dfsiemensjr@juno.com wrote:
..................................
> A proper theism requires a Creator who is outside of creation. Only in
> this way can there be _creatio ex nihilo_. To differentiate this view
> from deism, the Creator must also be Providence, in charge of "day to
> day" operations. This may involve strict determinism, as in Islam, or
> human freedom, as in most Judeo-Christian views.
>
> If God is outside his creation, he is outside of the space-time
> requirement imposed on creatures. Since our best scientific understanding
> requires a beginning to space-time, we clearly cannot impose that
> beginning on the Creator. Could he have his own time, if not space? If
> so, how can we characterize it? It seems to be that infinite, linearly
> finite and circularly finite exhaust the possibilities. The last requires
> infinite recurrences of creation, which fit Hinduism and pantheism, but
> hardly theism. If linearly finite, then the question must be what got God
> started, with infinite regress the apparently necessary consequence. If
> divine time is infinite, the immediate question is what God was doing
> before the creation, along with why he waited so long, for the past must
> be infinite unless we return to finite divine time. Only if all time
> began with creation, which excludes temporality to the deity, can we have
> a reasonable understanding of the matter.
>
> Switching to Christian theism, in addition to these problems, the notions
> of divine time do not meet the requirements George places on the deity so
> that he can be changed by the crucifixion. To be changed by the
> crucifixion requires more than a connection or involvement in creation,
> for the Godhead must be within time, and hence space-time, for this
> temporal change to occur. I note that the Word became flesh, entering his
> creation. It does not claim that the Father or the Spirit became
> incarnate. Men have tried to meet the complications of this by claiming
> that God entered the being of a purely human Jesus, or that an aspect of
> God functioned within a human body, or that Jesus was not fully human
> (monotheletism, e.g.). But a careful analysis of scripture seems to
> demand that Jesus Christ is true God and true man simultaneously and
> inextricably. This cannot be explained, though its consequences can be
> brought out.
>
> George wants to focus on the crucifixion as if it were almost the whole.
> However, were it not the infinite God and the fully human totally
> combined, possible only with the virgin birth, the sacrifice would have
> sufficed for only one redemption, not for all who believe. Were it not
> for his sinless life, his death would have been the result of his sin.
> Were it not for his resurrection, we would have no hope of anything more
> than avoidance of hell rather than eternal life. Were it not for the
> ascension, we would not have the Advocate at the right hand of the
> Father, nor the Comforter with us. It is a package deal--incarnate,
> sinless, crucified, risen, ascended.
>
> I think I see why George and other Lutheran focus on the crucifixion:
> their sacramentalism. If partaking of the eucharistic elements provides
> "the forgiveness of all your sins" (a phrase in the liturgy which I do
> not find in scripture), then this focus is necessary. But the Lutheran
> hermeneutic is not the only one. "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son
> cleanseth us from all sin" (I John 1:7) is as precious to
> non-sacramentalists.
"For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the
forgiveness of sins" (Mt.26:28). Is the concern with "_all_ your sins"? That isn't the
language of any Lutheran Eucharistic Prayer I know of but of the absolution in the
Lutheran Book of Worship. But what's the problem? Jn.20:23 gives the church the
authority to forgive sins. Should the pastor say "I forgive you some of your sins?"
Crucifixion and Eucharist are certainly linked but your analysis of that
connection in the Lutheran tradition is wrong both historically and theologically.
Details on request.
Yes, the cross has to be seen as part of the whole Christ event, Annunciation
through Ascension, and in fact of the whole of salvation history & cosmic history. But
there are several important reasons to focus on the cross as the center of that event.
For purposes of the present discussion this emphasizes that we have to be able to talk
about the suffering and death of Christ as something which is part of the divine life,
and is not simply an "external work of the Trinity" like creation. I.e., we have to be
able to speak about the suffering of God (Cf. Ignatius of Antioch, "the passion of my
God") and of death as part of the experience of God.
Yes, the Second Person of the Trinity, not the First or Third, became incarnate
and died on the cross. But if the Son suffered abandonment from the Father (Mk.14:34),
the Father suffered the loss of the Son. A picture in which the Son suffers but the the
Father & Spirit don't in any way is both morally unattractive and borders on tritheism.
The point then is that the history of Jesus of Nazareth, including his suffering
and death, are part of God's life. Certainly this requires some idea of divine change.
Precisely how theology is to work that out in terms of divine time, the space-time of
the physical universe, and the relationships between them is, I think, not yet clear.
It is still a relatively new area of theology and the theologians I mentioned - Barth,
Moltmann, Juengel, Jenson, LaCugna & others, as well as process Trinitarians like
Bracken - have tried to do this in different ways. The points you raise about the need
for an adequate _creatio ex nihilo_ doctrine are certainly important. But it simply is
not adequate to start with that, develop a theism without any reference to
christological and trinitarian considerations, and then try to develop doctrines of the
Trinity and Incarnation and an understanding of the cross which are constrained by that
theism. Western theology did that for centuries (_de deo uno_ always came before _de
deo trino_ in dogmatics) and the result was an inability to speak seriously of a
crucified God and a doctrine of the Trinity which was a mere slogan.
It will be far more profitable to look at the work of today's trinitarian
theologians critically, see where they may run into problems with a doctrine of creation
and which of their approaches seem most fruitful for working out that doctrine. Several
of them have tried to engage scientific ideas of cosmology and time in their work -
e.g., Pannenberg, Peters, or Duane Larson.
Shalom,
George
-- George L. Murphy gmurphy@raex.com http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 14 2000 - 11:09:48 EDT