Is the term person capable of being used to define an infinite entity?
It is capable of being applied to an infinite entity, though its significance from our point of view falls short of the reality as it is in God. For example, a stone is a being and a man is a being. The word “being” is equally true of each, though one who knew only stones would not know of its full implication in man. So, too, man is personal, and God is personal. Person is true of each. But we, who have experimental knowledge only of human persons, do not know its full implication in God. Yet, though there is not absolute identity of concept, there is a true analogy of concept; and in revealing that He is personal, God has conveyed the real truth to us in a way adapted to our lesser capacity. 13. When you call God “Father” do you not imply that there is sex in God, and that He is masculine? No. The word “Father” is used of God, not to imply that He is of the masculine gender, a quality proper to material bodies, but merely to denote our production by God; and this, not as by some blin
Related Questions
- How does the Joint Commission define the term "episode", as used in the phrase, all restraint and seclusion episodes…" in standard PC.03.03.31?
- NEUROETHICS AND THE PERSON: SHOULD NEUROLOGICAL AND COGNITIVE CRITERIA BE USED TO DEFINE HUMAN VALUE?
- What term is used to define a congregation (group) of rhinos?
