 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Reasons to Reject "Eternal Now" Philosophy | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/23/2007 6:53 PM (GMT -6) |   | |
I paused where you said "But such a creation, going from non-existence to existence, is itself duration, sequence, chronology, and succession." For me, this equal comparison between "creation-as-it-existed-before-it-was-created" (Quotes used are mine to show how this looks to me, from the perspective of my objection to it -- or better said, my hesitation to embrace it.) and the creation after it is created feels odd. It seems strongly analogous to an equl comparision of Creator and Creature. It causes me to pull up short. So, for me, that is where the sequence of your explaination has its broken link.
(o)Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 12/23/2007 6:38:11 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
jessemorrell
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2007
Total Posts : 77
| Posted 12/23/2007 6:59 PM (GMT -6) | | "creation as it existed before it was created"
My whole point is that time is not a creation. Time is a natural attribute of God. And without this natural attribute, God could not be active. Because activity requires sequence (time). And if God cannot be active, then God cannot create. And so therefore God cannot create unless God can be active, and God cannot be active unless there is sequence (time). Therefore time cannot be created, because nothing can be created without activity, and there can be no activity without sequence (time).
The whole idea of time being created is self-contradictory. It is a logical impossibility. It would be like saying, "God created the possibility of creating. The possibility of creating could not exist until God created it." But obviously, if the possibility of creating did not exist, then God could not have created it, You cannot created anything without the possibility of creating already existing. So creating the possibility of creating is self-contradictory, it would be a logical impossibility.
Likewise, creating time is a self-contradiction, a logical impossibility. Creation is activity, activity is sequence, and sequence is time. Therefore, creation requires the pre-existence of time. Therefore, time is not a creation of God but time is a natural attribute of God.
For the Audience of One
Jesse Morrell
www.OpenAirOutreach.comPost Edited (jessemorrell) : 12/23/2007 6:07:01 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/23/2007 7:27 PM (GMT -6) | | |
PotOnWheel: I asked for comments, Jesse, and you gave a carefully laid out sequence. Thanks for respondind and giving that.
I'll jump in where problems present.
.
jessemorrell said... Which of these points is the break in the argument?
PotOnWheel: I don't see any break in the arguement. I just see a broken part that you are using in the sequence of the arguement. (Instead of thinking of this as a ladder of arguement, picture an aquaduct: the foundation of one of the sections doesn't have solid basis.)
.
jessemorrell said...
JESSE SAID: "For God to have created duration, sequence, chronology, or succession, which is to say if God created time, you must presupposes that time did not exist. But such a creation, going from non-existence to existence, is itself duration, sequence, chronology, and succession. Without the existence of succession, it is impossible to create succession when succession did not exist. For such a creation requires succession. God could not speak the sequence of, "let there be time" before the existence of time in any sort of chronological fashion, and then create time when it did not exist, because such would require time, sequence, and chronology to pre-exist. A pre-requisite to the activity of creating is unavoidably time, which is also called duration, sequence, chronology, and succession."
.
PotOnWheel: For God to "create time" one only has to recognize that God in Trinitarian Communion "had" Being. As I said, the look and feel of this arguement seems strongly analogous to comparing Creature and Creator. (There are 34 pages on this board arguing between those two.)
.
. . .
jessemorrell said... Here is the argument again:
1. Time is sequence
2. Activity requires sequence
3. Creation is activity
4. Therefore time cannot be created
.
PotOnWheel: #1 looks fine. #2 seems true for all Creatures. But since we worship One God in Trinity and not Three God's in Unity the idea of "sequence" has to be used sparingly and guardedly for some things. And it should be replaced for others.
.
. . jessemorrell said...
- If there is no time then there is no sequence.
- And if there is no sequence then there can be no activity.
PotOnWheel: INTRA-Trinity there IS activity without "sequence" as we would use the term in the realms of Creation and Time. Yet in OTHER senses we can use the term "sequence" in other ways, if we define carefully what we mean.
REMINDER: THIS IS *not* AN ARGUMENT *for* "eternal now!" NOT AT ALL.
