 |
| 
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 11/3/2002 6:46 PM (GMT -6) |   | On the Trinity: Starkman's ideas on the Trinity concerned me, as they did Tom -- especially because I was once a modalist (Oneness Pentecostal) and his ideas sounded remarkably like theirs. Especially that all the personal interaction between the Father and Son is due to Jesus' HUMANITY. This results in a radically NESTORIAN view of Jesus where his (non-relational) divinity and (relational) humanity are two distinct realities. Even worse, it means the humanity does not REVEAL the divinity.
The central purpose of the doctrine of the Trinity was to say that the way God APPEARS TO US in Scripture (viz. loving interaction of Father, Son and Holy Spirit) REVEALS the way God ACTUALLY IS. All this is lost if the interrelationship is reduced to Jesus' humanity (in DISTINCTION) to his divinity (which per hypothesis, is not personally distinct from the Father).
ON Craig and Time: Newcomb, I think you're hitting on the central weakness of Craig's view (viz that God is non-temporal BEFORE he creates and temporal AFTER he creates). To say "non-temporal BEFORE..." already implies sequence. I can't get a clear conception of what Craig is communicating with his "non-temporal BEFORE..." idea.
At the same time, I agree with Starkman that its better to say "sequence" than "time," since sequence is more fundamental than time... time is the MEASUREMENT OF sequence, and presupposes a standard against which sequence is measured. If there is no eternal reality agaisnt which we -- or anyone -- could measure God's intertrinitiarian sequence, there would be no time.
Besides, if you insist that time is an uncreated eternal reality, you have trouble with Revelations when it says "time was no more" (is it chapter 21?).
Blessings
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/3/2002 7:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom, you put some good thought into your initial response to Starkman. Its been half a day since I penciled some notes. But it won't be 'till tomorrow that I get to them. Sorry.
Briefly, though, nature goes with will. You mentioned Christology in comparison with Trinitarian doctrine. That is a good place to anchor. But you need to sketch the whole thing out: two natures of Christ equals two wills; and one nature of the Godhead equals one will. But, relax. That is not the end of it.
The equality of the Godhead and the uniqueness of the Persons gets top billing, over the relational aspects. We really don't want the "principle of unity" ("unicity") to dominate as it has historically in the West. That's part of the West's problem. But the "sociological" aspect to the social model is actually part-and-parcel of that "unicity." Its an add on. Don't settle for it!!! Divine equality springs (as in moving water) from the Father's love. It is from the very nature of this that mutual relations express the koinonia of the Godhead. THAT is the order.
Here's another way of saying it: The equality DOES NOT result from relationships. It is integral to their very mode of existence. And, rather, it is the relationships that extend from the divine equality -- based on the monarchy of the Father.
IMHO, the "sequence" you are looking for is NOT a prior existing thing that is larger than God, as I've seen here sometimes. And God's 'equality' and 'uniquesess of persons' does NOT AT ALL depend on sequence. Will is included in that. God can create sequence. But sequence in not part of who God is.
We see LOTS of sequence in the economy. So, sequence will be evident not just in relations between an earthy Jesus and the Father. We can also expect sequence in anything having to do with the economy. That's what I would expect, also, in the non-doctrinal expressions of Gregory Nyssa -- poetic -- that article mentions. Gregory Naz. is also good.
The talk abou "conversations" and "willing to converse" treated the Trinity as if there were debates and consensus. Shoddy. Try this word: "commune-icate", as in to share communion. This is not across divisions.
Important is that the Trinity are unique, but NOT "individual." (Your trinity article mentioned 'individualism.') Starkman did well in contrasting this to two of us--with two wills--coming to agreement.
The West has tended to "treat the persons as mere expressions of the Godhead", (Bob Hill has moved this direction over years, as his definition of the word "manifestation" has moved from the economy realm into the intertrinitarian realm. His earlier writings are OK. But his usage this year follows this Western drift.) "a position dangersously close to modalism." (Jesson) But while the social model looks on the surface as if it is trying to go the other direction, I wonder whether it just cements itself to the "unicity" primciple. Something larger than the 'personal uniquenesses' dominates. And the equality is subsumed into a 'social cause.' 
I think that covers it after all.
................................
Nuke,
I don't think that just because something can be put into words, that then the words and the rule of words then determine the thing. That's what you did. Your conclusions don't fit well with the "eternally begotten" status of the Word. Do they? There are limits of what we can describe with respect to God.
- Al
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/3/2002 7:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc's concern on Starkman: Especially that all the personal interaction between the Father and Son is due to Jesus' HUMANITY.
Al: I'm not concerned by what he posted. He did two things. He contrasted what God is interTrinity and what we are between ourselves. And he mentioned the dialogues between Jesus and God. While he didn't iron out the rough places, and lost his train of thought, I'm not concerned.
Can you help me out with one big concern of mine, though, Doc? Its what you posted:
quote:
Doc: If there is no eternal reality agaisnt which we -- or anyone -- could measure God's intertrinitiarian sequence...
What I'm concerned by can be summed up this way: "reality agaisnt which we [can] measure God"
In my understanding, God creates reality. God does not live up to it. That's touched on in my above post. God's equality and the uniqueness of Persons in the Communion of the Godhead find expression in relationality. BUT, the relations (verb) do not produce the Triunity.
Reflecting on that: From where I'm sitting, for all the effort the Open View has exerted in trying to distance itself from the classical view (essential based, as in divine attributes) it has not succeeded in freeing itself. The Social Model is just one more part of that classical view. Just a different variation. The dynamic is the same.
Well, I didn't plan to be so bold.
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 11/04/2002 12:28:36 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/3/2002 7:57 PM (GMT -6) | | If the only direction Starkman could go besides the Social Model were to become a modalist, that would be one thing. But it ain't that way. The quotes from Hopko on page five illustrate. The Orthodox Church is definitely NOT modalist. In constrast with the tradition of the Western Church to begin with the unity and then set up social rules, the East begins with the uniqueness of persons. The relationality extends from their communion.
. . . . . . . .
Imagine, as limited as we are, what "eternally begotten" is. I see relation, but without sequence. The best that I can get my brain to do is imagine simultineity.
It is in "economic" things that I see sequence. And where change is present, time. By the Father, through the Son, and in the Spirit can take different forms economically: sometimes with the Son before the Spirit, and sometimes with the Spirit before the Son.
As to "sequence" and its required period of transpirance, do we then read into Gregory of Naz. a passing from hand to hand fo Glory, from the Son to the Father, instead of what he describes?:
1. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ2 . Blessed also be His Only-begotten Son3 . For with the thought of God let the thought of Father at once be joined, that the ascription of glory to the Father and the Son may be made indivisible. For the Father hath not one glory, and the Son another, but one and the same, since He is the Father's Only-begotten Son; and when the Father is glorified, the Son also shares the glory with Him, because the glory of the Son flows from His Father's honour: and again, when the Son is glorified, the Father of so great a blessing is highly honoured.
www.CCEL.org\FATHERS2\NPNF207\NPNF2010.HTM
I also think of this from Gregory the Theologian:
He is Holy, and Almighty, and excelleth all in goodness, and majesty, and wisdom: of Whom we can declare neither beginning, nor form, nor shape. For ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape25 , saith Holy Scripture. Wherefore Moses saith also to the Israelites: And take ye good heed to your own souls, for ye saw no similitude26 . For if it is wholly impossible to imagine His likeness, how shall thought come near His substance?
But with respect to what he does we can know more, and praise Him:
He sends forth countless operations of His Godhead, not exceeding here and deficient there, but being in all things like unto Himself. Not great in loving-kindness only, and little in wisdom, but with wisdom and loving-kindness in equal power: not seeing in part, and in part devoid of sight; but being all eye, and all ear, and all mind24 : not like us perceiving in part and in part not knowing; for such a statement were blasphemous, and unworthy of the Divine substance. He foreknoweth the things that be...
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 11/04/2002 01:00:03 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/4/2002 12:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Let’s see, we’ve got Neu’kem, Al, Starkman, and Tom. If we get two more we can be the six blind men of Hindustan each describing an elephant he’s never seen. Know the poem?
Oh well.
Neu’kem: Craig’s book is on the way but from the posts above Craig argues against Coburn is lacking in this: Intent implies the ideas of taking action in the future.
Tom: You’ll enjoy Craig’s book. Like I said, I was actually able to follow his chapter on Einstein, arguing for a Lorentzian view of relativity. He basically argues what has been said here before by others, that time is relative for ‘finite’ observers but absolute for an omnipresent observer. Check out Lorentz’s comment: “A ‘World Spirit’ who, not being bound to a specific place, permeated the entire system under consideration and ‘in whom’ this system existed and who could ‘feel’ immediately all events would naturally distinguish at once one of the systems U, U1, etc., above the others.”
I find the idea that “intention” is by definition forward looking interesting. If Craig were to admit that this were true, then I suppose he’d just deny that God “intended” anything in the absence of a creation. But how then would God EVER create? Good point, Neu’kem.
Can somebody comment on my idea that if angelic beings were created prior to the physical world this implies time was running in the absence of a physical world? After reading several books on time, I haven’t found anybody who even takes notice of this. This wouldn’t prove that God was not atemporal in the absence of angelic-immaterial beings, but it would show that time existed prior to the creation of a physical universe. Does this make sense? Does the creation of immaterial beings other than God in the absence of a physical universe entail the passage of time? I don’t see how we can avoid concluding that it does.
Neu’kem: Here [Craig] states that God may intend to not act. But if he can act, so that he must intend not to, he necessarily is not timeless. A potentiality necessitates the ability to change something, again, change necessitates time, therefore potentiality itself necessitates time.
Tom: I’m less sure about this. Why should the capacity to act entail temporality? Shouldn’t it only entail the capacity for temporality? A potentiality necessitates the, as you say, ability to change. How does this ability entail time rather than the possibility of time?
Neu’kem: Also, the term “the infinite” is a strange way to avoid time since it requires time.
