 |
| 
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 11/14/2002 9:48 AM (GMT -6) |   | Geisler/House in their book "Battle For God," make this statement: "Classical theists do not deny that God's actions are temporal. They only insist that God's attributes are not temporal. God cannot have a nonessential nature. "Nonessential" means something God has but does not need to have."
My question is this: It seems to me that God's wrath is an attribute of God, that he is angry with sin. But is his wrath essential? In other words, if the world were perfect and no one sinned, would God need his wrath?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/14/2002 11:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Wrath...
Can't avoid that kind of talk. Need it. But is it always the clearest picture we have.
Christ "paid" in his death to reality, not to the devil, or to the Father, etc. So...God's LOVE is "angry" with reality. See? And the LOVE of God is heaven to those turned towards God, but will be a 'river of fire' to those turned away from God.
That's one thought from reading what your post, honorman.
Obviously, I didn't read the book. So those who did can comment on that.
But I still think that this OV possition has as much in common with the "classical theist" view as it has differences. BOTH seem (to me, so far) to ground God's behavior in this "attributes" and not in his Person.
I much prefer the Orthodox view of the Trinity. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 11/14/2002 11:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Honorman,
I think Geisler/House could say that describing God as wrathful can be taken to mean that God responds in anger to sin IF there is any. In other words, the attribute is essential, but whether or not the attribute is concretely manifested depends on whether the condition is satisfied. Here's an example. I have a substance X that is soluble. If placed in water it will dissolve. But suppose it never ever gets near any water, would that negate its solubility? No, or course not. Its solubility consists in the fact that it WOULD dissolve WERE it to be placed in water. Similarly, God could be described as wrathful in the sense that He WOULD respond in anger WERE sin to take place.
That being said, I do think that Geisler/House face some problems here, for it seems that God does possess some non-essential attributes. For example, God possesses the attributes of having created a world, of having poured out his wrath on Sodom & Gomorrah, of knowing that Peter freely denies Christ, etc. All of these are clearly nonessential properties that nevertheless correctly describe God, and it is not clear how classical theism allows for God to have nonessential properties (see the thread on Divine Simplicity).
God bless,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/14/2002 12:29 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Alan: "it is not clear how classical theism allows for God to have nonessential properties"
And THAT indicates (IMHO) a problem with classical theism. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 11/14/2002 12:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Is creating an essential aspect of God? In other words, does God have to create? If not, then would it not be a non-essential attribute?
Al: as an open theist I could not disagree with you more. Discussing God's attributes does not mean that my faith is grounded in them. My faith is grounded in the person of Jesus Christ. The "Orthodox view of the Trinity." Sounds very elitist to me. But, then again, I believe the Christian church has only believed in one view of the Trinity.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 11/14/2002 1:04 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Is creating an essential aspect of God? In other words, does God have to create? If not, then would it not be a non-essential attribute?
The historical position of the Christian church has been that God's decision to create was a free one. In other words, nothing in God's nature necessitated that He create. He could have refrained from creating. This puts Christianity at odds with neoplatonism, which teaches that the world is a necessary emanation from God.
Alan
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/14/2002 1:50 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
honorman: The "Orthodox view of the Trinity." Sounds very elitist to me. But, then again, I believe the Christian church has only believed in one view of the Trinity.
Glad you asked, honorman. I meant something specific. And I'm pretty sure this is the second time that you have taked exception to HOW I said something. Fair enough! (OK.)
Here, specifically is what I was talking about. I'm pretty sure it discusses the views of an RCC theologian, Fr. Th. de Regnon. He does use the phrase "Greek"; but I used Orthodox because that is the terms an RCC would use. (No, its NOT elitist!)
[quote]de Regnon writes: "Latin philosophy envisages first the nature in itself and then procedes to the expression; Greek philosophy envisages first the expression and then penetrates it to find the nature. The Latin considers personality as a mode of nature, the Greek considers nature as the content of the person"quote]
I prefer the later.
de Regnon also says: "It would seem that in our time the dogma of the divine Unity had, as it were, absorbed the dogma of the Trinity of which one only speaks as a memory." (Th. de Regnon, Etudes de theol. pos. sur la Sainte Trinite, I, 365.)
Is that last part of what you said, honorman, true? One view. Or two?
I'm not sure I'm qualified to say.
Maybe I'd conclude from what the Catholic (another term to discuss!) de Regnon says, that while there are various "views" Christians have 'always' worshiped "THE" Trinity.
- Al
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 11/14/2002 8:00:59 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/14/2002 2:05 PM (GMT -6) | | To Alan Rhoda,
I like reading how you write, Alan. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 11/15/2002 12:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Al: I believe there is one Trinity that the Church has declared it believes in. I believe there are as many views of the Trinity as there are Christians. But I do not believe one sect (?) or branch of Christianity is closer in their view of the Trinity than any of the others. I simply believe they are looking at it from a different angle. If you prefer the Orthodox view of the Trinity it is because it sits well with you personally, not because it may somehow be closer to the truth of what the Trinity is. I believe same goes for me and all believers.
As your quote shows, different angles...
Edited by - honorman on 11/15/2002 05:56:55 AM
Edited by - honorman on 11/15/2002 05:58:20 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 11/15/2002 12:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Alan: my point precisely. Geisler/House state that God cannot have a non-essenttial attribute. And also that God did not have to create. Therefore, logically, creating is a non-essential attribute...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/15/2002 1:29 AM (GMT -6) | | de Regnon writes: "The Latin considers personality as a mode of nature..."
That affects one's view.
de Regnon writes: "...the Greek considers nature as the content of the person."
That affects one's view.
I think that they are interssting differences.
Al | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 11/15/2002 9:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Yes, they are, but I truly believe each of our personalities effects how we view God.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/15/2002 10:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Yes, they are, but I truly believe each of our personalities effects how we view God.
True.
I'd add the pespective that this is a different matter than how the above two patterns of thinking affect your view on God. But it is true.
That said, honorman, let me ask your opinion. OK? It struck me today that none on this board should totally dismiss differences in view of God as inconsequential. The notable debate between "classical" and "open" on this site involve that very thing. Right? But now you have raised an equally valid and important issue: personality. And since personality is now on the table I'd like to ask the following.
How much of the difference between "open" and "classical" involves personality?
That may seem like a strange question. But since -- as far as I can see -- they BOTH fit in the "Latin" part of the chart that de Regnon's observations could provide ("considers [divine] personality as a mode of nature"), JUST HOW MUCH OF THIS DETERMINATION OF "PERSONALITY AS A MODE OF NATURE" IS DEPENDENT ON WHAT OUR OWN PERSONALITY TAKES GOD'S NATURE TO BE.
It's JUST a question. But I'd be interested to see what anyone has to say on the matter.
Pointing in that direction would be allowances for persons to "tweek" the "facts' they find themselves handed, in order to better fit what they believe is true. I'm guessing, in an informed manner, that within the "classical" tradition one would find a wide span of "personalities" and some correspondence to their "view of God" to go along with it.
Again, what does anybody think.
Al | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/27/2002 5:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Or...
If personality is not that big an issue, maybe the catagories with which one things really does make its impact felt. Like Mr. de Regnon is saying. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:12 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 |
|
|