 |
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/11/2003 5:37 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hi, Aquinas. Well crafted question. And it looks like Tom interpreted it correctly, and that you got an answer from someone that represents well the OpenView position. (I don't.) I'm "PoW" from above--"Fred" here. But I want to give you a short answer to Tom's post below.
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Aquinas: Why must God be temporal in order to interact with a temporal world?
Tom: I take it you mean, Why must God be 'only' temporal and not temporal AND atemporal to interact with a temporal world?
A very short answer would be...
a) because without being "temporal" there IS no "inter-action" (realtionships require a shared context; time is one of the necessary contexts for mutual, reciprocal, and interpersonal relationships), and...
b) because claiming God is both temporal and atemporal explains nothing at best and is self-contradictory at worst.
Craig is very good on both (a) and (b) if you're interested in reading him, something I would do before making my mind up on this question.
I would still like to know, Aquinas, what you think the cash value of divine timelessness is. What's it explain to you? What do you lose if you lose it?
Take care!
Tom
Tom has read Greg Boyd a lot. Greg studied under a Process philosopher (named Hartsthorne). And while Greg is not a "process theologian" there is a bit of influence in expectations from "process" that Tom has picked up from Greg. Namely, in Tom's rephrasing of your question he says: Why must God be 'only' temporal and not temporal AND atemporal to interact with a temporal world? In asking it THAT way he assumes that there must be a COMMON "shared context" for BOTH God and creation.
Historic Christianity (not just the "classical" strawman, or the neo-classical reactors to OpenTheism) understands the difference between creator and creature in a ROBUST way. And the most helpful terminology for differentiating between God's Being and his Creating comes from a historical situation where Thomistic assumptions about how God's otherness prevented personal relationships between the Christian and the Holy Spirit (in that Western medieval theological view) needed to be stood firmly against. Gregory Palamas drew upon the Greek Fathers going back to St. Basil (who wrote the seminal book "On the Holy Spirit") and preached against the Thomist influence in his native Greece, arguing that there is a distinction between God's "ESSENCE"/BEING and God's "ENERGIES"/ACTS. And key to his being able to say that was the terminology worked out in the controversies ove Arianism with Christogical doctrine and the controversies over the doctrine of the Trinity. The term was "hypostasis." It was an off-the-shelf word picked up and used, and in use re-defined. It was a case of the Biblical Hebrew culture being grafted-onto the Hellenistic, transforming it--and with it, also the world you and I live in. (Those who needed to say that God was "three persons" needed to avoid saying that God 'wore three masks'--which was what 'prosopon'/person would mean. "Hypostasis" said more, and ultimately gives the whole of the western world its concept of personality.) God is one Being/Essence in three "hypostasis"/Persons. And Christ is one Person/"hypostasis" in two natures/essences. THAT is orthodox Christianity. It is the Personalness of God that liberates God from being determined by his divine nature. God's free personal being (communion in love) is the cause of his divine nature. But neither that nature nor his person preceeds the other.
For the "classical" view, going back to Aquinas and before, their problem, was, that in separating God's actions from his essence, they were left with a view of God separated from his creation. Thomas Aquinas even said that God HAD to work with us through intermediary means -- not directly, personally. He talked about "created grace" and did not view God the Son's presence in the OT as being really God (E.G., the Word of God present in the burning bush, pillar of fire, etc.), but as being 'created graces' that came into being and then went out of being. (The Greek speaking part of the Church had an understanding of God's activities in the OT that was much more active and dynamic than the medieval-West had. Like I said, they got an 'OT-Hebrew graft,' and that made them ultimately LESS influenced by the pagan Greek world view than the medieval-West was.) But those who followed the legacy of Basil and Gregory Naz, etc., knew God to be both personal and transcendent. God is not bound by his nature but is personally the cause of it. And how we know God is through his personal, uncreated acts/energies and not by any personal contact with his essence. Not having an essential relationship with God does not make it un-personal, as God's "energies"/acts are personal. And we are created to participate, by grace (through the Spirit's knitting us into Christ's Body), in the Trinitarian communion of Love, through the Son who en-hypostasized OUR humanity personally with his own humanity. (in an a-symmetrical union, where his divinity remains unchanged, and our humanity is not overwelmed: as in all the "withouts" in the Creed)
So....
