dfsiemensjr@juno.com wrote:
>
> On Sun, 09 Apr 2000 16:43:07 -0400 George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
> writes: ..............................
> > 1) First, what is "a proper theism"? Precisely what is it
> > that disqualifies
> > panentheism, e.g., from being a member of the class of proper
> > theisms? ................................
> > 3) ..........................
>> This has
> > been accompanied by
> > the recognition that there is no good biblical reason to speak of
> > God as "timeless", and
> > that doing so is part of the heritage of Greek philosophy rather
> > than Scripture. It is,
> > in fact, an idolization of an ideal - "Stay, you are so beautiful."
> > 4) It is taking the Incarnation seriously, & realizing that
> > it means that the
> > history of Jesus is part of God's history, & thus that God _has_ a
> > history, which makes
> > it clear that "timelessness" is really incompatible with the
> > Christian claim. That one
> > who shares the divine nature with the other persons of the Trinity
> > can suffer means that
> > the Trinity itself is not immune from suffering. ................................
> In answer to the first question, a 'proper theism' has to be something
> beyond deism, if nothing else.
This is hardly an adequate answer. Whatever process theology may be, it
certainly isn't deism.
...............................
> On the third point, if I were following Greek philosophical thought, I
> would deny creation and have God as the shaper of eternal matter. Indeed,
> I would make God a part of the universe, something that Whitehead would
> appreciate, for he remarked that all philosophy is merely a footnote to
> Plato. I appreciate Plato, but go to Hebrew thought in order to profit
> from their _unique_ idea, the Creator. So, IMO, you've turned the facts
> upside down.
Of course I never said that you, or the theological tradition, accepted Greek
philosophy wholesale. But the idea that pure being is superior to becoming has clearly
had an important influence on Christian theology.
> On the fourth point, the "incarnational theology" involved forces God to
> be temporal, which is a Greek idea, though they did not explicitly
> recognize it, time being so ubiquitous in their thought that it was not
> mentioned. This view also insists that God change with the crucifixion. I
> contend that this is a faulty view that does not recognize that God is
> eternally different because he is the redeemer before the foundation of
> the world (and space-time). His love and mercy are not something that
> came upon him with the incarnation.
The whole idea of Incarnation in the full sense is impossible for Greek
thought precisely because of the idea of divine timelessness. It is the fact that
Christian theology has been influenced to varying extent by such thought (again I do
not said that it accepted it _in toto_) which has made the Incarnation into a problem
instead of a solution. We should _begin_ with the Incarnation rather than _a priori_
ideas about what "proper theism" is in order to know what kind of God God is.
The fact that God is always loving & merciful is an expression of precisely the
real divine constancy which the idea of God's timelessness tries to express in too crude
a fashion. God is always loving & merciful but circa 6 B.C. God was personally united
with a human life & circa 30 A.D. he experienced suffering and death.
Shalom,
George
-- George L. Murphy gmurphy@raex.com http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 09 2000 - 20:19:50 EDT