 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/24/2004 10:37 AM (GMT -6) |   | St. Tony: God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how, in that case, it is possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and showing mercy to those who honor Him, and as turning away from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honor Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions.
St. John: As far as I understand the concepts, "immutable" (as in unable to respond) and "dispassionate," (as in without emotion) I find it highly injurious to God's character to ascribe such ideas to God.
Thomas the Doubter: Thank you John.
With all due respect to PoW and St. Anthony, I have to say that (even on a charitable reading, given Anthony’s contemporaries) there is not a single thought in this paragraph of his I agree with.
Moving on to the next paragraph (with which John found nothing to disagree):
St. Tony: He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same.
Thomas the Doubter: God only bestows blessings? Never does harm? Never commands the ground to swallow the rebellious? Never sends people to hell? Never curses the ground? What Bible do you guys read?
St. Tony: We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way…
Thomas the Doubt: Not in an arbitrary way, no, but he does grow angry.
St. Tony: …but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change…
Thomas the Doubter: See the false either/or? If God were to change it’s only because we won him over. But in reply, might I suggest that in winning us over God’s emotional state changes. But in any case, what is the problem with God’s being won over? What is so problematic about believing that God is actually affected by creation?
St. Tony: Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind.
Thomas the Doubter: Poetic and beautiful, but not the whole truth. Reminds me of Aquinas who claimed that God is like a stone pillar. We change in respect to the pillar, but the pillar never changes in respect to us. Notice how one has to adopt impersonal analogies (sun, pillar, stone) at the very point at which personal ones are most needed. The biblical picture is more personal and interrelated. God’s relation to the wicked is an active one, the result of a passionately driven and moving God, and not at all like the immutable emissions of the Sun.
St. PoW: But God is not changed or influenced to change -- driven by emotion -- as we are.
Thomas the Doubter: Not as we are if we are driven sinfully by our emotions. But we are not ONLY driven by our emotions in sinful or arbitrary ways. We are sometimes very rightly driven by emotions in godly ways. So I wouldn't agree that God is not changed or influenced to change "as we are." When we are sinfully driven, yes. But we're not always sinfully driven.
St. John: The Scriptures reveal clearly that God does not change in His essence…
Thomas the Doubter: Neither do we, so this is not saying anything unique about God.
St. John: …while the Scripture just as clearly reveals that God DOES change in his dealings with nations and individuals--not arbitrarily.
Thomas the Doubter: I’m happy to agree that God does not relate to us arbitrarily, but even happier to deny that God does not change in relating to us.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
 |
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/24/2004 10:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
As far as I understand the concepts, "immutable" (as in unable to respond) and "dispassionate," (as in without emotion) I find it highly injurious to God's character to ascribe such ideas to God.
That's a good point, John. And one not lost on the Early Greek Fathers either. They differentiated between language that was around them and the meaning revealed in Scripture. They preached the God of scripture. The Living God "responds" in his Acts and Ways towards us (Ps. 103), but is not fickle. "God is love." But God is not changed or influenced to change -- driven by emotion -- as we are. God's love does not waver even when we sin!
But the Bible depicts God and Christ as being "moved with compassion," "touched with the feelings of our infirmities," and perhaps most famously, "for God so LOVED the world..." Therefore, while I certainly agree that God is not fickle, I don't think I would use the phrase, "not driven by emotion," to describe God's responsiveness. While it is of course true that He is not DRIVEN by emotion, it is certainly NOT true that His emotional responses to us do not factor into His decisions, or else it would seem He was little more than a robot.
Ex. 2:23 During that long period, the king of Egypt died. The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out, and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God. 24 God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob. 25 So God looked on the Israelites and was concerned about them.
Ex. 2:23 And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage.
24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.
25 And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them.
Ex. 3:7 And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows;
8 And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.
Hosea 11
7My people are hell-bent on leaving me.
They pray to god Baal for help.
He doesn't lift a finger to help them.
8But how can I give up on you, Ephraim?
How can I turn you loose, Israel?
How can I leave you to be ruined like Admah,
devastated like luckless Zeboim?
I can't bear to even think such thoughts.
My insides churn in protest.
9And so I'm not going to act on my anger.
I'm not going to destroy Ephraim.
And why? Because I am God and not a human.
I'm The Holy One and I'm here--in your very midst. (The Message)
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/24/2004 10:52 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
quote:
divine immutability in Orthodoxy is God's loyalty to his promise (his Word, his Church) to his (Church designed) creatures.
I violently agree!
quote:
It is the immutability of his commitment through and outside of time.
I have no idea what "outside of time" means.
John and Tom, I think that it is very, very important to NOT let this be taken only as words by themselves, as an abstraction with not context.
Lay aside the issue of whether the Creator can't be confined by time (and debates whether 'time' and 'sequence' are the same....and whether the western definition of persons stemming from oppositions is correct or not...or whether the perichoresis/coinherence definition of the east is correct--it is--or not... Set that all aside.)
Look at the specifics that are mentioned in conjuction with what you pulled out. And notice the details of what is said. And then notice, further, the ramifications of it. I'll try to help in this.
"his commitment through and outside of time" has two parts...
- "his commitment through...time"
- "his commitment outside of time"
The article says: "economia was the telos." And amature that I am, I take that to mean that the plan of salvation (the incarnation; as the cross only is a modification of Plan-A. (Calvin thought about that too...but probably got it from the Orthodox he was reading.) The Economy was the planned-end. That too has two parts: the plan before time, and the execution within time.
Again, all "time" arguements to the side. That is what is being said.
AND "economia was . . . foundation of the creation." Amen!
SO (ramifications): "Covenant is the inner purpose for creation"
And: "Creation is the outer staging for the inner purpose."
Repeating the article quote:
quote:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/orth_plato.aspx
The Orthodox understanding is that the pagan concept of divine immutability was an allergic reaction to time and contingency that needed to find a time-proof foundation of necessity for religious reassurance. . . .Pagan philosophical theology sought a predestinied necessity in a time-proof order or an anti-time God. Since everything human is temporal, one gets the unknown God because God is what anything temporal-mortal is not.
Using a Biblical base to modify Greek pagan concepts, divine immutability in Orthodoxy is God's loyalty to his promise (his Word, his Church) to his (Church designed) creatures. It is the immutability of his commitment through and outside of time. It is the basis of the fact that economia was the telos, and thus, foundation of the creation. Church is the fulfillment of covenant. Covenant is the inner purpose for creation. Creation is the outer staging for the inner purpose. So, the Church, as Body of Christ, is the fruit from which the tree that bore it, the cosmos, was itself borne and born, as St. Diadochus of Gaza puts it. God's immutability is that he is agape, essentially and contingently, immutably a sharer of Person with Persons, uncreate or create. Time has no nature apart from this agenda, and thus, is nothing in relation to it, and thus, is not an obstacle or issue for or about divine immutability unlike the unregenerate paganism of the insufficiently methologically critical Calvinism.
I especially like where he says: "Covenant is the inner purpose for creation. Creation is the outer staging for the inner purpose." and "Time ... is not an obstacle or issue."
Who can stop God's Love?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/24/2004 10:55 AM (GMT -6) | | [quote]Originally posted by TGB
Moving on to the next paragraph (with which John found nothing to disagree):
St. Tony: He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same.
Thomas the Doubter: God only bestows blessings? Never does harm? Never commands the ground to swallow the rebellious? Never sends people to hell? Never curses the ground? What Bible do you guys read?
John the Saint in Process :  Oops! Must not have read that sentence closely enough. I of course agree that God sometimes bestows cursings (when He has no other righteous choice), not only blessings.
St. Tony: We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way…
St. John: The Scriptures reveal clearly that God does not change in His essence…
Thomas the Doubter: Neither do we, so this is not saying anything unique about God.
John E ...in addition to Him being unchangeable in character.
St. John: …while the Scripture just as clearly reveals that God DOES change in his dealings with nations and individuals--not arbitrarily.
Thomas the Doubter: I’m happy to agree that God does not relate to us arbitrarily, but even happier to deny that God does not change in relating to us.
John E: See the potter/vessel analogy in Jeremiah 18 for what I mean when I say God changes his dealings with nations and individuals when he has good reason to do so.
The principle on which He acts (benevolence toward all) does not change, though the mode (blessing or cursing conditioned upon human activity) does change depending on human activity. God's wrath is in fact an expression of His benevolence (love) towards all. Were He not JUST, He would not be truly benevolent towards all, any more than a governor would be just and benevolent towards all in his realm if he did not enforce the law upon evildoers.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/24/2004 12:18 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
St. Tony: God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how, in that case, it is possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and showing mercy to those who honor Him, and as turning away from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honor Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions.
St. John: As far as I understand the concepts, "immutable" (as in unable to respond) and "dispassionate," (as in without emotion) I find it highly injurious to God's character to ascribe such ideas to God.quote:
PoW: "Unable" is prejorative. But it is a farse to think that God "needs" to respond. GOD is creator, ex nihilo. God does not change the freqency of colors to elicit greater applause from us in rainbows.
--------------
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
St. Tony: He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same.
Thomas the Doubter: God only bestows blessings? Never does harm? Never commands the ground to swallow the rebellious? Never sends people to hell? Never curses the ground? What Bible do you guys read?
PoW: RSV.
quote:
James 1:2-4 "Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing."
quote:
Proverbs 3:11-12 "My son, do not despise the LORD's discipline or be weary of his reproof, for the LORD reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights."
And these are for those who are the "good-guys."
But you know, don't you, about those whom God has warned, and who turned. And those who's iniquity has been limited by their free-reign being limited.
In Tolkein -- in the Silmarillion -- the number two bad-guy was not as totally corrupt as the number one bad-guy........all because he had to "serve somebody" (alla Bob Dylan) to the other.
The universal Love, and saving activity of God can be seen in this verse (though Calvinists might deny it!)
quote:
Ps.94:1-2 "He who chastens the nations, does he not chastise? He who teaches men knowledge, Blessed is the man whom thou dost chasten, O LORD, and whom thou dost teach out of thy law"
But that does NOT mean that God does not love those who in his "zeal" he chastizes!!!
quote:
Jer.2:1 "Your wickedness will chasten you, and your apostasy will reprove you. Know and see that it is evil and bitter for you to forsake the LORD your God; the fear of me is not in you, says the Lord GOD of hosts."
-------------
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
St. Tony: We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way…
Thomas the Doubt: Not in an arbitrary way, no, but he does grow angry.
