Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
My response to this week’s challenge:
Interesting. This is the first challenge you have done that really threw me for a loop, so I brought it up to my husband. He told essentially what you did in regards to the nature of Christ as human, verses the nature of Christ as deity. Thanks for the challenging challenge!
I’m curious about some views of God’s relationship to time now. William Lane Craig holds the view that God is timeless without creation and temporal with creation. But if all of God’s attributes are essential, wouldn’t He be essentially timeless? How could he have changed in that regard? I’m more inclined to believe that God does experience a sequence of moments in His life (though I’m not going to argue it now), so I’ve been wondering about this.
Kyle, I suspect Bill Craig would respond by making a distinction between properties a thing has in itself and relational properties. An example of a property something has in itself might be your eye colour. An example of a relational property might be that you are in front of the TV. Nothing would have to change about you in order for you to stop being in front of the TV. Somebody could move the TV instead. Craig seems to think God’s relationship to time is more like a relational property than a property God has in himself. God enters time simultaneously with the creation of the universe because time begins, and God stands in some relation to time. So nothing about God really changes. Being temporal or atemporal is a property of relation rather than a property a being has in itself.
3 minutes worth of excuses before getting to business! But good stuff on a difficult question.
Yes, but weren’t they GOOD excuses? 😉
Do you have online that debate in San Diego you showed a clip of in your response video? Sounds interesting.
Uli, Brett is planning to post a 15-minute clip of it next week, so check back again!