.
. . jessemorrell said...
- And if there can be no activity then there can be no creation.
.
PotOnWheel: Biblcally, creation involved activity both in and out of time. So did our salvation by the Cross.
.
. . jessemorrell said...
Creation requires the pre-existence of time, because time is sequence, creation is activity, and activity cannot occur without sequence. Therefore creation cannot occur without time.
PotOnWheel: The last part is true -- creation cannot occur without time. And time is sequence. Even creation is activity.
But UNLESS we are going to restrict the realms where we can safely use the word "activity" (baring it from intra-Trinitarian Being) then I won't agree with you when you say "activity cannot occur without sequence."
PotOnWheel: There is one will and one energy in the Triunity of the Godhead.
Peace,
PoW
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/23/2007 7:41 PM (GMT -6) | |
jessemorrell said...
Time is a natural attribute of God.
"Being" is an atribute of God's nature. ("Being as Communion" is God's ontology.)
.
Time is a gift from God to us, for us to gift back to God.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/23/2007 8:02 PM (GMT -6) | | |
jessemorrell said...
QUOTE: "INTRA-Trinity there IS activity without sequence"
This is your assumption that you take as granted. But you haven't proved this, with scripture or with logic. How can there be activity without sequence? You assume this as a truth, but you need to prove it. Activity requires sequence and if there is no sequence there can be no activity.
.
PotOnWheel: There is a 19th century heresy called the "Social Trinity." It is squential. An I've seen it circulating among SOME OPenTheists -- but not the one's I ussually discuss with. I've seen social trinity notions in masters thesis in theology at a seminary. But its still a heresy.
This is the specific I drew a line against.
IN MY POST I CAREFULLY ALLOWED FOR OTHER DEFINITIONS OF ACTIVITY, AND EVEN SEQUENCE. But one should be careful what is said, and WHERE it can go. (Words can sprout legs of their own.) I think I posted good balance for you.
.
jessemorrell said...
QUOTE: "Biblically, creation involved activity both in and out of time."
Again, you will have to prove this. You said "biblically" but provided no scriptures.
I would argue that ALL creation occurred in time, because there is nothing at all outside of time, and without time there can be no creation. So all creation occurred within time, because all creation is activity and activity is sequence and sequence is time. And if all creation occurred in time, then time cannot be a creation. And if time is not a creation, time must be a natural attribute of God Himself.
.
PotOnWheel: Here...
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
jessemorrell
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2007
Total Posts : 77
| Posted 12/23/2007 8:06 PM (GMT -6) | | How can there be conscious being without time? Being requires consciousness, and consciousness requires succession of thoughts, specifically, succession of conscious thoughts of self. But God cannot have a successive conscious thoughts of Himself without sequence (time).
And so like I said in the article, the foundation of time, from which time is derived from, is the self-consciousness of God. Time is a natural, internal, eternal attribute of God, being derived from His self-consciousness.
This is what I said in the article:
"time itself is grounded in the succession of God's eternal consciousness"
1. Consciousness requires thoughts
2. Thoughts are activity and require sequence
3. Sequence is time
So just like creation cannot exist without time, consciousness cannot exist without time. But since God is both self-conscious and also a Creator, God is naturally in time.
For the Audience of One
Jesse Morrell
www.OpenAirOutreach.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
jessemorrell
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2007
Total Posts : 77
| Posted 12/23/2007 8:16 PM (GMT -6) | | When I asked you to prove that creation occurred outside of time, you quoted 1 Peter 1:20 "For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you."
This scriptures would only say that creation occurred without time if you presuppose that time was a creation. If time was created at the foundation of the world, then time did not exist before the foundation of the world, in which case creation started without time yet being created. But this interpretation requires the presupposition that time is a creation. So it is really begging the question. You have to assume the premise that time is a creation in order to try to prove the creation occurred without time. This is a fallacious argument.
But if time was not a creation, then at the creation of the universe, time was not created. But time existed before creation occurred, because time is not a creation, but time is a natural attribute of God founded upon the self-consciousness of God.