PoW: God's "wrath" is a bad translation. God's "zeal" is more like it.
quote:
ANOTHER SITE:
An earlier post referred to the so-called "wrath of the Lamb" and "wrath of the Father" in Revelations. Again, from an Eastern Orthodox perspective
which is that of our original Greek (the West has a long history of forming its theology without being fluent in the original Greek that the East has always been), this is a mistranslation. The word in Greek is thymos. It occurs five times in the New Testament writings of St. Paul, once in Hebrews, twice in the Gospel according to Luke, and 10 times in Revelations. In general, thymos is the courageous power of the warrior and a part of the soul in Greek thought. It is also means to boil up and is a force that breaks bonds and obstacles. Thymos, even in Homer and Plato and the Bible, is the courage to overcome the fear of death. Thymos is means passion. The "passion of the Lamb" is how the Greek reads. Tou theou (so-called "wrath of God") is the "passion of God". If any of you know your early Church doctrinal history about the controversy of whether or not the "Father suffered"? Its scriptural basis was this expression in Revelations "tou theou" -- the "passion of God" (NOT "!
wrath of God") because everyone in the early Church read it as "passion of God" which is what the Greek means. Its the western mistranslations that screws up the west here. The early Latin translations of thymos was ardentio (ardent striving) and/or passio (passion). Later, in the middle ages after Anselm, iracundia (wrath, irate) and furor (anger) came into usage to interpret the Latin Bible's ardentio and passio christi. Protestants naively picked it up even despite the fact that a few of their Greek scholars pointed out it was wrong (bad theology drove scriptural mistranslation).
KEEP THE TERMINOLOGY STAIGHT -- GOD HAS "PASSION" BUT IS ALSO IMPASSIBLE!!!! :-)
.....
Another:
quote:
Simple. The action of God provokes others to anger (ogre). Literally, it is the reactive upsurge (usually human) to God's butting in, interfering. In the OT, especially in the LXX, ogre is the human reaction/perception of God's thymos. If this was God's anger, the Greek words kotos, cholos, or menis would have been used. Orge is basically evil's incompatibility with God's goodness. Thus in the active form, orgizo means God's actions/interventions makes people angry as does the noun form parorgisma (provocation to anger). Thus, God's protection of Israel from other nations fills them with vexation (orge) as does God's commitment to justice fills an astray Israel with vexation (ogre). In Genesis, God allows fallen humanity to have its way (give them enough rope to hang themselves) which vexes humanity (ogre). The Holiness of God vexes (ogre) unjust sinners. Thus, the justice of God (dikaiokrisis) has the effect of ogre on humans. Ogre is the effect on sinners of God's dikaiokr!
isis and ekdikesis (Lk, 21:22 and Rom. 2:5). Again, thymos = passion; ogre, orgizo, parorgizo, and parorgisma (provoked to anger and vexation -- royally "pissed off" following the Hebrew word "to pee in another's well") is the effect God has on others. Thus the numerous genitive constructions orge tou thymou (the vexation/anger provoked by God's passion) or orge thymoutai (the angry effect of God's passion). Thus, the justice, love, and holiness of God's passion is "vexful" for Israel (Mt: 3:7; Lk 21:23) and all sinners (Eph. 2:3), the rich and powerful (Rev. 6:15), and His salvation, symbolized by the Cup, "stupefies" (Rev. 14:8); ogre is the "feedback" of attempting to block or oppose God or despising God's love/justice.
So much for BAD Latin translations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[quote]Originally posted by TGB
St. Tony: …but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change…
Thomas the Doubter: See the false either/or? If God were to change it’s only because we won him over. But in reply, might I suggest that in winning us over God’s emotional state changes. But in any case, what is the problem with God’s being won over? What is so problematic about believing that God is actually affected by creation?[quote]
PoW: Tom says "God's emotional state changes." That's so wrong that I'm not going to comment.
Reading back over the two comments where Mether was commenting on what the Greek really says will show where the Western tradition took a wrong detour. Bad translations lead to bad theology, and can harm faith. (Re-read "The River of Fire" to see how it can harm faith! God becomes the bad-guy.)
[quote]Originally posted by TGB
St. Tony: Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind.
Thomas the Doubter: Poetic and beautiful, but not the whole truth. Reminds me of Aquinas who claimed that God is like a stone pillar. We change in respect to the pillar, but the pillar never changes in respect to us. Notice how one has to adopt impersonal analogies (sun, pillar, stone) at the very point at which personal ones are most needed. The biblical picture is more personal and interrelated. God’s relation to the wicked is an active one, the result of a passionately driven and moving God, and not at all like the immutable emissions of the Sun.
PoW: The BIBLICAL picture is of God's righteousness and covenant not changing, even while the people wandered, turned, compromised, desacrated, etc.
Tom doesn't like the Sun's light as an analogy. It is used many places. For good reason: "In Him there is no darkness at all." Light is VERY biblical!!!!
[quote]Originally posted by TGB
St. PoW: But God is not changed or influenced to change -- driven by emotion -- as we are.
Thomas the Doubter: Not as we are if we are driven sinfully by our emotions. But we are not ONLY driven by our emotions in sinful or arbitrary ways. We are sometimes very rightly driven by emotions in godly ways. So I wouldn't agree that God is not changed or influenced to change "as we are." When we are sinfully driven, yes. But we're not always sinfully driven.[quote]
PoW: And when we are not driven by our "passions" (this denotes only sinful emotions. As BOTH Agape AND Eros are God's design for humans!!!!) we approach the stillness (not static!) of our created potential.
[quote]Originally posted by TGB
St. John: The Scriptures reveal clearly that God does not change in His essence…
Thomas the Doubter: Neither do we, so this is not saying anything unique about God.[quote]
PoW: THAT again. We are created in God's image. Duh! But in sin we change in ways other than our essence. (I don't have to keep parallelism, as God "doesn't change" in ways besides his essence.) Sin makes us die, bit by bit. That is change. But in Christ we participate in the Trinitarian life, and partake of the deified humanity of the Incarnate Word.
