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]

To avoid littering my OP, I'll elaborate a little more here.

Gravity is an impersonal force that lacks the faculty to care about the difference between a loose acorn and a careless toddler on a balcony.

Theology is an impersonal force that lacks the faculty to care about the recipients of its theological variables .

Theology is simply theological proclamations, whether meticulously arrived at or haphazardly arrived at, which reduce God to an impersonal force. God simply becomes a variable in a theological equation.

This is a major problem for Christianity, and certainly explains all the division, apathy and indifference in it!
Not to mention the main reason why people dismiss it altogether.
If God is real, a simple introduction would suffice. If Christianity works as advertised the recipient will be embraced by God's love, their sinful tendencies will be crucified, and the Holy Spirit will guide them. If it works as advertised

[The Tanager]

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.

How do you define 'theology'? For instance, why isn't saying that God has an active, dynamic, sovereign will not doing 'theology'?

[Yozavan]

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.

How do you define 'theology'? For instance, why isn't saying that God has an active, dynamic, sovereign will not doing 'theology'?

Theology is simply the study of God.

Yep, saying " God has a dynamic, sovereign will " is theology 101, held by every denomination.

What is your question?

If your question is why use theology to talk about the Christian God? Well, I could hardly talk to Christians without it, though certainly not the more vigorous systematic theology of which Christians know precious little of.

I'm only using the most rudimentary of practical theology's terms: Sovereignty, will.

Practical theology is the general theology of lay people. Its called practical theology because simple Bible readings will practically lead to it.
Systematic theology is the business of theologians, where vigorous readings of a particular system are studied. This type of theology has no practical use to the average Christian, though their various denominations are divided tooth and nail over systematic theological differences!

Non-Christians' would either be perplexed or bored altogether with this stuff . I'm targeting the Christians. Its a peculiar hobby

[bjs1]

Does theology make God an impersonal force?

Doesn't it require theology to say that God is not an impersonal force?

[Yozavan]

Does theology make God an impersonal force?

Doesn't it require theology to say that God is not an impersonal force?

I suggest you read my reply to Tanager in post 4. Perhaps you already did, but i edited it to further explain this stuff to non-Christians. Whom I didn't expect, but welcome nonetheless

[Yozavan]

After reading the moderators various responses to other people on various posts, I've noticed a peculiar trend. So I'll preemptively settle it here, and simply refer them back to this post repeatedly and presumably indefinitely.

I'm using theology to talk to Christians about theology. If I used, lets say, the tenets of Confucianism to discuss Christian theology, it would be awkward, detrimental, unproductive, no bueno; ergo I use theology to talk to Christians about theology.

[JehovahsWitness]

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

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

To learn more please go to other posts related to ....

GOD, THE DIVINE NAME and ...THE DIVINE PERSONALITY

[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

What is " an appezling personality? How does this negate the trappings of theological speculations?

Unless, you're suggesting " loving father " negates them? The JW'S have an enormous amount of theological assertions that dismuss much of Christendom as heretics. " Loving father " means what to them?

[JehovahsWitness]

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?