Theology Club: Classical Theism - R. Muller Paper

[godrulz]

It's too long for a single thread. I think AMR should tell us what he thinks has not been adequately delt with by open theists in this article so we keep the thread focused on that point.

--Dave

Most people on a simple internet forum will not read long articles. This is not seminary. I do hope to get to it eventually.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Most people on a simple internet forum will not read long articles. This is not seminary. I do hope to get to it eventually.

I posted the article and asked for comments. I made no subsequent posts to bump or badger. I am only responding now because some have read the paper.

As I stated to Dave, if you do not want to read the item, it is just fine with me. I really do not know what being on an internet forum has to do with this, nor the "seminary" bit, however. Surely persons read this and that, books, articles, etc., in their walk of faith. How do they come by these items? Internet ads? Web sites? Bookstores? Word of mouth? Discussion sites? It really is that simple, so why make something more of this? :idunno:

AMR

 

[godrulz]

Just a practical observation confirmed by the few takers. I am not denying your right to try and hope to bite myself.

I suspect he will play a semantical game. The incarnation is clearly a change, so immutability is weak vs strong (God changes in some ways, but not in other ways). Change does not have to be bad or a move from perfection (Plato error).

 

[DFT_Dave]

Richard A. Muller's proposition
"I remain convinced that the structure of classical theism and its synthesis of faith and reason stands the test and survives the critique. Incarnation and the divine immutability are not contraries."

Plato Dichotomy
"We must distinguish between that which is and never becomes from that which is always becoming but never is."

Aristotle's Dichotomy
"There is something that is always being moved [by] something that moves things without being moved."

The architects of Natural theology, Plato and Aristotle "reasoned" the existence of a God that is the opposite of "nature". Philosophical deity is absolutely transcendent and can never be immanent.

They proposed that a world of movement and change must find its origin--Plato's Demiurge, or the cause of its movement and
change--Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, in that which is immovable and changeless. That which is temporal and changes cannot exist without that which is eternally unchanged.

The big question
Neither Plato's Demiurge nor Aristotle's Unmoved Mover could incarnate, "become flesh". So, how does classic theology's "divine immutability" accomplish this task?

Augustine's Synthesis
The answer lies in classic theology's synthesis of Greek philosophy (a.k.a. natural theology) and Biblical Revelation, or as Muller puts it, "synthesis of faith and reason". A synthesis incorporates a thesis with its antithesis to form a new thesis. The God of who cannot enter the world combined with the God who can becomes the God who can both change and not change. This "new" God is worshipped at an alter that requires a sacrifice. That sacrifice would be "logic", the laws of rational thought.

Next post I'll show how Muller equivocates between what immutable means and does not mean, how God seems to change but does not really change, etc.

--Dave

Richard A. Muller's proposition
"The Aristotelian conception of an 'unmoved Mover,'...is not a conception which in and of itself implies stasis or incapability of relation with externals. Rather it indicates a being who has not been “moved” or brought into being by another."

Aristotle
The "divine mine...thinks of what is most divine and most valuable, and plainly it does not change; for change would be for the worse, and already be a movement...The (devine) mind then, must think of itself if it is the best of things."

The Unmoved Mover certainly "has not been 'moved' or brought into being by another", but Aristotle, Metaphysics Book VII, Part 9, contradicts Muller's claim that the Unmoved Mover is capable of relationship with "externals", I think he means us.

So in this statement of Muller's we see the synthesis at work. The Unmoved Mover is eternal but cannot think about us. Biblical Deity is eternal as well but can think about us. Aristotle said the mind is moved by the object of its thought, so God cannot think about us because that would involve movement and change--imperfection.

Since the philosophical "pure actuality" (perfection) of God must be maintained along with God's Biblical (potential) relationship with us, complicated explanations are made in an attempt to unite these opposing ideas. Here's Muller's;

"We find the seventeenth-century Reformed scholastic, Johannes Hottinger, arguing in a manner quite congenial to Barth, 'It is God’s life by which He both lives Himself by nature perpetually actuosus in Himself [pure actuality] and is the source of life for others, communicating it in a variety of ways outside Himself'. [Biblical Deity] The doctrine that God is unmoved means precisely that he is the first mover who imparts motion, which is to say existence to all that is. In short, God, as unmoved Mover, is the eternal one who not only does but also must relate to all things."​

The Unmoved Mover is responsible for the movement in the world but to "impart motion" does not mean to "impart existence", as Muller suggests. Aristotle's world is as eternal as his Unmoved Mover.

"It is impossible for movement either to come into being or to perish, since it has always existed. Nor can time do either of these things, since there could not be anything "prior" (before) or "posterior" (after) if there were no time; and movement is as continues as time, since time is either the same thing as movement or is an affection of it. There is something that is always being moved...(by) something that moves things without being moved."--Metaphysics Book VII, Part 6​

The Unmoved Mover is not the Creator of the universe or else he would not be an unmoved mover. More later.

--Dave

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

As a complementary reading to Muller's paper, I would also recommend the following paper from John MacArthur in The Master's Seminary Journal (TMJ):

Open Theism and the Atonement

Some accompanying lectures are available here, too.

AMR

 

[godrulz]

As a complementary reading to Muller's paper, I would also recommend the following paper from John MacArthur in The Master's Seminary Journal (TMJ):

Open Theism and the Atonement

Some accompanying lectures are available here, too.

AMR

Would be an interesting read. MacArthur defends Calvinism and any view like Open Theism, Arminianism, Charismatics, Moral Government Theology, etc. is simply a non-option. If he is wrong about his Calvinism, he should not be assuming his view is biblical and other views have no evidence or merit.

He is definitely wrong on cessationism vs continuationism and is probably using B.B. Warfield's refuted playbook.