[quote]Originally posted by TGB
St. John: …while the Scripture just as clearly reveals that God DOES change in his dealings with nations and individuals--not arbitrarily.
Thomas the Doubter: I’m happy to agree that God does not relate to us arbitrarily, but even happier to deny that God does not change in relating to us.
PoW: That last part is what the whole is about, Tom.
How's your "knee?" | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/24/2004 12:25 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
But the Bible depicts God and Christ as being "moved with compassion," "touched with the feelings of our infirmities," and perhaps most famously, "for God so LOVED the world..." Therefore, while I certainly agree that God is not fickle, I don't think I would use the phrase, "not driven by emotion," to describe God's responsiveness. While it is of course true that He is not DRIVEN by emotion, it is certainly NOT true that His emotional responses to us do not factor into His decisions, or else it would seem He was little more than a robot.
PoW: The last part is what we understand from our Evangelical upbringing.
But while we love the word "responsiveness"... take a look at the quotes that I just posted above (from Mether on another site) about how a consistant holiness on God's part results in the sinners getting his own goat.
No, God is not a robot. The Living God ACTS, and Creates, and nurtures. And as we all agree, God is not fickle.
But we also have free will.
God is compassionate. Perfectly compassionate. It is false when we (and frequently!) think that compassion must be tweaked to our advantage, letting us just a little bit off the hook if only we could.... (and the excuses begin). No. God is our loving Father. And he chastens those he loves. And he calls us to "Be holy as he is Holy."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/24/2004 12:31 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Thomas the Doubter: I’m happy to agree that God does not relate to us arbitrarily, but even happier to deny that God does not change in relating to us.
John E: See the potter/vessel analogy in Jeremiah 18 for what I mean when I say God changes his dealings with nations and individuals when he has good reason to do so.
The principle on which He acts (benevolence toward all) does not change, though the mode (blessing or cursing conditioned upon human activity) does change depending on human activity. God's wrath is in fact an expression of His benevolence (love) towards all. Were He not JUST, He would not be truly benevolent towards all, any more than a governor would be just and benevolent towards all in his realm if he did not enforce the law upon evildoers.
This is FINE.
The potter (speaking as one!) knew things that Jeremaih didn't. Jeremiah saw the clay and the Potter's right hand -- the "ruling" hand. What he did NOT see was the coaxing, intuitive, synergistic/cooperative left hand INSIDE the pot.
Looking from outside the pot, and only at the right hand, one would mainly see the ruling will of the potter competing or obeying the potter. But the potter no less loves the failing clay. He wishes just the same quality of wholeness on all clay. And, so, lovingly and wisely, he shapes each clay into the best that it "can" (the impure clay of the second pot in the passage) or "will" (the clay's cooperation in the colaboration -- the synergy) provide/allow/be. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/24/2004 12:37 PM (GMT -6) | | That all was to "not" talk about that, so as to not get derailed from the other.
But since that's over, lets take part of what you just said:
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
My understanding of God-in-time is God experiencing at the very least least His own sequence of thought and action prior to creation.
WHY do you think that?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/24/2004 1:05 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
That all was to "not" talk about that, so as to not get derailed from the other.
But since that's over, lets take part of what you just said:
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
My understanding of God-in-time is God experiencing at the very least least His own sequence of thought and action prior to creation.
WHY do you think that?
Scripture and Reason, PoW. It is a first truth of reason that thoughts require sequence. They are impossible apart from sequence. Deliberation by its very nature requires one thought after another, until a conclusion is reached. The Bible reveals that God does precisely this many, many times in His history. "When the Lord SAW..." "NOW I know..."
While it is of course true that God's deliberations operate at levels infinitely faster and more efficient than our own, it cannot be the case that God's thoughts are timeless or "outside time," or in "the eternal now." If they were, then absolute predestination would be the only logical result, and God would not even be able to create in the first place. (The narrative in Genesis begins with "in the beginning...", which is a time concept, and proceeds with, "and God said..." It seems to me that if we are to take Scripture as expressing even a semblance of truth, we must take God's narratives as expressing God's history in His own words).
It is also clear from Scripture that God deliberates before He makes a decision, comes to know some actualities in real time, and refers to the future in subjunctive terms, such as "IF my people..."
P.S.: I find your attempt to limit the discussion in the way you want it to go somewhat annoying and odd, PoW. Why would you want to avoid the issue of God's relationship to time? I just don't get it, honestly.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/24/2004 1:58 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
John: My understanding of God-in-time is God experiencing at the very least least His own sequence of thought and action prior to creation.
PoW: WHY do you think that?
John: It is a first truth of reason that thoughts require sequence. They are impossible apart from sequence. Deliberation by its very nature requires one thought after another, until a conclusion is reached. The Bible reveals that God does precisely this many, many times in His history. "When the Lord SAW..." "NOW I know..."
PoW: That's not what the Bible is revealing.
You and I have organic brains, that use neurons. (I held half a brain once.) We are creatures, and we exist in time and space. It seems unknowable to conclude that the Father, Son and Spirit have sequences in-between their relationship...too ackward to even say.
Augustine almost reduces the Holy Spirit to a force between the Father and Son. He was intuiting something good. But that, of his many different theories, has problems.
"Perichoresis" is best translated to "co-inherence" in English. Undivided AND unconfused. That close. No "room" (in 'time' or 'space' for what you are imagining (projecting from humanity upon God).
..................
John: While it is of course true that God's deliberations operate at levels infinitely faster and more efficient than our own, it cannot be the case that God's thoughts are timeless or "outside time," or in "the eternal now."