Here's Tom again (And interaction between Thomas and Aquinas  ):
A very short answer would be...
a) because without being "temporal" there IS no "inter-action" (realtionships require a shared context; time is one of the necessary contexts for mutual, reciprocal, and interpersonal relationships), and...
b) because claiming God is both temporal and atemporal explains nothing at best and is self-contradictory at worst.
Tom said: without being "temporal" there IS no "inter-action" BUT, that might only be true with Thomas Aquinas, and with the "classical" view that the OpenTheism people object to (and properly should). But Tom's statement is still false. (As was also the other-Tom's.) God in his essence can be crudely called "a-temporal." He does not change. (Tom has agreed.) God is "immutable"; but still personal, active, free. God's inter-trinitarian relationship is totally beyond our capacity to interact with. YET, we do know about it through God's energies. We know the trinitarian "ontology" to be communion in love. And we, who know Christ, participate in it by the Spirit. We know that love personally. But we also know that love "by grace" as creatures, and not "by nature" as only God can.
A lot of different theories of the trinity came out of the "classical" view, basing everthing on suppositions of there being a "divine substance" out-of-which the Personal of the Trinity are formed. That's the "classical" view. And the "Open-Theism-View, IRONICALLY, builds itself on that same foundation. (Go figure! ) But God's Person is not derivative from his nature; any more than his nature is something created after his person. God is love. And God chooses to be three persons in love. The Father is the source/cause of both the Son and the Spirit. We know that the Son and the Spirit are "caused" in different fashions, but we cannot know precisely what that difference is. The Son is "caused" while the Father is not. The Spirit is not the Son, and visa versa. There is not "temporality" in the Trinity. The love of God inter-trinitarian is not "temporal" or "sequential." Someone claimed to find such in Gregory of Nissa's, work called "On "Not Three Gods" www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-05/Npnf2-05-28.htm#P2559_1755103, evidence of some relationship of oppositions (a concept that Aquinas latched onto.). But there is no such thing in that essay. The Trinitarian Communion of Love is something all the persons of the trinity participate in. It is not "temporal" (as Tom is saying), nor is it "sequential" (as Doc/Greg thinks of it). Counter to what some OpenTheist people on this board have said, in God, there is NOT "distinctions of the persons of the Trinity as being AS distinct as Peter, Paul and John." That claim was made of the Gregory of Nyzza article. But the article says:
quote:
But in the case of the Divine nature we do not similarly learn that the Father does anything by Himself in which the Son does not work conjointly, or again that the Son has any special operation apart from the Holy Spirit; but every operation which extends from God to the Creation, and is named according to our variable conceptions of it, has its origin from the Father, and proceeds through the Son, and is perfected in the Holy Spirit. For this reason the name derived from the operation is not divided with regard to the number of those who fulfil it, because the action of each concerning anything is not separate and peculiar, but whatever comes to pass, in reference either to the acts of His providence for us, or to the government and constitution of the universe, comes to pass by the action of the Three, yet what does come to pass is not three things. . . . from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Yet although we set forth Three Persons and three names, we do not consider that we have had bestowed upon us three lives, one from each Person separately; but the same life is wrought in us by the Father, and prepared by the Son, and depends on the will of the Holy Spirit. . . . (and speaking -- next -- specifically of the grace/energies now; but I think also indicating about the trinitariain communion) . . . but so that there is one motion and disposition of the good will which is communicated from the Father through the Son to the Spirit (for as we do not call those whose operation gives one life three Givers of life, neither do we call those who are contemplated in one goodness three Good beings, nor speak of them in the plural by any of their other attributes); so neither can we call those who exercise this Divine and superintending power and operation towards ourselves and all creation, conjointly and inseparably, by their mutual action, three Gods. For as when we learn concerning the God of the universe, from the words of Scripture, that He judges all the earth15 , we say that He is the Judge of all things through the Son: and again, when we hear that the Father judgeth no man16 , we do not think that the Scripture is at variance with itself,-(for He Who judges all the earth does this by His Son to Whom He has committed all judgment; and everything which is done by the Only-begotten has its reference to the Father, so that He Himself is at once the Judge of all things and judges no man, by reason of His having, as we said, committed all judgment to the Son, while all the judgment of the Son is conformable to the will of the Father; and one could not properly say either that They are two judges, or that one of Them is excluded from the authority and power implied in judgment);-so also in the case of the word "Godhead," Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, and that very power of superintendence and beholding which we call Godhead, the Father exercises through the Only-begotten, while the Son perfects every power by the Holy Spirit, judging, as Isaiah says, by the Spirit of judgment and the Spirit of burning17 , and acting by Him also, according to the saying in the Gospel which was spoken to the Jews. For He says, "If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils18 "; where He includes every form of doing good in a partial description, by reason of the unity of action: for the name derived from operation cannot be divided among many where the result of their mutual operation is one.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-05/Npnf2-05-28.htm#P2559_1755103
I redressed that claim in www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2167
.
