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 ]

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 7/28/2002 7:54 PM (GMT -6)

I have been reading Geisler's critque of open theism and in his defense of God's eternality, he continuely makes two statements, that God is outside time and yet God wills. This is perhaps a stupid question, but I was wondering, can a God outside time actually will something to happen? The act of willing (or desiring) something to occur, seems to me, to imply that it has not yet occurred. How can a God who is outside time, who is not affected in any way by time ever will anything? For to do so would imply that it was not happening before and therefore there would be a time when it wasn't and then was. Would not everything have to be, like God, eternal? Would not everything have to be from the beginning eternal and, therefore, wouldn't the world have to co-exist eternally with God?

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/28/2002 8:45 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Harold. Hope things are going fine.

I'm not going to try and take this whole thing on. No I'm not. Won't even try. So permit the loose ends.

To some extent "will" is related to "nature." In that respect we can/must say that Christ had/has two wills: a human will and a divine will. And in His case his human will wills the will of his divine will. (I'll leave the quotation marks out to make it look real confusing.)

But having said that we gotta say real quick like that while that is true it could be taken in a really misleading manner. We speak of "nature" about the same way we might "essence", and God as Tri-nity is--as little as we are able to say--both three persons and one essence. The "personal" of God is not determined by any such rules of essence. We might start imagining that--it would make it easier for our minds. "God has to such and such..." But that is very misleading, and has dangers.

That said, the reason I said it is to bring to the fore the fact that "will" for God is not determined by God's nature. While true Trinitarian theology recognizes the Father as the fountainhead/source of the Trinity; at the same time it must be recognized that the Father would not be the Father without the Son, etc. While is is very[/v] scritpural to recognize that in the economy of salvation the "will" of God for our salvation begins with the Father, and then to the Son and Spirit in various orders... we are then only speaking of the "economy of salvation" or the "economic trinity." As to God proper, it is not our place to go. But we can't just transfer from the economic trinity to the essential trinity.

God's "will" within the Trinity is free. (Its independent of your example.)

But does your author fail to mention that God acts in time (economically, and providence, intervention, etc.)? God may be separate from time. True. But it is also true that God is "not-separate" from time. God is constantly dealing with creation through His divine energies -- not intermediaries as the Roman Catholics are forced to say. Directly; not in his essence, but in his divine energies. THAT is an "openness" of God.

Then we will gladly mention the Incarnation.....

Nice to see you, Harold.

(I'm off; out and about. Bye.)

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 7/29/2002 5:57 AM (GMT -6)

I think you're raising a very good foundational point Writerdad. The issue is how are we to coherently conceive of timeless VERBS? Even more to the point, how are we to conceive of timeless VERBS that involve RESPONSIVE ACTION? And this drives us to the question, How are we to concieve of a timeless God have a personal, interactive, relationship with us?

Though many theologians talk as though this makes perfect sense - indeed, its really the standard post-Augustinian view -- I have yet to find somehow who could make this intelligible, at least to me. Verbs -- and especially responsible verbs -- imply sequence.

Even apart from logic, it is clear that every verb the Bible applies to God involves sequence. To say (for example) "God spoke to Moses" imples that God first wasn't speaking to Moses, and then was speaking to Moses, and then stopped speaking to Moses. Take away these assumptions and it becomes impossible to conceive of God speaking to Moses.

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 7/29/2002 6:32 AM (GMT -6)

It is even more fundamental than that. Does not "timeless" take away from the unqiqueness of the incarnation? If God is timeless and cannot change, how could he "become" human? He would (in some sense) always must have been human (the Son would have) because to say that he became human would imply there was a time when he was not human, and therefore a sequence.
What you bring up Doc is what Nicholas Wolterstorrff brings up in God & Time: Four Views. Rather than attack the issue philosoplically as his other contributors do, he starts out by simply stating that this is how the Bible portrays God, in time, in sequence. His, to me, is the most forceful of the arguments because of this.
(More to follow...)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/29/2002 7:43 AM (GMT -6)

Writerdad--I'm getting ready to head off to the "back fourty." I'll give you your threat back after this post.

Doc, as I maybe understand you (got the impression from Modes' MA thesis) you are Augustinian in finding pshychological basis for the Trinity. Augustine went so far in one of his theories as to have ths Spirit be the product of the love of the Father toward the Son and visa-versa. That fits with the 'filoque'; but the filoque is horrible theology (reduces the Holy Spirit in significance, ultimately expressing that in papal infallability--Christ's Vicor being superior to the Holy Spirit.) But my point/question is, what about this matter or reading pshychology INTO the 'inter-Trinitarian' existance. THAT is not in the Greek Fathers.

