 |
 | 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/8/2004 10:33 PM (GMT -6) |   | Jim-
Welcome to the board! Hope you enjoy being a part of our family.
The argument that time couldn't be everlasting prior to creation because this would constitute an actual infinite (an actual infinite series of moments leading up to the moment of creation) is the strongest argument there is against God's being temporal in the absence of creation. In fact, it's the only argument I can think of that has any bite to it at all. Not everybody finds this argument convincing, however.
But even if the argument is sound, all it proves is that God was timeless in the absence of creation. What seems to be as clear is that God is temporal AFTER creating. So, to answer your question, yes, there are those who believe that in creating the universe God abandoned a timeless mode of existence for a temporal mode of existence. This is a viable option.
What you want to ask your friend is what he thinks God's being timeless in the absence of (or prior to) creation means now? What does he think it proves? Does he use this to attempt to argue that God is still timeless and so sees all of history as one eternal "now"? This does NOT follow from God's being timeless in the absence of creation.
Now, though I find the impossibility of an 'actual infinite' powerful, I also have problems with God's being timeless in the absence of creation. How is God maximally 'personal' as a Father, Son, and Spirit in frozen timelessness? How does an unchanging, absolutely timeless God make the choice to create? If a temporal being can't traverse an infinite series of moments to arrive at the moment of creation, how does an absolutely, unchanging God change (i.e., change from being timeless to temporal)? How does the first moment ever get started?
I think the debate about God's relationship to time in the absence of creation is academic and pointless. Absolutely and timelessly pointless. Fact is, creation is here now. Whatever God's relationship to time prior to creation was, creation now IS, and thus the question must now be, What is God's relationship to a temporal world?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
carole4reach
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 2/10/2004 4:32 PM (GMT -6) | | How TIMELY this subject is...
I am taking a class on the Hebrew Wisdom books at Goshen College and today we were talking about time and God, where they were on the continuum - and I have no pat answers. But even the Bible doesn't say too much about it as well - There are hints in Qoheleth and the Wisdom of Solomon (in the Apocrypha) that wisdom was created, or personified even before Creation. So before creation, we have God, Jesus, Holy Spirit and Lady Wisdom (Sophia). I think after doing reading and study that God isn't bound by time, time exsists along with God (but it is not a god in and of itself).
Wisdom, God Adam, Eve
<--------------**Creation**-------------->
If I make this continuum (which is not very well done) it is easier, at least for me, to imagine things that happened or exsisted before Creation - because it relates Creation as an event. Like, the beginning of our time and place, but not God's.
It is late, and I feel that I may not be stating myself clearly...and it is a very large topic to be diving into for my first posting. I'm sure there will be more later.
 <--will study and try to post again
"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens."
(Gimli) - JRR Tolkien | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/10/2004 4:55 PM (GMT -6) | | I think one reason for thinking the existence of time is not bound to a physical universe is the fact that (I can defend this 'fact' later if you want) angels existed prior to the physical world. This is an act of God that precedes the physical universe. So how does one now argue (like Craig for example) that God was absolutely timeless and unchanging until the creation of a phyiscal universe?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 2/10/2004 8:30 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
I think one reason for thinking the existence of time is not bound to a physical universe is the fact that (I can defend this 'fact' later if you want) angels existed prior to the physical world. This is an act of God that precedes the physical universe. So how does one now argue (like Craig for example) that God was absolutely timeless and unchanging until the creation of a phyiscal universe?
Craig doesn't think that time is inextricably bound up with the physical universe, so he can still say that God's existence was atemporal sans creation and that it became temporal with the creation even if your thesis about the temporal priority of the angels is correct. For then creation and God's temporality begin with the creation of the angels and not with the creation of the physical universe. In short, I don't think it's a problem for Craig.
Your bro in Christ,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/13/2004 8:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Albert: I think that God differentiated into Father, Son, and Spirit, and that differentiation began time. So from then on there was fellowship between the persons of the trinity in time. Creation occurred some time later.
Tom: Whoooooah!