Tom also said: b) because claiming God is both temporal and atemporal explains nothing at best and is self-contradictory at worst.
There is no contradiction to say that God's essence is not "temporal" (Eastern liturgies stop short of trying to define God at all, and settle for "pre-eternal"; but not as a definition!) while God acts/energizes temporally! After all the Creation and its sustaining ARE God's acts. Remember that in the "non-classical" but very "orthodox" understanding of God God's acts are expressions of his Person ("uncreated personal energies"), and not derivatives of his divine essence. For both the "classical" view and its offspring (The OpenView), based on their presuppositions, there would be a problem. And in that way Tom is correct. But there is in actuality NO contradiction in the fact that God "is" in essence pre-eternal and "acts" temporally in creation. None at all. And where Tom said "explains nothing at best" the distinctions raised just help us to do some Spring cleaning, sweeping out some of those "classical" ideas -- and along with them "Opentheistic" ideas.
--------
God is TRULY "Open." But rather than talk of God's openness with repect to time (Which God DID create to be 'sequential,' but the fall made to be 'temporal' via decay--and as such in need of redemptive healing.) the TRUE Openness of God is the openness of God's love. God loves those who turn their back on God in sin. God's faithfulness "remembered" a people who repeatedly turned their backs on him; and their particular election expressed God's love for all mankind. The dymanics of the "Openness" can be seen in Christ Jesus. He suffered and died: "one of the Trinity died." Yet the Eternal Son was not changed in his deity even while he experienced suffering and death, and experienced in his humanity the ontology of being separated from God's grace. That is nothing if not unfathomable. But it is wonderous! It is a mystery. But it does also provide us an avenue for some true understanding of the relationship we have with God.
The relationship we have, by grace, with the Trinitarian love of God truly reveals God to us. And the Cross teaches us truth about God's grace towards us. And though both are mysteries, they are not contradictions.
Tom spoke of "cash value." That only counts if you want to start from scratch and try to come up with your own personal, custom fit (ever in flux) cowboy theology. As for me, I'll say:
The pre-eternal God loves mankind.
The pre-eternal God loves mankind.
The pre-eternal God loves mankind.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/11/2003 5:48 AM (GMT -6) | | I'd like to follow up on Tom's last comment another way too (more respectful):
quote:
Tom: I would still like to know, Aquinas, what you think the cash value of divine timelessness is. What's it explain to you? What do you lose if you lose it?
I'd recommend severing the acting aspect of God from the timeless essence. That would be a gain. But as I showed above, severing that only means recognizing that God's acts are PERSONAL, and not determined by essence. (God's ontology is not a divine substance, but His "mode of being" is Communion in Love.) God essence could crudely be called "timeless"; but his actions are Personal and dymnamic.
That's the advantage of recognizing THREE aspects to God (Person, essence and acts/energies) instead of TWO as with Thomas Aquinas. Two aspects inevitably does lead to problems. And some sort of "trade" is needed!
Fred/PoW/Al | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/11/2003 6:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Fred: Hi, Aquinas. Well crafted question. And it looks like Tom interpreted it correctly, and that you got an answer from someone that represents well the OpenView position.
Tom: Aquinas! I just noticed. You're Aquinas and I'm Thomas!