I'm playing peanut gallery here--please pardon my poor humor. But when you said above that "post-Augustinian view(s)" created some "impossible to conceive" forms, THAT is at least part of the problem, and lies close to the root.

Doc, you speak the truth when you say "every verb the Bible applies to God involves sequence." But "every verb the Bible applie(d) to God" speaks about the activity of the uncreated divine energies of God -- not God's essence.

I said "bye" to Tom on another thread, because my activites have shifted. I'm putting my attention and creativity into other endeavors; and I found a fun photo-post/critique board that has been taking my time. But I want to repeat this one thing to you Doc. (You have been a wonderful host. And I hope to return some times.) The differences between East and West in the West refusing to acknowledge the distinction between energies and essence, and hence the West inventing Created Grace... is huge. And it bears on the whole matter the BGC debate exposed.

NO. No one can make sense; because it can't be done. The problem is with the presuppositions.

God does not have to have 'sequence' as we conceive/experience it to act in time.

That is not at all a retreat into the 'timeless god of the Greeks.' The Greek Fathers got over their greekness and adopted the Bibilical form. They knew the ropes, and could easily discern and distinguish.

Writerdad, go ahead and NOT speak of God as being "timeless." Most of what people would mean or understand by that term would be wrong. This is another one of those things hard to define--an example of where definitions just stop. (Like "begotten": We are more sure when we say "not born" than when we say "eternally begotten.")

But Harold, it does not take away from the uniqueness of the incarnation for God to become part of fallen, decaying humanity. It IS its uniqueness. We have to take that term "timeless" out of the discussion for a while. You show, Harold, the comparisons are hard. The biggest comparison is that the incorruptable was joined with the corrupted. Never mind comparing 'timeless' with 'time-ed.' We are unable to think back to what our pre-fall existance was like, in most respects. "Time" has changed in its meaning--a meaning which Christ restored, which we participate in partially, and await the full realization of at His coming. We can't see to that but "through a glass darkly." How are we to imagine the God who IS before the cosmos ontowhich is paired the time-of-matter. So, we can step it back to realize that uncorrupting-time itself seems so foreign. It is a hope.

Harold, you wrote: "Wolterstorrff . . . starts out by simply stating that this is how the Bible portrays God, in time, in sequence."

So be it. "the Bible portray(ing) God, in time, in sequence." is what we have. We know God through the activity of His divine uncreated energies. We know God as He reveals to us. God knows us more intimately than we will ever know ourselves. But we will NEVER knwo Him in his essence. Dispite what the Latin theologians decided, that we can and must figure God out, and that through reason and logic all is accessible and open to us; it is NOT true. "The Bible portrays God, in time, in sequence" and that is what is revealed. And IN all that is revealed is such wonder, and marvel, and desire, and hope.

In the uniqueness of the incarnation, not only is the gulf of incorruptable and corruption healed. Also, God became man that we might become gods. God took on our humanity that humankind might take on the Holy Spirit. We can know the unknowable Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. WE will still, always and for eternity know the Father ONLY in that way. NEVER directly. We will NEVER know the Father in His essence directly. In the energy of the Son we will see the face of the Father.

This is a parting post. (Ya, right, sure...we've heard that before.)

A friend who's name I will still keep, who has a PhD in Theo at a Sem in Minnesota fielded my e-mail queery with the response, that indeed, the dispute at the time between Piper and Boyd--in which each was "half correct and half wrong" did indeed all stem from the failure of Western theology to understand the distinction between essence and energy as shown in Gregory Palamas. My friend went on to show how this was NOT just an East/West thing, and to show how many other Western theologians has done lots of work to nuance-around-the-problem. But it came down to that.

You have been a great host, for more than a year now.

Thanks!

PotOnWheel (o)

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 7/29/2002 9:55 AM (GMT -6)

POW: the problem with your argument is it is unproveable in scripture, so I do not find it relevant to the discussion. I am not interested in whether or not the "East" differs between God's essense and God's energy. That is a man made destinction which does nothing to clarify the situation. Surely the Bible does not make such a distinction.
While I find your insights interesting POW, I am disappointed that you almost seem to take them above scripture, particularly in your quoting of the Eastern Fathers. You seem to feel that everyone in the "East" is of the "true" opinion and everyone over here in the "West" is just so darn flawed. It truly gets old. Besides, in the end it doesn't REALLY matter whether or not God's energy is here or his essense. This argument is about whether God can be timeless and will something to occur that had not occurred before.
Finally, I am tired of those who declare God to be timeless and then rely on mystery, or we cannot understand how God exists therefore my view of God being timeless is true. Such is also Geisler's argument. But it isn't really an argument, but rather a way to get around the situation. We all must adknowledge that none of us can fully understand God. But that is not a "solution" to a person's theological position. Harold
PS...you say that all the activities in scripture are about God's divine energies. Prove it...

