|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 19, 2008 13:01:14 GMT -5
WHAT IS ETERNITY??
There are two schools of thought on this topic:
1. Eternity is a timeless realm without succession, duration, or sequence. There is no "before" or "after" in eternity. All past, present, and future is at an "Eternal Now".
2. Eternity is never ending time, without beginning or end. It is forever time, time from everlasting to everlasting.
WHAT DID THE EARLY CHURCH BELIEVE?
POSITION ONE:
Augustine and those of his thought believed that eternity was a timeless realm. This was also the Philosophy of Plato and other heathen philosophers.
Eastern Cultist Philosopher Enneads of Plotinus :
"We know Eternity as a Life changelessly motionless ... not this now and now that other, but always all; not existing now in one mode and now in another, but a consummation without part or interval. All its content is in immediate concentration as at one point; nothing in it ever knows development; all remains identical within itself, knowing nothing of change... What future, in fact could bring to that Being anything which it does not now possess ... as it can never come to be anything at present outside it, so necessarily it cannot include any past; ... futurity, similarly is banned; nothing could be yet to come to it. ... one which never turns to any kind outside itself that has never received any accession that is now receiving none and never will receive any .... " (Third Ennead VII,4-5, p.120-121)
Augustine in "The City Of God" -
"... It is not as if the knowledge of God were of various kinds, knowing in different ways things which as yet are not, things which are and things which have been. For not in our fashion does He look forward to what is future, nor what is present, nor back upon what is past; but in a manner quite different and far and profoundly remote from our way of thinking. For He does not pass from this to that by transition of thought, but beholds all things with absolute unchangeableness; so that of those things which emerge in time, the future indeed are not yet, and the present are now and the past no longer are; but all of these are by Him comprehended in his stable and eternal Presence. ... nor does His present knowledge differ from that which it ever was or shall be, for those variations of time, past, present ad future through they alter our knowledge, do not affect His... Neither is there any growth from thought to thought in the conceptions of Him in whose spiritual vision all things which He knows are at once embraced." (City of God XI Ch. 21 p.333)
Augustine in his "Confessions" -
"...in the Eternal nothing passeth, but the whole is present; whereas no time is all at once present: and that all time past, is driven on by time to come, and all to come followeth upon the past; and all past and to come, is created, and flows out of that which is ever present... see how eternity [is] ever still-standing, neither past nor to come." (Confessions Book XI p.262)
Augustine in a sermon -
"Eternity is stability, but in time variety; in Eternity all things stand still, in time one thing comes, another succeeds." (Nicen and Post-Nicean Fathers, Volume 6, Sermon LXVII, p.)
In other words, "eternity" according to this philosophical view is not time "forever and ever" but eternity is rather the absence of time, a stagnant stand-still without any succession, duration, chronology, or sequence; from which God looks upon and dwells in all of time - past, present, and future simultaneously. God is not "everlasting" in the sense of never ceasing duration, but God is at a "ever stand-still" in the sense of absent of the succession of duration, dwelling in the past, present, and future all at once.
POSITION TWO:
While Augustine and those after him believed eternity to be timelessness, the primitive Church before Augustine believed it to be everlasting time.
Oscar Cullmann -
"Eternity is understood in Primitive Christianity only as endlessly extended time. It should be added that the erroneous importations into Primitive Christian thinking of the Platonic contrast between time and timeless eternity has no connection with the few 'marginal passages' that mention the existence of God before the creation and after the end of the world. It connects rather the biblical distinction between the two ages, the 'present' and 'future' age."
Oscar Cullman, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Concept of Time and History, 3rd ed. (New York: Gordon Press, 1977) pp. 65-66.
Nelson Pike -
Pike comments on the early Christian creeds: "Christ, begotten of the Father 'before the ages - aeons' (Nicene Creed, A.D. 381)... This phrase occurs in previous personal confessions - Lucian, Cyril, Eusebius, and Epiphanius; the Creed of Chalcedon and the Athanasian Creed. It appears to be a firm part of tradition.
"Why is it said that He was 'begotten before the worlds?'... 'That none should think there was ever a time when He was not. In other words, by this is expressed that Jesus is the Son of God from everlasting, even as God the Father is from everlasting.' (Larger Catechism of the Eastern Church)... The point seems to be that to 'exist before the ages' is to exist at all moments in time."
Nelson Pike, God and Timelessness (New York: Schocken Books, 1970), p. 180.
Others have conceived of eternity as everlasting time since the primitive Church.
John Locke -
I ask those who say they have a positive idea of eternity whether their idea of eternity includes succession or not... The notion they have of duration forces them to conceive that whatever has duration of a longer continuance today than it was yesterday... nothing [is] more inconceivable to me than duration without succession... But if our weak apprehensions cannot separation succession from any duration whatsoever, our idea of eternity can be nothing but an infinite succession, of moments of duration wherein anything does exist."
