dfsiemensjr@juno.com wrote:
> Why do the Greeks get blamed for taking seriously "I AM"?
Or "I will be who I will be" or "I am he who causes to be". The
translation of the divine name can't be decided from grammar alone (assuming
that we can translate it at all) & insistence that it must be "I Am" exposes
some presuppositions.
> If I were
> following the Greeks or their successor Romans I would deny the
> possibility of creation: _ex nihil nihil fit_. Aristotle's Pure Form was
> involved in an eternal temporal interaction with prime matter. His
> "thought thinking itself" is not eternal in the sense which is applied by
> Augustine to the deity. Indeed, the Greeks did not, to my knowledge, even
> think about time. That was left to Augustine.
The point at issue wasn't what Aristotle said but how much influence he
had via Melanchthon on current ideas of divine temporality. & the answer is, not a lot.
Luther saw himself within the Chalcedonian two natures approach to christology but
certainly pushed it to, & probably beyond, its limits. He held that the attributes
of the divine nature are not only attributed to the one person of the Incarnate word
but are communicated to the human nature of Christ, which is thus omnipresent &c.
But the way in which he speaks of a "dead God" &c makes it sound as if he is speaking
of the suffering &c of the human nature as being communicated to the divine nature.
Marc Lienhard, e.g. (_Luther - Witness to Christ_) concludes that he did in fact do this
& that while he was not a "patripassian" he was a "Deipassian".
Luther wasn't a systematician & when christology was systematized by the
theologians of Lutheran Orthodoxy (when the Aristotelianism of Melanchthon did come to
full bloom) & they talked about the communication of attributes in the hypostatic union,
they could teach a _genus majestaticum_ of communication from the divine to the human
nature because "the finite is capable of the infinite" but not a _genus tapeinotikon_
of communication from the human to the divine nature because (due to the standard
assumption of philosophical theism) the divine nature can't suffer. Of course they
tried to back that up with Mal.3:6 & Jas.1:17, but had to say that all the texts which
speak of God changing his mind, getting angry &c didn't really mean exactly what they
said.
>
> That God is outside of time, that time is strictly within this world,
> does not necessarily involve that he be without affect. His revelation
> through the prophets, as well as the perfect revelation in the Son,
> declare his love.
The question isn't whether God can affect the world but whether there is any
"back reaction" of the world upon God. If God loves people & they respond with
ingratitude, disobedience, contempt &c, does that make any difference to God?
>I note that the saints were chosen "before the
> foundation of the world" (Ephesians 1:4). The rest of the redeemed was
> completed from the foundation of the world (Hebrews4:3).
Your distinction is obscure but that would get us off the track. All the
redeemed are saints & vice versa.
> They were
> foreknown and predestinated and _glorified_ (Romans 8:29f). The
> crucifixion was by the deliberate will and foreknowledge of God (Acts
> 2:23). The purpose was ordained before the ages (I Corinthians 2:7).
> Grace was given to us before time began (II Timothy 1:9). Eternal life
> was promised before the ages began (Titus 1:2). As you and I see it, I am
> definitely not glorious. But God says it's a fact, so it's a done deal
> although I am not yet aware of it.
> It is certain that a God who redeems is radically different from one who
> leaves man to his own devices. That he emptied himself to enter his
> creation to be the redeemer is beyond human imagining. But this is what
> God IS in himself, though in our temporal view he _became_ the redeemer.
> So I contend that saying that the crucifixion changed God is to force
> human categories onto him inappropriately. The crucified God is what he
> is timelessly, eternally.
This can be said only if Jesus of Nazareth is timeless & eternal.
> I suspect that you are objecting to the philosophical view that connects
> changelessness with impassivity, and then interprets the latter term
> "psychologically." This is common, but in error. God is impassive in the
> sense that he is _actus purus_ or, to use Buber's terminology, strictly a
> subject. He is not impassive in the sense that he does not feel.
But if he is immutable his feelings can never change.
> As for _theologia naturalis delenda est_, I'll agree if what you have in
> mind is the kind of thing Paley did. But there are Psalm 19 and Romans
> 1:20, though the fool and the perverse reject the theology that nature
> presents. I note also that the scientific evidence for the Big Bang leads
> to a theological conclusion.
Romans 1 is not an argument for natural theology but points out the idolatry
which inevitably results when sinners (i.e., all of us) try to do natural theology
on our own. The 2d half of Ps.19 was probably added precisely because of the dangers
to which the first half by itself (where the afficionadoes of natural theology always
stop quoting) leads. & the theological conclusions which people usually reach from the
Big Bang ("the face of God" &c) are usually bad.
The basic question remains: Do we know who God is from speculations about
being, time, the absolute &c or from the cross & resurrection of Christ?
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 13 2000 - 10:18:40 EST