One Died For All

[Fervent]

No, there are a potentially infinite number of languages. I myself have never denied "potential infinities" and your attempt to do so here is complete nonsense. What I HAVE denied is "actualized infinities".

Meaning, God can learn any of these infinite languages, but there will never be any point in time where He knows them all, as an actualized/realized infinity is incoherent nonsense.

I think that's pretty clear.

A lot of your objections seem to rely on what I can only characterize as a misunderstanding on your part. God is not simply something that exists, He is being itself. We are both potential and action, but God is pure act. He is not "an actualized infinity" in the sense you're using, as you're correct in that such would be self-contradictory. But, by analogy, it is like a river that is constantly flowing and yet as long as it remains it is the same river. Or a ship that has all of its parts removed and replaced with identical parts over infinity. God is continuous without interruption, rather than discrete. Of course, as we can only describe Him analogously none of these descriptions will ever fully match who He is.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So he is the finite infinite God. Wow. You're really making a lot sense here.

How does what I said make him finite? The fact he knows all that is finite doesn't make him finite. He knows much more than that. Your "=" sign is in the wrong place.

 

[JAL]

I was sarcastically attempting to figure out your thinking on it. You make God subject to time in your narrative. No I don't think time is absolute. You do, however, it seems, subjecting God to it. What a small god you equal yourself to!

A timeless God would have no merit. That's part of the argument (post 850 on the other thread) that you won't rebut because you can't.

 

[Mark Quayle]

A lot of your objections seem to rely on what I can only characterize as a misunderstanding on your part. God is not simply something that exists, He is being itself. We are both potential and action, but God is pure act. He is not "an actualized infinity" in the sense you're using, as you're correct in that such would be self-contradictory. But, by analogy, it is like a river that is constantly flowing and yet as long as it remains it is the same river. Or a ship that has all of its parts removed and replaced with identical parts over infinity. God is continuous without interruption, rather than discrete. Of course, as we can only describe Him analogously none of these descriptions will ever fully match who He is.

Thank you. I'm starting to get more than a little frustrated at his apparent playing with the obvious. I'm wondering if he is even serious.

 

[Mark Quayle]

A timeless God would have no merit. That's part of the argument (post 850 on the other thread) that you won't rebut because you can't.

WHY would a timeless God have no merit? He has ALL merit. Merit does not depend on time nor acquiring nor anything but his very self. He merits all praise. If you think he must earn it, you are wrong, but he has done that too, and not by figuring out something he didn't know.

 

[JAL]

A lot of your objections seem to rely on what I can only characterize as a misunderstanding on your part. God is not simply something that exists, He is being itself. We are both potential and action, but God is pure act. He is not "an actualized infinity" in the sense you're using, as you're correct in that such would be self-contradictory. But, by analogy, it is like a river that is constantly flowing and yet as long as it remains it is the same river. Or a ship that has all of its parts removed and replaced with identical parts over infinity. God is continuous without interruption, rather than discrete. Of course, as we can only describe Him analogously none of these descriptions will ever fully match who He is.

Claiming that God is "pure act" isn't by itself a clear statement and thus is useless in this conversation. Newsflash: Orthodoxy cannot continue to base its "doctrines" on nebulous, unclear statements, and still justifiably call it "real doctrine". Until a statement is clarified, it's gibberish.

 

[JAL]

WHY would a timeless God have no merit? He has ALL merit. Merit does not depend on time nor acquiring nor anything but his very self. He merits all praise. If you think he must earn it, you are wrong, but he has done that too, and not by figuring out something he didn't know.

Further proof that you will not and cannot address the arguments of post 850 on the other thread.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Claiming that God is "pure act" isn't by itself a clear statement and thus is useless in this conversation. Newsflash: Orthodoxy cannot continue to base its "doctrines" on nebulous, unclear statements, and still justifiably call it "real doctrine". Until a statement is clarified, it's gibberish.

Not if the statement, or term, is a mere handle, and recognizably so. People might claim "Trinity", for example, is meaning and definition in itself concerning God, but it is only a handle for a concept drawn from Scripture.