But even 1Peter 1:20 said "before the foundation of the world". So then there was a time "before" the world was created. Therefore, there was time before creation. And if there was time before creation, time was not created, and time was not a creation. And if time is not a creation and was not created, then time must be an internal, eternal, and natural attribute of God. And which part of God is time derived from? Obviously from His eternal self-consciousness.
1Peter 1:20 says that God had conscious thoughts before creation when it says "foreknown before the foundation of the world". Therefore, there was a time before the time of creation. And in that time, before the time of creation, God had conscious thoughts.
For the Audience of One
Jesse Morrell
www.OpenAirOutreach.comPost Edited (jessemorrell) : 12/23/2007 7:28:02 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/23/2007 8:31 PM (GMT -6) | |
jessemorrell said...
*
1 Peter 1:20 "For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you."
*
Revelation 13:8 "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
These scriptures would only say that creation occurred without time if you presuppose that time was a creation. But if time was not a creation, then at the creation of the universe, time was not created. But time existed before creation occurred, because time is not a creation, but time is a natural attribute of God founded upon the self-consciousness of God.
But even 1Peter 1:20 said "before the foundation of the world". So then there was a time "before" the world was created. Therefore, there was time before creation. And if there was time before creation, time was not created, and time was not a creation. And if time is not a creation and was not created, then time must be an internal, eternal, and natural attribute of God. And which part of God is time derived from? Obviously from His eternal self-consciousness.
1Peter 1:20 says that God had conscious thoughts before creation when it says "foreknown before the foundation of the world". Therefore, there was a time before the time of creation. And in that time, before the time of creation, God had conscious thoughts.
I simply used those to show difference between founded and pre-founded "existence" of the plan of God for our salvation. Their point is to amplify the hugeness of God's salvation, that it is both before founding and in-founded.
Your preference to try to use those verses to prove your point, and say that their written to picture time before creation are 'cute' but distracting: your thesis is not why those verses were penned.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/23/2007 8:36 PM (GMT -6) | |
jessemorrell said...
How can there be conscious being without time? Being requires consciousness, and consciousness requires succession of thoughts, specifically, succession of conscious thoughts of self. But God cannot have a successive conscious thoughts of Himself without sequence (time).
"Being," not "time.
But I said that already.
.
Actually, I'd prefer now to speak to the possitive side instead of the via-negativa side. I'm getting tired of "being so negative" (Pun intended)
I'll post something from another thread that is not "frozen" and lifeless. God's being is different, but analogous to what he has in store for us. (34 pages of "Hey" are waiting for you to read, Jesse!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/23/2007 8:41 PM (GMT -6) | | | So as to not be only negative...
(as promised above)
On the "deeper"...time thread
Bishop Kallistos Ware, "The Orthodox Way," from the chapter called "Epilogue: God as Eternity," pages 137-138
A Journey into the Infinite
This resurrection kingdom, in which we shall by God's mercy dwell with our soul and body reunited, is in the third place a kingdom which shall have "no end". Its eternity and infinity are beyond the scope of our fallen imagination, but of two things at any rate we may be sure. First, perfection is not uniform but diversified. Secondly, perfection is not static but dynamic.
First, eternity signifies an inexhaustible variety. If it is true of our experience in this life that holiness is not monotonous but always different, must this not be true also, and to an incomparably higher degree, of the future life? God promises to us: "To him that overcomes will I give...a white stone, and on the stone a new name written, which no man knows except the one who receives it" (Rev. 2:17). Even in the Age to come, the inner meaning of my unique personhood will continue to be eternally a secret between God and me. In God's kingdom each is one with all the others, yet each is distinctively himself, bearing the same de-lineaments as he had in this life, yet with these characteristics healed, renewed and glorified. In the words of St Isaias of Sketis:
The Lord Jesus in his mercy grants rest to each according to his works—to the great according to his greatness and to the little according to his littleness; for he said, "In my Father's house are many mansions" (John 14:2). Though the kingdom is one, yet in the one kingdom each finds his own special place and his own special work.
