God and Time
Forum category
The purpose of this topic is to provoke a discussion on your understanding of God’s relationship to time. I offer three distinct possibilities to begin the discussion in the form of an analogy. In the analogy to follow the river represents time and the ship an even or particular in time, and the ocean the nonexistence of that event or particular.
A few presuppositions first. Time is defined as the passing of relationships. God is not outside or beyond time but rather works in time.
1.) God is represented by a person standing on the bank of a river watching a ship as it enters the river, passes by the man, and watches the ship pass on into the ocean. The entering of the ship is the “past”, the passing of the ship in front of the man is “present” and the passing of the ship beyond the man is the “future”. So while God’s presence is not necessarily indexed with each moment of a thing’s existence He has perfect and complete knowledge of the thing from beginning to end.
O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. - Ps. 139:1-4
2.) God is represented by the bank of the river, so as the ship moves down the river the bank is with it, behind it and in front of it. That is to say, God is in the past, in the present and in the future. So then God does not merely have complete knowledge of a thing from beginning to end but He also exists in those moments and all moments. Ex. God is at this moment present to President Lincoln’s inauguration, assassination, and funeral.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. - Rev. 1:8
3.) God is represented by an unmovable post in the river. The river passes around the post and so also does the ship. That is to say, time moves around God and any event or particular only has existence as it comes into proximity to the post. Before the post the thing is potential and after the post it no longer exists, so as the post is in view the things is actual rather than potential or nonexistant. Ex. For those with pets, before there was a pet the pet was potential then time carried you and your pet together which became an actual relationship and the reason why it is actual is because time has carried the two of you within the proximity of the immutable God. Soon (which is relative) you will both begin to move further down the river of time and either death or the rapture will terminate because the moment(s) when you had a pet and having a pet is no longer actual and the reason why is because that relationship is no long in the proximity of God, but has past. So then God has perfect and complete knowledge of all events and particulars but they are only present to Him as they are in proximity to Him.
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law - Gal 4:4
To give you an idea of what some theologians have thought on the topic I offer these:
Aquinas, Summa I - “Future contingents cannot be certain to us, because we know them as future contingents. They can be certain only to God whose understanding is in eternity above time. In the same way a man going along a road does not see those who come behind him; but the man who sees the whole road from a height sees simultaneously all those who are going along the road.” pt. 1, qu. 14, a. 13
Turretin, Institutes Vol. 1 - “This [the ascription of eternity as is, was and is to come: is not done dividedly because as if they might be predicated of him successively, but undividedly because the eternity of God embraces all time at once.” p. 203
Augustine On the Gospel of John - “Although that immutable and ineffable nature does not admit he was or will be, but only of he is, yet on account of the mutability of time, with which our mortality and mutability is concerned, we may say without error, he is, was, and will be.” Tractate 99
I believe a discussion on the understanding of God in time will sharpen our iron in that it will shed significant light on our understanding of election, the nature of communion, the presence of God, the immutability of God and many other things like time travel for all you physicists out there. :)
A few presuppositions first. Time is defined as the passing of relationships. God is not outside or beyond time but rather works in time.
1.) God is represented by a person standing on the bank of a river watching a ship as it enters the river, passes by the man, and watches the ship pass on into the ocean. The entering of the ship is the “past”, the passing of the ship in front of the man is “present” and the passing of the ship beyond the man is the “future”. So while God’s presence is not necessarily indexed with each moment of a thing’s existence He has perfect and complete knowledge of the thing from beginning to end.
O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. - Ps. 139:1-4
2.) God is represented by the bank of the river, so as the ship moves down the river the bank is with it, behind it and in front of it. That is to say, God is in the past, in the present and in the future. So then God does not merely have complete knowledge of a thing from beginning to end but He also exists in those moments and all moments. Ex. God is at this moment present to President Lincoln’s inauguration, assassination, and funeral.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. - Rev. 1:8
3.) God is represented by an unmovable post in the river. The river passes around the post and so also does the ship. That is to say, time moves around God and any event or particular only has existence as it comes into proximity to the post. Before the post the thing is potential and after the post it no longer exists, so as the post is in view the things is actual rather than potential or nonexistant. Ex. For those with pets, before there was a pet the pet was potential then time carried you and your pet together which became an actual relationship and the reason why it is actual is because time has carried the two of you within the proximity of the immutable God. Soon (which is relative) you will both begin to move further down the river of time and either death or the rapture will terminate because the moment(s) when you had a pet and having a pet is no longer actual and the reason why is because that relationship is no long in the proximity of God, but has past. So then God has perfect and complete knowledge of all events and particulars but they are only present to Him as they are in proximity to Him.
