ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[DFT_Dave]

Somehow you believe that every thing Aristotle said about God was wrong.

You do know that he could have been right about some things?

This is where the idea of impassibility comes from and what it really means.

Philosophic conclusion:
God did not create the world and cannot enter it

Plato's God is not the creator of the world, he has only moved it from a disordered state to an orderly one. Plato said, "God wishing that all things should be good, and so far as possible nothing be imperfect, and finding the visible universe (of water, fire, earth, and air) in a state not of rest but of inharmonious and disorderly motion, reduced it to order from disorder."14

For Aristotle, the world, orderly movement, change, and time are eternal. He argues, "It is impossible for movement either to come into being or to perish, since it has always existed. Nor can time do either of these things, since there could not be anything "prior" (before) or "posterior" (after) if there were no time; and movement is as continues as time, since time is either the same thing as movement or is an affection of it. There is something that is always being moved...(by) something that moves things without being moved."15

For both philosophers, movement, change, and time are imperfections. God is perfect and always will be. The world is imperfect and always will be. That's why their God cannot enter the world and act in human history. It is clearly impossible for a perfectly changeless, immovable, and timeless deity to enter an imperfect world of change, movement, and time. That's why Plato says that God is "imperceptible to sight or the other senses (hearing for example) the object of thought (only)."16

For Aristotle, a perfect being cannot think imperfect thoughts; therefore, God cannot think about an imperfect world; he can only think about his perfect self. His thoughts cannot even change. This is what He says about the "divine mine." "Plainly it thinks of what is most divine and most valuable, and plainly it does not change; for change would be for the worse, and already be a movement...The mind then, must think of itself if it is the best of things."17

http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/Theism.html

--Dave

 

[Lighthouse]

Hypostatic Union: "the essence of His being."
Philippians 2:6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Two-forms, one-nature/essence.

The doctrine of the Hypostatic Union is that He had [and still has?] two natures. And it is wrong.

 

[godrulz]

The doctrine of the Hypostatic Union is that He had [and still has?] two natures. And it is wrong.

We can find verses to show that Jesus is 100% God. We also have verses that show He is 100% man. The exact relationship between Deity and humanity in one person is not understood perfectly, but we can make a statement affirming both natures without compromising them.

Even after the resurrection, He is called the man Christ Jesus (glorified/resurrected vs flesh and blood).

 

[Lighthouse]

We can find verses to show that Jesus is 100% God. We also have verses that show He is 100% man. The exact relationship between Deity and humanity in one person is not understood perfectly, but we can make a statement affirming both natures without compromising them.

Even after the resurrection, He is called the man Christ Jesus (glorified/resurrected vs flesh and blood).

Human is not a nature. Neither is God. His nature is righteous, and that is His only nature, while ours is unrighteousness [until He makes us righteous, in Him, with His righteousness, which is the only righteousness there is that's true*].

*He has already done this for those who are His.

 

[tetelestai]

*He has already done this for those who are His.

Didn't know you were a Calvinist.

 

[Lighthouse]

Didn't know you were a Calvinist.

There's nothing Calvinist about the fact that He has made me righteous.

If I said I was made righteous before the beginning, then that would be Calvinist.

 

[godrulz]

Human is not a nature. Neither is God. His nature is righteous, and that is His only nature, while ours is unrighteousness [until He makes us righteous, in Him, with His righteousness, which is the only righteousness there is that's true*].

*He has already done this for those who are His.

'Nature' is a metaphysical, theological, ontological, philosophical term about stuff, essence, being (i.e. nature). When doing theology, there is terminology so we can communicate precisely (cf. medicine lingo). Just because you narrowly define the term to suit your purposes does not mean that is the standard, precise use of the term.

God is spirit (immaterial). This is a statement of His essence, nature, substance.

Dogs have a dog nature.

Rocks have a rock nature.

Man has a human nature.

Jesus is God (Jn. 1:1), but He also added humanity (Jn. 1:14; Philippians 2:5-11).

When formulating beliefs about the incarnation or trinity, we can and do use terms (homoousias, etc.) to differentiate nature from personal distinction, etc.

You are rejecting a legit statement over your subjective semantics. This works in your brain, but not in the academic world over the last 2000 years.

 

[Lighthouse]

'Nature' is a metaphysical, theological, ontological, philosophical term about stuff, essence, being (i.e. nature). When doing theology, there is terminology so we can communicate precisely (cf. medicine lingo). Just because you narrowly define the term to suit your purposes does not mean that is the standard, precise use of the term.

God is spirit (immaterial). This is a statement of His essence, nature, substance.

Dogs have a dog nature.

Rocks have a rock nature.

Man has a human nature.

Jesus is God (Jn. 1:1), but He also added humanity (Jn. 1:14; Philippians 2:5-11).

When formulating beliefs about the incarnation or trinity, we can and do use terms (homoousias, etc.) to differentiate nature from personal distinction, etc.

You are rejecting a legit statement over your subjective semantics. This works in your brain, but not in the academic world over the last 2000 years.

It works in my brain because it's logical. But, as you know [being OV], man is not always logical. And, therefore, neither are the doctrines, philosophies or theories of man. Especially among the scholarly, who ofttimes have been educated to the point of not being able to think for themselves.

 

[tetelestai]

If I said I was made righteous before the beginning, then that would be Calvinist.

How do you explain this passage?

(Eph 1:4) even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:

P.S. remember, I am not a Calvinist, but am curious how you will answer this.

 

[Lighthouse]

How do you explain this passage?