Secondly, eternity signifies unending progress, a never-ceasing advance. As J.R.R. Tolkien has said, "Roads go ever ever on". This is true of the spiritual Way, not only in the present life, but also in the Age to come. We move constantly onwards. And it is forward that we go, not back. The Age to come is not simply a return to the beginning, a restoration of the original state of perfection in Paradise, but it is a fresh departure. There is to be a new heaven and a new earth; and the last things will be greater than the first.
"Here below", says Newman, "to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often." But is this the case only here below? St Gregory of Nyssa believed that even in heaven perfection is growth. In a fine paradox he says that the essence of perfection consists precisely in never becoming perfect, but in always reaching forward to some higher perfection that lies beyond. Because God is infinite, this constant "reaching forward" or epektasis, as the Greek Fathers termed it, proves limitless. The soul possesses God, and yet still seeks him; her joy is full, and yet grows always more intense. God grows ever nearer to us, yet he still remains the Other; we behold him face to face, yet we still continue to advance further and further into the divine mystery. Although strangers no longer, we do not cease to be pilgrims. We go forward "from glory to glory" (2 Cor. 3:18), and then to a glory that is greater still. Never, in all eternity, shall we reach a point where we have accomplished all that there is to do, or discovered all that there is to know. "Not only in this present age but also in the Age to come," says St Irenaeus, "God will always have something more to teach man, and man will always have something more to learn from God."
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 12/26/2007 11:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Jesse says,"But God cannot have a successive conscious thoughts of Himself without sequence (time)."
pOtoNWheeL, I get the feeling you would say this is not so INTRA-Trinity. That God has no experience of "successive conscious thoughts of Himself" ; that we have no reason to believe that God requires this for intra-trinity communication. That God sans creation, has no need of sequence ( therefore, time ) . Also, that we ( creature ) have no way of providing an analogy of how this could be so.
Creation provides the God-Other relationship that moves God (F,S,Sp) into sequence when relating to Other, while still no need of sequence (time) intra-trinity.
Am I close?
peace, don
The world's perfect, wouldn't change a thing.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/31/2007 4:39 PM (GMT -6) | |
might-be-don said...
Jesse says,"But God cannot have a successive conscious thoughts of Himself without sequence (time)."
pOtoNWheeL, I get the feeling you would say this is not so INTRA-Trinity. That God has no experience of "successive conscious thoughts of Himself" ; that we have no reason to believe that God requires this for intra-trinity communication. That God sans creation, has no need of sequence ( therefore, time ) . Also, that we ( creature ) have no way of providing an analogy of how this could be so.
Creation provides the God-Other relationship that moves God (F,S,Sp) into sequence when relating to Other, while still no need of sequence (time) intra-trinity.
Am I close?
peace, don
Don, I don't want to say much. But your question is good and I won't avoid it.
I'd just say that there is (in one way) a sequence between "before the foundations..." to creation and after. And I'd also say that (in a different sort of way) there is not a "shaddow of turning" (as the hymn 'Great is Thy Faithfulness' puts it) between "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" and the lamb of Calvary.
So, I'll "say" and "unsay" to a positive effect!
And the part that I underlined seemed pretty good to me too.
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 12/31/2007 3:42:09 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Clete
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2007
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 2/1/2008 10:02 PM (GMT -6) | | jessemorrell said...
JESSE SAID: "For God to have created duration, sequence, chronology, or succession, which is to say if God created time, you must presupposes that time did not exist. But such a creation, going from non-existence to existence, is itself duration, sequence, chronology, and succession. Without the existence of succession, it is impossible to create succession when succession did not exist. For such a creation requires succession. God could not speak the sequence of, “let there be time“ before the existence of time in any sort of chronological fashion, and then create time when it did not exist, because such would require time, sequence, and chronology to pre-exist. A pre-requisite to the activity of creating is unavoidably time, which is also called duration, sequence, chronology, and succession."