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law - Gal 4:4
To give you an idea of what some theologians have thought on the topic I offer these:
Aquinas, Summa I - “Future contingents cannot be certain to us, because we know them as future contingents. They can be certain only to God whose understanding is in eternity above time. In the same way a man going along a road does not see those who come behind him; but the man who sees the whole road from a height sees simultaneously all those who are going along the road.” pt. 1, qu. 14, a. 13
Turretin, Institutes Vol. 1 - “This [the ascription of eternity as is, was and is to come: is not done dividedly because as if they might be predicated of him successively, but undividedly because the eternity of God embraces all time at once.” p. 203
Augustine On the Gospel of John - “Although that immutable and ineffable nature does not admit he was or will be, but only of he is, yet on account of the mutability of time, with which our mortality and mutability is concerned, we may say without error, he is, was, and will be.” Tractate 99
I believe a discussion on the understanding of God in time will sharpen our iron in that it will shed significant light on our understanding of election, the nature of communion, the presence of God, the immutability of God and many other things like time travel for all you physicists out there. :)
- 4 views
God eternally encompasses the river. On both ends he stands eternal with time occurring within his eternalness. While procession occurs in eternity, time as we understand it is related not merely to procession but measured moments. Eternality, while having procession, is not measurable chronologically. This frame of reference can be stated but not understood by us at the present time (no pun intended). God created time with respect to humanity’s condition as a theodic mechanism to rebut the arguments of Satan that God is unfair.
Brother Guggenheim
Those are some very interesting thoughts which leads me to want to know more.
1.) When you say time occurs within God’s eternality, in what way does time occur within God’s eternality seeing that God is His eternality? Even further, how can it be said that an occurrence happened within God while at the same time saying God is immutable and without passive potency?
2.) By procession do you mean succession? If so, how do you combine the notions of “eternally present now” and succession? If not, what do you mean by procession?
3.) How is it that the creation of time can be seen as a rebuttal to Satan when Satan was created no earlier than day three precluding the fact that two days (i.e. time) had already past?
Those are some very interesting thoughts which leads me to want to know more.
1.) When you say time occurs within God’s eternality, in what way does time occur within God’s eternality seeing that God is His eternality? Even further, how can it be said that an occurrence happened within God while at the same time saying God is immutable and without passive potency?
2.) By procession do you mean succession? If so, how do you combine the notions of “eternally present now” and succession? If not, what do you mean by procession?
3.) How is it that the creation of time can be seen as a rebuttal to Satan when Satan was created no earlier than day three precluding the fact that two days (i.e. time) had already past?
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
Peter,
Yes, I believe succession is a superior word for what I had in mind. Procession only contains part of succession which is that of which I meant. Thanks.
1.) Time, being a creation of God, assumes a subordinate role to eternality. Hence, its existence does not conflict with eternality, even a simultaneous eternality. The universe is eternal yet many things occur within its space which are measurable. I believe this is true for time as we know it. It occurs within eternity and does so as designed by God.
As to God’s potency and immutability, I am not 100% sure if you are referring to “time” occurring within God or what. I need a bit more clarity to answer with confidence. But if you mean time occurring within God as a contradiction to his immutability, I do not see the conflict. But again, I am not certain here.
2.) The eternal present is real, as is time. Space and time have been modified for humanity’s history. Neither can be denied. The mechanics of how both operate are not revealed greatly in Scripture but both are revealed. God’s manages both, obviously and to me since both are revealed to be true we must accept this whether the exact mechanics can be explained since it may be we are too limited to fully explain their operation and combined operations. In my mind, again what I have in view, is eternity before and after and within eternity a place where God creates times for the human race and its history forming measures of succession for specific purposes.
3.) I do not believe Satan was created only on day 3. I believe in the pre-historic Angelic Conflict as taught by Reformed Teacher Donald Grey Barnhouse (I am not Reformed by the way) in which, previous to human history, was angelic history during which occurred the angelic rebellion. Resulting from that was the sentence of Satan and those angels that rebelled with him. Obviously Satan is not serving his sentence nor are those demons and clearly are in a rebuttal phase of their trial. Enter humanity as a demonstration of God’s argument and case proving Satan wrong again. Then as we read in Revelation, the end of human history and angelic history are not coincidentally co-terminus but end simultaneously for a reason. That reason being because humanity’s creation and our existence as witnesses for the prosecution end with the appeal failing and Satan and all those accepting his way of rejecting God begin serving their eternal sentences. That is a great deal of info but I know you prefer clarity so it will give you are frame work of where I am coming from even if you throroughly disagree.