John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Peter H. Niddith, ed (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975), Bk. II, p. 172
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE TEACH? IS ETERNITY IN SCRIPTURE TIMELESSNESS OR INFINITE TIME?
I have never heard any good arguments from the scriptures to prove eternity as timelessness, but from my own study of the scriptures I have concluded that eternity is infinite time. That God, being an eternal being, means God has no beginning or end. And that eternal life is life without ending.
Eternity as never ending succession:
ETERNITY FOR GOD:
Job 36:26 "Behold, God is great, and we know him not, neither can the NUMBER of His YEARS be searched out."
Psa 102:27 "But thou art the same, and THY YEARS shall have NO END."
Heb 1:12 "thou art the same, and THY YEARS shall not fail."
The word "fail" here is "ekleipō" which means "cease" or "stop". So the years [time] of the Lord will never cease or stop.
ETERNITY FOR THE SINFUL:
Rev 14:11 "And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up FOREVER AND EVER: and they have no read DAY NOR NIGHT..."
Rev 20:10 "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimestone, where the best and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented DAY AND NIGHT FOREVER AND EVER."
ETERNITY FOR THE HOLY:
Rev 4:8 "they rest not DAY AND NIGHT saying Holy, holy, holy Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come"
Rev 7:15 "Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him DAY AND NIGHT in his temple."
All of these scriptures represent eternity for God, eternity for the sinful, and eternity for the holy as never ending time, as opposed to timelessness.
LOGICAL ARGUMENTS
If eternity were timelessness for God:
- God could not be active. Timelessness would be a stand-still. Activity requires time. God could not think, feel, or act unless He experienced time.
If eternity were timelessness for the sinful (eternal condemnation):
- They would in fact spend no "time" in hell. They could not think or feel. They would in effect suffer no pain in hell since pain requires both conscious thought and conscious feelings. And there can be no successive consciousness without time.
If eternity were timelessness for the holy (eternal life):
- We couldn't enjoy or worship God. Enjoyment and worship requires both feeling and thought. Worship is also activity and there can be no activity without succession.
But if eternity is not frozen then eternity is active. And if eternity is active, eternity must be sequential and successive.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 19, 2008 14:57:32 GMT -5
So from my research, as presented above, it looks like the concept of eternity as endless time passes three very important tests:
- Scripture (it can be biblically supported)
- Tradition (it is not a novel or foreign concept)
- Reason (it makes sense and involves no contradictions or impossibilities)
The perspective of eternity as endless time can be argued from the grounds of scripture, from the grounds of tradition, and from the grounds of reason.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 20, 2008 16:22:36 GMT -5
THE TRANSCENDENCE OF GOD
One point which is sometimes brought up in the discussion of God being in time or outside of time is the transcendence or "otherness" of God.
The transcendence of God still remains even with the view that God is in time. God's transcendence is that He is infinite while we are finite. God, in time, has had no beginning or end (infinite), God is uncreated (eternal). We however have had a definite beginning in our linear existence in time, so we are finite and created.
Granted, God dwelling in a linear existence without beginning is incomprehensible to our finite minds. But that does not mean it is impossible for reality, only impossible for finite comprehension. It is the same impossibility that eternal life is. Eternal life, time without end, is impossible to fully comprehend with finite minds but it is in no ways impossible for reality, because in fact, Christians will live eternally in reality.
------------------
REALITY WITHOUT TIME
I cannot conceive of a personal reality without sequence. There are essential elements to personal reality: will, thought, and feeling. These are the ingredients that make up personality and there can be no personal reality without personality. But there can be no will, thought, or feeling without sequence, therefore there can be no personal reality without sequence.
Consider also how there an be no sentient existence (reality) or self-consciousness (reality) without sequence. Sentient existence requires self-consciousness and self-consciousness requires sequence. This is really simple enough: sentient existence or self-consciousness requires thought and thought requires sequence.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Jan 20, 2008 22:27:37 GMT -5
I just read through the posts. It makes a lot of sense to me and seems to have the backing of Scripture. I guess I never looked at things quite like this before. How does 2 Peter 3:8 fit into the open view? It says, "But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
|
|
|
Post by joem on Jan 21, 2008 10:35:03 GMT -5
I just read through the posts. It makes a lot of sense to me and seems to have the backing of Scripture. I guess I never looked at things quite like this before. How does 2 Peter 3:8 fit into the open view? It says, " But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it is past, And like a watch in the night. I think Peter was making a reference to the uniformitarian view that “as it is, it has always been”. Earlier in the chapter he says, “2Pe 3:3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." In Psalm 90, it says that a thousand years are like yesterday “when it is past”, which would go completely against the idea that God exists outside of “time” in an “eternally present” state of being. I have seen this verse used as a proof text for progressive creationist, and I believe they fail to make the point. The phrase “thousand years are as a day” is not exclusive to biblical text either. I think the phrase generally means that God can do in a day what would take man thousands of years. It also carries the thought that God’s memory does not fade as man’s, and He knows every past event just as perfectly today as He did the moment after it took place. Good post and good questions. Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 21, 2008 12:04:09 GMT -5
The eternity = timelessness perspective [Eternal Now] has been held by many theologians:
- Augustine - Thomas Aquinas - Charles Hodge - John Wesley - Charles Finney - C. S. Lewis - Dorothy Sayers - Arthur C. Custance
But it has also been held by:
- Zen Buddhism - Buddhism - Neo-Platonism - Hinduism
Winkie Pratney quotes from all of the above listed in his book, "The Nature and Character of God".