(Eph 1:4) even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:

P.S. remember, I am not a Calvinist, but am curious how you will answer this.

Corporate election. I was not specified out as an individual. t was decided that anyone who accepted Him would be thus.

Take for example [not my illustration] a plane. It is decided before anyone buys a ticket where the plane is going. Therefore it is decided that anyone who buys a ticket is going to that destination, before anyone buys a ticket. But for me to be one of those passengers I have to buy a ticket. Of course, I also have to get on the plane, but that's implied, is it not?

 

[godrulz]

C vs I election

 

[Lon]

Two forms or two natures, which is it? Can Jesus be "fully" God if he occupies time and space, experiences change when the "Word became flesh", and has emotions. Doesn't Jesus stand in contradiction to God's timeless, immutable, and impassible nature/form?

--Dave

YES! Which is why you can't say He's constrained. I'm glad you either see the loopholes in the OV or are really more in favor of the traditional stance.

 

[Lon]

There are several incarnational heresies. The best statement of orthodoxy is that He is one person with two natures.

Ding ding ding! Win.

 

[Lon]

Ask Mr. Religion
Theologian - Calvinist
AMRA-BEQ16 - September 25th, 2007, 06:01 AM

"God is pure actuality, thus having no potentiality"

I looked over the sites and found this. I'm well acquainted with the divinity issues in the early church and the reason for the controversy is Greek philosophy.

Aristotle said, "There is something that moves things while being itself immovable and existing in actuality (without any potential for change), it is not possible in any way for that thing to be in any state other that in which it is."

http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/Theism.html

--Dave

This doesn't mean exactly what you think it does. Remember when we talked about atoms? How about cells? They have much movement within them yet remain unmoved (barring entropy or invasion). I know, I know, cells move (usually slowly) but the point is, a thing can be active without movement: You guys are too quick on this one before understanding the point. God says of Himself "I don't change" and "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever." Draw a line here for understanding the difference between hard and qualified immutability. God says He changes, He says He is responsive to our prayer. Shoot for the middle, not a mischaracterization. We may be a little more or less to a side on the issue, but we all understand what this does and doesn't mean.

 

[Lon]

I believe God is able to explain things, so that even I, can understand them!

Not true! Because you are a 'finite' (means created with limitations), there are things you and I will never understand. A simple analogy: No matter how many times you try to explain Algebra to your dog, he'll never get it.
"My ways are higher than your ways." "It is not to be revealed to you at this time..." etc. etc.

I'm positive you agree with this, we just need to keep our statements from the extremes, we already have enough disagreements as it is without you and Dave imaginatively creating more. Let's by all means agree on what we agree on as I've done two posts above with GR.

 

[DFT_Dave]

This doesn't mean exactly what you think it does. Remember when we talked about atoms? How about cells? They have much movement within them yet remain unmoved (barring entropy or invasion). I know, I know, cells move (usually slowly) but the point is, a thing can be active without movement: You guys are too quick on this one before understanding the point. God says of Himself "I don't change" and "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever." Draw a line here for understanding the difference between hard and qualified immutability. God says He changes, He says He is responsive to our prayer. Shoot for the middle, not a mischaracterization. We may be a little more or less to a side on the issue, but we all understand what this does and doesn't mean.

God's character does not change nor Christ's. Both are holy; both are righteous; both are love; etc. God's nature does not change nor Christ's. Both experience time; both experience movement; and both experience emotions; etc.

To say "a thing can be active without movement" is nonsense because activity is a form of movement. Communication is a form of movement; love is a form of movement.

Aristotle defined four kinds of change that he saw in nature. "Change of what a thing is is simple coming-to-be and perishing; change of quantity is growth and diminution; change of affection is alteration; change of place is motion."4 He also said everything in nature "changes from being potentially to being in actuality; a thing changes, for instance, from being potentially white to being actually white."5

We have drawn a line but not as you say "between a hard and qualified immutability" because there is no such thing. We have drawn a line between what is unchangeable in God and what can change.

--Dave

 

[Lighthouse]

Just because it's orthodox doesn't mean it's true.

 

[tetelestai]

Let's by all means agree on what we agree on as I've done two posts above with GR.

Something you and I agree on:

A desire to elevate God above all else and maintain a high view of His sovereignty.

 

[godrulz]

Just because it's orthodox doesn't mean it's true.

Orthodoxy refers to right rule and truth; heterodoxy is heresy or error; orthopraxy is right practice.

The Greek Orthodox church is not right about everything. Perhaps you mean that TRADITION is not always true (orthodoxy, by definition, should be true; this is why I talk about biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity in contrast to false cults and religions).

 

[Lon]

God's character does not change nor Christ's. Both are holy; both are righteous; both are love; etc. God's nature does not change nor Christ's. Both experience time; both experience movement; and both experience emotions; etc.

To say "a thing can be active without movement" is nonsense because activity is a form of movement. Communication is a form of movement; love is a form of movement.

Aristotle defined four kinds of change that he saw in nature. "Change of what a thing is is simple coming-to-be and perishing; change of quantity is growth and diminution; change of affection is alteration; change of place is motion."4 He also said everything in nature "changes from being potentially to being in actuality; a thing changes, for instance, from being potentially white to being actually white."5

We have drawn a line but not as you say "between a hard and qualified immutability" because there is no such thing. We have drawn a line between what is unchangeable in God and what can change.

--Dave

Yes but all activity is within the unmovable object. Does an egg move when a chick is developing? All motion is contained.

I still think you are inventing an issue for separation here and again we have enough differences without perceived ones.