If God is Eternal

Lycurgus89

Mel Gibson's biggest fan
Jul 14, 2020
49
19
35
Indiana
Visit site
✟16,461.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
I get confused when putting new and old testaments together. If God is eternal (so outside of all time and space) how can he be moved to jealousy by affections, or even act in our reality, without becoming temporal and a subject to our world's rules? Polytheism answers this dilemma by making the One (eternal bystander) and the Gods (immortals from heaven) different. Monotheism says the Gods never existed, they were never distinct from God, or they were angels and demons, but I think runs into the problem of making the eternal, unchanging being an absurdity. How could he perform miracles if his divinity is wrapped up in his eternal being? Gods like Apollo and Thor are really just stronger men on a whole other level, but Jesus would be all at once conscious of everything and finite. I don't even understand.
 

Lycurgus89

Mel Gibson's biggest fan
Jul 14, 2020
49
19
35
Indiana
Visit site
✟16,461.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
I can understand that God is infinite and eternal, but then how does he act in or on our world? Action requires a change, for example when God is moved to wrath, love, hate or jealousy, but the eternal can't change at all, because change is part of time and space. Does that make sense?
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I can understand that God is infinite and eternal, but then how does he act in or on our world? Action requires a change, for example when God is moved to wrath, love, hate or jealousy, but the eternal can't change at all, because change is part of time and space. Does that make sense?
You mean how does God act in the world, space and time He actually created?
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,458
26,889
Pacific Northwest
✟732,185.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I get confused when putting new and old testaments together. If God is eternal (so outside of all time and space) how can he be moved to jealousy by affections, or even act in our reality, without becoming temporal and a subject to our world's rules? Polytheism answers this dilemma by making the One (eternal bystander) and the Gods (immortals from heaven) different. Monotheism says the Gods never existed, they were never distinct from God, or they were angels and demons, but I think runs into the problem of making the eternal, unchanging being an absurdity. How could he perform miracles if his divinity is wrapped up in his eternal being? Gods like Apollo and Thor are really just stronger men on a whole other level, but Jesus would be all at once conscious of everything and finite. I don't even understand.

Not understanding is perfectly fine, there are plenty of things in the Christian religion that exist in the realm of the paradoxical and even incomprehensible. The Christian claim is never that our religion always makes sense, only that the things we believe to be true are indeed true.

That said, I don't think this is as especially complicated as perhaps you are imagining it to be.

Let's imagine that the sum total of all material existence, so the universe or the entirety of space-time, were a bubble. And you could place your finger on point point of the bubble to interact it it in those coordinates (and since we're talking space-time, it's not just the x, y, and z of three-dimensional space, but also the fourth dimension of time here). So one finger is interacting with one point in four-dimensional space-time, and then if you take another finger and place it elsewhere on the bubble that finger is now interacting with another point in four-dimensional space-time. That is you are simultaneously (from your vantage point) interacting with not just two different points of three-dimensional space, but also at different times.

So, from a purely analogical perspective, it's not terribly difficult to conceive of a being outside of the totality of space-time interacting with spacetime.

This is approximating the sort of thought experiment from the novel Flatland. If you're not familiar, it involves a protagonist who lives in Flatland, a two-dimensional world that consists only of length and width, the denizens of flatland are circles, triangles, etc. The protagonist, Square, has a dream where he visits the one-dimensional world of Lineland whose denizens are all single points. The points are unable to conceive of Flatlanders, and so the points only ever see Square as a set of points on a line, and his attempts to explain the two-dimensional world to the Linelanders is fruitless--they cannot conceive of a world beyond one dimension--they can't even perceive the Square as the Square actually is. Later, the Square is visited by Sphere from a three-dimensional world, but Square can't see Sphere as anything other than a circle. And Sphere's attempts to show himself and explain three dimensions to Square is going about as well as Square's attempt to explain two-dimensions to the points of Lineland. Sphere attempts to prove three dimensions by moving up and down, but Square can only see Sphere as a growing and then contracting circle.

Our perceptions of reality, of course, are bound to our experience of space-time. We can move freely through three-dimensions of space, but can only move in a single direction through the fourth dimension of time. In the same way that Square can't truly comprehend the three-dimensional world of Sphere, or the Linelanders comprehend the two-dimensional world of Square; and yet Sphere can interact with Flatland just fine, and Square can interact with Lineland just fine; so we can't truly conceive of dimensions beyond our experience and perception. But this does not negate the possibility of the existence of these higher-order dimensions and of a higher-order dimension being being able to interact with our world as easily as Sphere could interact with Square's world.