I recently read Finney's view on this passage:
"To Him 'a thousand years are as one day...' By a thousand years we are to understand all time, of which it is said, that it is as one day, or as present time to God." - Charles G. Finney
So Finney said that the thousand years actually means all years, or all time, and that all time is one day with God, i.e. Eternal Now - all time is the present day to God.
But I don't see this interpretation in this passage at all. This is why I said before that I've never heard any good arguments from scripture to prove an Eternal Now existence for God.
Here is my understanding on this passage
When I was a child the summers seemed very long. It seemed like the summers would never end. That is become my time-experience was very small. What I measured the length of my summers by was a very small experience.
But as I continued to get old and older, summers seemed smaller and smaller. That is because my time-experience which I was comparing the summers to became larger and larger. The older I grew, the shorter summer became. The larger my measuring rod (time-experience) the shorter the duration felt.
And because God has always existed, a thousand years is literally nothing to him. It is as small as one day.
To us, a thousand years seems so big. That is because we have only been around for 20 or 30 or 40 years. At best, we will only live to be 100 or so. So 1,000 years seems very big.
But for God, who has no beginning in time, a thousand years is as small as one day. It is absolutely nothing compared to all the time He has experienced.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Jan 21, 2008 12:31:08 GMT -5
Thanks for responding Joe and Jesse. I really like what you said Jesse. It makes a WHOLE LOT OF SENSE:
|
|
|
Post by swordsmith on Jan 27, 2008 14:51:21 GMT -5
One thing that really had me moving towards a partially open future with a model of endless time for God, was this: If God foreknows all things as certain, then how can he be sincere in attempting to reconcile the wicked unto Him with love, if He foreknows that they will resist Him? Why bother with them? Also, if individuals can have their name written in the book of life and be saved, but will later abandon faith and get their name erased, why did God save them and insert their name in the book if He already knew they would apostasize? Why save them in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Jan 27, 2008 15:42:48 GMT -5
I don't really think it's fair to base arguments about how God perceives time around a human perspective of time. There's a certain degree of anthropomorphic language in the scripture that we cannot dismiss.
In short... God does not experience things as humans experience them.
The scriptures tell us of God's wrath. But it would be foolish to assume that God experiences this "wrath" in the same sense that we humans do (i.e. full of red-faced passion).
In fact, I'm not sure we can properly say that God "experiences" anything in the same way that we "experience" things, for he is the root of all things, and all things proceed from Him.
When we try to use analogies such as "summer seemed really long when we were kids, but now it doesn't seem long at all because we are older".... we are reducing God in some capacity. God is not simply just a really really really really old man who remembers things like "back in the day when I created heaven and earth."
The bible is amazing, and as God's own word it gives us insight into the nature of His character. But the anthropomorphic language in many of the passages should not be reduced to a human level. Rather, we should try to ascent to a higher level of understanding... although such an understanding will certainly be imperfect.
"For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood." - 1 Cor. 13:12
We should not try to reduce God further...He has already condescended to give us His Word in both written and human form.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Jan 27, 2008 16:30:41 GMT -5
Also...
It doesn't make sense for us to limit God's perception of time to a human frame of reference.
Kids think the summers are long because they are finite beings. A summer is 3 months long. An 8-year old has been alive for 96 months. To an 8 year old, a summer is about 1/30th of his entire life - based solely upon his frame of reference.
To limit God to a similar frame of reference is absurd - even in the sense of 1,000 years. To do this suggests that He has a similar frame of reference.
The anthropomorphic language of the bible tells us that 1,000 years is but a single day to God. But can we really take such a statement so literally as to assume that God experiences time by a human perception that is based upon an arbitrarily chosen rotation of the earth about the sun?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 27, 2008 17:06:35 GMT -5
Frank,
I agree that God does not experience time, or experience reality, the way that we humans do. But that doesn't mean that God doesn't experience time.
Our experience has a beginning and an end. We call the time in between the beginning and end "time". But God never had a beginning nor an end. God is everlasting to everlasting. Which means God's time is without beginning or end. Winkie Pratney calls this "Super time".
But we must make sure that we don't interpret "transcendence" as timelessness. There is no reason for this. If we do that, why not interpret "omnipotence" as as powerless, or "omniscience" as ignorance?? God is transcendent from us, and doesn't experience time like we do, but that does not mean God does not experience time at all.
I agree. Why would God plead with all men through the Holy Spirit if He already knows that they are hopeless? And why write someone in the book of life if you know that you are only going to blot them out?
I was reading Thomas Chalmers classic, "The Bridgewater Treatise" where he seeks to prove the existence, wisdom, and goodness of God through natural theology, proving it through our constitution.
Thomas, (a supposed Calvinists) admits that our constitutional conscience, as an element of our nature, proves the goodness of God. He says it proves that God's original intention in man was that he should never sin but that he should be holy and blameless and loving.
I had heard this before and have always believed this was God's original intention. But then I realized that this presupposes an open system of the future. If God created mankind, with the original intention of mankind loving Him and loving each other, then God must not have known what man was going to do! It must have been an open possibility but God thought that the risk was worth taking.
So ANYONE who believes that God's original intention for men was to have a happy-holy-loving-relationship with Him, presupposes an open system and Divine Nescience.
|
|
|
Post by swordsmith on Jan 27, 2008 17:12:29 GMT -5
Frank,
That's fine, and I to some extent agree with what you are saying. My question though, is how do we determine whether certain passages are anthropomorphic and others are not. For example, seeing the wickedness of the whole human race which preceded the great flood, the Bible says, “The Lord was sorry that he made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.” (Genesis 6:5–6). Is this anthopomorphic, or is this a geniune reaction by God to what came to pass? What method do you use to determine whether or not some scriptures are anthropomorphic?
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Jan 27, 2008 17:19:26 GMT -5
I don't dispute that God is capable of experiencing time as his creation does. This is one of the things which is so mysterious and beautiful about the Incarnation. It is also evident from His interaction with all of us in our daily lives.
I DO dispute a statement made earlier on this thread... that God did not create time.
Although I have only a cursory understanding of the physics involved, we cannot deny the intimate connection between space, matter, and time. It is a mistake to think that God's creation is purely material. We know he created all things spiritual as well. Why should we deny that He created all of the mediums essential to our existence - including time?
And I do believe that God's transcendensce of time is intimately related to many of the topics that are being discussed here.
There is no contradiction to saying that God transcends time and space, and to say that God interacts within the medium of His creation to bring about His Glory. In other words.... Creation does not prove God's necessary existance within time.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 27, 2008 17:33:21 GMT -5
The reason I say that God did not create time is for the following reasons:
1. Scriptures: the bible says God is from everlasting to everlasting, that God has no beginning and no end.
2. Logic: time is succession, creation requires succession, therefore the creation of succession requires pre-existing succession. Also, if God did not live in time as his natural habitate, God would be a frozen statue. How can a frozen stand still statue (God without time) create anything. Doesn't creation require activity? And there can be no activity without sequence or succession.
----------------------------------------------------
The scriptures say that God "added" fifteen years to the life of Hezekiah. Doesn't this mean that God changed the future? Doesn't it mean at one point, like Isaiah said, Hezekiah's future was that he was going to die, but God changed his future so that he lived another fifteen years?
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Jan 27, 2008 17:57:44 GMT -5
Saying "God has no beginning and no end" means nothing without the human construction of the ideas behind it.... But I don't want to get into one of these types of arguments (a purely rhetorical one). All I'm saying is that Scripture does not confine God to a time-frame.
I reject the point on "logic" entirely. To limit God within the bounds of His own creation is based only on "human logic." God does not have a "natural habitat" that he "moves around in." To argue from the idea of succession (as an understanding in time) is mistaken. It does not take God '4 human seconds' to walk from one side of the universe to the other.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 27, 2008 18:11:13 GMT -5
You are assuming that time is a creation of God and therefore the open theists limits God to His own creation. But this is not an internal critique of open theism. Open theism says that time is not a creation of God, but a natural attribute of God, and is therefore not a creation at all. And if time is not a creation, it is not limiting God to His creation to say God has never had a beginning in time nor an end in time.
God no doubt has natural attributes. For example, God did not choose to be omnipresent, omniscience, or omnipotent. These were attributes of the nature that He has eternally had. These are not creations of God. Therefore it is not limiting God to His creation to say that He is omnipresent, omniscience, or omnipotent.
And to say that a linear existence is a natural attribute of God, being an essential element of his nature and personality, is not at all limiting God to His creation. To say that God is "omni-time" that is, without beginning or end, is not at all limiting Him to His creation but is simply recognizing a natural attribute of His nature. God is eternal. He didn't choose to be this way. He is naturally this way. To say that God is eternal (without beginning or end in time) is not limiting Him to His creation since His own eternal existence is not something He created.
Omnipotence is a natural attribute of God, not a creation of God.
Omnipresence is a natural attribute of God, not a creation of God.
Omniscience is a natural attribute of God, not a creation of God.
And Omni-Time (Eternity) is a natural attribute of God, not a creation of God.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Jan 27, 2008 18:40:48 GMT -5
I DO see how this is a crucial point for open theists, although I was deliberately trying to avoid the subject because open theism was not the topic of the thread.
I just think it's important to understand "time" from outside its human perception. To proove its pre-existence by saying that "God must have been doing SOMETHING before he created the world" is too human of an understanding. ----------------------------------------------------
The discussion is probably not going to get anywhere like this. In the first post of the thread it is cited that "While Augustine and those after him believed eternity to be timelessness, the primitive Church before Augustine believed it to be everlasting time."
Quotes from Oscar Cullman (20th century), and John Locke (17th century) are offered. The quote from Pike (20th century) is nothing more than an interpretation of language used in the Nicene Creed.
Can any of us actually provide pre-Augustinian quotes from church fathers to support either position?
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Jan 27, 2008 18:56:56 GMT -5
To reject Augustine's ideas on the subject because of his utilization of Aristotelian thought (300 BC) would be the same as rejecting open theism for its reliance on Enlightenment thought (18th century).
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 29, 2008 15:25:47 GMT -5
A HEBREW WORD STUDY
Isaiah talked of God as "the High and loftly One that inhabits eternity".
The Hebrew word is "ad" and it means "duration, in the sense of perpetuity". It means, "ever (-lasting, -more), old, perpetually, + world without end."
A GREEK WORD STUDY
The New Testament translated the word "aionios" as "eternal" in some places and "everlasting" in others.
The word "aionios" means:
1. Perpetual
2. Without beginning or end
3. Without beginning
4. Without end, never to cease, everlasting.
In the Greek, the New Testament word for eternal does not mean "without time" but rather means "without end".
And let it be remembered that the Early Church would have read the original Greek New Testament and would have clearly understood what the word "eternal" meant in Greek.
But Augustine however knew very little Greek. Augustine read the bible in Latin.
AN ENGLISH WORD STUDY
Webster defined eternity as "Duration or continuance without beginning or end"
I have before me a dictionary of early Christian beliefs and I'm reading their quotes on eternal punishment. It seems clear that they did not mean a stand-still frozen existences in hell when they talked about eternal d**nation.
But they seems to clearly be talking about a linear consciousness full of agony and grief. Certainly, there can be no agony or grief in a stand-still frozen realm since these require feelings and thoughts, and feelings and thoughts require sequence or duration.
Justin Martyr said, "Some are sent to be punished UNCEASINGLY unto judgment and condemnation of fire." Eternal life and eternal condemnation, is not a "stand-still" (the word Augustine used for eternity) but eternal life and eternal condemnation is "unceasing" (the word Justin Martyr used) Again Justin said, "He goes to the EVERLASTING punishment". It is clear the Justin did not see "eternal" as "stand-still" but rather "eternal" as "everlasting". So eternal life or eternal condemnation was either everlasting life or everlasting condemnation. Likewise, when the bible says God is eternal, that means that God is everlasting. What Justin calls "ETERNAL fire" in one place he calls "punishment for ENDLESS DURATION" elsewhere. Justin used the words "everlasting", "unceasing" and "endless duration" synonymous with "eternal".
Theophilus spoke of "life everlasting" for the righteous. Not life at a "stand-still". And he spoke of "everlasting fire" for sinners, not "stand-still" existence.
Irenaeus spoke of "eternal fire" in contrast with "LENGTH OF DAYS FOREVER AND EVER". He also used the term "everlasting d**nation". So "eternal" to Irenaeus was the same as "everlasting" which was the same as "length of days forever and ever". He also spoke of eternity as "forever" which he described as "constant advancement". Elsewhere he described the "eternal" as "WITHOUT END" or "NEVER-ENDING".
Hermas used the term "FOREVER" to describe eternity.
Clement of Alexandria used the terminology of "everlasting contemplation". He also used the word "ENDLESS".
Tertullian used the terms "eternal" and "everlasting" synonymously (like the Greek does). He spoke of "eternity in ENDLESS fire".
Mark Minucius Felix spoke of eternity as having "neither limit nor TERMINATION".
Hippolytus said that "eternal" was "WITHOUT END".
Origen said that those who face "eternal fire" will "PERPETUALLY endure torture".
Commodianus said that those who receive eternal condemnation will suffer "FOR ALL TIME".
Cyprian said that "eternal" was "PERPETUAL". He also said, "ETERNAL punishments in the fires of Gehenna... an EVER-burning...Nor will there be any means by which AT ANY TIME they can have either rest or an END... INFINITE tortures." And elsewhere as "NEVER-ENDING" and "IMMORTALITY". According to Cyprian, eternity was not without time but eternity was infinite time without end
Archelaus described eternity as "everlasting" a place where activities "do not CEASE".
To the Early Church, what the bible meant by "eternal life" and "eternal death" was the same as "everlasting life" and "everlasting death". It is the same Greek word. Eternal simply meant "forever" or without end of time, not without time.
Eternity is simply, as Justin called it, "endless duration" or what Irenaeus called "never-ending" and "without end", or what Clement of Alexandria said was "endless". It was, as Commodianus said, "for all time" or what Cyprian called "perpetual".
THE SONG AMAZING GRACE
I realized recently that the song "Amazing Grace" gives us a great picture of eternity:
"When we’ve been there ten thousand years, Bright shining as the sun, We've no less days to sing God’s praise Than when we’ve first begun."
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Jan 29, 2008 19:33:07 GMT -5
Thank you for the quotations, Jesse. But I think we will both agree that none of the attributed authors were concerned with a discourse on the nature of "time" when they wrote these.
No, I am not disputing the truthful nature of their content, but the truth must be found in the issue being addressed.
Take the following sentence, for example:
"It is much warmer on the back porch now that the sun has come out from behind the clouds."
The truth of this sentence is quite apparent. In all liklihood, it conveys exactly what the speaker intends to declare.
BUT... If I intend to use this statement as evidence of solar behavior and planetary motion, I will be quite mistaken.
Does this make sense, and do you agree?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 30, 2008 10:09:24 GMT -5
Thanks for taking the time to read the quotes.
I understand why you might say that the quotes were not originally intended to give us a description of eternity, but I would beg to differ. I believe that the exact reason for the quotes was to describe eternity. They were conveying concepts of what eternal life is and what eternal condemnation is.
In fact, I couldn't find any better quotes from the Early Church as to what eternity is. They explicitly used the word "eternal" and described it as "endless" "unceasing" "duration" "never ending time" etc. They were explicitly teaching what eternity will be like.
The Early Church very clearly assigned sequence to eternity. They said that the wicked will be ever conscious of agony and pain while the righteous will be ever conscious of joy and bliss.
This is the way that I had always viewed eternity. I never viewed eternity (eternal life or eternal death) as being without time, but rather as being without end. I never viewed eternity as frozen, but always as perpetual and linear.
If eternity were frozen, the wicked could not be in agony and the righteous could not be in bliss. As stated before, agony and bliss are fundamentally mental states which require sequence of conscious thoughts.
And if eternity is a frozen state without time, then eternity would also be without actions, without thoughts, and without feelings. But the scriptures abundantly assign actions, thoughts, and feelings to those who are in eternity.
Actions in eternity: the righteous will cry "holy, holy, holy"
Thoughts in eternity: the righteous will worship God
Feelings in eternity: the wicked will be in endless torment and pain
If eternity was frozen or a stand-still instead of perpetual or linear, neither God, sinner, or saint could have thoughts, actions, or feelings. But the Bible clearly assigns thoughts, feelings, and actions to all of these in eternity.
I just wanted to repost this so it doesn't get lost on the other page:
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Jan 31, 2008 1:55:00 GMT -5
I've been searching for writings from the early church fathers with explicit discussion on the nature of time itself. Needless to say, it's been difficult. I've found a few that, I think you will agree, are pretty interesting. I hope you take the time to read them. A few of these are pretty lengthy, but necessarily so to retain the context.
"Look for Him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes; impalpable and impassible, yet who became passible on our account; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes." -Ignatius of Antioch (AD 35 - 110)
"Therefore we ought to believe that God is good, eternal, perfect, almighty, and true, such as we find Him in the Law and the Prophets, and the rest of the Holy Scriptures, for otherwise there is no God. For He Who is God cannot but be good, seeing that fullness of goodness is of the nature of God: nor can God, Who made time, be in time; nor, again, can God be imperfect, for a lesser being is plainly imperfect, seeing that it lacks somewhat whereby it could be made equal to a greater. This, then, is the teaching of our faith—that God is not evil, that with God nothing is impossible, that God exists not in time, that God is beneath no being." -Ambrose (AD 338 - 397)
"Now that it is an insane thing to think that the Son was made from things which are not, and was in being in time, the expression, "from things which are not," itself shows, although these stupid men understand not the insanity of their own words. For the expression, "was not," ought either to be reckoned in time, or in some place of an age. But if it be true that "all things were made by Him," it is established that both every age and time and all space, and that "when" in which the "was not" is found, was made by Him. And is it not absurd that He who fashioned the times and the ages and the seasons, in which that "was not" is mixed up, to say of Him, that He at some time was not? For it is devoid of sense, and a mark of great ignorance, to affirm that He who is the cause of everything is posterior to the origin of that thing. For according to them, the space of time in which they say that the Son had not yet been made by the Father, preceded the wisdom of God that fashioned all things, and the Scripture speaks falsely according to them, which calls Him "the First-born of every creature." Conformable to which, that which the majestically-speaking Paul says of Him: "Whom He has appointed heir of all things. By whom also He made the worlds. But by Him also were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by Him, and for Him; and He is before all things." -Alexander of Alexandria (AD ? - 326)
"When we use, indeed, such terms as "always" or "was," or any other designation of time, they are not to be taken absolutely, but with due allowance; for while the significations of these words relate to time, and those subjects of which we speak are spoken of by a stretch of language as existing in time, they nevertheless surpass in their real nature all conception of the finite understanding." -Origen (AD 185 - 254)
"For these very words "when" or "never" have a meaning that relates to time, whereas the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages." -Origen (AD 185 - 254)
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Jan 31, 2008 13:31:50 GMT -5
Consider all of the following from Tertullian. The fourth quotation here is the most immediately telling of his thoughts on the "eternal." The context of the quotation involves Tertullian refuting Plato's idea that the soul is not created and is thus not subject to change.
"Examine then, and see if He be not the dispenser of kingdoms, who is Lord at once of the world which is ruled, and of man himself who rules; if He have not ordained the changes of dynasties, with their appointed seasons, who was before all time, and made the world a body of times."
“All time is one to prophecy foretelling the future. Among men, it may be, a distinction of times is made while the fulfillment is going on: from being future we think of it as present, and then from being present we count it as belonging to the past. How are we to blame, I pray you, that we believe in things to come as though they already were, with the grounds we have for our faith in these two steps?”
"In reply to all this, we have then already settled the principle that the dispensation of the future state ought not to be compared with that of the present world, and that in the interval between them a change will take place; and we now add the remark, that these functions of our bodily limbs will continue to supply the needs of this life up to the moment when life itself shall pass away from time to eternity, as the natural body gives place to the spiritual, until "this mortal puts on immorality, and this corruptible puts on incorruption."
“For that which is eternal, on the ground of its being unborn, since it admits neither of beginning nor end of time, is subject to no temporal criterion. And that which time does not measure, undergoes no change in consequence of time.”
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 31, 2008 13:42:42 GMT -5
Time is often used to describe the beginning of the world to the end of the world. Time is the sequence or duration with beginning and end.
But eternity is sequence or duration without beginning and end.
When God created the world, He created the Sun and the Moon which measured "the first day" and on and on it went.
But functionality and activity requires sequence and duration. That is why God was capable of creation. Because God was capable of functioning and acting, God was capable of the activity of creation because He experienced sequence and duration.
And in eternal life and eternal condemnation there will be functionality and activity. The saints will praise God forever and ever without end, and the sinners will be tormented forever and ever without end. The conscious linear existence will be without end.
But ultimately the debate comes down to the definition of "time". Some define time as the sun and the moon, some define time as the time between the beginning and the end. And if that is our definition of time, then no doubt time was created and time will come to an end. But if "time" is sequence or duration, then this has no beginning nor end, and therefore is properly called eternity.
Time is limited time. But eternity is unlimited time. Time is temporal time. But eternity is eternal time. When people talk of "time" they talk of a time that had beginning and end. But eternity is a time that has no beginning and no end.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Jan 31, 2008 14:11:41 GMT -5
Jesse-
To me (and please correct me if I'm wrong)... Your last post addresses none of the ideas/thoughts from the early church fathers which address the very ideas/thoughts that you are claiming need to be established here to continue debate.
It appears as nothing more than a simple recapitulation of the thoughts you've presented from the beginning of the thread, without regard for any of the new information.
(I don't wish to give you the impression that I am frustrated with you. Upon rereading what I have written, I can see how it could possibly be taken that way. I just don't want us to be "spinning our wheels" here.)
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 31, 2008 14:57:22 GMT -5
Frank,
My point was that when Tertullian said, "we shall pass away from time" that he does not exclude eternity from being "everlasting" and also as "endless". Because he explicitly taught eternity as being everlasting and endless in the quotes I already provided. Often when people speak of "time" they speak of the age in between creation and judgment day. But when they speak of "eternity" they speak of the age before creation and after judgment day.
No doubt, Tertullian received his descriptions of eternity from the scriptures.
EVERLASTING
Mat 19:29 "and shall inherit everlasting life."
G166 aionios Thayer Definition: 1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be 2) without beginning 3) without end, never to cease, everlasting
WITHOUT END
Eph 3:21 "world without end".
G165 aion Thayer Definition: 1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity 2) the worlds, universe 3) period of time, age
Tertullian, like the scriptures, described eternity as everlasting and without end.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Jan 31, 2008 15:18:45 GMT -5
Can you please provide the quotation from Tertullian in its entirety? (And also in the larger context of his discourse if possible?)
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 31, 2008 15:35:37 GMT -5
"We receive our awards under the judgment of an all-seeing God, and we Christians anticipate eternal punishments from Him for sin. Therefore, we alone make a real effort to attain a blameless life. We do this under the influence of... the magnitude of the threatened torment. For it is not merely long-enduring; rather, it is everlasting." Tertullian (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, pg 244)
"By the sentence of the judgment, we say that the wicked will have to spend an eternity in endless fire. The godly and innocent will spent it in a region of bliss." Tertullian (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, pg 245)
"We maintain that, after life has passed away, you still remain in existence and anticipate a day of judgment. Furthermore, according to your deserts, you are assigned either to misery or to bliss. Either way, it will be forever. Tertullian (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, pg 245)
It is from these quotes that we can conclude that Tertullian viewed "eternity" as "everlasting" as "endless" and as "forever".
