#GOD’s Aseity

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

by Jon Nielson | The doctrine of aseity tells us that God’s decision to create cannot be because of any deficiency in God. He didn’t need the universe in order to be happy. He wasn’t lonely without us! So, why create? God’s creation of the universe—and human beings—must be the abundant, joyful, gracious overflow of his goodness and kindness....

[madewithonerib]

Genesis 4:26 | And to Seth also a son was born, and he called him Enosh. At that time men began to invoke the name of the LORD.

to call upon,לִקְרֹ֖א (liq·rō) Strong's Hebrew 7121: To call, proclaim, read liq·rō — 20 Occurrences

Albert Barnes, American Theologian [1798-1870]

     A son is born to Sheth also, whom he calls Enosh.

     In this name there is probably an allusion to the      meaning of sickliness & dependence which belongs      to the root.

     These qualities were now found to be characteristic      of man in his present state.

     The closing sentence signalizes a remarkable event,      which took place at the birth of Enosh, about 240 years      after the creation of Adam.

     "Then was it begun to call upon the name of the LORD."

     The solemn invocation of GOD by HIS proper name in      audible & social prayer & praise is the most usual      meaning of the phrase now before us, & is to be      adopted unless there be something in the context      or the circumstances demanding another meaning.

     This involves also the first of the meanings given      above, as we call GOD by HIS name in oral worship.

     It includes the third in one of its forms, as in praise      we proclaim the name of our GOD.

     And it leads to the second, as those who call on the      name of the LORD are themselves called the      children of GOD.

     Some change is here intimated in the mode of      approaching GOD in worship.

     The gist of the sentence, however, does not lie in      the name "Yahweh".

     For this term was not then new in itself, as it was      used by Eve at the birth of Cain;

     nor was it new in this connection, as the phrase      now appears for the first time, & Yahweh is the      ordinary term employed in it ever afterward to      denote the true GOD.

     As a proper name, Yahweh is the fit & customary      WORD to enter into a solemn invocation.

     It is, as we have seen, highly significant.

           It speaks of the Self-existent One,            the Author of all existing things, &            in particular of man;

     the SELF-manifest, who has shown HIMSELF      merciful & gracious to the returning penitent,      & with HIM keeps promise & covenant.

     Hence, it is the custom itself of calling on the      name of Yahweh, of addressing GOD by HIS      proper name, which is here said to have      been commenced.

     At first sight, with our habits & associations, it      seems a very strange thing that calling upon      the name of the LORD should only begin      235 years after the creation of man.

     But let us endeavor to divest ourselves of these      limitations, & rise to the primeval simplicity of      man's thoughts in regard to GOD.

     We read of GOD speaking to man in paradise,      but not of man speaking to GOD.

     In the examination that preceded the sentence      passed upon the transgressors, we hear Adam      & Eve replying to the questions of GOD, but      not venturing to open a conversation with the      MOST HIGH.

     If the feeling of reverence & solemn awe did not      permit such a liberty before the fall, much more      would the super-added sense of guilt after that      event restrain man from making any advances      toward the infinitely HOLY BEING whom he      had so wantonly offended.

     The rebuking examination, the judicial sentence,      & the necessary execution of this sentence in its      preliminary form, were so prominent & impressive      as to throw into the background any intimations      of the divine mercy with which they were      accompanied.

     The latter, however, were not unnoticed, or      without a salutary effect on the primeval pair.

     Adam believed the indications of mercy, whether      in WORD or deed, which GOD gave him.

     Faith was prompt & natural in that early stage      of comparative nearness to GOD, to HIS      manifest presence & HIS conspicuous wonders      of creative power.

     It was also a native tendency of the human breast,      & would be so still, had we not become so      sophisticated by education that doubt has come      to be the prominent attitude of our minds.

     This faith of the first pair led to confession;      not directly, however, to GOD, but indirectly in      the names Adam gave his wife,       & Eve her first-born son.

     Here humble, distant, self-condemning faith      solilloquizes, or, at most, the penitent pair      converse in humble hope about the mercy of      the MOST HIGH.

     The bringing of an offering to GOD was a step      in advance of this penitent, humble, submissive,      self-accusing faith.

     It was the exact counterpart & representation by      a well-devised symbol of the nature of the      offerer's faith.

          It was therefore a confession of faith

          & certain accompanying           feelings toward GOD            by a symbolic act.

     It was quite natural that this mute sign should      precede the actual address.

     The consequences, however, of the approach      of Cain & Abel were calculated to deepen      again the feeling of dread, & to strike the onlooker      mute in the presence of the HIGH & HOLY ONE.

     Still would this be so in that infantile state of      man when one thought would take full      possession of the soul, until another was plainly      & directly brought before the attention.

     In this simple, unsophisticated state of the penitent,      we can conceive him to resign himself passively      to the merciful will of that MAKER whom he has      grievously offended, without venturing to breathe      a wish or even to lift up a note of thanksgiving.

     Such mute acquiescence in the divine will for      235 years was well-befitting the humble penitents      of that infantile age, standing in solemn awe under      a sense of their own demerit & of the      infinite holiness of the MAJESTY on HIGH.

