Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Boyd's "creatio ex mente Dei"?

Forum Quick Jump

67 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

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

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/17/2004 2:40 PM (GMT -6)

PoW, why the new handle...why the new handle...why the new handle?

Hey, do I hear an echo in here?

Eyebrow

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 4/17/2004 5:53 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by echo
That's two reasons right there for me to stay away from him: mechanizing salvation (hyper-calvinism), and locking God inside time.

Why do you lock God outside of time?

Time marchs backwards...... Eyebrow

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

feelinahole
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754

Posted 4/17/2004 6:48 PM (GMT -6)

This board is really only a play toy for POW. POW is the true Calvinist and controlls all here by being every character.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/17/2004 8:05 PM (GMT -6)

Yong’s article is great fodder for discussion. I’m surprised so little is actually being said about it. I’d be interested in discussing it.

Starkman: Is it possible that there are situations prohibiting God from knowing the possiblities as finite--God only knows the possibilities as infinite? At the moment, in view of what I've written above, I think it's possible.

I don’t get what you’re asking Starkman. But I for one don’t think possibilities are infinite. We call God “infinitely intelligent” and say he knows the infinite number of possibilities. But I’ve understood infinite in “infinite intelligence” to refer to the intelligence of the “infinite God” and not requiring an actually infinite number of possibilities. I suspect the number of possibilities is finite. There are only so many ways the future could unfold. That number may be far beyond our calculating, very great indeed, but I suspect it’s not actually infinite. Possibilities are finite then.

What’s that do to omniscience? Does it mean God is other than “infinitely intelligent”? Well, it all depends on definitions. I think “infinitely intelligent” is a helpful way to describe God’s knowing the future. But I’ve always understood it to mean something along the lines of “God is so smart he can know any number of possibilities, no matter how great the number. God’s intelligence always exceeds demands placed on it by creation.” Now, the number of facts describing what did happen in the past is finite, and so God’s knowledge of the past is finite. God’s not finite, but the bank of knowledge God possesses which describes the finite history of the world is itself finite for it is knowledge OF THAT HISTORY. The same goes for God’s knowledge of the present moment. What is now happening throughout the universe constitutes a finite number of actualities. God knows them all infallibly. But his knowledge of the present moment is finite because the present moment is finite. I hold the same thing applies to the future. I don’t imagine that the number of possible ways the future can unfold is actually infinite. If you line the possible story lines up one after another you eventually come to the end of possible story lines. And God knows them all. So why is his intelligence “infinite” if what is known is “finite”? Because what God knows doesn’t “exhaust” God’s intelligence. Were the number of future possibilities to double, or triple, God’s intelligence would process them quite effortlessly. His intelligence knows no bounds. However great the mass of (past, present, and future) information God is presented with, it nevertheless is a finite mass unequal to God in his infinity. God’s intelligence always exceeds the demands creation makes upon it. In this sense God is “infinitely intelligent.”

feelingahole: If God thought about what he was going to create BEFORE he created it, that would imply duration (time) and God would be temporal at that time.

Tom: I think it also implies that nominalism is false and some form of realism is true. I’m unsure if God is timeless in the absence of creation. There’s something to be said for Craig’s argument that God is timeless in the absence of creation and temporal since creation (and not both). If God is temporal (in the sense of experiencing sequence) before creation, then God thinks of what he creates before he creates it. These implies the existence the categories of creation (animal, red, plants, flowers, humans) in the absence of the actual existence of any particular members of those categories, which is bad news for nominalism (I think! Wink

). If however God is timeless sans creation, then there IS NO “before” where God thinks or does anything else. But nominalism still falters (I think) because the categories LOGICALLY pre-exist the actual creation. To my mind this seems to imply realism.

I’m still not quite sure on what Yong is getting at in contrasting creation “out of God’s mind” with creation “ex nihilo.” He clearly doesn’t think they’re contrary claims because he grants that Doc believes in creation “ex nihilo.” He just qualifies it by adding that it also happens to be creation “ex mente Dei.” I’m not sure what’s at stake.

I don’t wanna get into the Trinity debate right now ‘cause I have some books on order that I wanna get into first: Catherine LaCugna’s book on the Trinity, God For Us and Karl Rahner’s The Trinity (and Zizioulas’s Being As Communion as well). I have all three on order. But LaCugna and Rahner both toss out the distinction between the immanent (God ad intra) and economic (God ad extra) Trinity. For too long the immanent Trinity was believed to be the “real Trinity” in contrast to God’s Trinitarian relations with the world. I think all ontological distinction between immanent Trinity and economic Trinity ought to be abolished.

Tom

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/18/2004 8:18 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole

This board is really only a play toy for POW.

Consider the Commandment proscribing false-witness against your neighbor!

I posted thoughful, careful questions, reflections, comments.

Try the same; and remove the stump in your own eye.

THANKS FOR TAKING THE QUESTION SERIOUSLY, TOM.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/18/2004 8:20 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by TGB

Yong’s article is great fodder for discussion. I’m surprised so little is actually being said about it. I’d be interested in discussing it.

ME TOO!

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 4/18/2004 8:57 AM (GMT -6)

Hey there, Echo,

Well, I still hold to what I have written, and I think I was clear enough. I could be wrong. (I'm always re-hashing over what I've written asking myself if it could have been clearer! I have TGB and others on this board to thank for helping me to home my writing skills Smile

).

I have read several of PoW's posts (though, it's been a while now), and I'm familiar enough with the EO postion on the EO theology of the Trinity (as it regards the procession of the Three) to say that I simply disagree with it.

NOTE: One does not have to read hours of Nyssa to discuss this issue. Scripture is clear enough about the nature of the Trinity to conclude a comprehensible orthodox understanding of the theology. You're free to argue from Scripture, commentaries included, but it is an inadequate defence to challenge my Scriptural belief in view of my sufficient or unsufficient knowledge of Nyssa! Evil Tongue

So take THAT, Echo! (Put e'm up, put 'em up! Black Eye

)

Eternal means eternal. There is no room to addendum it with church council meeting conclusions or church fathers' formulas. Yes, sometimes, as it has been a great contribution--the working-through of the theologies--but it wasn't in the case of EO theology with regard to this particular concept of the Trinity (viz., the procession of the coexistence of the members) Excepted standard orthodox understanding of the Trinity is that there never has been a time that the Father was without the Son...without the Spirit., as you said. This makes all three the one God, as God Himself has said that He is One. But then the EO addendum comes in: The Son is begotten. The Spirit proceeds. SCRIPTURE is the source of that revelation. followed by the apology: The Church Fathers stopped short of trying to even define what those two mean. The Church Fathers, in my opinion, with regard to this issue had been unable to define "what those two mean," because they had already stepped outside of the theological understanding God had given about Himself in Scripture. It should have been left as it stands in Scripture: One God revealed in three persons.

To sum, Scripture, as I understand it, is not the source of this revelation. Further, not everything the Church Fathers said must be taken as gospel truth--if we all cannot admit this much, then we are in trouble--though they surely struggled through this, and other theologies, from earnest and sincere truth seeking.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

Hey Tom,

quote:
What is now happening throughout the universe constitutes a finite number of actualities. God knows them all infallibly. But his knowledge of the present moment is finite because the present moment is finite. I hold the same thing applies to the future. I don’t imagine that the number of possible ways the future can unfold is actually infinite.

It doesn't seem to logically follow that because the past and present are finite that the future, therefore, is finite; the past is finite because it's already happened. The present is finite because as it unfolds it only unfolds one way, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have unfolded another way. The future, therefore, is open to possibilies of which we do not know which one will unfold.

In view of God's omniscience and the above, Gpd knows all possibilities, and I'm asking if some of those possibilities include possibilities that are infinite in and of themselves; a shape-shifting entity that is never in the same form more than once, perhaps never in any shape in that there is no solidification of the shape because there is never cessation of motion. I don't see this being a problem if it's true; God would know it is true and would know it completely and infinitely to be true. I'm not sure if there are such possibilities as these--and apparently you feel there are none--but if there were, it would be interesting, that's all.

