On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:21:55 -0400 George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
writes:
>
> I have not set out a specific understanding how the immanent
> Trinity is
> to be understood as being temporal but have focussed on what should
> be the starting
> point, that the history of Jesus is part of the divine life and not
> something outside
> it. How to relate the two seems to me, as I said, unfinished
> business. It's clear,
> though, that the resolution has to be in terms of a doctrine of God
> which is trinitarian
> from the start & not one which is initially unitarian.
> The "how" question is important but I see little point in
> getting into detailed
> debates about different possibilities if there is no agreement on
> what I think are the
> basic christological & trinitarian reasons for talking about divine
> temporality in the
> first place. I realize that you think I'm dodging the question of
> how to speak of
> divine temporality. I think you're dodging consideration of the
> reasons for speaking
> about divine temporality, & that that should come first. Can we say
> without
> equivocation that in the event of the cross God suffered?
> .............................
>
But George, that is precisely where there is equivocation, or at least
ambiguity. I find a parallel in a conversation I had many, many years ago
with a pre-teen Catholic. He explained that the Virgin Mary was the
Mother of God, which meant that he did not create the world until after
his birth. He was adamant on the point. Your question begs the questions
of divine temporality and the interpersonal relationships in the Godhead.
The immanence of God brings up another problem. Is the Almighty immanent
because he is within creation, or because he is "on top of" everything
that ever happens therein? These possibilities are connected respectively
to temporality and to timelessness, hence to contradiction and to
mystery.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 15 2000 - 00:31:33 EDT