     There were even an eloquent pathos & power      in that tacit reverence suited to move the heart      of the All-searching SPIRIT more than 10,000      voices less deeply penetrated with a sense of      the guilt of sin & the beauty of holiness.

     At length, however, Sheth was given to Eve, &      accepted by her as a substitute for Abel.

     Enosh, the child of sorrow, was born to him.

     Collateral with this line of descent, & all the      anxieties & desires which it involved, was the      growth of a class of men who were of the      spirit of Cain, & receded further & further      from GOD.

     In these circumstances of growing iniquity on      the one hand, & growing faith on the other,

     believing reason comes to conceive the full      import of the mercy of GOD, freely & fully      accepts of pardon, & realizes the peace &      privilege which it bestows.

     Growing man now comprehends all that is      implied in the proper name of GOD, יהוה      YEHOVAH, "YHWH," the Author of being,      of promise, & of performance.

     He finds a tongue, & ventures to express the      desires & feelings that have been long pent      up in his breast, & are now bursting for      utterance.

     These petitions & confessions are now made      in an audible voice, & with a holy urgency &      courage rising above the depressing sense      of self-abasement to the confidence of peace      & gratitude.

     These adorations are also presented in a      social capacity, & thereby acquire a public      notoriety.

     The father, the older of the house, is the      master of words, & he becomes the spokesman      of the brotherhood in this new relationship into      which they have spontaneously entered with      their FATHER in heaven.

           The spirit of adoption has prompted            the confiding & endearing terms,            "ABBA, FATHER,"

     & now the winged words ascend to heaven,      conveying the adorations & aspirations of the      assembled saints.

     The new form of worship attracts the attention      of the early world, & the record is made,

           "Then began they to call upon             the name of the LORD,

      WHO keeps covenant & mercy.

           Here we perceive that the holy race            has passed beyond its infancy.

     It has learned to speak with GOD in the language      of faith, of conscious acceptance, of freedom,      of hope, of love.

     This is a far nobler attainment than the invention      of all the arts of life.

     It is the return from that revulsive dread with which      the conscious sinner shrank back from the felt      holiness of GOD.

     It is the drawing of the divine mercy & love let into      the penitent soul, by which it has come to itself, &      taken courage to return to the merciful YAHWEH,

     & speak to HIM the language of penitence, of      confession, of gratitude.

     These believing penitents, chiefly it is to be      supposed in the line of Sheth, of which this      paragraph speaks,

           began to be distinguished as            the followers of the LORD;

     whereas others at the same time had forgotten      the LORD, & renounced even the form of      reverence for HIM.

     The seed of the woman was now distinguished      from the seed of the serpent.

     The latter are in a spiritual sense called      "the seed of the serpent," because they cling      to the principles of the tempter;

     & the former may in the same sense be      designated "the seed or sons of GOD,"      because they follow after HIM as the      GOD of mercy & truth.

     Thus, the lamentable fact obtrudes itself upon      our view that a portion of the human family      have persisted in the primeval apostasy,      & are no longer associated with their      fellows in acknowledging their      common MAKER.

     The progress of moral evil in the antediluvian      world was manifested in fratricide, in going out      from the presence of the LORD,

     in personal violence, & in polygamy.

     The first is the normal character of all murder;      the second gave scope for the third, the daring      & presumptuous violence of the strong;

     & the fourth ultimately led to an almost total      corruption of manners.

     It is curious to observe that ungodliness, in the      form of disobedience & departure from GOD &      therefore of the practical breach of the first      commandment, & unrighteousness in the form      of murder, the crime of masterful passion &      violence, which is the transgression of the      first commandment concerning our neighbor,      are the starting-points of sin in the world.

     They do not seem to have yet reached      idolatry & adultery.

     This appears to point out that the prohibitions      into which the law is developed in the      Ten Commandments are arranged in the      order of time as well as of nature.

     The preceding chapters, if written in substance      by Adam, formed the primeval BIBLE of mankind.

     But, whether written at that time or not, they contain      the leading facts which occurred in the early history      of man in relation to his MAKER.

     These facts were well known to the antediluvian      world, & formed the rule by which it was to be      guided in approaching to GOD, presenting to      HIM an acceptable offering, calling upon HIS      Name, & so walking with HIM in peace & love.

     Here we have all the needful germs of a      GOSPEL for the infantile race.

     If we ask why they were not effectual, the      answer is at hand.

     They were effectual with a few, & are thereby      proved sufficient to recover man from sin, &      vindicate the mercy of GOD.

     But the All-Wise BEING, who made man a moral      agent, must thoroughly guard HIS freedom,      even in the dealings of mercy.

     And in the folly & madness      of their self-will, some will      revolt more & more.

     The history was written for our learning.      Let its lessons be pondered.

     Let the accumulated experience of bygone      wanderings recorded in the Book of GOD      be our warning, to return at length with our      whole heart to our merciful FATHER.

Source: @hed___mee_ via @delta-breezes​

[thinkingonscripture]

Life, Death, and Eternity

Life, Death, and Eternity

     God is life and creates life. Jeremiah said, “the LORD is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King” (Jer 10:10). Jesus declared, “the Father has life in Himself” (John 5:26). And the apostle Paul stated, “for in Him we live and move and exist” (Act 17:28). This teaching, that God has life in Himself and is self-existent, is called the doctrine of aseity. God exists…

[beguines]

Divinity here trades omnipotence and impassivity for the sensitive interdependence of panentheism: God's own experience, God's open becoming, depends upon the becoming of creatures. The aseity of the absolute dissolves into "the fellow-sufferer who understands."

