"D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:
> ........................................................
> Let's see if I can fill in the gaps. We have a choice in the nature of
> the universe. The common notion was that the universe was eternal. This
> fits pantheism, which makes the deity coterminous with the universe. This
> makes such god as there is spatio-temporal. There may be a cyclical
> change, as in Hindu thought, or a bit more to the deity in what has been
> called panentheism by adherents to process theology. This is a constantly
> changing god-stuff that had no beginning. The unique Hebrew view provides
> a creation, a start to the space, time and mass-energy universe in which
> we live. God is the external source, the sustainer, the I AM who is not
> restricted to the conditions of his creation, but is in full charge
> thereof. As Savior, he entered creation, becoming human to redeem the
> fallen race. When orthodoxy was standard, the problem philosophers
> generally had was how the Infinite could enter the finite, the Eternal
> the temporal. It is not something I try to explain. I rest on the
> statement that the Son emptied himself and was born in Bethlehem as both
> God and man. It is my only hope for salvation.
>
> George Murphy has indicated that the Eternal Father felt the pain of the
> crucifixion at the time of the event. I contend that this puts him within
> time and negates his eternity, making him just another thing among things
> in the universe, of which he is not independent and so cannot be its
> source. Scripture is clear that our salvation was determined "before the
> foundation of the world" and that the Word was in the beginning. I
> contend that these temporal locutions are as close as human language can
> come to expressing the eternal state and determination. This says to me
> that the Father is the eternal Redeemer, that his purpose and pain are
> not temporal but eternal, embedded in his very being and nature.
>
> I further hold that it is not rational to try to shift the notion of
> change and time to a heaven where God is resident. If it was created as
> the abode of angels, then God is its source in the same way as being the
> source of the material universe. Its time does not restrict him. If it is
> not created, then it is nonspatial, for spirit does not occupy space, and
> unchanging. We can't shove the change which is part of our universe back
> a step and say that makes the deity changeable.
>
> I know that there are many passages that speak of God's repenting,
> answering prayer, etc. I take all these to be the human perception of
> God's eternal purpose. The problem arises because of the limitations of
> human language and understanding. I cannot reasonably apply them to the I
> AM THAT I AM.
I have to jump in here. I would indeed, as Dave suggests, say that
the Father suffered (though not in just the same way as the Son) in the
crucifixion, but to say that at the start is to move to fast. What is
certain is that the Son suffered - & by that I mean that the eternal Logos,
not only the assumed human nature & not just by attribution of the suffering
of the human nature to the person. This does go beyond what either the
ecumenical councils or scholasticism (Roman or protestant) would say, though
the 5th Council affirmed that "one of the Trinity was crucified for us" and
Luther sometimes crosses the line by speaking, e.g., about "a dead God."
IF one can say that the Son suffered then there is no great
difficulty about saying that the Father, who is consubstantial with the Son,
suffered in the separation of Calvary (Mk.15:34).
Our basic difference is one of interpretative starting point. If one
begins with texts that can easily be understood in terms of divine
sovereignty, immutability, independence of creation, &c then Incarnation &
cross have to be interpreted in ways that are consistent with those
attributes and it will always be difficult to say "God suffered" &c. I would
insist, OTOH, that we ought to begin with the cross, take it with full
seriousness as meaning that in some sense God can experience suffering and
death, and interpret other passages in light of that.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 07 2001 - 17:27:34 EDT