Eastern Orthodoxy & The Philosophy of Time w/ Dr. David Bradshaw
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- Join us on the special episode of Faith Unaltered as we sit down with Dr. David Bradshaw, for a second time, to do discuss the Eastern Orthodox understanding of God's relationship to time and eternity!
#Philosophy #TimeAndEternity #EasternOrthodox
David Bradshaw Academia Page: uky.academia.e...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Support Faith Unaltered and our ministry by leaving us a Super Chat, Super Sticker or Super Thanks!
Visit our linktree to view our TikTok, Facebook, donate to our ministry and email us here:
Linktr.ee/faithunaltered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FAIR USE NOTICE
Any use of works in our videos is de minimis, transformative, and constitutes fair use under the Copyright laws of the United States. They are used for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Any improper attempts to takedown or claim our videos may be subject to 17 U.S.C. 512(f) claim for bad faith under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If you want to discuss any content in our videos, please contact us at idolkiller.com before initiating any takedown requests. Failure to do so may constitute bad faith.
I've had this debate a few times. Some people can't accept that knowing what you will choose does not mean you don't have the free will to choose it.
*6:29 - Q1: 'what is the EO understanding of God's relationship to (Time) is / how would it differ from other groups?'
(+ 12:24 Time is a divine procession of the Goodness of God. Procession is an action what God performs and manifests who He is)
21:00 - do you need the E/E distinction to make this plausible?
22:50 - how can it be true that God both is being yet beyond being?
25:43 - 'is that because God is infinite and anything that he can make himself known to us by, is technically not infinite?'
26:00 - infinity in classic Greek thought is sort of a bad thing (Pythagorean e.g.) Monad = good, Dyad = evil
28:00 - Dr. Rhoda: ADS seems to entail time is created thing. It also naturally leads to a block theory of time?
*29:00 - Q2: what does EO say about God's foreknowledge & knowledge in relation to creation itself? (free will, determinism, fatalism, gnostic predestination, molinism)
31:00 - Jesus in Matthew 23:37 and moral accountability suggests free will
31:55 - even though middle knowledge / Molinism was not discussed widely in the ancient world, there are some patristics like Nyssa that suggest middle knowledge to a limited extent
33:56 - Dr. Rhoda makes a distinction between open theism and weak dynamic omniscience + Dale on weak dynamic omniscience
36:40 - Q3: is open theism the only possibility if we hold to free will? (Dr. Bradshaw covers on his problems with open theism)
+ 39:23 -> 48:45 - Dr. Bradshaw on the metaphysics of Synergy
st. Maximus & Rev. 13:8 lamb slain or ordained (Peter) from beginning of the world. Slain only occurs because of human sin. The Logos would still have become incarnate even if we hadn't sinned. Different from saying Christ would have died on the cross even if we hadn't sinned. That's crazy. Christ died on the cross as a response/remedy to human sin. So human sin is sort of factored into who Christ is from the foundation of the world. So that means before these free acts of sin were actually performed, Christ was actually the lamb who was slain. It's mysterious, but it implies that what's eternally true can be effected by what we freely choose within time. So the relationship between eternity and time is not a one way street; that what occurs in time is a manifestation of eternal being but also what occurs in time can reciprocally affect, help determine, that eternal being. (Not the divine essence ofc). But the identity of the Lamb. st. Maximus says God knows what creatures do because creatures are only created and sustained by the divine Logoi;
49:43 - Q4: 'God knows all things in a single act, in virtue of them being contained within Him as their 'cause' ' can you explain what that means?
52:44 - Dr. Jacobs, can it be concluded that from st. Dionysius says that Dionysius doesn't believe God know all things, but the creation of all things itself that renders unto God those things?
54:27 - the divine Logoi possibly reconciling dynamic omniscience idea from Dr. Jacobs?
56:00 - Q5 follow up, John Damascus says God didn't know who the damned were until after He made the damned - If God lacks foreknowledge of whose going to be damned before He makes people, why can't we extend that ignorance to other things like open theist proponents want to do?
WIP finishing later
Big Jiub comment W
Not Orthodox, but fascinated by it. I can see how it was inevitable that East and West grew apart considering the radical differences in thought.
Yes, it's said that the split happened. I wonder where we would be theologically if we would have stayed together :)
Great episode, Tyler. David Bradshaw is one of the people who led me to Orthodoxy. Looking forward to the Nathan Jacobs episode. He is one of my favorites.
Christ is risen!!! Thanks brother! Much appreciated!!!
I would be absolutely fascinated with a discussion between Bradshaw and Ryan Mullins.
I'm a calvinian, as apposed to calvinist, yet I agree with most of what has been discussed.
I know it's a bit out of scope for Christian apologetics but If you are curious about a few of the Jewish views on philosophy of time Rabbi Dr. Sam Leben's is excellent on this.
I was just thinking this week about how the liturgical calendar relates to all of this 🔥🔥🔥
Man…you put “Dr Bradshaw” and “time” in one title, I’m not not gonna watch!
Been getting into your guys’ channel. Churning out great orthodox content. Thanks!
Christ is risen!
Truly He is risen!!! And thanks for the compliments brother! Don't forget, Dr. Nathan Jacobs on June 7th 11am!
This was great! Good job ✌️
Christ is Risen!!! Thanks Trav! Much love brother!
Tyler saying theres 3 positions on Ecumenical Councils? Where did you get that? Councils are inspired and infallible. "It seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit".
paulvendredi.com/index.php?page=1
Episode 74 I think it was
First! ☦️☦️☦️
Dale is a goofball
Nice language to “gently” dehumanize
@@scottb.8514 soft
If God is perfection (the sum of all perfections; the most perfect conceivable being), foreknowledge seems inconsistent. If foreknowledge is the knowing of something that hasn't yet happened, it is incompatible with God's eternity. Eternity is one moment. I follow Boethius here to say that eternity entails the simultaneous enjoyment -or possession _(possessio)_ -of one's entire life in one never ending (never changing) present moment. The time bound life that we enjoy cannot be perfect among other things because we have to _wait_ for every single moment to come before us in order to enjoy/possess it fully.
Change makes no sense in a God who is perfection itself. Change only makes sense for what's not completely perfect in order to become perfect. Otherwise, change would mean that God may become less perfect.
From this perspective then eternity is one single moment that "stretches" endlessly and is thus concomitant with all the moments in time.
With this in mind, again, if foreknowledge means the knowledge of things that have yet to happen, God doesn't have it, because there's not a "(be)fore" in his (fore)knowledge. There's no before and after. Everything is present to Him. Indeed, he is, from his eternal present, causing everything that happens or becomes at every point in time.
Sorry, I meant this as a question. Even if it reads as a firmly held conviction, it's just an opinion I would very much like to hear any and all critical rejoinders.
World Orthodoxy is confused: 3 liturgical calendars since their 1920s changes (Patristic aka Julian; the "New Julian Calendar", aka the "New Calendar" and the "Gregorian Calendar"). And they sometimes participate in Ecumenical prayers and worship with other faiths there's an infinity of different calendars they celebrate on liturgically.
True Orthodoxy, which maintains that it is the only True Church, and is backed by miracles such as the third appearance of the Holy Cross in 1925 in Athens, Greece, defending them against state persecution from the New Calendarists, has no such confusion.
In Finland (and for a while in Estonia and briefly in Romania) they went over to the Gregorian calendar completely, despite the miracles of the Holy Light and the splitting of the Holy Pillar at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Glastonbury Thorn at (traditional Patristic) (Orthodox) Christmas and Pascha (aka Easter) and such miracles as the Jordan reversing its flow on (traditional Patristic (Orthodox) Theophany (aka Epiphany), and flowing uphill.
So, in the case of the World Orthodox they will sometimes end up celebrating feasts twice or even, with for example the Ethiopians and Armenians at Christmas, 3 or 4 times.
The "New Calendar", by mixing the Patristic and a calendar which runs concurrently with the Gregorian calendar until 6800AD, makes the celebration of Kuriopascha (exactly co-occuring Feasts of the Annunciation (25 March) and Pascha (aka Easter) impossible.
Time you had a discussion with True Orthodox Christians such as Father Joseph Suaidan of the NFTU channel about Time!
Dude...you literally wrote a book and didn't say anything. What is your objection to what Dr. Bradshaw said? Or is he just apart of the wrong group in your opinion? Trust me, I have enough people already high fiving their clique into the sunset on my channel and really don't need another.
I have a question. Reading Genesis 1:14 it seems God made time non-ecclesiastic. God gave man dominion over the Earth but not time which he gave the lights in the sky to rule time (seasons, signs, days, and years. Shouldn't we make sure our calendar reflect this, for example the winter and summer solstice and the spring and fall equinox should fall on the same day year after year? The Julian calendar is more than 2 weeks off from this at the time of Christ's birth while the Gregorian calendar follows the lights in the sky. I've heard some Orthodox argue for the old calendar, siting the Canons. However if time is not subject to man (and the church which is made up of human beings), should we be so stubborn to insist on the old calendar?
Most churches do use the Geegorian or what is called the "Revised Julian" calendar which uses the Gregorian for most of the Church calendar except for Lent and Easter. The advantage is that it is always near the date of the Jewis Passover, while Gregorian usually isn't.
44:44 "Non-being = state of the damned in hell." Is this an annihilationist view of hell?
"That's part of their torment." How can something that _is not_ experience torment?
I don't think he says this, but that they have become so diminished in being, so far removed from the logos within them that it, in itself, is part of their torment in hell.
I seem to recall that NT Wright compares those in hell to the character of Gollum, whose lust for the ring, little by little erased his humanity.
