Two definitions given for the word "purpose" are:
A) "the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc."
Synonyms: target, objective, object, rationale, point
B) "an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal."
See https://www.dictionary.com/browse/purpose
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jehovah God has an eternal purpose: he initially made the earth to be inhabited by righteous people. That was his original telos. But although Adam and Eve sinned and that purpose has not been realized yet, we believe it will be fulfilled since God's word cannot return to him "void" and God cannot lie (Isaiah 55:10-11; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). However, some have criticized this way of framing, articulating, and thinking about what God does, is doing, and will do. Hence, do Witnesses have a sound basis for believing that God has an eternal purpose?
Ephesians 3:11 in Greek: κατὰ πρόθεσιν τῶν αἰώνων ἣν ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν,
C.H. Talbert writes (Ephesians and Colossians, pp. 99-100):
"This divine purpose—the reunification of the cosmos—now made known to the unruly powers is an eternal purpose, which he accomplished by means of the Christ, Jesus our Lord (en tō Christō, understood instrumentally, that is, by his death; Hoehner 2002, 464), by means of whom (en hō, understood instrumentally) we continually have boldness and access with confidence (cf. Heb 4:16; 10:19) through his faithfulness (3:11–12; pisteōs autou understood as a subjective genitive, thus Christ’s faithfulness; Foster 2002)."
Other commentaries and sources likewise point out that Ephesians 3:11 is talking about an eternal purpose formed in Christ or a purpose of the ages. Compare Genesis 3:15; Galatians 3:16. We have good reason for believing that God long ago formed an eternal purpose that will be fulfilled.
Hebrews ch.2:5NKJV"For He has not put the World(Oikumene)to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels."
ReplyDeleteStrong's defines Oikumene as the inhabited earth see Matthew ch.24:14 ,Luke ch.2:1
👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
ReplyDeleteAs you know αἰώνος is a notoriously difficult to translate, not that this is an issue for this passage.
ReplyDeleteOf course, theologically i completely agree with this post, as Origen says, the end is as the beginning.
This is one reason why I cannot abide eternal conscious torment, since this would mean that the existence of beings alienated from God is compatible with his original purpose, although given that this purpose involves the love of creatures (which must be contingent and cannot be pre-ordained) hard universalism is also ruled out.
You're right about αἰώνος. I didn't force that issue too much or get into the possibilities for the genitive construction because I was more focused on God having a purpose. Those who criticize us for holding to this belief likely won't have a problem with understanding αἰώνος as eternal in some sense of the word, but some seem to have difficulty with God forming a purpose, especially an eternal one.
ReplyDeleteThose who have a position with our view are generally coming from a more "determinist," Boethian or Augustininan position, i.e. God having an eternal purpose is not enough, he must pre-know and/or pre-ordain everything.
ReplyDeletethe difficulty with αἰώνος becomes very clear when you read the debates between Universalists and those who support eternal conscious torment.
There has been some interesting work on Paul and Time recently by L. Ann Jervis, I haven't read it yet, only listened to some interviews https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/102882607-paul-and-time.
It's also fascinating to wrap one's head around Origen's theory of time.
To be honest I don't really know what I think about the philosophy of time, I generally have a Bergsonian view, but I haven't really thought about it enough to have a strong opinion, although I do like the beauty of an Originist view (though I don't know if I could really believe it).
I used to read a lot about time and God in or out of time. There has been a lot written about the subject, and I basically got away from reading the literature on the subject, but I found the 3 volumes by W.L. Craig on time/God and time to be helpful. He goes deep into the subject and Peter van Inwagen has done some thoughtful work on time. I like John Lucas' analysis as well and Nicholas Wolterstorff wrote about God and time. William of Ockham is interesting with the God and time subject.
ReplyDeleteRemember this thread?
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2020/09/god-and-time-books-suggested-readings.html
Edgar/Roman,
ReplyDeleteThanks for all the references. I've been giving this some thought in terms of Unitarian vs Trinitarian Christology. I've heard many times Trinitarians appeal to classic "proof texts" such as John 1:1 and 17:5 and notice their attempt to shoehorn the idea of the Son's eternality in these texts, even though the immediate context makes no mention of infinite time per se.
In terms of ohlam vs αἰώνος...
Micah 5:2 (or, 5:1) Sept...
(LXX) ▼καὶ σύ, Βηθλεεμ οἶκος τοῦ Εφραθα, ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν Ιουδα· ἐκ σοῦ μοι ἐξελεύσεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα ἐν τῷ Ισραηλ, Καὶ αἱ ἔξοδοι αὐτοῦ ἀπ' ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος.
Could a case be made that ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος the greek equivalents of (עוֹלָם קֶ֫דֶם) refer to a person within time? I've seen this text refute Socinian non-preexistence but could it be used to refute the eternality of the Messiah in times past? In other words: If Jesus is JHVH, could he really be same one "whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.(NIV)’? Does JHVH has "origins"? The messiah's origins are placed squarely within the realm or reality of time.
As our human measurements of time are largely governed by movement of solar and lunar bodies, as well as seasons, atoms etc, it makes me wonder whether there is such a concept of "time" at all within the spirit realm itself before the creation of the material universe?
Arius said "there was a WHEN the Son was not" but didn't explicitly say "there was a TIME when the son was not." He believed his being begotten before the ages (αἰῶνος).
I struggle when certain ones mention the potentially "billions of years that Jehovah and his Son enjoyed their relationship" when perhaps we're reading our ideas of "time" onto their non-corporeal realities.
@Terence
ReplyDeleteFirstly, it's important to clarify the distinction between time as we understand it and the concept of eternity in theological terms. According to classical Christian theology, God exists outside of time, a concept known as divine timelessness. This means that God does not experience temporal succession (past, present, future) as humans do. The traditional Christian understanding, as influenced by both Scripture and philosophical thought, is that God is eternal (Psalm 90:2; Revelation 1:8) and exists outside of the constraints of time. This is contrasted with creation, which exists within time.
Jehovah's Witnesses often adopt a view that aligns more closely with the so-called process theology, which suggests that God exists within time and undergoes change. This stands in contrast to classical Christian theology which asserts God's immutability and timelessness. Process theology posits that God is in a dynamic relationship with the world and undergoes changes. This view implies that God is not immutable or outside of time, which is a significant departure from traditional Christian doctrine. This perspective is problematic from a classical Christian standpoint because it undermines the concept of God as the "unmoved mover" (Aristotle) or the "immutable" (as described in Malachi 3:6 and James 1:17).
The accusation that traditional Christian theology is overly influenced by Greek philosophy overlooks how early Christians, including Paul, engaged constructively with Greek thought. For instance, Paul’s Areopagus speech (Acts 17:22-31) acknowledges Greek philosophical ideas of their "unknown god" while presenting the Christian God. The use of Greek philosophical terms and concepts serves to communicate the truths of Christian revelation in a contextually relevant manner. This approach does not compromise the distinctiveness of the Christian message but rather enriches its articulation.
4th century Arians posited that "there was a time when the Son was not," suggesting that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, had a beginning and was not co-eternal with the Father. This claim stands in stark contradiction to the assertions found in the 4th-century creeds (including the Arian ones, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arian_creeds ), which profess that the Son was "begotten of the Father before all ages." The contradiction within Arian theology—that the Son is not eternal yet is described in creeds as "begotten before all ages"—highlights the theological challenges and inconsistencies faced by Arius and his followers. The orthodox response, encapsulated in the Nicene Creed and subsequent declarations, reaffirms the eternal nature.
"When" is a temporal distinction, there is no "when" apart from time and there is no "where" apart from space.
ReplyDeleteJW's selective foreknowledge aligns closely with process theology, portraying a God limited by time and space. This view contrasts sharply with the scholastic understanding of an immutable, timeless, and inherently and absolutely God. The traditional Christian concept, upheld by Aquinas, sees God’s knowledge as comprehensive and simultaneous with all events, maintaining the divine attributes of omniscience and immutability against temporal limitations. This theological debate underscores the significant differences in how God's nature and interaction with time and creation are perceived across these perspectives.
ReplyDeleteJWs claim God chooses not to know certain future events, thus preserving human free will. They argue this aligns with scriptural accounts where God seems to discover things in real-time (e.g., Genesis 18:21). However engaging with how selective foreknowledge undermines the coherence of divine omniscience, as foreknowledge itself implies knowing all outcomes and contingencies. The so-called Process Theology suggests that God is not immutable but changes and learns over time, existing within the constraints of temporal progression. These views imply that God operates within the bounds of time and space, capable of change and lacking comprehensive omniscience as traditionally understood.
Scholastic theology, particularly Aquinas, asserts that God has complete, eternal knowledge of all things without limitations. God's knowledge encompasses all time simultaneously, negating any temporal constraints. God is unchanging and perfect, unaffected by temporal events or decisions. God exists outside of time, viewing all moments in history simultaneously.
The JW concept of God, described as having limited foreknowledge and being subject to time and space, anthropomorphizes the divine, making God seem more like a temporal, changeable being. JWs interpret scriptures with a literal approach that emphasizes God's reaction to events in time, whereas scholastic theology interprets these passages as metaphorical, aimed at human understanding. The idea that God chooses not to know certain events presupposes an initial knowledge to decide what not to know, creating a paradox. Process theology and JW selective foreknowledge challenge traditional attributes of God’s omniscience and immutability, leading to a less sovereign and absolute conception of God.
1Corinthians ch.15:44NIV"it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
ReplyDeleteIf there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. "
A Spirit being would have a superphysical body.
The term "eternal purpose" (πρόθεσις τῶν αἰώνων) is interpreted by many theologians to mean a divine plan that transcends time, realized in Jesus Christ. This purpose, according to Ephesians 3:11, is understood through Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Theologically, it represents God's overarching plan for redemption and the reunification of the cosmos, which He has accomplished through Christ.
ReplyDeleteIn scholastic theology, particularly Aquinas, God's eternal purpose is seen as immutable and comprehensive, encompassing all time and creation simultaneously. God's knowledge and will are not subject to temporal changes or unforeseen events. This contrasts with the JW view, which suggests a reactive aspect to God's plan due to human sin.
C.H. Talbert and other commentators highlight that Ephesians 3:11 speaks of an eternal purpose achieved in Christ, emphasizing the cosmic and redemptive scope of God's plan. This interpretation focuses more on the spiritual and redemptive accomplishments through Jesus rather than a physical restoration of an earthly paradise.
The JW interpretation might suggest a changeable aspect of God's plan, aligning somewhat with process theology, which views God as interacting with and responding to temporal events. This stands in contrast to the traditional Christian view, where God's eternal purpose is unchanging and fully realized in Christ, transcending temporal setbacks.
The JW perspective suggests that God's eternal purpose does not necessitate foreknowledge of all events, thus maintaining human free will. However, this raises questions about the nature of God's omniscience and omnipotence. Classical theology asserts that God's eternal purpose encompasses all time, and His foreknowledge is perfect and complete, not selective. This ensures God's sovereignty and the certainty of His plans without compromising human freedom.
By proposing that God chooses not to know certain future events, JWs align more closely with process theology, which sees God as dynamic and interacting with the temporal world. This view anthropomorphizes God, implying limitations and changes that contradict the traditional understanding of God's immutable nature. Classical theism maintains that God, being outside of time, knows all temporal events as a single eternal present, thus preserving His perfect nature.
The JW view on selective foreknowledge and anthropomorphism introduces logical inconsistencies. For instance, if God can choose not to know certain events, this implies a limitation on His omniscience, which is incompatible with the traditional attribute of God's absolute knowledge. Additionally, it challenges the notion of God's timelessness, as it suggests that God operates within temporal constraints.
The interpretation of Ephesians 3:11 as God forming an eternal purpose "in Christ" or "through the ages" supports the traditional view of God's unchanging and eternal will. This eternal purpose, realized in Christ, affirms that God's plans are not contingent or subject to change, further underscoring His omniscience and sovereignty.
Traditional Christian theology posits that God is timeless (atemporal). This means God exists outside of time, viewing all events in history simultaneously. This view preserves God's immutability and omniscience, ensuring He is not subject to temporal change or limitations. In contrast, Jehovah's Witnesses and process theology suggest that God exists within time and can change His knowledge or actions based on temporal events. This introduces the idea of a God who evolves with the universe, compromising the classical attributes of immutability and perfect foreknowledge.
ReplyDeleteGod’s foreknowledge does not negate human free will. God's knowledge of future events is perfect and eternal, encompassing all possibilities and actualities. This allows humans to exercise free will without contradicting God's omniscience. The JW perspective implies that God chooses not to know certain future events, raising questions about His omniscience and consistency. This idea suggests a limitation that contradicts the notion of an all-knowing deity.
The nature of time before creation is debated. Classical theism holds that God exists outside of time, seeing all of history simultaneously (eternal present). This is distinct from Arian views where the Son is begotten "before the ages" but still within some temporal framework.
The phrase "begotten of the Father before all worlds [æons]" (ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων) in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed signifies the eternal generation of the Son, asserting His divinity and co-eternity with the Father. This concept is grounded in several New Testament passages:
John 1:1-3: Emphasizes the Word's existence "in the beginning," indicating pre-existence before creation.
John 17:5: Jesus speaks of the glory He shared with the Father "before the world existed."
Colossians 1:17: States that Christ is "before all things."
Hebrews 1:2: Indicates that God made the ages (aionas) through the Son.
The BDAG definition of αἰών (aion) includes meanings of extended periods, both past and future, and often denotes eternity. This supports the understanding of the Son's existence beyond temporal constraints, aligning with the Creed's declaration of the Son's eternal nature. The phrase "πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων" in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, when analyzed linguistically with the BDAG dictionary, highlights the eternal pre-existence of the Son. BDAG Definition of αἰών: This term is often used to indicate a long period, the world in a spatial sense, or eternity, encompassing both past and future without a definite beginning or end.
πρὸ (pro): A preposition meaning "before," indicating precedence in time.
πάντων (pantōn): Genitive plural of "all," indicating totality.
τῶν αἰώνων (tōn aiōnōn): Genitive plural of "ages," encompassing all temporal durations.
Therefore, "πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων" translates to "before all ages," meaning that the Son was begotten by the Father before any time periods or ages were created, emphasizing the Son's timeless and eternal nature.
Before ,after and now are temporal distinctions apart from time there are no temporal distinction so if he is outside of time he is neither before or after or coincidental with anything or anyone, apart from time there can be no evaluation of rate of change or duration of stasis, the standard of argument that the existence of any effect must presuppose the existence of prior potential goes out the window apart from time. Once you have abandoned time you have abandoned logic and embraced magic.
ReplyDeleteJohn ch.2:17NIV"The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever."
ReplyDeleteIs this eternal life outside of time also because like every other creation time(including the future) would be finite.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteMany classical theologians and philosophers argue that God is eternal and exists outside of time (timeless). This does not negate logic but rather transcends it. The idea is that God's mode of existence is fundamentally different from that of created beings.
Even outside of time, the concept of causality remains valid. God's actions can have temporal effects without God Himself being bound by temporal constraints. This is analogous to an author creating a story: the author exists outside the narrative timeline but can interact with it at will.
Scripture often describes God as eternal (e.g., Psalm 90:2, 2 Peter 3:8), implying that He is not bound by temporal distinctions like before and after. In traditional Christian theology, God’s nature is simple, meaning His attributes are not separate parts but fully integrated. Therefore, His existence outside time does not conflict with logical consistency; it’s an affirmation of His unique divine nature.
Logic is not inherently temporal. Logical principles (e.g., non-contradiction, identity) apply universally, not just within the confines of time. God's timeless nature does not imply illogic but points to a different mode of existence. The argument that abandoning time means abandoning the concept of potentiality presupposes that all potentiality must be temporal. However, within classical theism, God's actuality is pure act, meaning He fully realizes His nature without potentiality, which aligns with the concept of Him being timeless.
The idea that being outside of time equals abandoning logic misunderstands both the nature of logic and the theological concept of God’s eternality. Classical theism maintains that God's timelessness is logically coherent and biblically supported. This timelessness does not negate causality or logical principles but instead elevates our understanding of God's nature beyond human temporal experience.
It conflicts with scripture and is irrational. If an idea can be accepted apart from rationality it can be rejected apart from rationality with no violation of any necessary epistemic principle.
DeleteDaniel ch.7:22NIV"until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom."
If he is outside of time he has no duration and hence is not ancient,
And apart from time nothing is before or after anything else so rationally the idea that cause must precede effect goes out the window if one wants to state that cause and effect relations are possible outside of time. To do away with time and space as pure abstractions which can neither be created nor destroyed merely instantiated is in effect to do away with mathematics itself.
@Nincs
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing the traditional, orthodox view so comprehensively. I don’t subscribe to all your conclusions but I appreciate you taking the time to aid me in my comparisons.
@Servant
“The wounds inflicted by a friend are faithful”. Good points, as always.
JEHOVAH'S Principal messenger is called his "Logos" from which we get the word logic.
ReplyDelete1Peter ch.3:15NIV"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason(Logos) for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,"
The inspired word suggest that JEHOVAH'S Revelation of himself would be rational to minds that he has created to enjoy a finial relationship with him.
Revelation ch.10:6NKJV"and swore by Him who lives forever and ever(Lit.to the ages of the ages), who created heaven and the things that are in it, the earth and the things that are in it, and the sea and the things that are in it, that there should be delay no longer,"
ReplyDeleteClearly he is not outside of time. He has an eternal past and he has a present and an eternal future.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteThe concept of an atemporal God does not conflict with rationality or Scripture. God's nature, being outside of time, means He is not constrained by temporal limitations, which aligns with His eternal nature (Psalm 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8). Rationality involves understanding that God’s ways transcend human logic (Isaiah 55:8-9). Being atemporal does not negate rationality; it expands the understanding of God’s transcendence.
Daniel 7:22: The term "Ancient of Days" signifies God's eternal nature, not temporal duration. It symbolizes His timeless authority and wisdom. The use of temporal language is a condescension to human understanding. The Bible often uses anthropomorphic language to describe God in ways humans can comprehend.
Cause and effect are not nullified by God’s atemporality. In classical theism, God’s eternal decree encompasses all events, making Him the ultimate cause without being temporally bound (Ephesians 1:11). The relationship between cause and effect within God’s timeless nature is different from human temporal experience but remains coherent within divine logic.
Mathematics and abstract concepts are human tools to understand the created order. God, as the Creator, is not bound by these tools but uses them to structure creation. The instantiation of time and space does not limit God’s nature or abilities.
The term "Logos" (John 1:1) indicates Christ as the divine reason and logic through which God reveals Himself. The rationality of God’s revelation is evident through the coherence and consistency of Scripture. 1 Peter 3:15 emphasizes the need for reasoned faith, showing that belief in God is both rational and defensible.
God’s atemporality aligns with His eternal and infinite nature, transcending human temporal limitations. Scriptural references to time serve as anthropomorphic language to aid human understanding. The concept of eternal generation, God's timeless nature, and His revelation through Christ (Logos) remain rational and coherent within the framework of classical theism.
It's true that before, after, and now are temporal distinctions. However, God's atemporality means He transcends these distinctions. God's eternal nature is not bound by temporal sequence but encompasses all of time simultaneously (Revelation 1:8, Isaiah 46:10).
ReplyDeleteThe idea that abandoning time equates to abandoning logic misunderstands the nature of divine logic, which is higher than human logic (Isaiah 55:8-9).
While time allows humans to measure change and stasis, God, being outside of time, sees all moments as present. This does not violate logic but rather extends beyond our limited temporal perspective.
Cause and effect still apply in the divine realm. God's actions are not constrained by temporal causality but are instead grounded in His eternal will and nature (Ephesians 1:11). His decrees are eternal and encompass all events.
Eternal life promised in John 2:17 transcends temporal limitations. While human life is finite, eternal life with God is a participation in His divine, timeless nature. This means living forever in God's presence, beyond the confines of time (2 Timothy 1:10, 1 John 2:25).
God's Mode of Existence
God's mode of existence absolutely transcends all temporal measurement. Time, the succession of changes in material beings, is characterized by past, present, and future. Time (Latin: tempus) began with the creation of the changing material world. In contrast, the duration of essentially unchanging spiritual beings (Latin: aevum) means they only experience succession in their activities. Absolute eternity (Latin: aeternitas) is the completely changeless state of divine existence, without succession: no beginning or end, no before or after, thus an undivided and standing present.
Even in temporal things, we speak of the present, but it is always a transition from the past to the future. True eternity belongs only to God, who is unchanging because He is the fullness of being (actus purus). He possesses all values and perfections eternally, losing nothing and gaining nothing new. His existence is not a static state but the possession of full life wholly and simultaneously (Boethius: “tota, simul et perfecta possessio”).
The relationship between time and eternity must be judged based on the different orders of being. The world's time is not a part of God's eternal "time." Hence, questions like what God did before creation are meaningless. He does not live in time but in an eternal present, thus having no state before or after creation. For Him, the decision to create is eternal, yet the world exists in time, which is a different order of being. To God, the world's past, present, and future are always present, within His immutable present. Since the world is entirely within Him, He is wholly present at every point in our time.
The world and humanity partake in His eternity because He annihilates nothing He created. Humans are explicitly invited into His community of life, but they will bear this imperishable existence in a creaturely manner. Even there, humans will live in the succession of finite beings.
Assertions are not evidences the scripture plainly describes JEHOVAH'S Existence as extending from olam past to olam future clearly indicating that he has an eternal past which is uncreated being purely abstract and an eternal future also purely abstract thus uncreated, it will take more than the unfounded assertions of theologians to counter the plain declarations of JEHOVAH'S inspired word let JEHOVAH be found true though every theologian be found a liar.
ReplyDeleteThe Hebrew word "olam" often means a long duration or eternity but can be contextually interpreted to refer to an indefinite or hidden period, rather than strictly temporal eternity (Psalm 90:2). Scriptures like Isaiah 57:15 describe God as the "High and Lofty One who inhabits eternity," indicating a transcendence beyond temporal constraints.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that God exists outside of time aligns with classical theistic philosophy, asserting that an uncreated, necessary being (God) transcends temporal limitations. This perspective is supported by theologians and philosophers like Augustine and Aquinas.
Revelation 1:8 describes God as the "Alpha and Omega," emphasizing His eternal nature and existence beyond the temporal past, present, and future distinctions. Thus, the concept of God existing outside of time is not merely an assertion but is rooted in both scriptural interpretation and philosophical reasoning.
The first cause argument is dependent on the necessity of prior potential to explain effects otherwise effects could serve as their own explanations , created time thus destroys the first cause argument.
ReplyDeleteAny period would be temporal nincs or it wouldn't be a period. If he is outside of time he is not eternal time is the only metric that could determine eternity. Olam Is NEVER used in sense of atemporality in scripture. His antiquity is being compared to the his creation's antiquity the context clearly shows we are talking about abstract time and an eternal past. Suprrme Godhood begins and ends with JEHOVAH That fact has nothing to do with whether time is abstract or not.
ReplyDeleteThe argument for the first cause, which includes the necessity of prior potential for explaining an effect, does not require time as we understand it. The concept of "prior" in this context refers to metaphysical priority rather than temporal sequence. Aquinas and other classical theists argue that God, as the first cause, is not bound by temporal constraints. God’s act of creation is timeless; it is not an event that happens in time but rather the continuous sustaining of the universe's existence. This view aligns with the notion that God’s existence and creative power are beyond temporal limitations.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, the distinction between potentiality and actuality remains valid even in a timeless context. Potentiality refers to the capacity to exist or act, while actuality is the fulfillment of that capacity. God, being pure actuality (actus purus), has no potentiality and thus does not require temporal sequence to exercise causality. The eternal nature of God implies that He eternally wills and sustains the universe, making temporal succession irrelevant to His role as the first cause.
Temporal concepts such as "before" and "after" are applicable within the created universe but not to God’s eternal nature. The first cause argument can thus stand independently of temporal considerations, relying instead on metaphysical principles of causation and existence.
Time (tempus) began with the creation of the material world and involves change and succession. Spiritual beings have a different duration called aevum, which signifies the sequence of their activities without essential change. This is the state of divine being which is completely unchanging, without succession, and characterized by an undivided and constant present. God’s existence is described as having no beginning or end, with no "before" or "after."
In God’s eternal present, everything is fully possessed simultaneously and perfectly, as encapsulated by Boethius's definition: "tota, simul et perfecta possessio." This means that for God, the creation of the world is an eternal act, and He experiences all times (past, present, future) as an unchanging now. The world’s existence is temporal and thus different from God’s eternal being. Questions about what God did before creation are meaningless because God does not live in a sequence of time but in an eternal present. God’s plan for creation is eternal, but the world has temporal existence. The world’s past, present, and future are always present to God in His unchanging now. God is entirely present at every point in time, meaning He is omnipresent and timeless. The creation participates in God’s eternity, and humans are invited into His eternal life.
No if prior potential is unnecessary then effects can serve as there own cause . That is the metaphysics one needs to reckon with once one does away time as pure abstract. Psalm 90:1,2 is clear that JEHOVAH Precedes his most ancient creations note the construction he is from olam to(ad) olam among synonyms given for this preposition in strong's is until,even to, clearly the Bible writers had no idea of a created time time for them was purely abstract. Being purely abstract it is absurd to speak of any person or thing as being outside or within time ,time is simply a metric by which we measure duration of stasis or rate of change or locate the timing of events and occurrences in history.
ReplyDeleteThe OT Hebrew term עֹלָם (olam) corresponds to the NT Greek αἰών (aiōn) and αἰώνιος (aiōnios) in the New Testament, representing concepts of long duration, antiquity, and eternity. This term encompasses various meanings such as ancient times, continuous existence, and everlasting future. In theological context, it signifies the hidden or concealed nature of divine presence and eternal attributes of God, transcending temporal limitations. This comprehensive understanding supports the concept of eternal existence and divine immutability in both scriptural and theological traditions.
ReplyDeleteThe Hebrew term עֹלָם (olam) does convey concepts of eternal or indefinite duration, which are often beyond mere temporal measurement. For instance, Psalm 90:2 speaks of God as existing "from everlasting to everlasting," suggesting an existence that transcends human temporal limitations.
The assertion that any period is necessarily temporal overlooks the theological understanding of eternity. God’s eternity, as described in Christian theology, isn't just a long duration within time but an existence that transcends time entirely (aeternitas). This is supported by various scriptures that highlight God's unchanging and timeless nature (e.g., Revelation 1:8, "I am the Alpha and the Omega").
The term "olam" in the Bible does often refer to long periods or indefinite time, but in theological discourse, it has been understood to point to God's eternal nature, which includes atemporal aspects. For example, in Isaiah 57:15, God is described as inhabiting eternity (שֹׁכֵן עַד), which implies a mode of existence beyond temporal confines.
The theological tradition, including interpretations by early church fathers and scholars, has long held that God exists outside of time. Origen and Augustine, for example, emphasized God's timeless nature, indicating that scriptural references to God's eternity were understood in an atemporal sense.
The argument against atemporality based on the need for a temporal metric fails to account for the philosophical distinction between eternity (timeless existence) and perpetuity (endless time). The classical theistic view posits God as the uncaused cause, existing outside the temporal order, thus not requiring temporal metrics to validate His eternal nature.
While Psalm 90:1-2 and other passages describe God's eternal existence using temporal language ("from everlasting to everlasting"), this is often seen as an anthropomorphic way to express God’s transcendence over time, making complex theological concepts more comprehensible to human understanding.
The assertion that eliminating time as an abstraction means effects can serve as their own cause misunderstands the nature of causality. In classical theistic metaphysics, God is the uncaused cause, existing outside of time and initiating creation without being subject to temporal constraints. Causality in this framework doesn't require a temporal sequence but rather a hierarchical dependency.
Psalm 90:1-2 indeed states that God is "from everlasting to everlasting," but this expression of God's eternity isn't confined to temporal measures. It emphasizes His infinite existence, transcending time itself. The use of "olam" (often translated as "eternity") aligns with the understanding of God's timeless nature.
The argument assumes that time is purely a metric, but this overlooks the philosophical and theological distinction between time and eternity. Time, as understood in theological discourse, is a created entity, while God’s eternity is an intrinsic aspect of His unchanging nature. Thus, speaking of God being outside time is a meaningful way to express His transcendence over the temporal order.
Biblical writers used temporal language to communicate profound theological truths. Their descriptions of God's eternal nature employ metaphors and analogies comprehensible to human experience but pointing towards the reality of God's timeless existence.
Dear Nincsnevem, I respectfully disagree that olam ever connotes or denotes timelessness in the OT. We cannot judge the lexicassl semantics of a Hebrew word by dint of English translations.
ReplyDeleteIt could be said that Jehovah is “from hidden time to hidden time” (W. Gesenius). It thus appears that the Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures (Tanakh) depict YHWH as a dynamic being within time somehow. Concerning the God of the Hebrews, we read: “temporal categories are inadequate to describe the nature of God's existence” (Spiros Zodhiates 2348). Nevertheless, olam when used of the Creator in Psalm 90:2 expresses “the idea of a continued, measurable existence, rather than a state of being independent of time considerations” (2348).
"The commonest word for boundless time is olam; according to the most widespread and likeliest explanation the word is derived from alam meaning 'hide, conceal'" (Thorleif Boman, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek, page 151).
ReplyDeletehttp://essays.wisluthsem.org:8080/bitstream/handle/123456789/2371/JeskeForever.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
ReplyDelete@Edgar Foster
ReplyDeleteMaybe the ancient Hebrews, as simple pastoral people, didn't have an abstract word or concept for eternity, just as I remember, for example, that when I was introduced to numbers at the age of around four, one million seemed like an inconceivable and infinite number for me. While it is important to consider the original Hebrew semantics rather than solely relying on English translations, the term "olam" in the Hebrew OT is complex and context-dependent. It often denotes long duration or eternity, extending beyond human understanding of time. The argument that "olam" represents a dynamic being within time does not exclude the possibility of God's transcendence over time. The nature of God’s existence as described in Psalm 90:2 suggests an eternal duration that surpasses temporal limitations: "Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God."
While some scholars like Spiros Zodhiates suggest that "olam" expresses measurable existence, others, such as the authors of the Septuagint and early Church Fathers, interpreted "olam" to include the concept of timelessness. This interpretation aligns with the philosophical and theological understanding of God as the eternal and unchanging being.
Thorleif Boman's explanation that "olam" is derived from "alam" meaning "hide, conceal" is insightful and supports a broader understanding of the term's implications. The derivation from "alam" highlights the concept of hidden or concealed time, which aligns with the idea of time extending beyond human perception—hidden and indefinite, rather than strictly measurable. In the theological context, "olam" reflects God's existence beyond human comprehension, encompassing both boundless past and future. This understanding can harmonize with interpretations of God's timeless nature, where His eternal existence is not confined to temporal limitations.
There are no temporal limitations nincs time us pure abstraction . Without time there is no eternity in any meaningful sense of the word
ReplyDelete@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteYour assertion confuses temporal duration with the concept of eternity as understood in classical theology. Eternity, in the theological sense, is not merely an endless extension of time but a state of existence entirely independent of time. God, being eternal, exists outside of time and views all of time simultaneously. This does not mean time is an illusion but that God’s existence is not bound by temporal limitations. The classical understanding of God's eternity includes His immutability (unchangeableness). God is not subject to temporal change, making His eternal nature fundamentally different from temporal existence. Philosophically, atemporality refers to a mode of existence that is not subject to time. An eternal being, such as God, would exist in an atemporal state where time does not apply, but this does not render the concept of eternity meaningless. Instead, it highlights a different mode of being, one that is qualitatively different from temporal existence. The logical consistency of an eternal, atemporal being lies in the nature of such a being. An atemporal being does not experience past, present, or future but possesses all moments of existence in a single, unchanging state. The logical consistency of an eternal, atemporal being lies in the nature of such a being. An atemporal being does not experience past, present, or future but possesses all moments of existence in a single, unchanging state.
In theological terms, God's eternity is about His timeless nature. God’s existence encompasses all of time without being constrained by it. This is consistent with the doctrine of divine simplicity and immutability. God, being eternal, can create time and interact with temporal beings without being subject to temporal limitations. This interaction does not compromise His eternal nature. According to Christian theology, time itself is part of the created order. Genesis 1:1 indicates that time began with creation, and God exists independently of this temporal framework. Philosophers like William Lane Craig argue that God exists in "metaphysical time" (a kind of timeless duration) prior to creation and enters "physical time" with the act of creation. This view maintains God's eternal nature while allowing for interaction with the temporal world.
Ecclesiastical ch.3:11NKJV"He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity(Olam) in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end."
DeleteTime is pure abstraction/qualia it can neither be created or destroyed.
Classical theology is wrong there is NO duration outside of time duration is a temporal distinction there are no temporal distinctions apart from time,all duration would be as described by time, according to the Bible time is abstract and like energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So as an abstract concept it has no limits, what you are confused about is humankind's limits not time's limit, a being with sufficient resources could endure indefinitely, JEHOVAH is of eternal duration this is why we can put faith in his promise of indefinite future.
ReplyDeleteTime is a metaphysical concept so all existence is in metaphysical time time and space can neither be created nor destroyed
The eternal being can serve as his own sustainer he needs no sustainer apart from himself,that is what makes him uniquely qualified to serve as first cause, that is the issue if the universe existed for all time it can serve as its own cause which in this case would mean sustainer rather than Creator, so the first cause argument collapses, if there was never a time the thing did not exists it is not contingent,
ReplyDeleteThe eternal would be the One who is of eternal duration,the atemporal would necessarily be of no duration,the eternal can serve as his own sustainer, the atemporal would need no sustainer.
Job ch.38:4-7NKJV"“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
ReplyDeleteTell Me, if you have understanding.
5Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the [b]line upon it?
6To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
JEHOVAH'S Angels pre exists the physical universe are they atemporal as well.
The scriptures do not support the idea of time as a concrete reality that began existing with the physical universe.
https://biblehub.com/text/psalms/90-2.htm
ReplyDeleteEc 3:11 JPS 2023 - He brings everything to pass precisely at its time; He also puts eternity in their mind, (*I.e., He preoccupies man with the attempt to discover the times of future events; cf. 8.17.) but without man ever guessing, from first to last, all the things that God brings to pass.
8:17 - and I have observed all that God brings to pass. Indeed, man cannot guess the events that occur under the sun. For man tries strenuously, but fails to guess them; and even if a sage should think to discover them he would not be able to guess them.
Furthermore, although God precedes time, he does not precede time in time. Rather, it is in the divine eternity, "which is supreme over time because it is a never-ending present," that God exists (Augustine 263).
ReplyDelete"The impact of his views on sin, grace, freedom and sexuality on Western culture can hardly be overrated. These views, deeply at variance with the ancient philosophical and cultural tradition, provoked however fierce criticism in Augustine’s lifetime and have, again, been vigorously opposed in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries from various (e.g., humanist, liberal, feminist) standpoints. Philosophers keep however being fascinated by his often innovative ideas on language, on skepticism and knowledge, on will and the emotions, on freedom and determinism and on the structure of the human mind and, last but not least, by his way of doing philosophy, which is—though of course committed to the truth of biblical revelation—surprisingly undogmatic and marked by a spirit of relentless inquiry."
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteClassical theology distinguishes between temporal and eternal existence. Temporal existence involves change and succession, whereas eternal existence, as attributed to God, is understood as timeless or atemporal, without succession or change. In classical theism, God's eternity is defined as a "simultaneously whole and perfect possession of interminable life" (Boethius). This concept of eternity does not imply duration in a temporal sense but rather an existence that is fully actual and unchanging. The assertion that time is an abstract concept that cannot be created or destroyed conflates physical and metaphysical understandings of time. Time, in the metaphysical sense, is seen as a measure of change and motion within the created order, not an uncreated entity. The Bible describes God as eternal (e.g., Psalm 90:2) and emphasizes His unchanging nature (Malachi 3:6). This suggests that God's existence transcends time, aligning with classical theology's view of divine eternity. The claim that "all duration would be as described by time" overlooks the logical necessity of a first cause that is not contingent upon temporal processes. If all existence were bound by time, an infinite regress would ensue, undermining the coherence of explaining the universe's existence.
The Hebrew word "olam" can mean both a long duration and eternity depending on the context. In Ecclesiastes 3:11, "eternity in their hearts" signifies an awareness of timelessness, not that humans are bound to a temporal understanding only. Classical theology views God as existing outside of time (atemporal). God's creation of time is a fundamental belief, indicating that time began with creation (Genesis 1:1). This refutes the idea that time is an uncreated abstraction. Time, as a measure of change, exists because of the universe’s contingent nature. If time were purely abstract and eternal, it would imply an infinite regress of events, contradicting the concept of a first cause. Modern physics suggests that time and space are interlinked and contingent upon the physical universe. The Big Bang theory posits a beginning of both time and space, aligning with the theological perspective of created time. God's eternity is not about infinite temporal duration but an existence without succession. This atemporal perspective underscores God's unchanging nature, unlike temporal beings who experience past, present, and future.
Job 38:4-7: These verses poetically describe God's creation of the earth, emphasizing His wisdom and power. The "morning stars" and "sons of God" (interpreted as angels) rejoicing refer to their recognition of God's creative acts, not necessarily their pre-existence. Angels, as created beings, exist within the created order, which includes time. They are not atemporal like God. Colossians 1:16 states all things, including thrones and dominions (often interpreted as angelic beings), were created through Christ. Biblical theology holds that time began with creation (Genesis 1:1). Time is a dimension of the created universe, not an abstract, uncreated entity. The argument assumes a separation between spiritual and physical creation regarding time. However, the Bible consistently presents God as the creator of all, encompassing both spiritual beings and the physical universe within the framework of created time. The assertion that time did not begin with the physical universe contradicts both theological and philosophical understandings of time as contingent upon creation.
Classical theology is unscriptural and illogical obviously an enduring existence is superior to one of no duration. So an atemporal existence would not be a glory to the first cause psalm 90 clearly shows the Creator's existence to be of greater antiquity than his earliest creation hence not atemporal .the NATURAL Reading of Job 38:4-7 is that the Sons of God observed their Father JEHOVAH bring the Physical creation into being and were moved to applause by this majestic spectacle, JEHOVAH'S Word is thus shown to not support the notion that time was created simultaneously with the physical world but pre-existed the physical creation eternally. Time measures duration as well as change where there is no time there is no duration,hence no eternity. No there would be no need for an infinite regress if time were abstract but a truly necessary first cause of infinite prior potential which the the Bible identifies as JEHOVAH The God and Father of all.
ReplyDeleteRecently the idea of a multiverse with its own time has been posited as an explanation for the source of the energy an information in the universe because the notion of energy itself been created out of nothing is a naked violation of physics conservation laws(no free lunch laws) one can think of JEHOVAH as an eternally enduring
Universe unto himself. Thus there would be no need to posit any magical violation of the rational conservation laws which are themselves based on mathematics and logic.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteClassical theology views God as atemporal (existing outside of time) rather than existing within an endless duration of time. This understanding highlights God’s unchanging and immutable nature, distinct from the temporal and mutable universe. Psalm 90:2 indicates God's existence is beyond time, affirming His eternal nature rather than merely an enduring temporal existence. Isaiah 40:28 supports the concept of God's eternal nature, not bound by temporal limitations. The Bible consistently portrays God as the Creator of all things, including time. Hebrews 1:2 states, "through whom also he made the aeion-s," indicating that time is part of the created order.
Job 38:4-7 poetically depict God’s creation of the earth, with the "sons of God" (angels) rejoicing. It does not imply angels existed eternally but rather that they were created before the physical universe, existing within created time. This can be interpreted for the second creation story (Genesis 2:4-25), and it is not even an official JW teaching that angels pre-existed before the creation of the visible and invisible world. Genesis 1:1 establishes the beginning of time with the creation of the heavens and the earth.
The theological perspective is that time, space, and matter were created simultaneously by God. The multiverse theory and the conservation of energy laws do not negate the necessity of a first cause. Classical theology posits God as the necessary, uncaused first cause, beyond physical laws and constraints. The principle that energy cannot be created or destroyed applies within the physical universe. The act of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) by an omnipotent God is a metaphysical concept that transcends physical laws. Even if a multiverse exists, it would still require a necessary first cause beyond itself. The concept of an eternally enduring universe unto itself fails to address the need for an initial cause that classical theism identifies as God.
If even an eternal being needs a source outside itself to preserve it/him what would be your defense against polytheism?
DeleteThere would be no potential outside of time there being no change or duration outside of time therefore an atemporal source can't logically account for the energy in the universe,the superphysical creation precedes in time the physical creation therefore time could not have simultaneously have originated with the physical creation, an eternal enduring concrete reality would by definition be immutable, so none of your claims have any demonstrable necessity, no ,no eternally existing object would require a source of preservation outside of itself or that would mean that there could be no first cause, only finite objects require causes and source(s) of preservation outside of themselves
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteThe claim that there can be no potential outside of time due to the absence of change or duration misunderstands the nature of an atemporal source. In classical theism, God is seen as an atemporal being, which means that His existence is not bound by temporal constraints. This does not imply the absence of potential creative power. Instead, it signifies that God's actions and existence transcend temporal limitations. Thus, an atemporal source can indeed account for the energy and existence of the universe, as the creative act is not dependent on temporal sequences but rather on the nature of the eternal being.
The assertion that the "superphysical" creation must precede the physical creation in time presupposes a temporal framework that applies to both realms. However, from a theistic perspective, especially within classical theism, God’s act of creation is not bound by time. Time itself is part of the created order. Therefore, the initiation of physical reality can coincide with the beginning of time, without requiring a pre-existing temporal sequence. This perspective aligns with the view that time and the universe were created simultaneously.
The idea that an eternal enduring concrete reality must be immutable and thus cannot serve as the source of the universe’s energy or existence misunderstands the nature of divine immutability. In classical theism, God's immutability means that He does not change in His nature or essence. However, this does not preclude God from being the source of change and creation within the temporal universe. God’s immutable nature encompasses His eternal will and act of creation, which are not subject to temporal change but can initiate and sustain temporal existence.
The argument that eternally existing objects do not require a cause or source of preservation outside of themselves fails to address the distinction between contingent and necessary beings. In metaphysical discourse, contingent beings require a cause or explanation for their existence, whereas a necessary being, such as God, exists by the necessity of its own nature. This necessary being serves as the ultimate ground of all contingent existence. The principle of sufficient reason supports the need for an uncaused cause to prevent an infinite regress of causes, which would be philosophically untenable.
More argument by assertion,rationally an object of no duration cannot confer duration the whole basis of the first cause argument is that from nothing nothing comes, a cause needs to have the potential to explain its effects,so no a source with no duration cannot communicate duration,and a source with no potential energy cannot cause change or motion,the creation whether superphysical or physical is not infinite and time itself is an abstraction so has no boundaries according to the scriptures actually I never said that an eternally enduring concrete reality cannot ground reality that would be the opposite of what I've been saying any eternally enduring reality could serve as its own explanation, I don't know where you would get such an Idea, you were the one claiming that JEHOVAH is without duration being outside of time.
DeleteIt is inconceivable that an unoriginated object could ever end therefore an unoriginated object cannot be contingent and unoriginated object would be indestructible simply by reason of it's being unoriginated,and thus would serve as its own explanation. So I have not failed to address the difference between contingent and necessary beings you continue to fail to address my argument, your argument basically amounts to unoriginated beings all need grounds outside themselves with one exception simply because we need that to be the case very weak,why would there be a single exception if more than one unoriginated being were possible why not an infinite number of unoriginated beings and an infinite number of exceptions . The moment you begin to multiply unoriginated beings you open the door to polytheism
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteThe principle of sufficient reason and the concept of an uncaused cause imply that there must be a *single*, ultimate source of all existence. This source is self-sufficient and necessary, not requiring any external preservation. In classical theism, God is described as a simple, indivisible being. This simplicity means God’s essence and existence are identical, making it impossible for multiple gods to exist as ultimate sources. Multiple ultimate sources would imply division and dependency, which contradicts the nature of a necessary being. If there were multiple necessary beings, they would either be distinct (implying limitations and dependencies) or identical (collapsing back into one being). The concept of polytheism introduces complexities and dependencies that undermine the self-sufficiency required of a necessary being.
In summary, the necessity of a single, self-sufficient, and indivisible first cause logically excludes the possibility of polytheism. This single necessary being, God, does not require external preservation, maintaining philosophical coherence and aligning with classical theistic principles.
The principal of an uncaused cause would only only apply where there is a single eternal being,the moment one begins to multiply eternal beings there is no first cause,because each eternal being would serve as its own explanation. The two are linked either there is a single eternal being or their is a necessary first cause.
DeleteYou can't have it both ways. It is inconceivable that any unoriginated object could ever cease to exists,merely by reason if being unoriginated it would be imperishable that is all that is necessary, this means that only a unique kind of object can ever be unoriginated physical objects cannot be unoriginated.
The moment one begins to multiply eternal beings one not only destroys the first cause argument,one opens the door to polytheism,better to stick to JEHOVAH'S inspired word(plus logic) and confess just the one eternal being the Lord JEHOVAH.
ReplyDelete1Corinthians Ch.4:6. Psalms Ch.90:1,2
The real argument against polytheism is that it is a violation of the principal of occam's razor a single eternal being can easily explain the existence of a finite creation,there is no need to multiply or complicate the explanation for origins.
ReplyDeleteI would apply the same reasoning to the superiority of the unitarian concept of JEHOVAH over trinitarianism.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteThe concept that an object without duration cannot confer duration is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of causality and eternity. An eternal being is understood as being outside of time, meaning it does not experience time as a series of moments. This doesn't imply a lack of existence or potential but rather a different mode of existence. In classical theism, God is considered eternal and the source of all temporal existence. His eternal nature allows for the creation of time and everything within it. The idea that a source without potential energy cannot cause change or motion reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. God, as an omnipotent being, is not limited by physical constraints such as potential energy. He can create and sustain the universe through His will alone. This transcends our usual understanding of physical causality. The argument that an unoriginated being would be indestructible and serve as its own explanation is valid. However, this leads to the necessity of a single unoriginated cause to prevent an infinite regress of causes, which is philosophically problematic. This is why classical theism posits one necessary being (God) who is the uncaused cause of everything else. Multiplying unoriginated beings does indeed lead to logical and theological issues, such as polytheism. Monotheistic traditions maintain that there is only one unoriginated being to avoid these complications. The principle of parsimony (Occam's Razor) also supports the idea of a single unoriginated cause, as it simplifies the explanation of the existence of the universe. The distinction between contingent and necessary beings is crucial. A contingent being requires an external cause for its existence, while a necessary being does not. God, as the necessary being, does not require a cause outside of Himself, as He is self-sustaining and eternal.
Multiplying eternal beings leads to logical inconsistencies. Classical monotheistic arguments, such as those found in Thomistic philosophy, posit that a single necessary being is the most coherent explanation for the existence of everything else. Introducing multiple eternal beings complicates the explanatory framework and introduces unnecessary entities. Introducing multiple eternal beings not only undermines the first cause argument but also opens the door to polytheism, which is contrary to the teachings of monotheistic traditions like Christianity. This deviation would contradict the unified nature of God as described in traditional theology. The principle of Occam’s Razor supports the existence of a single eternal being. This principle suggests that we should not multiply entities beyond necessity. A single uncaused cause (God) provides a simpler and more elegant explanation for the existence of the universe.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteThe principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have an explanation, either in itself or in something else. If multiple eternal beings exist, each would indeed serve as its own explanation. However, this does not negate the necessity of a first cause but rather complicates the explanatory framework, leading to logical inconsistencies. The argument for a single uncaused cause is not merely about explaining existence but about the nature of causality and contingency. Multiple eternal beings would each require independent reasons for their existence, which could lead to an infinite regress or a need for an overarching unifying cause. The idea that only a unique kind of being can be uncaused aligns with traditional metaphysics. This unique being would possess qualities that make it fundamentally different from physical objects, such as immateriality, timelessness, and necessary existence. These attributes make it conceivable as the ultimate ground of all reality.
The first cause argument, particularly in classical theism, posits that there must be an uncaused cause that is the ultimate explanation for the existence of all contingent beings. This uncaused cause must possess certain attributes: necessity, eternality, and immutability. The principle of an uncaused cause addresses the problem of infinite regress. If every cause required another cause, we would never arrive at a first cause, leading to an infinite regress. The existence of an uncaused cause stops this regress by providing a necessary being whose existence does not depend on anything else. If there were multiple eternal beings, each would need to have an independent reason for its existence, which complicates the explanatory framework and leads to redundancy. The necessity of a first cause lies in its ability to provide a single, ultimate explanation for all contingent realities. Multiple eternal beings would require explanations for their coexistence and interaction, which would eventually necessitate a unifying cause. The uncaused cause, by definition, must be fundamentally different from all other beings. It must be a necessary being with no potentiality, meaning it cannot change, and it must exist outside of time and space. This being would be the ground of all being and the source of all existence.
Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is preferred, but simplicity must also account for explanatory power. The complexity of a concept does not invalidate its truth if it provides a more coherent and comprehensive explanation. A single eternal being can explain finite creation, but this does not preclude the need for understanding the nature of this being. The doctrine of the Trinity provides a nuanced understanding of God’s nature, addressing relational aspects within the Godhead. Trinitarianism posits that God is one in essence but three in persons — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This doctrine helps explain various scriptural revelations and the dynamic interactions within the Godhead, which Unitarianism cannot as fully address. The Bible contains passages that suggest a complex unity in God, such as the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:16-17) and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19), which are better explained through Trinitarian theology. The Trinity does not multiply entities unnecessarily but provides a deeper understanding of God's relational and loving nature, which is fundamental to Christian theology. The coherence of the Trinity maintains both simplicity and depth in explaining God's nature and actions.
No there is no regress if they are all coeternal,the problem of infinite regress would occur only where there is sequence,if they are co eternal there is no sequence. In fact there could be a causal Loop among coeternal beings.
ReplyDeleteWe . The Bible's explanation of the absolute Godhood of the one God and the relative Godhood of his exalted servants spares the sincere truthseeker the needless complication of the Trinity or any multiperson theism
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteA causal loop among coeternal beings still involves a form of regress. Even if coeternal, each being’s existence and actions depend on the others, creating a mutual dependency that does not resolve the need for an initial, independent cause. The concept of coeternal beings implies mutual dependence, contradicting the idea of true independence, which is necessary for a first cause. An uncaused cause must be entirely self-sufficient, which a causal loop does not provide. The Bible’s presentation of God’s nature includes complexity (plurality) and unity. Scriptures like John 1:1-14 and Matthew 28:19 support the understanding of God as a Trinity, indicating a deeper, more complex unity than simple monotheism or polytheism. The doctrine of the Trinity, while complex, ultimately presents a single, unified God with three distinct persons. This unity maintains God’s simplicity and avoids the conceptual issues of multiple independent deities or beings. The idea of a single eternal being (God) as described in the Trinity avoids the logical problems associated with multiple eternal beings. The Trinity maintains monotheism while explaining the relational nature of God. The doctrine of the Trinity has been carefully developed to align with scriptural revelation and logical coherence. This development ensures that the explanation of God’s nature remains consistent with both the Bible and philosophical reasoning.
If they are all coeternal of course there would be no regress. Regress/progress suggests change/sequence,and there would be none in a unoriginated loop,you can't just torch the lexicon to support your argument,the Trinity is actually more complicated that a pantheon of coeternal beings, and thus a violation of occam's razor
DeleteRegress:return to a former or less developed state.
Delete"they would not regress to pre-technological tribalism"
According to oxford's
I will stick my neck out just this once to point out something obvious and research over time has proven over and over again.
ReplyDeletehttps://nesslabs.com/occams-razor#:~:text=The%20case%20against%20Occam's%20razor&text=The%20problems%3F,researchers%20would%20uncover%20new%20data.
Neither of you guys is going to win an argument with insufficient data and you are just going to go over the same assumptions ad infinitum. Why not just agree to disagree and move onto something you can prove.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteYour argument overlooks key distinctions within theological and philosophical contexts. Firstly, "coeternal" beings in the Trinity are understood not as separate entities but as one essence with distinct persons, avoiding the concept of multiple gods and thus not more complicated than a pantheon. In the Trinity, the persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) are coeternal, meaning they exist without succession or change, hence no "former state" to regress to. Your argument about lexicon assumes a misunderstanding. The Trinity, being coeternal, does not undergo sequence or change, aligning with your definition against regress. Occam's Razor favors the simplest explanation, which in theology, is not always the least complex but the most coherent. The Trinity may appear more complex, but theological simplicity concerns coherence and unity. A pantheon involves independent deities, each with separate wills and actions, introducing more complexity and inconsistency than a unified triune God. The Trinitarian doctrine posits one God in three persons, maintaining divine simplicity and avoiding the pitfalls of polytheism. In contrast, a pantheon complicates divine attributes and actions, violating the principle of divine unity. The doctrine of the Trinity has been developed to preserve monotheism and divine simplicity while explaining the relational aspects within the Godhead. In conclusion, the Trinity's coeternality avoids the issues of regression and maintains philosophical coherence, aligning with theological principles rather than complicating them.
The Trinity is incomprehensible according to its own adherents, so no. And the lexicon makes no distinction between person and being, the Bible makes it clear that the God and Father of Jesus is The Most High God simplicity itself.
DeleteLuke ch.1:32NKJV"He will be great, and will be called the Son of the HIGHEST; and the LORD God will give Him the throne of His father David"
And the God-man fudge still leaves the matter of the unincarnated Holy Spirit unaccounted for, true simplicity.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteThe doctrine of the Trinity is indeed a mystery, meaning it is beyond full human comprehension but not against reason. A mystery in theology refers to truths revealed by God that surpass human understanding. The incomprehensibility of the Trinity does not imply contradiction but rather acknowledges the limitations of human reason in fully grasping divine realities. According to sources such as Diekamp, Bartmann, and van Noort, the Trinity is known through divine revelation and is recognized as the “mystery of mysteries.”
While some lexicons may not distinguish between "person" and "being," theological terminology does. In the context of the Trinity, "person" (hypostasis) refers to the distinct persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) while "being" (ousia) refers to the singular divine essence. This distinction is critical in Trinitarian theology.
Divine simplicity means that God is not composed of parts; His attributes are identical with His essence. This simplicity does not negate the distinction of persons within the Godhead but rather affirms the oneness of God's essence. As explained by theologians like Scheeben and Garrigou-Lagrange, God's simplicity means He is fully unified and without division, which supports rather than contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity. Each person of the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is fully God, sharing the same divine essence.
The title "Most High God" (El Elyon) is an ancient biblical term used throughout the Old Testament to denote God's supreme authority and sovereignty. This title is not meant to contrast the Father's divinity with that of the Son but to emphasize the supremacy of God over all creation. In Luke 1:32, the designation of Jesus as the "Son of the Highest" aligns with His divine status and mission, not to suggest inferiority but to affirm His unique relationship with the Father.
The Holy Spirit's unincarnated nature is integral to Trinitarian theology. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and, according to Western tradition, the Son) and is fully divine. The Spirit’s work includes sanctification, guidance, and empowerment of believers, reflecting the unity and distinction within the Godhead. This is part of the shared divine essence and activity of the Triune God, emphasizing the simplicity and unity of God.
The incomprehensibility of the Trinity and divine simplicity are foundational aspects of Christian theology. The Trinity as a revealed mystery acknowledges the limitations of human reason in fully comprehending the divine nature, while divine simplicity affirms the unified and indivisible essence of God. The title "Most High God" signifies God's supreme authority and is not intended to diminish the Son's divinity. The Holy Spirit’s unincarnated role within the Trinity underscores the unity and distinctiveness of the divine persons.
Obviously what is incomprehensible is not simpler than what is rational, if a pantheon of eternal beings can be dismissed as a possible first cause on account of violating occam's razor the infinitely more complicated triune deity can likewise be dismissed indeed can be more readily dismissed on the same grounds,if the God and Father of Jesus is the one most high God then the claim that there are two others that are coequal to him is both irrational and unscriptural and we can reject such claim in those grounds
ReplyDeleteNo one is coeternal or coequal to the Most High God JEHOVAH.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteThe claim that the Trinity's incomprehensibility makes it less rational misunderstands the nature of divine mysteries. A mystery in theology is something revealed by God that surpasses human understanding but is not against reason. The complexity of the Trinity doesn't violate rationality; instead, it transcends it, acknowledging human limitations in fully grasping divine nature.
Occam's (who was nominalist btw.) Razor suggests choosing the simplest explanation, but simplicity doesn't mean reducing complex realities into overly simplistic forms. The Trinity, while complex, is a revealed truth that maintains the unity of God. Unlike a pantheon of gods, which suggests multiple independent deities, the Trinity affirms one God in three persons, upholding monotheism.
The argument that the Son and Holy Spirit being coeternal and coequal with the Father is unscriptural ignores passages that affirm the divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit. John 1:1-3, John 10:30, and Matthew 28:19 support the coeternality and coequality within the Godhead. These passages show that the Son and Holy Spirit share in the divine nature, not as separate gods but as distinct persons within the one God.
The term "Most High God" (El Elyon) used in the Old Testament emphasizes God's supreme authority and sovereignty. It doesn't imply that the Son and Holy Spirit are lesser beings. In Luke 1:32, calling Jesus the "Son of the Most High" affirms His divine status and unique relationship with the Father, without denying His coequality and coeternality. This title reflects Jesus' divine mission and authority.
The doctrine of the Trinity doesn't claim that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate gods. Instead, it affirms one God in three persons. Jesus, as the incarnate Son, fully shares in the divine nature. The Holy Spirit, as the third person of the Trinity, is also fully God. The distinctions among them do not divide the essence of God but reflect relational and functional differences within the unified Godhead.
The doctrine of the Trinity, while complex and beyond full human comprehension, is consistent with rational thought and scriptural revelation. It affirms the unity and simplicity of God while recognizing the distinct persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The title "Most High" used for God emphasizes His supreme authority and does not contradict the coeternality and coequality of the Son and Holy Spirit.
The Trinity conflicts with itself, and one cannot determine the truth or falsity of any claim that violates rationalism. Transcending reason is just a meaningless word salad to persuade listeners to ignore the flagrant self-contradiction of trinitarianism,as difficult as the concept of pantheon of eternal beings would be to accept it is not as self contradictory as the idea of three mutually exclusive identities each of which is supposedly both supreme and necessary. There is a simpler explanation to John ch.1:1-3 which also has the advantage of scriptural precedent, theos is used of JEHOVAH'S exalted servants, note that the one at John ch.10:30 is the neuter one ,same as at John ch.17:22, note also John ch.10:29NKJV"My Father, who has given them to Me, is GREATER than ALL(not most); and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. "
ReplyDeleteThe scriptures are clear the God and Father of Jesus JEHOVAH Is the one and only supreme being and first cause,the union declared in John ch.10:30 is NOT a union of equals any more that the union of the believers with Christ is a union of equals Matthew ch.28:19 says NOTHING about equality, this is Just more argument by assertion,
1Timothy ch.5:21NIV"I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism." Are we to infer coeternality and coequality among those named here please note that all three subjects are credited with joint oversight, we both know that if instead of elect angels the Holy Spirit was mentioned that this would have been trotted out as yet another supposed trinitarian proof text.
All trintarian proof text have simpler answers and answers with scriptural precedent, trintarian interpretations are not only violations of occam's razor they have NO Scriptural precedent whatsoever.
The title most High is used of the God and Father of Jesus,going on to claim that the same God and Father of Jesus has two others who are coequal to him is a flagrant contradiction of the plain declaration of scripture and logic.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteRationalism is a philosophical approach that prioritizes human reason as the primary source of knowledge, often dismissing divine revelation. In theology, reason is used to understand and interpret divine revelation, but it acknowledges that some divine truths, such as the Trinity, transcend human comprehension. This does not make them irrational, just beyond full human understanding.
The doctrine of the Trinity does not propose three mutually exclusive identities but one God in three persons, coequal and coeternal, sharing the same divine essence. This is a complex unity, not a contradiction. The relationship among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one of distinction, not division, preserving the unity of God.
The usage of "theos" in John 1:1-3 and other passages does not equate Jesus with merely exalted servants, and no exalted servants are called "theos" in the New Testament, so it's such a general usage. John 1:1 states, "the Word was God," affirming Jesus' divinity. John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") speaks of unity in essence and purpose, not just function. The neuter "one" (hen) in John 10:30 and John 17:22 indicates unity, not inferiority or separation of being.
John 10:29 emphasizes the Father's supreme authority but does not negate the Son's divinity. Jesus' statement in John 10:30 about being one with the Father points to their shared divine nature. Matthew 28:19's baptismal formula ("in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit") implicitly supports the equality and unity of the three persons of the Trinity.
1 Timothy 5:21 mentions God, Christ Jesus, and the elect angels to emphasize solemnity and divine witness, not to suggest coequality. The absence of the Holy Spirit in this particular verse does not diminish His divinity or role within the Trinity. The context of each passage must be considered to understand its theological implications.
Occam's Razor advocates for simplicity, but not at the expense of truth. The Trinity, while complex, accurately reflects the biblical revelation of God's nature. Simplifying this to a purely rationalistic framework ignores the depth of divine mystery and revelation.
The title "Most High" (El Elyon) signifies God's supreme authority and is not used to contrast the Father with the Son. Luke 1:32, which calls Jesus the Son of the Most High, affirms His divine status. The doctrine of the Trinity upholds the coequality and coeternality of the Son and the Holy Spirit with the Father, aligning with the full scriptural witness.
The argument against the Trinity based on rationalism and simplicity misunderstands both theological principles and the nature of divine revelation. The doctrine of the Trinity, though complex, is coherent, biblically grounded, and aligns with the full witness of Scripture. The divine mystery of the Trinity does not contradict reason but transcends it, inviting deeper contemplation and faith.
The persons are supposedly distinct from each other and none of the persons are triune or , yet each person is supposed to have the quality of the one God, that is both fully necessary and sufficient to account for the causation and preservation of the creation,manifest self-contradiction ,and all the explaining away in the world will not ,turn this absurdity into sophistication, your arguments by assertion, continue to be rejected, the simplest explanation remains the best,you failed repeatedly to provide a reason , for rejected the axiomatic explanation.
ReplyDelete@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteThe doctrine of the Trinity holds that God is one in essence (ousia) and three in persons (hypostases): Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each person is fully God, sharing the same divine essence. This is not a self-contradiction but a profound mystery of faith, acknowledging God's infinite nature transcending human comprehension. The persons are distinct relationally, not essentially.
Each person of the Trinity possesses the fullness of the divine nature, making them fully God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal, participating in the divine work of creation and preservation. This does not imply three separate gods but one God in three persons, acting in perfect unity.
The doctrine of the Trinity is complex, but complexity does not equal contradiction. Simplistic explanations may appeal to human reason but fall short of capturing the fullness of divine revelation. The Trinity is a revealed truth, not a construct of human logic alone. Simplifying it to a form that denies its revealed nature undermines the depth of God's self-disclosure in Scripture.
The New Testament consistently presents the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct yet unified in essence. For instance, Matthew 28:19 commands baptism in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, indicating unity. John 1:1-3 identifies the Word (Logos) as God and creator, while John 10:30 and John 14:9-11 emphasize the unity of the Father and the Son.
The "axiomatic explanation" that denies the Trinity often rests on a rationalistic approach that limits understanding to human reason alone, disregarding divine mystery. Trinitarian doctrine embraces both faith and reason, recognizing that some truths about God's nature surpass human logic. This does not make them irrational but rather supra-rational, inviting deeper contemplation and faith.
The doctrine of the Trinity, though complex, is a coherent and biblically grounded expression of God's nature. It acknowledges the distinct persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit while affirming their unity in essence. Rejecting this on the grounds of simplicity ignores the profound depth of divine revelation and the limitations of human reason. The Trinity remains a central tenet of Christian faith, fully accounting for the scriptural portrayal of God.
It is a manifest self contradiction to anyone whose brain has not been damaged by such stupidity, JEHOVAH is fully God alone he is both absolutely necessary and absolutely sufficient to account for all the information and energy manifest in the creation,anyone not numerically identical to JEHOVAH Cannot be fully God, it logically follows then that none of the members of Christendom's Trinity can be JEHOVAH. The only mystery is that any sane adult of average intelligence should lend any credence to such appalling stupidity as the Trinity. The scriptural portrayal of JEHOVAH is that he is ever Father never Son ,always master never servant,always spirit never flesh,always anointer never anointed, always worshipped never worshiper, always superlative never peer or subordinate, always singular never plural, always Creator never creature,always Immortal never mortal,always resurrector never resurrected, always deity never priest or prophet,always dispatcher never apostle or emissary. That is the only authentic scriptural portrayal of the Lord JEHOVAH.
DeleteJohn ch.1:1-3 says that the Logos was with The GOD not merely the Father, theos as applied to the word thus does not mean the Supreme being,but an exalted servants of the supreme being see psalms 82:1-6,self-contradiction can be dismissed out of hand as falsehood,
ReplyDeleteThe passage in John 1:1-3 states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The phrase "the Word was with God" (ho Theos) implies a distinct person from the Father, supporting the concept of the Trinity, not refuting it. This distinction disproves modalism, which claims that God is one person manifesting in different modes. The term "THEOS" applied to the Logos in John 1:1c does not denote a mere exalted servant but rather identifies the Logos as divine. The grammatical construction in Greek, using "Theos" without an article in the predicate nominative, emphasizes the nature of the Word as fully divine.
DeletePsalms 82:1-6 uses the term "elohim" to refer to human judges, but this usage is metaphorical and context-specific. In contrast, the New Testament's use of "Theos" for the Logos is not analogous to the metaphorical usage in Psalms 82. The New Testament consistently portrays Jesus as possessing divine attributes, performing divine works, and receiving divine worship.
The doctrine of the Trinity holds that the Father, Son (Logos), and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but one in essence. John 1:1b does not contradict this but rather affirms the relationship within the Godhead. The Logos being "with God" (pros ton Theon) highlights the distinct personhood of the Son while maintaining unity in essence with the Father.
The New Testament does not support the interpretation of "Theos" as merely an exalted servant when applied to Jesus. Jesus is consistently portrayed as divine (e.g., John 20:28, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:3). Any interpretation reducing Jesus to an exalted servant lacks scriptural backing within the context of New Testament theology.
The claim that the Trinity is a self-contradiction misunderstands the doctrine. The Trinity does not assert that three gods exist but that one God exists in three persons, each fully possessing the divine essence. This is a profound mystery but not a logical contradiction.
John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") uses the neuter "hen" to signify unity in essence, not merely purpose or agreement. This is distinct from the union of believers with Christ, which is relational and participatory, not ontological.
John 1:1-3 affirms the divinity of the Logos within the framework of the Trinity. The term "Theos" applied to the Logos denotes true divinity, not just an "exalted servant" role. Psalms 82 does not provide a precedent for reducing the Logos to an exalted servant. The Trinity, while a profound mystery, remains a coherent doctrine grounded in the scriptural revelation of the New Testament.
The Catholic Church and Jehovah's Witnesses' Views on God's Foreknowledge and Human Free Will
ReplyDeleteCatholic Perspective
1. God's Timelessness and Inherent Omniscience:
The Catholic Church teaches that God is not bound by time; He is eternal and exists outside of temporal constraints. God is omniscient, meaning His knowledge is perfect and inexhaustible. God knows all past, present, and future events. This view is supported by scriptural references such as Psalm 139:1-4 and 16, which clearly depict God's omniscience.
God's timelessness means that for Him, all temporal events are simultaneously present, so there is no need for Him to "foresee" anything as everything is an eternal present to Him. Therefore, God's knowledge does not affect human free will. People make free choices, and God knows what decisions they will make in advance, but His knowledge does not compel them to make those choices.
2. Reconciliation of Free Will and God's Omniscience:
Catholic theology maintains that God's foreknowledge and human free will are not contradictory. God's omniscience does not determine human decisions; people make choices freely, and God's knowledge is based on these free decisions. In other words, events do not happen because God knows them; rather, God's knowledge is certain because these events will occur as He knows.
Jehovah's Witnesses' Perspective
1. Selective Foreknowledge:
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God is not inherently omniscient but exercises foreknowledge selectively. That is, God chooses to look into the future based on His decision and consciously decides not to foresee certain things to respect human free will. They support this view with several biblical passages, such as Genesis 18:21, where God says He will go down and see if the outcry against Sodom is as great as reported.
2. Arguments for Selective Foreknowledge:
Jehovah's Witnesses argue that if God knew every future event, human decisions would not be truly free since foreknowledge would determine them. They claim that God's selective foreknowledge preserves human free will and avoids the logical contradiction that total foreknowledge would necessarily influence human decisions.
Refutation of Jehovah's Witnesses' Arguments
1. Logical and Philosophical Refutation:
The concept of selective foreknowledge is logically untenable because it contains an inherent contradiction. If God decides in advance what He does not want to know, He must already know those events to decide what not to know. This is a logical paradox. Moreover, if God had the capability to know only certain things in advance, He would not be truly omniscient, thus failing to meet the definition of an infinite and perfect being.
2. Theological and Biblical Refutation:
The Bible affirms God's omniscience in many places, such as Psalm 33:13-15, Jeremiah 16:17 and 23:24, and 1 John 3:20. These passages clearly state that God sees and knows everything. The idea that God deliberately chooses not to know certain things contradicts these scriptures and the notion of God's perfect and unlimited knowledge.
Furthermore, selective foreknowledge undermines God's absolute power and omnipotence. God's omnipotence means that there is nothing He cannot do or know. If God deliberately limited His own knowledge, this would contradict the very concept of omniscience and omnipotence.
Conclusion:
Catholic theology asserts that God's eternal and timeless existence and His omniscience are fully compatible with human free will. Human decisions are free, and God's foreknowledge does not determine these decisions. In contrast, Jehovah's Witnesses' concept of selective foreknowledge is logically and theologically untenable and contradicts biblical teachings.
Your assumption that the future is totally foredetermined is unscriptural, JEHOVAH Creates the future and has the sovereign authority to make it undetermined in any respect that he desires so if he has created and undetermined aspect of the future then that lack of determination is all there is to know, so there is no violation of JEHOVAH'S Omniscience,he knows all that he has determined and he knows all that he has decreed undetermined according to his sovereign power,determinism is a falsehood,
Delete@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteThe doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being in three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This does not imply three separate gods, but one God in three co-equal and co-eternal persons. The concept of the Trinity does not contradict monotheism but rather expresses the complexity and unity within God's nature.
The Bible provides numerous references that support the Trinitarian view. For example, John 1:1-3 identifies the Word (Logos) as God and as the agent of creation. Matthew 28:19 commands baptism in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, indicating their unity. John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") and John 14:9-11 emphasize the unity and co-equality of the Father and the Son.
While it is true that Jehovah is portrayed as the ultimate Creator and Sovereign, the New Testament reveals the complexity of His nature. Philippians 2:6-7 explains that Jesus, though being in the form of God, took on human nature and humbled Himself. This does not diminish His divinity but highlights the incarnation's purpose in God's redemptive plan. The attributes of being the Father (such as never being incarnated or resurrected) naturally do not apply to the Son, who became flesh.
The roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit differ but do not imply inequality. The Father is often seen as the source, the Son as the mediator, and the Holy Spirit as the sustainer. This functional distinction does not negate their shared essence and divinity.
The simplicity of God in classical theology refers to God's indivisible nature, not to a lack of complexity in His relational being. The Trinity reflects this divine simplicity in that the three persons are of one essence, perfectly unified without division or hierarchy.
The Trinitarian doctrine has been consistently upheld throughout Christian history. Early Church Fathers such as Augustine and Athanasius articulated the Trinity to combat heresies that oversimplified God's nature, such as Arianism, which denied the full divinity of Christ.
The claim that each person of the Trinity being fully God is self-contradictory misunderstands the relational nature within the Godhead. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three separate gods but three persons in one God, sharing the same divine essence without division. This is a profound mystery, not a logical contradiction.
The scriptural portrayal of Jehovah as the Father does not exclude the Son and the Holy Spirit from being fully God. The term "Most High" (El Elyon) used for the Father in the Old Testament is a title of supremacy but does not preclude the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus, as the incarnate Son, took on human roles that the Father, who did not incarnate, naturally did not. This differentiation in roles is essential to the understanding of the incarnation and does not negate the co-equality within the Trinity.
The Trinity is a profound mystery but not a contradiction. It reflects the depth of divine revelation rather than human logic alone. The biblical portrayal of Jehovah includes the complexity of His triune nature, which has been understood and affirmed by the Church for centuries. Rejecting the Trinity overlooks the fullness of Scriptural teaching and the historical understanding of God's nature.
By your logic the elect angels should be included in the Godhead because they share the same oversight of the church 1Timothy ch.5:21, your interpretive logic cannot be consistently applied and keeps ignoring the more rational conclusion and thus must be rejected as flawed.
DeleteThe Scriptures do not equate "eternity" with timelessness. Numerous studies have been done on the subject, but here is one: http://essays.wisluthsem.org:8080/bitstream/handle/123456789/2371/JeskeForever.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
ReplyDeleteFor instance, Isaiah 44:7.