Yes, I believe succession is a superior word for what I had in mind. Procession only contains part of succession which is that of which I meant. Thanks.
1.) Time, being a creation of God, assumes a subordinate role to eternality. Hence, its existence does not conflict with eternality, even a simultaneous eternality. The universe is eternal yet many things occur within its space which are measurable. I believe this is true for time as we know it. It occurs within eternity and does so as designed by God.
As to God’s potency and immutability, I am not 100% sure if you are referring to “time” occurring within God or what. I need a bit more clarity to answer with confidence. But if you mean time occurring within God as a contradiction to his immutability, I do not see the conflict. But again, I am not certain here.
2.) The eternal present is real, as is time. Space and time have been modified for humanity’s history. Neither can be denied. The mechanics of how both operate are not revealed greatly in Scripture but both are revealed. God’s manages both, obviously and to me since both are revealed to be true we must accept this whether the exact mechanics can be explained since it may be we are too limited to fully explain their operation and combined operations. In my mind, again what I have in view, is eternity before and after and within eternity a place where God creates times for the human race and its history forming measures of succession for specific purposes.
3.) I do not believe Satan was created only on day 3. I believe in the pre-historic Angelic Conflict as taught by Reformed Teacher Donald Grey Barnhouse (I am not Reformed by the way) in which, previous to human history, was angelic history during which occurred the angelic rebellion. Resulting from that was the sentence of Satan and those angels that rebelled with him. Obviously Satan is not serving his sentence nor are those demons and clearly are in a rebuttal phase of their trial. Enter humanity as a demonstration of God’s argument and case proving Satan wrong again. Then as we read in Revelation, the end of human history and angelic history are not coincidentally co-terminus but end simultaneously for a reason. That reason being because humanity’s creation and our existence as witnesses for the prosecution end with the appeal failing and Satan and all those accepting his way of rejecting God begin serving their eternal sentences. That is a great deal of info but I know you prefer clarity so it will give you are frame work of where I am coming from even if you throroughly disagree.
Peter Van Kleeck Jr.
Tue, 02/21/12 11:36 am
Eternity = a non-successive duration/Time = successive duration
Brother Guggenheim,
You have presented a system of God’s relation to time which does not appear to be the standard historical orthodox formulation seeing that your main source is from a 20th century pastor and scholar, so your position on the face of it looks very young. I am quite sure I cannot agree with your position but I still have some questions which may help clear things up for me.
1.) It appears that you ascribe succession in God in your first post, but are you aware that such ascription was held by Socinian heretics and most notable Vorstius who was rebutted in the late 17th century by the Protestant Scholastics?
2.) Succession denotes transition from potentiality to actuality and to ascribe this to God is to ascribe mutability to God. How do you reconcile this with Scripture which testify to God saying that He does not change and with Him there is no shadow of turning?
3.) What is the difference between your understanding of succession in God and Open Theism?
4.) What is the difference between your understanding of succession in God and Middle Knowledge?
5.) Do you believe time and eternity are substances (e.g. a container or matrix) in and of themselves or are they qualities ascribed to particulars? If you believe time and eternity are substances rather than qualities, who made eternity?
6.) Why must space and time be modified for humanity, when it is true that the second person of the Trinity possessed a per-incarnate corporeal shape and that angels are capable of such shapes, seeing that Christ is the eternal revelation of the Father and angels His messengers (i.e. the physics of eternity)?
7.) When you say “God creates times” under the second point of your second post do you believe God is creating even today?
8.) Do you believe in the Gap Theory? If so how do you reconcile the fact that when God acts, that action is the best possible action therefore a redo would only result in the exact same action because it was/is best?
9.) When you say the “universe is eternal” under point one are you saying you believe in prime matter or matter of pure potentiality?
10.) Simply as terms, do you draw a distinction between eternal and everlasting?
Thank you so much for answering my questions. Your posts have been thought provoking.
You have presented a system of God’s relation to time which does not appear to be the standard historical orthodox formulation seeing that your main source is from a 20th century pastor and scholar, so your position on the face of it looks very young. I am quite sure I cannot agree with your position but I still have some questions which may help clear things up for me.