Tom: Now THIS makes perfect sense IF we stick to relational categories (I think). But a conceptual infinite, like an infinite series of numbers, doesn’t seem to require time. Everybody agrees that mathematical truths (2+4=4) do not require the passage of time to be true. They’re timelessly true. So doesn’t your claim require a particular kind of “infinity,” viz., and infinite PERSON? And doesn’t this toss us back into the discussion we’re having now about whether “atemporal personhood” is even possible?
Neu’kem: Back to dimensions: Dimensions are not created things, they are necessary things, time is a dimension, therefore, not a created thing. Remember that sequencing, change and action, if you will, require the dimension of time. Without time you cannot create, neither can God.
Tom: I see your point. Though I find some bite to Craig’s arguments for the impossibility of an actual infinite, I find it equally impossible to conceive of how an absolutely timeless God would “decides to create.”
Neu’kem: Why don’t we break off the Trinity and talk to another subject?
Tom: If that’ll help. But the argument from “personhood” is important. Is the notion of “atemporal personhood” even coherent. If not, and if God is a person, then God cannot be “atemporal.” His nature/essence can be unchanging, but not in the temporal sense. That’s fine with me.
But open theists to date have only claimed that “personhood” requires time. OK, but unpack the argument. There has been mention of God’s mutual love, but the whole argument hasn’t been unpacked. What are the essential properties of “personhood”? I don’t know. Should our understanding of “person” be imported into our understanding of God’s “personhood” without qualification? This is one of Al’s points I think. We are persons and God is a person. OK, but person is used “analogically” [both like and unlike] and not “univocally” [both are identical]. Somebody should write a master’s thesis on this.
Good stuff!
Tom 
"Kind of like donut holes--no one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist." Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/4/2002 12:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman:…AND I'M STILL SO DEEPLY HURT THAT YOU COULD EVEN THINK THAT I . . .THAT I . . .a modalist? Oy vai! But you're forgiven!
Tom: Sorry ‘bout that Bro! [;P] When you said that the members of the Trinity cannot have conversations (i.e., communication), I went ballistic!  If we deny all give-and-take mutuality, then we’ve emasculated the doctrine of the Trinity, right? Like Al, said, I might be in danger of going too far on the other end of the continuum with a social theory. But I think you’re just (rightly) recognizing the unlikeness required in the analogical use of “persons” for Father, Son, and Spirit. I’m OK now! My point I guess here is the same with all metaphorical speech—if “person” used of God doesn’t mean something like what WE mean when WE use it, then it doesn’t tell us ANYTHING about God. There has to be some shared common ground or else God is not revealed in such language. I’m trying to find out a) what ARE the essential properties of “personhood” and b) which of those properties are we prepare to attribute to God and HOW.
Starkman:I wasn't editing the Trinity to a lifeless substance, only our concept of what relationship is between the members of the Trinity. Sequence must still exist.
Tom: Right. I’m interested in knowing how we do that editing. How do we edit metaphors, like “person,” to figure out what part of OUR understanding of “person” does apply to God and what part doesn’t apply to God. In other words, you admitted that because God is NOT a human, God’s being a “person” must be different from the way WE are “persons.” OK. HOW do we go about deciding what properties of human personhood cannot apply to God? I don’t even know what the properties of personhood are! Arghhhh! Were is Freud? Jung? Dobson? Dr. Phil?
But…you end up with “Sequence must still exist”! OK, how do we know THAT? I agree with you. I just don’t know why I agree!
Starkman:Is it possible for a Tri-Part to have one will? Can God be Triune but only have one will? I am convinced more and more that this is exactly what Scripture suggests. That the Son and Father conversed before creation is possible, but not, I believe, as we converse: two wills working together. Now, just how that can be, I don't know (and really, THAT is, to me, the mystery of the Trinity), but I think it is a view that's faithful to the God Scripture reveals.
Tom: OK, let’s dump the one-will discussion. Al, no more posts on that one!  For the sake of argument I’ll agree that Father, Son, and Spirit do not each possess their own center of “willing.” You still agree that the Three “conversed before creation” but “not as we converse” (where “we conversing” = “separate wills”). OK, fine. Here’s my question: Why do you feel (or do you?) that this mutual conversing among the three of the Trinity (whatEVER it means) entails the passage of time?
Maybe I should remove my interest in the argument from “personhood” for God’s temporality to another thread. It’s not an argument from science or the nature of time per say, which is where Neu’kem directed this thread to begin with.
Gotta say something about donuts here!...
Starkman:But a shadow isn't a thing in and of itself. Kind of like donut holes . . . no one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist; they are donut . . . holes.
Tom: A shadow is a thing though (as you said) it’s existence is contingent upon other things being the case. That doesn’t make them less than real. Reflections are real even if they only “reflect” what’s real. So, how’s this for philosophy: I think donut holes DO exist. And we DO eat them.
Hey, the ancients argued about how many angels could sit on the head of a pin. We argue about whether donut holes exist or not. Who-o-o-o-ah dude!
Doc! Speak up! Pull Starkman and me out of this dark hole!
Tom
"Kind of like donut holes--no one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist." Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/4/2002 12:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Al’s turn…
Al: Briefly, though, nature goes with will.
Tom: Yeah, I see that now; though I think it’s better said that “Will goes with Nature.” What we’re saying then is that since God (=Father, Son, Spirit) has one nature, each (that is, Father, Son, and Spirit) does not possess its own nature. Right?