As Fred's post points out, you should plan on doing a lot of reading if you intend on getting a handle on these issues. And as my post points out, once you get a handle on these issues, you will see that my objections to divine timelessness have absolutely nothing to do with open theism. My comments don't boil down to "representing" the open view. My thoughts on the matter come entirely from someone who dislikes the open view even more than Fred does, namely, William Lane Craig, someone who didn't study under a process philosopher and who wasn't breast fred by somebody who studied under a process philosopher.
Fred: Greg studied under a Process philosopher (named Hartsthorne).
Tom: Really? Hartshorne (1897-2000) taught at three institutions: University of Chicago, Emory University, and lastly (from I think the early 60's onward) at University of Texas at Austin where he was professor emeritus.
As far as I know Doc never studied at any of those institutions. Doc?
Have fun,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/11/2003 6:10 AM (GMT -6) | | | Tom is a gentleman! (Except on the soccer field.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
anole
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 8/11/2003 7:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Tigress,
u say:
quote:
I think the future is set, but it can be altered. God knows the future but has given us the power to change it.
i am sorry but this just makes no sense to me - it sounds like and execise in double-think.
if the future can be altered, then it is not 'set'. this has noting to do with god's power but just the meaning of words - maybe you could clarify?
btw: i've found this thread most interesting it is nice to see such polite exchange of ideas ... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 8/11/2003 7:37 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by anole
Tigress,
u say:
quote:
I think the future is set, but it can be altered. God knows the future but has given us the power to change it.
i am sorry but this just makes no sense to me - it sounds like and execise in double-think.
if the future can be altered, then it is not 'set'. this has noting to do with god's power but just the meaning of words - maybe you could clarify?
btw: i've found this thread most interesting it is nice to see such polite exchange of ideas ...
The future will definitely happen one way if no one does anything to prevent it from happening.
This is a bit of a stretch to me, also. I wonder if we all just have a misunderstanding of the future itself. The more I think about it, the more I think that the future is open because that's what "future" means, doesn't it? The past has already happened, the present is being formed as we live in it, and the future is still to come. How can something be set, which by its very nature hasn't even occurred yet? And if that's true, then how can God be expected to know it already? This must be the way He ordained things. Maybe He Himself is outside of time, but humans only are within it, and He just allows time to carry out its logical course. The parameters in which He set time can only be utilized in that way. This doesn't mean God is stuck within it, but only that He allows it to form around us. It's sort of what I was saying on the logic thread. God ordained time to function for His creatures in a certain way, and part of that is letting the future happen on its own. Outside of this time that He set for us, God is able to see the future, but He must have decided to make it so that He would have to be like us and wait out what would happen in our time as well. This would be the only way free-will could truly happen.
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/11/2003 7:53 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by anole
Tigress,
u say:
quote:
I think the future is set, but it can be altered. God knows the future but has given us the power to change it.
i am sorry but this just makes no sense to me - it sounds like and execise in double-think.
anole, this just shows something about language and ideas too. I admire the way Tigress DID put together two phrases that seem to be at odds to "paint" a picture for us that was beyond the power of either phrase to convey by itself. Sometimes that is the best kind of lingual expression.
Along that line: Here is a "picture" of a Claude Monet flower "painted" with more colors than just those you would describe it with over the telephone.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 8/11/2003 1:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Tigress,
What you said seems to negate God's direct intervention in the affairs of humans. There are obvious times when there was intervention that could only be God's doing. So, He isn't just "letting the future happen on its own" if He intervenes.
In regard to the future, I wonder what one can do to speed up or "hasting" the parousia if the future is so unsettled? II Pet. 3.12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? {hasting…: or, hasting the coming} I have always thought it was speeding the completion of the body of Christ through evangelism that would "hasting" His return, but that would demand a detailed knowledge of the future on His part. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 8/12/2003 12:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Aquinas,
How God views the future, God only knows; Scripture gives me some understanding of Gods knowledge of the future, though it is not obviously as complete or clear as I would like, so I lean on experience . . .
God knows the direction (future) of my life separate of His perfect will, which is His permitted will and I know my future according to His perfect will, He reveals that much to me personally and is that not, what it is all truly about anyway!
 I am Borg
When God shows me the future, through dream, vision, or answered prayer, I never think of it, as something that had to happen, since before the foundations of the worlds. My experience tells me it is something God is going to make happen, it appears to be more about control of the future, than only knowledge of the same . . .