Of course, with God, we are talking about something far bigger than just a being existing on a hypothetical higher order of dimensions within the totality of all space-time. We are talking about God. So, certainly if it is easy for you, a mere three-dimensional being to interact with the two dimensional, such as when you draw a square on a sheet of paper for example, or touch a flat surface somewhere. There's really no difficulty in considering that God could interact with the universe in ways that aren't like ours.

But perhaps most importantly, for Christians, God did actually become part of created space-time, in the Incarnation, as Jesus Christ. And that's really where the paradox exists, for the Eternal and Infinite remained Eternal and Infinite and yet was temporal and finite. What is noncontainable was contained, without ever being constrained; what was bound by flesh was yet still boundless through all things and all eternity. That which could not suffer suffered; that which could not die died.

But as far as the Eternal interacting with the universe? That's really not that difficult to consider.

-CryptoLutheran

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,458
26,889
Pacific Northwest
✟732,185.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I can understand that God is infinite and eternal, but then how does he act in or on our world? Action requires a change, for example when God is moved to wrath, love, hate or jealousy, but the eternal can't change at all, because change is part of time and space. Does that make sense?

Well, traditionally Christianity has taught that God is dispassionate, that is God does not experience pathos--emotion, suffering, etc. I can't affect Gods feelings, I can't change God's emotional state. What this means is that we understand that emotive language in reference to the Divine is anthropomorphic, a way of talking about God that uses more easily understandable human ideas. For example, when the Bible talks about God having arms, it doesn't mean God literally has arms, rather it is painting a picture that we can relate to. Likewise, speaking about God's love, or God's wrath, etc these shouldn't be understood to be human emotions. Note though that this is not suggesting that God is stoic, that would be the wrong way to look at it too. All this means is that we need to keep in mind that anthropomorphic language is always at least analogical.

For example, in Lutheranism we understand that the wrath of God is not about God looking at people and just getting all mad and upset; rather we understand that wrath is what happens when we as sinners look at God through His Law; to look upon God through the Law is to see the God who says, "Do this" and then we see that we don't do it, and so we're sinners, and the Law by consequence has condemned us a sinners. To then look at God through this lens is to look upon the God who judges us through His Law and regards us as condemned sinners. Wrath is, in that sense, what a broken and dysfunctional relationship between man and God looks like--man cannot help but behold God in dread and fear, as wrathful, condemning us in our sin. Indeed, God so loved the world--that's sinners, all sinners, every sinner, everywhere, always--and the way God acts toward the world is love, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and grace. God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, God demonstrates His love toward us in that while still sinners Christ died for us, that Christ came into the world to save sinners, etc. God, toward the world, is the God of salvation, healing, mercy. This is the God who shows Himself, face-to-face, through Jesus Christ who was crucified and who suffered. Indeed, God cannot be known through the Law, because through the Law He is aloof, distant, and dreadful; but God is known through Jesus Christ, through the One who was born, who lived, who suffered, died, was buried, and rose again.

So if we beheld God as wrathful through the Law, and then we beheld God as loving and kind through the Gospel; does that mean that God changed His mind about us? That God's "feelings" toward us changed? The answer is no. God, who sent Christ, who so loved the world, says that He chose us from before the creation of the world, we were predestined before the world began. This is who and how God always is, has always been, and always will be. When we look to God through the Law we look as though through a dark storm cloud hiding His face; but through Christ, through the Gospel, we have met the friendly, fatherly face of God. That is why Jesus says, "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father." To meet the Incarnate Son is to meet the Father also. To know the Son is to know the Father.

In other words, it is not God's feelings that changed, it's that we are the ones who have changed. The Gospel does not change God, the Gospel changes us.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,458
26,889
Pacific Northwest
✟732,185.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
The eternal God never made sense to me. I understand Jesus, mostly, but not God.

It's been said that a god that we can understand isn't a god at all. That is, a god that we can understand is almost certainly something we invented.

Traditional Christian theology consistently points out that God in His Essence is totally unknowable, completely ineffable; and thus God can only be known through His revelation. In Christianity Jesus Christ is the Revelation of God.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0