The apologetic advantage for a radical paradigm shift cannot be understated, but we will try, to keep it as brief as posisble. Following are some natural conclusions and apologetics that follow from the supposition that God exists beside not before time.
1.) Open Theism - Open theism claims that God does not know the future, or that prophecy is contingent. This need not be the case. The concept of God not knowing the future is simply non-sensical, because God is not temporally bound. He is not "before time" trying to understand what "will come to pass" rather he is beside time and co-existant with it. Prophecy is absolute (as what exists eternally in the nature of God just is, and CANNOT change) and yet this is working out simultaniously in time, so God can truly relent in scripture.
2.) Theodicy - the question of possible worlds becomes non-sensical - one might ask "could God not have made the world differently, so that there was no evil (or perhaps less evil)? This is a category fallacy! God does not exist before time, with a series of known possible future states of creation. God exists beside time, and what "is" as God exists is what "is" worked out in time, what "is" worked out in time "is" how God exists. Its a paradox. Hence the world could not have been done differently (at a future state) but it simply is what it is, and we can never move beyond that. A point of clarification, this theodicy is not going to be horribly convincing outside of a change in pre-suppositions. Hence one must first change the pre-supposition and then inject the theodicy, not the other way around.
3.) Incarnational Heresies - all the heresies that deal with the person of Christ come into focus, because the incarnational necessity of the hypostatic union is shown more clearly. Jesus can't begin human and be adopted, nor can he be only human or only God, because this dichotomizes and fundamentally seperates man and God in a deeper sense than the traditional understanding of God before time.
4.) Islam - If God is not bound by time, then he is not "before" time; and almost every religous system would want to affirm that God is not bound by time. Hence to have any sort of non-deistic system God must be incarnated and participate somehow in time. The Islamic fatalism states that God exists before time, and ultimately plans everything from the beginning, so the entire world is "the will of allah" fatalistically. If God is not before or part of time, then he must make himself part of time, and to do with he must become temporal, e.g. incarnated.
More to come later...
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Whatsoever you bind on earth...will have been bound in heaven!
Matthew 16:1-4 – The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven. He replied, "When evening comes, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,' and in the morning, 'Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away.
There is a connection here between signs of earthly things which come to pass, and the signs of the heavenly things which will shortly come to pass. The Pharisees can perceive the earthly things, but not the heavenly. They can tell the weather by various events, but they lack a heavenly connection. This lack of heavenly connection and understanding is the recurrent theme of this passage.
Matthew 16:5-12 – When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. "Be careful," Jesus said to them. "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." They discussed this among themselves and said, "It is because we didn't bring any bread." Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, "You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? Do you still not understand? Don't you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
The disciples again fail to discern a heavenly reality (the danger of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees) instead focusing on earthly things. They focus fails to understand the heavenly realms, which Jesus reminds them of when he points to his feeding of the multitude.
Matthew 16:13-16 – When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Here is a clear distinction between the earthly and the heavenly minds. The people are displaying earthly (indeed Pharisaical) opinions. They are trying to fit Christ within the framework of the rabbinical teachings. Yet Peter identifies him as the messiah, the promised Christ, he now is seeing not just with the earthly understanding, but beginning to understand the mysteries of God. This is not a replacement, but a merger or incarnation.
Matthew 16:17-18 – Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Much discussion has been here in place on the use of this verse to establish an apostolic succession. So much in fact that often commentators miss the distinctiveness of this text. Peter is now leaving what has been revealed by man and passing into what is revealed by the Father. Hence you are peter (petros or rock – the human distinctive) and on this rock (petra – the heavenly distinctive of faith) I will build my church. In this verse Heaven meets earth. The Petros (man) is joined with the Petra (rock of faith) this is the incarnation of faith through Jesus Christ!