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/12/2003 1:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul: In regard to the future, I wonder what one can do to speed up or "hasting" the parousia if the future is so unsettled?
Tom: The future isn't "so" unsettled. It can be certain that an appointment will happen and yet indefinite as regards the date. Likewise, that Christ will return is certain. When he will return is not fixed. We influence the "when" of the Parousia, not the "that" of the Parousia. What's difficult to account for is saying the date for an appointment can be "hastened" or "postponed" and also that the calendar date is fixed.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 8/12/2003 5:27 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Paul5388
Tigress,
What you said seems to negate God's direct intervention in the affairs of humans. There are obvious times when there was intervention that could only be God's doing. So, He isn't just "letting the future happen on its own" if He intervenes.
In regard to the future, I wonder what one can do to speed up or "hasting" the parousia if the future is so unsettled? II Pet. 3.12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? {hasting…: or, hasting the coming} I have always thought it was speeding the completion of the body of Christ through evangelism that would "hasting" His return, but that would demand a detailed knowledge of the future on His part.
God lets individuals make their own decisions but sometimes those decisions are to pray to God to step in. Other times, God steps in on His own in order to complete His Will, like saving humanity through Christ's death and reserrection - and eventually His return. His stepping in isn't a complete overthrow of the entire systems, though. Most events are started by humans and spirits and are not altered by God.
Hasting Christ's return is simply to tell everyone the Gospel message. Well, not "simply" but you know what I mean! Jesus is waiting on us to make it possible for all to have a chance to choose for or against Him. (Another example of free-will in action). Until then, He'll wait patiently because He loves all and doesn't want to see anyone perish. If we have complaints about living in a world that's becoming increasingly immoral and depraved and we wish Jesus would just hurry up and end it all, we have only ourselves to blame for sitting on our duffs and not hasting it by sharing the Gospel with everyone we encounter.
Tigress
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
aquinas
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 36
| Posted 8/12/2003 6:17 AM (GMT -6) | | TGB you asked,
"what you think the cash value of divine timelessness is. What's it explain to you? What do you lose if you lose it?"
I'm not sure what you mean when you ask about the "cash value"
of divine timelessness. Concerning the other questions, Timelessness is a conclusion. Timelessness is sometimes argued for by offering some philosophical argument such as the vertical cosmological argument. Timelessness is a negation.
In light of this, your question "what do you lose if you lose it"
seems to be either too general a question, or irrelevant. It is not a doctrine that I hold onto for some existential need. It is something that is arrived at by way of classical arguments for the existence of God.
TGB, I realize more of a response is required on my part, but due to
the fact that I am at work, and my ISP is giving me problems, I will have to do this later.
Fred,
I enjoyed reading what you had to say. I think your critique of
Tom's questions were very interesting. I did not know that Aquinas
recognized Two of these three aspects. (see quote below) I will have to look into this.
This may be because I have read secondary Thomistic sources and sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between Aquinas the the various Neo-Thomistic interpretations.
Fred said,
"That's the advantage of recognizing THREE aspects to God (Person, essence and acts/energies) instead of TWO as with Thomas Aquinas. Two aspects inevitably does lead to problems. And some sort of "trade" is needed!"
I would like to discuss this more, but I am at work and cannot be
online too long. If I don't respond soon, it is because my ISP is
acting up. God Bless!
Matt
If we allow pious feelings to decree what nature should be, we are bound to wrong nature, for how could we find in piety a principle of self-restriction? In theology, as in any other science, the main question is not to be pious, but to be right. For there is nothing pious in being wrong about God! --Etienne Gilson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/21/2003 6:31 PM (GMT -6) | | aquinas: I do think that the timelessness position is more reasonable. It appearsto take into account more information and have more explainatory power.
Tom: Alright then, go ahead and explain something on the basis of divine timelessness. Explain God's acting providentially, or his guidance of us, or prayer, or prophecy on the basis of timeless knowledge. Demonstrate its explanatory power.
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/21/2003 7:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Well how do you explain prophecy if not for divine timelessness? How does God know enough to relay prophecy to the OT prophets with great detail if he was not timeless?
