Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum » Classical theism and revelation

884heid · 3/12/2016 2:47 pm

I am almost certain that this question has been asked before but i guess that it won't hurt to ask it again. Have any of you guys encountered the problem of believing in revelation following the acceptance of divine simplicity? I am a classical theist but not exactly an adherent of any specific religion. On a good day, i am sort of a perennialist when it comes to specific revelation, although i certainly believe that there is a prima facie reason to be more specific. My problem is that reason doesn't entail a specific God, other than the equivocation of a prime mover (or a necessary existent) in regards to divine simplicity. Each religion has a good case for being right. Historically, Christianity and Judaism both have good reasons for adhering to their specific views of the Messiah and divinity, although Islam definitely doesn't really lag behind when we get into the nitty gritty of its historical case (It is also immensely impressive how they kept their book almost unchanged in comparison to the other Abrahamic religions). Philosophically speaking, Islam and Judaism are more consistent in their affirmations of divine simplicity (echadh and tawhid). I am not going to argue that the trinity doctrine is contradictory, Aquinas' attempts to salvage the issue by alluding to supposita to explain how statements such as 'wisdom to wisdom' are less precise than 'essence to essence' in respect to man's inability to comprehend the distinction between the subsistent relations makes it a decent case to believe that the trinity is plausible prima facie. It's just that divine simplicity absolutely does not require for God to be a trinity, and the other two religions make the notion more consistent in that regard. There are obviously more points that i can discuss but what i am trying to essentially say is that they all good reasons to be true (and false since i sometimes get the feeling that they all get the divine simplicity wrong when jutaxposed with their texts). Sorry for having my thoughts all over the place.

Jason · 3/14/2016 7:05 pm

884heid wrote:
Have any of you guys encountered the problem of believing in revelation following the acceptance of divine simplicity?

Maybe you have seen this here but the link to a similar question is here
http://classicaltheism.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=96

884heid wrote:
(It is also immensely impressive how they kept their book almost unchanged in comparison to the other Abrahamic religions)

The Quran itself word for word (if I am not mistaken) is meant to be the one miracle attributed to Muhammad, hence it is in their best interest to preserve it; also Islam came 500 years later where I am sure the technology to preserve the text was higher than the 1st century.

One of the things that I find Christianity to be far apart from Judaism and Islam (or even any other religion) is the very fact that it targets the “heart” of the sin problem. You cannot worship the true living God with an evil and corrupt heart, since He will be able to see right through it (i.e. He knows all our thoughts). The evil in our hearts is like cancer and the only cure available is through the redemptive power of Jesus Christ. If you do not target the problem then all you do is put in temporary fixes like I think the “works” religions do i.e. you do so and so and you earn so and so.

A complete transformation of the heart is also beyond our abilities (considering the fact that there has been so much evil and heart ache present since the beginning) but not beyond God’s abilities. This would mean the fix/cure for the heart would come from Him (i.e. His Grace) and not by something that we could do. Since the classic theistic God lacks nothing, anything that we could do (“works”) would not be of any value to us unless we are transformed inside out, and only God is big enough to do that. When His Grace falls on us through Jesus Christ then and only then will we worship the true living God with a grateful and a pure heart (works would automatically follow from it).

DanielCC · 3/14/2016 8:09 pm

884heid wrote:
I am almost certain that this question has been asked before but i guess that it won't hurt to ask it again. Have any of you guys encountered the problem of believing in revelation following the acceptance of divine simplicity?

For what it is worth increased appreciation for both the metaphysical and mystical importance of Divine Simplicity was one of the things which prevented me embracing Eastern Orthodoxy years ago. Surely the ontological purity of the Godhead, the understanding of God as 'pure being' which in turn helps explain the theomorphic nature of all created being, is a tenant of more 'religious' or mystical relevance than the Trinity?

884heid wrote:
I am a classical theist but not exactly an adherent of any specific religion. On a good day, i am sort of a perennialist when it comes to specific revelation, although i certainly believe that there is a prima facie reason to be more specific.

I occupy a similar position albeit I'd be more inclined to reject the last point (why should there be an arbitrary non-rational limitation on access to the Godhead?). If you feel inclined I'd be most interested in hearing why you feel there is a need to be more specific?