Gotta run,

Starkman

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/18/2004 10:51 AM (GMT -6)

Yes, Starkman, you certainly have honed your writing craft. I noticed! Congratulations.

And yes you were clear. (Did you notice my agreement and applause of much of what you wrote?)

You also say "I'm familiar enough with the EO position on the EO theology of the Trinity (as it regards the procession of the Three) to say that I simply disagree with it." I accept that you know what is considered in each position, West for its "beginning" with substance ("eternity" in your case here) and East for its "beginning" with Person. I was thinking about this between SS and Church today. Your being essentially "Western" is no different from arguments I've had with Calvinists. That's the tradition you find yourself in. It has its origins, and it also carries its weighty loads. "Openness" is more like the "Classical" than it thinks; it defends the source of the very thing it contests. Actually, it probably deserves to be recognized as an "alternative-classical" position, rather than something contrary-to the classical. I think the root of the "classical" is its foundation on "substance." Right? (That's the baggage of a view that has three Persons united only in their coincidental similarity of attribute brings.)

You comment on something, and I'm pretty sure you don't know what my goal in saying what I did was: "One does not have to read hours of Nyssa to discuss this issue." One certainly does not have to read Nyssa to examine the topic--you are right on that. But you DO have to read Nyssa, or Naz. or Basil if you want to hear the thoughts of someone thinking and writing BEFORE there was a lexicon of words one had to use. READ his LINK, please. And when you do, follow closely to what he does. It is almost painful that he does not "cut to the chase" as "chase" gets later defined. He works with no definitions (so to speak), high-wire with no "net." The honesty is breathtaking!!!

I hope that you will, Starkman.

I'm not sure of your point by "Scripture is clear enough about the nature of the Trinity to conclude a comprehensible orthodox understanding of the theology." Tom made some good points above, I thought. And I'd agree with him that "all ontological distinction between immanent Trinity and economic Trinity ought to be abolished."

quote:
Originally posted by Starkman

Eternal means eternal.

There may not be a weakness there; but again, there may be too. Is "eternal" "anterior" to God. (Abstract language, but not without meaning. Can you handle it?) "Anterior/posterior to" usually means "before/after": but literally what would be suggested is then "eternity existing before God" -- and no one wants that mess. But "anterior/posterior" in its abstract finesse can mean *providing the foundation* (And maybe that's the best my imagination can offer.) The language of "anterior/posterior to" comes from the Russian theologian Vladimir Lossky, in a chapter on the Trinity--so it fits.

quote:
If personal diversity in God presents itself as a primordial fact, not to be deduced from any other principle or based on any other idea, that does not mean that the essential identity of the Three is ontologically posterior to their hypostatic diversity. Orthodox triadology is not a counter-blast to Filioquism; it does not run to the other extreme. As we already have said, relations of origin signify the personal diversity of the Three, but they indicate no less their essential identity. In that the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinguished from the Father, we venerate three Persons; in that they are one with Him, we confess their consubstantiality Thus the monarchy of the Father maintains the perfect equilibrium between the nature and the persons, without coming down too heavily on either side. There is neither an impersonal substance nor non-consubstantial persons. The one nature and the three hypostases are presented simultaneously to our understanding, with neither prior to the other. The origin of the hypostases is not impersonal, since it is referred to the person of the Father; but it is unthinkable apart from their common possession of the same essence, the "divinity in division undivided." Otherwise we should have Three Divine Individuals, Three Gods bound together by an abstract idea of Godhead. On the other hand, since consubstantiality is the non-hypostatic identity of the Three, in that they have (or rather are) a common essence, the unity of the three hypostases is inconceivable apart from the monarchy of the Father, who is the principle of the common possession of the same one essence. Otherwise we should be concerned with a simple essence, differentiated by relationships.
Vladimir Lossky, Chapter 4--The Procession of the Holy Spirit, in Orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine, of "In the Image and Likeness of God" (SVS Press)

Boiling it down...............does eternity shape God, or is eternity something that God does by God's own choice. Does God "have to exist" or does God be God by God's choice, and part of that intrinsically is the what and how of God's BEING -- which as Thomas Belt will read in Zizioulas, is Communion/Love.

Actually, Starkman. If you read all the heckling that "PoW" was taking, and not PoW, you would come away thinking that the EO was the opposite of the West. You would think that Person was anterior to Attribute. CONTRARY TO THAT MOB-CREATED IMPRESSION.... The way Lossky and others who really are EO present the Trinity is that neither can be considered without the other. Their tradition teaches them the wisdom of beginning with God's Person--from the Father, imaged by the Son, and reflected in the Spirit.

East and West are NOT opposites. Big Smile

And with Rahner as influence, there is a lot of dialog.

Somehow you see the following as being contrary to what I wrote: "It should have been left as it stands in Scripture: One God revealed in three persons." So, goto what Tom said about economic/immanent Trinity. That's all we get. And in the economy, in the energies of God's Grace we get LOVE.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/18/2004 3:03 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by TGB

I’m still not quite sure on what Yong is getting at in contrasting creation “out of God’s mind” with creation “ex nihilo.”

I want to re-read that too.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/18/2004 3:20 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by TGB

I don’t wanna get into the Trinity debate right now ‘cause I have some books on order that I wanna get into first: Catherine LaCugna’s book on the Trinity, God For Us and Karl Rahner’s The Trinity (and Zizioulas’s Being As Communion as well). I have all three on order. But LaCugna and Rahner both toss out the distinction between the immanent (God ad intra) and economic (God ad extra) Trinity. For too long the immanent Trinity was believed to be the “real Trinity” in contrast to God’s Trinitarian relations with the world. I think all ontological distinction between immanent Trinity and economic Trinity ought to be abolished.

THE IMMANENT AND THE ECONOMIC TRINITY
www.thomist.org/visitors/1993/934aWein.htm

The Trinity, by Authors: Karl Rahner , Joseph Donceel , Catherine Mowry Lacugna , Joseph Doncell -- Released: May, 1997 ISBN: 0824516273 Paperback
www.earth-religions.com/The_Trinity_0824516273.html

The Trinity and the Freedom of GodPaul D. Molnar -- St. John’s University
216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:S0VvejZsxEEJ:home.apu.edu/~CTRF/articles/2003_articles/1_multipart_xF8FF_5_JTRFMolnar.pdf+%2B%22immanent+trinity%22+%2B%22economic+trinity%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Experiencing Trinity ********
http://www.future-shape-of-church.org/Stories/trinity.htm

Experiencing Trinity

. . .

We have already touched upon the economic and immanent aspects of the Trinity, however breaking down the distinctions between them is not without danger. Zizioulas recognises the source of our Trinitarian doctrine must be that God exists “before and regardless of the world” (1991,23), and he believes Rahner and Moltmann are guilty of neglecting this.

The last one is a discussion site.

feelinahole
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754

Posted 4/18/2004 4:02 PM (GMT -6)

POW: slim down and I'll think about it. Approve

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/18/2004 7:59 PM (GMT -6)

Starkman: …for helping me to home my writing skills.

Tom: I love ya Hommie! It’s “hone”—you’ve “honed” your writing skills. Now hone your spelling skills! (I can say that ‘cause I’m the absolute worst speller in the world! I also once made up a word—dramastic—which I thought was real—drastic + dramatic.)

Starkman: I have read several of PoW's posts (though, it's been a while now), and I'm familiar enough with the EO postion on the EO theology of the Trinity (as it regards the procession of the Three) to say that I simply disagree with it.

Tom: What specifically do you disagree with? I mean, I kinda lean to the EO side here because of a) they’re emphasis on the priority of “person” over “substance” and b) they’re being right on rejecting the filioque (EO holds that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, not from the Son, about which Scripture seems to be explicit).

But since I don’t like hierarchical interpretations of the Trinity anyway, I sometimes say to myself (about the filioque), who gives a da…, but then I get in trouble. There’s way too much speculation going on about God’s metaphysical entrails. I don’t much care for endless arguments about who proceeds from whom.