1.) It appears that you ascribe succession in God in your first post, but are you aware that such ascription was held by Socinian heretics and most notable Vorstius who was rebutted in the late 17th century by the Protestant Scholastics?
2.) Succession denotes transition from potentiality to actuality and to ascribe this to God is to ascribe mutability to God. How do you reconcile this with Scripture which testify to God saying that He does not change and with Him there is no shadow of turning?
3.) What is the difference between your understanding of succession in God and Open Theism?
4.) What is the difference between your understanding of succession in God and Middle Knowledge?
5.) Do you believe time and eternity are substances (e.g. a container or matrix) in and of themselves or are they qualities ascribed to particulars? If you believe time and eternity are substances rather than qualities, who made eternity?
6.) Why must space and time be modified for humanity, when it is true that the second person of the Trinity possessed a per-incarnate corporeal shape and that angels are capable of such shapes, seeing that Christ is the eternal revelation of the Father and angels His messengers (i.e. the physics of eternity)?
7.) When you say “God creates times” under the second point of your second post do you believe God is creating even today?
8.) Do you believe in the Gap Theory? If so how do you reconcile the fact that when God acts, that action is the best possible action therefore a redo would only result in the exact same action because it was/is best?
9.) When you say the “universe is eternal” under point one are you saying you believe in prime matter or matter of pure potentiality?
10.) Simply as terms, do you draw a distinction between eternal and everlasting?
Thank you so much for answering my questions. Your posts have been thought provoking.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
Peter,
To let you know I am formulating a response, probably by Friday.
Alex
To let you know I am formulating a response, probably by Friday.
Alex
This is one of those topics, like God never beginning, where simple faith trumps apologetic understanding. Translate: we’re completely incapable of grasping the issue in our finite mind. That being said, what do we know from Scripture?
One of the attributes of God is omni-presence in space; i.e., God is here and there and everywhere between, beyond, or around here and there. Completely unfathomable to finite, mortal man. But true, none-the-less.
Similarly, God is omni-present in time. What does that mean?
When taking the opportunity to define Himself God used a very expressive, but difficult, terminology: “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you Ex. 3:14).” In other words, God describes and names Himself as that One whose existence is forever present tense. Understanding this concept might be as easy as answering a very simple question—What is God doing today?
The answer to that question is as broad as all that we know that God has ever “done,” is “doing,” or will “do.” For example, today God is protecting Moses in a basket, leading him across the Red Sea, giving him the law, forbidding him to enter the promised land, inspiring him to pen the Pentateuch, communing with him on the Mount of Transfiguration, and resurrecting his dead body before the eyes of the whole world after his being slain for his prophecy against the Beast.
Can’t grasp it any more than I can omni-presence in space. But my inability to wrap my mind around it doesn’t make it any less so.
Lee
Peter,
First I do prefer just Alex.
Now to your questions
1.) I am unfamiliar with the issue of succession within eternality as being a Socian issue though I can see where it might be an off-shoot of their anti-trinitarianism/open theism arguments. Possibly in responding to #2 I will clarify #1 and may not still be in your view with these parties.
2.) My original response about succession was thus:
“Eternality, while having (procession-now corrected) succession is not measurable chronologically. This frame of reference can be stated but not understood by us at the present time.”
Notice what I am stating. Eternal succession is able to be stated but not understood. What you are describing “transition from potentiality to actuality” is temporal succession. Eternal succession, which I believe is presented in the Bible, is real but when described can only be done so anthropologically, thus with a temporal stage though we should understand it is not that at all, instead it is simply being presented in this manner since this is all we can comprehend.
However, I do believe God can and does participate in temporal succession for our benefit but not because his person (with emphasis here on his eternality) changes but because he is able to accommodate this for us and whatever objective this human platform requires.
3.) I reject open theism and believe the explanation above about God and divine succession makes the distinction. I do not believe God’s eternal succession or participation in temporal succession disables his omniscience including all counterfactuals.
4.) I appreciate the efforts of molinists though I do believe it is an attempt, at times, to overreach in explaining the mechanics of omniscience and the decree(s) of God along with exercise of human volition. I do accept that God knows all counterfacts or possibilities. And his knowledge of all such possibilities does not conflict with divine or eternal succession simply because both are declared in Scripture.
5.) I am not prepared to form a conclusion on this question. I am interested in your views, though.
