Vos Group #69 - Emotions and Affections
We turn to pages 255-256 of Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments to consider the ways in which the Old Testament prophets use anthropomorphism to describe God. The “emotional” or “affectional” dispositions of Jehovah’s nature is the next set of attributes. He says, as a guiding principle, “we are here in a sphere full of anthropomorphism” and says that “an anthropomorphism” is never without an “inner core of important truth” that “must be translated into more theological language” where we can “enrich our knowledge of God” (255).
Vos makes an absolutely critical observation here that needs sustained attention to the theological issues he raises here. They are as important in our day as in Vos’ if not more so. Anthropomorphic language ascribes the qualities of the creature to God’s acts in time. But such language is never intended by Reformed theologians to be taken in a univocal way, as though God literally possesses creaturely qualities.
God’s acts in time do not require him to be temporal. God acts in the contingent historical order of creation do not require him to be contingent and historical. God’s acts in relation to mutable and passible creatures do not require that he be mutable and passible like the creature. There is no point of univocity between the Creator and the creature-no mutual sharing in mutability and temporality.
00:00:00 Introduction
00:08:50 Vos and Contemporary Issues in the Doctrine of God
00:16:51 Theological Methodology
00:27:17 The Importance of Classical Theism for Religion
00:32:06 Modern Conceptions of Immutability
00:35:31 Reciprocity between God and Man
00:42:06 Westminster, Evangelical and Presbyterian History
00:57:07 Vos and Unqualified Immutability
01:03:20 Anthropomorphic Language Prohibits a Univocal Understanding
01:09:19 Conclusion
This is Christ the Center episode 698 (www.reformedfo...)
Пікірлер: 6
The point at the end about us being pilgrims and not building our theological houses in this world is so spot on. That was a great way of summing up of this conversation and what is going on broader evangelicalism today. I came out of the open theist movement and it completely stunted my spiritual growth. For 20 years I went nowhere. If you need an example of this change, look no further than Tony Jones and the emergent church. Tony Jones has completely re-defined the atonement. And it’s not coincidental that he came out of Fuller seminary.
Is there a vos group #1?
Is his book open source?
I'm new to these immutable, impassable aspects of God. You used Mal 3:6 as a scriptural example. As I move from vs 6 to 7 I find in 7, "Return to me, and I will return to you, says the Lord of Host's." an apparent change. In the words of God returning isn't there an implication of a change of God dependent upon man's action? Is it that what appears to be a change in God, in reality, is a continuation from one attitude of God prior to regeneration and after, to another apparent attitude but in reality are the same moving out of anthropopathic language? Is it just that we only have anthropopathic language available to us, or what? Please help me get my Born Again yet Swedish blockhead brain around all of this.
@kenmccaulley2641
Жыл бұрын
The change there is in our relationship to God's unchanging disposition toward sin. God doesn't change; repentance (which He grants as a gift) changes our relationship toward God.
Ironically, Dr. Frame calls what he himself is seemingly guilty of, doctrinal drift. Camden is getting at this feature. Invariably, tamping down is akin to giving in.