Matthew 16:19 – I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Now we get to the direct statement. Whatever is bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven. There is a fascinating ambiguity to the underlined verbs. They are future indicative verbs. The semantical range of the two “esomai” with the passive particples for bind (deo) and loose (luo) carries both the concept of shall be and shall have been. There is an ambiguity in the text. Hence the choice of words here can carry an eternal/temporal distinction…of will do (future) and will have been done (future perfect). The focus important to this discussion is the “will have been” done. My argument here is that the concept; what we do on earth “will have been” done in heaven makes no sense in a deterministic universe. What then seems more likely is that given the contextual meeting together of the earthly (temporal) and heavenly (eternal) that this pivotal statement is the nexus of this passage. It gives a direct statement of how what we do has eternal consequence (what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven) but at the same time of how what we do has an eternal dependence (what you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven) therefore on the question of eternal/temporal choice the answer is yes! Does God regenerated man so that man might believe? YES! Does Man choose God, so that he might be regenerated? YES! The question cannot be answered with an either or but a both and. For various reasons of 16th century rationalism (which will be adduced later) these ideas were set in opposition to each other in the Arminian/Calvinist distinctions, but this was wrongheaded.
Matthew 19:20-21 – Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
Here again we connect this new reality, where the things of man are merged with the things of God, this incarnational understanding of how man will be united with Christ, centered around the historical reality of the death and resurrection of Christ!
There is a connection here between signs of earthly things which come to pass, and the signs of the heavenly things which will shortly come to pass. The Pharisees can perceive the earthly things, but not the heavenly. They can tell the weather by various events, but they lack a heavenly connection. This lack of heavenly connection and understanding is the recurrent theme of this passage.
Matthew 16:5-12 – When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. "Be careful," Jesus said to them. "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." They discussed this among themselves and said, "It is because we didn't bring any bread." Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, "You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? Do you still not understand? Don't you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
The disciples again fail to discern a heavenly reality (the danger of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees) instead focusing on earthly things. They focus fails to understand the heavenly realms, which Jesus reminds them of when he points to his feeding of the multitude.
Matthew 16:13-16 – When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Here is a clear distinction between the earthly and the heavenly minds. The people are displaying earthly (indeed Pharisaical) opinions. They are trying to fit Christ within the framework of the rabbinical teachings. Yet Peter identifies him as the messiah, the promised Christ, he now is seeing not just with the earthly understanding, but beginning to understand the mysteries of God. This is not a replacement, but a merger or incarnation.
Matthew 16:17-18 – Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Much discussion has been here in place on the use of this verse to establish an apostolic succession. So much in fact that often commentators miss the distinctiveness of this text. Peter is now leaving what has been revealed by man and passing into what is revealed by the Father. Hence you are peter (petros or rock – the human distinctive) and on this rock (petra – the heavenly distinctive of faith) I will build my church. In this verse Heaven meets earth. The Petros (man) is joined with the Petra (rock of faith) this is the incarnation of faith through Jesus Christ!
Matthew 16:19 – I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Now we get to the direct statement. Whatever is bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven. There is a fascinating ambiguity to the underlined verbs. They are future indicative verbs. The semantical range of the two “esomai” with the passive particples for bind (deo) and loose (luo) carries both the concept of shall be and shall have been. There is an ambiguity in the text. Hence the choice of words here can carry an eternal/temporal distinction…of will do (future) and will have been done (future perfect). The focus important to this discussion is the “will have been” done. My argument here is that the concept; what we do on earth “will have been” done in heaven makes no sense in a deterministic universe. What then seems more likely is that given the contextual meeting together of the earthly (temporal) and heavenly (eternal) that this pivotal statement is the nexus of this passage. It gives a direct statement of how what we do has eternal consequence (what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven) but at the same time of how what we do has an eternal dependence (what you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven) therefore on the question of eternal/temporal choice the answer is yes! Does God regenerated man so that man might believe? YES! Does Man choose God, so that he might be regenerated? YES! The question cannot be answered with an either or but a both and. For various reasons of 16th century rationalism (which will be adduced later) these ideas were set in opposition to each other in the Arminian/Calvinist distinctions, but this was wrongheaded.
Matthew 19:20-21 – Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
Here again we connect this new reality, where the things of man are merged with the things of God, this incarnational understanding of how man will be united with Christ, centered around the historical reality of the death and resurrection of Christ!
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Eternity before time?
I would here give an argument, that eternity cannot be a "moment before time" because this would make eternity a part of time. For the purpose of this argument we will first define time and make an argument for a supra-temporal God. After this we will divide time into two categories (one real and one imagined) and then argue that to think of eternity as a point "before" time in a linear fashion would be to misunderstand eternity.
Time is best described as the distance between two fixed points of space. More presicsely it is the relationship of a thing (traditionally matter, but not necessarily so) between two fixed points in space. This is how we divide and understand time. The time it takes for me to move from my chair to the door is a measure of my matter moving through two fixed points of space. Without space or substance, we could not speak of time.
Unless we would have God (as he existed before creation, in his original position) existing in a fixed spacial point; then we are bound to confess that time does not exist for God. For, as previosuly stated, to have time you must have substance and at least two different points of space through which the substance has existed. This would mean that one of God's attributes would be spacial existance within two fixed points.
Scripture excludes the possibiility that God might be spacial (Psa. 139:7-8, 2 Chron. 2:6) or that he exists within time (Jam. 1:17, Psa. 90:4, 2 Pet. 3:8, Rev. 21:6). We should therefore also affirm that He exists outside of space or time and that these are part of his creation, not a precondition of his existence or essential attributes of his nature.
Remember that we said that time is a description of the relationship between substance and two fixed points in space. Now lets construct a model to show this relationship.
(A)---->----->----->--(SUBSTANCE)---->------->------>----->---(B)
(A) is the first point in space, (B) is the second, the arrows show the relationship between Substance and the points as it is in motion between them. This is actual time.
Suppose for a moment this model was all the time that had ever existed, because the two fixed points were the only two points of space possible. Now we might ask what if anything can come before or after these points (A) and (B)? Can we logically concieve of something beyond these two points? I think the answer is yes! We can concieve of a potential time, or a third possible point of space.
{c} - - - (A)---->----->-->--(SUBSTANCE)---->------->----->---(B)
Notice here that the lower case {c} is not an actual point, just a potential one, we can now describe not only the actual time between A and B but the potential time between either (A) and {c} or (B) and {c}. While this doesn't exist actually, in potential it could. So if we give a value of 10 between the distance of (A) and (B) we might also give a potential value of 3 between (A) and {c}. So long as this point {c} has no content or substance, it is but a potential time, but the moment we give it substance it becomes actual time.
If God exists in a linear sense before time at some point {c} than we have an intractable problem; for if God exists at point {c} then the point has substance and it seems that God is within time actually (not just potentially.) This means that time would become an essential attribute of God.
If God was temporal, then, we have further problems. Namely, if temporality is an essential attribute of God, then to be temporal he must have at least two reference points. It might be the case that these loci are the beginning of creation (A) and His aseic existence (B). This, however, would make creation a necessary condition for his existence, because as stated before if time is an essential attribute of who he is and if time needs two points and if creation is the other point then it must always have existed and it must always continue to exist for God to exist. Not only this, but what do we call something which has always existed, except for God himself, and so creation would become part of the substance of God, an intractable problem.
Another possible answer for a temporally extant God would be to use the Trinity to gain at least two (or as is the case three) reference points, but remember these must be points within space, which would mean the ontological Trinity is confined within and defined by a spacial relationship between one person and the other. Not only would this lend towards various ancient heresies which divided the persons of the trinity, but it would make God existing locally; not illocally.