6.) A pre-incarnate form visible for humans as well as angelic formation to accommodate human vision does not have any bearing on why space and time is modified for humanity’s history. They are simply utilizing the properties of the human spectrum.
I believe space was modified thus introducing human time as compared to succession during the angelic age or even vs divine succession. Because of our purposeful physical limitations (being made a little lower than the angels) space require modification resulting, of course, in time modification to serve our fragile state. This are merely deductions that have been made from a theological standpoint and some readings of light and the universe.
7.) It might depend on how one views God creating time. That is, directly or indirectly by decree. I will say this, though, that time cannot exist as we experience it without God. How his decree and personal activity mechanize to produce time, I cannot say since such I have not considered this aspect in any detail. I do believe at the moment I lean toward decree of the system which exists, hence more indirectly but still “divinely created”.
8.) The Gap Theory has many schools. As a general reference I avoid. But terms aside, I do believe that the earth is ancient and that humanity is recent and the reconstitution of the earth is what is intended with regarding to its preparation for humanity.
As far as God “redoing”, the reconstitution of the earth is not due to God having not done his best rather the state of the earth and the surrounding universe which gives evidence of a previous age(s) and a universal judgment which includes the earth, comes from the judgment by God of Lucifer and the rebellious angels.
9.) I had neither in mind, rather simply the illustration of something eternal containing something limited. It was a bit of a crude illustration, I suppose, but enough to make my point. I do understand how one might now have to examine the force of one upon the other and vice versa. I don’t wish to explore than since I do not believe it germane to the initial issue.
But the question of my view of the universe is an important one. I cannot say I have concluded either. Maybe you can give me a reason as to why I need to draw a conclusion as it relates to my views, a little motivation, so to speak.
10.)I know some do draw a distinction and I see one but I am not sure I have studied and thought about it enough to articulate an appreciation for their critical nuance.
First I do prefer just Alex.
Now to your questions
1.) I am unfamiliar with the issue of succession within eternality as being a Socian issue though I can see where it might be an off-shoot of their anti-trinitarianism/open theism arguments. Possibly in responding to #2 I will clarify #1 and may not still be in your view with these parties.
2.) My original response about succession was thus:
“Eternality, while having (procession-now corrected) succession is not measurable chronologically. This frame of reference can be stated but not understood by us at the present time.”
Notice what I am stating. Eternal succession is able to be stated but not understood. What you are describing “transition from potentiality to actuality” is temporal succession. Eternal succession, which I believe is presented in the Bible, is real but when described can only be done so anthropologically, thus with a temporal stage though we should understand it is not that at all, instead it is simply being presented in this manner since this is all we can comprehend.
However, I do believe God can and does participate in temporal succession for our benefit but not because his person (with emphasis here on his eternality) changes but because he is able to accommodate this for us and whatever objective this human platform requires.
3.) I reject open theism and believe the explanation above about God and divine succession makes the distinction. I do not believe God’s eternal succession or participation in temporal succession disables his omniscience including all counterfactuals.
4.) I appreciate the efforts of molinists though I do believe it is an attempt, at times, to overreach in explaining the mechanics of omniscience and the decree(s) of God along with exercise of human volition. I do accept that God knows all counterfacts or possibilities. And his knowledge of all such possibilities does not conflict with divine or eternal succession simply because both are declared in Scripture.
5.) I am not prepared to form a conclusion on this question. I am interested in your views, though.
6.) A pre-incarnate form visible for humans as well as angelic formation to accommodate human vision does not have any bearing on why space and time is modified for humanity’s history. They are simply utilizing the properties of the human spectrum.
I believe space was modified thus introducing human time as compared to succession during the angelic age or even vs divine succession. Because of our purposeful physical limitations (being made a little lower than the angels) space require modification resulting, of course, in time modification to serve our fragile state. This are merely deductions that have been made from a theological standpoint and some readings of light and the universe.
7.) It might depend on how one views God creating time. That is, directly or indirectly by decree. I will say this, though, that time cannot exist as we experience it without God. How his decree and personal activity mechanize to produce time, I cannot say since such I have not considered this aspect in any detail. I do believe at the moment I lean toward decree of the system which exists, hence more indirectly but still “divinely created”.
8.) The Gap Theory has many schools. As a general reference I avoid. But terms aside, I do believe that the earth is ancient and that humanity is recent and the reconstitution of the earth is what is intended with regarding to its preparation for humanity.