DanielCC · 3/14/2016 8:25 pm

Jason wrote:
[
One of the things that I find Christianity to be far apart from Judaism and Islam (or even any other religion) is the very fact that it targets the “heart” of the sin problem. You cannot worship the true living God with an evil and corrupt heart, since He will be able to see right through it (i.e. He knows all our thoughts). The evil in our hearts is like cancer and the only cure available is through the redemptive power of Jesus Christ. If you do not target the problem then all you do is put in temporary fixes like I think the “works” religions do i.e. you do so and so and you earn so and so.

A complete transformation of the heart is also beyond our abilities (considering the fact that there has been so much evil and heart ache present since the beginning) but not beyond God’s abilities. This would mean the fix/cure for the heart would come from Him (i.e. His Grace) and not by something that we could do. Since the classic theistic God lacks nothing, anything that we could do (“works”) would not be of any value to us unless we are transformed inside out, and only God is big enough to do that. When His Grace falls on us through Jesus Christ then and only then will we worship the true living God with a grateful and a pure heart (works would automatically follow from it).

Could you elaborate on what you mean with the first sentence i.e. why do you think Christianity targets the sin problem? (Apologies if this sounds interrogatory; I'm genuinely interested as my thoughts tend to point in the opposite direction here). I would be inclined to criticise the Christian approach which brings in Grace in that it puts personal realisation out of our hands, that is, there is nothing in our nature which amounts to the capacity to experience God directly. To achieve realisation or purification through another always struck my as dangerously close to missing the point - that is that the purification has to come from within rather than from without.

[I'm very sympathetic to the 'works' approach to the point of semi-endorsing the Kantian/Fitchean idea that the reason the world exists is so that we can transform ourselves: it is the ground of our freedom and realisation]

884heid · 3/15/2016 6:05 am

DanielCC wrote:
I occupy a similar position albeit I'd be more inclined to reject the last point (why should there be an arbitrary non-rational limitation on access to the Godhead?). If you feel inclined I'd be most interested in hearing why you feel there is a need to be more specific?

Well, i guess that it's my non-philosophical predilection for equating some sort of revelation with truth, and the emotional longing for some sort of judgement for people that have committed gratuitous evil (i am not pushing the ideal of eternal hell, it is far too repugnant and un-redemptive) Though, this conflicts with the strongest reason that i have for sticking with the divine simplicity strictly elucidated by Aristotle, and not having conformed to any religion yet. I sympathize with the Aristotelian conception of God because he an immaterial being that is unknowable to us, maintaining the true distinction between earthly beings and him. But i don't know if that provides emotional catharsis for me when the idea is juxtaposed with the mystical aspects of divine simplicity. Specifically not knowing what those mystical experiences really tell us. And i also don't know if the impersonal prime mover of Aristotle accounts human beings for their actions, good or bad.

Last edited by 884heid (3/15/2016 6:07 am)

884heid · 3/15/2016 7:41 am

Jason wrote:
One of the things that I find Christianity to be far apart from Judaism and Islam (or even any other religion) is the very fact that it targets the “heart” of the sin problem. You cannot worship the true living God with an evil and corrupt heart, since He will be able to see right through it (i.e. He knows all our thoughts). The evil in our hearts is like cancer and the only cure available is through the redemptive power of Jesus Christ. If you do not target the problem then all you do is put in temporary fixes like I think the “works” religions do i.e. you do so and so and you earn so and so.

A complete transformation of the heart is also beyond our abilities (considering the fact that there has been so much evil and heart ache present since the beginning) but not beyond God’s abilities. This would mean the fix/cure for the heart would come from Him (i.e. His Grace) and not by something that we could do. Since the classic theistic God lacks nothing, anything that we could do (“works”) would not be of any value to us unless we are transformed inside out, and only God is big enough to do that. When His Grace falls on us through Jesus Christ then and only then will we worship the true living God with a grateful and a pure heart (works would automatically follow from it).