The only answer then is that God exists beside of time in a special sense, not before time in a linear sense. To affirm otherwise would be to either make God have spacial content, or make the creation an essential part of God. Further work will be done on this blog to define how precisely God exists beside time, and what I mean by beside (to avoid reestablishing the linear model problems I just defeated). For now it suffices to say that God cannot exist in a linear fashion "before" time, without irrevocably damaging God's nature and his aseity.
Time is best described as the distance between two fixed points of space. More presicsely it is the relationship of a thing (traditionally matter, but not necessarily so) between two fixed points in space. This is how we divide and understand time. The time it takes for me to move from my chair to the door is a measure of my matter moving through two fixed points of space. Without space or substance, we could not speak of time.
Unless we would have God (as he existed before creation, in his original position) existing in a fixed spacial point; then we are bound to confess that time does not exist for God. For, as previosuly stated, to have time you must have substance and at least two different points of space through which the substance has existed. This would mean that one of God's attributes would be spacial existance within two fixed points.
Scripture excludes the possibiility that God might be spacial (Psa. 139:7-8, 2 Chron. 2:6) or that he exists within time (Jam. 1:17, Psa. 90:4, 2 Pet. 3:8, Rev. 21:6). We should therefore also affirm that He exists outside of space or time and that these are part of his creation, not a precondition of his existence or essential attributes of his nature.
Remember that we said that time is a description of the relationship between substance and two fixed points in space. Now lets construct a model to show this relationship.
(A)---->----->----->--(SUBSTANCE)---->------->------>----->---(B)
(A) is the first point in space, (B) is the second, the arrows show the relationship between Substance and the points as it is in motion between them. This is actual time.
Suppose for a moment this model was all the time that had ever existed, because the two fixed points were the only two points of space possible. Now we might ask what if anything can come before or after these points (A) and (B)? Can we logically concieve of something beyond these two points? I think the answer is yes! We can concieve of a potential time, or a third possible point of space.
{c} - - - (A)---->----->-->--(SUBSTANCE)---->------->----->---(B)
Notice here that the lower case {c} is not an actual point, just a potential one, we can now describe not only the actual time between A and B but the potential time between either (A) and {c} or (B) and {c}. While this doesn't exist actually, in potential it could. So if we give a value of 10 between the distance of (A) and (B) we might also give a potential value of 3 between (A) and {c}. So long as this point {c} has no content or substance, it is but a potential time, but the moment we give it substance it becomes actual time.
If God exists in a linear sense before time at some point {c} than we have an intractable problem; for if God exists at point {c} then the point has substance and it seems that God is within time actually (not just potentially.) This means that time would become an essential attribute of God.
If God was temporal, then, we have further problems. Namely, if temporality is an essential attribute of God, then to be temporal he must have at least two reference points. It might be the case that these loci are the beginning of creation (A) and His aseic existence (B). This, however, would make creation a necessary condition for his existence, because as stated before if time is an essential attribute of who he is and if time needs two points and if creation is the other point then it must always have existed and it must always continue to exist for God to exist. Not only this, but what do we call something which has always existed, except for God himself, and so creation would become part of the substance of God, an intractable problem.
Another possible answer for a temporally extant God would be to use the Trinity to gain at least two (or as is the case three) reference points, but remember these must be points within space, which would mean the ontological Trinity is confined within and defined by a spacial relationship between one person and the other. Not only would this lend towards various ancient heresies which divided the persons of the trinity, but it would make God existing locally; not illocally.