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Jan 31, 2008 15:43:53 GMT -5
"We receive our awards under the judgment of an all-seeing God, and we Christians anticipate eternal punishments from Him for sin. Therefore, we alone make a real effort to attain a blameless life. We do this under the influence of... the magnitude of the threatened torment. For it is not merely long-enduring; rather, it is everlasting." Tertullian (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, pg 244) "By the sentence of the judgment, we say that the wicked will have to spend an eternity in endless fire. The godly and innocent will spent it in a region of bliss." Tertullian (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, pg 245) "We maintain that, after life has passed away, you still remain in existence and anticipate a day of judgment. Furthermore, according to your deserts, you are assigned either to misery or to bliss. Either way, it will be forever. Tertullian (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, pg 245) It is from these quotes that we can conclude that Tertullian viewed "eternity" as "everlasting" as "endless" and as "forever". The quotations I've posted from Tertullian are much more descriptive of his personal view of "eternal" vs. "temporal." In these, he is explicity providing discourse on "time" and "eternity." The quotations you've provide are primarily concerned with the nature of punishment and judgement. I don't wish to discount the interrelation with the subjects entirely, but the necessary provisions for language in these instances are alluded to in the quotations from Origen.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 2, 2008 3:17:52 GMT -5
It seems that some theologians use one definition of "eternity" when applying it to God, and another when applying it to saints and sinners. They will hold to an "Eternal Now" being without time, yet will hold that "Eternal Life" and "Eternal Condemnation" as being without end.
It would seem that Jonathon Edwards held to "Eternal Now" sometimes, since he said, " past, present, or to come: for all are alike to God." Yet also defining eternity for God, eternity for sinners, and eternity for saints as endless time also:
"this misery will not only continue for a very long time, but will be absolutely without end. - Jonathon Edwards
And again, "First,show that the threatenings of eternal punishment do very plainly and fully import a proper, absolute eternity, and not merely a long duration. This appears,
1. Because when the Scripture speaks of the wicked being sentenced to their punishment at the time when all temporal things are come to an end, it then speaks of it as everlasting, as in the text and elsewhere.....
And this last is the longest temporal duration that such a term is ever used to signify. For the duration of the world is the longest of things temporal, as its beginning wasthe earliest. Therefore when the Scripture speaks of things as being before the foundation of the world, it means that they existed before the beginning of time. So those things which continue after the end of the world, are eternal things. When heaven and earth are shaken and removed, those things that remain will be what cannot be shaken, but will remain forever, Heb. 12:26-27.
But the punishment of the wicked will not only remain after the end of the world, but is called everlasting, as in the text, These shall go away into everlasting punishment. So in 2 Thes. 1:9-10, Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, etc. Now, what can be meant by a thing being everlasting, after all temporal things are come to an end, but that it is absolutely without end!
2. Such expressions are used to set forth the duration of the punishment of the wicked, as are never used in the scriptures of the New Testament to signify anything but a proper eternity. It is said, not only that the punishment shall be forever, but for ever and ever. Rev. 14:11, The smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever. Rev. 20:10, Shall be tormented day and night, for ever and ever. Doubtless the New Testament has some expression to signify a proper eternity, of which it has so often occasion to speak. But it has no higher expression than this: if this do not signify an absolute eternity, there is none that does.
3. The Scripture uses the same way of speaking to set forth the eternity of punishment and the eternity of happiness, yea, the eternity of God himself. Mat. 25:46, These shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. The words everlasting and eternal, in the original, are the very same. Rev. 22:5, And they (the saints) shall reign for ever and ever. And the Scripture has no higher expression to signify the eternity of God himself, than that of his being for ever and ever, as Rev. 4:9, To him who sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever; and in the 10th verse, and in Rev. 5:14; 10:6, and 15:7.
Again, the Scripture expresses God's eternity by this: that it shall be forever, after the world is come to an end, Psa. 102:26-27, They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed. But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.
4. The Scripture says that wicked men shall not be delivered till they have paid the uttermost farthing of their debt, Mat. 5:26. The last mite, Luke 12:59, i.e. the utmost that is deserved, and all mercy is excluded by this expression. But we have shown that they deserve an infinite, an endless punishment.
5. The Scripture says absolutely that their punishment shall not have an end, Mark 9:44, Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. Now it will not do to say that the meaning is [that] their worm shall live a great while, or that it shall be a great while before their fire is quenched. If ever the time comes that their worm shall die, if ever there shall be a quenching of the fire at all, then it is not true that their worm dieth not and that the fire is not quenched. For if there be a dying of the worm and a quenching of the fire, let it be at what time it will, nearer or further off, it is equally contrary to such a negation it dieth not, it is not quenched."
- Jonathon Edwards (THE ETERNITY OF HELL'S TORMENTS)
|
|