Albert: I am not saying that there was a time when God was unitarian and the persons of the trinity had not come into being. It was the coming into being of the persons of the trinity which brought time into being also. So there was no time prior to that, and hence no time at which God was unitarian.
Tom: So God is unitarian sans God's differentiation?
Whoooooah. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 2/18/2004 7:49 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by albert
(c) The Father has priority and the existence of the Son and the Spirit is dependent on his will. This is the Eastern Orthodox position, but in my view it logically entails that the Son and the Spirit are created beings (since willing something to be is the same thing as creating it).
The Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father, but only in role, not in substance. The Nicean Creed was very careful to call the Father and Son homoousious, same essence. This is extremely important to the doctrine of the trinity.
When thinking about the nature of God, we have to think about what he was like when the whole of existence was just Himself. I think it's critical that God was composed of three co-equal, co-eternal persons from all of eternity because God is a relational god and would have to have perfect relationship with Himself. Love cannot exist in a vacuum, so if God is Love, if the essence of Love flows from the very being of God, then he necessarily must have had perfect love among the three persons of the trinity, since forever.
So anyways, role doesn't define substance, and the early church fathers were extremely careful to make sure Christ was considered co-equal, co-eternal, same substance with the Father.
Check out the Arius/Athanasius Debate sometime, it's a very interesting time in Church History.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/18/2004 11:52 AM (GMT -6) | |
GREETINGS TO TOM. (Hope he can "see" this!)
Tom, I'm going to recommend a book to you. It is NOT about this topic. But its great:
Formation of Chrsitian Theology: Vol 1 -- The Way to Nicea, by John Behr.
Part One -- The Gospel of Jesus Christ
1 - The tradition and Canon of the Cosepl According to the Scriptures
2 - The Scriptural Christ
Part Two -- The Word of God
3 - Ignatius of Antioch
4 - Justin Martyr
5 - Irenaeus of Lyon
Part Three -- The Son of the Father
6 - Hippolytus and the Roman Debates
7 - Irigen and alexandria
8 - Paul of Samosata and the Council of Antioch
That said....
quote:
Originally posted by albert
Dear Tom. . .
(c) The Father has priority and the existence of the Son and the Spirit is dependent on his will. This is the Eastern Orthodox position, but in my view it logically entails that the Son and the Spirit are created beings (since willing something to be is the same thing as creating it).
Part of the problem lies in supposing that the Godhead "prior" to differentiation existed for some time. I don't think that. Time came into being at differentiation. It makes no sense to think of atemporality as constituting some kind of duration. But in any case, that's what I think. It's not an unprecedented position. Karl Barth also thought in terms of functional differentiation, although his views on time were different to mine.
Reading the formation of what Albert refers to helps in actually understanding it. Albert's chosen words above are "dependent on his will." Actually, the Trinity shares one will which has its origin in the Father. I see what Albert is saying by "willing something to be is the same thing as creating it." However, that is not what they were or are saying. And whereas they were mainly trying to attempt to define-negatively (rule certain things out, that were present threats) they knew full well and stated so that words would never suffice. But they made clear that the rules that would apply to "material" things did not apply with God! And they also said that logic applicable to "geometry" (their word) was inappropriate to try and reason what was only knowable through experience of participation in PUTTING ON CHRIST and thereby KNOWING the Father, as Scripture says though Jesus words.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 2/19/2004 1:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Hbr 1:1-5
God . . .
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power . . .
He hath by inheritance . . .
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/19/2004 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Tim
Hbr 1:1-5
God . . .
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power . . .
He hath by inheritance . . .
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
The Hebrews scritpure, of course, does not describe the Son as having a beginning. The Son is originate--"begotten of the Father"--but not created. The Father is only father because of the Son. There never was a "time" when the Father was not also with the Son (and the Spirit).
Seems to me, though, that this is about the Christ. And as such it is as much about OUR adoption IN CHRIST as it is an infomational "commercial." It is simply something that elicites WORSHIP in us for God the Father. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/19/2004 4:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear Phil,
You can listen to Albert if you want. But his representation of the Eastern Orthodox is WACKED.