PoW: Frankly, these three -- timeless, outside time, and eternal now -- are abstractions. I don't like the either.
But it is really a projection of creature upon Creator to concoct "infinitely faster."
.............
John: If they were, then absolute predestination would be the only logical result, and God would not even be able to create in the first place.
PoW: I agree. Predestination traps God within time. Evdokimov says that very well. That's why "timeless, outside time, and eternal now" are not good fare.
.........
John: It is also clear from Scripture that God deliberates before He makes a decision, comes to know some actualities in real time, and refers to the future in subjunctive terms, such as "IF my people..."
PoW: That's not the point of those scriptures. (Honestly, that is like pretending scripture is like a casette recording by a newspaper reporter.)
.................
John: P.S.: I find your attempt to limit the discussion in the way you want it to go somewhat annoying and odd, PoW. Why would you want to avoid the issue of God's relationship to time? I just don't get it, honestly.
PoW: I take your comment here seriously.
I set aside the "issue of God's relationship to time" in-order-that I could address your own question.
I showed how the author related what was before economy/covenant/etc. with the realization itself. The WHOLE issue is CHRIST IN US.
Now, if it were annoying that I'd be more interested in "Christ in us" than sci-fi projections about how God might experience time.... well, I'm interested in "Christ in us."
But it is WITHIN that issue of Christ in us that ALL OF the issue of God and time must be considered. All of it.
Statements about that, of good repute, include:
- There was a cross in the heart of God before the foundation of the world.
- The incarnation would have still happened, even without the fall.
- The "Day of the Lord" is less a time than a condition.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/24/2004 2:50 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
John: "When the Lord SAW..." "NOW I know..."
Okay, so you apparently feel free to dispense with the clear statements of God himself in Scripture; how about REASON?
I think that is more a matter of some applying "reason" to treat the scriptural narrative like journalism.
I really don't think that contemporaries would be using the text to demonstrate limitations in God.
A point is being made, and it is consinant with the response that the sovereign wants to effect in his revelation. It is all about those he is speaking of, and about their having a choice, or of having spent their choice. And it is all about those who's choices must be considered in light of royal statements.
You will agree that "NOW I know..." does not indicate a change in God's Love. But we would also agree that the action of God will reflect the choice the "known-about" made. And, as Anthony said and Mether's scripture commentaries (quoted) show, it is the "ogre" of God to apply saving mercy--for their own good--inspite of how some may hate it. "When the Lord SAW..." does not necessarily mean that God didn't understand what would be chosen -- it is just a reflection of the freedom of movement, opportunity for deliberation and action, etc. that God gives.
Our understanding of God changes most when we understand better the selves He has created.
I don't like that sometimes I hear on this board a sense of narrative where God seems faltering, clumbsy. etc. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/24/2004 3:13 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
John: "When the Lord SAW..." "NOW I know..."
quote:
Okay, so you apparently feel free to dispense with the clear statements of God himself in Scripture; how about REASON?
PoW said:
quote:
I think that is more a matter of some applying "reason" to treat the scriptural narrative like journalism.
John says: So we really can't take Scripture seriously when it says "GOD said thus and so..."?
quote:
I really don't think that contemporaries would be using the text to demonstrate limitations in God.
John says:
It is not clear how it is a "limitation" if it is merely God's self-expression. It is no more a limitation for God to express himself this way than it is for God to say he "cannot lie."
Either "NOW I know..." means something, or it means nothing.
quote:
You will agree that "NOW I know..." does not indicate a change in God's Love.
Correct. Who said it did?
quote:
But we would also agree that the action of God will reflect the choice the "known-about" made. And, as Anthony said and Mether's scripture commentaries (quoted) show, it is the "ogre" of God to apply saving mercy--for their own good--inspite of how some may hate it. "When the Lord SAW..." does not necessarily mean that God didn't understand what would be chosen -- it is just a reflection of the freedom of movement, opportunity for deliberation and action, etc. that God gives.
Again, this seems to me to be like this is just saying the Bible doesn't mean what it says (not even remotely).
quote:
Our understanding of God changes most when we understand better the selves He has created.
I suppose this is a not-too-subtle dig at Open Theists as somehow being shallow and unaware of their selves? How ridiculous.
quote:
I don't like that sometimes I hear on this board a sense of narrative where God seems faltering, clumbsy. etc.
That would be your caricaturization of our "sense of narrative." If the Bible itself presents God as resolving contingencies in real-time, I see no reason to believe otherwise (except perhaps if I had a philosophical axe to grind as you seem to).
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/24/2004 3:26 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Deliberation by its very nature requires one thought after another, until a conclusion is reached.
Perhaps you are using the word "deliberation" here differently than it first struck me, John.
John of Damascus pointed out that Mary did not "deliberate" when the Angel told her "Fear not..." She simply, purely said "Yes." She did not weigh advantages and disadvantages. She did not wonder what the other "road" would be like. She didn't worry that her youth might be misspent. She did not deliberate. For John of Damascus the "deliberative will" is part of the fallen man.
That may not be what you are saying, and considering applying to your notion of God. But it is related to what matters to me -- that of becoming God-like. God does not deliberate, and choose choices. God's choice is for Love. Mary's choice was for love. She did have a real numerical choice. Yes to her God, or yes to herself. But having a pure heart she made the only decision that was according to her pure will: Yes. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/24/2004 3:59 PM (GMT -6) | | John, my friend, you say "clearly you... But it maybe is just late.