Sure, you can try to get around it by saying that God wasn't outside time, but simply told what HE alone intended to do. You'd be saying that God wills what he intends to do, and tells the prophets, b/c he knows what he himself will do, and he can bring that about. But then you've really crossed over to the determinist camp, in my opinion.
Under the Arminian view, God prophesies through his prophets things that come about freely, not b/c of determinism. So I would think that requires God to be timeless.
So which is it for you? | | Back to Top | | |
|
aquinas
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 36
| Posted 8/22/2003 5:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika,
I have met Dr. Craig on a couple of occations. One of which
was when he was outlining his position on God's relationship
to time. I am not completely ignorant of his views, it's just
that I want to study it more thoroughly before I comment on
something prematurely. Thanks for the link though.
Concerning Gods knowledge of the future and the nature of
free will, I would hold that God can know the future exhaustively
(that the future is decided in the mind of God) and that humans
are the first cause of their own actions. We have the power
to choose otherwise.
How God knows this, I don't know. That He knows it, I hold that
He does. I understand that this view does not prima facie seem
plausible to you. But if certain metaphysical principles are
accepted (i.e. analogy) I think that timelessness is not only a
very large view of God, but a more plausible view of God.
TGB again, I would like to get back to you on this. I know it appears
to be a cop-out. There are two issues though. One is that I don't think that your questions are very clear. If you could perhaps make them a little more specific. Secondly, while I believe that I can articulate some of my views on the explanitory power of timelessness, I want to do a good job of this. I want to refresh myself on what I have read and read more that I have not yet read.
Thanks again.
If we allow pious feelings to decree what nature should be, we are bound to wrong nature, for how could we find in piety a principle of self-restriction? In theology, as in any other science, the main question is not to be pious, but to be right. For there is nothing pious in being wrong about God! --Etienne Gilson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 8/23/2003 3:03 AM (GMT -6) | | aquinas: Concerning Gods knowledge of the future and the nature of free will, I would hold that God can know the future exhaustively (that the future is decided in the mind of God) and that humans are the first cause of their own actions. We have the power to choose otherwise.
Tim: This always sounds contradictory to me, no matter what way it gets said; "I have the power to choose other than, the future that is ‘decided’ in the mind of God".
However this seems more plausible to me, "I have the power to choose of/from the ‘decided futures’, which are in the mind of God".
The second statement seems somewhat more compatible to logic, for me anyway . . . even though, this is still not how I believe the reality of God’s knowledge works!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 8/23/2003 7:21 AM (GMT -6) | | From Tim's post:
aquinas: Concerning Gods knowledge of the future and the nature of free will, I would hold that God can know the future exhaustively (that the future is decided in the mind of God) and that humans are the first cause of their own actions. We have the power to choose otherwise.
Tim: This always sounds contradictory to me, no matter what way it gets said; "I have the power to choose other than, the future that is ‘decided’ in the mind of God".
However this seems more plausible to me, "I have the power to choose of/from the ‘decided futures’, which are in the mind of God".
The second statement seems somewhat more compatible to logic, for me anyway . . . even though, this is still not how I believe the reality of God’s knowledge works!
Why is your "knee-jerk" reaction in not understanding how the "contradictions" are resolved, to say, (paraphrased)"Hey, God isn't able to do anything that seems contradictory in my mind, therefore, I will believe that He can't".
Don't you think that a great verse to explain Aquinas' post would be
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD . (Isaiah 55:8)? To me that sounds a lot more logical than trying to produce logic by deciding how God's mind operates.
Fred, your post gives me tremendous fodder for thought. I don't even want to comment, other than I wish you would expand on the specific differences between the orthodox vs. "classical" view of God's Nature (i.e., "Not having an essential relationship with God does not make it un-personal, as God's "energies"/acts are personal..")
FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE AS I SEE IT:My husband and I were discussing the OV vs. other views, and we discussed how the more "classical" or balanced, or high view, (now I'm not sure WHAT to call it NOW), commences with the Mystery and Otherness and Beyondness of God's Being, then goes on to develop doctrines of belief in light of God's beyondness in being able to be understood by the human mind.
To me, the Open View commences with an already limited concept of God's Being that then requires contradictions and "nonsense", or put another way, "mystery" in a sense, to be accepted in developing how HUMANS RELATE TO GOD.
