Does anyone remember the “Openness of God” controversy? Their methodology gave prominence to a “genuine give and take” between creator and creature. They considered anthropomorphism as inadequate, too.
Are we absolutely sure Frame is using “real” in the ontological sense of being in that quote? What if he means it in the popular sense of something more than a rhetorical quip “anthropomorphism” I just can’t imagine a clear thinker like Frame ending his argument having posited two existences in the being of God.
Yes! I converted to Orthodoxy within the past few years and find this to be possibly a “western” (somewhat poor) attempt to reconcile what the fathers have always confessed in the East. God interacts with humanity through both his created and uncreated energies, and therefore we can TRUELY experience the presence of God temporally, however God in his Essence TRANSCENDS time, space, light, mercy, love, etc). With out a doubt, the fathers and scriptures have never professed the Divinity as someone who is passable in anyway or feels emotions as we do. For if God responded in grief or anger for example, those emotions are now higher than God and become themselves gods which the Father now submits to. Also, divinity and humanity have been united in the person of Christ and therefore human nature has been hypostatically united to the trinity and sits “at the right hand of the father”.
Watching this video for teh first time although almost a year old. I heard this discussion in the podcast version while driving when it came out. Anyways does Frame's discussion of another divine existence have anything to do with the incarnation. I mean if Jesus was really one person. Even, though the two natures are never confused or mixed, there must be some way in which the divine experienced the suffering , etc of the human nature. Not saying the divine nature suffered. in fact I think the divine nature conquered the suffering. But if Jesus is one person, would there not be some kind of interaction between the two natures in one person? Jesus is one person with two natures that are not separated so that he is two beings or sons. He is one person so the one person experiences both natures. Does this make sense at all? I think it is the main mystery of the incarnation.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 This is a wonderful question which illustrates the problem with supposing that the divine nature experienced things that the human nature alone is capable of experiencing. To argue that Jesus suffered in his divinity because of the unity of the person, is also to imply that Jesus is ignorant in his divinity because of the unity of the person. In other words: it is problematic.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 Charlie, you're typing a lot here and kind of exploding my notifications. Are you trying to debate with me? I think you might have misread what I said - I was already in agreement with you. I fully subscribe the Westminster Standards, and reject the various Christological heresies. My initial point was to demonstrate a reductio ad absurdum of the position that "the divine nature experienced the suffering of the human nature," by showing how the major premise underlying such a statement leads to unacceptable beliefs, and thus must be false.
because God does not change in his attributes he must change in his judgment of his creatures in relationship to their conformity to his law. As to what God knows or how he relates to his creation it is a logical contradiction of the Word of God to conclude that He has two existences, but it is in conformity with His word to think that his judgment and relationship with creation changes when the creation is corrupted or blessedly sanctified.
God creates everything that is not himself from nothing therefore creation has its being in God. There is God and there is creation and there is no third kind of thing, no environment or context that contains both God and creation. He is ultimate and fundamental. Therefore time like the rest of creation has its being in God. He fills it without being contained by it. The alternative is that God is not ultimate but inhabits some kind of environment that is ultimate, in which case, that thing would be the true God.
Good doctrine of God takes seriously the Holy God that the Scriptures direct us to worship. When we think carefully about these things, especially informed by what the Bible says, we will be care to NOT put him in a creaturely box.
SIMPLICITY sounds like islam/judaism concept of TAUHID/YACHID!.. they dont know Real God, so they make it simple.. Christian God is Complex One, ECHAD, TRIUNITY!.. not God Inc. of tritheism, but God is also not too simple.. His Simplicity is Complete & Perfect in everything, rich deep & logic, everything is already in Him, so nothing new for Him.
Unfortunately, that's not an adequate way to approach these problems. The Bible tells us _Who_ God is, but it doesn't exactly tell us _what_ God is. To answer that question, we have to use metaphysical terminology, like "essence", "substance", "attributes". We derive our theology proper from inferences made from the biblical text.
Ahh the transcendence and imminence of God. What a beautiful mystery.
I am curious why the incarnation was not mentioned when discussing the two existences of God .
Because the incarnation is the existence of God and man, not 2 existences of God.
Does anyone remember the “Openness of God” controversy? Their methodology gave prominence to a “genuine give and take” between creator and creature. They considered anthropomorphism as inadequate, too.