But I do think the East is right on to emphasis “person” as the highest, most fundamental category under which we can conceive of God. The concept of the perichoresis is a big help too. But I think I’m with Rahner’s Rule on melting economic and immanent Trinity. They’re one and the same.

But as this all seems to revolve around whether God is temporal or not, I don’t see that agreeing the East on these basic things means adopting any particular view of God’s temporality.

Starkman: But then the EO addendum comes in: The Son is begotten. The Spirit proceeds. SCRIPTURE is the source of that revelation. followed by the apology: The Church Fathers stopped short of trying to even define what those two mean. The Church Fathers, in my opinion, with regard to this issue had been unable to define "what those two mean," because they had already stepped outside of the theological understanding God had given about Himself in Scripture. It should have been left as it stands in Scripture: One God revealed in three persons.

Tom: Except that “One God revealed in three persons” nowhere “stands” (i.e., is written) in Scripture. The “one God’ part is. But the “three persons” part isn’t. I mean, it can be gotten a hold of in the Bible’s description of God, but “three persons” isn’t anywhere used. But the Bible actually does say the Son is “begotten” and actually does say the Spirit “proceeds.” What these actually mean the Bible nowhere says. That’s the frustration. There’s something there. The Bible says so. But venturing an opinion, whether you’re in the West or the East, is difficult. It’s stepping outside of what Scripture explicitly says, yeah, but so very much of what we say about God is outside of what Scripture explicitly says. That can’t be avoided.

I gotta confess that after writing and rewriting several times the article on the Trinity for our Arabic Study Bible (for Muslim readers) I get less and less comfortable with it. The more I write on it the more I feel I’m drowning. There simply are no problem-free words to use in systematizing the Bible’s description of the relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit. It’s the hardest thing I’ve ever tried to boil down. So I can appreciate the EO when they admit they’re unable to define what “begotten” and “proceed” mean. The problem is “begotten” and “proceed” are the Bible’s own choice of words in describing the Son and the Spirit’s relationship to the Father. They’re there. You either try to define them (and admit humbly that your definition is tentative), or you don’t attempt to define them, which isn’t very helpful either because presumably they were intended to communicate something meaningful to us.

Starkman: To sum, Scripture, as I understand it, is not the source of this revelation.

Tom: Which revelation? That the Son is “begotten” of the Father and the Spirit “proceeds” (Jo 15.26) from the Father? Neither of these is in doubt. What is it that doesn’t have its source in Scripture?

Starkman: It doesn't seem to logically follow that because the past and present are finite that the future, therefore, is finite…

Tom: Right. I wasn’t actually arguing that God’s knowledge of a finite past and a finite present REQUIRED that the future consist of a finite number of possibilities. I was rather DENYING that God’s knowledge of a partly open future by definition REQUIRES us to believe that that future consists of an actually infinite number of possibilities. I don’t want to say the future CAN’T be infinite in the number of possibilities it contains. I just want to say that it MAY be finite in the number of possibilities it contains. And it makes far more sense to me that possibilities are finite in number. The “infinite” in “infinite intelligence” is an attribute of God, the knower, and not an attribute of what he knows.

Starkman: …the past is finite because it's already happened. The present is finite because as it unfolds it only unfolds one way, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have unfolded another way. The future, therefore, is open to possibilies of which we do not know which one will unfold.

Tom: Right. That’s the open view. I’m with ya. The future IS open to possibilities. But does its being open to more than one possibility mean it must be open to an infinite number of possibilities? Wouldn’t the future still be open so long as it’s open the more than one possibility? Sure it would. If the number of possible outcomes for a given slice of some future span of time is, say, 2, then the future is open. But if the number of possibilities is 7(to the power of 1 million), that’s an open future also. But it’s not infinitely open. Both 2 and 7(to the power of 1 million) are finite numbers. That’s all I’m saying. Do we really believe that the number of ways things could turn out HAS to be infinite, endless? I don’t see why.

[Digression: Now, I will concede that since the future is infinite in duration (never ending) that God must foreknow that future (its certainties and its possibilities). So yes, the number of “facts” God knows is infinite. But my whole point in denying that possibilities were actually infinite in number was limited to the history and drama of the world leading up to the eschaton and the end of evil. See? I was thinking things out in terms of providence (God knowing good and evil outcomes and being involved). I think the number of possible ways this world at war can unfold its drama is finite. But if by “future” we include the infinite future after the consummation, well hey, that’s an infinite number of things God would foreknow. But the number of things God would know abut the future after the consummation would be infinite in number by virtue of the future’s being infinite in duration, not by virtue of its being open to possibilities (which I think it will be, but which is beside the point).]

Clear as mud, eh? Wink

Starkman: In view of God's omniscience and the above, God knows all possibilities…

Tom: Yes, if we’re talking about the future as the unending infinite future post-consummation. I’m talking about the future of this world pre-consummation, the knowledge of the future that gives God a providential advantage in the war. That future is open to possibilities, yes, but must those possibilities (as regards the future of this world leading up to the consummation) be infinite in number? I don’t think so. So there’s a difference between being infinite in number because you’re infinite in duration and being infinite in number while being finite in duration. The latter is what I’m denying.

Starkman: ...and I'm asking if some of those possibilities include possibilities that are infinite in and of themselves; a shape-shifting entity that is never in the same form more than once, perhaps never in any shape in that there is no solidification of the shape because there is never cessation of motion.

Tom: I’m not sure I know what you mean. You seem to be describing something other than merely an infinite number of possibilities for the future.

Tom

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/19/2004 7:24 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by TGB

I’m still not quite sure on what Yong is getting at in contrasting creation “out of God’s mind” with creation “ex nihilo.” He clearly doesn’t think they’re contrary claims because he grants that Doc believes in creation “ex nihilo.” He just qualifies it by adding that it also happens to be creation “ex mente Dei.” I’m not sure what’s at stake.

. . .(and Zizioulas’s Being As Communion as well

The distinctions--perhaps not relevant to Boyd--may turn out to be related to the distinctions between communion and participation. (Alla Zizoulas' second chapter: which I can't site right now. Blush

)

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 4/19/2004 1:02 PM (GMT -6)

Hey echo,

Must type quick.
Must go home soon.
Must save what's left of brain cells in order to veg in front of TV (watching an end-times movie, of course!)

Thanks very much for the kudos about my having honed my writing skills (did I really spell that "home"? Oh, boy!). All of you excellent writers have sure helped me, and I'm so very, very greatful(l?) for that. I still cannot spell worth beans

I believe there has always been personage (God). I also believe, because I can see no other option, that God has always operated in sequence (time) because He is personage; anything equal to or higher in personage capacity than that of a human must be expressed in sequence: time. God is thus temporal; whether He has created or not. The fact that there is more than one "person" constituting the Godhead is itself something demanding sequence. But sequence is not substance; it is the natural outcome of personage, in as much as evil is not a "thing" that you can walk over, bend down and pick up; it is the natural outcome of contamination (though it is not eternal). It's simply always been that since God has always existed in Trinitarian relationship--however this exists--there has always been sequence, thus there has always been time.

Further, I reject the eternal position: The Son is begotten; the Spirit proceeds. These terms used in Scripture are only in reference to God as He has revealed the Son and the Spirit within the context of mankind's existence, particularly since the Incarnation. They cannot be definitions or understandings of a pre-incarnate eternity as to God's personage. Whether the East prefers to begin with personage or not, it is plain contradiction to adhere to an eternal begotten and procession. It cannot be both ways. (This, really, is the only beef I have with EO so far, but I admit I cannot remember much of what I have read in the past to talk intelligently about other Eastern theologies.)

Now Tom asks, What specifically do you disagree with? I mean, I kinda lean to the EO side here because of a) they’re emphasis on the priority of “person” over “substance” and b) they’re being right on rejecting the filioque (EO holds that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, not from the Son, about which Scripture seems to be explicit). ...There’s way too much speculation going on about God’s metaphysical entrails. ...But I do think the East is right on to emphasis “person” as the highest, most fundamental category under which we can conceive of God.

Again, no problem, except, as I've just noted, for an "eternal" concept of the Son being begotten and the Spirit proceeding forth.

