Replying to Yozavan in post #4]

If saying God has a dynamic, sovereign will is theology 101, then doesn’t that contradict focus #1, where you say theology can’t define a dynamic sovereign will and, therefore, settles for a static, impersonal one? If theology can lead to believing in a dynamic, sovereign will for God, then it doesn’t limit God or reduce God to an impersonal force.

As to ‘practical theology’, many understand that term to refer to an academic discipline that involves theologically examining the practices of Christians and connecting theological learning (including systematic theology) to the actual experience and practices of Christian communities. It is called ‘practical’ because it seeks how systematic theology can be of practical use to the average Christian.

By necessity, Christians assume God is a person, Hebrews 11:6. Any endeavor to acquaint oneself with another self, presupposes an actual person with an actual will is being sought. Monotheists, by necessity, assume the divine will is dynamic, ie., the divine will desires a change in mine, and the divine will is sovereign, and thus authoritative. The preliminary is not the sum, therefore your question is incoherent.



I avoided the four branches of theology altogether. I referenced systematic theology as the purview of theologians, and practical theology as the purview of laity. Practical theology defines the simple pursuit of laity, as well as a branch of theology that does the same thing from an academic perspective. Usage depends on context. ( Wayland Baptist University, of which I am a student, uses it both ways. Dallas Theological Seminary as well ).

[Yozavan]

...If God is a person, and the myriads of Christian denominations denounce people to hell for not meeting their conflicting theological proclamations, than God is reduced to an impersonal force, who is bound by the parameters of their specific theology.

Its still not entirely clear ... are you asking :

If God is a person, and people argue about the teaching of hell or other doctine, then their arguing must stop God being a person?

Is that about right ?

Either the Gospel works as advertised, or the cross of Christ has no effect, 1 Corinthians 1:17,18.


Either Jesus is a real person who saves those who come to Him, or Christianity is in bondage to legions of opposing theological factions, whereby the cross of Christ has no effect!!!


The theological wrangling of various factions don't, " stop God being a person, " as you put it, rather they never allowed Him the distinction in the first place. Now do you understand???

[theophile]

Does theology make God an impersonal force?

In the words of Nebuchadnezzar: " none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, what doest Thou?" Daniel 4:35.

This concept is the consensus of traditional theologians and Christian philosophers, and the parameters of the debate. For brevity, I'll put it simply as God's sovereignty is beyond human understanding or manipulation

If God is a personal being, whose sovereignty is ungovernable apart from His will , completely independent from the will of others, then theology seems to define a static will, an impersonal force.

Focus of debate:

1) Theology cannot define an active will, a dynamic sovereign will, so it settles for a static one, an impersonal one.

2) Does theology, by default of limitation, reduce God to an impersonal force?

3) If theology is indeed, as a matter of necessity, reducing God to an impersonal force, then an impersonal force is its only stock and store. Quoth the raven, nevermore.

The argument I take you to be making is that theology, which is essentially the rational effort to codify and express God (theos) in words (logos), as such has as its goal the containment of what is uncontainable, i.e., putting a person in words, and in the process necessarily makes its subject impersonal or voided of personhood.

You could replace God in this argument with any person and the same would hold. e.g., the study of Yozavan (Yozovanology) would have the same effect, and necessarily cut off the surplus that is your personhood, reducing you to something that is ultimately impersonal, i.e., a set of interrelated words; a system of ideas. (Further, the same would hold for geology and any other field. The rocks that it studies essentially lose their rock-hood once put into words...)

Is that fair?

If so, I would say that is generally true. No logos could fully contain or express its subject, especially if that subject is a person, which includes, as you suggest, a sovereignty that is ungovernable apart from its own will (or in more simple terms, free choice, and the limitlessness that this entails).

The problem I see though is that God does not have free choice (as if God has a certain arbitrariness at God's core...). Nor is God a person as such, insofar as a person means something along the line of a conscious individual. I would rather say that God is pure will (or better, spirit) rooted in an unwavering (/highly static!) purpose that makes God, in fact, highly scrutable and suited to words. (This is the knowability of God, and how God traverses the gap from impersonal to personal. i.e., a spirit we can all personally join in and become part of... One that can personally reach us and change our lives through those devoted to it.)

Recognizing what that unwavering purpose is gives theology real meaning, since its job is to express that will and purpose through a logos that can then become action and real impact on the world... (Focusing more on the activating versus reductive power of logos...) (Take as a prime example Solomon, when he calls for the sword to find the true mother of the child. That is real theology, not all the philosophical mumbo-jumbo most of us identify as such...)

This kind of theology is the only way to bring God to life, versus a theology that necessarily destroys its subject on arrival per the argument you laid out.

In other words, I fundamentally disagree with the parameters you set for the debate

You seem to grasp the dilemma: " personhood is replaced by a system of ideas ", yet negate it de facto by stipulating, " God is not a conscious will, but rather pure will, and hence highly scrutable".

Well, to be fair, you asserted the dilemma by de facto stipulating that God has personhood and that "God's sovereignty is beyond human understanding or manipulation," so I just responded in kind

And to be precise, I didn't say God is pure will (and as such arbitrary / elusive), but rather pure will grounded in unwavering purpose, i.e., spirit. This is what makes God's will knowable and highly translatable to words (the Word / Logos), and for us to say and act with relative confidence "Thy will be done," and to bring theology to life.

I believe the spirit of your argument is : Sovereignty has no autonomy, and Divine personality and will, are not independent from religious scrutiny, but on the contrary, God's personhood can be known through methodical interpretation of His modus operandi.

Yes, this purpose / will can be known through "methodical interpretation of His modus operandi" in the bible. It takes essential form in Genesis 1 and is consistently portrayed throughout.

I generally agree with your broader summary of my argument as well, but depends what you mean by things like "sovereignty has no autonomy". My position is that God is not an arbitrary (/autonomous) will but rather has unwavering (/static) purpose at God's core. As for God's sovereignty, I would say that this is by no means guaranteed, as most theologies assume, but is a personal choice. (Whether God rules our hearts and minds - and the world around us - requires our commitment. Otherwise God remains what God was in the beginning - just a wispy spirit, i.e., a purpose-driven will without any real power or manifestation.)

I also question the continued application of personhood to God, but this may just be semantics. (The idea of a conscious being out there named God is highly suspect.)

This pure will seems elusive! Innumerable theological sects have their own style of scrutiny. God's personality can hardly reflect them all.

Some of these theological sects may simply be wrong. Most of them get too absorbed and stuck in traditional theology and the system of ideas they've devised and lose sight of the more important common ground they all share. (Debating the nature of God or God's foreknowledge or whatever else and losing the forest for the trees.)

They may portray it differently, but few, I think, would ultimately argue with the unwavering purpose that God represents, call it love, love of neighbor, affirmation of life, or whatever else.

The broader point I tried to make before is that the theology you are critiquing (that of the systematizers) is misguided or at least subordinate. Real or primary theology should be speaking and doing the Word of God. (And I say this as one who loves to build systems and engage in such theoretical exercises...)

[JehovahsWitness]

Either the Gospel works as advertised, or the cross of Christ has no effect...

Okay, I think I understand: Is your point that if people argue about doctrine, Christianit is null and void?