Don't take his word for it. Take theirs!
Also, a REALLY good and careful treatment can be found in these LINKS:
- Vladimir Lossky, "God in Trinity" Chapter 3 of The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (SVS Press, Crestwood, NY: 1976), pp. 44-67.
www.jbburnett.com/analogion/lossky/lossky_myst1-trinity.pdf
- Vladimir Lossky, “Theology and Mysticism in the Tradition of the Eastern Church”: Chapter 1 of The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church: (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press: Crestwood, NY, 1976), pp. 7-22.
www.jbburnett.com/analogion/lossky/lossky_myst1-theol-myst.pdf
- Vladimir Lossky, "The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine": Chapter 4 of In the Image and Likeness of God (SVS Press, Crestwood, NY: 1974), pp. 71-96.
www.jbburnett.com/analogion/lossky/lossky_img4-process-filioq.pdf
and THIS is an excellent treatment also:
Albert's selective treatment is self-serving; but unrepresentative of Eastern Orthodoxy.
LET THE READER BEWARE!
quote:
Originally posted by albert
Dear Phil,
Phil writes: The Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father, but only in role, not in substance. The Nicean Creed was very careful to call the Father and Son homoousious, same essence. This is extremely important to the doctrine of the trinity.
Albert replies: I am *very* familiar with debates in the early church over the Trinity and Christology. I am well aware that the creeds declare the Son and Spirit to be "one substance" with the Father. The point is, though, that Eastern Orthodoxy holds the view that in their person, the existence of the Son and the Spirit is dependent on the will of the Father. That makes their person something which is created in my view, irrespective of whether they share the same substance with the Father or not (remember, the creeds carefully differentiate between substance on the one hand and person on the other). The Western church has on the whole never shared this view.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 2/20/2004 5:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Phil writes: So anyways, role doesn't define substance,
Albert replies: And I never said it did.
Phil: I was kinda going based off when you said
quote:
(c) The Father has priority and the existence of the Son and the Spirit is dependent on his will. This is the Eastern Orthodox position, but in my view it logically entails that the Son and the Spirit are created beings (since willing something to be is the same thing as creating it).
but rereading it I see what you are actually driving at, I think.
However, I also don't think the Son and Spirit are dependant/contingent on the Father's will, merely subordinate to it. What would make you think that the Son and Spirit are willed to exist by the Father?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/21/2004 11:55 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by albert
PhilAlbert: My summary is accurate. You can easily determine this from Eastern Orthodox writers
Show me from THIS, Albert.
You are way off. Perhaps you need to be able to have them believe that as part of your theoretical constructions? Why you'd say that I don't know!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/22/2004 1:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by albert
Here is a quote from Zizioulas, "Being as Communion", previously posted by PotonWheel some time ago, which proves my point EXACTLY:
Among the Greek Fathers 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 _hypostatasis_, that is, _the person of the Father_. the one God is not the one substance but the Father, who is both the "cause" both of the generation of the Son and of the procession of the Spirit. consequently, the ontological "principle" of God is traced back, once again, to the person.
This clearly states that the hypostatasis, that is the person of the Father, is the cause of the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit.
QED.
I like the quote. But as to your offering it as proof of what you want to prove...that is another matter. I think it REFUTES what you were saying.
You (Albert) said: "the Eastern Orthodox position. . .logically entails that the Son and the Spirit are created beings (since willing something to be is the same thing as creating it)."
Zizioulas writes: "the being and life of God does not consist in the one substance of God but in the _hypostatasis_, that is, _the person of the Father_." That's Scriptural. But it does NOT mean what you are reading it to say, Albert! Look at the relationship of the Son to the Father. The Son reveals the Father. He is the image of the Father.
Perhaps when things are based on the "substance" (as is the sort of ontology that "Classical" theism is) and focus on the "OMNIs", then you get into problems. But, saying as Z. does above, tha the "being and life of God . . . consist in . . . the _hypostatasis_, that is, _the person of the Father" we have another matter.