I for one think it makes a lot more sense (i.e.,morally realistic) for God's Being to contain the "mystery", rather than trying to explain the "mystery" in the human elements of human interactions with God.
Sincerely, and hopefully clearly worded,
SIM
Psalm 139:4 "Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 8/23/2003 11:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear Sim,
Compatibilism, Determinism, or Open View; none of them mean all that much to me, I am simply stating that I see a 'contradiction'. That the verse you quote, helps you resolve such, that is fine with me; the contradiction still exist for this rational mind to clearly see.
God decided a future of which I am free in; my reasoning says 'absurd at best'.
Nonetheless, that the truth might actually be as stated by aquinas sounds great, in the grand scheme of things, my beliefs on this subject will not jeopardize my salvation, you think?
I am borg . . .
Imagination projects unreal images out of the mind and seeks to attach reality to them. Faith creates nothing; it simply reckons upon that which is already there. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 8/23/2003 5:09 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by SIM
Why is your "knee-jerk" reaction in not understanding how the "contradictions" are resolved, to say, (paraphrased)"Hey, God isn't able to do anything that seems contradictory in my mind, therefore, I will believe that He can't".
So how does God communicate with you if what He says is contradictory to your understanding? How can you understand or be sure of ANYTHING He says?
quote:
Don't you think that a great verse to explain Aquinas' post would be
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD . (Isaiah 55:8)? To me that sounds a lot more logical than trying to produce logic by deciding how God's mind operates.
Let's add verse seven to verse eight:
Isaiah 55:
7 Let the wicked forsake his way
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
And let him return to the LORD,
And He will have compassion on him,
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.
8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD.
From that verse, where do you get that God operates with a different logic base? His righteous thoughts are not the same as the thoughts of the unrighteous man listed in verse seven. Different system of logic?
How can God even communicate these simple truths to us if we don't share the same basic system of logic as Him?
quote:
FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE AS I SEE IT:My husband and I were discussing the OV vs. other views, and we discussed how the more "classical" or balanced, or high view, (now I'm not sure WHAT to call it NOW), commences with the Mystery and Otherness and Beyondness of God's Being, then goes on to develop doctrines of belief in light of God's beyondness in being able to be understood by the human mind.
If God is such a mystery to you and your husband, how can you say our view of God is wrong and yours is right? If you hear someone speaking a foreign language YOU don't understand, do you assume NO ONE else can understand it either?
If God is beyond understanding, how can you "develop doctrines of belief"?
Here's some hurdles the "timeless" God has to cross:
1. When was the world created?
If it was created at time T, then before T, God's experience was NO creation. His experience after T is that of having a created world. So now you have a God whose experience has changed, from no world to having a world. A state change. That takes duration.
2. Is Jesus eternally now hanging on the cross, eternally now separated from His father due to carrying the sin of the world? Jesus said "it is finished", yet He's eternally now hanging there. Eternally.
3. All propositions are true to eternally now God. SIM is single AND SIM is married are both true to Him at the same time, a contradiction.
4. Everything in scripture about God uses tense language. No explanations are made, it's portrayed just that way. To think God isn't in time, the burden of proof is on those who don't take scripture at it's word. If God is timeless, scripture would do a lot of explaining this because timelessness is NOT our experience. Scripture spends NO time on explaining a timeless God. It just uses the same tense language for Him as it does for us.
5. If you were going to create beings, wouldn't you create them in a way you could communicate with them? Same logic, same language processing capabilities, same reasoning abilities. His are above ours but NOT contradictory to ours.
6. "Come now and let us reason together" says the Lord. How do you reason with a "timeless", "mysterious", "inscrutable", "impersonal", static zombie?
7. Why pray? Timeless God isn't going to change anything for you is He? He's static.
8. In His parables, Jesus used human analogies. I just threw this one in for kicks and grins. 
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 8/23/2003 7:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika said: So how does God communicate with you if what He says is contradictory to your understanding? How can you understand or be sure of ANYTHING He says
I have very little time to post, so I can't address your whole post. Some thoughts: I believe that we can know God and understand God up to a point. He gave us the capacity to understand Him to some degree, having been made in His image. The seeming "contradictions" appear because we are limited in our capacity to fully understand, or apprehend all of God, depthwise or breadth-wise. I heard a great teacher say that the attributes we do understand about God's nature is most probably only a fraction of them.