PoW: I began by saying "Perhaps you are using the word "deliberation" here differently..." And now I wonder whether you really grasped how I myself was using it. (For John of Damascus the "deliberative will" is part of the fallen man. . . Mary did not "deliberate" when the Angel told her "Fear not..." She simply, purely said "Yes.")
So, you say "Scripture indicates that God does indeed deliberate often." I can't say that "God acts in time" because Time has no existence of its own. Time is an act of God. God "responds" to us -- which seems plain. But that is not "passible" responses, but pastoral responses. THOSE actions CAN be termed deliberations. But they are not self-centered, in the human sense of self-centeredness. (They are for "God's 'glory'" -- which has TWO meanings.)
John: One can deliberate and still remain loving all the while.
PoW: Yes.
John -- too sleepy to know that I was using deliberate" in a very specific way, as had been said: I am truly at a loss as to how your view can affirm that God has EVER decided to do anything.
Sleep well.
- PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 6/24/2004 8:50 PM (GMT -6) | | POW is concerned to avoid a "clumsy" god. Amen to THAT. Hence he doesn't want to affirm a God who has to deliberate the way we do. We deliberate out of imperfection... not knowing all the facts, slow in drawing conclusions. God, who is infinitely intelligent, sees all facts instantiously, with perfect loving motives, etc... doesn't have to deliberate THAT way.
But granting that God is infinitely intelligent and knows all instanteously and is always perfectly loving doesn't imply that God has no sequence, nor that God doesn't deliberate in any sense. The very fact that God RESPONDS to his creations shows he is IN SEQUENCE with them. And as for deliberation, it may be that there are seventeen courses of action that are all EQUALLY GOOD in various respects to take in response to a situation. Hence, even an infinitely intelligent God who is perfectly loving may have to CHOOSE between them. He deliberates not between "good" and "poor" choices, but between "equally good" choices.
To think otherwise seems to me to reduce God to a cosmic computer who just spits out the one "best" response to all situations as they arise.
Am I at all addressing the issue between POW and JOHN?
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/24/2004 9:01 PM (GMT -6) | | PoW: But that does NOT mean that God does not love those who in his "zeal" he chastizes!!!
Tom: Didn’t suggest it meant that. I suggested that God’s loving those he chastizes DOESN’T imply that God is impassible.
Tom: Not in an arbitrary way, no, but he does grow angry.
PoW: God's "wrath" is a bad translation. God's "zeal" is more like it.
Tom: Zeal, anger, wrath, whatever. Doesn’t matter.
PoW: KEEP THE TERMINOLOGY STAIGHT -- GOD HAS "PASSION" BUT IS ALSO IMPASSIBLE!!!! :-)
Tom: I have no idea at all what that might mean.
PoW: Tom says "God's emotional state changes." That's so wrong that I'm not going to comment.
Tom: The feeling is mutual PoW. I feel as strongly about the belief God doesn’t have emotional states, or that if he had one it would never change. See, I told you guys there is far more to the Orthodox belief in God’s immutability than merely “God’s unchanging faithfulness to his promise.” Far more.
PoW: The BIBLICAL picture is of God's righteousness and covenant not changing, even while the people wandered, turned, compromised, desacrated, etc.
Tom: That much is certainly true. It’s not the entire biblical piciture, however. But given that much, how do you get from this that God cannot experience changing states of emotion?
PoW: Tom doesn't like the Sun's light as an analogy. It is used many places. For good reason: "In Him there is no darkness at all." Light is VERY biblical!!!!
Tom: “God is light” is indeed very biblical when used to say about God what the Bible uses “God is light” to say about God. Unfortunately, God’s being impassible is not part of it.
quote:
St. John: The Scriptures reveal clearly that God does not change in His essence…
Thomas the Doubter: Neither do we, so this is not saying anything unique about God.quote:
PoW: THAT again. We are created in God's image. Duh! But in sin we change in ways other than our essence.
Then my point stands. We’re not saying anything about God that we aren’t saying about ourselves when we say his “essence” doesn’t change.
[quote]Thomas the Doubter: I’m happy to agree that God does not relate to us arbitrarily, but even happier to deny that God does not change in relating to us.
PoW: That last part is what the whole is about, Tom.
Indeed it is.
My knee is fine. How are your foot and mouth? 
Oh yeah, somewhere along here PoW you said God doesn't NEED to respond, that he created the world ex nihilo. I agree. God doesn't NEED to respond to creation. That's not what I'm claiming. I'm saying God can respond IF HE WANTS TO. He can create the SORT of world in which he does experience changing states of mind and emotion in response to us. He doesn't NEED to create this sort of world. But he is FREE to create this sort of world if he desires. As far as I can tell, he did desire such a world, and we're in it.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/24/2004 9:34 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
POW is concerned to avoid a "clumsy" god. Amen to THAT. Hence he doesn't want to affirm a God who has to deliberate the way we do. We deliberate out of imperfection... not knowing all the facts, slow in drawing conclusions. God, who is infinitely intelligent, sees all facts instantiously, with perfect loving motives, etc... doesn't have to deliberate THAT way.
But granting that God is infinitely intelligent and knows all instanteously and is always perfectly loving doesn't imply that God has no sequence, nor that God doesn't deliberate in any sense. The very fact that God RESPONDS to his creations shows he is IN SEQUENCE with them. And as for deliberation, it may be that there are seventeen courses of action that are all EQUALLY GOOD in various respects to take in response to a situation. Hence, even an infinitely intelligent God who is perfectly loving may have to CHOOSE between them. He deliberates not between "good" and "poor" choices, but between "equally good" choices.