The theological aspects of Christianity are highly fascinating, but i don't know if i am content with the anthropomorphic features of God that the texts exhibit, and the theodicies provided for God not preventing evil when juxtaposed with the Biblical texts. The prime mover of Aristotle also doesn't demand the highly consequential doctrine of original sin for us to understand why we commit evil. And i also don't follow the thought of our transformation and evolution as beings to solely depend on the Incarnated Son of God and the triune nature of him, especially when it puts possible constraints on the divine simplicity since it still provides a hint of spatial properties assigned to him.

Jason · 3/15/2016 12:23 pm

DanielCC wrote:
(Apologies if this sounds interrogatory; I'm genuinely interested as my thoughts tend to point in the opposite direction here).

No need to apologize, these are fair questions and I have personally wrestled with them too. I also do not want to sound self-righteous or anything of that kind (far from it), these are humble responses to your questions.

DanielCC wrote:
I would be inclined to criticise the Christian approach which brings in Grace in that it puts personal realisation out of our hands, that is, there is nothing in our nature which amounts to the capacity to experience God directly. To achieve realisation or purification through another always struck my as dangerously close to missing the point - that is that the purification has to come from within rather than from without. I'm very sympathetic to the 'works' approach to the point of semi-endorsing the Kantian/Fitchean idea that the reason the world exists is so that we can transform ourselves: it is the ground of our freedom and realisation

The thing with the Christian faith is that it is not about knowing God but actually have a relationship with Him (Father and child relationship). As I am sure you will agree both parties involved in a relationship need to freely choose and work towards that relationship to be a success. Since God is the source of Holiness and Purity and the final cause of our realization then He needs to make the move along with us making the move towards Him. That move, that God made, is as Christians believe is through Jesus Christ. I also totally agree that purification needs to come from within and we need to make the move to allow God to purify our hearts and that is through Jesus Christ. He will not overcome our free will to choose otherwise as that will negate His true love for us.

DanielCC wrote:
Could you elaborate on what you mean with the first sentence i.e. why do you think Christianity targets the sin problem?

Actually I think Christianity targets the heart of the sin problem in the sense that no matter how much we strive to follow the law we will always fall short of God’s perfect standard, so in a sense we need His help to overcome that. No amount of following rules or laws or works would help us. They (rules, laws) are there as a guide for our works but they themselves will not help us become who we truly are just by following them, something more is needed. In a way I agree with the sense that the world exists is to transform ourselves but the question is can we truly do that? that is where Christianity says that we need the redemptive power of Jesus Christ but we need to freely accept it and that is the first step towards the end goal of transforming ourselves inside out. Hope this helps, I would be more than happy to answer questions or elaborate more if needed.

@884heid I will reply back to you as soon as I can, just have a very busy schedule today, hope you understand

Last edited by Jason (3/16/2016 3:23 pm)

Jason · 3/16/2016 3:23 pm

884heid wrote:
The theological aspects of Christianity are highly fascinating, but i don't know if i am content with the anthropomorphic features of God that the texts exhibit,

One of the things that I find fascinating about Christianity is the anthropomorphic features of God, if we say that God is the prime mover or the uncaused cause that would be true and helps us understand God but it does not help in building a relationship with God. In order to build a relationship with someone we need something that is common in them and us, it is harder to start a relationship with someone when we do not have anything in common at all. This anthropomorphic feature helps me, at least, in visualization and understanding of my relationship with Him especially in the context of a father and child relationship. It is interesting that God specifically chose that sort of relationship where, generally speaking, we understand the dynamics in the relationship (tough love being part of it). I know when I am correcting my children (I have two young kids) that I am doing it out of love for them & betterment for their future even though in my own heart at that moment I feel like to hug them. I think this relationship gives a very powerful understanding of the dynamic relationship we have with Him. We being fallible human beings can guide our children to the right path (whether we are successful or not) then how much more truer would that be for God the Father.

884heid wrote:
and the theodicies provided for God not preventing evil when juxtaposed with the Biblical texts.

You might want to specify though which Biblical text you are talking about though and maybe we can focus on it.

884heid wrote:
The prime mover of Aristotle also doesn't demand the highly consequential doctrine of original sin for us to understand why we commit evil.

I agree original sin is not important to why we commit sin/evil; on the other hand it very much supports it in my opinion and gives us context of how it all began.