Al: But, relax.
Tom: I hate it when people tell other people who are relaxed to relax! It makes them become unrelaxed!
Al:Here's another way of saying it: The equality DOES NOT result from relationships. It is integral to their very mode of existence. And, rather, it is the relationships that extend from the divine equality -- based on the monarchy of the Father. IMHO, the "sequence" you are looking for is NOT a prior existing thing that is larger than God, as I've seen here sometimes. And God's 'equality' and 'uniquesess of persons' does NOT AT ALL depend on sequence. Will is included in that. God can create sequence. But sequence in not part of who God is.
Tom: Greater minds than mine will have to engage this. Doc?
I follow ya Al. I’m not strong here, but at first glance I have no problem conceding that the “relational” in God flows from the divine “equality.” Fine. But as I’ve said before, nothing about this in itself utters a word about God’s relationship to ‘time.’ This ordering of equality and relationship in God could very well be infinitely temporal. Why should the ordering suggest atemporal existence?
Looks like you’re smuggling in your claim that “sequence is not part of who God is.” How does one establish that? I’m not even sure that those who insist God is temporally eternal would agree that “sequence is ‘part’ of who God is” is a very good summation of their view.
However, it does seem to me to that God’s “relationality”—even assuming the Eastern ordering which you describe—requires sequence. There’s certainly nothing in the ordering you’ve described that requires the absence of all sequence.
See where I’m coming from?
Al: The talk about "conversations" and "willing to converse" treated the Trinity as if there were debates and consensus. Shoddy. Try this word: "commune-icate", as in to share communion. This is not across divisions.
Tom: Right. Toss out the “conversations” thing. I was on drugs when I wrote that. I’m puuurrrrfectly happy with “communicate” and “mutuality.”
Al: We see LOTS of sequence in the economy. So, sequence will be evident not just in relations between an earthy Jesus and the Father. We can also expect sequence in anything having to do with the economy.
Tom: Looks like “…and, therefore, God cannot be atemporal” ought to be your conclusion. I don’t see how this does not follow from what you’ve just said. If the ralationality (commune-ication, mutuality) of God follows from God’s equality (I’m conceding your Eastern order here), how does it not “eternally” follow from that equality? So, God didn't 'become' relational. Relational is what God is (whatever your order). Now that we agree that God IS relational, how does one conceive of this “relationality," this "commune-ication" as atemporal?
Peace, love, and joy…in the proper order!
Tom
"Kind of like donut holes--no one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist." Starkman
Edited by - TGB on 11/04/2002 07:58:17 AM
Al, read the last paragraph again, I edited it.
Edited by - TGB on 11/04/2002 08:02:31 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/4/2002 12:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc-
I don't know how, but I totally missed your post on the previous page. Hmmm. Computer glitch. Will read it and come back later.
Thanks.
Oh, now that Doc's chimmed in, we only need one more to constitutte ourselves as the six blind men of Hindustan!
Tom
"Kind of like donut holes--no one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist." Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/4/2002 2:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: I suppose he’d (Criag) just deny that God “intended” anything in the absence of a creation
Al: I carried-in a comment on that back on page five. It had to do with how the Greek/Platonic system offeres only rigidity; but the Christian system allows the personal freedom to God to have designs. And these have to be free from actually doing them at the time. (I either didn't agree or didn't follow Starkman when he go into that territory.)
Tom: But open theists to date have only claimed that “personhood” requires time. OK, but unpack the argument. There has been mention of God’s mutual love, but the whole argument hasn’t been unpacked. What are the essential properties of “personhood”? I don’t know. Should our understanding of “person” be imported into our understanding of God’s “personhood” without qualification? This is one of Al’s points I think. We are persons and God is a person. OK, but person is used “analogically” [both like and unlike] and not “univocally” [both are identical]. Somebody should write a master’s thesis on this.
Al: Tom, you are my hero.
(And either the ref didn't see the kick, or he is letting the ball play until he sees which teacm gets the advantage. No card. )
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 11/04/2002 07:38:33 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/4/2002 2:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc: On the Trinity: Starkman's ideas on the Trinity concerned me, as they did Tom -- especially because I was once a modalist (Oneness Pentecostal) and his ideas sounded remarkably like theirs. Especially that all the personal interaction between the Father and Son is due to Jesus' HUMANITY. This results in a radically NESTORIAN view of Jesus where his (non-relational) divinity and (relational) humanity are two distinct realities. Even worse, it means the humanity does not REVEAL the divinity
Tom: That’s what I wanted to say! I tell ya folks, it’s embarrassing to get online and show my inadequacy for all to see! Thanks Doc!
Doc: ON Craig and Time: Newcomb, I think you're hitting on the central weakness of Craig's view (viz that God is non-temporal BEFORE he creates and temporal AFTER he creates). To say "non-temporal BEFORE..." already implies sequence. I can't get a clear conception of what Craig is communicating with his "non-temporal BEFORE..." idea.
