Theists Discuss the Unmoved Mover.

[Littlejoe]

[Apologiaphoenix]

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.

[TheWall]

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?

[Littlejoe]

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.

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.

[Apologiaphoenix]

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

Are you an open theist?

[Littlejoe]

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.

[Apologiaphoenix]

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?

[Littlejoe]

The 2nd person of the Trinity has a material body.

[Apologiaphoenix]

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?

[Littlejoe]

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?

[Apologiaphoenix]

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.

[Littlejoe]

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" hasexplicitlydoesn't actually change his mind?

[Cerebrum123]

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.

[Cerebrum123]

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.

[Littlejoe]

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!