ReplyDeleteMore argument by assertion if you had any actual reason for abandoning the axiomatic position we would have seen it by now, there is no declaration that JEHOVAH is anything but singular,or that He has any peers,so the Trinity is flagrantly anti scriptural and antirational none of the proof text you cite are axiomatically readable in the interpretations you put forward,we know that The creation is not "dia" JEHOVAH and that the Father and the Son are depicted not merely as distinct persons but distinct gods we know that the simpler and more rational explanation is that the Father is God in the sense of being to supreme being and that his servant is God in a poetic sense in accordance with The entirety of scriptural precedent governing the relationship between JEHOVAH and his servants, it is basic logic that the three distinct subjects cannot each be sufficient and yet each be necessary to account for the same explanation. Any dogma that defies such basic logic can be dismissed out of hand as illogical and unscriptural,
ReplyDeleteIt is by scripture and logic by which true Christians determine the truth about JEHOVAH not unfounded illogical and unscriptural assertions.
Note please that at both John ch.1:1-3 and 1Timothy ch.5:21 Christ is distinguished not merely from The Father(Ho Pater) but The GOD(Ho Theos)
ReplyDeleteFrom wikipedia"The Immaculate Conception is the belief that the Virgin Mary was free of original sin from the moment of her conception.[1] It is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church.[2] Debated by medieval theologians, it was not defined as a dogma until 1854,[3] by Pope Pius IX in the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus.[4] While the Immaculate Conception asserts Mary's freedom from original sin, the Council of Trent, held between 1545 and 1563, had previously affirmed her freedom from personal sin.[5]"
ReplyDeleteIncreased light for thee but not for me?
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteThe Bible does indeed present God (Yahweh) as singular in essence. However, this does not contradict the Trinitarian view. The Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 ("Yahweeh is one") emphasizes monotheism but does not preclude the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one in essence but exists in three distinct persons.
The claim that proof texts cannot be interpreted to support the Trinity is incorrect. Scriptures like John 1:1, John 10:30, and Matthew 28:19 support the complex unity of the Godhead. John 1:1 states, "the Word was with God, and the Word was God," indicating distinct personhood yet shared divine essence. In John 10:30, Jesus says, "I and the Father are one," using the Greek word "hen" (one) to signify unity in essence, not merely purpose.
The assertion that the Trinity is “illogical” misunderstands the doctrine. The Trinity posits that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons who share one divine essence. This is not a contradiction but a mystery that transcends human understanding. Philosophical and theological frameworks, such as the concept of PERICHORESIS, explain how three persons can share one essence without contradiction.
While Psalms 82:1-6 refers to "gods" (elohim), it does not equate these figures with Yahweh. This term is used metaphorically for human judges or angels, not to imply they share in the divine essence. The New Testament clearly differentiates Jesus from created beings and assigns Him divine status (e.g., John 20:28, Col. 2:9). The relationship between Yahweh and His servants is one of authority and mission, but this does not diminish the divinity of Jesus. Hebrews 1:3 states that Jesus is "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being," affirming His divine nature.
The claim that distinct persons cannot each be fully God yet one God reflects a misunderstanding of Trinitarian theology. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but are not distinct gods. They are coequal and coeternal, each fully possessing the divine essence. This is affirmed by Church Fathers and ecumenical councils throughout Christian history.
The argument that simpler explanations are better (Occam's Razor) does not automatically disqualify the Trinity. The Trinity is a revealed truth that transcends human logic but is not contrary to it. The complexity of the Trinity reflects the complexity of God, who is infinitely beyond human comprehension.
1 Timothy 5:21: The inclusion of "elect angels" alongside "God and Christ Jesus" does not suggest coequality with God. The context indicates the presence of witnesses to Paul's charge, not a statement of divinity. "God and Christ Jesus" are mentioned separately to distinguish the Father and the Son, emphasizing their unique roles and authority.
In the New Testament, "Ho Theos" generally refers to the Father, while "Ho Kyrios" refers to the Son. Thus, the terminology "God and Jesus" does not exclude the Son from being truly God. The distinctions between "Ho Theos" and "Ho Kyrios" in scripture serve to identify the distinct persons within the Trinity, not to suggest a hierarchy or inequality.
In John 1:1-3, "The Word was with God" (ho theos) and "The Word was God" (theos) indicates a distinction yet unity within the Godhead. This does not support Arianism or the idea that Jesus is a lesser god but rather emphasizes His divine nature coexisting with the Father. This maximum distinction would refute Sabellian modalism, highlighting the relational distinction without compromising unity in essence.
The Trinitarian doctrine does not violate logic but transcends human understanding. The distinctions made in scripture between the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit) do not imply inequality but rather a complex unity. This mystery is supported by scripture and tradition, affirming the coherence of Trinitarian theology.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteYour argument seems to conflate determinism with predestination and inaccurately presents Jehovah's Witnesses' concept of "selective foreknowledge" and process theology as the sole solutions to reconcile free will with divine omniscience.
Predestination, as understood in Catholic theology, does not equate to determinism. Determinism suggests that all events are caused by preceding factors without any possibility of variation, leaving no room for free will. Predestination, on the other hand, refers to God's eternal knowledge and decree regarding the final destiny of souls, which does not negate human free will. Catholics believe that God's foreknowledge of future events, including human actions, does not determine those actions.
The claim that God can create an undetermined aspect of the future, and thereby preserve free will, is based on a misunderstanding of omniscience. Omniscience means knowing everything that can be known, including all potential outcomes and free will decisions. If God were to decide not to know certain future events, this would imply a limitation on His knowledge, which contradicts the definition of omniscience.
Your statement that "the future is totally foredetermined is unscriptural" misinterprets traditional Christian teachings. The Bible clearly presents God as knowing all things (1 John 3:20, Psalm 139:4, 16). This comprehensive knowledge does not negate free will but rather encompasses it. The future is not predetermined in the sense that human choices are coerced; rather, God knows the outcomes of those choices because He exists outside of time.
Catholic theology teaches that God exists outside of time (Psalm 90:2, Revelation 1:8). This means that for God, past, present, and future are simultaneously present. God's knowledge of future events, including human decisions, does not impose necessity on those events. Humans still freely choose their actions, and God's knowledge is simply an eternal witness to these choices.
The reconciliation of divine foreknowledge and human free will is not unique to God's Witnesses' "selective foreknowledge" or process theology. Catholic theology has long maintained that human free will coexists with God's omniscience. Thomas Aquinas and other theologians have articulated that God's knowledge does not constrain human freedom but perfectly comprehends it.
Claiming that God "creates and undetermined aspect of the future" suggests a limitation on divine knowledge. In classical theism, God's omniscience means He knows all possible futures and actual outcomes. God's sovereignty and omniscience are not compromised by human free will; rather, they coexist perfectly. God, in His omnipotence, allows for human freedom while still knowing all that will happen.
The Catholic understanding of God's omniscience and human free will avoids the pitfalls of determinism and does not require the concept of selective foreknowledge. Instead, it offers a coherent and biblically grounded explanation that respects both divine omniscience and human freedom. By conflating determinism with predestination and proposing selective foreknowledge as the only solution, your argument overlooks the rich theological tradition that has long addressed these complex issues.
It is not the only totally illogical thing the churches of christendom believe,the only way that a thing can be foreknown precisely is if it is foredetermined absolutely any claim at variance with this is yet another example of the sort of irrationality we have come to expect from the churches of christendom.
DeleteAnd as Creator it would be JEHOVAH who has foredetermined it either actively or passively
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDelete"Increased light for thee but not for me?"
Here is a perfect misunderstanding. When something is declared a dogma, it does not mean the same as when the Watchtower announces a "new light"; rather, it means that a doctrine already believed by the Church is officially established. A dogma cannot be proclaimed unless it has already been part of the Church's "kerygma," at least inclusively. It is like building a path in a park where people have already worn down the grass by walking. For example, the early Church was Trinitarian before the Council of Nicaea, but since the Arian crisis was not significant enough to threaten the Church's unity, there was no need to define it at an ecumenical council.
Let me give an example: Suppose there is no law in a country prohibiting public nudity, but people, without any legal obligation, naturally refrain from it. If a scandalous movement promoting public sexual freedom started, the state would legislate against public nudity. This does not mean that people only started wearing clothes after the law came into effect; rather, it means that social pressure and customary law were sufficient until it seemed they were not, necessitating the formalization of the ALREADY EXISTING norm into a higher-level written norm.
A doctrine can only be elevated to dogma if it has already been part of the Church's faith, although some theologians might have debated it. The Magisterium does not have the right to change the faith, so the proclamation of a dogma can never be something that is a new concept in its content.
If you look, unlike the Watchtower, Catholic teaching does not prescribe what must be believed under the penalty of excommunication but rather what must not be denied. So, like in a modern rule-of-law state, "everything is permitted that is not prohibited," while for the Watchtower, it is the opposite: the exception is what is a "matter of conscience." Therefore, dogmas only delineate the extremes, like buoys in swimming, but swimming between them is up to you.
Except it wasn't always believed or there would be no debate, it was conjured out of thin air, no scriptural basis no nothing,all .
ReplyDeleteLeviticus ch.12:6NIV"“ ‘When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. a "
ReplyDeleteLuke ch.2:22-24NIV"22When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord” b ), 24and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.” c"
Regarding your comparison to the way law tends to emerge a more accurate picture might be the way a minority culture say one that might be okay with abortion eventually rises to a position of dominance supplanting the previous paradigm that took a dim view of the practice and then acquires the political power to legalize the practice
ReplyDelete@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteIn Catholic theology, the development of doctrine does not mean the invention of new beliefs but rather the deepening understanding and formal articulation of truths already present within the Church's deposit of faith. The concept of dogma development holds that while the core truths of the faith remain unchanged, the Church's understanding and expression of these truths can grow over time as guided by the Holy Spirit.
This is based on the premise that revelation was completed with the apostles, but the full implications and understandings of that revelation can unfold gradually. The Vatican Council I (1869-1870) clearly stated that the deposit of faith, delivered once to the saints, cannot be altered in substance. However, the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, may define certain aspects of these truths more explicitly as challenges arise or as the Church's reflection on the mystery of faith deepens.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which holds that Mary was conceived without original sin, was not simply "invented" in 1854. Rather, it is a belief that developed over centuries, rooted in the Church’s understanding of Mary’s unique role in salvation history. Early Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, drew parallels between Eve and Mary, emphasizing Mary’s obedience and purity. These early reflections laid the groundwork for the later articulation of the Immaculate Conception.
In the Middle Ages, theologians like Anselm and Duns Scotus further developed the theological reasoning behind the belief, emphasizing the fittingness of Mary being preserved from original sin in anticipation of her role as the Mother of God. While there was debate among theologians regarding the exact nature and timing of Mary's sanctification, the belief in her unique sanctity was widely held.
By the 19th century, the belief had gained almost universal acceptance among the faithful and the hierarchy, leading Pope Pius IX to solemnly define it as dogma in 1854. This definition did not create a new doctrine but rather confirmed and clarified a belief that had been growing and developing within the Church for centuries.
The critique that the Immaculate Conception "wasn't always believed" misunderstands the nature of how doctrine develops in the Catholic Church. The presence of theological debate does not negate the existence of belief within the Church; instead, it reflects the Church’s ongoing process of understanding and articulating its faith. The eventual dogmatic definition is the culmination of this process, not the creation of a new teaching.
Moreover, the claim that the Immaculate Conception has "no scriptural basis" overlooks the Catholic understanding of how doctrine is rooted in both Scripture and Tradition. While the doctrine may not be explicitly detailed in Scripture, it is implicit in the biblical portrayal of Mary and is supported by the Church's ongoing reflection on the mystery of Christ and his redemptive work.
In summary, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is an example of how the Catholic Church, through centuries of theological reflection and guided by the Holy Spirit, comes to a deeper understanding of the truths revealed by God. The 1854 dogmatic definition was not an invention but a formal acknowledgment of a belief that had been held and venerated within the Church for many centuries.
The belief was held by some and rejected by others eventually the party that held this unscriptural belief acquired the numbers in academia to impose their view that is why it took centuries of debate(at times acrimonous) before a formal pronouncement we note that the protestants did not carry over this dogma with them rightly regarding it as unscriptural,
DeleteAnd that the eastern church also rejects the doctrine,
The objection to the Immaculate Conception, based on Mary’s participation in the purification rite described in Luke 2:22-24 and Leviticus 12:6, is founded on a misunderstanding of the nature of these rites and their implications for Mary’s sinlessness. Critics argue that because Mary underwent a purification rite, she must have been sinful, thus contradicting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. However, this argument is flawed for several reasons.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, it's important to understand that the purification rite prescribed in Leviticus 12 was not about atoning for personal sin but was a ritual act of restoring ceremonial purity after childbirth. The “sin offering” was part of a legal requirement under the Mosaic Law and addressed a state of ritual impurity, not moral guilt. No sin was involved in childbirth, yet the law required this offering to reintegrate the woman into the community’s religious life.