Tom then asked, Tom: Except that “One God revealed in three persons” nowhere “stands” (i.e., is written) in Scripture. . . . But the Bible actually does say the Son is “begotten” and actually does say the Spirit “proceeds.” What these actually mean the Bible nowhere says.

First, we all agree here (at least, I think we do, don't we?) that God has revealed Himself to us in three persons. Three persons show up, each calling themselves God, but there is only One God. Clear enough. But, as I've noted, I cannot find Scriptural support to suggest that the eternal personage(s) of God is defined as the Son is “begotten” . . . the Spirit “proceeds.”.

Tom said, I gotta confess that after writing and rewriting several times the article on the Trinity for our Arabic Study Bible (for Muslim readers) I get less and less comfortable with it. As I'm sure you know, Tom, we can only understand the concept of the Trinity in view of it being manifested to us for establising a restoration of relationship between God and man. Any attempt to understand the revelation of the Trinity outside the heavenly is to step down from life by lower one's self into the earthly. This is where God has not spoken; where we humans operate within information parameters and building blocks of axioms, propositions and formulas. God's word speaks only of relationship between Him and us, restoration of relationship. (I'm not saying anything you don't already know!) So, yeah, you'll sense that drowning affect (or is it effect?) more and more as you utilize tools that are of the earthly, like translating into Arabic. Oh, there's nothing wrong with these tools, or, for that matter, the earthly; it's how we're made to operate ... except when it comes to things of above. Suddenly the earthly is found wanting!

MUST GO. WIFE IS MAD (well, I've got a window of opportunity to fix it; I have to leave now!)

AAAAAAAAAAK!

Bye all. Love ya'll much,

Starkm

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/19/2004 1:36 PM (GMT -6)

I'll leave you in Tom's able hands..

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 4/20/2004 3:52 AM (GMT -6)

May I add as both correction and addendum to the above posts I have made ...

As I read Echo's post (NICENE CHRISTOLOGY AND AN INTRODUCTION TO THE TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS) on the "TRINITY--Big Chalkboard Place" thread, I found more resonation with that particular post because I dearly hold something of it within myself.

The personage of the Father is forefront in regard to the question about God and His eternalness. Further, the revealing of the Son and Spirit, in view of the primacy of the Father's personage, is God's revelation for relationship purposes: viz., to effect restoration of relationship between Himself and us; this is the high understanding, the mind of the S/spirit. To approach God's word (where the revelation is captured in time) in order to extract information, as if the word of God were a mechanic's manual, attempts to disguise both God's revelation and personage. That said, we cannot define what is revealed about God in (merely) a rational lower-realm definition:
"three persons are the One God." Yes, the mind of rationality is necessary--without it we could not function--but it is subordinate; it is of the lower.

The Fathers have struggled to hold to the indivisibility and, yet, the unity of God without creating compromise or contradiction. Here, then (from the post I mentioned above) is the heart and soul of the matter: The one God is not the one substance but the Father, who is the 'cause' both of the generation of the Son and of the procession of the Spirit. Consequently, the ontological 'principle' of God is traced back, once again, to the person.

The theology declares the Father as the source, the originator, the cause of the Son and of the procession of the Spirit to convey adherence of the unity of the Divine. But these terms in western thinking convey a time when something wasn't and now is: finite, and hence the contrast between eastern and western thinking (much more behind it all, too, I'm sure).

Here's another passage from the thread I've mentioned: Finally, there is God the Father-but when we invoke him by this tender and close name, we add 'who art in heaven'-who has sent us his Son, his Word, his Image, and his Holy Spirit, who is the Gift above all. 'No one has ever seen God' (Jn 1:18; 6:46)-a source is not seen; all that is seen is the river that flows from it. 'God' the unbegotten fountain of divinity is invisible. He made himself visible in his Son who became man, the Unigenitus who became Primogenitus in multis fratribus. He comes to dwell in our hearts through the Holy Spirit. This is beautiful and wonderful. It is truth because it coherently expresses the indivisibility and unity of God. I can appreciate this much more now.

I applaud the Fathers for struggling to find indivisibility and unity within the Godhead, for it is clear that the Father must become all in all; the Son will lovingly subordinate to the Father at the total Consumation when He has delivered up all to the Father (I Cor 15). And truly, Scripture reveals the Father as the primacy of all revelation; done so through the revelation of the Son and Spirit.

I have always held to this in my pondering of the Spirit, but I have done so from western thinking which does not wish to sacrifice an iota of the eternal Godhead manifested in three persons. I don't think the Fathers has wished to sacrifice this either.

I surely hope that I have communicated this clearly. It is important.

For His indivisibility and unity,

Starkman

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/20/2004 4:43 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Starkman

May I...

Tremendous!

BTW -- St. John Chrysostom points our in his commentary on 1 Cor. 15 that where Paul writes that the Son will submit, that it is as Christ (Head of the Church, and Redeemer and Savior of the world) that he submits all, for all. But, as Chrysostom points out, Paul had to walk a careful line in his writing so as to not provide ofdder for either of two contemporary extremes that would either make the Son less, or (I can't remember the other)... And he did a nice job. He concludes saying this: "For when the enemies shall be lying under the feet of the Son, and He having them cast under His feet be at no variance with His Father, but at concord with Him in entire perfection, then He shall Himself "be all in all.""

Find where he writes "But what is, "that God may be all in all?". . ." at this LINK: www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-12/npnf1-12-44.htm#TopOfPage

(The really interesting arguements come earlier. " And that thou mayest learn that this is the reason of the things spoken, I would ask thee this question: Doth an additional "subjection" at that time befal the Son? And how can this be other than impious and unworthy of God? For the greatest subjection and obedience is this, that He who is God took the form of a servant. How then will He be "sub-jected?" Seest thou, that to take away the impious notion, he used this expression? and this too in a suitable though reserved sense? For he becomes a Son and a divine Person, so He obeys; not humanly, but as one acting freely and having all authority. Otherwise how is he co-enthroned? How, "as the Father raiseth up, even so He, whom He will?" (John chapter 5, verse 21) How are "all things that the Father hath His," and all that He hath, the Father's? (John chapter 16, verse 15) For these phrases indicate to us an authority exactly measured by that of Him that begat Him." )

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/20/2004 9:25 AM (GMT -6)

Starkpersonage Wink

-

I may be misunderstanding a good deal of your posts. But so what! Wink

I understand Augustine once said that anyone who denied the Trinity was in danger of losing his salvation while anyone who tried to understand the Trinity was in danger of losing his mind. Gotta agree with him on that!

Real quickly:

1) I don’t know if you’re using “personage” to mean something other than “person” so I’m not sure what you might be claiming about God.

2) Sounds to me like you believe the “begotteness” of the Son and the “preocession” of the Spirit are not eternal. I actually thought there for a moment that you might be suggesting that God is only triune AFTER creation. Not sure I’m following ya. Some do argue that the second person of the Trinity is not eternally the “Son” (which is incorrectly argued by others to amount to a denial of the eternal and divine nature of Christ) but rather eternally the “Logos.” “Son” is incarnational language and doesn’t describe the pre-incarnate second person of the Trinity in his pre-incarnate state or relations. I actually can live with that, but I also think that that which constitutes (not sure “constitutes” is the right word—here we go!) the divinity of the Son in the incarnation (viz., “begottenness”) is one and the same with that which constitutes the divinity of the Logos in eternity and that we’re just using different terms to tag the same reality.

Confused yet? I am. Here’s more.

quote:
Further, I reject the eternal position: The Son is begotten; the Spirit proceeds. These terms used in Scripture are only in reference to God as He has revealed the Son and the Spirit within the context of mankind's existence, particularly since the Incarnation. They cannot be definitions or understandings of a pre-incarnate eternity as to God's personage.

Why can they NOT be descriptions of the divine relations in eternity?

