other terms can the eternal become temporal, and the infinite articulately speak in the finite.?

Perfect personality excludes, not self-determination, but determination from withou t, determination by another . God?s self-limitations are the self-limitations of love, and therefore the evidences of his perfection. They are signs, not of weakness but of power. God has limited himself to the method of evolution, gradually unfolding himself in nature and in history. The government of sinners by a holy God involves constant self- repression. The education of the race is a long process of divine forbearance; Herder: ?The limitations of the pupil are limitations of the teacher also.? in inspiration, God limits himself by the human element through which he works. Above all, in the person and work of Christ, we have infinite self-limitation: Infinity narrows itself down to a point in the incarnation, and holiness endures the agonies of the Cross. God?s promises are also self-limitations. Thus both nature and grace are self-imposed restrictions upon God, and these self-limitations are the means by which he reveals himself. See Pfleiderer, Die Religion, 1:189, 195; Porter, Human Intellect, 653; Murphy, Scientific Bases, 130; Calderwood, Philos. Infinite, 168; McCosh, Intuitions, 186; Hickok, Rational Cosmology, 85; Martineau. Study of Religion, 2: 85, 86, 362; Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 1:189-191.

G. Because all knowledge is relative to the knowing agent; that is, what we know, we know, not as it is objectively, but only as it is related to our own senses and faculties. In reply:

(a) We grant that we can know only that which has relation to our faculties. But this is simply to say that we know only that which we come into mental contacts with, that is, we know only what we know. But,

(b) we deny that what we come into mental contact with is known by us as other than it is. So far as it is known at all, it is known as it is. In other words, the laws of our knowing are not merely arbitrary and regulative, but correspond to the nature of things. We conclude that, in theology, we are equally warranted in assuming that the laws of our thought are laws of God?s thought, and that the results of normally conducted thinking with regard to God correspond to the objective reality.

Versus Sir Wm. Hamilton, Metaph., 96-116, and Herbert Spencer, First Principles, 38-97. This doctrine of relativity is derived from Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, who holds that a priori judgments are simply ?regulative.? But we reply that when our primitive beliefs are found to be

<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment