ECT Time & Anthropomorphism with GOD
- Thread starter Tambora
- Start date
Fair enough.
But that gives angels (creation) the ability to both live inside and outside of time (ie. not bound by either, just as GOD is not bound by either).
Well like I said, I don't know how it works. But whatever ability angels have is with permission from God of course.
Derf
Well-known member
In our conception of the earth and heavens, all heavens are "up" for us on the earth (with some leeway granted to those in airplanes or on high mountains). But we also base our "up" on the direction gravity pulls us, which is localized to the earth for us.
Do you think the "heaven of heavens" is "up" from the earth? Or does it change to "up" from some other celestial body (like the sun when in our system, and the black hole in the middle of our galaxy)? In which case, Jesus, when He ascended, would have to have been pointed in the right direction, if He needed to keep going "up" beyond our solar system and galaxy.
Or, if "up" is determined from the earth's perspective for the whole universe, then it suggests the earth really is the center of the universe.
Bit of a rabbit trail, sorry. But perhaps not so, as the center of the universe would be where the center of mass of the universe is, and as such, the passage of time in the center is likely to be much slower than the outer reaches, the mass being considered a point source for gravity, at least to everything outside the universe.
If God is outside the universe, and He experiences time, somehow, then time would ran much faster for Him than for the whole of the universe, and especially for the earth, according to the general theory of relativity. Thus, "a day is as a thousand years", perhaps. In this sense, it it easy to see that God could have time to do all kinds of things in the space of a day on earth.
Because time is the distance between events.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Impassibility of God
Impassibility of God
God's impassibility is a quality of his aseity or divine fullness. Unlike us, God is not dependent upon anything outside himself for emotional fulfilment or satisfaction.
Impassibility then, is not a defect in God. He is not emotionally stunted or remote. Rather he is perfectly fulfilled and satisfied in the perichoretic fellowship of the Trinity. It is out of this self-sufficient aseity that God relates to us as his creatures. He is not dependent upon us for love or emotional completion.
God is a spirit, without body, parts or passions. For example, God's anger does not make Him unhappy: He is forever blessed. And so no human action can alter Him.
As to blessedness, it relates to intellect and will. In God there is perfect knowledge that leaves no room for doubts or questions, including of course a knowledge of his own blessedness; and there is perfect complacency of the will in that. God knows the object of greatest delight—Himself—and he knows it perfectly; God loves the object of greatest delight—Himself—and possesses it perfectly. What room is there for imperfection of joy in that? Naturally this exceeds our grasp, and is truly inconceivable; not simply that it is on a scale that begs our comprehension, but that manner of knowledge and delight in God is, strictly, inconceivable: we cannot picture it, we cannot state it, we cannot analyze it.
When we say that God is without passions, we mean that He is not "affected" by circumstances, being overcome by circumstances, as we are. There are no surprises with Him, He is not "put to the worse" by our sins, etc. He has, from all eternity, known what He would do, and His divine complacency is unruffled by human history.
When God expresses Himself in terms of wrath, love, pleasure, etc. these are terms that describe what God would reveal Himself to do based on certain events that He Himself has decreed. There are times when He reveals Himself in one way to bring about a "reaction" in us, which is part of His original decree. All the while, however, He is not reacting to us, but revealing Himself anthropopassionately, working providentially to bring to pass infallibly His most Holy will.
When I press on by arm, surface of my body at the point of pressure apparently reacts to that pressure by yielding—by moving toward the bone, etc. This is because my body is "passable". The same is true of our thoughts, emotions, etc. In other words, of the inner man. I can be "affected" in the inner man by a word, etc. But God is not so. He is impassable (not subject to emotion), not affected by anything outside Himself. His divine complacency is unruffled by the creature. God has no passions does not mean He is unfeeling (impassive), or that there is nothing in Him that corresponds to emotions and affections in us, but that whereas human passions are often involuntary and unstable, the corresponding attitudes in God have the nature of deliberate, voluntary choices, and therefore are not of the same order as human passions at all. God's affections are permanent not transient. Of course the omniscient God does not change His mind, but He changes His modes of dealing with us, and says it in Scripture in ways we can comprehend.
The reason Scripture uses anthropopathic language so extensively and unhesitatingly is because it undoubtedly does give us a better idea than we would get by any other approach—as long as we remember its limitations and don't let the analogy press us too far.
We are limited; we are bound by time and space; we are changeable; we are easily influenced and acted upon; we are in a body susceptible of many sensations. All these things must be removed from God's experience: there is no change, no distraction, no interruption. But that does not make God's joy less than ours; on the contrary, His joy is infinite, and infinitely pure, unalloyed with anything else, as ours inevitably is. Even our intellectual and spiritual pleasures are not only very different in degree from God's, but are also rooted in our creaturely and physical reality.
While great music might help us to grasp that there is a sort of intellectual and volitional pleasure that is rather different from what we normally experience, and give us a sense that we have a feeling of eternity, it is quite obvious that music is rooted in time, succession, and the physical reality of sound. So that strictly speaking, God's blessedness will be unimaginable. We can say that it is like our blessedness with all imperfections removed, but we've never experienced anything with all imperfections removed: thus there is still no experiential point of contact. In this regard also we cannot picture God. What we can say is that He has made us with a capacity for delight, and therefore His own capacity for delight is greater than ours. Though much of what we experience in delight is inapplicable to God, perhaps even aspects that we are accustomed to thinking of as fundamental, yet the real good of delight is much more in God than in us.
AMR
Impassibility of God
God's impassibility is a quality of his aseity or divine fullness. Unlike us, God is not dependent upon anything outside himself for emotional fulfilment or satisfaction.
Impassibility then, is not a defect in God. He is not emotionally stunted or remote. Rather he is perfectly fulfilled and satisfied in the perichoretic fellowship of the Trinity. It is out of this self-sufficient aseity that God relates to us as his creatures. He is not dependent upon us for love or emotional completion.
God is a spirit, without body, parts or passions. For example, God's anger does not make Him unhappy: He is forever blessed. And so no human action can alter Him.
As to blessedness, it relates to intellect and will. In God there is perfect knowledge that leaves no room for doubts or questions, including of course a knowledge of his own blessedness; and there is perfect complacency of the will in that. God knows the object of greatest delight—Himself—and he knows it perfectly; God loves the object of greatest delight—Himself—and possesses it perfectly. What room is there for imperfection of joy in that? Naturally this exceeds our grasp, and is truly inconceivable; not simply that it is on a scale that begs our comprehension, but that manner of knowledge and delight in God is, strictly, inconceivable: we cannot picture it, we cannot state it, we cannot analyze it.
When we say that God is without passions, we mean that He is not "affected" by circumstances, being overcome by circumstances, as we are. There are no surprises with Him, He is not "put to the worse" by our sins, etc. He has, from all eternity, known what He would do, and His divine complacency is unruffled by human history.
When God expresses Himself in terms of wrath, love, pleasure, etc. these are terms that describe what God would reveal Himself to do based on certain events that He Himself has decreed. There are times when He reveals Himself in one way to bring about a "reaction" in us, which is part of His original decree. All the while, however, He is not reacting to us, but revealing Himself anthropopassionately, working providentially to bring to pass infallibly His most Holy will.
When I press on by arm, surface of my body at the point of pressure apparently reacts to that pressure by yielding—by moving toward the bone, etc. This is because my body is "passable". The same is true of our thoughts, emotions, etc. In other words, of the inner man. I can be "affected" in the inner man by a word, etc. But God is not so. He is impassable (not subject to emotion), not affected by anything outside Himself. His divine complacency is unruffled by the creature. God has no passions does not mean He is unfeeling (impassive), or that there is nothing in Him that corresponds to emotions and affections in us, but that whereas human passions are often involuntary and unstable, the corresponding attitudes in God have the nature of deliberate, voluntary choices, and therefore are not of the same order as human passions at all. God's affections are permanent not transient. Of course the omniscient God does not change His mind, but He changes His modes of dealing with us, and says it in Scripture in ways we can comprehend.
The reason Scripture uses anthropopathic language so extensively and unhesitatingly is because it undoubtedly does give us a better idea than we would get by any other approach—as long as we remember its limitations and don't let the analogy press us too far.
We are limited; we are bound by time and space; we are changeable; we are easily influenced and acted upon; we are in a body susceptible of many sensations. All these things must be removed from God's experience: there is no change, no distraction, no interruption. But that does not make God's joy less than ours; on the contrary, His joy is infinite, and infinitely pure, unalloyed with anything else, as ours inevitably is. Even our intellectual and spiritual pleasures are not only very different in degree from God's, but are also rooted in our creaturely and physical reality.
While great music might help us to grasp that there is a sort of intellectual and volitional pleasure that is rather different from what we normally experience, and give us a sense that we have a feeling of eternity, it is quite obvious that music is rooted in time, succession, and the physical reality of sound. So that strictly speaking, God's blessedness will be unimaginable. We can say that it is like our blessedness with all imperfections removed, but we've never experienced anything with all imperfections removed: thus there is still no experiential point of contact. In this regard also we cannot picture God. What we can say is that He has made us with a capacity for delight, and therefore His own capacity for delight is greater than ours. Though much of what we experience in delight is inapplicable to God, perhaps even aspects that we are accustomed to thinking of as fundamental, yet the real good of delight is much more in God than in us.
AMR
My bible says yes.
Does GOD experience the same emotions we do?
Scripture says He does.
The same Hebrew, Greek, and English words are used for GOD and mankind.
Our experience may not be as intense as GOD's, and we may be limited in our options of how we can respond (such as: we don't have the option to flood the earth), but the emotion is the same.
anger
regret
sorrow
jealousy
pleased
etc.
And GOD responds.
Scripture says He does.
The same Hebrew, Greek, and English words are used for GOD and mankind.
Our experience may not be as intense as GOD's, and we may be limited in our options of how we can respond (such as: we don't have the option to flood the earth), but the emotion is the same.
anger
regret
sorrow
jealousy
pleased
etc.
And GOD responds.
I agree with what you are teaching; however, for me, it seems like a lecture addressed to doctoral students of theology.
What you have to offer would be better received if you explained in a more simple text.
You might say God might have a reaction of disgust to men's sinful will, but it does not cause Him to think less of himself, or regret what He has done. God might be disgusted with mans choices, but He does not ever feel at a loss, or as if He regrets his decisions.
Then you have to explain the words in scripture when the writing does say God did regret creating man. Once you explain this, you have a better way to get the message understood
Some cultures experience more a THROUGH time sense of time.
Others experience more an IN time, sense of time.
To this latter group largely belong people from the Middle East and the Mediterranean, and other cultures.
In contrast, most within Western cultures will tend to experience more a THROUGH time, sense of time.
Both of which make for all sorts of problems in perception, and so on.
More balanced individuals tend to manifest a balanced sense of both.
And each of those senses of time, has its strengths and weaknesses.
This is readily evident in every aspect of life, and in every person.
Either of which even impacts each Bible student's experiencing of and basic approach to God Himself and or His Book.
It explains why Pentecostals are..., and why Baptists are not...
Darned fascinating is what these two senses of time are.
And that is just two of those kinds of sense of time!
"And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man." (1 Corinthians 15:49)
The heavenly man is Jesus Christ who said if you have seen me you have seen the Father. (John 14:9)
Why do you not believe Jesus' teachings?
Derf
Well-known member
Maybe the analogy works the other way. That what we experience as "anger" or "jealousy" is an analogical representation of what God would do in the same circumstances, only He has the correct reaction every time. Thus, perhaps we are describing ourselves in a theomorphism. Maybe He exhibits these things in a perfect way, and when we do so, imperfectly, we are revealing ourselves theopassionately.