Tom: But Craig doesn’t mean anything by “non-temporal before…” because he doesn’t use it. Actually, Craig acknowledges the problem of using language like “atemporal before…,” which is why he makes it a point to say “God is atemporal in the absence of creation.” When he does use “before time” language it’s (as far as I can tell) only when he’s discussing Scripture’s use of “before time/ages” language (LXX of Prov 8.23 and Ps. 54.20 (54.19); Tit. 1.2-3; 2Tim. 1.9; 1Cor. 2.7; Jude 25), and then he acknowledges (cf. God and Time: Four Views, p. 131) this to be simply “an inevitable way of speaking” (a “facon de parler”). It’s like the expression “sunset”; nobody thinks sunsets are brought about by the sun encircling the earth, but we use the phrase anyhow. Craig’s saying we should be careful with the Bible's “pro aionios” [don't laugh, my Greek isn't in front of me!] (“before time”) expressions. One the one hand, they DO (he thinks) affirm that God is atemporal in the absence of creation. On the other hand, they do so in language that is less than scientifically accurate (because, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as “atemporal before…”).
Doc: Besides, if you insist that time is an uncreated eternal reality, you have trouble with Revelations when it says "time was no more" (is it chapter 21?).
Tom: Now Doc, we both know Jimmy Swaggart was the only one who insisted on using the plural “Revelations” in public. Just joking! “Open with me if you will to the book of Revelaychunz!”
I can’t find that stinkin verse anywhere, , the “Time shall be no more” verse. I’ve done a hundred searches in BibleWorks, and all I’ve found is Rev. 10.6 (KJV): “And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer.” Is this the one you’re thinking of, the one that says, “And time shall be no more.” Is this it? I read Rev. 21 and 22 slowly and didn’t find anything. If this is it, then it doesn’t apply to our discussion. Check out other English translations. Most simply render this with “there will be no more delay” or the like. No claim here to the “end of time” per say.
By the way, as I read ISBE’s article on “Time” I kept saying to myself, “Hey, this person makes sense; good stuff.” I was curious to know who wrote it so I quickly went to the end and saw the author’s name: C. H. Pinnock. Now THAT’S funny!
Tom
"Kind of like donut holes--no one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist." Starkman
Edited by - TGB on 11/04/2002 3:03:52 PM
Edited by - TGB on 11/04/2002 3:06:16 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/4/2002 2:57 AM (GMT -6) | | 13 minutes before class . . . and all I can say at the moment is Eee gads!
Tom, you busted me up, big time. I can just see your fingers flying and your mind spinning! Great sense of humor!
You said:
"Can somebody comment on my idea that if angelic beings were created prior to the physical world this implies time was running in the absence of a physical world? After reading several books on time, I haven’t found anybody who even takes notice of this. This wouldn’t prove that God was not atemporal in the absence of angelic-immaterial beings, but it would show that time existed prior to the creation of a physical universe. Does this make sense? Does the creation of immaterial beings other than God in the absence of a physical universe entail the passage of time? I don’t see how we can avoid concluding that it does.
Hey, the only thing I can chime in here about this question, Tom, is to differentiate between time and sequence: Time is measurable; there is a system (solar in our case) which makes this possible. Sequence, however, is more like that shadow thing I used--I am SO honored to see my quote, for however long it lasts, as a tag to your posts. Anyway, there's no substance to sequence. So, if God creates and sequences, we are right up the alley of God being infinite. Oh, and by the way, does 2+2=4 fall into the infinite? Or wouldn't 1,2,3,4,5... be more into the infinite? (Darn, only 5 more minutes before class . . . gotta hurry!)
I guess the real question is--an old one at that--if God does sequence, when did it all begin? But, again, the issue isn't the same as trying to pin-point a start to a creation when we talk about God being inifinite and sequencing. If there's no "creation", there's no measurable time. And since God has always been, sequence doesn't interrupt this thought . . . (he said with great hope in his voice!), there is no need to pin-point a beginning to God. If there were, than there'd have to be something before God, if measurable time really exists throughout all eternity.
Gotta go!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/4/2002 3:12 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
You said: "Can somebody comment on my idea that if angelic beings were created prior to the physical world this implies time was running in the absence of a physical world? After reading several books on time, I haven’t found anybody who even takes notice of this. This wouldn’t prove that God was not atemporal in the absence of angelic-immaterial beings, but it would show that time existed prior to the creation of a physical universe. Does this make sense? Does the creation of immaterial beings other than God in the absence of a physical universe entail the passage of time? I don’t see how we can avoid concluding that it does.
Hey, the only thing I can chime in here about this question, Tom, is to differentiate between time and sequence.
Right. So we'll call it sequence. That's OK. So, does the existence of immaterial angelic beings prior to a physical universes demand 'sequence'? I think we agree. So, there was 'change' (sequence) before the creation of a physical universe.
quote:
Oh, and by the way, does 2+2=4 fall into the infinite? Or wouldn't 1,2,3,4,5... be more into the infinite?
Well, yeah. I was just commenting on Neu'kem's claim that the concept of "infinity" itself requires temporality. Mathematical truths don't require temporality. Isn't a mathematical infinity (1,2,3,etc.) a "timeless" concept?
quote:
I guess the real question is--an old one at that--if God does sequence, when did it all begin?
