There's a question in your first statement, in what sense is the deity
eternal? The term is used ambiguously. There is also the question of
viewpoint in divine involvement. Your statement translates into a human,
temporal view. I have tried to emphasize the non-temporal view: God as
the eternal redeemer, sustainer, etc., not as the one who has to react.
Your separation of matters in the second paragraph sounds plausible, but
the divisions neglect the human interpretation involved in even what is
"clearly taught." There are matters that are necessary consequences of
the way we approach scripture, with "orthodox eyes." I am persuaded that
these consequences are more extensive, and that they need to be worked
out with care so as not to ascribe to God our human limitations. For
example, I know when I accepted Christ as my Savior. I expect you have a
baptismal certificate. Most folks, with background considered, will
describe these events as the time when God accepted us into his family.
This is the human view. However, though difficult to describe, we are
"always" his family. So we're glorified--aorist in the Greek of Romans
8:30. He "already" did it though we sure don't look glorious.
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 19:35:37 -0400 "George Murphy" <email@example.com>
To take your last 1st, I do NOT believe in a "time restricted deity" but
in an eternal deity who is willing & able to be involved in the world's
2d, I am not saying that we "must be silent where the Bible is silent" or
insisting on a naive version of sola scriptura. But I do think it's
important to distinguish between (a) things that are clearly taught in
scripture, (b) the ways in which the Christian community has tried to
understand those things by making use of philosophy, science &c, and (c)
theological opinions which do not contradict (a) but which are not
required by it. Admittedly the boundaries are not always clear cut.
Received on Mon Sep 5 00:34:06 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 05 2005 - 00:34:06 EDT