884heid wrote:
And i also don't follow the thought of our transformation and evolution as beings to solely depend on the Incarnated Son of God and the triune nature of him, especially when it puts possible constraints on the divine simplicity since it still provides a hint of spatial properties assigned to him.

The sole dependence on the Saviour is something that honestly I have struggled with myself (considering the other world religions out there and diverse worldviews) and all I can do is give some suggestions to begin to look at it and make that journey to understand it.

One way I see it is, that truth by itself is exclusive i.e. if we make a truth statement than by definition we are excluding everything that is contrary to it (whether we like it or not is besides the point). Now whether the truth claim is true or not is a different question but the exclusive nature still exists. This means that if I say that Jesus is the source of my salvation then I am excluding all other truth claims. This would be true for every religion and not just Christainity. You could still say that why would God create just one way but I would say that if you begin to look at the crucifixion closely you know that God Himself paid a BIG price for our salvation. The cross of Jesus Christ is the only place I know in history where God’s Perfect Justice, Loving Nature and Holiness all converged together.

The Trinity is as the Church has said a mystery and for good reason, but if it were untrue then it puts “higher” constraints on His Loving Nature when we see it in the context of the crucifixion. The spatial properties, in the person of Jesus Christ actually makes us see that He is not far from my own sufferings since He has been through them too. The divine simplicity is in relation to “parts” and persons (as used in the Trinity) are not “parts”. For love to exist we need two persons but the Purity of God’s Love for His Son is so real that that Love itself is a Person, the Holy Spirit. We may find it hard to understand and that is why it is a mystery but we can grasp it little by little. Maybe some day I hope to understand it fully (in this or the next life).

Hopefully this helps you in your journey and if you have any questions let me know I will try my best to help out time permitting.

Last edited by Jason (3/16/2016 3:27 pm)

884heid · 3/17/2016 8:17 am

Jason wrote:
The sole dependence on the Saviour is something that honestly I have struggled with myself (considering the other world religions out there and diverse worldviews) and all I can do is give some suggestions to begin to look at it and make that journey to understand it.

One way I see it is, that truth by itself is exclusive i.e. if we make a truth statement than by definition we are excluding everything that is contrary to it (whether we like it or not is besides the point). Now whether the truth claim is true or not is a different question but the exclusive nature still exists. This means that if I say that Jesus is the source of my salvation then I am excluding all other truth claims. This would be true for every religion and not just Christainity. You could still say that why would God create just one way but I would say that if you begin to look at the crucifixion closely you know that God Himself paid a BIG price for our salvation. The cross of Jesus Christ is the only place I know in history where God’s Perfect Justice, Loving Nature and Holiness all converged together.

The Trinity is as the Church has said a mystery and for good reason, but if it were untrue then it puts “higher” constraints on His Loving Nature when we see it in the context of the crucifixion. The spatial properties, in the person of Jesus Christ actually makes us see that He is not far from my own sufferings since He has been through them too. The divine simplicity is in relation to “parts” and persons (as used in the Trinity) are not “parts”. For love to exist we need two persons but the Purity of God’s Love for His Son is so real that that Love itself is a Person, the Holy Spirit. We may find it hard to understand and that is why it is a mystery but we can grasp it little by little. Maybe some day I hope to understand it fully (in this or the next life).

Hopefully this helps you in your journey and if you have any questions let me know I will try my best to help out time permitting.

This is a very interesting and thoughtful explanation for the exclusivist nature of religion. I do have a few worries that have obviously been further substantiated elsewhere. For example, regarding religious experience, i've had acquaintances that have experienced religious experiences so powerful that they have converted (meeting Prophet Muhammad, Krishna ordering to recite a Vedic text to unlock the truth and so on). We can obviously deduce that certain religious experiences might be faulty, but where does that really lead us? I can accept that one religion has the real truth like Jesus being incarnated as an example, but wouldn't it take make more sense to adopt a pereniallist account regarding other religions when juxtaposed with religious experiences? I mean, soteriology is so crucial in determining our afterlife experiences that it almost seems unfair when taken into account of how revelation, past the rational arguments for a God, doesn't really ground itself on anything outside its own texts. I find Aquinas and Augustine's take on hermeunetics highly fascinating but i also find Mulla Sadra's approach to the Quran and Maimonides to the Torah just as moving. And in response to the sin problem, Sufism also has interesting answers to it. I know it seems like trivializing the issue here, but i am still not entirely convinced that 'one' religion can truly capture the mystery of divine simplicity. But your answer led me to reevaluating my thought and i will make sure to start with Chrsitianity's approach to the world when i start my journey.