I think you are reading him to say "the being and life of God does not consist in the one substance of God." And from there to the notion that one substance creates another.
But God is Personal. God is not "composed" of a substance called divinity (which has been a thread running through much of Western Scholastic theology sine the middle ages--and bolsters what Open theism is allergic to in "classical" theism.) This "substance" based theology more closely approximates the "Greek" frozen view of God.
But, here is another quote, by an (objective) Roman Catholic theologian:
quote:
Fr. Th. de Regnon, in Etudes de theologie positive sur la Sainte Trinite I (Paris, 1892., p. 433) 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"
Perhaps, Albert, when a system "considers personality as a mode of nature" and "envisages first the nature in itself and then procedes to the expression", THEN something of what you mistakenly believe that the Orthodox are saying would be true.
But as things stand, what you SAY they say and what they really do think/say/believe seem to be exact opposites. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 2/22/2004 11:59 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by albert
Albert: *sigh* I didn't say they were. Point (c) was summarising the Eastern Orthodox position. It wasn't saying what I believe.
My bad!  | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/22/2004 1:58 PM (GMT -6) | | As you say, Albert, they DON'T teach that. They go out of their way to not say that! they don't presume that words can circimscribe God. Instead we know God by Revelation!
I think that I found something that you WILL like, though, Albert. Judging from your summary this time (nice and clear, thank you!) it can be taken as a statement that neither of the "views" suffices by themselves. East and West do pretty well when they work together (ala Leo and Cyril versus Arias!) SEE IT BELOW, PLEASE.
quote:
Originally posted by albert
Pow: I think you are reading him to say "the being and life of God does not consist in the one substance of God." And from there to the notion that one substance creates another.
Albert: No, PoW, I'm not reading him that way at all. There is no creation of substance. I am reading him to say that the HYPOSTASIS of the father brings into being the HYPOSTASIS of the Son and the HYPOSTASIS of the Spirit. And that is clearly what he is saying. We are talking about the coming into being of the hypostases, not the substance. We are all agreed that there is one substance.
The quote clearly does support what I am saying. Let me try and make it clear. Greek thought considers the person of the Father as the primal starting point, whereas Western thought considers the godhead in the sense of the "substance" or deity, whatever you want to make of that, as the primal starting point. In traditional terms, Greek thought starts with one of the three hypostases (the Father), whereas Western thought starts with the one substance. But by making the Father the primal starting point and the cause of the being of the hypostases of the Son and the Spirit, as Zizioulas clearly states, I argue that Eastern Orthodox thought logically entail that the Son and Spirit are created beings (of course, they don't explicitly teach this). There are many other significant defects with the Eastern Orthodox view, but that's one crucial one.
HERE IT IS, ALBERT!
quote:
St. John of Damaskos says that by the three Persons we understand that God is uncompounded and without confusion, by the consubstantiality of the Persons and their existence in one another and by the indivisibility of the identity "of will, operation, virtue, power, and, so to speak, motion" we recognise the undividedness and the fact that God is one. The unity between the Persons in God is real for the co-eternalness, and sameness of essence, energy, and will, for the harmony of opinion and sameness of authority, power and goodness, "and the one impulse of motion". He is not speaking of likeness, but of identity. For "there is one essence, one goodness, one power, one will, one energy, one and the same, not three alike, but one and the same motion of the three hypostases".
It is clear that goodness and will are energies of the essence and express the sameness of the essence. The energy in the Triune God is common. This means that love, opinion, will, and movement do not belong to the persons, but to the essence.
With these facts, how can we think that love is linked with what is common, and freedom is linked with its own hypostatic characteristic? A greater problem is created when we identify freedom with the wan of being, and in this way we relate it with the freedom of each man. We shall see this later on, but here we wish to emphasise that since the Second Person of the Holy Trinity is the Son and the Third is the Holy Spirit, it is not possible for us to think that they can move freely and independently of the Father. A sociological analysis sees it in such a way when it applies to the Triune God.
In the Triune God we distinguish essence and nature and hypostases or persons. This does not mean that the essence or nature can exist without the persons, or that the persons or hypostases can be considered independently of the essence or nature. Moreover, according to the teaching of our Fathers, the essence is seen through the particular hypostatic qualities.
The other error is to be found in the matter of the unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. Some people maintain that the unity is due to the Father who is "original godhead", and others that the unity is due to the common essence. These two views end in different conclusions. The first view ends in overemphasis of the person, the second ends in overemphasis of the essence and creates an abstract theology.
I think that apart from the partial truths which are hidden within such isolated views, the truth is that the oneness of the Persons of the Holy Trinity is due both to the Father, Who begets the Son and sends out the Holy Spirit, and to their common essence. The first shows the cause of the existence of the other Persons and describes their hypostatic characteristics, and the second underlines the common energy. I cannot conceive that each Person acts freely, with the common essence which they have, for in that case we would end with God having a moral will rather than a natural one.
from "THE PERSON IN THE ORTHODOX TRADITION" by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos www.pelagia.org/htm/b23.en.the_person_in_the_orthodox_tradition.04.htm
I'M BETTING THAT YOU WILL LIKE THAT MORE, ALBERT.
WHATCHA THINK?
(BTW, I read more than I write! I don't appologize for searching for something well written by someone who really knows what they are talking about.)
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 2/24/2004 1:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jimjam:
Your friend asked:
quote:
Originally posted by jimjan
"If God is bound by time, and He was in eternity forever before the creation of the earth, then he would never reach the point of creating the earth. Maybe God was only bound by time, after He created. What do you think?"
This statement put me in mind of Zeno the Eleatic's argument that is is impossible to cross a room and bump your nose into the wall. You must cross half the distance, then half the remaining distance, then half the remaining distance again. And so one for an infinite number of steps. But an infinite process requires an infinite amount of time to complete right? Hmmm.
Not a great analogy, but maybe God strides through time differently than we do? | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/24/2004 5:01 AM (GMT -6) | | That is QUITE generous, Albert. Thank you.
I think -- and I'm certain -- that he is represting what has always been mainline all the way back to Basil, Gregory, and Co.
What makes that to be, perhaps, opaque to Western eyes is the accompanying difference for East and West of what the "craft" of the theologian is understood to be. Perhaps--conceivably--for the Greek Fathers the shaddow cast by philosophy, along with the need never to totally abandon that other craft, kept them when at their best cognisant that Theology is a "vision of God" or heart and mind, and not an external construct. (Of course many Westerners knew this too.) The East had, then, a living convention of letting things lie that Westerners might feel -- do to requirements of craft -- needed resolving.
If you go to the Lossky articles I LINKed above, you will find a carefully crafted pair of statements --BOTH true--that: the Personal does not come after the essential; AND that the Peronsonal does not exist without the essential.
Put those together, and we have what you and I appear to me to be agreeable with. :-)
Perhaps the Western craft conventions wouldn't want to let either part sit in its own separate paragraph alone. And perhaps the East is used to examinging each for what they echo of what in their craft of theology can only be known EXPERIENTIALLY in relationship, in communion with the Trinity (and not through reason). | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/24/2004 5:12 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
If you go to the Lossky articles I LINKed above, you will find a carefully crafted pair of statements --BOTH true--that: the Personal does not come after the essential; AND that the Peronsonal does not exist without the essential.
Put those together, and we have what you and I appear to me to be agreeable with. :-)
quote:
(pp.56,57) "Where one spoke of the persons (or person) one spoke at the same time of the nature, and vice versa. The nature is inconceivable apart from the persons or as anterior to the three persons, even in the logical order.
www.jbburnett.com/analogion/lossky/lossky_myst1-theol-myst.pdf
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/4/2004 8:36 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Newcomb
Dimensions are necessary to existence.
Relations are necessary to existence. | | Back to Top | | |
| 27 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:40 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 |
|
|