I suggest this because our language, and our ability to understand it, came from God, as did our emotions. Thus, our descriptions of things like heaven, hell, the ark of the covenant, the tabernacle, etc, seem to be based on more real things in heaven that are described in the best way we can based on our limited ability to understand such things. But when God describes Himself ("I am a jealous God", or "Then they will know that I am the Lord, when I lay my vengeance upon them", or "The Lord is a jealous and avenging God; the Lord is avenging and wrathful;"), He no doubt uses perfect language, as He designed for us and for us to be able to understand, to do so.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yeah, I agree. It brings this verse to mind. I see God's anger as righteous anger, and righteous anger is something we cannot know until we see it through God's eyes.
Jeremiah 23:19-20
19 Behold, a whirlwind of the Lord is gone forth in fury, even a grievous whirlwind: it shall fall grievously upon the head of the wicked. 20 The anger of the Lord shall not return, until he have executed, and till he have performed the thoughts of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it perfectly.
19 Behold, a whirlwind of the Lord is gone forth in fury, even a grievous whirlwind: it shall fall grievously upon the head of the wicked. 20 The anger of the Lord shall not return, until he have executed, and till he have performed the thoughts of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it perfectly.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Just curious, but what do you think the words "dispensation of the fulness of times" found in the following verse are referring to?:
"That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him" (Eph.1:10).
Thanks!
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
As human beings in flesh and blood bodies we are bound by time. We cannot move forward in time and we cannot go back in time.
On the other hand, I see no evidence that the God is bound by time and therefore He must exist outside of time. God, being both infinite and eternal, is not bound by either space or time, as we are. William Ames said the following:
According to Ames all things in the eternal state are "simultaneous and there is nothing before or after." This idea that all things are "simultaneous" with God was expressed by another author, Loraine Boettner:
Therefore, since God does not actually look into the future because with Him all things are happening simultaneously the future in regard to human choices are not limited in anyway.
The future is open!
On the other hand, I see no evidence that the God is bound by time and therefore He must exist outside of time. God, being both infinite and eternal, is not bound by either space or time, as we are. William Ames said the following:
"There is properly only one act of the will in God because in Him all things are simultaneous and there is nothing before or after. So there is only decree about the end and means, but for the manner of understanding we say that, so far as intention is concerned, God wills the end before the means" [emphasis mine](William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, translation and introduction by John, Dystra, Eudsen, [Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1968], 153-154).
According to Ames all things in the eternal state are "simultaneous and there is nothing before or after." This idea that all things are "simultaneous" with God was expressed by another author, Loraine Boettner:
"Much of the difficulty in regard to the doctrine of Predestination is due to the finite character of our mind, which can grasp only a few details at a time, and which understands only a part of the relations between these. We are creatures of time, and often fail to take into consideration the fact that God is not limited as we are. That which appears to us as 'past,' 'present,' and 'future,' is all 'present' to His mind. It is an eternal 'now'...Just as He sees at one glance a road leading from New York to San Francisco, while we see only a small portion of it as we pass over it, so He sees all events in history, past, present, and future at one glance" (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination [Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1932]).
Therefore, since God does not actually look into the future because with Him all things are happening simultaneously the future in regard to human choices are not limited in anyway.
The future is open!
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
I suppose then that Jesus is not really at God's right hand waiting until He brings His enemies under subjection--Ps 110:1.
But you are also wrong about what we humans can do. We all move forward in time, minute by minute, hour by hour, at least until we die.
And regarding "evidence", there is absolutely no evidence that God can go back in time, nor that He can go forward in time any differently than we can--by progressing through it. This does not confirm that He is bound to traverse through time, but there is no evidence that He doesn't do so, and plenty of evidence that He does.
Derf
Well-known member
I know AMR does what you are saying in some of his posts, but in this particular one he was very careful, it seemed to me, to explain the less common words in ways we could all understand them.
The concept, whether we agree or not, is a difficult concept that is unlikely to be able to be conveyed without some difficult text.