Bridging the gap between the philosophical God and the biblical God

[RealisticCatholic]

I do not think the God of the Bible contradicts what we know from reason, like such arguments that give us a “First Cause” that must be absolutely simple and unchangeable and therefore without emotion, decision-making, etc.

But when it comes to explaining to someone else why these two are not contradictory, I wasn’t sure how to go about it. To myself, I understand the Bible to be using anthropomorphic language, almost in every case, because all human language cannot totally grasp God, in the first place.

But do you have any ideas on how to get across this to someone who is so used to perceiving the God of the Bible at face value: As someone who has emotions, changes his mind, who reacts to what he observes, etc?

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Bit of background: I was recently talking with a bunch of agnostic friends at once about the existence of God, and almost every other minute, their objection was “Yeah but this is very different from the Bible!”

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

Explain it in the same way as you would explain why God didn’t immediately reveal the Trinity. Imagine trying to understand that God is three persons in one divine being. In the same way, ancient people had a limited understanding outside of their own experiences.

 

[AlNg]

I do not think the God of the Bible contradicts what we know from reason

It is not only the Bible that presents a problem to some of the amateur philosophers I have talked to. They also have concerns about the Nicene Creed which says that He came down from heaven …and became Man.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Well technically, the creed doesn’t say God became man. We might say this short-hand. But it is a contradiction for the infinite, unrestricted divine nature to become finite and restricted.

But that’s not what the Creed or Christianity says. We say the Second person of the Trinity, God the Son, became man: That human nature was uplifted and united to the Second person.

 

[niceatheist]

There have been no lack of “professional” philosophers over the years who fundamentally disagreed with the notion of the Judeao-Christian God. The whole Deist movement grew out of the rejection of some Enlightenment thinkers of a personal god as described in the Bible. I’d hardly call Voltaire an “amateur” philosopher.

 

[AlbMagno]

He was talking about the amateur philosophers whom he talked with

 

[AlNg]

Well technically, the creed doesn’t say God became man.

God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

 

[Cruciferi]

True God True Man

 

[RealisticCatholic]

This entire section is talking about “The Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God.”

Indeed, God the Son became man. But not in the sense that the divine nature became man. That’s a contradiction.

 

[AlNg]

That’s a contradiction.

Another question was brought up as to whether or not God would come down from heaven. OK, if you are in Europe. But suppose you are in Argentina where coming down to Argentina would be coming from a different direction by 180 degrees. Also, God is immovable, so it seems it would be difficult for Him to come down from anyplace.

God the Son became man

So it is true then, that God from God, True God from True God, came down from heaven and became man?
The OP mentioned the Biblical God, but in the spirit of what the OP has suggested, could there be a gap between how some amateur philosophers view God and what the Creed says?

 

[fisherman_carl]

I wasn’t sure how to go about it. To myself, I understand the Bible to be using anthropomorphic language, almost in every case, because all human language cannot totally grasp God, in the first place.

You answered your own question.

Also, God reveals himself in stages through salvation history. The fullness of Revelation is not found until Jesus Christ.

And a lot of how God revealed himself was colored through the lens of the people’s disobedience and idolatry. The book of Deuteronomy would not exist for instance if they hadn’t committed idolatry on the plains of Moab according to biblical scholar Brant Pitre. Also, things like the kosher laws may not have happened either if the Israelites were not idolatrous worshipping Egyptian gods like pig gods. Originally, God said to Noah they could eat any creature that moved. Jesus restores this Original understanding by declaring all foods clean. Also, Moses permitted divorce, while Jesus restored things to God’s Original design of marriage until death. And, originally the Israelites were not to put the Cannanites to the ban, but because Israel was proven to be idolatrous they were told to put them to the ban because Israel could not be trusted to stay faithful. Originally Israel was to convert the Cannanites. But they proved unfaithful. So it might seem that God was harsh, but it was really because of the state Israel was in. God had to protect them from the influence of the Cannanites who were child sacrificers.