Right. My point is this: If "personhood" requires sequence, and if God is by nature personal (viz., there is commune-ication and mutuality in the Trinity) then it follows that God never 'started' sequencing at all. God's personhood IS sequential by nature. God is not, nor was God ever, atemporal.
Go get 'em Starkman!
Tom
"Kind of like donut holes--no one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist." Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/4/2002 3:19 AM (GMT -6) | | The Blind Men and the Elephant
Indian folktale retold in poetic form by Godfrey Saxe
It was six men of Indostan,
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the elephant,
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The first approached the elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! But the elephant
Is very like a wall!"
The second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried: "Ho! What have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis very clear,
This wonder of an elephant
Is very like a spear!"
The third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the elephant
Is very like a snake!"
The fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is might plain," quoth he;
"Tis clear enough the elephant
Is very like a tree."
The fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most:
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an elephant
Is very like a fan."
The sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the elephant
Is very like a rope."
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong.
Though each was partly right,
All were in the wrong.
Moral
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
"Kind of like donut holes--no one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist." Starkman
Edited by - TGB on 11/04/2002 08:29:01 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/4/2002 4:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom, you're, uh, really pushing the elephant thing, aren't ya! I'm blind enough as it is, but you have to go and add salt to my wounds. Oh, woe is me!
You said, "Right. My point is this: If "personhood" requires sequence, and if God is by nature personal (viz., there is commune-ication and mutuality in the Trinity) then it follows that God never 'started' sequencing at all. God's personhood IS sequential by nature. God is not, nor was God ever, atemporal."
Tom, I think you hit it on the head there. I think now we need to think through the question, "Is there a problem with the concept of God not being atemporal by reason of His sequencing?" Is sequencing something in addition to the ontology or personage of God?
Oh, and Doc . . . listen, no worries, my good man. I'm fully Trinitarian, but I'm trying to consider what, if any, differences there may be between our personood and ability to "will" and God's personhood and ability to "will." The members of the Trinity are individuals, but to the classification of each having an independant will? That's the part of the Trinity I'm reconsidering.
Break's almost over . . .
In class I've been considering if personage/pershood would have any impact on the concept of sequence. Because God is a person, how should this cause us to interpret sequence, or should it cause us to interpret sequence at all? Because God is a person--an eternal person--is sequence subservient to eternity, or is it part-and-parcel to being eternal?
Bye,
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 11/04/2002 12:42:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/4/2002 12:40 PM (GMT -6) | | EDITED VERSION:
Brothers, I fear that you are wandering down a path. I see some ideas and some terms picked up, but used wrongly, and without understanding what they mean. (rough description)
Now, that is unkind of me. Sorry. But I hate seeing something under development begin to go crazy. I went back and found this from Tom, and its REALLY GOOD:
quote:
Tom: ...the argument from “personhood” is important. Is the notion of “atemporal personhood” even coherent. If not, and if God is a person, then God cannot be “atemporal.” His nature/essence can be unchanging, but not in the temporal sense. That’s fine with me.
But open theists to date have only claimed that “personhood” requires time. OK, but unpack the argument. There has been mention of God’s mutual love, but the whole argument hasn’t been unpacked. What are the essential properties of “personhood”? I don’t know. Should our understanding of “person” be imported into our understanding of God’s “personhood” without qualification? This is one of Al’s points I think. We are persons and God is a person. OK, but person is used “analogically” [both like and unlike] and not “univocally” [both are identical]. Somebody should write a master’s thesis on this.
Good stuff!
I think it would be a good corrective to keep this in the for: "What are the essential properties of “personhood”? I don’t know. Should our understanding of “person” be imported into our understanding of God’s “personhood” without qualification? This is one of Al’s points I think." (Tom)
I'm going to try and identify some important things. But, you have to each ask yourself, what it matters to you. If this is just so that you can have an idea this week and then exchange it for another one the next, then why bother. So, why am I being so "serious?" Its NOT because I hope to convince any particular person of any particular thing. That is up to you, each, and up to God. But the reason for my seriousness is that this stuff scares me. I know how important it is, and powerful, and wonderful. Its more than any artwork that I've ever created. Before "re-entering" a sculpture or painting that is several days into its birthing, and artist will sometimes spend the better portion of a morning before even picking up a tool. The artist just LOOKS. Its that important. (There are stories about Leonardo doing that for days in front of the Last Supper.) THIS is that important, and more! If its entertainment to you -- fine. But I grapple with what can be said and what can't be said, and differentiate between them. I can't pursue a free-wheeling tumble of re-definitions. But I will try and present in an open clearing the few things that I judge to have been really helpful. But to 'access' them might take a few readings on your part of the same material. Nothing good comes easily. So, before you "whack" the nose off the Sphinx, ask yourself whether you care, and how much.
Sincerely,
Your brother
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 11/04/2002 5:47:24 PM
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 11/04/2002 9:07:13 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/4/2002 12:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Some theological writing is the stuff that you measure yourself by: for whether you can follow it, whether it causes you to realign and organize your thoughts, and whether it shakes you to faith. I recommend this:
quote:
Historically, West and East had different assumptions about the ontological "principle" of God. The West assumed the principle to be "in the substance of God...in the "being" itself of God...in which "the unity of God is the one divine substance, the one divinity."