From that verse, where do you get that God operates with a different logic base? His righteous thoughts are not the same as the thoughts of the unrighteous man listed in verse seven.
I understand your comment, and I agree. It does appear that righteous vs. unrighteous is being contrasted.
I didn't say that God operated with a different logic, or at least I didn't mean to. I was getting at the "appearance" of logic vs. "appearance" of contradiction. Just because something appears to us as illogical doesn't mean that we have the wisdom and/or knowledge to judge truly whether it is or not. Only God has the whole perspective of a situation. A useful quote that keeps me from jumping to conclusions too quickly is " No matter how much you know about a situation or person, there's always one more thing." That reminds me that I never have enough information to judge a person or situation completely. The only Person who does is God.
If God is such a mystery to you and your husband, how can you say our view of God is wrong and yours is right? If you hear someone speaking a foreign language YOU don't understand, do you assume NO ONE else can understand it either?
God's mystery lies in the part of Him that a human - or most humans -can't understand. But, I believe that God revealed enough of Himself to us for us to be able to understand Him partially. My beliefs about God are based on the revealed truth about Him and His nature. I believe God is Other than His creation and not dependent on it. He is unchanging, operates in and out of time, and is beyond His creation. To me that much makes sense, which leads to His ability to orchestrate actions and free choices into His overall plan.
5. If you were going to create beings, wouldn't you create them in a way you could communicate with them? Same logic, same language processing capabilities, same reasoning abilities. His are above ours but NOT contradictory to ours.
I'm one of those people who believes in the literal Garden of Eden, where God literally, in a spiritual sense, walked with Adam in the garden. I believe that God did and does communicate with humans. I agree with you that He uses what we understand to communicate with us. I believe He is a logical God with reasoning abilities.
About "Why pray?" After reading a book by RC Sproul, I went through a short crisis period, wondering "If what this man is saying is true, then why pray?" I came to realize: #1: I don't agree with all of Sproul's beliefs. #2: I believe that God uses our prayers to bless us with blessings we would otherwise have missed. #3: I believe that God gives us the desire to pray, and uses those very prayers to accomplish His purposes. Sometimes before I pray, I begin to think, "Why pray if God already knows what is going to happen?" But, then I remember that He will be doing those very things because I will be praying for them to happen. My prayers move the hands of God, assuming I pray in Jesus' name, meaning His will.
MISCELLANEOUS: You made some very thought-provoking statements about a "timeless" God. (Though I don't believe God is "timeless" in that He can't experience time. I believe He operates in time also.)
I've got to think on these things when my brain is working better.
TIM: My beliefs will not jeopardize my salvation.
SIM: I don't believe God requires that we have all of our doctrine straight, else we'd all be doomed.
Psalm 139:4 "Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/25/2003 11:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
Here's some hurdles the "timeless" God has to cross:
1. When was the world created?
If it was created at time T, then before T, God's experience was NO creation. His experience after T is that of having a created world. So now you have a God whose experience has changed, from no world to having a world. A state change. That takes duration.
4. Everything in scripture about God uses tense language. No explanations are made, it's portrayed just that way. To think God isn't in time, the burden of proof is on those who don't take scripture at it's word. If God is timeless, scripture would do a lot of explaining this because timelessness is NOT our experience. Scripture spends NO time on explaining a timeless God. It just uses the same tense language for Him as it does for us.
5. If you were going to create beings, wouldn't you create them in a way you could communicate with them? Same logic, same language processing capabilities, same reasoning abilities. His are above ours but NOT contradictory to ours.
6. "Come now and let us reason together" says the Lord. How do you reason with a "timeless", "mysterious", "inscrutable", "impersonal", static zombie?
7. Why pray? Timeless God isn't going to change anything for you is He? He's static.
8. In His parables, Jesus used human analogies. I just threw this one in for kicks and grins.
LAIKA, I HOPE TO RETURN TO THIS AFTER I GET SOME SERIOUS BUGS OUT OF MY COMPUTER.
POW | | Back to Top | | |
| 116 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:17 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 |
|
|