On Pg. 178 "By what they have said about his immutability, as a consequence of their understanding of God's eternality as involving timelessness, classical theists have sometimes portrayed God as One virtually frozen in timeless immobility or inactivity (this is one example of the theological mischief which accrues to the ascription of timelessness to God)." Who has said that God's immutability means that God is basically frozen in time?
"These theists correctly argue that since God is a perfect being, he is incapable of any ontological change, since any change must be either for the better or for the worse. He cannot change for the better since he is already perfect, and he cannot change for the worse since that would result in his becoming imperfect. The same holds true, it is incorrectly argued, with regard to any motion or activity on his part. Any movement must either improve his condition or detract from it. But neither is possible for a perfect Deity. Therefore, he remains in an 'eternally frozen pose' (Packer's characterization) as the impassible God. But this is not the biblical description of God." -It isn't, then what is?
"The God of Scripture is CONSTANTLY acting into and reacting to the human condition. In no sense is he metaphysically insulated or detached from, unconcerned with, or insensitive or indifferent to the condition of fallen men."
So God reacts to man's actions? WOW! There you have it Reymond is an Arminian at best, but according to the previous status he might be a humanist or atheist at worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment