I have been meaning to address certain comments that our Reformed brother in Christ, Ken Temple, made in the combox of our previous thread (LINK) concerning what theologians have termed the "timelessness" God; Ken wrote:
As for Scriptural evidence that the God of the Bible is above and outside of time; and created time, matter, space, energy:
Genesis 1:1
Psalm 139
Rev. 1:8; 4:8
Isaiah 46:9-10
Isaiah chapter 40
Psalm 90:42
Peter 3:8
Isaiah 45:21
I Cor. 8:6
Colossians 1:16
Hebrews 1:2
"I am that I am" - Exodus 3:14
John 8:24, 8:58, and all the other "I am" statements in John. John 1:1-5; 17:5
Read a good Systematic Theology such as Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, pages 156-261, including the Trinity; or Louis Berkhof or Robert Reymond.
I sincerely wonder how closely Ken has read Reymond's A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, for Reymond actually denies the "timelessness" God; note the following:
These verses [Gen. 21:33; Ps. 29:10; 45:6; 90:2, 4; 102:25-27; Is. 40:28; 1 Tim. 1:17] clearly ascribe everlastingness to God. But what is not so clear is whether his everlasting existence should be understood, with most classical Christian thinkers (for example, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas), as also involving the notion of timelessness. (Page 192, 1st ed.)
In pages 173-177, Reymond reflects on what some other Reformed thinkers have had to say on this issue (e.g. Gordon H. Clark, Robert Lewis Dabney, Charles Hodge), and provides "three reasons" why he ends up rejecting God's "timelessness". He sums up his conclusion with:
...it would seem that the ascription to God of the attribute of timelessness (understood as the absence of a divine consciousness of successive duration with respect to his own existence) cannot be supported from Scripture nor is it self-consistent. At best, it is only an inference (and quite likely a fallacious one) from Scripture. These reasons also suggest that the Christian should be willing to affirm that the ordering of relationships of time are true for God as well as for man. (Page 176, 1st ed.)
Not only is Reymond at odds with many of his fellow Reformed theologians on this issue of God's "timelessness", he also takes issue with the Nicene Creed, the eternal generation of the Son, and the term "person", all of which has caused some Reformed folk to express certain reservations about his book. Perhaps the most thorough critique of the tome was provided by Dr. Robert Letham in his Fall 2000 - 62.2, Westminster Theological Journal (pp. 314-319) review.
Anyway, I hope that Ken drops by so we can discuss some of these issues.
Grace and peace,
David
7 comments:
Ok, you got me on that one.
I have Grudem and Berkhof, and I have to admit I had not read Reymond, I was just assuming he would be orthodox on this issue.
Reymond:
". . . timelessness -(understood as the absence of a divine consciousness of successive duration with respect to his own existence). . . "
I don't understand that at all.
Sounds heretical to me.
Gordon H. Clark, Robert Lewis Dabney, Charles Hodge, and Robert Letham agree with Berkhof and Grudem, (and me) and most everyone else who is orthodox, right?
Do you have Grudem and Berkhof too in your massive library?
Hi Ken,
When I first received Reymond's sys theo in the mail, I was pretty enthusiastic about reading it because I thought he had done a good job in his Jesus, Divine Messiah, but about half way through the book, reservations on my part began to surface.
As for Grudem and Berkhof, yes I own, and have read both of their sys theos (Berkhof's twice). You do know that Grudem, though Reformed, is a charismatic?
Grace and peace,
David
Grudem is not a cessationist as to spiritual gifts, but yes I know that; his view of spiritual gifts is not the typical Pentecostal or Charismatic view; but it is in the general camp known as "third wave". Samuel Storms, C. J. Mahaney, Joshua Harris, and to a lesser degree John Piper hold similar views - at least exegetically speaking, but different levels of actual practicing or seeking to see the gifts manifested in their ministry contexts; that is, other Charismatics complain that they "don't manifest" the gifts; although exegetically, they don't deny the sign/miracle gifts in some believers as having gifts of prophesy (but different understanding of that than most Charismatics and Pentecostals) or tongues or healing for today. But they do all say that the office of apostle has ceased; but that the gifting of apostle is in pioneer church planting and evangelism. (missionary is from the Latin form for apostle)
Reymond:
". . . timelessness -(understood as the absence of a divine consciousness of successive duration with respect to his own existence). . . "
Can you explain this ? Sounds heretical to me.
What does it mean?
Hello again Ken,
You posted:
>> Reymond:
". . . timelessness -(understood as the absence of a divine consciousness of successive duration with respect to his own existence). . . "
Can you explain this ? Sounds heretical to me.
What does it mean?>>
Me: I think in a nutshell it is the understanding that God's knowledge is equated to the "eternal now". The following thread is helpful here:
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=16666&forum=36&32
Reymond denies this concept and instead embraces Robert Lewis Dabney's position who stated, "that God's existence is without succession, does not seem so clear to natural reason." (Systematic Theology, The Banner of Truth Trust 1985 reprint, p. 39.)
Dabney continued with:
"I reply it is God's substance which is simple and immutable; that its subsistence should be a continuance in succession does not imply a change in substance. Nor is it correct metaphysics to say that a subsistence in succession is compounded, namely of the essence and the successive momenta of time through which it is transmitted." (Ibid. p. 39)
And:
"In all the acts and changes of creatures, the relation of succession is actual and true. Now, although God's knowledge of these as it is subjective to Himself, is unsuccessive, yet it is doubtless correct, i.e., true to the objective facts. But these have actual succession, so that the idea of successive duration must be in God's thinking. Has He not all the ideas we have' and infinitely more? But if God in thinking the objective, ever thinks successive duration, can we be sure that His own consciousness of His own subsistence is unrelated to succession in time?" (Ibid. 40 - bold emphasis mine.)
Reymond cites Dabney (from the same book I used) and immediately follows his quotation with:
"I concur with Dabney's anlysis. Not to do so and to insist that God is timeless, that is to say, that the distinction of time and hence existence with succession have no reference to him, lies behind much theological mischief." (ANSTOTCF, p. 174.)
Grace and peace,
David
I can wrap my brain around "eternal now" - "I am that I am" - Ex. 3:14
-everything is in the present tense to God.
and
God is above time and outside of time; created time.
But
"existence with succession" - I don't understand that or what Reymond and Dabney are saying.
Hi Ken,
I cannot read the mind of Reymond, but I believe that he is attempting to deal with the reality of time and creation. Before God created was He 'experiencing' all the sequential events that have occurred, are now happening, and shall occur? In other words, does God actually relate to the reality of time? Is God currently 'hearing' the cries of the billions of souls that will spend their eternity in hell undergoing torment (as per the theology of most Reformed folk)?
Grace and peace,
David
Post a Comment