Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Theists Discuss the Unmoved Mover.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Theists Discuss the Unmoved Mover.

    I do not think that the Bible supports the "unmoved mover" concept of God....I think just the opposite in fact. Aquinas borrowed heavily from the writings of St. Augustinem, Boethius and others, agreeing with Aristotle’s notion of God as an “unmoved mover.” Greek Hellenistic Metaphysics to explain the Christian God. Aquinas said posited that God moves the world but remains unmoved himself. Among other things, this means that God is not reciprocally related to the world. So therfore, for Aquinas, God can only relate to the world by relating to himself as the cause of the world. As such, he believed that the relationship between God and the world is real to the world....but not to God.


    I can't see it....I don’t see how this view of God is at all compatible the indisputable truth of our (Christian) faith... that God became a man in the person of Jesus Christ. If we look to Christ—rather than Aristotle—to reveal to us who God is, it’s hard to see how we can justify the conclusion that God is not reciprocally related to his creation. God is so affected by the plight of humans and of all creation that he become a human to save us and creation from the devil’s oppression.


    IMO, this view of God, relating to and becoming vulernable even unto death by his own creation, is the truest conception of God ever imagined. Aquinas' intention was to show the greatness of God, but I think Aquinas’ “unmoved mover” concept could be actually insulting to God.
    "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

    "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

  • #2
    It's a way many people think of the idea of the Unmoved mover, but it depends on what is meant by relation.

    Do we have the power in ourselves to change God, for instance? If we do, then God is moved by us. We could say we pray and God does act, but we don't change God's nature, and God is not on the timeline waiting to see what we will pray and then deciding something. God eternally knows all things and is eternally hearing your prayers and eternally answering. If by real relation one means God changes us and we change God, then no. If you mean by it that God acts on the world and we respond to Him, then fine.

    Also, the incarnation does not entail any motion in God. God does not change. The Trinity never altered itself. The second person just took on flesh.

    Finally, the argument either works or it doesn't. If it works and God is not changed, as Scripture itself says, then we have a problem as there must be some other God out there, but He's not the God of Scripture.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      It's a way many people think of the idea of the Unmoved mover, but it depends on what is meant by relation.

      Do we have the power in ourselves to change God, for instance? If we do, then God is moved by us. We could say we pray and God does act, but we don't change God's nature, and God is not on the timeline waiting to see what we will pray and then deciding something. God eternally knows all things and is eternally hearing your prayers and eternally answering. If by real relation one means God changes us and we change God, then no. If you mean by it that God acts on the world and we respond to Him, then fine.

      Also, the incarnation does not entail any motion in God. God does not change. The Trinity never altered itself. The second person just took on flesh.

      Finally, the argument either works or it doesn't. If it works and God is not changed, as Scripture itself says, then we have a problem as there must be some other God out there, but He's not the God of Scripture.
      I am happy Gods nature doesnt change. I mean could you imagine the impossible idea of him not being omnibenevolent?
      sigpic

      Comment


      • #4
        Do we have the power in ourselves to change God, for instance? If we do, then God is moved by us.
        Yes, of course we do. See below.


        We could say we pray and God does act, but we don't change God's nature, and God is not on the timeline waiting to see what we will pray and then deciding something. God eternally knows all things and is eternally hearing your prayers and eternally answering. If by real relation one means God changes us and we change God, then no. If you mean by it that God acts on the world and we respond to Him, then fine.
        No, God's nature doesn't change, but that's not all of God that CAN change...and change itself does not entail moving from perfection to imperfection as opined by Plato/Aristole metaphysics.


        God's supposed "eternal now" has no basis in Scripture...it's a necessary component though of the unmoved mover concept. God announced his intention to destroy the people of Israel and start over again with Moses but Moses said that he did not want to do that, Moses pleaded with God and so God changed his mind and did not do what he had said he was going to do (Ex 32). Also, God’s original plan was to have Saul and his descendants as kings forever in Israel (1 Sam. 13:13). In other words, there would have been no “Davidic” kingship. Latter, due to Saul’s sin, God changes his mind and rejects Saul and his line (1 Sam. 15:11, 35).[13] If God always knew that he was never going to have Saul’s line be kings, was God deceitful?
        God had the prophet Isaiah tell King Hezekiah that he would not recover from his illness. However, Hezekiah prayed and God responded by sending Isaiah back to announce that God had changed his mind, Hezekiah would recover and not die (2 Kings 20). Such verses reveal a God who is moved by His people.


        So, yes, I mean by real relation, God changes us, and we change God. It's pretty obvious in Scripture.


        Also, the incarnation does not entail any motion in God. God does not change. The Trinity never altered itself. The second person just took on flesh.
        I'm not sure where you get this except to read your "eternal now" theology into the Scriputures. We both agree that the second person always existed...but the Scriptures plainly say that The Word became flesh, that entails a change...what was not flesh before, became flesh after. There's a time sequence that is undeniable.


        Finally, the argument either works or it doesn't. If it works and God is not changed, as Scripture itself says, then we have a problem as there must be some other God out there, but He's not the God of Scripture.
        Correct, the unmoved mover is not the God of Scripture. God's character and nature do not change as Scripture tells us, but He does change in response to us and by our actions. On that, Scripture is undeniable.
        Last edited by Littlejoe; 06-21-2018, 02:51 PM.
        "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

        "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

        Comment


        • #5
          Let me ask this to make sure I'm understanding your position.

          Are you an open theist?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
            Let me ask this to make sure I'm understanding your position.

            Are you an open theist?
            Yes. It's what makes most sense of Scripture.
            "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

            "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

            Comment


            • #7
              Okay. I thought so, but I wanted to make sure.

              Do you think that God in His essence is physical? Does He have a material body?

              Comment


              • #8
                The 2nd person of the Trinity has a material body.
                "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                Comment


                • #9
                  He does, but He hasn't always has He?

                  I take it you rule out that the rest of the Godhead has any materiality in their nature?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    No, he hasn't always...hence God changed. God was moved with compassion. Enough so as to become something He previously wasn't and then to suffer and die to reconcile all to Himself.

                    No, I'm not sure I completely rule it out..though I certainly lean that way...I would need to think on that some more. I'm not sure I have enough data to say definitively. He manifests as material, burning bush, whirlwind, pillar off smoke/cloud...

                    Questions like this are always to set up a gotcha usually, what are you driving at?
                    Last edited by Littlejoe; 06-22-2018, 12:27 AM.
                    "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                    "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      There are plenty of references to the body of God in the Old Testament, but few of us take those literally, yet somehow when we come to God's emotions, we do. I find that to be a sad God in many ways. I am supposed to have joy that comes from God and God alone and that is the greatest joy of all, but finite humans have the power to overcome the infinite joy of God? Doesn't make sense to me.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                        There are plenty of references to the body of God in the Old Testament, but few of us take those literally, yet somehow when we come to God's emotions, we do. I find that to be a sad God in many ways. I am supposed to have joy that comes from God and God alone and that is the greatest joy of all, but finite humans have the power to overcome the infinite joy of God? Doesn't make sense to me.
                        Ok, that's where I thought your were going. Anthropomorphism.

                        Please explain why you find that to be a sad God. I find a dynamic, interactive God exciting and refreshing!

                        Can you or can you not, refuse to do God's will? If you believe that the lost can be called to serve God but refuse, then you believe mankind can thwart God's will.

                        My wife talks about a time in college when she was studying for a critical exam. She went downstairs to the lobby of her dorm to get a Dr. Pepper from the vending machine. In the lobby, sitting on one of the couches was a young lady who appeared sad. My wife says she strongly felt the Holy Spirit tell her to sit down and share the Gospel with her. My wife, shrugged it off rationalizing that she had a really hard test to study for, and it was just her imagination. About an hour later, her roommate comes into the room and says excitedly, guess what JUST happened in the Lobby, I saw this girl sitting on the couch and I felt God tell me to go talk to her and share the Gospel. I did and she accepted Christ. God's will was done, but not by the first person (at least) God was leading to talk to her. My wife did NOT fulfill God's will for her.

                        Christians that commit suicide overcome God's joy wouldn't you think?