The only answer then is that God exists beside of time in a special sense, not before time in a linear sense. To affirm otherwise would be to either make God have spacial content, or make the creation an essential part of God. Further work will be done on this blog to define how precisely God exists beside time, and what I mean by beside (to avoid reestablishing the linear model problems I just defeated). For now it suffices to say that God cannot exist in a linear fashion "before" time, without irrevocably damaging God's nature and his aseity.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Simulapsarianism
The name of the blog, as well as the soteriology to which I ascribe (and so far as I know I pioneered) ought to explained first. By A temporal eternalism I seek to designate the lack of temporality within my view of eternalism. This on the surface seems to be no large task within the realm of theological thought or that of philosophy of time. Calvin, in seeking to distinguish the persons of the trinity, affirms that we "..must not seek in eternity a before or an after." [Institutes XIII-19] Yet we have theories of the order of divine decrees, which would assert some temporality to their generation. We have discussions about how God "before time" existed and was active in decretive decree. I believe that we have falsely assumed a philosophical paradigm and because of this the great controversy of arminianism and calvinism, of free-will and determinism, has been all along asking and responding to wrong questions. My contention is two-fold. First that one cannot place an "eternal moment" before time in a linear fashion, without having that moment be relegated to time itself. Hence most theology makes God supra-temporal, but not eternal, though a simple misthinking of the problem. Secondly, I contend that by properly viewing the nature of God as being not before but "beside" time we solve many problems. If we may read this framework as a hermeneutical presupposition, we can explain many of the intractable verses of scripture which lead to the false dichotomy of free-will and determinism. We all assume a framework in scripture, both as to how God speaks, and from where. If we assume that he speaks "from before" in a linear sense, then we are forced to assume one of two options. Option one is that He speaks authoritatively from before and hence the universe is deterministic. Therefore man does not have a volitional choice outside of his contingency, and when a scripture seems to imply that he does, we must reinterpret it to fit the argument. Statements such as; "Choose this day whom you will serve," or "God wills that all men be saved," must be understood by appeal to a warning without a well meant offer, or we must construct God as having two wills, or define "all" as "all the saved." These answers create more problems than they solve. The ohter choice is to see God's beforeness as contingent on man's free choice, hence he only foreknows, but does not determine man's choice in salvation. This creates problems with the sovereignty of God and with the efficacy of his power. Furthermore we must read scripture eisogetically. When scripture says "Esau have I loved and Jacob have I hated, from their birth" we must make special arguments about nations not people (Im not sure how hating a whole nation, rather than just one person, free's God from determinism) or if scripture speaks of God choosing, we must add "according to his extensive foreknowledge" simply for the sake of keeping our framework. In short I contend that both of the highly developed and defended systems of Calvinism and Arminianism have erred because of their presuppositions. Both assume a "God linearly before time" and hence both fail to properly read scrpiture or arrive at a cogent and fair understanding of the issue.
Properly, God is positionally before and co-existant with time, so that at every moment he is present, "alongside" of, but not before. This requires much explanation, which will follow on this blog, but the primary contention is that when we ask questions of the ordo salutis, such as "Does God's regeneration preceed or procede faith?" we make a false dichotomy. The answer is regeneration is immediately simultanious to faith, because God is not before but intimitly beside time. The divine decrees are neither infra or supra lapsarian, but simulapsarian...For God (sans incarnation) events occur simutaniously...they just are. So the moment I believe, I choose, I create by my own volitional free will choice, at this very precise moment eternally God determines, regenerates, and rescues me. My free-will is coterminous with God's sovreign decree, so that I might neither rob God of his power, nor portray him as a mysterious and capricious God.
Properly, God is positionally before and co-existant with time, so that at every moment he is present, "alongside" of, but not before. This requires much explanation, which will follow on this blog, but the primary contention is that when we ask questions of the ordo salutis, such as "Does God's regeneration preceed or procede faith?" we make a false dichotomy. The answer is regeneration is immediately simultanious to faith, because God is not before but intimitly beside time. The divine decrees are neither infra or supra lapsarian, but simulapsarian...For God (sans incarnation) events occur simutaniously...they just are. So the moment I believe, I choose, I create by my own volitional free will choice, at this very precise moment eternally God determines, regenerates, and rescues me. My free-will is coterminous with God's sovreign decree, so that I might neither rob God of his power, nor portray him as a mysterious and capricious God.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)