As far as God “redoing”, the reconstitution of the earth is not due to God having not done his best rather the state of the earth and the surrounding universe which gives evidence of a previous age(s) and a universal judgment which includes the earth, comes from the judgment by God of Lucifer and the rebellious angels.
9.) I had neither in mind, rather simply the illustration of something eternal containing something limited. It was a bit of a crude illustration, I suppose, but enough to make my point. I do understand how one might now have to examine the force of one upon the other and vice versa. I don’t wish to explore than since I do not believe it germane to the initial issue.
But the question of my view of the universe is an important one. I cannot say I have concluded either. Maybe you can give me a reason as to why I need to draw a conclusion as it relates to my views, a little motivation, so to speak.
10.)I know some do draw a distinction and I see one but I am not sure I have studied and thought about it enough to articulate an appreciation for their critical nuance.
I apologize for the late reply.
Brother Lee,
To ask what is God doing today is a good way to state the question, but I have a question, with regard to your example of Moses’ life. How many Moseses are there? Man is mutable therefore from moment to moment he changes in position and quality so the Moses in the basket is not the Moses leading the children of Israel, yet in another sense he is. Even further the Moses of moment one is different from the Moses of moment two which goes on ad infinitum. So here is the question, is God saving Moses’ soul today? If we entertain the scenario that Moses did not exercise believing faith at the moment he became cognizant of his own sinfulness then there was a time when Moses was worthy of Hell and a time after when he was not. Is God angry at Moses today for not receiving Christ as the Messiah, not simply by knowledge of the fact that Moses was a sinner and did not receive Christ immediately but by actual presence to an alternate present which we call past? More personally, would I be an unjustified soul worthy of damnation and a glorified saint when I stand before the eternal Son of God on that day?
Alex
You wrote,
“Eternality, while having (procession-now corrected) succession is not measurable chronologically. This frame of reference can be stated but not understood by us at the present time.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but what you have done here is take something that humanity is intimately aware of (i.e. succession) and connected it with something we know very little of (i.e. eternity), and then you say that this is a frame that cannot be understood by us which seems only half right. We understand succession, but the frame we cannot understand is divine eternity. Whenever you connect eternal with anything, it is the eternal part that cannot be understood (e.g. eternal love, eternal wrath). So i thought it best to offer a definition of eternity.
If phrased this way, eternity is a non-successive duration, then I am in complete agreement with you on this point. A duration without succession reaches beyond the scope of human knowledge at this point and perhaps forever, but the key is non-successive. At the heart of divine immutability is the truth that nothing in God (in se) or outside of God (ad extra) is added to God nor does anything flow away from Him. To ascribe succession to God is to say that in some way (perhaps as you seem to indicate a transcendent/ineffable way) something is added to God or something has flowed away. I think we can both agree that God has knowledge of successions without being Himself successive according to duration.
We agree in the point that God knows all counterfactuals as well as all possibilities.
With regard to whether time is a property or is its own substance is a debate that arises when dealing with the philosophy of Aristotle in light of Newtonian physics. According to Aristotle time is a quality that can be ascribed to a thing. Newton on the other hand maintained that time is both in and of itself an aspect of universe just as space is and that time as most refer to it, is a duration measured by motion. The latter, Newton does not consider true time. So in overly simplistic terms, time for Aristotle is a property of things and for Newton, time is a thing and “time” which is perceived through motion is not true time.
The pre-incarnate Christ was sensible in that He ate, sat, stood, light reflected off of Him so He could be seen, and the force of sound emitted from Him as He spoke. So then the pre-incarnate Christ was not “simply utilizing the properties of the human spectrum” but these properties were and are inherent properties of the second person of the Trinity eternally.
The reason for mentioning prime matter or matter of pure potentiality is because some philosophers argued for the existence of eternal matter which was pure potentiality and existed as eternally as the Orderer of that matter. So then the Orderer and the prime matter are co-eternal. I would maintain that nothing is eternal as God is eternal, and all I was wondering is what your thoughts were in that regard.
Questions:
1.) If God is creating time, in what way did God rest on the 7th day with regard to creation?
2.) Do you say the earth is ancient and humanity recent in order to make space for the theories of cosmic and/or biological evolution?
Once again I apologize for the lateness of my post.