POW SAID: "the part I made bold above does not follow. It is a broken portion in your argument."
POW,
Yes you would have to explain how it is a break in the argument.
Here is the argument again:
1. Time is sequence
2. Activity requires sequence
3. Creation is activity
4. Creation (activity) therefore requires sequence (time)
5. Therefore time cannot be created
Again,
- If there is no time then there is no sequence.
- And if there is no sequence then there can be no activity.
- And if there can be no activity then there can be no creation.
- And if there can be no creation, time or anything else cannot be created.
Creation requires the pre-existence of time, because time is sequence, creation is activity, and activity cannot occur without sequence. Therefore creation cannot occur without time.
So with the argument presented in point format, which point is a break or a logical disconnection? It would seem to be that the argument is true through logical thoroughness. Which of these points is the break in the argument?
I would point out, as is quite eloquently stated in the opening paragraph of the above quoted post, that time is duration as well as sequence (actually those are two forms of the same thing) and that the argument presented here applies not only to activity but existence itself. I suppose one might even say that existence is activity and I would not object to that, I'm just pointing out that any existence of anything (including God) implies duration (if not sequence) and therefore invokes the concept of time. Thus to say anything exists outside of time is to contradict yourself.
Resting in Him,
Clete | | Back to Top | | |
|
jessemorrell
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2007
Total Posts : 77
| Posted 2/1/2008 11:00 PM (GMT -6) | | QUOTE: "any existence of anything (including God) implies duration (if not sequence) and therefore invokes the concept of time. Thus to say anything exists outside of time is to contradict yourself."
That's right. Existence, outside of duration, sequence, or succession (time) is completely impossible because the essential elements of personal existence cannot occur without time.
I think it is admitted that an essential element of personality, and therefore of personal existence, is self-consciousness. But consciousness of yourself requires thought. And thoughts require succession.
Consider also the following functions of personality:
- Actions: these require sequence, succession, or duration.
- Feelings: these require sequence, succession, or duration.
- Thoughts: these require sequence, succession, or duration.
A realm without time is a realm that is frozen. A "being" in a frozen realm is nothing more then a statue which is incapable of actions, thoughts, or feelings. (That is why creation requires time and therefore time cannot be created, because creation requires thought and action).
So to restate the original point, without time there can be no personal existence. All personal beings must, of necessity, exist in time.
For the Audience of One
Jesse Morrell
www.OpenAirOutreach.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/2/2008 9:47 AM (GMT -6) | |
Clete said...I would point out, as is quite eloquently stated in the opening paragraph of the above quoted post, that time is duration as well as sequence (actually those are two forms of the same thing) and that the argument presented here applies not only to activity but existence itself. I suppose one might even say that existence is activity and I would not object to that, I'm just pointing out that any existence of anything (including God) implies duration (if not sequence) and therefore invokes the concept of time. Thus to say anything exists outside of time is to contradict yourself.
I see what you are saying, Clete. And I've always agreed with that as it addresses time and creatures. And part of it applied--I think--to God too, in some aspects . . . but not in others (as far as I can tell).
Don put his finger on something when he wrote: "Creation provides the God-Other relationship that moves God (F,S,Sp) into sequence when relating to Other, while still no need of sequence (time) intra-trinity."
In YOUR post, Clete, you mention duration. "Duration" could mean that something simply continues, without perceived change. I flashlight's beam could be said to have duration. Leaving the scientific details about the battery being drained, the power reducing, or the filiment changing with use...for common purposes we can just accept the beam as having duration.
I'm not troubled by using that term -- akwardly -- of God's BEING and LIVING then. I know I'm using the word commonly. God is the ever-living God. Not static, and not changing. Ever perfect and ever perfuecting. Beyond God" as some Fathers of the Christian church have written, comparing and contrasting our God to the god of the philosophers. They could compare in that way because God is Person and not mere substance. Substance that has duration without change is dead or unliving. God is alive.
But the other word, sequence, is not so easy for me to apply to God's live in all respects. as Don wrote, God's actions as per the Creation certainly has sequence. But can that word be used meaningfully to the relationships of Father, Son and Holy Spirit? There is where things become complicated.