Edited by - writerdad on 07/29/2002 2:56:56 PM

Edited by - writerdad on 07/29/2002 3:00:37 PM

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 7/29/2002 5:27 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
This is a parting post.

I hope not. Take a break if you need it Bro. But don't stay away! You're presence has been a blessing and a challenge to me.

Peace,
Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 7/29/2002 6:04 PM (GMT -6)

I know you've probably already depart "o", so you're not reading this. But just for the record...

As much as I appreciate eastern orthodox thought, I for the life of me have never been able to see the cash value of holding to God's timeless, and thus distinquishing God in himself from his "created energies." The created energies hypothesis, so far as I can see (and I'm probably wrong) is largely one way to a) affirm what the Bible says about God's interaction with us in time while b) preserving God's transcendent timeless. But the distinction between "a" and "b" presupposes that God MUST be timeless -- as though this is just the way a perfect being is. And this is an assumption which I do not find grounded in Scripture or Reason. So it seems to me that whole created energies hypothesis is meant to solve a paradox that needn't exist in the first place.

Hope to see you soon.

Greg

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 7/29/2002 7:51 PM (GMT -6)

Doc: amen...

yankee
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 22

Posted 7/31/2002 2:23 AM (GMT -6)

Dear Writerdad and all,

Not only should it be asked how it is possible for a timeless god to WILL anything it should also be asked how it is possible for a timeless God to FOREORDAIN anything seeing how from his perspective everything is already in the present tense and already definite. The scriptures speak of God as having a "determinate counsel". How can He DETERMINE anything if everything to be accomplished is already accomplished from his perspective?

Sincerly,

Yankee

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 8/1/2002 1:10 AM (GMT -6)

Classical theologians who advocate timelessness typically say that "when Scripture speaks of God FOREknowing or FOREordaining things, it is speaking from OUR perspective (phenomenologically), not GOD'S. I always find it interesting how these theologians have no trouble articulating the REAL perspective, and offer it to us on the grounds that Scripture had to speak on OUR limited level.

For what its worth,

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 8/1/2002 5:50 AM (GMT -6)

This is the same tactic as they use with God changing his mind. Apparently, they "know" which prespective God is speaking from better than the rest of us...

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/24/2002 6:34 AM (GMT -6)

UN-CREATED ENERGIES

Doc wrote:

quote:
As much as I appreciate eastern orthodox thought, I for the life of me have never been able to see the cash value of holding to God's timeless, and thus distinquishing God in himself from his "created [sic] energies." The created energies hypothesis, so far as I can see (and I'm probably wrong) is largely one way to a) affirm what the Bible says about God's interaction with us in time while b) preserving God's transcendent timeless. But the distinction between "a" and "b" presupposes that God MUST be timeless -- as though this is just the way a perfect being is. And this is an assumption which I do not find grounded in Scripture or Reason. So it seems to me that whole created energies hypothesis is meant to solve a paradox that needn't exist in the first place.

THIS FIRST PART HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "TIME."

In the above you said "...distinquishing God in himself from his "created [sic] energies." Hasn't history proven that such a distinction will inevitably be made -- even if you decide that you are comfortable not making it yourself. To fail to make that distinction has, in history, lead to the set of divisions that the Thomists make, and to "Created Grace." (He meant to say "created"; while if you were refering to the EO you should say as they do with Gregory Palamas: "divine uncreated energies.)

For (as we all recognize) Christ is eternally begotten as to nature; while you and I hope for eternal life by grace. I don't accept the Thomist route which 'protects' God from direct exposure to humanity. Rather, with Palamas and against Barlaam I recognize the possibility and need of a direct, personal relationship with Christ. BUT, that direct, personal relationship is of a different sort than the Con has with the Father. YET, it is that same Trinitarian Love that I hope to be included in.

Divine Energies. But not Divine Nature.

TIME

Doc said: "... have never been able to see the cash value of holding ..." Time itself seems to be the red-herring. I believe first, formost, and througout that God is Personal. The pagan deities might even be so great that they could never even be called "god"; and so require lesser beings to do the creating. But the God of the Bible is not insolated from time.

God is Personal. But not everything about God can be measured in time. The Trinity is much more nuanced than can be even begun to be measured with "time."

LINKS:

The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine, Chapter 4 of Vladimir Lossky's In the Image and Likeness of God

God in Trinity, Chapter 3 of Vladimir Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church

SO...

I might rephrase you in saying: So it seems to me that whole created TIME hypothesis is meant to solve a paradox that needn't exist in the first place.

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:23 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