Quoting above and below from Zizioulas's "Being as Communion." the West followed:
"...ancient Greek ontology [where] God first _is_ God (His substance or nature, His being), and then exists as Trinity, that is as persons."
Zizioulas says that this misinterprets the Patristic theology of the Trinity where:
"...the unity of God, the one God, and the "ontological "principle" or "cause" of the being and life of God does not consist in the one substance of God but in the hypostasis, that is, the person of the Father. 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...to the person. Thus when we say that God "is," we do not bind the personal "freedom" of God--the being of God is not an ontological "necessity" or a simple "reality" for God--but we ascribe the being of God to His personal freedom. In a more analytic way this means that God, as Father, and not as substance, perpetually confirms through "being" His free will to exist. And it is precisely His trinitarian existence that constitutes this confirmation: the Father out of love--that is, freely--begets the Son and brings forth the Spirit. Thus God as person--as the hypostasis of the Father--makes the one divine substance to be that which it is: the one God. This point is absolutely crucial. For it is precisely with this point that the new philosophical position of the Cappadocian Fathers, and of St. Basil in particular, is directly connected. That is to say that the substance never existed in a "naked" state, that is, without hypostasis, without "a mode of existence." And the one divine substance is consequently the being of God only because it has these three modes of existence, which it owes not to the substance but to the one person, the Father. Outside of the Trinity there is no God, that is, no divine substance, because the ontological "principle" of God is the Father. The personal existence of God (the Father) constitutes His substance, makes it hypostasis. The being of God is identified with the person." (Zizioulas, pp.40-41)
Continuing (p.44):
"The manner in which God exercises His ontological freedom, that precisely which makes Him ontologically free, is the way in which He transcends and abolishes the ontological necessity of the substance by being God as Father, that is, as He who "begets" the Son and "brings forth" the Spirit. This ecstatic character of God, the fact that His being is identical with an act of communion, ensures the transcendence of the ontological necessity which His substance would have demanded--if the substance were the primary ontological predicate of God--and replaces this necessity with the free self-affirmation of divine existence. For this communion is a product of freedom as a result not of the substance of God but of a person, the Father--observe why this doctrinal detail is so important--who is Trinity not because the divine nature is ecstatic but because the Father is a person freely wills this communion.
(p.46) "It thus becomes evident that the only exercise of freedom in an ontological manner is love. The expression "God is love" (1 John 4:18) signifies that God "subsists" as Trinity, that is as person and not as substance. Love is not an emanation of "property" of the substance of God--this detail is significant in the light of...--but constitutive of His substance, I.e., it is that which makes God what He is, the one God. Thus love ceases to be a qualifying--i.e., secondary property of being and becomes the supreme ontological predicate. Love as God's mode of existence "hypostasizes" God constitutes His being. Therefore, as a result of love, the ontology of God is not subject to the necessity of the substance. Love is identified with ontological freedom.
And finally concluding (pp.48-49):
"The survival of a personal identity is possible for God not on account of His substance but on account of His trinitarian existence. If God the Father is immortal, it is because His unique and unrepeatable identity as Father is distinguished eternally from that of the Son and of the Spirit, who call Him "Father." If the Son is immortal, He owes this primarily not to His substance but to His being the "only-begotten" (note here the concept of uniqueness) and His being the one in whom the Father is "well pleased." Likewise the Spirit is "live-giving" because He is "communion" (2 Cor. 13:14). The life of God is eternal because it is personal, that is to say, it is realized as an expression of free communion, as love. Life and love are identified in the person: the person does not die only because it is loved and loves; outside the communion of love the person loses its uniqueness and becomes a being like other beings, a "thing" without absolute unique and unrepeatable, whereas life for the person means the survival of the uniqueness of its hypostasis, which is affirmed and maintained by love."
Take your time. Read it a few times.
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 11/04/2002 5:59:45 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/4/2002 4:13 PM (GMT -6) | | GREAT TOM-ISMS:
Tom: Yeah, I see that now (Al: Briefly, though, nature goes with will.); though I think it’s better said that “Will goes with Nature.”
Tom: But open theists to date have only claimed that “personhood” requires time. OK, but unpack the argument. There has been mention of God’s mutual love, but the whole argument hasn’t been unpacked. What are the essential properties of “personhood”? I don’t know. Should our understanding of “person” be imported into our understanding of God’s “personhood” without qualification? This is one of Al’s points I think. We are persons and God is a person. OK, but person is used “analogically” [both like and unlike] and not “univocally” [both are identical]. Somebody should write a master’s thesis on this.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/4/2002 5:39 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
GREAT TOM-ISMS:
Tom: “Will goes with Nature."OK, but unpack the argument.the whole argument hasn’t been unpacked.What are the essential properties of “personhood”? I don’t know. Should our understanding of “person” be imported into our understanding of God’s “personhood” without qualification?
Better than a kick in the rear!
So we agree on what the question is. That's progress for us! Now, what's the cotton-pickin answer?
