On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 05:50:50 +0000 glenn morton <mortongr@flash.net>
writes:
>
> Actually you really don't appreciate the problem. Because in spite
> of my
> clear statement that I do not have time before time, you continue to
> insist
> that I do. I will state it again because maybe you didn't
> understand it.
> There was no time prior to the Big Bang. But there was God and God
> was
> doing something. How would you speak of the things God did then?
>
God did nothing _then_, for there was no then. What God does he does
"now," but it is not our temporal now. One may equally well say that what
God does he does eternally or timelessly.
>
> Sounds to me like you believe in time before time.
>
But all I did was cite three passages without explicating them. You did
not misunderstand me, so this is not legitimate. I have misunderstood
you, for which I am sorry.
Responding to my
> >Indeed, the repetition of "evening," "morning" and "day"
> >make
> >their assignment to God's eternity incoherent.
your wrote:
>
> Not according to St. Basil. Note what Basil says about the first
> day. He
> connects it with eternity.
>
In other words, a fourth century bishop, whose sole contact with
philosophical thought along these lines required either the eternity of
matter or, with Aristotle, the co-eternity of prime matter and pure form,
is an authority on this difficult matter? Thomas had to totally
reconstruct Aristotle, who had been declared heretical, to provide a
Christian philosophy and theology. This came nearly a millennium later.
> And the evening and the morning were one day.(4) Why does Scripture
> say
> "one day the first day"? Before speaking to us of the second, the
> third,
> and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call
> that one
> the first which began the series? If it therefore says "one day," it
> is
> from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to
> combine the
> time that they contain.
>
A baldly literal translation of Genesis 1:5b reads "and he was evening
and he was morning day one," though Kollenberger has "first." I've
checked the usage of this cardinal and ordinal, and dicovered that both
are used as the ordinal in other passages. There are no linguistic
grounds to make more of "day one," though the cardinal here gives rise to
a dogma in some quarters.
>
> it is the day that the
> Psalmist calls the eighth day, because it is outside this time of
> weeks.(2)
>
For some reason, I cannot find a reference to an "eighth day" in the
Psalms.
>
> As I have said, I am not imposing time on the eternal past. You
> don't seem
> to listen however. I am saying that this is absolutely the best we
> can do
> to describe the eternal past. It is a fundamental limitation of
> language
> not to be able to talk about eternal past without using temporal
> words.
> That is what Genesis 1 did.
>
Again, I'm sorry to have misunderstood your view. But I cannot see that
there can be a declaration, proclamation, plan or whatever in the
sequence of days in Genesis 1. The repeated references to "evening,"
"morning" and "day" are too convoluted for this interpretation. Note the
contrast to the first verses of John, which communicate the eternal and
temporal existence of the Christ.
From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Both Dave & Glenn assume that God must indeed be "timeless" & go from
there
but there is little reason for a Christian to make that assumption.
Biblical statements
about God not "changing" are understood as well or better as statements
of God's
faithfulness rather than of an immunity to time. That is, e.g., the
significance of
Mal.3:6, "For I the LORD do not change" when one reads it in context.
I.e., God's
covenant faithfulness is contrasted with the unfaithfulness of "the sons
of Jacob."
Divine "immutability" then should be understood as God's faithfulness
_through_ time
rather than timelessness.
Is there any positive reason to talk about divine temporality? Yes -
the life
of Jesus is part of the divine life, not merely an "external work of the
Trinity." & if
Jesus' history is part of God's history then God has a history, & God has
time.
This does not mean simply that God's time is identical with that of the
world.
God's time includes ours but isn't limited to it. We run out of time,
something that we
all become more & more aware of as we get older. God has all the time
God needs. God
thus is not just at the mercy of time & in danger of wearing out. The
eschatological
promise given in the resurrection of Jesus is that God is in charge of
the ultimate
future of the universe, & is able to grant creation a participation in
that future.
& now I'm out of time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Sorry, George, but unless you go in for process theology or pantheism,
which place some kind of deity within time, an eternal God must be
unchanging. The price for a changing deity is abandonment of omniscience,
a deity which can be surprised by events, one which may not be able to
keep things from going to smash. This is heterodox. See Acts 15:18.
Note that Hebrews 4 speaks of the preaching of the gospel and faith,
adding "And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the
world" (v. 3, NIV). Election (Ephesians 1:4) and foreordination (I Peter
1:20) are before the creation of the world, as is the Father's love for
the Son (John 17:24). The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world
(Revelation 13:8), indicating a _fait accompli_, not something that
changed with Calvary.
From the human vantage point, the Tabernacle and Temple sacrifices looked
forward to the perfect sacrifice on Calvary. We look back on the
crucifixion and resurrection, which made the church possible. Through the
years, individuals have placed their trust in Christ. But they have not
yet seen their glorification. The human viewpoint is historical,
temporal. In contrast, though language is not adapted to express it, from
God's viewpoint the crucifixion simply is, as is the creation and the
final state of the believers. I have no way to explain how the eternal
Son of God is also the son of Mary, how the fact both simply is and also
came to be. But, as the Smaller Catechism says: "I firmly believe that,
as God has in time called me by the Gospel, enlightened, sanctified, and
kept me in the true faith, even so He has _from eternity chosen me unto
the adoption of children_ and _no man shall pluck me out of His hand._"
(emphasis his). Article XVII of the "Articles of Religion" says:
"Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby
(before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly
decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation
those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, to bring them by
Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour, Wherefore,
they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called
according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they
through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made
sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten
Son Jesus Christ: they walk righteously in good works, and at length, by
God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity."
So, does God change? No! Do we think we see him change? Of course.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 17 2000 - 17:57:22 EST