On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 17:27:56 -0400 george murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
writes:
> "D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:
>
> > ........................................................
> > 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 have to jump in here. I would indeed, as Dave suggests,
> say that
> the Father suffered (though not in just the same way as the Son) in
> the
> crucifixion, but to say that at the start is to move to fast. What
> is
> certain is that the Son suffered - & by that I mean that the eternal
> Logos,
> not only the assumed human nature & not just by attribution of the
> suffering
> of the human nature to the person. This does go beyond what either
> the
> ecumenical councils or scholasticism (Roman or protestant) would
> say, though
> the 5th Council affirmed that "one of the Trinity was crucified for
> us" and
> Luther sometimes crosses the line by speaking, e.g., about "a dead
> God."
> IF one can say that the Son suffered then there is no great
> difficulty about saying that the Father, who is consubstantial with
> the Son,
> suffered in the separation of Calvary (Mk.15:34).
> Our basic difference is one of interpretative starting
> point. If one
> begins with texts that can easily be understood in terms of divine
> sovereignty, immutability, independence of creation, &c then
> Incarnation &
> cross have to be interpreted in ways that are consistent with those
> attributes and it will always be difficult to say "God suffered" &c.
> I would
> insist, OTOH, that we ought to begin with the cross, take it with
> full
> seriousness as meaning that in some sense God can experience
> suffering and
> death, and interpret other passages in light of that.
>
> Shalom,
>
> George
>
OK, George, let me begin with "the Lamb that was slain from the creation
of the world" (Revelation 13:8). Does that not tell us that the
crucifixion is eternal even though we note a historical death? It also
seems to me that to involve the Father in the temporal suffering of the
incarnate Son is more modalistic than properly Trinitarian. I agree
wholeheartedly with you that what we know of the Father is what the Son
reveals. But the theological and philosophical thought that builds on
that primary revelation and the revelation contained in the history of
Israel must not restrict the Eternal to terrestrial conditions and
events.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 07 2001 - 23:01:49 EDT