Brother Lee,
To ask what is God doing today is a good way to state the question, but I have a question, with regard to your example of Moses’ life. How many Moseses are there? Man is mutable therefore from moment to moment he changes in position and quality so the Moses in the basket is not the Moses leading the children of Israel, yet in another sense he is. Even further the Moses of moment one is different from the Moses of moment two which goes on ad infinitum. So here is the question, is God saving Moses’ soul today? If we entertain the scenario that Moses did not exercise believing faith at the moment he became cognizant of his own sinfulness then there was a time when Moses was worthy of Hell and a time after when he was not. Is God angry at Moses today for not receiving Christ as the Messiah, not simply by knowledge of the fact that Moses was a sinner and did not receive Christ immediately but by actual presence to an alternate present which we call past? More personally, would I be an unjustified soul worthy of damnation and a glorified saint when I stand before the eternal Son of God on that day?
Alex
You wrote,
“Eternality, while having (procession-now corrected) succession is not measurable chronologically. This frame of reference can be stated but not understood by us at the present time.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but what you have done here is take something that humanity is intimately aware of (i.e. succession) and connected it with something we know very little of (i.e. eternity), and then you say that this is a frame that cannot be understood by us which seems only half right. We understand succession, but the frame we cannot understand is divine eternity. Whenever you connect eternal with anything, it is the eternal part that cannot be understood (e.g. eternal love, eternal wrath). So i thought it best to offer a definition of eternity.
If phrased this way, eternity is a non-successive duration, then I am in complete agreement with you on this point. A duration without succession reaches beyond the scope of human knowledge at this point and perhaps forever, but the key is non-successive. At the heart of divine immutability is the truth that nothing in God (in se) or outside of God (ad extra) is added to God nor does anything flow away from Him. To ascribe succession to God is to say that in some way (perhaps as you seem to indicate a transcendent/ineffable way) something is added to God or something has flowed away. I think we can both agree that God has knowledge of successions without being Himself successive according to duration.
We agree in the point that God knows all counterfactuals as well as all possibilities.
With regard to whether time is a property or is its own substance is a debate that arises when dealing with the philosophy of Aristotle in light of Newtonian physics. According to Aristotle time is a quality that can be ascribed to a thing. Newton on the other hand maintained that time is both in and of itself an aspect of universe just as space is and that time as most refer to it, is a duration measured by motion. The latter, Newton does not consider true time. So in overly simplistic terms, time for Aristotle is a property of things and for Newton, time is a thing and “time” which is perceived through motion is not true time.
The pre-incarnate Christ was sensible in that He ate, sat, stood, light reflected off of Him so He could be seen, and the force of sound emitted from Him as He spoke. So then the pre-incarnate Christ was not “simply utilizing the properties of the human spectrum” but these properties were and are inherent properties of the second person of the Trinity eternally.
The reason for mentioning prime matter or matter of pure potentiality is because some philosophers argued for the existence of eternal matter which was pure potentiality and existed as eternally as the Orderer of that matter. So then the Orderer and the prime matter are co-eternal. I would maintain that nothing is eternal as God is eternal, and all I was wondering is what your thoughts were in that regard.
Questions:
1.) If God is creating time, in what way did God rest on the 7th day with regard to creation?
2.) Do you say the earth is ancient and humanity recent in order to make space for the theories of cosmic and/or biological evolution?
Once again I apologize for the lateness of my post.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
[Peter Van Kleeck Jr.] I apologize for the late reply.Good questions all, and to each and every one I answer “don’t know.” Furthermore, there is no way to know since our limitations prevent us from the Divine perspective save that little bit which is revealed in Scripture.
Brother Lee,
To ask what is God doing today is a good way to state the question, but I have a question, with regard to your example of Moses’ life. How many Moseses are there? Man is mutable therefore from moment to moment he changes in position and quality so the Moses in the basket is not the Moses leading the children of Israel, yet in another sense he is. Even further the Moses of moment one is different from the Moses of moment two which goes on ad infinitum. So here is the question, is God saving Moses’ soul today? If we entertain the scenario that Moses did not exercise believing faith at the moment he became cognizant of his own sinfulness then there was a time when Moses was worthy of Hell and a time after when he was not. Is God angry at Moses today for not receiving Christ as the Messiah, not simply by knowledge of the fact that Moses was a sinner and did not receive Christ immediately but by actual presence to an alternate present which we call past? More personally, would I be an unjustified soul worthy of damnation and a glorified saint when I stand before the eternal Son of God on that day?