To think otherwise seems to me to reduce God to a cosmic computer who just spits out the one "best" response to all situations as they arise.
Am I at all addressing the issue between POW and JOHN?
Greg
Yes, thank you Dr. Boyd. We've missed ya around here.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/25/2004 3:20 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
- A. "God...doesn't have to deliberate THAT way."
- B. "The very fact that God RESPONDS to his creations shows he is IN SEQUENCE with them."
- C. ""seventeen courses" of action...all EQUALLY GOOD...Hence...God...CHOOSE between them."
- D. "reduce God to a cosmic computer"
First, as to addressing all the issues, John and I (and Tom)agree on the most basic and important. We've said so above.
Second, I've made a list of your contibutions here, Greg.
A. The wondering about some mechanics such as in "C" isn't interesting to me. Of great interest is the meaning we give to choices. In fact, humanity was created to GIVE MEANING to the creation. Man, created with one foot in the "sensible" and one foot in the "intelligable" worlds--like the animals in one respect and like the angels in another respect--is uniquely ordained to the role of "microcosm" and "mediator."
If we "deliberate" in the way that St. John of Damascus red-flags -- in the way you agree God does not -- then we fail to be priests between God and Creation. (We are called to be prophet, priest and king in this position.)
Deliberate has other meanings too. I speak of doing something "deliberately." And Mary--since we spoke of her above--deliverately said "Yes." (Though not from a "deliberative (adj.) will.")
B. As to: "The very fact that God RESPONDS to his creations shows he is IN SEQUENCE with them."
Of course. Time does not exist of its own. "With them" God acts. Time is God's act. "God RESPONDS to his creations" "with them" acting timefully.
It it calvinistic predestination that "traps God in time" by locking God's responses in the past. (Paul Evdokimov makes a useful comment on this, that I've posted lots.)
C. ""seventeen courses" of action...all EQUALLY GOOD...Hence...God...CHOOSE between them."
I wonder whether it means anything that you were able to make this up? Probably not.
But it is off to the side of the real issue. It excludes human free will, and slips back into the deterministic framework that you say you want to escape from. It looks like a reaction against Calvinism. (You and Pinnock were converts to Calvinism at one time, right?)
I mentioned that man is "microcosm" and "mediator." Christ's becoming "prophet, priest and king" was a picking up, as humself human, of the ball dropped by Adam and Eve. We too are called to be "prophet, priest and king." And the model of the "seventeen courses" seems to me as stuck in the past as any calvinistic predestination. Just in smaller units. See?
Its what's missing in the model that makes me uneasy.
D. As to "reduce God to a cosmic computer" -- John said robot. Of course God is not. I said so above too.
But, actually Greg, your seventeen courses sounds as computerish as anything else. It lacks the "organic" character of how God actually does include the mediative, the priestly, the prophetic, the kingly role of mankind, from their microcosmic seat in developing the potentialities of creation and offering all back to God.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Greg," On prophet, priest and king, and microcosm and mediator, let me recommend books on Maximus the Confessor and Symeon the New Theologian.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/25/2004 3:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
I suggested that God’s loving those he chastizes DOESN’T imply that God is impassible.
Tom, what do you think the Fathers (not the pagan Greeks) meant when they ssid this, and what were the ramifications.
You seem outside of the conversation. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/25/2004 3:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: ...he does grow angry.
PoW: God's "wrath" is a bad translation. God's "zeal" is more like it.
Tom: Zeal, anger, wrath, whatever. Doesn’t matter.
Doesn't sound like the response of a languages person!!!
Greg, you may like these!!!!
quote:
PoW: God's "wrath" is a bad translation. God's "zeal" is more like it.
quote:
---------------------------------------
ANOTHER SITE:
An earlier post referred to the so-called "wrath of the Lamb" and "wrath of the Father" in Revelations. Again, from an Eastern Orthodox perspective which is that of our original Greek (the West has a long history of forming its theology without being fluent in the original Greek that the East has always been), this is a mistranslation. The word in Greek is thymos. It occurs five times in the New Testament writings of St. Paul, once in Hebrews, twice in the Gospel according to Luke, and 10 times in Revelations. In general, thymos is the courageous power of the warrior and a part of the soul in Greek thought. It is also means to boil up and is a force that breaks bonds and obstacles. Thymos, even in Homer and Plato and the Bible, is the courage to overcome the fear of death. Thymos is means passion. The "passion of the Lamb" is how the Greek reads. Tou theou (so-called "wrath of God") is the "passion of God". If any of you know your early Church doctrinal history about the controversy of whether or not the "Father suffered"? Its scriptural basis was this expression in Revelations "tou theou" -- the "passion of God" (NOT "!" wrath of God") because everyone in the early Church read it as "passion of God" which is what the Greek means. Its the western mistranslations that screws up the west here. The early Latin translations of thymos was ardentio (ardent striving) and/or passio (passion). Later, in the middle ages after Anselm, iracundia (wrath, irate) and furor (anger) came into usage to interpret the Latin Bible's ardentio and passio christi. Protestants naively picked it up even despite the fact that a few of their Greek scholars pointed out it was wrong (bad theology drove scriptural mistranslation).
---------------------------------------
KEEP THE TERMINOLOGY STAIGHT -- GOD HAS "PASSION" BUT IS ALSO IMPASSIBLE!!!! :-)
.....
