The quote itself says nothing about the Bible being the sole keeper of knowledge concerning salvation. Del is trying a little too hard to hop on a hobby horse.Thunktank wrote:Well, what do you guys (coco and Das) think of that quote?dasmokeryaget wrote:Please.coco wrote:Feel free to step in, Wos.Del wrote:I think this writer imagines that the Bible is a completeness of everything that God wants us to know. As much as God wants us to understand anything, it is found in the Bible.coco wrote:What do you think of this:
Between what the words of the Bible say, and what abides in the infinite mind of the Creator, there exists an ISOMORPHISM. This is a congruity of form such that what is knowable to us is MAPPABLE to the information that exists in perfection in the mind of God, where there is infinitely more to know and each idea is infinitely more complex than what the Creator has made known to us. As God knows all things, there are no categories, systems of truth, or separable ideas. All things merge into one complete yet personal awareness. Since we finite beings can only know truth in parts, and must relate those parts with one another merging them into manageable ideas, God has made himself known in such a manner to us.
I don't know why he thinks this, since Jesus made no such claim about the Bible, and the Bible makes such a claim about itself.
As to the bolded part: B-(as in B) and S-(as in S). God made the categories of things. Truth and false, beasts and rational creatures, material and spiritual. It is strained metaphysical gymnastics to imagine that the reality which God made for our understanding is not the reality which God made.
God made eggs with a shell, a white, and a yolk. And God can tell these apart just as well as we can. There is no need to scramble an egg in order to see the egg as God sees it. And there is no need to scramble one's brain to see the egg as God sees it!
I have mixed thoughts on it. I certainly agree with Del in that the Bible cannot and is not intended to be the sole keeper of knowledge concerning the salvation of mankind. In fact, I believe that creation to include human philosophy can help us know the Word much like the written word can. Of course the Word itself who is Truth does require revelation and the Bible reveals a great deal of that. In fact, the Bible is the Chief Tradition that shares with us that revelation of the Word. In the hierarchy of all systems and categories, the Bible ranks them all. Of course, we must not place the Bible ahead of the Holy Trinity itself our our special relationship with it.
On the other hand, I completely agree with the idea, that in fact, God does not think in categories or systems of truth. That it is us men that are limited to such means and that we do in fact require revelation to know that which God means for us to know about Him and our salvation. So we need the Bible, we need systems of theology and philosophy, we need Holy Traditions, we need God's creation to help us know that we have a creator. And chiefly, we need the revelation of the Word who became flesh for us. God is so awesome, in many ways beyond our ability to understand. Thank God that He gave us His Word, his prophets, His Traditions and the Bible! It helps us a great deal to know what we need to know.
I found the quote while I was looking for something else, and while I had CPS open, and so I decided to bug Morley with it. It was a spur of the moment thing.
The quote is attempting to explain the relationship between our words and mental categories and God's words and mental categories. Most of us here would readily say that the Bible contains God's revelation. Yet, explaining the relationship between his thoughts and the human language used in Scripture is rather difficult, not only for us, but also for theologians throughout the ages. (Simultaneously, the guy who wrote this is taking a position on the philosophical problem of the one and the many as well as a position on God's simplicity, which I will not attempt to discuss here.)
First, the author seems to want to affirm that God's thoughts are beyond our thoughts. What God knows we cannot know completely as God knows it.
Second, the author wants to avoid the notion that there is no real relationship between human language and God's thoughts. If this were the case, the Bible would not really be revelation in the way we normally think of revelation, for then be unable to truly learn about God from the Bible.For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)
So far, I am with him. I would like to affirm that we cannot ultimately know God's thoughts with the completeness in which he knows them. Like the author, I would also like to affirm that what we know about him, we know truly. It is worth noting that many in Christian history would simply say that we can know nothing of God's thoughts as he knows them, and that's just the way it is. Both the Medieval Nominalists and today's Postmodern liberals would take this stance, each in their own way.
Third, the author wants to say that the relationship between our words/categories of thought and God's words/categories of thought can be compared to a mathematical isomorphic map. This is the point where I start to feel a lot less comfortable, having gone no farther than differential equations in college. I will offer following and then let Rusty and G-A correct me and add to what I have said as necessary:
The thoughts that we express in words may be mapped on a one-to-one basis with the structures of God's thoughts, though God's thoughts are infinite and indivisible.
link to first-order model theory
If all of this fails to bug Morley, I shall try adding salt to my celery.