On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 11:24:15 -0400 "George Andrews Jr."
<gandrews@as.wm.edu> writes:
> "D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:
>
> >
> > I cannot ask for a better illustration of the transfer of the
> strictures
> > of our existence to the environment of the deity and, implicitly,
> to the
> > Eternal himself.
>
> How does this counter my arguments? It implies you hold some special
> faculty of knowing the "environment of the deity" other that
> observation or
> revelation; but even revelation is limited by human understanding
> which
> arises from observation. (The kingdom of heaven is like ... ).
> Respectfully, you haven't said anything conducive to explaining any
> mental
> activity: mathematical or religious; you have only offered
> categorical and
> compartmental notions of mental facilities that are incoherently
> independent yet connected. This has no explanatory power for the
> observed
> qualities of the human mind -- let alone for the conjured or reveled
> mysteries of God. We are physical: this pleases God. The earthly
> heavens
> reveal the hidden things of God. We are the image; this is all and
> this is
> enough to last an eternity :-).
>
>
Let's see if I can fill in the gaps. We have a choice in the nature of
the universe. The common notion was that the universe was eternal. This
fits pantheism, which makes the deity coterminous with the universe. This
makes such god as there is spatio-temporal. There may be a cyclical
change, as in Hindu thought, or a bit more to the deity in what has been
called panentheism by adherents to process theology. This is a constantly
changing god-stuff that had no beginning. The unique Hebrew view provides
a creation, a start to the space, time and mass-energy universe in which
we live. God is the external source, the sustainer, the I AM who is not
restricted to the conditions of his creation, but is in full charge
thereof. As Savior, he entered creation, becoming human to redeem the
fallen race. When orthodoxy was standard, the problem philosophers
generally had was how the Infinite could enter the finite, the Eternal
the temporal. It is not something I try to explain. I rest on the
statement that the Son emptied himself and was born in Bethlehem as both
God and man. It is my only hope for salvation.
George Murphy has indicated that the Eternal Father felt the pain of the
crucifixion at the time of the event. I contend that this puts him within
time and negates his eternity, making him just another thing among things
in the universe, of which he is not independent and so cannot be its
source. Scripture is clear that our salvation was determined "before the
foundation of the world" and that the Word was in the beginning. I
contend that these temporal locutions are as close as human language can
come to expressing the eternal state and determination. This says to me
that the Father is the eternal Redeemer, that his purpose and pain are
not temporal but eternal, embedded in his very being and nature.
I further hold that it is not rational to try to shift the notion of
change and time to a heaven where God is resident. If it was created as
the abode of angels, then God is its source in the same way as being the
source of the material universe. Its time does not restrict him. If it is
not created, then it is nonspatial, for spirit does not occupy space, and
unchanging. We can't shove the change which is part of our universe back
a step and say that makes the deity changeable.
I know that there are many passages that speak of God's repenting,
answering prayer, etc. I take all these to be the human perception of
God's eternal purpose. The problem arises because of the limitations of
human language and understanding. I cannot reasonably apply them to the I
AM THAT I AM.
I hope this explains where I'm coming from.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 07 2001 - 16:00:16 EDT