Again:

quote:
Whether the East prefers to begin with personage or not, it is plain contradiction to adhere to an eternal begotten and procession. It cannot be both ways. (This, really, is the only beef I have with EO so far…

What’s contradictory about the eternality of these relations? And if you deny them, how would you describe the Trinitarian relations prior to creation (or do you see a Trinity prior to creation)? Lastly, it’s not just the East that you’re in conflict with in denying the eternal generation and procession of the Son and Spirit respectively, it’s the Wild Wild WEST as well, Bro! Both West and East agree that the Son is eternally begotten and the Spirit eternally proceeds, they just disagree on whether or not the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (East) or from both the Father and Son (West).

And:

quote:
First, we all agree here (at least, I think we do, don't we?) that God has revealed Himself to us in three persons. Three persons show up, each calling themselves God, but there is only One God. Clear enough. But, as I've noted, I cannot find Scriptural support to suggest that the eternal personage(s) of God is defined as the Son is “begotten” . . . the Spirit “proceeds.”

OK. As regards the term "Son" one could argue (some do) that "begotten" (monogenes) in Jo 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18 doesn't imply “pre-existence." Heck, the term may not have anything to do with “giving birth” at all. It may mean nothing more than "one of a kind" or "unique" in which case John is saying that Jesus, the incarnate God, reveals God as an only son reveals his Father. It’s a picture. That would limit the whole relationship to the role of the incarnate logos in “revealing” God. And Acts 13:33 and Heb. 1:5 and 5:5 can be understood as teaching us that Jesus “becomes Son" rather than is eternally the Son (though Peter applies it to the resurrection whereas Hebrews understands it to refer to the incarnation—interesting in and of itself!). As fond as John was for having Jesus describe himself as the Fathers’ Son, he doesn't choose to use "son" to demonstrate pre-existence in the prologue of his gospel. For that he uses "logos."

The same thing can be said of the title "Messiah." Jesus is not eternally the Messiah. He becomes Messiah in relation to the fulfillment of God's will and plan for Israel. So whereas there's an earthly history and context that creates the meaning of the term "Messiah" as a title for Jesus, and a point in history when the title becomes attributable to Jesus, the history and context to which "logos" points is pre-creational an eternal. Jesus is, with respect to eternity, the Logos.

The question then is how are we to understand the title "Son", as contextually defined in relation to the world or as contextually defined in relation to Godself? I understand you to arguing for the former, saying "Son" is like "Messiah" in that it's a title that is bound to an earthy history and context (viz., the incarnation). That's cool. You're not alone in that opinion. I hold to it on Mondays and Fridays. Others would argue there's something eternal about the relationship of God the Father to God the Son AS Father and AS Son—that is, they prefer to relate the terms "Son" and “Father” to that which is eternally the case about these two which in turn makes revelation via incarnation even possible. And these folks have a point. Personally I think both are right. I think it's what is eternally the case about the relationship of the first person of the Trinity to the second person which in turn is revealed to us about God-incarnate as “Son” relating to the “Father.” It’s an earthly and contextually bound way to describe what’s eternally the case between the two. Where I think you’re wrong is in claiming (strangely I think) that those who apply the terms pre-creationally are affirming a “contradiction.” You can argue that they only refer to the incarnation, but that they constitute a contradiction if referred to eternity?

3) It doesn’t matter what God’s relationship to time is/was in the absence of/prior to creation. God is temporal now as far as I’m concerned. If we find out when we get to heaven that God was timeless in the absence of creation, I won’t be upset. I don’t discuss the matter anymore. Can’t think of anything LESS useful to discuss than whether God is timeless in the absence of creation.

4) You write (a bite at a time):

quote:
As I'm sure you know, Tom, we can only understand the concept of the Trinity in view of it being manifested to us for establising a restoration of relationship between God and man. Any attempt to understand the revelation of the Trinity outside the heavenly is to step down from life by lower one's self into the earthly.

Then on what basis do you claim God MUST have been temporal prior to creation? If revelation can only tell us about God-in-relation-TO-US and can’t speak of God-in-relation-TO-GODSELF in eternity (prior to creation), then what could you possibly conclude about God’s relation to time prior to creation?

Then:

quote:
This is where God has not spoken; where we humans operate within information parameters and building blocks of axioms, propositions and formulas. God's word speaks only of relationship between Him and us, restoration of relationship.

Yes, it speaks of God and us, but it speaks of GOD and us. Which God and us, Starkman? We are reconciled and relate to THE eternal God, not some other God who came into existence after creation (which I’m sure you agree with, which in turn is why I’m baffled by your comments).

So, I’m denying any metaphysical distinction between the two, whereas you appear to want to forbid any conclusion about God—metaphysically speaking—in relation to Godself and prior to creation on the basis that all we can say about God at all is what can be said about God-in-relation-to-us since that’s all we have (which is why I’m at a totally loss to explain how you can be so sure God is temporal prior to creation since that relationship strictly speaking falls outside the boundaries of God-related-to-us).

Now, I agree that all we can say about God is what we can say about God-in-relation-to-us. That’s all we have to say anything about. But since I deny any distinction between this God and God-in-relation-to-Godself, I come out related to God, the same God who relates to himself, which the only way God could relate to anything or anybody, i.e., as God. Is there another way God can relate to us, as other than himself?

I ultimately want to ask, on what basis do you claim God is triune prior to creation? Because God reveals himself as Triune-to-US? God also reveals himself TO US as Spirit proceeding from the Father? He also reveals himself TO US as begotten Son? On what basis are you claiming that “Trinity” describes God-related-to-Godself while “begotten” and “proceed” cannot possibly describe the triune relations of God-related-to-Godself but rather may only describe God-related-to-us?

Are we having FUN!

I’m saying, why distinguish between God-in-relation-to-us and God-in-relation-to-God? Who said we must do this? Where does the Bible do it? Justify the distinction? I honestly can’t see any reason for it. I can think of one good reason for denying it, however: If we posit this distinction as I understand you to be describing it, then who ARE we relating to? What God is relating TO US if not the same God who relates TO HIM/HERSELF, the self-same one and only God? I say to hell with the distinction between ad intra and ad extra, between essence and economy. It’s a weight around our necks. Be gone and be free! Smile

On the other hand, if all we want to say is that we don’t relate to God as God relates to himself, then I say, “Duh!” But that’s not saying much at all about God or us, and it can’t say anything about the distinction between God-in-relation-to-me and God-in-relation-to-Godself. Heck, God doesn’t relate TO ME the way I relate TO MYSELF either. He couldn’t. We’re metaphysically distinct. Nor do I relate to my wife as my wife relates to herself. Some discovery, eh? But the wife I DO relate to is the same wife that relates to herself. And I am totally justified in concluding LOTS of things about my wife, about Anita, as Anita, who she essentially is in-relation-to-herself based on Anita-in-relation-to-ME. I’ll admit this same kind of distinction between essence and economy into the discussion of God, but that’s clearly NOT what has traditionally been asserted about the distinction between God’s essence and economy (at least as I’ve understood it).

One last comment! From your last post:

quote:
Here, then (from the post I mentioned above) is the heart and soul of the matter: The one God is not the one substance but the Father, who is the 'cause' both of the generation of the Son and of the procession of the Spirit. Consequently, the ontological 'principle' of God is traced back, once again, to the person.

I am totally lost now, for here you seem to contradict everything you earlier said about the impossibility of the generation of the Son and procession of the Spirit being eternal. What the…? Dude!

quote:
The theology declares the Father as the source, the originator, the cause of the Son and of the procession of the Spirit to convey adherence of the unity of the Divine. But these terms in western thinking convey a time when something wasn't and now is.

Now my head is spinning! Somebody from Rome correct me if I’m wrong, but the terms in question do not in Western thinking convey a time when something was NOT. The Pope agrees that the Son is eternally begotten and the Spirit eternally proceeds.

Dude, if I’m just stupid and have tooootally misread you, Stark, just blow me off. Well, not the REAL me (ME-in-relation-to-myself) that is. That’s not who’s been writing you anyhow. It has only been ME-in-relation-to-you-in-relation-to-me (and not to you-in-relation-to-yourself), that’s been writing you.