Are we absolutely sure Frame is using “real” in the ontological sense of being in that quote? What if he means it in the popular sense of something more than a rhetorical quip “anthropomorphism” I just can’t imagine a clear thinker like Frame ending his argument having posited two existences in the being of God.
Bruce Ware believes God has accidental form?
Has Frame lost his mind? Also, how does his view compare to the Eastern Essence and Energies distinction?
Yes! I converted to Orthodoxy within the past few years and find this to be possibly a “western” (somewhat poor) attempt to reconcile what the fathers have always confessed in the East. God interacts with humanity through both his created and uncreated energies, and therefore we can TRUELY experience the presence of God temporally, however God in his Essence TRANSCENDS time, space, light, mercy, love, etc). With out a doubt, the fathers and scriptures have never professed the Divinity as someone who is passable in anyway or feels emotions as we do. For if God responded in grief or anger for example, those emotions are now higher than God and become themselves gods which the Father now submits to. Also, divinity and humanity have been united in the person of Christ and therefore human nature has been hypostatically united to the trinity and sits “at the right hand of the father”.
Just saw this. The academic response is inadequate. It's blasphemic heresy.
Watching this video for teh first time although almost a year old. I heard this discussion in the podcast version while driving when it came out. Anyways does Frame's discussion of another divine existence have anything to do with the incarnation. I mean if Jesus was really one person. Even, though the two natures are never confused or mixed, there must be some way in which the divine experienced the suffering , etc of the human nature. Not saying the divine nature suffered. in fact I think the divine nature conquered the suffering. But if Jesus is one person, would there not be some kind of interaction between the two natures in one person? Jesus is one person with two natures that are not separated so that he is two beings or sons. He is one person so the one person experiences both natures. Does this make sense at all? I think it is the main mystery of the incarnation.
@@ThomasCranmer1959
great question
@@ThomasCranmer1959 This is a wonderful question which illustrates the problem with supposing that the divine nature experienced things that the human nature alone is capable of experiencing. To argue that Jesus suffered in his divinity because of the unity of the person, is also to imply that Jesus is ignorant in his divinity because of the unity of the person. In other words: it is problematic.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 Charlie, you're typing a lot here and kind of exploding my notifications. Are you trying to debate with me? I think you might have misread what I said - I was already in agreement with you. I fully subscribe the Westminster Standards, and reject the various Christological heresies. My initial point was to demonstrate a reductio ad absurdum of the position that "the divine nature experienced the suffering of the human nature," by showing how the major premise underlying such a statement leads to unacceptable beliefs, and thus must be false.
I like Frame, but he is WAY off here.
because God does not change in his attributes he must change in his judgment of his creatures in relationship to their conformity to his law. As to what God knows or how he relates to his creation it is a logical contradiction of the Word of God to conclude that He has two existences, but it is in conformity with His word to think that his judgment and relationship with creation changes when the creation is corrupted or blessedly sanctified.
God creates everything that is not himself from nothing therefore creation has its being in God. There is God and there is creation and there is no third kind of thing, no environment or context that contains both God and creation. He is ultimate and fundamental.
Therefore time like the rest of creation has its being in God. He fills it without being contained by it. The alternative is that God is not ultimate but inhabits some kind of environment that is ultimate, in which case, that thing would be the true God.
Frame's finite god is a demiurge that hypostatizes out of his infinite god.
His demiurge bridges the gap between the infinite God and finite creation.
Good ol Calvies.
They ALWAYS want to tell God hot wo think, act and exist.
SMH
Good doctrine of God takes seriously the Holy God that the Scriptures direct us to worship. When we think carefully about these things, especially informed by what the Bible says, we will be care to NOT put him in a creaturely box.
SIMPLICITY sounds like islam/judaism concept of TAUHID/YACHID!.. they dont know Real God, so they make it simple.. Christian God is Complex One, ECHAD, TRIUNITY!.. not God Inc. of tritheism, but God is also not too simple.. His Simplicity is Complete & Perfect in everything, rich deep & logic, everything is already in Him, so nothing new for Him.
Frame's out of his depth, here.
Back to scriptures, reject philosophy
Is that your suggested philosophy?
Unfortunately, that's not an adequate way to approach these problems. The Bible tells us _Who_ God is, but it doesn't exactly tell us _what_ God is. To answer that question, we have to use metaphysical terminology, like "essence", "substance", "attributes". We derive our theology proper from inferences made from the biblical text.
@@AidenRKroneThe SC tells us, from Scripture, What God is. Q4.