Catherine Keller, Cloud of the Impossible: Negative Theology and Planetary Entanglement

[hate-the-way-people-look-at-me]

ODE TO HEMERAL ASEITY

Shadows gloat around me

Daring me to weep and loathe

For I stroll the street at night

Yet come across not a single soul

Neither God nor Light I find

In that deadly dark of night

A sound here, another there

And then moaning and a crying

They grip my ankle in the dim

Ask me questions of the sin

Shameful acts they made me do

In Divinity's wake, at Devil's whim

They stride still the similar path

From hell ensue a horrid laugh

Echoing dread of crestfallen lot

Hear his call or face his wrath

Nibbling through the throng I go

Crawling at his beck and call

A million bugs float in with me

To a rotting ugly rabbit hole

Beside lay the ivory corpse

A fading beauty, 'n' corrupted whore

She has no cloth to cover the whole

The frame too hollow 'n' a bit too worn

I can't even kiss her awake

She has no lips on her face

Now I see worms creeping out

From every hole my finger trace

There's a chance I'm in a trance

A disgusting joke or horrid farce

Played on my mind that gather fear

From the graves of dead and despair

Don't even waste a moment, not I

And leap into the abyss with sigh

I go in search of the way out

To live in peace or ready to die

I fall, I fall I get nowhere

There's no land, but a roofed lair

Haunted by a hunted ghost whom

I see nowhere, whose voice does scare

I see no flame, yet my eyes burn

In such a space I let myself hurl

I float here, and there I go

I breathe no air, hear my lungs blow

I feel myself plunge into the deep

Yet still at surface of decaying heap

Once and for all this eternity will cease

These lives will merge into one crease

[musicgoon]

Recommended Reading

Providing A Freshly Curated, Weekly Link List on Christianity & Culture.

Find my weekly recommended reading with the RR tag. Dedicated link posts with personal commentary can be found through the link tag. Real-time news and article sharing happens on Twitter and my Facebook page.

I love seeing new things on the Internet and reading and your comments, so please keep in touch. And to get all of my articles, exclusive insight, and more from my many projects, subscribe to my newsletter.

On Fridays, I contribute a curated link column specifically for SOLA Network readers. I hope to highlight articles related to Asian American issues and blog posts written by Asian American authors. You can read my 16th roundup from last Friday.

Christianity

When Grandma and Grandpa Don’t Love Jesus

When You Don’t Have a Good Dad on Father’s Day

Building a spiritual legacy

What Is the Essence of Manhood?

Why God Made Your Mouth

4 Things Teens Need from Your Church

Matrimony and the Mind: The Need for Husband-Theologians

Selfie-Syndrom: Overcoming Narcissism

Podcast: Verses That Changed My Life (John Piper)

Stop Loving Your Spouse Too Much

The Way Out of Doubt

Help! My Teen Doesn’t Want to Attend Church

Five Ways Congregational Worship Shapes Us

Envy and the Seminarian

Let’s Anticipate the Incredible Experience of Worshipping in Heaven with All God’s People

Human Rights Under Fire in Hong Kong: What’s Really Behind the Massive Protests

Episode 3: Writing, Teaching, and Women in Ministry with Jen Wilkin

Whether I Sink Too Low or Soar Too High

You Were Designed for Spirituality

5 Questions to Ask When You Are Suffering

Stop Praying “Be With” Prayers

Technology and Our Anxious Hearts

Distinguishing Marks of a Quarrelsome Person

Is Our Visual Age Making You Blind?

Why the Third Day? The Promise of Resurrection in All of Scripture

7 Ways to Shepherd the Terminally Ill

Meditation Apps and the Gospel of Self-Optimization

An Unexpected Strategy for Reaching the Muslim World

I Never Understood Burnout or Depression—Until It Happened to Me

Five Intriguing Updates on Gen Z and Churches

Help! My Teenager Won’t Open Up to Me

The Rightful Risks of Motherhood

How to Avoid a Preaching Rut

The New Issue of Credo Magazine Is Here: The Aseity of God

Bad Bible Interpretation Really Can Hurt People

You're Not Entitled to Ministry

Breaking the Power of Shame

BJ Thompson on Communicating Mercy Within Marriage

Paul Tripp on How Parents Can Model Mercy

Reading the Bible Upside Down: Why the Pope Changed the Lord’s Prayer

Should My Boyfriend and I Travel Alone?