Another:
quote:
---------------------------------------
Simple. The action of God provokes others to anger (ogre). Literally, it is the reactive upsurge (usually human) to God's butting in, interfering. In the OT, especially in the LXX, ogre is the human reaction/perception of God's thymos. If this was God's anger, the Greek words kotos, cholos, or menis would have been used. Orge is basically evil's incompatibility with God's goodness. Thus in the active form, orgizo means God's actions/interventions makes people angry as does the noun form parorgisma (provocation to anger). Thus, God's protection of Israel from other nations fills them with vexation (orge) as does God's commitment to justice fills an astray Israel with vexation (ogre). In Genesis, God allows fallen humanity to have its way (give them enough rope to hang themselves) which vexes humanity (ogre). The Holiness of God vexes (ogre) unjust sinners. Thus, the justice of God (dikaiokrisis) has the effect of ogre on humans. Ogre is the effect on sinners of God's dikaiokr!
isis and ekdikesis (Lk, 21:22 and Rom. 2:5). Again, thymos = passion; ogre, orgizo, parorgizo, and parorgisma (provoked to anger and vexation -- royally "pissed off" following the Hebrew word "to pee in another's well") is the effect God has on others. Thus the numerous genitive constructions orge tou thymou (the vexation/anger provoked by God's passion) or orge thymoutai (the angry effect of God's passion). Thus, the justice, love, and holiness of God's passion is "vexful" for Israel (Mt: 3:7; Lk 21:23) and all sinners (Eph. 2:3), the rich and powerful (Rev. 6:15), and His salvation, symbolized by the Cup, "stupefies" (Rev. 14:8); ogre is the "feedback" of attempting to block or oppose God or despising God's love/justice.
---------------------------------------
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/25/2004 3:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
PoW: The BIBLICAL picture is of God's righteousness and covenant not changing, even while the people wandered, turned, compromised, desacrated, etc.
Tom: That much is certainly true. It’s not the entire biblical piciture, however. But given that much, how do you get from this that God cannot experience changing states of emotion?
The issue is how you get to a position were you say he does.
YOU say that God does not "need" -- and we both know what we are talking about.
Don't you see the connection? "Changing states of emotion" is a form of need.
If you make God into an infinite computer, like Greg, then you have overlapping "changing states of emotion" and fluctuating need.
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Oh yeah, somewhere along here PoW you said God doesn't NEED to respond, that he created the world ex nihilo. I agree. God doesn't NEED to respond to creation. That's not what I'm claiming. I'm saying God can respond IF HE WANTS TO. He can create the SORT of world in which he does experience changing states of mind and emotion in response to us. He doesn't NEED to create this sort of world. But he is FREE to create this sort of world if he desires. As far as I can tell, he did desire such a world, and we're in it.
You slip into the false conclusion that I'm saying that God does not and cannot respond -- that God is not personal. But that has never been the case. (Tom, I think you might want to assess whether you are edging near going into a tyrade--I'm growing concerned.)
.....................
Tom you say: "I'm saying God can respond IF HE WANTS TO." And I agree with that. God makes resposes.
Tom, you also say: "God doesn't NEED to respond to creation." And I agree with that.
And you also agree when John and I say: "God’s immutability is “God’s unchanging faithfulness to his promise.”"
So we have God making responses that he does not need to make, and making them on the basis of his unchanging faithfulness (Love.)
We do NOT have God deciding in time what he and we are locked into for all the duration of time. (calvinistic predestination)
-------------
BUT, WHAT INTERESTS ME, IS WHY IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN IMPORTANT FOR THE CHURCH TO: (1) AFFIRM THE 'IMMUTABILITY' AND 'IMPASSIBILITY' OF CHRIST'S DIVINE NATURE IN THE INCARNATION; AND, (2) AFFIRM THAT DISCIPLESHIP IS A MOVEMENT FROM BONDAGE TO "PASSIONS" ('NEEDING TO'--LIKE A 'JUNKY') TO FREEDOM FROM PASSIONS -- E.G., BECOMING PASSIONATE FOR GOD BY FREE WILL.
But if you want to follow me in this discussion you have to recognize the two millenia old tradition of using pairs of words, as if guard-rails, to brackets the truth and protect it from the precipice of wandering error.
God is passionate (loves) without having passion (need).
Christ suffered and died in his human nature, which was and is a true hypostasis of the Divine Word, but yet did not undergo change in his immutable, impassible divinity.
----------------
"Open-Theists" like to do the Trigonometic operations like Greg's "seventeen options." Trigonometice because it is really micro-predestination. Trigonometry (I think) uses "limits" to slice an irregation field into smaller and smaller strips. Greg's "seventeen options" happen more and more freqently, "approaching" a model of the truth. But as I pointed out, such models, along with their calvinistic father, leave mankind out of the picture -- or allow us as a well-meaning afterthought.
This is a better model:
- God can respond (make responses) IF HE WANTS TO."
- God doesn't "NEED" to respond to creation.
- "God’s immutability is “God’s unchanging faithfulness to his promise.”"
Add to that man's calling and task as microcosm and mediator, and our station as prophet, priest and king.....stir, and you are ready!!!!!]
INSTEAD of injecting humanity into God, reclaim the humanity in the picture by restoring humanity to its task and calling!!!!!
Greetings, Greg!
- PotOnWheel | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/25/2004 5:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
This is a better model:
- God can respond (make responses) IF HE WANTS TO."
- God doesn't "NEED" to respond to creation.
- "God’s immutability is “God’s unchanging faithfulness to his promise.”"
Add to that man's calling and task as microcosm and mediator, and our station as prophet, priest and king.....stir, and you are ready!!!!!]
| | Back to Top | | |
| 142 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:06 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 |
|
|