 

[JAL]

How does what I said make him finite? The fact he knows all that is finite doesn't make him finite. He knows much more than that. Your "=" sign is in the wrong place.

Mark, here's what you said:

"I don't claim he knows an infinite number of languages. That is YOUR take on what YOU call "actualized infinity" --itself total nonsense as you define it (or describe it; I have yet to hear a definition)."


If He only knows a finite number of languages, that would mean something less than infinite. You're tacitly conceding my position while pretending to repudiate it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Further proof that you will not and cannot address the arguments of post 850 on the other thread.

It doesn't deserve response, not that I haven't, and no, I'm not going to look up 850 "on the other thread".

 

[JAL]

Not if the statement, or term, is a mere handle, and recognizably so. People might claim "Trinity", for example, is meaning and definition in itself concerning God, but it is only a handle for a concept drawn from Scripture.

My definition of the Trinity is clear, if you read my links. As for the Orthodox definition, Millar J. Erickson characterized it as:

"logically absurd from the human standpoint"

That statement was from the same systematic theology textbook mentioned earlier - used in possibly every seminary in the world today.

 

[JAL]

It doesn't deserve response, not that I haven't, and no, I'm not going to look up 850 "on the other thread".

Right. Rebut a position without a rebuttal. I'm very impressed.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If He only knows a finite number of languages, that would mean something less than infinite. You're tacitly conceding my position while pretending to repudiate it.

Just look at your statement here! You claim that he is finite. How does him knowing everything that is finite imply that he doesn't also know everything that is infinite?

AGAIN: If there are only a finite number of languages (people, books, physical particles --whatever-- ) how does knowing them all limit him to only the finite? It does no such thing. It makes no statement as to what else he knows.

 

[Mark Quayle]

My definition of the Trinity is clear, if you read my links. As for the Orthodox definition, Millar J. Erickson characterized it as:

"logically absurd from the human standpoint"

That statement was from the same systematic theology textbook mentioned earlier - used in possibly every seminary in the world today.

My point isn't about the Trinity. My point is that the term, like many, is only a handle --a word to refer to something.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Right. Rebut a position without a rebuttal. I'm very impressed.

Of course. I'm not here to impress you.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Right. Rebut a position without a rebuttal. I'm very impressed.

I think we're done here, at least for this thread. Good day.

 

[JAL]

It doesn't deserve response, not that I haven't, and no, I'm not going to look up 850 "on the other thread".

Don't pretend it's unreasonable for me to ask you to read 2 posts on another thread. Let's take stock of why.
(1) Orthodoxy has had 2,000 years to provide clear theories of Trinity, Incarnation, the Fall, Original Sin, and divine merit. We've been reading THEIR "posts" for 2,000 years.
(2) As a Christian, you will likely spend the next 30 to 50 years of your life (however long you live) reading and listening to their teachings at least on Sundays.

Now, what would we say of a judge who only listened to one side of the story - either the prosecution or the defense? He'd be a fool, right?

Newsflash: My 2 posts are the other side of the story.

 

[JAL]

I think we're done here, at least for this thread. Good day.

Thanks for confirming that you could not rebut my arguments - and thanks for confirming God's finitude.

 

[JAL]

Just look at your statement here! You claim that he is finite. How does him knowing everything that is finite imply that he doesn't also know everything that is infinite?

YOU made that claim. You admitted that He doesn't know an infinite number of languages. You're trying to stand on both sides of the fence. Orthodoxy has been doing this, in several areas, for 2,000 years.

And the sad thing? A lot of potentially useful theologians, pastors, and scholars lost their jobs, and were ostracized from the church, for refusing to accept some of these orthodox equivocations. Frustrated with the significant number of contradictions in traditional theology, they formulated alternative positions, and were persecuted for it.

 

[JAL]

My point isn't about the Trinity. My point is that the term, like many, is only a handle --a word to refer to something.

Your point is irrelevant. Handle or not, at some point the doctrine alluded to must be made clear, otherwise admit it is gibberish and move on to a Christology that IS clear. Such as mine.