                        Your argument assumes that since Open Theist's (OT"S) take some passages literally, (which you and other traditionalists treat as anthropomorphic), then OT's must then take all passages in the Bible literally...I'm not sure how that follows? I could just as easily argue that since you take all those passages anthropomorphically you must treat all passages in the Bible anthropomorphically. It's really not a very convincing argument Nick.

                        You (of course) know that nobody takes everything in the Bible literally and no one takes everything in the Bible metaphorically (anthopomorphic or otherwise). We would certainly agree I think, that genre, context, good exegisis all play a part in how one interprets Scripture. I submit though that there's no good exegetical or philosophical reason to take passages that speak of (for instance using the Biblical examples in my previous post) "God changing his mind" has to be anthropomorphic. I think the only reason it's interpreted that way by Traditionalists is because, if you admit that God does in fact change his mind, it conflicts with the Eternal Now concept of the future knowledge of God...that it's all settled facts. (That leads directly, and pretty unerringly to Fatalism if followed to it's natural conclusion.) Surely you don't take comfort in that...?

                        Finally, I think interpreting these passages as anthropomorphic makes the meaning of the verse unclear. If God doesn’t actually change his mind, then what do the passages that explicitly declare that he does change his mind mean? Saying they’re anthropomorphic doesn’t help us. By their very nature anthropomorphic expressions, (if they’re true), must still communicate something accurate about God. For instance, where the Bible says that God has "a strong arm" we know that Scripture is telling us that God is powerful, even though we know he doesn't have literal arms. Can you perhaps explain what you think Scripture is trying to tell us about God when it says that "God changed his mind" if in fact God doesn't actually change his mind?
                        "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                        "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                          There are plenty of references to the body of God in the Old Testament, but few of us take those literally, yet somehow when we come to God's emotions, we do. I find that to be a sad God in many ways. I am supposed to have joy that comes from God and God alone and that is the greatest joy of all, but finite humans have the power to overcome the infinite joy of God? Doesn't make sense to me.
                          I really think that seeing joy as an emotion(or merely as such) is the wrong way to look at it, at least in a really meaningful sense. It's more than that, and something you have even when you have negative feelings such as sadness. It's a peace that helps overcome even the most troubling of sorrows. Even if it was an emotion you can be happy and sad at the same time. Same with other emotions. They don't negate each other, they coexist.

                          I also think that the arguments about certain characteristics of God being more or less superior are way too subjective*. God has to reveal Himself to us for us to really know Him. Without that we can only get a few basic attributes such as His power.

                          The more I read about Thomism, and of Thomas Aquinas own the more I reject it. I used to find some of it convincing, but not anymore.

                          I am not an open theist btw. I haven't seen good explanations of God's foreknowledge in the Bible by them yet. I'll admit I haven't done much research on the issue, just putting this part in the let people here know where I'm coming from.

                          *Muslims and Jews say it's beneath God to incarnate as a man, deists say it's beneath God to actually intervene in His creation etc.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                            snip

                            Your argument assumes that since Open Theist's (OT"S) take some passages literally, (which you and other traditionalists treat as anthropomorphic), then OT's must then take all passages in the Bible literally...I'm not sure how that follows? I could just as easily argue that since you take all those passages anthropomorphically you must treat all passages in the Bible anthropomorphically. It's really not a very convincing argument Nick.

                            snip
                            It's a debate tactic. Often used against creationists both of the YEC, and OEC varieties. I once encountered a guy who thought Eve being called "mother of all the living" couldn't mean she was the mother of every living creature ever, so it must mean she is a metaphor for "mother nature". Instead of the common understanding that she is the mother of all living humans.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                              It's a debate tactic. Often used against creationists both of the YEC, and OEC varieties. I once encountered a guy who thought Eve being called "mother of all the living" couldn't mean she was the mother of every living creature ever, so it must mean she is a metaphor for "mother nature". Instead of the common understanding that she is the mother of all living humans.
                              I'm not sure whether AP was using it as debate tactic here...but, yes you're right...it often is!
                              "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                              "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                              3 responses
                              34 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                              2 responses
                              24 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                              1 response
                              21 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                              2 responses
                              39 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Working...
                              X