On Sun, 09 Apr 2000 20:20:39 -0400 George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
writes:
................................
> > 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.
> ...............................
>
Precisely my point. It is something less than deism though it allows the
deity to tinker with the universe.
> 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.
This has no bearing on my thought. My approach simply asks what is
required for a Creator. On the other hand, giving priority to becoming
results in something like Hegelian bunk, which finds it necessary to
eliminate logic or, more accurately, reconstruct "reason" as alogical.
>
> 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.
>
First off, I fully subscribe to the first verses of Hebrews and to our
Lord's answer to Philip's plea, "...shew us the Father..." (John 14:8ff).
But I cannot subscribe to the insistence that 'timelessness' is not
biblical and so not to be used. I note that 'Trinity' is also not a
biblical term. I contend that applying time via change to the deity
conflicts with the possibility of a creation. That Christ existed in time
does not reflect back to impose temporality on the Trinity. He emptied
himself and entered time-space, with the first verses of John expressing
his eternity as clearly as possible within so brief a colmpass given the
limitations of language. Only later did believers have opportunity to
ponder the brief statements and express themselves at greater length,
whether in the creeds, confessions or personal expositions.
Finally, I contend that the implicit requirements of the last paragraph
make the doctrine of the Creator incoherent. It is well to focus on the
cross, for therein lies our only hope. But forcing change on the Eternal
because the world was changed by the incarnation produces contradiction.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 10 2000 - 15:23:45 EDT