Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/24/2009 3:33 PM (GMT -6)

I was thinking about this (Whitehead’s notion of ‘importance’ and ‘value’) the other day in relation to the idea that non-human created entities achieve the fulfillment of their ‘telos’ in/through human being. It seemed to me that Whitehead’s concept of ‘importance’ as a bare notion begs the question of something still more fundamental to which ‘importance’ and ‘value’ point. What ‘makes’ something ‘important’? Whitehead would say it’s linked to the ‘value’ we attach to it perhaps. The ‘value’ we assign to something is a statement of how ‘important’ it is to us. Its importance is a function of its contribution to our well-being I suppose. What it’s able to contribute inheres in it, yes, but the contribution isn’t made—and so it’s ‘being’ unfulfilled—until that to which it contributes comes along.

Had Whitehead been open to a trinitarian metaphysic and the category of the ‘personal’ as fundamental and constitutive, perhaps he would have been open to viewing ‘importance’ and ‘value’ in interpersonal terms. Well, in terms of ‘love’ actually.

Anyhow, I thought on what it means to say the non-human created order is fulfilled, or achieves the fullness of its ‘telos’, in/through human being. I was laying on the grass under a beautiful oak tree this past Saturday. Gorgeous weather. The sun stood behind the tree and lit it up. A slight breeze made the tree sway to and fro, and the leaves were all vibrating with life. I fixed my thoughts on the tree—its forms, colors, and movements. I thought, “How beautiful. The symmetry and colors of THIS moment, of THIS tree, etc.” I think this was an instantiation of human being bringing the created order into the fullness of its ‘telos’, its being. By apprehending its beauty, I called its potential for beauty into being.

This all led me in turn led me to consider ‘beauty’ and ‘aesthetic satisfaction’ as the more fundamental aspects of reality (of which ‘importance’ and ‘value’ are expressions). So the ‘telos’ of created things is to be apprehended and enjoyment as beauty, to occasion some enjoyment or aesthetic satisfaction. The created order in all its diversity is for God’s ultimate enjoyment of course, yes, but (per my suggestion) only THROUGH human being enjoying it. In other words, human being is HOW God ultimately intends to get his enjoyment of the created order, not that he can’t or doesn’t enjoy the far-flung reaches of the unexplored universe independently, but that whatever independent enjoyment God might receive from contemplating them, there remains an enjoyment God aims to obtain in them only as they occasion an experience of beauty apprehended by us.

But beauty, like love, (a) entails sentience and the capacity for aesthetic appreciation, and (b) it precludes an absolute oneness (viz., a denial of the trinity). So if beauty is an uncreated property of being, that is a necessary aspect of God’s being per se, or perhaps even if beauty IS being, then we have a necessary apprehension and appreciation of ‘otherness’ inherent to ‘being’ itself. Beauty is in the apprehending and appreciating of a thing by some other thing.

Tom

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 8/24/2009 3:46 PM (GMT -6)

I like it. I've been thinking about beauty as 'expression of love' and since God is everywhere, I'm learning to find beauty everywhere.

JET
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397

Posted 8/24/2009 4:10 PM (GMT -6)

What Tom said...
The created order in all its diversity is for God’s ultimate enjoyment of course, yes, but (per my suggestion) only THROUGH human being enjoying it. In other words, human being is HOW God ultimately intends to get his enjoyment of the created order, not that he can’t or doesn’t enjoy the far-flung reaches of the unexplored universe independently, but that whatever independent enjoyment God might receive from contemplating them, there remains an enjoyment God aims to obtain in them only as they occasion an experience of beauty apprehended by us.

... makes me think of the Gen. 2:19 text in a new way:

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/24/2009 4:34 PM (GMT -6)

wow

(o)

Asher
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477

Posted 8/24/2009 7:00 PM (GMT -6)

I play my most favorite music in constant rotation. There are about 5 albums that I probably listen to at least 50 times a year. I love them SOOO much! I recommend them anytime music comes up in conversation. And every once in awhile, someone will be interested enough to say that they will definitely give the music a listen. And knowing that they are gonna listen to the albums, I listen to them also. But in those instances, I am listening with someone else's ears. It's like I am hearing the music (that I play all the time) for the FIRST time. A particularly interesting turn of lyrics or complex arrangement will give me a fresh excitement as I know that the other person is gonna be hearing that for the actual first time. And God has fresh access through each one of us!

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/24/2009 7:50 PM (GMT -6)

Alexei Nesteruk talks about something like this in "Light from the East". Creation's telos is fulfilled through the eucharistic apprehension of Creation by human hypostatic entities.

"The Universe as Hypostatic Inherence"

"Creation is allowed in intimate love to speak to the Creator as if to a lover. As the Creator loves the creation, so the creation loves the Creator. The whole world has been embraced by this kiss."
Hildegard of Bingen

Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You...

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/25/2009 1:17 AM (GMT -6)

Tom:
But beauty, like love, (a) entails sentience and the capacity for aesthetic appreciation, and (b) it precludes an absolute oneness (viz., a denial of the trinity). So if beauty is an uncreated property of being, that is a necessary aspect of God’s being per se, or perhaps even if beauty IS being, then we have a necessary apprehension and appreciation of ‘otherness’ inherent to ‘being’ itself. Beauty is in the apprehending and appreciating of a thing by some other thing.

Ultimate Reality is "inconceivable one-ness and difference." Like Loder ends up saying, uncreated reality, as unique as it is, is CONSCIOUS and IRREDUCIBLY RELATIONAL. Not monistic. Bi-polar assymetrical relational unity is irreducible oneness and difference within ONE reality.

And as far as the inconceivability....Isn't that why the ONE and ONLY triune God is ultimately a mystery?

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You...

Post Edited (One Love) : 8/25/2009 2:24:19 AM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/25/2009 2:40 AM (GMT -6)

Aurobindo

How the Absolute Reflects as Determinants in the Universe
The Absolute is the source of all determination we see in creation. We know that in the involution the Absolute extended itself to the triune Existence, Conscious Force, Delight to enable creation. Each of these three is the source of all determination in Nature in the creation, and manifests specific ways that we express ourselves in life. (These ways are predetermined for us ) From "Existence" comes the determinants of Self, Creator, and Witness; from Consciousness Force comes the determinants of Knowledge and Will. From Delight come the determinants of Love, Joy, and Beauty. Specifically, we in life experience our sense of self in (Self), our ability to create (Creator), a way to stand back and view the creation as Witness; our ability to comprehend and know (Knowledge), our will and drive to see what we create through (Will); to share a relationship with other forms and beings (Love), to experience the satisfaction of that which is created (Joy), and the ability to acknowledge the forms we create (Beauty.) These are the predetermined ways we experience life. Within that predetermination we have a choice of how to act.*

Each determinant potentially manifests in any of three ways. E.g. when we live in such a way that is a reflection of the determinant of Knowledge, it can express as the Known, the Known, and the Knowledge; indicating we can express within that determinant as the subject, the object, subject-object (i.e. attribute or energy type or life activity).

Aspect of Absolute	#	Name	Description of power/ determinant
*Existence*	1	Self (Atman)	As Existence the Absolute moved toward manifesting in the universe by its own awareness of its own existence and its infinite potentials for creation. We call this power/determinant Self.
	2	Witness (Purusha)	Existence also has the capacity to stand back from its creation, i.e. be a detached witness. We call this power/determinant Witness.
	3	Creator (Ishwara)	Existence also has an awareness of the power to express these potentials in creation as forms in an objectified universe. We call this power/determinant Creator.
Consciousness Force	4	Knowledge	As Consciousness the Absolute has the comprehension and knowledge of what has been and what is being created. We call this power/determinant *Knowledge*.
Consciousness Force	5	Will	Consciousness also has the will and drive to see the creation through. This is the power/determinant of *Will*.
*Delight/Bliss*	6	Love	Finally, as Bliss the Absolute seeks in its creation of forms to have those forms be intimately related to other forms, i.e. share a relationship with it. This is a power/determinant *Love*.
	7	Joy	The Absolute also expresses as satisfaction in what is created. This is the power/determinant of Joy.
	8	Beauty	Finally, the Absolute acknowledges the harmony of form of that which has been created. This is the power/determinant of Beauty.

THREE POISES OF COSMIC DETERMINANTS

	Subject	Object	Power
Self (Being)	Self as Subject (?)	Self as Object (?)	Existing
Witness	The Witness	That which is Witnessed	Witnessing
Creator	The Creator	That which is Created	Creating
Knowledge	The Knower	The Known	Knowledge (Knowing)
Will	The Lord of the will	The Object of the will	Executive Force
Love	The Lover	The Beloved	Love
Joy	The Enjoyer	The Enjoyed	Delight
Beauty	The Beholder of beauty	That which is Beautiful	Beauty

Imago Dei?

Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You...

Post Edited (One Love) : 8/25/2009 2:47:41 AM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/25/2009 9:43 AM (GMT -6)

I think you'll appreciate this, Tom...

Searching for the Foundations of
Whitehead's Philosophy of Education

Robert B. Mellert
Brookdale Community College

ABSTRACT: The inspiration for this paper comes from the Fiftieth Anniversary of the death of Alfred North Whitehead and the theme of this Congress. In Aims of Education, Whitehead describes the role of freedom and limitation in the educational process. The foundations of these concepts, and important clues to their application, can be found in his general metaphysical framework outlined in Process and Reality. Positive and negative prehensions seem to be the model for freedom and limitation; hence, the latter concept implies the discipline of subjective aim. This analysis supports an interpretation of the mutual complementarity of freedom and discipline, with obvious applications to the educational process.

Thought:

I think God "negatively prehends" sin from moment to moment. We carry it with us into the future, and God HAS to deal with it because it's a part of our "subjective form". This is why we forgive AS WE KNOW WE'VE BEEN FORGIVEN...every moment.

No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You...

Post Edited (One Love) : 8/25/2009 9:47:48 AM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/25/2009 9:49 AM (GMT -6)

Oh, reason I posted the last thing? There can be no creation of beauty WITHOUT positive AND negative prehension. Freedom and discipline.

Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You...

Post Edited (One Love) : 8/25/2009 10:24:53 AM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/25/2009 10:10 AM (GMT -6)

There can be no created beauty without positive and negative prehension?

Is that just created beauty? Or would you say the same about divine, uncreated beauty? Is there negative prehension definitive of the triune God? If not (and I'm not sure what negative prehension even is), then you may have articulated a reason why God can be necessarily benevolent/good but we cannot be created necessarily (i.e., from the get-go) good; why we must BECOME good.

Tom

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/25/2009 10:30 AM (GMT -6)

From the page...on negative prehension...

"An event cannot take into itself, or prehend, every experience in the same manner. Some selection is necessary among the available matters of fact. So the subject, even while it is being constituted by its prehensions, prehends past data either positively or negatively. It makes this selection on the basis of its own subjective aim. A positive prehension enters positively into the concrescence of the new occasion; a negative prehension holds the prehended datum as inoperative. It is put into brackets and kept as a reminder of what might have been; however, in this way it also influences the concrescence of the occasion."

This would be like not counting others' previous sins against them in future relationship with them.

Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You...

Post Edited (One Love) : 8/25/2009 10:41:03 AM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/25/2009 10:56 AM (GMT -6)

Tom:
Is there negative prehension definitive of the triune God?

My take. As far as God negatively prehending God's own capacity to be a Creator of non-divine reality, yes. Basically, this is saying that there was a SoA where God simply chose NOT to actualize his capacity to be a Creator of Creation, by choice, God rendered that "prehended data" as inoperative. God could have been just fine as God, just thinking "what it might have been" to have created.

Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You...

Post Edited (One Love) : 8/25/2009 11:05:09 AM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/25/2009 11:27 AM (GMT -6)

For ALW it 'negative prehension' seems to represent what's not chosen (and known to have not been chosen), that is, apprehending what might have been but is/was not. That applies equally to goods and evils. But you seem (unless I'm misunderstanding you) to limit it to the way God prehends sin and evil, so that the 'negative' of 'negative prehension' comes by way of the negativity of the evil that's prehended. It's negative prehension because sin is a negation and sin is apprehended by God. But that doesn't seem to be ALW's point. ALW just means that prehending what is entails prehending what is not.

