Quite clear! Now, may I ask a whole video on impassibility? This relation between it and assurance is well presented here, but I'd like to know somewhat more about it. I've read _Lament for a Son_ by Nicholas Wolterstorff, which presents God as quite passionate, and specially full of tears while Christ doesn't come to judge the world since his "eyes are too pure as to behold iniquity". I've also read some bits of _When God Weeps_ by Joni Eareckson Tada, which presents this long-suffering and weeping-joy of God. It is a whole discussion, and a summary of it as clear as yours are would be great.
I favor Frame’s view as a way to hold on to the essence of what is good in classical theism without the problems that classical theism brings with it regarding the contingency of creation. God is simple insofar as his mind is metaphysically singular, but the concepts that are grounded in this singularity need not be identical. Further, God’s essential attributes are unchanging, but his will’s act of creation must be contingent if creation is to be contingent and not co-eternal with God, as Aristotle’s assumptions would make it. I would object to the characterization that Frame’s covenantal theism (or reformed classical theism) requires a “created middle man.” It’s true that God must “will” creation, but that will is not some kind of created third thing between us and God. Rather it is the will of God himself, which in its substance is part of his mind. The fact that it is a contingent will does not make it separate from God’s being. The problem with classical theism is that it structures the creator/creature distinction on the Platonic division between the changing and the eternal. But that inherently causes a problem on how to connect the two. While this makes for a strong creator/creature distinction in terms of change (God does not but the creation does) it simultaneously creates a problem for it, because creation must now sit next to God as an eternal emanation from his unchanging will. This violates the doctrine of creation, which is supposed to be contingent and non-eternal. By modifying classical theism with the biblical notion that God has an unchanging essence which eternally generates a divine will that has real powers of contingency, we preserve what is best in classical theism, an unchanging essence, but with the powers of a contingent will to make a contingent creation. Thus God is both eternally unchanging as well as Lord of temporal time. To say that God’s contingent will obscures or makes his essential attributes unknowable, as if this will is a third thing next to God, rather than wholly part of God, is to misconceptualize what covenantal theism is trying to do. I hope that was helpful. It is simply super complicated. But we are talking about God.
![[4K] Watch SpaceX Catch A Starship Rocket From Space!!! #IFT5](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pIKI7y3DTXk/mqdefault.jpg)
Let me know if y'all want more classical theism stuff!
Thanks, perhaps a video on Analogy of Being ?
It is axiomatic to all decent and sane people that there can never be too much explication in the world of the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity
Please do more on classical theism.
Nice video about something that I have been thinking about a lot recently.
Dear Caleb, Please could you post some links on books, both philosophical and historical, on this subject.
Yes more please…thanks
Learning a lot. Thanks
Glad to hear it!
Great summary! Did you get a new camera?
Yeah it wasn't very costly at all but I think it improved the video quality a good amount!
Quite clear!
Now, may I ask a whole video on impassibility? This relation between it and assurance is well presented here, but I'd like to know somewhat more about it. I've read _Lament for a Son_ by Nicholas Wolterstorff, which presents God as quite passionate, and specially full of tears while Christ doesn't come to judge the world since his "eyes are too pure as to behold iniquity". I've also read some bits of _When God Weeps_ by Joni Eareckson Tada, which presents this long-suffering and weeping-joy of God. It is a whole discussion, and a summary of it as clear as yours are would be great.
Yeah I've really wanted to read Lament for a Son so that sounds like a good idea!
I favor Frame’s view as a way to hold on to the essence of what is good in classical theism without the problems that classical theism brings with it regarding the contingency of creation. God is simple insofar as his mind is metaphysically singular, but the concepts that are grounded in this singularity need not be identical. Further, God’s essential attributes are unchanging, but his will’s act of creation must be contingent if creation is to be contingent and not co-eternal with God, as Aristotle’s assumptions would make it.
I would object to the characterization that Frame’s covenantal theism (or reformed classical theism) requires a “created middle man.” It’s true that God must “will” creation, but that will is not some kind of created third thing between us and God. Rather it is the will of God himself, which in its substance is part of his mind. The fact that it is a contingent will does not make it separate from God’s being.
The problem with classical theism is that it structures the creator/creature distinction on the Platonic division between the changing and the eternal. But that inherently causes a problem on how to connect the two. While this makes for a strong creator/creature distinction in terms of change (God does not but the creation does) it simultaneously creates a problem for it, because creation must now sit next to God as an eternal emanation from his unchanging will. This violates the doctrine of creation, which is supposed to be contingent and non-eternal.
By modifying classical theism with the biblical notion that God has an unchanging essence which eternally generates a divine will that has real powers of contingency, we preserve what is best in classical theism, an unchanging essence, but with the powers of a contingent will to make a contingent creation. Thus God is both eternally unchanging as well as Lord of temporal time.
To say that God’s contingent will obscures or makes his essential attributes unknowable, as if this will is a third thing next to God, rather than wholly part of God, is to misconceptualize what covenantal theism is trying to do.
I hope that was helpful. It is simply super complicated. But we are talking about God.
Classical theism and Panentheism don't seem mutually exclusive. Acts 17:28
How do people that believe in the open theology explain prophecy? They believe in a pseudo God. God is everywhere at all times.
Agreed!
Wait a minute! I don't know what's going on here. Something smells fishy.