DanielCC · 3/18/2016 5:24 am

884heid wrote:
Well, i guess that it's my non-philosophical predilection for equating some sort of revelation with truth, and the emotional longing for some sort of judgement for people that have committed gratuitous evil (i am not pushing the ideal of eternal hell, it is far too repugnant and un-redemptive)

Do this require a specific revelation to ascertain though? After all it occupies a central place in Platonic philosophy as well as others - I'd be more inclined to accept it on the principle of the convertibility of the Transcendentals (Being, Goodness, Truth) e.g. that the more 'good' a being is the more true it is to itself and the closer to absolute being. The fact that most religions have held a doctrine of purification for misdeeds just provides further practical support.

884heid wrote:
I sympathize with the Aristotelian conception of God because he an immaterial being that is unknowable to us, maintaining the true distinction between earthly beings and him. But i don't know if that provides emotional catharsis for me when the idea is juxtaposed with the mystical aspects of divine simplicity. Specifically not knowing what those mystical experiences really tell us.

Do you mean the concept of God as unknowable to us due to His being immaterial or due to His being simple (DS)? On the face of it neither claim is true (we know a lot of necessary truths about God)

I notice you often refer to God with the specifically Aristotelian concept in mind. Whilst I wouldn't deny the validity of many 'Aristotelian' proofs (of course these were all further sharpened and in many cases developed after Aristotle) of Natural Theology there are still others available on the Classical account which, I submit, give us more of a metaphysical insight into what the Divine Nature entails. I refer here particularly to the PSR Cosmological Argument, the Modal Ontological Argument (these first two especially) as well as the Augustinian/Leibnizian Proof from Eternal Truths and some form of Moral Argument.

Jason wrote:
No need to apologize, these are fair questions and I have personally wrestled with them too. I also do not want to sound self-righteous or anything of that kind (far from it), these are humble responses to your questions.

Thanks! There much appreciated.

Jason wrote:
The thing with the Christian faith is that it is not about knowing God but actually have a relationship with Him (Father and child relationship).

Okay, I was using the term 'know' there in fairly robust sense as in 'experience' a la the Beatific Vision/Theosis/the Vision of the One.

I would query the relationship idea in as much I think it's wrong to think of God as a person in that sense, so He cannot be said to act as an agent in a personal relationship. It is better (though still only an analogy) to think of God as a Platonic Form we all participate in whether knowingly or unknowingly. Unlike other beings though we as persons do not have a fixed ontological position - we are capable participating in the Divine Nature to an ever greater extent through our actions or of turning away from God with the accompanied diminished of our being (even then such a state can never be total).

Jason wrote:
Actually I think Christianity targets the heart of the sin problem in the sense that no matter how much we strive to follow the law we will always fall short of God’s perfect standard, so in a sense we need His help to overcome that. No amount of following rules or laws or works would help us.

Can anything accord with God's perfection though or is that a false requirement (after all, all beings strive to be as like God as possible but it doesn't mean any one of them is capable of doing so completely)? Maybe our becoming like God has no upper limmit so to speak.

Jason wrote:
[. In a way I agree with the sense that the world exists is to transform ourselves but the question is can we truly do that?

See I'd take the affirmative for that question as evident through the very fact that we are aware of the nature of God as Ground of Being and our ontological relation to such - in fact these show we are already in the process of doing so! True dialectical consciousness of it the Divine Nature is inferior to direct intuitive experiential consciousness, but still the very growth of this consciousness is part of this journey (also: I wonder is to too simplistic to say that if we experience the Divine Presence it has to be in a bolt from the blue kind of way? Surely there are less extreme variations such as experience of Divine Immanence in the world).

Last edited by DanielCC (3/18/2016 7:07 am)