Luke 2:24 specifically notes that Mary and Joseph offered the sacrifice "in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord." This indicates that their actions were driven by obedience to the law, not by any necessity arising from personal sin. The verse does not imply that Mary was sinful; rather, it shows her piety and adherence to the law. This is reinforced by Martin Luther's observation that Mary submitted to the law out of humility and love, despite not being personally bound by it due to her sinlessness.
Moreover, the argument that undergoing a purification rite implies sinfulness is inconsistent when we consider that Jesus, who was without sin, also participated in similar rites. Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21) and underwent John’s baptism of repentance (Matthew 3:13-15), yet Christians universally acknowledge His sinlessness. Jesus’ participation in these rites did not indicate that He was sinful; rather, He did so to fulfill the law and to identify with humanity. Similarly, Mary’s participation in the purification rite was an act of obedience and humility, not an admission of personal sin.
Additionally, Galatians 4:4 reminds us that Christ was “born under the law,” meaning He subjected Himself to the requirements of the Mosaic Law. If Christ, who is sinless, could submit to these laws without being considered sinful, then the same applies to Mary. Her offering was in obedience to the law, not because she was sinful.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception teaches that Mary was preserved from original sin from the moment of her conception, by a singular grace granted by God in view of the merits of Jesus Christ. This belief is deeply rooted in Scripture and Tradition. Early Church Fathers drew typological connections between Mary and figures such as Eve, who was created without sin, and the Ark of the Covenant, which was pure and immaculate. These typologies highlight Mary’s unique role in salvation history and her preservation from sin.
In conclusion, the purification rite that Mary participated in does not contradict the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Instead, it demonstrates her humility and obedience to the law, similar to Christ’s own submission to the law. The argument that this rite disproves her sinlessness is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the rite and fails to consider the broader theological context. The Immaculate Conception remains a consistent and well-supported doctrine within the Catholic Church.
The law only applies to those with inherited sin so if she had no inherited sin,this law would not apply to her.
DeleteMatthew ch.12:49NIV"47Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
If Jesus wanted his mother venerated this would be an odd thing say would it not?
Christ was declared righteous by the law making a sin offering would have been a declaration that he was in fact under sin like the rest of us so he would have made no sin offering,
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteYour assertion that "the only way that a thing can be foreknown precisely is if it is foredetermined absolutely" represents a misunderstanding of both logic and theology, particularly within the context of Christian doctrine.
Firstly, the claim conflates foreknowledge with predetermination, assuming that if something is known in advance, it must be caused or determined by the knower. This is not a logical necessity. For instance, if I know the sun will rise tomorrow, my knowledge does not cause or determine the sun's rising—it simply reflects my understanding of a natural occurrence. Similarly, God’s foreknowledge of future events does not require Him to cause or predetermine them. In classical Christian theology, particularly within Catholicism, God exists outside of time, viewing past, present, and future simultaneously. This allows God to know all things without necessitating that He determines every action.
Secondly, your statement implies a deterministic universe where human free will is an illusion because all actions are supposedly foredetermined by God. This is not the teaching of "the churches of Christendom," particularly within Catholic theology. Catholic doctrine upholds that while God has foreknowledge of all events, human beings still possess free will. This belief is not irrational but rather reflects a deep understanding of God’s omniscience as transcending human comprehension. The idea that God’s knowledge coexists with human free will is central to Christian theology and aligns with the concept of a loving, just Creator who respects the autonomy of His creation.
Moreover, the assertion that Jehovah (as understood by Jehovah's Witnesses) foredetermines events "either actively or passively" raises its own logical issues. If everything is foredetermined by God, then moral responsibility becomes meaningless, and the problem of evil becomes insurmountable—how can a just God be the author of evil? The traditional Christian understanding avoids this by distinguishing between God's sovereign will and human free agency, where God allows free will to operate within His creation, knowing the outcomes but not dictating them.
In conclusion, the belief in God's foreknowledge without predetermination is not illogical but is a nuanced theological position that preserves both divine omniscience and human free will. The accusation of irrationality against the churches of Christendom fails to recognize the depth and coherence of this belief system, which has been carefully articulated over centuries of theological reflection.
You are not JEHOVAH So your foreknowledge is inconsequential,JEHOVAH can stop the sun from rising so his foreknowledge of the sun's rising is of a different nature to any creature's foreknowledge of it, and you keep conveniently missing my point the future is not totally foredetermined and such is by divine decree, so that is why we have true free will. Not the irrational apology for freewill that is really no freewill at all, posited by Christedom's theologians, and because the future is not fully foredetermined it cannot be precisely foreknown. That is why true moral excellence is possible.
DeleteChristendom's doctrine if absolute predeterminism is nothing more than absurdity masquerading as sophistication.
This thread will close by 12 am EST. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteMark ch.3:21NIV"When his family b heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”"
ReplyDeleteLater on at verse 33 the aforementioned family who thought that our Lord and savior had lost his mind are identified as Jesus' mother and brothers(let's ignore who these brothers are for now) but if Mary was truly the second eve she would have known who the second Adam was would she not?
Mark Ch.2:17NIV"On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have NOT come to call the RIGHTEOUS, but SINNERS.”
ReplyDeleteWas/is Mary a Christian?
From Nincsnevem:
ReplyDeleteMy answer to aservantofJEHOVAH, I ask you Mr. Foster, to copy this into the "Ephesians 3:11-"Eternal Purpose"?" topic:
1. The Law and Inherited Sin
The claim that the law only applies to those with inherited sin and thus would not apply to Mary if she were sinless misunderstands the nature of the Mosaic Law. The law was a comprehensive system that applied to all Israelites, regardless of individual sinfulness. Jesus Himself, who was without sin, was circumcised (Luke 2:21) and participated in other rites prescribed by the law. His submission to the law was not an indication of sin but a demonstration of obedience to God's commandments. Similarly, Mary's participation in the purification rite (Luke 2:22-24) was an act of obedience and humility, not an indication of sin.
Moreover, the law’s purpose was not solely to address personal sin but to regulate the covenantal relationship between God and His people. Mary, being fully Jewish and living under the Mosaic Law, would naturally observe its requirements, even if she was preserved from original sin. This does not negate her sinlessness but shows her faithful adherence to the law.
2. Jesus’ Words About His Family (Matthew 12:49-50)
The passage where Jesus speaks about His disciples as His mother and brothers is often misunderstood. Jesus is not rejecting or diminishing Mary’s role; rather, He is expanding the concept of family to include all who do the will of God. This does not contradict the veneration of Mary but highlights that spiritual kinship is based on obedience to God. Mary, as the first and most perfect disciple of Jesus, who fully did the will of God, is the ultimate model of this spiritual family. Far from being an "odd" thing to say, Jesus’ words emphasize the importance of spiritual relationships in the Kingdom of God.
3. Jesus and the Sin Offering
The claim that Jesus did not make a sin offering because He was declared righteous by the law overlooks key aspects of His life and mission. While Jesus Himself did not need a sin offering, His participation in the rites of the law, including His baptism by John (a baptism of repentance), was part of His mission to fully identify with humanity. He submitted to these practices not because He was under sin but to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15).
Similarly, Mary's observance of the purification rite was not because she needed purification from sin but because she, like Jesus, lived in full obedience to the law. This obedience does not imply sinfulness but rather a deep commitment to God's will.
4. The History and Acceptance of the Doctrine
ReplyDeleteThe argument that the belief in the Immaculate Conception was "unscriptural" and imposed by a dominant academic party ignores the deep roots of this doctrine in Christian tradition. The belief in Mary’s sinlessness has early origins in the Church, reflected in the writings of the Church Fathers and the liturgical practices of the early Christians. The development of doctrine, including the Immaculate Conception, is a process by which the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, comes to a deeper understanding of the truths of faith.
The fact that it took centuries for the formal definition of the Immaculate Conception does not discredit it; rather, it demonstrates the Church’s careful and prayerful reflection on this mystery. The Protestant Reformation and the Eastern Church’s different theological perspectives do not invalidate the doctrine but reflect different interpretative traditions. The Catholic Church, through its magisterium, has the authority to define doctrines based on Scripture and Tradition, and the Immaculate Conception is understood as a truth revealed by God, as articulated in the encyclical Ineffabilis Deus.
The Eastern Orthodox Church confesses the complete sinlessness of Mary, their opposition basically stems from different interpretations of original sin, and they dispute that the Pope has the right to proclaim dogma.
5. Mary and the Second Eve
The argument that Mary would have recognized Jesus as the Second Adam if she were truly the Second Eve misunderstands both the role of typology and Mary’s faith journey. Mary’s understanding of her Son’s mission grew over time, just as the apostles’ understanding of Jesus' messianic role developed gradually. Her initial responses, including her participation in the purification rite and her concern for Jesus' well-being, reflect her humanity and deep maternal love, not a lack of understanding of Jesus' identity.
Moreover, being the Second Eve does not imply immediate and complete knowledge of all theological implications. It indicates Mary’s unique role in salvation history as the one who, through her obedience, reversed the disobedience of Eve. Mary’s sinlessness is rooted in her unique role in God’s plan of salvation, which is why the Church venerates her as the sinless Mother of God.
Conclusion
The objections raised against the Immaculate Conception and the veneration of Mary misunderstand the nature of the Mosaic Law, the development of Christian doctrine, and the typological significance of Mary in salvation history. The Immaculate Conception is not a later imposition but a truth deeply rooted in the Church’s understanding of Mary’s unique role. Her obedience to the law, including the purification rite, is consistent with her sinlessness and reflects her profound humility and faith. The Catholic Church’s veneration of Mary is fully in line with the scriptural and theological tradition that recognizes her as the New Eve and the Mother of the Church.
Also from Nincsnevem:
ReplyDeleteYour argument appears to misunderstand both the nature of God’s foreknowledge and the theological position held by many Christian traditions regarding free will and predestination.
Firstly, it’s important to clarify that God’s foreknowledge and human foreknowledge are indeed different, but this does not negate the possibility of God knowing the future without determining it. Christian theology traditionally teaches that God, being outside of time, sees all events—past, present, and future—simultaneously. This does not mean that God determines every action that will occur; rather, it means that God knows the choices that free creatures will make. God’s knowledge is comprehensive and perfect, but it does not override or negate human free will.
You mention that because the future is not fully foredetermined, it cannot be precisely foreknown. However, this claim assumes that for something to be known, it must be determined. This is not the case, especially when considering the nature of God. God's knowledge is not contingent on causality in the way human knowledge is. God’s knowledge is complete and eternal, meaning that He knows the outcomes of all free decisions without needing to cause them. This understanding preserves both the sovereignty of God and the genuine freedom of human beings.
Regarding your assertion that Christendom posits an "apology for free will" that is "really no free will at all," this seems to be a misunderstanding of what Christian theologians, especially within Catholic and many Protestant traditions, actually teach. The doctrine of predestination, as understood in these traditions, does not imply absolute determinism. For example, the Catholic Church teaches that God predestines no one to damnation and that human beings are fully capable of making free choices that have real moral significance. The Council of Trent, for example, affirmed the reality of human free will while also upholding the necessity of divine grace.
Your critique of "absolute predeterminism" as absurd is addressing a straw man rather than the actual beliefs of most Christian traditions. Absolute predeterminism, where all events are caused by God in a way that negates human freedom, is not a position held by mainstream Christianity. Instead, what is often taught is that God's foreknowledge includes a divine plan where human freedom plays a real and vital role. This is not absurdity but a sophisticated understanding of how divine omniscience and human freedom coexist.
Finally, your point about true moral excellence being impossible under the doctrine of predeterminism is based on a misunderstanding. In Christian thought, moral excellence is possible precisely because humans have the freedom to choose between good and evil, even within the scope of God’s omniscient knowledge. God's foreknowledge does not constrain human freedom; rather, it encompasses it, allowing for the genuine exercise of free will and moral responsibility.
In summary, the notion that God’s foreknowledge negates human free will is a misconception. Traditional Christian doctrine affirms that God’s omniscience and human freedom are compatible, and that God’s foreknowledge does not equate to predetermination. This balance between divine knowledge and human free will is what allows for true moral agency and the potential for moral excellence.