And this doesn't seem at all to be what's involved in forgiving and forgetting. I shall "remember your sin no more" doesn't mean "I wipe your having sinned from my memory and so become ignorant of some past fact." ALW's 'negative prehension' applies to 'what never occurred but might have' and not to 'what did occur but might not have'. So I wouldn't know how to apply it to forgiveness the way you do. "To no longer remember" is just Semitic covenant language meaning "to no longer bring it up" or "to not allow it to determine or influence the present." It's a covenant way of saying, "I won't allow what you did to bar you from covenant relationship with me." That's all. It's not about memory per se.

Are you saying something else?

T

Post Edited (Tom) : 8/25/2009 11:37:34 AM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/25/2009 11:40 AM (GMT -6)

Tom: Is there negative prehension definitive of the triune God?

D: My take. As far as God negatively prehending God's own capacity to be a Creator of non-divine reality, yes.

Tom: OK, God chooses not to create. Got that. But this constitutes some essential feature of divine "beauty"? I mean, you said created beauty requires negative prehension. Does uncreated divine beauty REQUIRE negative prehension in the same way? I don't think you'd want to answer it with 'yes'. Or would you?

Tom

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/25/2009 1:13 PM (GMT -6)

Tom:
To no longer remember" is just Semitic covenant language meaning "to no longer bring it up" or "to not allow it to determine or influence the present." It's a covenant way of saying, "I won't allow what you did to bar you from covenant relationship with me." That's all. It's not about memory per se.

I said...

"This would be like not counting others' previous sins against them in future relationship with them."

Sounds like we're saying the same thing. In negative prehension, the prehended data doesn't cease to exist as information as such. It's just not "taken into account" in the movement of the next moment.

Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You...

Post Edited (One Love) : 8/25/2009 1:30:23 PM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/25/2009 1:23 PM (GMT -6)

Tom:
Does uncreated divine beauty REQUIRE negative prehension in the same way? I don't think you'd want to answer it with 'yes'. Or would you?

Is God's beauty "actus purus"? If not, then it would seem that God would have to have some kind of negative prehension of whatever contingency exists within God's being. If God only did positive prehension of all of God's capacities such that all of them were "taken into account" in God all the time, then God's beauty would be HAVE to be actus purus. There would be no context for "what never occurred but might have" in God at all...which contingency entails.

Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You...

Post Edited (One Love) : 8/25/2009 1:31:33 PM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/25/2009 1:38 PM (GMT -6)

I will say this: With respect to intra-trinitarian inter-personal relationships in Divine Presense, there is no negative prehension. Not in perichoresis of the divine persons. In other words, each of the divine Persons fully takes everything into account about each of the others at all times. In the Trinity, there is nothing about the Son that the Father "leaves out" when he relates to him every moment...and so on. I would actually say that this (not God working with "multiplicity" in the created order) is what provides the unsurpassable intensity of God's self-experience and the aesthetic satisfaction from that experience.

Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You...

Post Edited (One Love) : 8/25/2009 1:44:17 PM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/25/2009 1:51 PM (GMT -6)

I said...

"I think God 'negatively prehends' sin from moment to moment. We carry it with us into the future, and God HAS to deal with it because it's a part of our "subjective form". This is why we forgive AS WE KNOW WE'VE BEEN FORGIVEN...every moment."

In other words, it's like God saying...

"I'm not going to allow your former sins to determine or influence the present, as far as I'm concerned. I've forgiven you. I'm not gonna hold your sins against you in relating to me the next moment...and I free you to continue covenantal relationship with Me. However to the extent that you reject that forgiveness (by unforgiveness of self and others), you will be taking a stance of self-understanding such that I then HAVE to deal with your sins in the next moment...because YOU won't let them go."

Make sense, y'all?

Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You...

Post Edited (One Love) : 8/25/2009 1:54:21 PM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/25/2009 1:58 PM (GMT -6)

Great example.

Let's say I wrong Tom. Tom forgives me, but I don't forgive myself. Every time, Tom relates to me, he will have to deal with the conscious and unconscious thoughts and behaviors I have surrounding that, which may come out as passive agression or emotional distance. Even though, Tom does NOT allow my wrong to determine or influence the present in his mind, my maladaptive actions (which Tom has to deal with to relate to me) will not allow me to enjoy full relationship with Tom. Tom can keep negatively prehending my wrongs against him (Forgiving 70 x 7?), but if I "keep bringin' up old stuff", the problem still exists. Once I choose to live in forgiveness, then the full implications of Tom's negative prehension of my wrongs comes forth. I can APPRECIATE the grace given to me instead of CONDEMNING myself for it, unhelpfully conditioning the relationship.

