On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:59:11 -0400 Moorad Alexanian
<alexanian@uncwil.edu> writes:
> My concern is that there is an archive that can be accessed by anyone
> and so
> posts that are not very sensible will give a negative view of this
> list. No
> matter what is one's view one has to moderate the presentation and
> not be
> very repetitive about it. I strongly believe that the notion of a
> God
> outside our spacetime is not derivable by any human thought. It is
> a waste
> of time for everyone to entertain such a notion and may indicate the
> state
> of mind of those who profess it. Moorad
>
Moorad,
Your comment reminded me of the statement, can't remember who said it
first, that to deny the Trinity is to endanger our souls; to try to
understand, our minds. Obviously, this is not something that human
thought can produce. It is a matter of the self-revelation of God. But
every orthodox theologian analyses and draws conclusions from that
revelation. All these attempts are not necessarily consistent, but they
are honest attempts to deal with the interpreted facts of revelation. I
phrase it that way because, though some claim to "take the Bible alone as
it stands," they are unaware of all they are bringing to the Word.
The same principle holds for God as Creator. If the Eternal One, the "I
AM," is within space-time, then either he cannot be the source of time or
else the universe is eternal and so not created, though perhaps formed by
divine action. Further, we do not have space and time without matter.
This, I contend, does not agree with the declaration that "God is
spirit." To argue, as Hobbes did, that spirit is a "refined" matter does
not help. I think the problem is that he confuses "substance" with
"matter," since the substances we directly encounter in sensory
experience are material.
That the Eternal is not within our universe of space-time-matter does not
leave us independent of him, for it only holds together through Christ,
the Second Person of the Trinity who entered his creation as a member of
Adam's race for its salvation. This, and all other matters, are within
his control, even though he has granted some freedom to human beings.
While a deity outside of space, time and matter, is not something we can
image, I believe that it is the proper understanding of his
transcendence. That, as the source and sustainer of every aspect of
creation, he is involved yet not a part thereof, is a matter of his
immanence. Our language, because of our finite existence, is so steeped
in time that it does not fit our attempts to speak of the Creator as he
is. That is why we have such locutions as "In the beginning _was_ the
Word," "which God ... promised _before_ the world began" and "Who verily
was _foreordained before_ the foundation of the world."
I grant that it is possible to take only one side of the whole and come
up with the purely transcendant deity of deism or the purely immanent
panentheistic deity of process theology, not too far from pantheism.
Neither of these, though they both have been popular, and even have
affected the formulations of some who have tried to be strictly orthodox,
fits my understanding of the biblical revelation.
Brother, please don't read me out of the household of faith.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 17 2001 - 17:23:16 EDT