Tom

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 4/21/2004 3:45 AM (GMT -6)

Mr. Albert,

You what? You don't agree with ... everything I say? No, you WILL AND DO agree with everytTHING (darned Caps key!) I say.

I can't believe this. You don't agree with everything ... OK, go get your peice of chalk and write on the board "I am a mindless Starkman machine: I will agree with everything Starman says. EVERYTHING."

Off with you now! WELL, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?!

And as for you, Tom, sir, ... I'll be back!

Starkman

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/21/2004 3:50 AM (GMT -6)

Albert: Tom, you have not addressed Starkman's main argument for temporality prior to creation. He wrote this: “I believe there has always been personage (God). I also believe, because I can see no other option, that God has always operated in sequence (time) because He is personage.” As I see it, Starkman is clearly arguing here that you cannot be a person unless you are temporal. Whatever is atemporal, is therefore impersonal. You say you won't discuss the matter anymore, but that just evades the central point.

Tom: Hi Albert. Is that REALLY you writing me Albert? Or is it just you-in-relation-to-me writing me? Wink

OK, I could have said it more clearly. Whether or not God is personal is, of course, important and I’m very happy to discuss it. And I agree that God is personal in the absence of creation. And I’m perfectly happy concluding (though not as dogmatically as I do claim that God is personal) that God is eternally temporal for this very reason. BUT, in my mind Craig’s arguments against the possibility of an actual infinite set of moments (which the everlasting view assumes) leading up to creation have some real bite to them. So, on the one hand I want agree that there is no actual infinite, but on the other hand I believe that an eternally temporal and personal God requires an actual infinite set of moments leading up to the creation. Since the answer to this dilemma addresses a state of existence (God without creation) that is not now nor ever will be the case again, I’m happy to leave it unsolved. If I have to choose, I choose with you and Starkman, but I have to admit that I do so against what in my mind is strong evidence against it. Hey, if Nick Wolterstorff admitted he can’t adjudicate between these same two points, then I’m giving up!

It certainly seems to me that no personal being could relate to ME (an obviously temporal personal being) in a personal manner without being personal. And it seems equally clear to me that God cannot be BOTH temporal and timeless. But whether or not God can relate to himself as a person in the absence of time prior to creation is to me a moot point (i.e., moot = “open for discussion”). I think God must NOW be temporal because of what relating personally to a temporal world requires. I’m slightly less sure that relating to himself personally and triunally (a new word!) requires time. I think it does. But Craig’s argument against actual infinites keeps my feet from leaping off the edge on this issue. That’s all.

Now, if somebody wanted to say that because God is timeless in the absence of creation he must be less than maximally personal, then I’d want to discuss THAT, yes, because in my mind God’s being PERSONAL is the more important, more defining attribute than his relationship to time. But most who believe God is timeless in the absence of creation also believe God is personal in the absence of creation. You and I don’t see how they’re consistent. OK. But so long as they’re affirming what’s really important (viz., that God is personal) I don’t really care to discuss the relationship to time prior to creation.

Thanks!
Tom

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/21/2004 12:04 PM (GMT -6)

Albert said: As I see it, Starkman is clearly arguing here that you cannot be a person unless you are temporal.

Echo-ing Pot writes: Let me come at this from the other direction. Albert asked from temporal to person. But what if we ask this:

If you are temporal, does that make you a person?

Tom has a book in the mail called Being as Communion, by Zizioulas. The first chapter is long, and pulls back the camouflage we put up to think ourselves spiritual.

If we begin with what a Person is, do we necessarily need temporality. I think some would consider temporality a distraction in that regard. And becoming, truly, Persons -- as opposed to "individuals" it hugely important.

Summing up: Does being temporal automatically make you a person? (I'll offer the answer: no.) Then maybe that is not the place to begin.

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 4/21/2004 1:02 PM (GMT -6)

Tom I understand Augustine once said that anyone who denied the Trinity was in danger of losing his salvation while anyone who tried to understand the Trinity was in danger of losing his mind. Gotta agree with him on that!

Starkman Hey, in all this, I've probably lost my soul--can't remember where I put it--and my mind's still out looking for it!

Tom I don’t know if you’re using “personage” to mean something other than “person” so I’m not sure what you might be claiming about God.

Starkman I mean that a person has personage. Just a different way of expressing the same idea.

Tom Sounds to me like you believe the “begotteness” of the Son and the “preocession” of the Spirit are not eternal. I actually thought there for a moment that you might be suggesting that God is only triune AFTER creation.

Starkman Heavens no!

Tom Not sure I’m following ya. Some do argue that the second person of the Trinity is not eternally the “Son” (which is incorrectly argued by others to amount to a denial of the eternal and divine nature of Christ) but rather eternally the “Logos.” “Son” is incarnational language and doesn’t describe the pre-incarnate second person of the Trinity in his pre-incarnate state or relations. I actually can live with that, but I also think that that which constitutes (not sure “constitutes” is the right word—here we go!) the divinity of the Son in the incarnation (viz., “begottenness”) is one and the same with that which constitutes the divinity of the Logos in eternity and that we’re just using different terms to tag the same reality.

Starkman I believe the terms "Son" and "begotten" are referenced with the incarnation in mind, the concept of Logos referenced before this (John 1:1). However, in view of the converasation, I'm conceeding the use of "Son" and "begotten" as vehicles to carry the concept of the primacy of the personage of the Father within the Godhead, thus keeping unity.

Tom
Quote from Starkman:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, I reject the eternal position: The Son is begotten; the Spirit proceeds. These terms used in Scripture are only in reference to God as He has revealed the Son and the Spirit within the context of mankind's existence, particularly since the Incarnation. They cannot be definitions or understandings of a pre-incarnate eternity as to God's personage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why can they NOT be descriptions of the divine relations in eternity? ... What’s contradictory about the eternality of these relations? And if you deny them, how would you describe the Trinitarian relations prior to creation (or do you see a Trinity prior to creation)?

Starkman God does not "beget" sons in eternity. The Logos has always been, but I'm quite hardpressed to find biblical information stating the Son has always been known as the Son and that He has always been begotten. Now, moving into more of an eastern thought, I conceed, as I said, that there's something to find useful for these terms. And perhaps that's the issue in western thinking too, but I'm not sure.

Tom Lastly, it’s not just the East that you’re in conflict with in denying the eternal generation and procession of the Son and Spirit respectively, it’s the Wild Wild WEST as well,

Starkman Well, I don't think that's ultimately true. I know a guy right now who's doing a doctorate on this very issue: the Son not being eternally begotten.

Tom
Quote from Starkman:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, we all agree here (at least, I think we do, don't we?) that God has revealed Himself to us in three persons. Three persons show up, each calling themselves God, but there is only One God. Clear enough. But, as I've noted, I cannot find Scriptural support to suggest that the eternal personage(s) of God is defined as the Son is “begotten” . . . the Spirit “proceeds.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK. As regards the term "Son" one could argue (some do) that "begotten" (monogenes) in Jo 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18 doesn't imply “pre-existence." Heck, the term may not have anything to do with “giving birth” at all. It may mean nothing more than "one of a kind" or "unique" in which case John is saying that Jesus, the incarnate God, reveals God as an only son reveals his Father. It’s a picture. That would limit the whole relationship to the role of the incarnate logos in “revealing” God. And Acts 13:33 and Heb. 1:5 and 5:5 can be understood as teaching us that Jesus “becomes Son" rather than is eternally the Son (though Peter applies it to the resurrection whereas Hebrews understands it to refer to the incarnation—interesting in and of itself!). As fond as John was for having Jesus describe himself as the Fathers’ Son, he doesn't choose to use "son" to demonstrate pre-existence in the prologue of his gospel. For that he uses "logos."

The same thing can be said of the title "Messiah." Jesus is not eternally the Messiah. He becomes Messiah in relation to the fulfillment of God's will and plan for Israel. So whereas there's an earthly history and context that creates the meaning of the term "Messiah" as a title for Jesus, and a point in history when the title becomes attributable to Jesus, the history and context to which "logos" points is pre-creational an eternal. Jesus is, with respect to eternity, the Logos.