Make sense?

Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You...

Post Edited (One Love) : 8/25/2009 2:02:40 PM (GMT-5)

JET
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397

Posted 8/25/2009 2:02 PM (GMT -6)

Makes a lot of sense.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/25/2009 2:03 PM (GMT -6)

Cool beans, JET.

Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You...

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/25/2009 2:32 PM (GMT -6)

Human Negative Prehesion of God at Work...and the Ramifications

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of human beings who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal human beings and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

........................................................................................

"Don't think about God, and you probably won't behave like God exists."

Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You...

Post Edited (One Love) : 8/25/2009 2:40:25 PM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/25/2009 3:14 PM (GMT -6)

D: I will say this: With respect to intra-trinitarian inter-personal relationships in Divine Presense, there is no negative prehension. Not in perichoresis of the divine persons.

T: Right. That's what I was kinda thinking.

BUT...

...like Greg, I think an essential part of the intra-trinitarian relations is creative expression. That sounds weird, because creation means bringing something 'new' into existence. Yes and no. Greg and I like the analogy of a 'dance'. The dance isn't new per se, but there is movement and creative reposturing vis a vis the other. So part of the determinate intensity of unimprovable inter-personal love (that God is) is an ever renewed creative reposturing (stating and restarting anew) of self-giving and self-affirmation.

I can conceive of it. I'm not describing it well. But (to get back to me but) this might entail a negative prehension (this movement, not that one) definitive of the infinitely creative expression and re-expression of self to another which God is essentially. I'm not sure. It might be that this aspect of the divine being is pure sponteneity and anticipation and that might be the life force of the Spirit as it were.

Tom

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/25/2009 4:17 PM (GMT -6)

Tom:
like Greg, I think an essential part of the intra-trinitarian relations is creative expression. That sounds weird, because creation means bringing something 'new' into existence. Yes and no. Greg and I like the analogy of a 'dance'. The dance isn't new per se, but there is movement and creative reposturing vis a vis the other. So part of the determinate intensity of unimprovable inter-personal love (that God is) is an ever renewed creative reposturing (stating and restarting anew) of self-giving and self-affirmation.

I can conceive of it. I'm not describing it well. But (to get back to me but) this might entail a negative prehension (this movement, not that one) definitive of the infinitely creative expression and re-expression of self to another which God is essentially. I'm not sure. It might be that this aspect of the divine being is pure sponteneity and anticipation and that might be the life force of the Spirit as it were.

I think I follow you. It's kinda like this...

Perichoresis has been used historically to describe God's relationship to the world, as a way of expressing the immanence and transcendence of God. It is true, on the one hand, that God is contained by nothing, and is instead the One in whom we live and move and have our being — i.e., everything is contained by Him. Yet at the same time God is within all things, "omnipresent." As Hilary of Poitiers put it, God is both "without" and "within" all things.

This mutual indwelling and containment is a created extension of the mutual indwelling and containment of the Triune Persons. The Father is in the Son, and in the Son are "precontained" all created things (so Cusa, and many others, including Bavinck); so, the Father is "in" all things. Likewise the Son, as the One in whom are all things, is in the Father, so that all things are in the Father. And all things are within and without the Father and the Son because the Father and Son indwell one another by the Spirit.

This raises the question of whether a unitarian God can be omnipresent, without becoming a pantheistic deity. If there is no uncreated "space" for the unitarian god to indwell, then he begins to indwell, realizes his potential for indwelling, when he makes a world (but can a unitarian god create? I think not, but that'll be a point for another post). Each person of the Triune God, however, has always forever indwelled "alien" "space," the alien space of the other persons. Each person has a home outside Himself, and God as the One God has a home within Himself, and there is nothing essentially new when He begins to indwell a created world.

posted by Peter J. Leithart on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 at 01:27 PM

Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You...

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:37 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual