My two-cents-worth. In physics we do not really understand the notion of
duality when it comes to wave-like and particle-like behaviors. I ask you,
is the Incarnation easier or much, much harder to understand? Much of the
interaction of God with the physical is for us imperfect knowledge, in the
sense that we can know it, because of our spiritual component, yet not be
able to neither understand it nor explain it. Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: dfsiemensjr@juno.com <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Cc: ryan.rasmussen@mcnamee.com <ryan.rasmussen@mcnamee.com>;
tdavis@messiah.edu <tdavis@messiah.edu>; Asa@calvin.edu <Asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Friday, April 14, 2000 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: A "proper" theology
>dfsiemensjr@juno.com wrote:
> .............
>> It is evident to me that George has not come to grips with what I wrote
>> in the post to which he responded. This becomes especially clear in his
>> answer to Ryan with "God having all the time he wants." This is clearly a
>> necessary requirement for the deity changing. But what kind of time is
>> it? I have set out all the kinds of non-creational time that I can think
>> of without George's acceptance of any of them. However, he has not
>> suggested an alternative kind of time. Why seems to me to be answered in
>> the latter part of his response to me.
>>
>> I have to conclude from it that the only time possible in his view is
>> creation's time, specifically terrestrial time, for God changed with the
>> crucifixion. I see no way in which this is possible unless the Godhead is
>> within space-time. That the incarnate Word was in space-time will not do,
>> for this provides only for the changes in the Son. This will work for
>> emanation but not for _creatio ex nihilo_. The only way I see to have the
>> Father change on a specific date is to believe contradictory things about
>> him: he is both without and within his creation. Post-moderns may find
>> this acceptable, but it clearly has no place in traditional theology,
>> except in "proof texts" where the author was either careless or making a
>> point within qualifications, whether implicit or explicit.
>
> 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?
> .............................
>
>> There is one other point. I will not dispute Lutheran history or theology
>> with George. I only report that, at every celebration of the Lord's
>> Supper in one Lutheran church, I hear the statement, "For as often as you
>> drink this cup you have the forgiveness of all your sins." This, I
>> contend, makes partaking a sacrament, something which of itself produces
>> a change. I do not have the _Book of Worship_ handy to check whether this
>> is an aberration on the part of one pastor. But I am confident that the
>> Reformed and Anabaptist traditions will not phrase matters this way.
>
> Of course I do not know precisely what is done in the congregation you
refer to.
>The relevant language from the principal Eucharistic Prayer in the LBW is:
>
>"Again after supper, he took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it for all to
drink, saying:
> This cup is the new covenant in my blood, shed for you and for all
people for the
> forgiveness of sin.
>Do this for the remembrance of me.
>For as often as we eat of this bread and drink of this cup, we proclaim the
Lord's death
>until he comes."
>
> "For the forgiveness of sin" comes, as I noted, from the Matthean account
>whereas "as often as ..." is from I Cor.11. Combining the two in the way
you note seems
>to me problematic, not because it is flatly wrong but because it encourages
a magical
>idea of sacraments. The Lutheran tradition has always insisted that the
true body and
>blood of Christ are given to all in the Sacrament, and that all who receive
in faith
>receive the forgiveness of sins. I.e., it is not faith which makes Christ
present, but
>refusal to believe is refusal to accept the gift of forgiveness. As the
Catechism puts
>it, the person is "worthy and well prepared" to receive the Sacrament "who
has faith in
>these words, `Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.'"
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>George L. Murphy
>gmurphy@raex.com
>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 15 2000 - 09:51:37 EDT