Hello, Rich.:wave2:
Richard Holland: God, Time, and the Incarnation Pt 3
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Woohoo!
So glad to have you aboard.
I have really been enjoying you and Bob's radio interview.
If you eliminate time from God, then God is static and not dynamic.
If you eliminate time from God, then there is no sequence of events in which God moved or communicated.
All communication and movement has no sequence, and nothing happens before or after anything else.
The glory Christ had with the Father would be always to God.
The suffering of Christ on the cross would be always to God.
The conception in the womb of Mary would be always to God.
And none of it happened before or after the other (ie. in a sequence).
If you eliminate time from God, then there is no sequence of events in which God moved or communicated.
All communication and movement has no sequence, and nothing happens before or after anything else.
The glory Christ had with the Father would be always to God.
The suffering of Christ on the cross would be always to God.
The conception in the womb of Mary would be always to God.
And none of it happened before or after the other (ie. in a sequence).
If there were no sequence then nothing would have happened at all.
Fearing a vulnerability, Nang asserts that God doesn't, but that she does, exist
Fearing a vulnerability, Nang asserts that God doesn't, but that she does, exist
Nang, trying to avoid a vulnerability that you see in your Calvinism, you are resorting to making the most abundantly absurd claim. (This is common behavior, no?) To avoid the most obvious truth, that God did not create the fundamental aspects of His own being (such as His own existence, such as truth, such as love), you Nang skip any argument itself, and jump right over into your own reductio ad absurdum, by, astoundingly, trying to undermine the validity of the statement that God exists. There are probably dozens of translations, if we found them all, which translate Hebrews 11:6 as "He exists" (including James White's favorite, ESV), whereas the KJV and other versions state the same thing, as: "God is".
This is similar to the very sad claims that Sproul and White made in the immediate aftermath of the debate claiming that God the Son does not have two natures (divine and human). When his or her own vulnerability appears to a party in a disagreement, and in trying to avoid it they use an absurd (and/or tragic) tactic, then, often, it is worthwhile to investigate that apparent vulnerability.
Of course, God did not create Himself, nor any of the eternal aspects of His existence. Thus God did not create truth, righteousness, love, etc. And thus, if in fact time is an eternal aspect of God's existence, then virtually by definition God did not create time. So, if the eternal relationships within the Godhead between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, include sequence, that is, if they consistent of sequential interactions, then God did not create time, and, in that case, insisting that He did is tantamount to claiming that God created Truth, created Love, created Himself.
- Bob Enyart
http://theologythursday.com
Fearing a vulnerability, Nang asserts that God doesn't, but that she does, exist
Nang, trying to avoid a vulnerability that you see in your Calvinism, you are resorting to making the most abundantly absurd claim. (This is common behavior, no?) To avoid the most obvious truth, that God did not create the fundamental aspects of His own being (such as His own existence, such as truth, such as love), you Nang skip any argument itself, and jump right over into your own reductio ad absurdum, by, astoundingly, trying to undermine the validity of the statement that God exists. There are probably dozens of translations, if we found them all, which translate Hebrews 11:6 as "He exists" (including James White's favorite, ESV), whereas the KJV and other versions state the same thing, as: "God is".
This is similar to the very sad claims that Sproul and White made in the immediate aftermath of the debate claiming that God the Son does not have two natures (divine and human). When his or her own vulnerability appears to a party in a disagreement, and in trying to avoid it they use an absurd (and/or tragic) tactic, then, often, it is worthwhile to investigate that apparent vulnerability.
Of course, God did not create Himself, nor any of the eternal aspects of His existence. Thus God did not create truth, righteousness, love, etc. And thus, if in fact time is an eternal aspect of God's existence, then virtually by definition God did not create time. So, if the eternal relationships within the Godhead between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, include sequence, that is, if they consistent of sequential interactions, then God did not create time, and, in that case, insisting that He did is tantamount to claiming that God created Truth, created Love, created Himself.
- Bob Enyart
http://theologythursday.com
Sure.
But to avoid the glaringly obvious, some have made up a doctrine that all things happen at once with God. The doctrine of timelessness, no sequence. No before or after, but all is now.
:thumb:
I'd like to see them explain how God takes into account and does not take into account our sins simultaneously. How do they explain that He knows about all our sins, and yet remembers our sins no more?
That, and much more will have to be considered in order to continue to hold such a view.
In Richard Holland's blog, he sets forth some implications that must be dealt with when holds to a 'timeless' God.
First he describes the meaning of 'timeless' (linked with immutability) from early church fathers.
He refers to this definition of 'immutability' as SI (strong immutability) to differentiate from this view and the view of most Christians.
The view of most Christians being ....
In my next post, I will start to list the numbered objections that arise due to this view of SI.
First he describes the meaning of 'timeless' (linked with immutability) from early church fathers.
from blog of Richard Holland said:
He refers to this definition of 'immutability' as SI (strong immutability) to differentiate from this view and the view of most Christians.
The view of most Christians being ....
from blog of Richard Holland said:
In my next post, I will start to list the numbered objections that arise due to this view of SI.
Point 1 from Richard Holland's blog.
| 1. If SI is true, Biblical accounts of God doing things in sequence (such as speaking, acting, or creating) cannot be true – instead, they must be interpreted as metaphorical figures of speech (at best) or mythical (at worst). Take for example the creation narrative in Genesis—a straightforward reading of the text indicates that God’s creative activity was carried out in a particular order, with a sequence of events. But if God is “strongly immutable,” this straightforward reading must be literally false. Since SI forbids any sequence or succession in God, all of God’s creative activity occurs “at once” – with no temporal succession at all. Therefore, there cannot be any temporal ordering in God’s creative activity. Another example … Any time the Bible indicates that God speaks, SI indicates that it is not actually God speaking. When reflecting on Matthew 17:5, Augustine concludes that it could not have been God speaking when the disciples heard the voice saying “This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.” Augustine writes, “The syllables sounded and passed by, the second after the first … Hence it is clear and plain that the motion of a creature expressed it.” Augustine was simply coming to the conclusion logically required by his view of God’s relation to time: speaking requires things happening in a particular sequence; but if God is timeless and strongly immutable, God can’t do anything in sequence. Therefore, it must have been some creature – perhaps an angel – who said of Jesus “This is my son.” When the Bible tells us that God spoke, SI tells us that it was not really God speaking |
Also known as simultaneous.