Re: God the interactor (was God the tinkerer)

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Tue Aug 30 2005 - 19:29:42 EDT

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:03:48 -0400 "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
writes:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> To: <gmurphy@raex.com>
> Cc: <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>; <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 3:11 PM
> Subject: Re: God the interactor (was God the tinkerer)
>
>
> > George,
> > I can give you chapter and verse for the difference between divine
> and
> > human eternity just as soon as you give me the reference for
> > "homoousious" and "deipassianism." The fact is that, whether in
> Christian
> > theology or Christian philosophy, we work out what we find (or
> think we
> > find) in scripture. Lutherans, Calvinists and Zwinglians read the
> same
> > scriptures and disagree on the nature of the eucharist. By the
> way,
> > though the term was used by the Lord in the estblishment of the
> > sacrament/ordinance, I don't think the ceremony was so named in
> > scripture. As to eternity, I simply have to conclude that the
> Creator /ex
> > nihilo/ cannot be in time, and that the creature cannot be outside
> of
> > time. Only if God is a shaper of what exists independently of him
> or
> > identically with him can he be in time. And that is not a
> creator.
>
> Dave -
>
> I asked you for a biblical basis for concepts and you dodged the
> question by
> asking about the biblical use of specific words. I am not going to
> insist
> on the use of the specific words "homoousious" or "eucharist" &
> certainly
> not of "deipassianism" (which is a theological opinion, though I
> think a
> good one). In turn, what I was asking you for was not the biblical
> use of
> certain words but of concepts. More generally, what is the biblical
> basis
> for claims that God cannot enter into time, that God is immutable in
> all
> regards & cannot be affected by anything that happens in the world?
>
> I agree of course that God did not create the world in the world's
> time:
> Non est mundus factus in tempore, sed cum tempore. But I fail to
> see how
> one can move from that to say that God could not enter into the time
> God
> created, just as God could enter into the flesh that is his
> creation. & if
> in fact God not could so enter into time it seems to me that there
> would be
> serious doubts about the reality of the incarnation.
>
> One ought always to be careful with sentences of the form "God (or
> the
> Creator) cannot do X."
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
All you re asking for is a distinction that the biblical authors did not
make. The same problem arose in the early church over the orthodox
creeds. There were intense arguments, with some elements departing
unconvinced. I believe there are still Nestorians.

There is another matter in that I did not say that God cannot, but that
the Creator qua Creator IS not in time--which is the point of your Latin
quotation. I see matters as drawing out the consequences of this citation
 It is obvious that the Redeemer entered time, becoming human. Note that
I also was explicit that all time-space is open to the Creator. Nothing
happens without his concurrence.

I immediately grant that the concepts involved are not readily stated in
human lanuguage. We do not have non-temporal terminology. But, if
/exelexato hemas en auto pro kataboles kosmou/ (Ephesians 1:4) is pushed,
God is /in tempore/ for there is a before and after to creation. This
fits a multiverse but hardly a universe.
Dave
Received on Tue Aug 30 19:35:00 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 30 2005 - 19:35:00 EDT