The Narrow Path Ministries

A lot has been written about "God" and time as it relates to Open Theism. Other than references to a 20-year old journal article though, I don't seem to be able to find any talk whatsoever on this topic as it relates to the differences in the Trinity. We know that the Son took on material form. He learned things. He was temporal. The Father is Spirit though. He never took on material form, and exists in Omnipresence, not limited by space. Could it be that the answer to the challenge of Open Theism is not a God that changes states, as Craig suggests, but that God exists in different Persons and the different Persons are in different states? As such, the Father would remain timeless even though the Son took on spacial, temporal form.

Look at Genesis 22 for example. The infamous "Now I know" phrase that the Open Theists love. It was the Angel of the Lord that said "Now I know". He referred to "God" in the third person, but also spoke for/as God. If this was a Christophany, and I believe it was, then it proves nothing about the open or closed nature of the *Father* since we already know that Christ is in time.

I believe there is a much better solution to the paradox of verses that imply that God didn't know something or learned something. I believe that instead of asking "when", (when did God enter time or has God always been in time) that the better question is "Who". We know that the Son entered time and took a material body. He was bound by space and time just as we were. He grew in stature and wisdom. He changed. He learned things. Is there some reason why the verses that indicate this kind of behavior on the part of God is *not* referring to that part of the Godhead that we know fits these attributes? Is there some reason why we should believe that an omnipresent Spirit shares the same material limitations as the Son? If there is a difference between how the material Son and the immaterial Father relate to time and space, then there is no real paradox between God immutability and passages that refer to God's responses changing when events change.

I guess the bottom line is this. Since Christ became flesh and flesh exists in time and space, and the Father is Spirit, could there be a difference between how an omnipresent Spirit exists in/with time versus a Person of the Trinity that became bound by space and time for us? If not, why not? Is the Father forced to take on the limitations that the Son took on when He became flesh? Why must both be bound by time at the creation? Could a proper understanding of the Trinity and Time negate the Open Theist's need to put God in time? Thoughts anyone?
D.

Look at Genesis 22 for example. The infamous "Now I know" phrase that the Open Theists love. It was the Angel of the Lord that said "Now I know". He referred to "God" in the third person, but also spoke for/as God. If this was a Christophany, and I believe it was, then it proves nothing about the open or closed nature of the *Father* since we already know that Christ is in time.

Was Christ "in time" before He was born? Was Christ limited in His knowledge before He was born? Was the Son of God then a lesser member of the Trinity?

But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I."

He said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." Genesis 22:11,12

So, Abraham did not withold his son from the angel of the LORD?

Paidion wrote:Was Christ "in time" before He was born?

I believe that if He appeared in physical form in the Old Testament and interacted with us then He would have had to be in time. Do you disagree?

Was Christ limited in His knowledge before He was born?

I believe He limited Himself when He took on material, temporal form. If these Old Testament events were Christophanies, then this occurred prior to the nativity.

Was the Son of God then a lesser member of the Trinity?

Not lesser, but different. He wasn't omnipresent in material form either, but that doesn't make Him less "God".

So, Abraham did not withold his son from the angel of the LORD?

I don't understand your question. I believe that when Abraham told his porters that he and Isaac were both going to return that it was an indication of his faith that has been held up as an example for us in so many cases. If Abraham knew, by faith, that Isaac was going to come through this, how was it a surprise to God?
D.

I think the body of Christ is limited but His Spirit is omnipresent.

PAULESPINO wrote:I think the body of Christ is limited but His Spirit is omnipresent.

Exactly my point. I believe that there is a difference between The Father, Who is Spirit, and The Son, who took on physical temporal form. We are told that He grew in wisdom and in stature. This indicates physical and intellectual change. As such, and with the belief that the Angel of the Lord in Genesis 22 was Christ, I have no issue with Him "learning" something while "God" remains above time and all-knowing.
D.

Hi DJ,

Exactly my point. I believe that there is a difference between The Father, Who is Spirit, and The Son, who took on physical temporal form

Think of Jesus's body as a container. When Jesus came down on earth he decided to take on this container and use it as his body. You see the container is useless without the spirit of Jesus living in it.

The container became important because of the spirit living in it.

The Son is consist of flesh and Spirit. I believe if you remove the flesh the Son will still be Son. There will be no difference.

Paidion wrote:

Was Christ "in time" before He was born?

I believe that if He appeared in physical form in the Old Testament and interacted with us then He would have had to be in time. Do you disagree?

Not at all! ----- since, existence "outside of time" is meaningless nonsense.

Quote:

Was Christ limited in His knowledge before He was born?

I believe He limited Himself when He took on material, temporal form. If these Old Testament events were Christophanies, then this occurred prior to the nativity.

[Christ Jesus] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Philippians 2:6-8

This passage seems to teach that it was at the time He was "born in the likeness of men" (or perhaps at His conception) that He "emptied Himself" of His divine attributes, and became a true human being. I, too, think the Son of God appeared as a human being, for example, in the case of the one of the three "men" who spoke to Abraham, the one who remained behind and was addressed as "Yahweh" . However, I don't see why that should imply that He was limited in His knowledge and His other divine attributes.

Quote:

So, Abraham did not withold his son from the angel of the LORD?

I don't understand your question.

You have said or implied that it was the angel speaking, "Now I know that your fear God", and not Yahweh Himself speaking through the angel. But the rest of the sentence which the angel uttered was:

...for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.

So if it was the angel who was speaking for himself in the first phrase, surely it was also he who was speaking in the second. So who is the "me" in the second phrase "seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me"? I have always thought that it was God speaking through the angel, saying, "seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me(God)
But if you are right in that the angel spoke for himself, then the angel is indicating that Abraham did not withhold his only son from him (the angel).

Think of Jesus's body as a container. When Jesus came down on earth he decided to take on this container and use it as his body. You see the container is useless without the spirit of Jesus living in it.

Paul, you seem to be expressing the view of the Apollinarians, who taught that Christ had no human mind or spirit, other than that which was furnished by the divine nature. They taught that the human mind or spirit was replaced by the divine Logos.

They believed that Christ hadn't become man, but rather He only manifested in the flesh what He already was.

Apollinarius was condemned as a heretic at Constantinople in 381.

Hi Paidion,

Don't know the Apolinarians. My idea is on my own.

Apollinarius was condemned as a heretic at Constantinople in 381.

Hopefully they don't hang me here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!