Tom
"Kind of like donut holes--no one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist." Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/4/2002 6:11 PM (GMT -6) | | So we agree on what the question is. That's progress for us! Now, what's the cotton-pickin answer?
Q: What are the essential properties of “personhood”?
A: This:
quote:
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...to the person. Thus when we say that God "is," we do not bind the personal "freedom" of God--the being of God is not an ontological "necessity" or a simple "reality" for God--but we ascribe the being of God to His personal freedom. In a more analytic way this means that God, as Father, and not as substance, perpetually confirms through "being" His free will to exist. And it is precisely His trinitarian existence that constitutes this confirmation: the Father out of love--that is, freely--begets the Son and brings forth the Spirit. Thus God as person--as the hypostasis of the Father--makes the one divine substance to be that which it is: the one God. This point is absolutely crucial. For it is precisely with this point that the new philosophical position of the Cappadocian Fathers, and of St. Basil in particular, is directly connected. That is to say that the substance never existed in a "naked" state, that is, without hypostasis, without "a mode of existence." And the one divine substance is consequently the being of God only because it has these three modes of existence, which it owes not to the substance but to the one person, the Father. Outside of the Trinity there is no God, that is, no divine substance, because the ontological "principle" of God is the Father. The personal existence of God (the Father) constitutes His substance, makes it hypostasis. The being of God is identified with the person." (Zizioulas, pp.40-41)
and
quote:
(p.44):
"The manner in which God exercises His ontological freedom, that precisely which makes Him ontologically free, is the way in which He transcends and abolishes the ontological necessity of the substance by being God as Father, that is, as He who "begets" the Son and "brings forth" the Spirit. This ecstatic character of God, the fact that His being is identical with an act of communion, ensures the transcendence of the ontological necessity which His substance would have demanded--if the substance were the primary ontological predicate of God--and replaces this necessity with the free self-affirmation of divine existence. For this communion is a product of freedom as a result not of the substance of God but of a person, the Father--observe why this doctrinal detail is so important--who is Trinity not because the divine nature is ecstatic but because the Father is a person freely wills this communion.
(p.46) "It thus becomes evident that the only exercise of freedom in an ontological manner is love. The expression "God is love" (1 John 4:18) signifies that God "subsists" as Trinity, that is as person and not as substance. Love is not an emanation of "property" of the substance of God--this detail is significant in the light of...--but constitutive of His substance, I.e., it is that which makes God what He is, the one God. Thus love ceases to be a qualifying--i.e., secondary property of being and becomes the supreme ontological predicate. Love as God's mode of existence "hypostasizes" God constitutes His being. Therefore, as a result of love, the ontology of God is not subject to the necessity of the substance. Love is identified with ontological freedom.
And finally concluding (pp.48-49):
"The survival of a personal identity is possible for God not on account of His substance but on account of His trinitarian existence. If God the Father is immortal, it is because His unique and unrepeatable identity as Father is distinguished eternally from that of the Son and of the Spirit, who call Him "Father." If the Son is immortal, He owes this primarily not to His substance but to His being the "only-begotten" (note here the concept of uniqueness) and His being the one in whom the Father is "well pleased." Likewise the Spirit is "live-giving" because He is "communion" (2 Cor. 13:14). The life of God is eternal because it is personal, that is to say, it is realized as an expression of free communion, as love. Life and love are identified in the person: the person does not die only because it is loved and loves; outside the communion of love the person loses its uniqueness and becomes a being like other beings, a "thing" without absolute unique and unrepeatable, whereas life for the person means the survival of the uniqueness of its hypostasis, which is affirmed and maintained by love."
(from Zizioulas' Being as Communion)
Al | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/4/2002 6:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Q: What are the essential properties of “personhood”?
AL: This: The one God is...
Tom: No, I meant what are the essential properties of HUMAN personhood. Let's figure ourselves out before we laungh into God.
Tom
"Kind of like donut holes--no one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist." Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/4/2002 6:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: I meant what are the essential properties of HUMAN personhood. Let's figure ourselves out before we laungh into God.
Al: No. I think that the OTHER way is more profitable! Our intendedness is to be both in the 'image' and the 'likeness' of God. If we are created in the image of God, then we should know what that image is of. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/4/2002 6:30 PM (GMT -6) | | | Tom, I'm about to head for bed. You had a lot of good, thoughtful comments. I have some penciled notes. But won't get to them now. Hopefully in the morning. By then you and Starkman will be way ahead of me. But I'll begin with those notes--I think. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/4/2002 6:48 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/4/2002 6:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Al: No. I think that the OTHER way is more profitable! Our intendedness is to be both in the 'image' and the 'likeness' of God. If we are created in the image of God, then we should know what that image is of.
Tom: So, you're saying that 'personhood' IS the image of God?
Tom
"Kind of like donut holes--no one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist." Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/4/2002 6:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Neu'kem-
Sorry about all this 'personhood' stuff. I actually want to hear you on Craig's arguments against the possibility of an actual infinite.
Tom
"Kind of like donut holes--no one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist." Starkman
Edited by - TGB on 11/05/2002 08:03:21 AM | | Back to Top | | |
| 296 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:59 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 |
|
|