Sequence. Does it describe "Trinitarian Communion." Does it have a use with regard to ""mutually internal abiding and interpenetration""
Here's the quote (LINK BELOW) from Miroslav Volf's book, "After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity"
Volf, page 208
3.2 Perichoretic Personhood
1. In their mutual giving and receiving, the trinitarian persons are not only interdependent, but also mutually internal, something to which the Johannine Jesus repeatedly refers: "so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father" (John 10:38; cl. 14:10-11; 17:21). This mutually internal abiding and interpenetration of the trinitarian persons.........determines the charcter both of the divine persons and of their unity.
Read in context HERE:
I'm not sure whether "mutually internal abiding and interpenetration" has anything to do with "sequencing."
So, as far as the Trinity is active in the Creation...duration and sequence seem to be very useful words and concepts. As far, though, as we talk about God's "life" is concerned -- "being beyond [our concept of] being" -- duration offers usefulness WHEN it is qualified; but sequence is sometimes left out in the cold, un-applied.
Clete, you made the comment, "existence is activity." Sometimes that is true. But in Christian literature, and even our hymns, sometimes existence is "REST!" And Christians can go so far as to say that such rest is active and yet unchanging. For instance our life now is a combination of being generated (cell miosis and mitosis) and dying. But eternal life will have no dying, just active resting. Perfection with perfecting. Loving God more and more. Loving perfectly yet ever increasing in love. Words fail! Only music begins to approach what is needed to express it.
Sequence, as a word, as a concept, is useful up to so far, but not beyond.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Clete
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2007
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 2/3/2008 10:22 PM (GMT -6) | | All the convolutions that people seem to be able to come up with when discussion sequence is precisely the reason I made the point I made in my last post. Sequence is a really good argument when you are discussing these issues with people who haven't taken leave of their common sense but more often than not one is left to win the debate over whether or not God exists outside of time based strictly on the definition of the term "exist" and its fundamental reliance upon the concept of time. If you do not experience time, you do not have duration. If you do not have duration, you do not exist. God exists. Therefore God experiences time. This simple, almost elementary line of reasoning makes all the gobbledygook and picking of nits over sequence irrelevant.
Resting in Him,
Clete | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/3/2008 11:08 PM (GMT -6) | |
Clete said...
convolutions ... common sense ...
Clete, my post was not a convolution. It was a feet on the ground observation that while we know from scripture that Trinitarian communion IS mutually internal abiding and interpenetration. (That scripture is John 10:38; cl. 14:10-11; and 17:21: "so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.")
And as to common sense, I just said that "mutually internal abiding and interpenetration" does not fit with the common understanding and use of "sequence."
Pay attention to the other things I said too: I'm not advocating that perfection for God--or for us is static or frozen.
Don't presume.
God is Love. God'smode of existence is person/communion. God is not a slave of nature. God's love is ecstatic, not frozen as perfection of nature might mislead one to think.
Keep the conversation going.
Thanks,
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/4/2008 4:22 PM (GMT -6) | |
jessemorrell said...
Yes the eternal fellowship between the person of the Trinity is entirely internal. But this does not exclude sequence. It would only exclude sequence if sequence were a creation of God. If sequence were external to God, then the eternal fellowship which the Trinity internally experiences would no doubt be without this sequence. But if sequence is not a creation at all, but is an eternal attribute of God, then the internal fellowship of the Trinity would not exclude this sequence.
The fact that the fellowship between the persons of the Trinity is eternal shows that sequence is an attribute of God. "Eternal" is simply time without end. The Trinity, without beginning or end, experiences fellowship amongst themselves. There was never a time when they did not have this experience. And there was never a time when they won't have this fellowship.
As has been shown, experience cannot occur without time. And eternal means time without end. Therefore, the eternal experience of the Trinity does not at all exclude time, but in fact, could not occur without time.
Jesse, have you--at all--addressed how you see sequence in "internal abiding and interpenetration?" I don't think you did. I can't express "abiding and interpenetrating" in terms of "sequence." Its not the word or concept I'd use to do that. Sequence is: one thing and then another.The term doesn't fit the concept. It doesn't belong.
And I didn't write "eternal," I wrote "internal.
We're not talking about a static God here. Neither of us thinks that. But what we're doing is sizing up the word "sequence" to see what it does and doesn't say, and what it can and can't describe.
It does not fit with "internal." (Though it is more useful with external, especially in creation.)
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 2/4/2008 3:26:49 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/4/2008 6:05 PM (GMT -6) | |
jessemorrell said...
1. Abiding is synonymous with continuing. The internal, eternal fellowship within the Trinity is without beginning and without end. Their fellowship never had a beginning, it always was. And their fellowship has no end, it always will be. Sequence is a natural, internal, eternal attribute of Deity. It is an element of His Divine Nature.
No, you can't just say things.
SHOW me in what respect "sequence" is descriptive of the internal Trinitarian Communion.
The Trinitarian "mutuality internal abiding and interpenetration" is co-inherence. It's not a kenetic thing. You don't use the concept of sequence to describe it, or to ponder it.
So, you have not laid the support that would allow you to say that "sequence is an internal attribute of deity." You've flopped in attempring to apply it to perichoresis. Maybe you'd like to apply it to something else instead -- and thereby make your point.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/4/2008 6:08 PM (GMT -6) | |
jessemorrell said....
The fellowship between the Trinity is both internal and eternal.
Yes, the internal fellowship of the Trinity is eternal.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/4/2008 6:34 PM (GMT -6) | |
jessemorrell said...
-
The experience (sequence) which occurs within the Trinity is both internal and eternal. There can be no experience without sequence.
-
The Persons of the Trinity fellowship with each other and fellowship requires sequence.
-
The Persons of the Trinity enjoy each other and enjoyment requires sequence.
-
Experience, fundamentally, requires at least conscious thoughts and conscious feelings.
-
So there could be absolutely no enjoyable fellowship (eternally and internally) amongst the Trinity without sequence, because without sequence there could be neither thoughts nor feelings.
-
And if there be no thoughts and feelings, there can be no enjoyable fellowship internally and eternally amongst the Persons of the Trinity.
As per #1, perhaps there are things about the incarnation and economy that are not internal, and yet are "within the Trinity" in other ways.
As per #2, That looks like a "Social Trinity" view, verging on three God's, which Gergory of Nyssa attacked in his essay. But how could you say anything about the "fellowship" of the Trinity. Lets get some scripture here, and THEN lets see what words lend themselves comfortably to describe. Not assumptions that make God in human image (like the social trinity).
As per #3, Enjoyment can be said of Christ, who is fully God and also fully man. But can you make anthropomorpophic statements about God outside of what scripture does, which is instructive and economic?
As per #4, Projecting "conscious thought and conscious feelings" into the Trinitarian communion of co-inherence? Are you now? Does it measure up to the task so immense? People fall into Love, and wax and wain and shift and are drawn near. But is there "turning" with God? Surely nothing in scripture about God REQUIRES the invention of using these terms this way. This is romanticism.
As per #5, You say: "no enjoyable fellowship. . .without sequence." That's true of people. But I'm not even sure its true of God with respect to man. God IS Love -- even to those who hate Him he still loves them, unflinchingly. The sequence is ours. But in the face of our changing God is a Rock. Abiding YES. Sequence? In some things yes. But not in everything.
#5 continuted: You said, "without sequence there could be neither thoughts..." The thought, the Logos of God. That is one of the annalogies of God 3 in one (only an analogy). But I wonder whether we would ever venture to think there was a moment (part of a sequence) in time where the thought was only in the Father before afterwards being in the son, or being the son? We don't think this way, for we know better.
"Sequence" is not a word that can be used in every way with God as its subject.
And #6, summarizes the social festivities of a human projection.
Sequence is a term that has many good used. Many.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 81 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:38 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 |
|
|