Man is limited to functioning in sequential time. A baby is born, becomes a toddler, a child, a teen, gets married, productive adult, grows old, dies, is resurrected, each step providing a number of experiences or events that affect the next step in the sequence. Even in our fantasy world moving up and down that timeline on a whim (you know, the time/space continuum and flux capacitor thing) the only view we can honestly imagine is affecting that sequence in the past to alter the present or future. It is simply beyond our comprehension to do other.
God has no such limitations, which was the point of my little scenario concerning Moses. What purpose does it serve to try to explain in detail that which is unknowable when God has given in Scripture all that we need to know?
And Scripture shows us conclusively what God is doing today, not the least of which is convicting of sin, righteousness, and judgment, revealing Christ, and calling on men to repent today!
It’s called faith, and God likes it.
Lee
Brother Lee
I could not agree more that faith in the teaching of Scripture is the perfect, right, and Christian expression when discussing theology, but much is at stake if we conclude our study of God’s revelation there.
A rather recent development by the name of Open Theism maintains that the Bible teaches that God knows all past events and may have understanding of all possible future scenarios, but in the end God experiences the future as we do, one moment at a time. If all we do as ambassadors of Christ is quote a verse and expect adherence without having the knowledge and tools to show how the words of said verse discredit Open Theism and why, then apostate religious practices may move about the church unabated, which can leads God’s sheep astray.
The point of this thread is not merely an intellectual exercise but rather rests at the foundation of so much of what we believe. So we must give diligence to oppose error that crops up within our sphere of influence by giving ourselves to the study of the triune God as revealed in His Word.
I think we can both agree that God loves and requires faith exercised by His children but He is not approving of lazy or careless students of Scripture.
I could not agree more that faith in the teaching of Scripture is the perfect, right, and Christian expression when discussing theology, but much is at stake if we conclude our study of God’s revelation there.
A rather recent development by the name of Open Theism maintains that the Bible teaches that God knows all past events and may have understanding of all possible future scenarios, but in the end God experiences the future as we do, one moment at a time. If all we do as ambassadors of Christ is quote a verse and expect adherence without having the knowledge and tools to show how the words of said verse discredit Open Theism and why, then apostate religious practices may move about the church unabated, which can leads God’s sheep astray.
The point of this thread is not merely an intellectual exercise but rather rests at the foundation of so much of what we believe. So we must give diligence to oppose error that crops up within our sphere of influence by giving ourselves to the study of the triune God as revealed in His Word.
I think we can both agree that God loves and requires faith exercised by His children but He is not approving of lazy or careless students of Scripture.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
[Peter Van Kleeck Jr.]…A rather recent development by the name of Open Theism maintains that the Bible teaches that God knows all past events and may have understanding of all possible future scenarios, but in the end God experiences the future as we do, one moment at a time. …And trying to completely grasp that which will be forever beyond our grasp, or explain that which is unexplainable, is supposed to combat that heresy how?
No one is “approving lazy or careless students of Scripture.” One that influenced my life some time ago would often state, when faced with a difficult question, something akin to “I appreciate the question because it drove me to the Scriptures………” Anything that drives us to Scripture is good. But when Scripture does not fully elaborate on a matter such as how the “I AM” functions in relation to time we do a significant disservice to Scripture by inserting our paradigm into the text in order to explain it, or, worse yet, believe it.
Lee
Brother Lee
I think we are on the same page, but to make sure I have one question of clarity. Do you think the discipline of systematic theology is a biblical endeavour?
I totally agree with you that we will never reach the height and depth of what God has given us in His word. Still, I believe the Bible has plenty to say about God’s relationship to time. My first post contains three such verses and you have brought to light the Scriptures which speak of God as “I AM” all of which demand our faith and attention. God has given us His word both to read and understand, so when we are faced with these verses that do not say the same thing it is incummbent upon us to try and understand and if we can’t understand then we can’t, but that does not mean we don’t try. Can you see where I’m coming from?
I think we are on the same page, but to make sure I have one question of clarity. Do you think the discipline of systematic theology is a biblical endeavour?
I totally agree with you that we will never reach the height and depth of what God has given us in His word. Still, I believe the Bible has plenty to say about God’s relationship to time. My first post contains three such verses and you have brought to light the Scriptures which speak of God as “I AM” all of which demand our faith and attention. God has given us His word both to read and understand, so when we are faced with these verses that do not say the same thing it is incummbent upon us to try and understand and if we can’t understand then we can’t, but that does not mean we don’t try. Can you see where I’m coming from?
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
Discussion