Starkman I'm with you here. I would only add that I think the difference between "Son" and "Messiah" is that the former is said to relate to an eternal postion; the latter to a temporary position. As to "Messiah," I think we can all agree that God never refers to the eternal relationship of the second person in the Trinity as the Messiah; that's not the nature or pre-incarnated position of the Logos as revealed in Scripture. It is argued, however, that God has referred to the eternal relationship of the second person of the Trinity as "Son." I do not see this other than what I've already conceeded from eastern thinking.

Tom The question then is how are we to understand the title "Son", as contextually defined in relation to the world or as contextually defined in relation to Godself? . . . Others would argue there's something eternal about the relationship of God the Father to God the Son AS Father and AS Son—that is, they prefer to relate the terms "Son" and “Father” to that which is eternally the case about these two which in turn makes revelation via incarnation even possible. . . . I think it's what is eternally the case about the relationship of the first person of the Trinity to the second person which in turn is revealed to us about God-incarnate as “Son” relating to the “Father.” It’s an earthly and contextually bound way to describe what’s eternally the case between the two. Where I think you’re wrong is in claiming (strangely I think) that those who apply the terms pre-creationally are affirming a “contradiction.” You can argue that they only refer to the incarnation, but that they constitute a contradiction if referred to eternity?

Starkman What's plain, Tom, about the meaning of the terms "Son" and "begotten" prior to the incarnation is that they cannot and do not refer to a Father-Son relationship. This simply is not taught in Scripture (how is one going to make a case for God having a Son?) What is taught about God prior to the incarnation, in reference to these terms, is that which eastern thinking has grabbed a hold of: the Father is the source (the primacy), the ultimate oneness of God, the one who causes the procession of the Spirit (as far as I'm aware, Jesus never said that the Spirit proceeds from Jesus Himself; He simply said He would send the Spirit in view of His completed work). Thus both the indivisibility and unity of God is held together. This is a far cry from establishing any concept, whatsoever, of progenitorship or paternity.

The Trinity is revealed to us only in view of and for the purposes of establishing relationship--restoration of relationship--between God and us. In other words, what's revealed to us about the Trinity is not a commentary about how God exists or what his status was with the Logos (not the Son) prior to the incarnation. The terms we are talking about here are contextualized in, first and foremost, relationship. If that part of the picture is smeared--resorting to using the Bible as handbook or manual in the generic sense--then the terms carry no weight. So, what I'm saying is that "Son" and "begotten" may ... with permission, I suppose one could say, be used to express something about the revelation of God to us through the concept of the Trinity--and eternal concept--but not about anything else.

Tom It doesn’t matter what God’s relationship to time is/was in the absence of/prior to creation. God is temporal now as far as I’m concerned. If we find out when we get to heaven that God was timeless in the absence of creation, I won’t be upset. I don’t discuss the matter anymore. Can’t think of anything LESS useful to discuss than whether God is timeless in the absence of creation.

Starkman Oh, I agree; it's neither here nor there that God is/was/will be--what have you--temporarl or timeless prior to creation. (I can't even remember why I was talking about that without having to go re-read the post!)

Tom
quoting Starkman:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I'm sure you know, Tom, we can only understand the concept of the Trinity in view of it being manifested to us for establising a restoration of relationship between God and man. Any attempt to understand the revelation of the Trinity outside the heavenly is to step down from life by lower one's self into the earthly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then on what basis do you claim God MUST have been temporal prior to creation? If revelation can only tell us about God-in-relation-TO-US and can’t speak of God-in-relation-TO-GODSELF in eternity (prior to creation), then what could you possibly conclude about God’s relation to time prior to creation?

Starkman OK, let me clear up the mess I might have made here. As eastern thinking holds, it is impossible to know God's essence. The only way we can come to know something of God is if He chooses to reveal Himself: the economy, the energies--those kinds of terms. This has nothing to do with God knowing God, and however the Trinity both exists and functions in heavenly (high) and not in the earthly (low) is not something anyone is going to even be able to start to grasp until we are in that realm. You know what I mean, don't you?!

Finally, that God is temporal and always has been is neither here nor there as to how all this operates. I argue that He is, and always has been, temporal, because I argue that He has always been in the framework of sequence. This has nothing to do with much else, as far as I can see.

Tom
quoting Starkman:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is where God has not spoken; where we humans operate within information parameters and building blocks of axioms, propositions and formulas. God's word speaks only of relationship between Him and us, restoration of relationship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, it speaks of God and us, but it speaks of GOD and us. Which God and us, Starkman? We are reconciled and relate to THE eternal God, not some other God who came into existence after creation (which I’m sure you agree with, which in turn is why I’m baffled by your comments).

Starkman AAAAAAAK! Of course He speaks to us using these tools (axioms, propositions and formulas)! What I was trying to say, though, is that they are only tools. Too often Christians make the tools the message! God has spoken to us, surely. And He has done so in the spiritual and rational. But His word is only interested in discussing the issue of restoration of relationship between Him and us, not things like, "Gee, what investment do I make with my money? I know, I'll turn to the Bible." That's misuse of the word of God, and this kind of abuse is all over the place.

Tom I ultimately want to ask, on what basis do you claim God is triune prior to creation? Because God reveals himself as Triune-to-US?

God also reveals himself TO US as Spirit proceeding from the Father? He also reveals himself TO US as begotten Son? On what basis are you claiming that “Trinity” describes God-related-to-Godself while “begotten” and “proceed” cannot possibly describe the triune relations of God-related-to-Godself but rather may only describe God-related-to-us?

Are we having FUN!

Starkman I ... have a headache! I must have really messed it up, big time, bro, if I've caused this much confusion! Again, let me clarify. God reveals three "seperate" persons in Scripture calling themselves God. I can only conclude, therefore, that there are there persons (if there's more, He ain't tellin' us!) who constitute what we call the Godhead. Yet, God is one, and hence the beauty of eastern thinking in grappling with this to adhere to both God's indivisibility and unity. I can't say anything more than this.

Tom I’m saying, why distinguish between God-in-relation-to-us and God-in-relation-to-God?

Starkman Um ... Did I imply this? Man, I'm sorry if I ... if you thought I did! Ha!

Tom
quoting Starkman:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, then (from the post I mentioned above) is the heart and soul of the matter: The one God is not the one substance but the Father, who is the 'cause' both of the generation of the Son and of the procession of the Spirit. Consequently, the ontological 'principle' of God is traced back, once again, to the person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am totally lost now, for here you seem to contradict everything you earlier said about the impossibility of the generation of the Son and procession of the Spirit being eternal. What the…? Dude!

Starkman Note the top of page three of this thread where my post starts with, "May I add as both correction and addendum to the above posts I have made ..." I am conceeding the opportunity to use "Son" and "begotten" as word to express something about the eternal nature of the Trinity, BUT I am doing so only within eastern thinking. The two quotes of mine you noted toward the end of your post are from this thinking.

Now look, dog-gone it, if I've confused matters even more, than I quit. I'm going home, eat my dinner, and still dream about doing some distance-learning courses (Fed return's do in anytime!!!)

For the future, personality and, oh, whatever the hek else one wants to throw in there!

Starkman

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/21/2004 1:33 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Friends,

The following scriptures seem to me to indicate that the Son existed distinct as a person from the Father from all eternity:

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, 16 for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him—all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers—all things were created through him and for him. 17 He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him.
Heb. 1:2 in these last days he has spoken to us through his son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world.

Reminiscent of John 3:16, the apostle relates the following facts about the Son's mission to earth, that He existed as the Son of God prior to his incarnation:

1 John 4:9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.
10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

The following seems to be unexplainable if the Son of God had no existence as a person distinguishable from the Father prior to the incarnation:

John 17:24 "Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
25 "O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me;
26 and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them."

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/21/2004 7:17 PM (GMT -6)

Starkman-

This is Tom-in-relation-to-himself speaking to you-in-relation-to-yourself, which means we’re a LOT deeper than most conversations.

A “personage” is “an infamous or famous person,” a person who “stands out among other persons.” Personage isn’t really something you “have.” God certainly stands out among other persons, but it looks like what you’re getting at is (drum roll please…”) personHOOD!

