Re: God the interactor (was God the tinkerer)

From: Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri Sep 02 2005 - 22:37:31 EDT

Note that the sequence s(k) = f(s(k-1)) doesn't imply anything about time. It
simply says "compute s(k) from s(k-1)". Now perhaps God can see the results of
calculating all the s(k) simultaneously. However, he can still write
s(k)=f(s(k-1)). If he couldn't, we couldn't either.

Dave wrote

> The last snt that I recognize is the glorification of the elect. I haven't
> observed this, yet Romans 8 says it has already happened. So it both is
> already and isn't yet.

Well, theologians do use the term "now _and_ not yet" :-).

--- "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:

> Let's see if I understand you guys. If you're right, then there was a
> something-not-time (snt) before God planned the universe, then a snt
> after the original and before the execution when he planned it, then a
> later snt when he produced the universe, followed by many other snts. The
> last snt that I recognize is the glorification of the elect. I haven't
> observed this, yet Romans 8 says it has already happened. So it both is
> already and isn't yet. God, being omnipotent, makes it be and not be in
> some snt.
>
> However, I still need clarification. How are snts related to time in our
> universe/experience? Are snts just an aspect of time? How many snts
> occurred during the first period mentioned above? What could have gone on
> during these precursor snts?
>
> Why do I get the strong impression that it is not just YECs that talk
> nonsense on the claimed basis of scripture?
> Dave
>
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 07:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Bill Hamilton
> <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com> writes:
> I agree with George. Dave can perhaps be satisfied that in the world of
> logic he is correct. But logic that ignores the constraints imposed by
> knowledge available to us (Scripture) is sterile.
> Furthermore, Dave's insistence that God cannot engage in a sequence of
> actions limits God. None of us can fully appreciate omnipotence, but I
> would want to be very careful about statements to the effect that "God
> cannot do X".
>
> George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr."
> To:
> Cc: ;
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 12:13 AM
> Subject: Re: God the interactor (was God the tinkerer)
> ......................
>
> > Now, if you can come up
> > with a consistent description of a being both outside of time as
> Creator
> > and within time as reactor, apart from the incarnation, I'll
> acknowledge
> > a mutable deity.
> ......................
>
> If the qualification "apart from the incarnation" is to be made a
> condition
> for the discussion then I have nothing further to say about the matter.
> The
> Incarnation is the essential reason for talking about God's involvement
> with
> the time of the world.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
>
>
> Bill Hamilton
> William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
> 586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
> "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Fri Sep 2 22:40:03 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 02 2005 - 22:40:03 EDT