The Priority of Preaching

The FAQs: Southern Baptists Release Urgent Report on Sexual Abuse

The Greatest Gift to Your Pastor

Remembering David Powlison, a Faithful, Jesus-Loving, and Gospel-Centered Brother

3 Barriers to Spiritual Growth Faced by Teens Today

Powlison: 5 Questions to Ask When You Are Suffering

The Reformed View of Predestination

Culture

Q&A: 'Always Be My Maybe' Stars Ali Wong and Randall Park on the Netflix Rom-Com

Anberlin Talk Reconciliation

Classic Songs From 1970s and 1980s Recreated With Era Appropriate Synthesizers, Instruments and Effects

Tour of a Magnificent Five Story Church Organ With 8,000 Pipes of Vastly Different Sizes and Weights

26 Things We Learned from the ‘Captain Marvel’ Commentary

Welcome to the wonderful world of bizarre literary Instagram accounts

Matt Braly launches Disney Channel’s ‘Amphibia’

The cast of Sesame Street offers the most heartwarming Tiny Desk concert ever

‘X-Men: Days of Future Past’ Could Have Been the Perfect Franchise Ending

Superhero Bits: Quentin Tarantino’s Favorite MCU Movie, ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ Goes 8-Bit & More

[johnzande]

THE GREATEST RELIGIOUS QUESTION NEVER ANSWERED

Post dedicated to America’s Newest Best Worst Apologist, Mel Wild: senior pastor at the Cornerstone Church. It is the most conspicuous religious question never answered, and this simple brute fact should aggravate and needle every waking moment of every person who believes this world was created: Why did the Creator create? For what purpose was this artificial world intended? In the Christian…

[snyderssoapbox]

Molinism Seems Silly

I think the inveracity of Molinism can be demonstrated by considering the attributes/perfections of God in relation to each other. Consider the perfect omniscience of God in conjunction with His aseity, and eternality. God has perfect knowledge. He possesses this complete, and unerring knowledge inside of time, and outside of time. He possesses this knowledge eternally. He has never, not known,…

[ontosbackup]

Eric Perl - Theophany

image

Parmenides’ axiom (as unfolded in Neoplatonism):

Ontology & epistemology are from the outset inseparable

“To be” is an incomplete sentence. to be what? being is concrete not generic, it always has content.

Being -> identity -> differentiation -> form -> limits -> relative absence

Intelligibility:

Thinking is something mutual and two-sided, neither side being passive but rather both being receptive. So intelligibility has two components: our ability to think about things, and things’ having a character that allows them to be thinkable

Apophasis:

Nothingness is content-free. To be empty of content is to not be. Every instance of nothingness is totally identical with the rest. This absoluteness without variation or degree, because it makes information possible by eliminating possibilities (determination), is what makes speaking in negations viable

The one & the all:

All the properties of being are coextensive, and this web of simultaneous, interdependent similarity & distinction is the totality (the All, Nature, Reality)

Omniscience:

But there is no part among this totality with the power to hold it all together, to make it whole, such that the parts really would be parts. That the totality, to be total at all, must be comprehensive necessitates an “outside” perspective (a metaperspective & an omniperspective) to comprehend it, to take it in all at once, not just different aspects successively, being totally free of it and unconfined to any part of it, simultaneously within and without

Ambience:

There is no other example of a creation available for us to compare with the work of God. If everything you saw was the colour blue, you would be puzzled if someone told you there was such a thing as the colour blue, because it would necessarily be outside of the web which is required for anything to be intelligible. So it is with creation ex nihilo: it reflects God and only God, unmixed with any external influence, the trace of his personality is not offset by the trace of some prime matter. What is all-pervasive is so obvious that is escapes detection, rightly being called invisible. This is the true end of metaphysics, and of all the sciences

Vertical causation, priority, & dialectics:

not excluding horizontal causation, that among things on the same level, but cutting thru and encompassing all levels. The lower is always dependent on the higher, for its subsistence, meaning, & purpose— this hierarchical account of creation is the one that really matters, in any case. Above is prior to below, the sense in which this really counts is not one of before/after, but of independence/dependence. What is above contains & negates what is below, both in one stroke, because by situating the lower in a fully integrated (concrete) whole its status (on its own level) as an independent (abstract) thing is also negated.

Appearance ≠ illusion:

a mode, or a differentiated presence, does not constitute an additional presence. When my image is reflected in a mirror or my shadow cast on the ground, there is still only one person there; the reflection, while not a mere illusion lacking existence, has an utterly dependent kind of existence— my body must be there to appear in front of the mirror. Appearances for Plato are something inbetween being & non-being, but this “inbetween” is not some middle way or mixture of the two, not a location or a ratio, it’s a strictly apophatic neither/nor formula

Transcendence or impassibility:

purity, freedom, aseity, non-confinement, independence. If God is something like Spinoza’s “Substance”, something indestructible, he must retain a “free hand” no matter how much he seems bound up in everything, no matter how many pies he seems to have his fingers in

Immanence:

the same God is common to all things, as all things in all things. All features of all things are god-in-them, making them to be by making them what they are (now you can see why the intelligible forms are said to have the most Being)

3 term participation:

participant (effects), participated (relations), unparticipated (cause)

Axiom of containment (or pre-possession)

Enfolding = complicatio = undifferentiated containment = remaining

Unfolding = explicatio = differentiated overflowing = procession

Good:

to be good is to be good for

[graciousheaven]

God is the Only Eternal Being

God alone is eternal. He lived in eternity past, He still lives today and will live forever. Unlike the redeemed who are going to inherit eternal life, the eternality of God is part of his nature: He has always existed and there is no end to his life. Furthermore, God’s eternality does not come from someone else. God is a self-sufficient and self-existent being, whose eternality does not depend on an external cause. God is an eternal being, the Great I AM. When the Lord appears to Moses in the burning bush, He says to Moses in Exodus 3:10, “Now I am sending you to the king of Egypt so that you can lead my people out of his country,” Verse 13, “But Moses replied, ‘when I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your ancestors sent me to you,’ they will ask me, ‘What is his name?’ so what can I tell them?” Verse 14, “God said, ‘I am who I am. This is what you must say to them: ‘The One who is called I AM has sent me to you.’”

What the Lord says to Moses in this verse describes the very nature of God, his aseity, his self-existence, his immutability and eternality. God is – there has never been a time when He wasn’t and there will never be a time when He is not – God is eternal, the Great I AM; He is life without end. As for us who have faith in Christ, although we are going to receive eternal life in the End Times, our eternality will be different from God’s: we are temporal beings, created by God – our life has a beginning and an end, that is, there is a day on which we are born, and there is a day on which we die. On the other hand our eternality depends wholly on God – we inherit it through faith in God’s own Son, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

God is the One True and Living God, the eternal God. The aseity of the Lord God Almighty and his timeless existence set Him apart from all created beings. The Lord is also different from the gods of this world – the latter are lifeless, man-made idols. As the psalmist says, “The gods of the nations are made of silver and gold; they are formed by human hands. They have mouths, but cannot speak, and eyes, but cannot see. They have ears, but cannot hear; they are not even able to breathe.” Psalms (135:15-17). “But You, LORD, are the true God, You are the Living God and the eternal King.” Says Jeremiah 10:10. Isaiah 44:6, “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; besides Me there is no god.’” God speaks, He hears, He sees everything. Hebrews 4:13 says, “There is nothing that can be hidden from God; everything in all creation is exposed and lies open before his eyes. And it is to Him that we must all give an account of ourselves.”

Because God is not constrained by time He knows everything. He knows what will happen in the future, He knows the past and the present. The Lord is all-powerful and sovereign; He has ordained everything. God is life, the source and sustainer of all life. Thus says the Lord God in Deuteronomy 32:39-42, “I, and I alone, am God; no other god is real. I kill and I give life, I wound and I heal, and no one can oppose what I do. As surely as I am the Living God, I raise my hand and I vow that I will sharpen my flashing sword and see that justice is done. I will take revenge on my enemies and punish those who hate Me. My arrows will drip with their blood, and my sword will kill all who oppose Me. I will spare no one who fights against Me; even the wounded and prisoners will die.” The life of every living thing depends on God. He is the one who creates all things and He is the one who puts an end to all things. Furthermore, without God’s sustenance all things would cease to exist.

[madewithonerib]

[M8] Before the Beginning: The Aseity of God | RC Sproul

      Unlike creation, GOD is self-existent,       uncaused, & independent.

In this lecture, Dr. Sproul will examine the doctrine of GOD’s Aseity, & explain why it is vital to a proper understanding of who GOD is as Creator & Redeemer.

Let's pray shall we?

     FATHER when we consider YOUR Aseity,      YOUR eternal self-existence, we know that      we enter now into that dimension of YOUR      Character--that is perhaps more unfathomable      to our minds than any other. If ever, we need      YOUR condescension to stoop to our level &      lisp for our infantile ears, it is here.

     And yet FATHER, when we contemplate      these things, we pray that YOU would take      us way beyond an exercise in abstract      philosophical speculation; & set us in that place

     --where our minds are struck with      the sense of awe of YOUR Being.

     Help me please in this difficult task, for I ask it      in JESUS Name, Amen

1.] Profound Concept of Being/Existing

     Before I go to the text of SCRIPTURE, I asked that      a board to be brought over because there are      two things I want to write on the board.

     One is a question, & the other is an indicative      declarative statement.

     And I've prepared you, that this may be difficult to      track with me philosophically. We're getting into some      heavy things here.

     But let's start with these first two things that I'm going      to write on the board. And stop me if I'm going too fast.

     You've heard this question before, maybe you've      heard it already today. How are you?

     You’ve ever heard that question? Thank you very much.

     Then there is the declarative statement: I AM FINE.

     Alright there are a couple of key elements in these      statements, that I want us to look at because we take      them for granted in our normal converations.

          But I want you to notice this word (are) in the           question, & this word (AM) in the response.

     When we ask the question: How are you? We’re asking      a question relating to the state of your existence.

     Or to put it another way, the state of your being.

     And when we respond: I’m fine.

     We’re making a statement about our condition, about the      state of our existence, or the state of our being.

     Because in both of these statements, we have in common      is the use of the most basic verb in the English language.

     That we call the verb: To be

     Now I understand there are some remote languages in      the world that do not have specific verbiage to refer to      being, but almost all the languages with which we’re      familiar, such as: the Germaic languages, the romance      the Greek language & so on, have some form of the      verb “to be”

     It’s a word that is so common, that those of you who      have snow on the roof can still remember the old      television series called, “You Bet Your Life”

     Groucho Marx hosts a question-&-answer game show.      [October 27, 1947 - September 21, 1961]

          Where Groucho, you know, would have his guests           come out & have a little dialogue for a few moments,           but there was a mystery word that was already           discerned in advance.

          And if the host mentioned the mystery word,           inadvertently, the duck would fall down from the           ceiling with $100 dollar bill in its mouth.

          You remember it, Paul?

          And Groucho would say: “Say the magic word &           win $100 dollars.”

          And George Fenneman would come out & pay.

     It’s a household phrase, nothing is more common!      Than: Are, am, were, was, will be, is, & so on.

     These are all forms of the word to be.

     But behind our language, which may be simple, is this      profound concept of being. [5:57]

2.] Language of Being

     Or in the Greek, the present participial is the word      ουσία (ousia), which refers to the stuff by which things are      constituted (their essence).

     Of what Immanuel Kant called the ‘deeohzeicht’.

     Now in our experience, we tend to use this concept      of being, sort of in a graduated way.

     A step ladder way, where we talk about grades/levels      or ranks of being. We talk about the type of being.

     That you might find in a box of rocks.

     My son-in-law always (no sometimes) says to me:      “Pap, you’re dumber than a box of rocks.”

     That’s not a complimentary thing.

     And so I say to the meathead, in any case, stifle it.

     At the bottom of the rung, we’ve got a box of rocks,      then we go up from the box of rocks to some plants.

     Some trees, & we say that’s kind of a little higher      order of being, from the rocks.

     Then above the plants & the trees, we go to the      animal kingdom, there we talk about the kangeroos      & the emus & the ducks & little platypuses & so on.

     And talk about their existence & their animal being.

     Then we go up the ladder a little bit higher, & we      talk about human beings [7:49]

          I have a fellow who is one of our original elders           in Saint Andrews, whenever we would have           personnel difficulties. He’d say, “You know what           we have hear?” I’d say: What’s that?

          “We have a being problem.” A being problem?!

          He’d say, “Yeah human beings.”           He said, “they’re the ones”

     And above the human beings, we talk about the      Spirit Beings, Angels & so on.

     Then in our vocabulary, we go to the top of the ladder:      we speak then of the SUPREME BEING.

     Now I’ve gone over this before, but we need to go over      this again & again [8:41], until we get it right!

     That this suggests there is such a thing as being.

           Of which all things in reality            participate in one way or another.

     And that difference between GOD, & a box of rocks      is just a matter of degrees. We see that the difference      is found in the qualifier for being in this distinction:

           SUPREME BEING (above)            Human Beings

     Between human beings & the SUPREME BEING (GOD).

     But beloved the difference between the SUPREME BEING      & the human being is not the difference in the adjectives.

     It's not the difference between human-ness, & supremacy.

           The difference really is            in this word: BEING.

     Because if ever there was a misnomer in language,      it's to refer to rocks & trees & flowers & monkeys &      people & angels as being.

     Because in a strict sense, not one of us is a being [10:11]

3.] Pursuit of Truth

     Now to follow that, I want to go back into the past.

     Take a little refresher course into ancient thought, where      the ancient thinkers of philosophy.

     Before Socrates & Plato, & Aristotle, appeared on the       scene these ancient thinkers were probing the deepest       questions of the pursuit of truth that human beings      could be engaged in.

     They were searching for what they called the:      Arche Principle or the principle of ultimate reality.

           Arche is a Greek word with primary senses            “beginning”, “origin” or “source of action &            later “first principle” or “element”. By extension,            it may mean “first place, power,”            “method of government”, “empire, realm”,            “authorities" (in plural: ἀρχαί), “command.”

           The first principle or element corresponds to            the “ultimate underlying substance” & “ultimate            undemonstrable principle.”

           In the philosophical language of the archaic period            [8th to 6th century BC], arche [or archai]            designates the source, origin or root of things that            exist. In ancient Greek philosophy, Aristotle            foregrounded the meaning of arche as the element            or principle of a thing, which although undemonstrable            & intangible in itself, provides the conditions of the            possibility of that thing.

     That transcendent metaphysical proof, that      would explain all other truths. [11:00]

     They were looking for a transcendent unity that would      make sense out of all the diversity in this world.

           And we remember the impass that took place            between two of the 'great' philosophers,            prior to Socrates: Parmenides & Heraclitus

     Parmenides words do not survive in tact, only so far      as there are vinyetes of his thinking that are quoted      from some of his essays & from some of his poems.

     And of course the most, famous philosophical insight      that comes from the pen are Parmenides is the      affirmation (we'll write it up here, so you won't      ever forget it): What is, is.

     Now he wasn't the president of Greece, but he was      concerned about what the meaning of is, is.

           And  he said, “Whatever is, is”

     I’ll never forget the time I was in a college classroom      & the philosophy professor introduced us to Parmenides.

     And he wrote the same line on the board.

     Whatever is, is. And I chuckled out loud.

     I said, “This guy’s famous?! All he ever did, as far as      achieving philosophical brilliance, was he learned how      to stutter: ‘Whatever is, is.’ Big deal.” [12:53]

     And yet I have to say to you:

           There is no philosophical concept that I’ve been            exposed to, in my life, that has driven me more            often & more deeply to contemplate than this            affirmation from Parmenides.

     Which simply means [13:27]:

           For something to exist,            there has to be being.

     Parmenides took the view that nothing changes      in reality; only our senses convey the appearance      of change. Heraclitus, by contrast, thought that      everything changes all the time, & that "we step      & do not step into the same river," for new waters      flow ever about us.

4.] Constant Change: Becoming

     Now, his counterpart Heraclitus challenged this.

           And said, "Nothing is."

     There is no such thing as pure absolute being—because      everything that we observe in the world around us.

           Every dimension of our experience,            every object of our knowledge            is given to change. [14:05]

     Heraclitus said, "Everything, that we experience,      is in a state of flux."

           The only thing constant is change.

     And his famous metaphor was:      You can't step into the same river twice.

           Why not? Because if there is a river flowing through,            & I step my one leg into the river, by the time I move            the 2nd leg, the river has moved on.

           And so the water I plunge my 2nd foot into isn't the            same water that I plunged my first foot into.

           Not only that but in an infinitesimal level, the bed of            that river has changed if only a few unseen atoms            have been rearranged.

           And not only that, not only that I can't step into the            same river twice, but the "I" that is stepping into the            same river twice is not the same "I" that was            stepping in it a moment ago. [15:15]

     I am not the same, as when I stood up here a few      moments ago & talked to John & Roger.

     Cause if nothing else has changed since then,      I'm 5-10 minutes older & grayer, & a few other things.

     If anything defines human existence, or the existence      of anything—creaturely—it is change. [15:53]

     Impermanence, even that rock under the blowing      of the wind, & the shining of the sun, & the grains      of sand that blow across its surface.

     Over eons of time, begins to erode & manifest change.

     As it returns to the dust. 

     And so instead of the concept of being, what Heraclitus      substituted was the concept of becoming. [16:35]

    So we have to distinguish between that which is, in     a permanent/eternal/non-changing/non-state-of-flux,

           BEING must be distinguished            from anything that manifests            the characteristics/attributes            of becoming.

     For the ancient Greeks, though they weren't embracing      the doctrine of the biblical GOD, nevertheless they got      some aspects of GOD right.

     They understood this:

           That BEING, if it is real being            must be eternal, unchanging,            & must be the basis for            everything else that is

     Because without being somewhere, there      can be no becoming. [17:32]

     Let me say it again: Without being, there can’t      be any becoming.

     Because as Aristotle noted, & we don't worship      at the shrine of Aristotle contrary to some opinion.

     So what Aristotle understood, was that if something      were in a pure state of becoming—if it was only      becoming & nothing else, it would be pure potentiality.

           Something totally becoming            would be potentially anything,             but actually nothing.

5.] Pure Potential = Nothing

     Now what about GOD. [18:25]

     When I was in the 6th grade, I played in a baseball      league that went up & included 10th graders.

     We had 4 teams in a town & they had general managers,      as well as coaches. And they pulled off trades, from      time to time.

     And I was involved in a multi-player swap, where I was      really excited because I was traded from my team to      another team for three 10th graders [19:03]

           Now these three 10th graders, among them            didn't know baseball was blown-up or stuffed.

     But I was impressed, here a 6th grader, getting traded      for three 10th graders. And the newspaper in our local      town; this was my first time in the paper, announced      the trade.

           And they said the Indians traded for slick-fielding            short-stop Sunny Sproul, who lacks a potential bat.

     How I hated that word. I would hear it from my teachers,      when my sister was the smartest & 3-years ahead of me.

     I'd come along behind her, & they'd say,      "You're not living up to your potential."

     Did you ever hear that? [20:00]

     I began to hate the word: potentiality.

           And if I'm pure potential, & that's all?!            I'm not even worth 3-10th-graders,            who can't hit a lick.

     But this is our state of existence:      Becoming—not being.

6.] Characteristics of Creator

     This is what differentiates us from GOD.

     Now let me go to my first biblical text briefly.

     Where we first encounter this idea, turn to page 1:

           In the beginning GOD created            the heavens & the earth.

     This is the most fundamental assertion of historic      Christianity; & it is the single-most bombarded target      by secular philosophy & by neo-paganism [21:10]

     Because every pagan knows, that if you can get rid of      creation—you’re rid of GOD & if you’re rid of GOD?

     You can live however you want.

          Personal Aside: You can’t get rid of GOD; you can           only be permitted by GOD to ignore HIM, but we’re           all regardless of acknowledgement bear the           consequences of sin—be it discipline as GOD’s           chosen people, or wrath-to-come as apostates.

     So everything that divides the Christian, from the Pagan      is at stake—in that opening assertion of the OT [21:32]

     Now let’s think about this for a second, “In the beginning”      the first thing that is being said here:

           The entire universe as we know it            had a beginning!

     There was a time when the created universe was NOT!

     I mentioned before, a few years ago, at a conference that      I heard the famous astro-physicist [22:03] Jack Throw being      interviewed when the Hubble Spacecraft was sent aloft.

           April 24, 1990, Hubble was carried aloft from            NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida            aboard the space shuttle Discovery, along with            a five-astronaut crew.

     And he was on the radio & he said: “15-17 billion years      ago the universe exploded into being.”

     I almost drove my car off the road when I heard that.

           The universe exploded into being,            what did it explode out of? None-being??

     Let me also add to this, several years ago I had the      opportunity to exchange correspondence with Carl Sagan.