After 38 minute Mark I have to strongly disagree with any kind of view like that about time because I basically think it turns God and to the flash where he's traveling through all these different timelines so he's altering reality. This is because if God was outside of time like he seems to want to claim then it's almost as if God sees nothing as the present. And now if God sees nothing as the present then it's all finished so now he's just altering what's already been finished but if that's the case then nothing is actually true because it can always be altered buy just moving around on the timeline
To me that you just seems to ruin the Integrity of the present and if time existed that way it would seem to ruin the Integrity of reality
sadly there is a lot of ignorance expressed in this discussion. One example was regarding ancient perspectives on being and identity. For example, the idea of a person holding the same identity in a different "world" is totally anachronistic to the understanding of the fathers and the ancient world. It cannot fit with it. Identity is fundamentally linked to reality. You are who you are because of your family, place, religion, community, and experience. Further more, we as Christians reject the idea that you are a soul encased in flesh. Your body is as much you as your soul. The sufferings of the martyrs in the flesh stay with them into eternity as part of who they are.
Another example of ignorance here is on the energies of God. To be more precise, the fathers specifically point out that the divine energy is one and we speak of energies plural only in the sense that we as non simple beings do experience the divine energy in a multiplicity of ways. So to try and say that the energies change or are mutable because of the world is nonsensical. We change, making our experience of the divine energy different than it was before. The expression of the divine energy as it interacts with the ever changing world changes, but the divine energy is always one as per Gregory Palamas. Every energy has a corresponding nature. To say there are multiple divine energies is to say the divine essence is not one. But like the singular ray of the sun is experienced both as heat and light the same is true of the divine energy. We participate in the divine energies as we are capable in the multiplicity of ways in which we interact with the world.
Just a couple of "gripes" I had with the conversation.
Starts at about 0.50
@Tyler Fowler: stop this drinking in an ugly way. The topic is great though. Focus on the discussion and do the drinking when not on screen. God bless
Go, team Warren!!! The cult leader himself!!!
Mr. Bradshaw said he could not be an open theist because he believes God is outside of time, he is the creator and sustainer of it. And he doesn't see how that can be true, and also be true that God does not know the future perfectly.
But what if instead, time is just the duration of reality, and since God has always existed therefore time has always been an aspect of God and reality?
Every other worldview other than open theism and dynamic omniscience holds that freewill is illusory, even molinism
Its just a fact some christians need to accept.
With Sola Scriptura, you're free to reject the the presuppositions of God however you like. However, if you value Tradition even slightly, you will realise the consensus of the church for well over 1500 years was that God was outside of time and the sustainer of all things. And given this was the concesus view of all of Christendom for that period of time, you can be sure this is a true, faithful and Apolstolic teaching. But again, working off Sola Scriptura, or in this case Solo Scriptura for the Open Theist, since even protestants would appeal to Tradition in some instances, you can use whatever presuppositions you want going in. Just note the Church throughout history, held to the presuppositions of Dr Bradshaw.
@@BendyBeameven the guest expert explained that these notions of time come from platonism... not revelation, and not early church traditions, but accretions and innovations based on applying pagan metaphysical systems to these questions.
@@ravissary79 You’re 1. Just assuming that seeds of truth about God couldn’t exist in ancient philosophers, as Justin Martyr taught in 150AD and 2. That using terminology from platonism to explain complex concepts about God automatically equates to being pagan in practice or influenced by paganism. To say that they are wrong because they use platonic terminology to explicate the teachings of scripture is to commit the genetic fallacy.
On what basis should I accept your presuppositions of God over the consensus of the Church?
No, free will is not an illusion just because the choice is known. It's such a poor objection.
@@Dizerner free will may be autonomous in a fully fixed system, but it isnt truly free in that its fixed, and cannot obtain any other way than 1 way... there would be no contracausality, and thus no loose or reactive conditionals...it would make biblical transactional language... less than true.
Dr. Bradshaw said God is immutible in his essence/nature, yet he is active and engages us in his energies, and he said we should affirm both.
But what if instead of saying both-and, we just throw out immutibility as a silly man-made doctrine?
Theology is not as hard as people make it 🤦♀️
What does the following text mean to you?
Malachi 3:5-6 (LES2): 5 And I will approach you with justice, and I will become a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulteresses and against the ones who swear oaths in my name, against liars and against those who defraud the wages of workers and who oppress the widow and who maltreat orphans and who pervert justice of the resident alien and who do not fear me,” says the Lord Almighty. 6 “Because I am the Lord, your God, and I do not change.
@FaithUnaltered
this is in reference to a promise that he would not destroy Jacob's descendants despite their sinfulness and disobedience.
It's a verse showing Gods mercy, not a verse describing God's ontological nature.
I know some people affirm immutibility because of church history, but it's not biblical.
How do you know what's man made or not? When did you become the authority?
Your position is you know the essence of God?
@jakegoldberg6767 I don't even think you read this text bro. The passage I cited says nothing about Gods mercy, but rather God punishing those who disobey Him
So in verse 6, what doesn't change? God right? So given that we know human participation in His Energies requires change (i.e., rebels repenting, therefore, God not destroying them after He said he would) and the Bible doesn't contradict itself, what's the only thing then that could apply. God's Essence.