 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Psychology Today: Emotions & Apatheia | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/24/2012 8:38 PM (GMT -6) |   | Tom: I'm finding it increasingly difficult to understand your view as monotheisitc IF you view F, S, and SP as all equally divine.
Jeff: I don't see how scripture can be interpreted consistently with the view that the F, S, and SP are identical in essential attributes. That's why I don't know what it means to say the Son had to be fully God and fully man. That doesn't even seem to be intelligible. Because the persons just ARE different from one another. And the collective is different than the individual persons. But it's still true that the Father and Son are both divine in the sense that they are necessary conditions for the existence of creation and creation exists FOR them.
But if you mean that because I think the 3 are all beings, then yes, I'm a polytheist in that sense. But as I've said many times, now, the NT speaks of the Father as the ONE GOD. Thus, there is no contradiction with this view and Hebrew monotheism that I can see. And I don't know what the Father is if He's not a being. I can not even conceive of Him intelligibly as a mere relation or set of relations inhering in a being. I never understood what Starkman was saying. But I do understand his difficulty with conceptualizing the traditional view.
Thanks for the specific pages. I'll get on that. But I'm curious as to why you think my view doesn't consist of a necessary relationality of divine persons involving experience, sociality, creative synthesis and aesthetic value. To me, it clearly does. You just posit more specifics than I do. And it's those additional specifics that I can't see as explaining anything about scripture or my experience.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 3/24/2012 8:44:07 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/25/2012 7:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
I don't see how scripture can be interpreted consistently with the view that the F, S, and SP are identical in essential attributes. That's why I don't know what it means to say the Son had to be fully God and fully man. That doesn't even seem to be intelligible. Because the persons just ARE different from one another. And the collective is different than the individual persons. But it's still true that the Father and Son are both divine in the sense that they are necessary conditions for the existence of creation and creation exists FOR them.
But if you mean that because I think the 3 are all beings, then yes, I'm a polytheist in that sense. But as I've said many times, now, the NT speaks of the Father as the ONE GOD. Thus, there is no contradiction with this view and Hebrew monotheism that I can see. And I don't know what the Father is if He's not a being.
Arian Polytheism(?)
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/25/2012 7:03:43 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/25/2012 7:08 AM (GMT -6) | | But I see the issue, I think.
To Jeff, 1) a "being" = a "person = an "individual" AND 2) "divinity" is seen as ONLY what is necessary to explain Creation in general and Jeff's existence in particular, largely God's competence and benevolence.
Both ideas are rather incompatible with Orthodoxy.
I tell you what. I believe that sometimes it is mainly belief in the Teachings (Great Commandments, Sermon on the Mount, etc) and Presence of the Resurrected Jesus Himself within and in the midst of people that call Jesus Lord that unites us at all in the midst of our theological differences. Seriously. From unitarians to "social" tritheists...and everything in between, we live in WAAAAAAAY different "worlds" only brought together by Christ HIMSELF.
What else can be said?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/25/2012 7:17:38 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/25/2012 10:00 AM (GMT -6) | | D: Jeff:
I don't see how scripture can be interpreted consistently with the view that the F, S, and SP are identical in essential attributes.
J: But D, even YOU don't believe the persons of the godhead are identical. But that's all that needs to be true to render the requirement that the second person be fully God and fully man unintelligible. Not even the Father is fully God by your definition of God. None of the divine persons COULD be, by YOUR DEFINITION. Thus, they certainly can't be fully God AND fully man.
D: I tell you what. I believe that sometimes it is mainly belief in the Teachings (Great Commandments, Sermon on the Mount, etc) and Presence of the Resurrected Jesus Himself within and in the midst of people that call Jesus Lord that unites us at all in the midst of our theological differences.
J: Exactly. Jesus is LORD. And Jesus said don't call him Lord and do NOT the things he said to do. If we concentrate on that, the divine private revelation will take care of itself.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 3/25/2012 10:04:16 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/25/2012 10:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
But D, even YOU don't believe the persons of the godhead are identical. But that's all that needs to be true to render the requirement that the second person be fully God and fully man unintelligible. Not even the Father is fully God by your definition of God. None of the divine persons COULD be, by DEFINITION. Thus, they certainly can't be fully God AND fully man.
I believe that the F, S, and Sp are all essentially uncreated, immaterial, and boundless. They are identical in these "essential attributes" that you mention because the divine nature of all the divine persons (the Unbegotten, the Begotten, and the Processional) is grounded in God the Father's uncreatedness, immateriality, and boundlessness. The Son did NOT cease having the divine nature when he personally (hypostatically) took on fully human nature as the Incarnate Word, Jesus.