On the “Son”:

quote:
Starkman I believe the terms "Son" and "begotten" are referenced with the incarnation in mind, the concept of Logos referenced before this (John 1:1). However, in view of the converasation, I'm conceeding the use of "Son" and "begotten" as vehicles to carry the concept of the primacy of the personage of the Father within the Godhead, thus keeping unity.

You believe “Son” is merely incarnational language while “logos” is pre-creational. Cool. But you concede that “Son” also carries the concept of the primacy of the Father within the Trinitarian relationships irrespective of creation. These sound contrary to me. If “Son” describes the inner trinitarian relations, then how does it only reference the incarnation? But then you clear it up I think:

quote:
Starkman God does not "beget" sons in eternity. The Logos has always been, but I'm quite hardpressed to find biblical information stating the Son has always been known as the Son and that He has always been begotten.

Thus “Son” does not describe trinitarian relations eternally (i.e., precreationally). But then:

quote:
Starkman: I would only add that I think the difference between "Son" and "Messiah" is that the former is said to relate to an eternal postion; the latter to a temporary position. As to "Messiah," I think we can all agree that God never refers to the eternal relationship of the second person in the Trinity as the Messiah; that's not the nature or pre-incarnated position of the Logos as revealed in Scripture. It is argued, however, that God has referred to the eternal relationship of the second person of the Trinity as "Son." I do not see this other than what I've already conceeded from eastern thinking.

Then what you need to do is say you disagree with those in the East and West who claim the “Son” is eternally begotten. That’s what I’m hearing. But then you say the difference that YOU see (you say, “I would add that I think the difference…is”) between “Son” and “Messiah” is that “Son” is said to relate to an eternal position and “Messiah” to a temporary position. But then you immediately say “I do not see this…” (“Son” as an eternal relationship). So again, I don’t see what you’re actually “conceding” to the East if you’re in fact disagreeing that the “Son” is eternally begotten. You’re just disagreeing. And that’s OK.

quote:
Starkman: What's plain, Tom, about the meaning of the terms "Son" and "begotten" prior to the incarnation is that they cannot and do not refer to a Father-Son relationship. This simply is not taught in Scripture (how is one going to make a case for God having a Son?) What is taught about God prior to the incarnation, in reference to these terms, is that which eastern thinking has grabbed a hold of: the Father is the source (the primacy), the ultimate oneness of God, the one who causes the procession of the Spirit (as far as I'm aware, Jesus never said that the Spirit proceeds from Jesus Himself; He simply said He would send the Spirit in view of His completed work). Thus both the indivisibility and unity of God is held together. This is a far cry from establishing any concept, whatsoever, of progenitorship or paternity.

Do you understand what’s going on here PoW? Doesn’t look like what I tried to say was understood as I meant it. See, Starkman, that the “Son” is eternally begotten of the “Father” IS the Eastern view. They believe what you are denying, namely, that the “Son” is the Son eternally and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. That’s what they grabbed a hold of. If you’re cool with that, then you DO believe the Father eternally begets the Son. But you seem to be flat out denying this even makes sense. Now, if we can stop thinking about parentage, having sex, and birthing tables, then the language of “Father/Son” can make perfect sense apart from the incarnation. What’s important too is that even if you feel uncomfortable using “Father/Son” to describe the inner trinitarian relations prior to the incarnation whereas I feel comfortable with it, you and I will still agree on what it is I suppose this language to point to, and that’s what’s necessary.

quote:
Starkman: The Trinity is revealed to us only in view of and for the purposes of establishing relationship--restoration of relationship--between God and us. In other words, what's revealed to us about the Trinity is not a commentary about how God exists or what his status was with the Logos (not the Son) prior to the incarnation.

And you think John’s speaking of Christ as the eternal “logos” takes place outside of the concern to restore relationship? It’s just an academic exercise unrelated to the larger concern of restoring relationship? I don’t think so. The same purpose of restoring relationship into which you (rightly) place the Bible’s description of the Trinity is also where the “logos” language and all other biblical descriptions of God belong. There’s no getting away from that purpose regardless of what biblical term we want to try to define. So why not limit “logos” in the way you’re limiting “Son” to the fulfilling of the purpose of restoring relationship in this world? I think you don't do this because you see a REAL difference between GOD related to himself and as unrevealed to us and GOD reveal and related to us. I don’t see any such distinction and so I’m comfortable saying that Jesus is eternally the “Son.” If you don't see such a difference between God revealed and God unrevealed, then what's the problem? Come on come on come ooooooooon! Wink

quote:
Starkman: So, what I'm saying is that "Son" and "begotten" may ... with permission, I suppose one could say, be used to express something about the revelation of God to us through the concept of the Trinity--an eternal concept--but not about anything else.

What else is there?

quote:
Starkman: OK, let me clear up the mess I might have made here. As eastern thinking holds, it is impossible to know God's essence. The only way we can come to know something of God is if He chooses to reveal Himself: the economy, the energies--those kinds of terms. This has nothing to do with God knowing God, and however the Trinity both exists and functions in heavenly (high) and not in the earthly (low) is not something anyone is going to even be able to start to grasp until we are in that realm. You know what I mean, don't you?

Yeah. But here’s my point. Going to heaven won’t change that which the East says limits us to the energies of God and keeps his essence unavailable to us. God’s essence (God as he relates to himself, as he exists, the divine entrails so to speak) will never be ours to know. Never. So, what’s the friggin point? This only matters if you believe what God reveals isn’t really revealing God (as God, who he really is), that is, if the unrevealed God (ad intra) is DIFFERENT than the revealed God (ad extra). I deny this difference, so I don’t find the distinction useful. It has tended to be rather hurtful I think. So, I’m perfectly fine with saying, “all that God reveals to us describes God REVEALED TO US” so long as this isn’t used to prevent our concluding on this basis what God is really, truly, essentially like? So it's the same as “all that God reveals to us describes GOD revealed to us.” Otherwise there IS no revelation.

quote:
Starkman: Again, let me clarify. God reveals three "seperate" persons in Scripture calling themselves God. I can only conclude, therefore, that there are there persons (if there's more, He ain't tellin' us!) who constitute what we call the Godhead. Yet, God is one, and hence the beauty of eastern thinking in grappling with this to adhere to both God's indivisibility and unity. I can't say anything more than this.

You may go to heaven. You passed the test! Wink

The question is, is it legitimate to claim that the relations to which the biblical terms “Father,” “Son,” and “Spirit” speak of are eternal relations? I hear you saying, “No, they only describe God in relation to us, and since God isn’t related to us eternally, these terms don't describe God as he is eternally, pre-creation, related to himself. The term for the ‘Son’ that speaks of his eternal inner-trinitarian relation would be ‘logos’.” That's why I hear ya sayikng. For the time being I say fine, “logos” certainly does that. So give us biblical terms equivalent to “logos” for the “Father” and the “Spirit” as well (since these are as limited to describing God related to us as is “Son.” Can you provide a biblical description (equivalent to “logos”) of the “Father” and “Spirit” using terms other than “Father” and “Spirit”?

quote:
Starkman: I am conceding the opportunity to use "Son" and "begotten" as word to express something about the eternal nature of the Trinity, BUT I am doing so only within eastern thinking.

The problem (as I see it only, I am not that informed on trinitarian stuff) is that what the East does with these terms is what you expressly deny. What's left to concede to the East? How does saying you’re conceding their use of these terms “within their thinking” even mean? The question is, is their thinking on this accurate?

quote:
Starkman: Now look, dog-gone it, if I've confused matters even more, than I quit. I'm going home, eat my dinner.

Looks like it’s my gray matter that’s not getting it all. Enjoy desert after your meal too! Love ya duuuuude.

Tom

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/21/2004 10:49 PM (GMT -6)

I just noticed something. "Boyd's creatio ex mente Dei" is not that different from "Boyd's excrement day," now is it? And THAT is scarry my friends, scarry that my sick mind would automatically rearrange words that way without my permission.

Tom

67 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:04 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual