If you are interested, I did a series on analogy and univocity a few years back:
http://percaritatem.com/2008/01/13/part-ii-denys-turner-on-scotus-univocity-and-inference/ (Part II deals with Thomas’ doctrine of analogy).

As to protecting God’s immutability (with regard to his essence), I think that’s pretty important, as we don’t want a God that is arbitrary, saying one thing today and then contradicting himself tomorrow (using the terms “today” and “tomorrow” as temporal markers for us, since God knows everyone in one act). However, God’s immutability doesn’t preclude God revealing himself progressively in history, and as we know history is “messy.”

Best wishes,
Cynthia

The concept ‘unchanging’ is an important one insofar as it distinguishes and differentiates God from us (Creator from creature), but (as you indicate in your response to Wayne) what are we capable of meaning by it? It seems that the immutability of God is itself an instance of negative theology. When we say immutable, unchanging, we are simply saying not mutable, not changing, not like our cars that rust or our wine that sours or fickle friends or erratic thunderstorms. But even on my most imaginative days I don’t know what we are affirming apart from the creedal events, which are events in time and space. I think what is at stake in discussions of immutability is God’s Godness, whatever we might mean by that. I think ‘unchanging’ has become synonymous with ‘Godness’, but as I queried earlier, why? And why in relation to the suffering of Christ on the cross? Given that the Incarnate one is the fullest revelation of God to us, why would ‘unchanging’ be our gold standard for ‘Godness’? I suppose that was all I meant earlier by my possibly insulting reference to red herring or non sequitur arguments.

My apologies for another long, tangential comment to this post. Again, thanks for indulging.

I need to think more about it as well! So perhaps it is a good thing that the comments moved the discussion in this direction.

With all good wishes,
Cynthia

I don’t think so. As I said, I’m open to an analogical understanding of God’s suffering–something like Eric’s description of “impassible suffering” (the phrase itself seems to suggest an analogical idea, as we humans only have experience with suffering that involves change, mutability).

Perhaps I’m missing your point. : )

I’m actually surprised that the discussion has become focused on this one issue. Oh well, that’s how dialogue “works”.

Best wishes,
Cynthia

I’m glad you joined us. I don’t know about the other Jewish versions–perhaps other versions did claim that Isaac was killed. Do you see Silentio (or SK) as having has any other version that the Genesis account in mind in F&T? Of course there are improvisational meditations on the Gen theme in F&T, but it still seems that the Gen account is the “main theme” upon which the improvisation is built.

I’m familiar with impassibility language, but I’m not sure that I find it satisfying. I certainly don’t want to suggest the God’s nature changes or develops etc. etc. But impassibility as it is typically presented still “feels” more like Aristotle’s unmoved mover than YHWH of the OT and NT. I wonder how a Newman-esque application of the Creed on this point will come to view impassibility 100 years from now (given the insights of Christian thinkers like von Balthasar etc.).

Best wishes,
Cynthia

Hi Mel,

I appreciate your contribution, as what you say resonates with me. I do understand the cautionary points that Scott is stressing, I’d just like to hear something that brings the two views together (if possible): (1) that God in his essence doesn’t change and (2) that YHWH is not some kind of distant deity that stands aloof while his Son suffers (as you point out, that’s not how he is presented in Scripture). Also, to simply say well, that’s just an anthropomorphic way of getting at the “real (philosophical) truth about God–which only the elite, intellectual philosophers can grasp, just doesn’t seem right either. That approach almost seems to go the route of complete negative theology where at the end of the day we are more or less confined to silence. There is something respectable about that approach and definitely something to be learned from it; but it ultimately leaves me unsatisfied). I’ll readily acknowledge that we will never know God in an exhaustive and comprehensive way; but, he seems to have gone to great lengths so that we can know him (Incarnation, divine revelation, creating a sacramental universe, providentially guiding his Church throughout the ages etc.) even if our knowledge is incomplete and always finite.

Best wishes,
Cynthia

p.s. I hope that I am not interpreted as suggesting that we ought to do away with the Creed or change the Creed. I am just “thinking out loud” as one might in a conversation with a friend.

There’s nothing in my post that speaks against SK via Silentio writing as a poet, as F&T is no-doubt one of SK’s pseudonymous works—a work classified in the corpus as a whole as “aesthetic.” Nonetheless, I don’t buy the read of SK that presents the aesthetic works as part of his development into a religious writer. Rather, I seek both the pseudonymous works and those written under SK’s own name as religious through and through. SK himself in fact rejects this development thesis [Cf. The Point of View of My Work as an Author]. In all of SK’s works, he wants to challenge the reader to think through the implications of authentic religious existence (which for him means Christianity).

So when it comes to F&T, I take this to be a work primarily about faith, albeit from an outsider’s point of view (Silentio’s). I do agree that he has a version of Hegelianism in view as his “opponent”. Specifically, he wants to highlight the inadequacy of Hegel’s ethics to deal with Abraham’s faith as exhibited in his obedience to God’s call to sacrifice Isaac. (He has other “opponents” in view as well: the “Christendom” of the Danish Church of his day, philosophers who don’t take faith seriously but view it as something inadequate, something to be overcome etc.).

Regarding the often misunderstood “leap of faith,” in no way do I see SK as promoting some kind of irrationalism, though he would be quick to accept supra-rationalism (that some truths are beyond are ability to comprehend exhaustively). This is not to deny that some of his characters make statements whose implications are problematic, even contradictory. (Nor is it to deny that some of SK’s own views overlap with some of his characters; his authorship is complex by design). For SK (and he is clear about this when writing under his own name), Christian existence is not something that can be simply willed into being without divine aid. Faith is a gift; yet, faith does require that a genuine decision be made—the individual must choose to accept the gift. SK should not be read as promoting a kind of irrational leap into the dark. Rather, the “leap” highlights the fact that faith is not simply a natural and unavoidable development in a person’s life—it is a gift; thus, in that sense faith displays is a certain discontinuity with a person’s past. A new mode of existence has been made possible with faith and this comes about by grace and via a genuine human decision.

Given what I’ve said above, I don’t think that SK would have been averse to my post. After all, it was to him that the “Postscript” was addressed (not to Silentio : ).

Best,
Cynthia

Thanks for indulging my digression from the centerpiece of this post. As always, I am interested in your thoughts on this line of thinking.