Clarification of the clarification for Turretinfan
Why this post? Here’s the preceding ones: (TF), (Me), (TF), (Me), (TF), (Me), (TF). As you can see, TF started it. :-)
Dear Turretinfan,
In your last post you said:
Given that we are Trinitarians, there is no reason to hold to a view that God has ever been inactive, such that there was a "first act" of God. (link)
But previously you had said:
Although there was no action before Creation, nevertheless God's nature and counsel, being eternal, preceded the first action. (link)
Before you seemed to be denying action regressed infinitely, and affirming a first act. Now you seem to be asserting an infinite regression of actions, and denying a first act. This is an important point to clarify as your comments above shaped my question. How do you reconcile these two statements?
The idea that God’s nature causes His action (an idea that I previously understood you to assert) seems inconsistent with the idea of an infinite regression of actions. This seems circular.
Since we are talking about a logical order (I assume that’s what you mean) an infinite regression seems like a denial of a logical foundation. For my part, since God is one and simple, His nature logically precedes His actions. The persons in the Trinity and their actions are logically subsequent to God’s essence. The opposite opinion seems in opposition to God’s aseity and simplicity.
This answer effects how I should respond to what you said about a cause of the first act and foreknowledge.
Perhaps I can clarify one point. You said: The "had to" vs. "did" is falsely dichotomous at least in connotation. We would not say that God "had to," because that would seem to suggest something external to God forcing God to do the thing.
Within the context of “before God’s first act” no one else exists to force God’s actions. “Had to” in the context of before God’s first act is a question of God’s intrinsic abilities. Either God was unable to do anything else (i.e. He had to what He did), or He was able to do other things. But again, this point may be moot, if God doesn’t have a first act.
Sure is hard for Calvinists and Arminians to find some common ground to hold a discussion on, so I appreciate your effort. If you wish, we can go back to proof texting out of context at each other. I’ll start. Christ says “ye do error, not knowing the scriptures or the power of God”. With statements this obvious, how then to you stick to Calvinism?
Comments
I see that I am a bit slow seeing I posted to you over at TF's blog. He may or may not release my comments. That's his choice and I haven't found any reason to sully over his choices so far. He may, now that I have sequestered my thoughts to focus on his post to your lack of understanding not post my comments before you respond. He is talking to you!
Either way, there are a couple two maybe three things that jump up and bite my nose in here and I will comment on them now.
As an aside, I marvel at TF's final words in his post over at his blog and might just slightly disagree with his characterization of, quoting TF:
TF: "Eventually I hope that you'll be sufficiently satisfied with the answers to the questions that you get to get back to some of those more interesting issues we were discussing before."
I have found all the postings back and forth between you two most interesting so it seems hard to grasp what is "more" interesting issues being discussed before? hmmmmm?
Starting at the last thing first then, you wrote:
Dan: "Either God was unable to do anything else (i.e. He had to what He did), or He was able to do other things. But again, this point may be moot, if God doesn’t have a first act."
huh? Are you saying God doesn't have a first act therefore the discussions found interesting are moot?
Dan: "Within the context of “before God’s first act” no one else exists to force God’s actions. “Had to” in the context of before God’s first act is a question of God’s intrinsic abilities."
Well, I can think of several things external that have been done that forced God's action. We then might want to put some context into defining what "forced" means in the contexts of God's action.
Bringing it home to me though, a man made in the image and likeness of God, if you touch either my wife or two sons inappropriately you will force me to respond. Unlike God, I may not win the fight but you will know killing me I meant you harm!
I would proffer a Bible Study of Greek to make a theological distinction so.
The two Greek words I will identify are translated one English word: "life".
I John 3:14-16. When you read those three verses you will see the English word "life" used by John.
There are two Greek words being used to bring understanding to what I mean.
In verses 14 and 15, the Greek word is:
ζωή
zōē
dzo-ay'
From G2198; life (literally or figuratively): - life (-time). Compare G5590.
In verse 16 the Greek word is:
ψυχή
psuchē
psoo-khay'
From G5594; breath, that is, (by implication) spirit, abstractly or concretely (the animal sentient principle only; thus distinguished on the one hand from G4151, which is the rational and immortal soul; and on the other from G2222, which is mere vitality, even of plants: these terms thus exactly correspond respectively to the Hebrew [H5315], [H7307] and [H2416]: - heart (+ -ily), life, mind, soul, + us, + you.
The question then becomes this:
How can the Eternal Son of God leave "Eternity" come to this Historical venue and die so that we, historical beings can die that we might have life?
The intent of God's "first act" defines the answer and is not easily grasped and understood and I will boldly say, not all human creations will know the answer. Only the Elect, those called of God will come to understand this, not a mystery to those given the revelation to know, only a mystery to those who do not know because it has not been given to them to know.
Only Our Sovereign First Acting God can explain that one. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
I believe King David came to this understanding when he wrote this:
1Ch 16:31 Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice, and let them say among the nations, "The LORD reigns!"
What we understand here is later on explained by Paul when he wrote this and I quote the entire chapter for textual context:
1Co 2:1 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom.
1Co 2:2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
1Co 2:3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling,
1Co 2:4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
1Co 2:5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
1Co 2:6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away.
1Co 2:7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.
1Co 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
1Co 2:9 But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him"--
1Co 2:10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
1Co 2:11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
1Co 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
1Co 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.
1Co 2:16 "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
Finally, Dan, you wrote this:
"For my part, since God is one and simple, His nature logically precedes His actions. The persons in the Trinity and their actions are logically subsequent to God’s essence. The opposite opinion seems in opposition to God’s aseity and simplicity."
I would say, if this is where you end up as an understanding of God, "that God is simple", you have missed the ferry across the channel!
Here is what Paul says about God and simple:
1Co 1:22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
1Co 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1Co 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1Co 1:26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.
1Co 1:27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;
1Co 1:28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,
1Co 1:29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
1Co 1:30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption,
1Co 1:31 so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."
There seems to me where I sit that there is nothing simple about those Words of God or God.
Are you saying God doesn't have a first act
No, but TF is calling this idea into question. Most of my arguments were based on the idea that God has a first act, so if TF is saying God doesn't have one, most of my arguments are moot.
How can the Eternal Son of God leave "Eternity" come to this Historical venue and die so that we, historical beings can die that we might have life?
Amazing grace!!!
I would say, if this is where you end up as an understanding of God, "that God is simple", you have missed the ferry across the channel!
By simple I don't mean God is easy for us to understand. It's impossible for us to fully understand God. What I mean is God is one, not compound. Man has body, mind and spirit. God is one. We are made up of parts, God is one.
Bringing it home to me though, a man made in the image and likeness of God, if you touch either my wife or two sons inappropriately you will force me to respond. Unlike God, I may not win the fight but you will know killing me I meant you harm!
I feel the same way you do about my family.
God be with you,
Dan