***************************************
D: I tell you what. I believe that sometimes it is mainly belief in the Teachings (Great Commandments, Sermon on the Mount, etc) and Presence of the Resurrected Jesus Himself within and in the midst of people that call Jesus Lord that unites us at all in the midst of our theological differences.
J: Exactly. Jesus is LORD. And Jesus said don't call him Lord and do NOT the things he said to do. If we concentrate on that, the divine private revelation will take care of itself.
1) The information in the 7 Ecumenical Creeds (including Chalecedon) is not private revelation to the Church.
2) If it came between not being trinitarian (ie being unitarian, tritheistic, etc), believing in Jesus as Crucified Lord and Christ, and obedience to His Great Commandments...and not being trinitarian, believing in Jesus as Crucified Lord and Christ, and DISobedience to His Great Commandments, of course we would choose the former. That doesn't mean that active trinitarianism doesn't open up new doors in the Christian mystery for participation...AND that LACK of trinitarianism doesn't close some doors in that same Mystery. Just sayin'.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/25/2012 11:57 AM (GMT -6) | | D: I believe that the F, S, and Sp are all essentially uncreated, immaterial, and boundless. They are identical in these "essential attributes" that you mention because the divine nature of all the divine persons (the Unbegotten, the Begotten, and the Processional) is grounded in God the Father's uncreatedness, immateriality, and boundlessness. The Son did NOT cease having the divine nature when he personally (hypostatically) took on fully human nature as the Incarnate Word, Jesus.
J: The Son can not cease to have an essential attribute of his, for sure. We're agreed upon that. But define "boundless," and then show me in scripture where it says the Son, sans creation, was boundless. Indeed, it doesn't even say he's boundless now. It doesn't even say the Father is boundless. It says He's the almighty. But that doesn't mean boundless. I'm not even sure there's a greek or hebrew word that ONLY means ABSOLUTELY boundless. It's this kinda of thinking that got us thinking greek and hebrew words necessarily meant ABSOLUTELY infinite torment.
D: 1) The information in the 7 Ecumenical Creeds (including Chalecedon) is not private revelation to the Church.
J: Creeds are not known to be informative merely because they're creeds. They weren't confirmed publicly with signs and wonders. Therefore, to the extent that they are knowably true, it is because they knowably agree with scripture. Well-established (exegetically, i.e.) interpretations of scripture is all we have communally to judge another about. You think this point is trivial. It's not. People DID burn at the stake once. Once your tradition both:
1) frees itself from plausible scriptural constraints and
2) says there are people that deserve to be tormented eternally,
It's not hard to justify all kinds of murders as doing "service to God."
Post Edited (Similitude) : 3/25/2012 12:07:17 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/25/2012 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
The Son can not cease to have an essential attribute of his, for sure. We're agreed upon that.
COOL.
****************************
Jeff:
then show me in scripture where it says the Son, sans creation, was boundless. Indeed, it doesn't even say he's boundless now. It doesn't even say the Father is boundless. It says He's the almighty. But that doesn't mean boundless.
Psalm 139:8
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
Jeremiah 23:23,24
Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.
I Kings 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?
Come on, bro. 
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/25/2012 12:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God (the Father) and the exact imprint of his (God the Father's) nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his (The SON's) power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
(Hebrews 1:1-3 ESV)
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/25/2012 12:12:54 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/25/2012 12:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Do you agree that...
1) The Son eternally exists with the Father sans Creation?
2) The Son is the EXACT IMPRINT of God the Father's NATURE?
3) God the Father's NATURE includes his filling and transcending Creation?
Dude, if you agree with all three, that's it!
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/25/2012 12:17:47 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/25/2012 12:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Let's start here then.
"God the Father NATURALLY uncreated, immaterial, and 'fills and transcends' all Creation."
Do you believe this statement is true?
You've already agreed with 1 and 2.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/25/2012 12:33 PM (GMT -6) | | | And it is THIS "boundless" nature of Uncreated God the Father that the Uncreated Son is the EXACT IMPRINT of!
If boundlessness is an ESSENTIAL attribute to God the Father...and the co-eternal Son is the EXACT IMPRINT of God the Father's nature...then boundlessness is an ESSENTIAL attribute of the co-eternal, uncreated Son.
Surely, you see this now.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/25/2012 12:38:31 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/25/2012 12:55 PM (GMT -6) | | This is just how I see it. Remember in the OT where they talked about the Presence of God being in the pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire at night? No one would say that God ceased his boundlessness and completely limited his personal presence to those creaturely expressions without remainder. Nor would anyone say that God stopped sustaining the universe while he was personally manifested in the cloud and fire pillars. It's like that with the personal Presence of the uncreated, co-eternal, boundless Son in relationship to his human/creaturely expression as Incarnate Word.
See that?
----------------
Let's see now...
1) The Son eternally exists with the Father sans Creation?
2) The Son is the EXACT IMPRINT of God the Father's NATURE?
3) God the Father's NATURE includes his filling and transcending Creation?
Jeff's words:
"I agree with 1) and 2)."
"Of course I agree with that." [to the idea that God the Father fills and transcends all of Creation.]
So...if Jeff AGREES that, in the eternal SOFA pre-Creation, God the Father's Presence has no boundaries constraining it...this should be a done deal.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/25/2012 1:08:05 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/26/2012 7:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
If nothing exists but the godhead, sans creation, then the godhead is not "bound" by any other being sans creation. But it doesn't follow that the capacities of the Father are boundless. The Father has a nature, presumably conditioned by the Spirit. I don't know a priori that any of the NATURAL capacities of the Father are boundless. I can't think of one capacity that the Father has that can be proven to be boundless from scripture or shown to be necessarily boundless to account for my experience. Even Rom. 1 talks about getting an idea of the lower bound QUANTITY of God's power FROM the creation. But the creation is finite. Nothing about creation seems to require an infinite (i.e., boundless) divine capacity.
I think you are making this more difficult than it needs to be, Jeff. I know that you have a concept of what I've meant by boundless. It's been another way of talking about divine OMNIPRESENCE. Basically, God is everywhere/everywhen that Creation exists, and yet TRANSCENDS that at the same time. And, in the eternal SOFA pre-Creation, God's Presence is not limited by anything such that God is ALL that exists in that state. There is no need to overcomplicate things.
You've already agreeed with 1 and 2....AND you've agreed that that God the Father IS omnipresent in the sense that I mean (fills/transcends Creation; pre-Creation, God is all there is). The bottom line is this: if God the Father's divine nature is essentially, unchangably omnipresent, then the co-eternal Son's divine nature (which he specifically gets from the Father by the Spirit) is essentially, unchangably omnipresent as well.
I KNOW you are smart enough to understand what's being said, Jeff. What is so hard about you saying this?
Come on, bro...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/26/2012 7:31:53 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/27/2012 6:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Actually, D, I was wrong to say that I'm sure God FILLS all of creation if by that you mean omnipresent therein. I only mean that God is not bound within creation in a causally limiting sense. Many moons ago I posted a passage out of the book "The Divine Attributes" where they argue that omnipresence is a meaningless concept. I agree with them, given their argument. But I would go further. I contend, as they do not, that the very meaning of matter is any being which solely OCCUPIES a given portion of space. If multiple beings can occupy the same portion of space, I don't know how conceive of matter at all.
You think I'm the one making this hard. In fact, it's hard for most people. For example, Tom doesn't feel comfortable talking about non-locality of human persons. You seem to be quite comfortable with it. I'm not comfortable with it, but I see your point on the other hand. This stuff just IS hard. And that's why judging people about it just seems inappropriate. I agree with Porter that categories are used by us all the time, but they're the last class of propositional knowledge we can know at the proper level of generalization. It's hard.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/27/2012 7:06 AM (GMT -6) | | To hopefully-not-hard questions for Jeff  :
1) Do you believe God the Father is immaterial or material?
2) Sans Creation, does anything else exist but God?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/27/2012 7:14:07 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/27/2012 7:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Wait a sec, I see something:
Jeff:
I contend, as they do not, that the very meaning of matter is any being which solely OCCUPIES a given portion of space. If multiple beings can occupy the same portion of space, I don't know how conceive of matter at all.
and...
In fact, it's hard for most people. For example, Tom doesn't feel comfortable talking about non-locality of human persons. You seem to be quite comfortable with it. I'm not comfortable with it, but I see your point on the other hand.
I think this is it! You don't seem to understand the idea of immaterial differentiated persons co-terminously permeating each other IMMATERIALLY. Your intellectual problem with omni-presence and your interesting definition of matter are keeping you from embracing the One Triune God as described in Chalcedon.
This is why you are not able to say that, sans Creation, the Eternal Son is eternally coterminous with God the Father everyplace/everywhen.
Am I right?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/27/2012 7:29:27 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 103 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:54 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|