     And in our correspondance, we were talking about the      Big Bang Cosmology & about how the astrophysicists      of our day—have gone back in time to the last      nano-seconds before this eternally organized piece of      stable condensation of energy/material—before it blew up!

     You see that's as far back as we can go & no further! [23:18]

           And I said to Dr. Sagan: How can you call yourself            a scientist & stop your inquiry into truth at the            most important moment in all of history?

           He said, "Well we just don't have to go there."            I said: Yeah you do have to go there! [23:42]

           Because you have to account for this point of            singularity, that for all eternity was stable &            organized, immutable, in a state of inertia, &            then suddenly & inexplicably on a Tuesday            afternoon at 4:00, it blows sky high.

     Stop me if I'm lying, but doesn't the law of inertia say:      "Anything that is at rest, remains at rest unless acted       upon by an outside force."

     Your theory of the origin of the cosmos screams for      a self-existent eternal being [24:30]

     You can't have it without it.

     The minute you say there is a beginning, to the      universe, you've got two options:

           Either the universe came out of nothing—            all by itself, or the universe was created by            something that is self-existent & eternal [24:57]

     Those are the only options folks.

     Don’t let anybody play games with you on this.

     I say it if you want to get a simple grasp of it, let me      ask you this simple question: If there was ever a time      15-17 billion years ago, 20 billion years, 100B years ago

     If there was ever a time when there was nothing:      No BEING, no becoming, no actuality/potentiality—just      non-being nothing yet—what would there be now?

     What could there possibly be now? Absolutely nothing.

          Out of nothing, nothing comes.

     His wife, Francis Schafer during his career said:      The modern naturalist has both of his feet planted firmly      in thin air—because ultimately once they deny the self-      existent & eternal BEING, who has aseity...

     their only option is some kind of spontaneous generation,      which is not science, it’s magic [26:38].

     Poof the world pops into being.

     I mean have you ever thought about what a tremendous      explosion nothingness can cause?

     Without GOD there can be no beginning [28:44]      Without BEING, there can be no becoming.

     And if there was a beginning, nothing screams louder than      before the beginning. There was not nothing.

     But there was one who has the power      of BEING in HIMSELF [29:11]

           Life in HIMSELF.

     And that’s the difference between GOD & the creature [29:25]

           GOD is pure being, there is            no becoming in GOD.

     GOD doesn’t have a learning curve; HE’s not learning new      things every morning. HE’s not evolving into a higher form      of being than HE was 6 months ago, or 6B years ago.

     HE is as the medieval theologians said: “Entis perfectissimi”      [for the sake of religion, they risked redundancy]

           The most perfect BEING [Latin translation]

     Now what’s the difference between a perfect being, a more      perfect being, & the most perfect being? Nothing [30:52]

     Because if something is perfect in its being, that perfection      of being admits to no degrees.

     The medieval theologians were doing two things:

     1] Theology & 2] Doxology.

           Doxology: is a short hymn of praises to GOD            in various forms of Christian worship, often            added to the end of canticles, psalms, & hymns.

     They were standing back in awe at the contemplation      of a being, in whom resides all excellencies at      the perfect degree [31:36]

     No lack, no weakness, nothing missing in that perfect      being that exists in & of HIMSELF—from all eternity.

     I mean if anything drives me to my knees, it’s even the      momentary contemplation of ONE who is pure eternal      self-existent BEING.

     WHO needs nothing from my hands, nothing from my      bank account to exist or to be in HIS absolute perfection      at all times.

     Now also in terms of this concept, the medieval      theologians spoke about an ends necessary [32:39]

     Thomas Aquinas talked about GOD as necessary;      there are a lot of thing that I believe that TA was wrong,      but this isn’t one of them.

           Thomas speaks about GOD & HIS BEING            as necessary BEING.

     Now the way in which the theologians of that period      spoke about the necessary BEING of GOD was two-fold;      it had two particular reference points to it.

     In the first case, what Aquinas & others meant by      necessary being is this:

           That GOD as eternal/perfect/self-existent            BEING who needs nothing from us—for HIS            continuity of HIS existence—has necessary            BEING in the sense that a self-existent eternal            BEING cannot possibly not be. [34:24]

     Any BEING that is pure being, by necessity is eternal,      has being in & of ITSELF, derives it’s BEING from      nothing outside of itself, can never be confused with      a creature—because the thing that defines us, as I said      is becoming or as Sinclair was labouring this point about      middle knowledge—I hope you really track with him on      this middle knowledge point.

     My wife sure did, we walked out of here for a minute &      my wife was beside herself. She’s beating herself on the      chest & says: Oh I can’t stand this; to think about the      omniscience of GOD—who has nothing new to learn.

     HE knows all the contingencies, but HE knows nothing      contingently [35:29]; GOD has never said, “maybe it’s      going to be this, or maybe it’s going to be that I have to      wait & see how it all works out now.

     HE is from everlasting to everlasting, & HIS self-existent      eternal being—includes within it the perfection of HIS      knowledge of HIS power, of HIS holiness, & all the rest      of HIS attributes.

     But me, you noticed how I’m doing in this thing:      I go from here out the door without having a lady on both      arms—keeping me up, so I don’t fall flat on my face.

     You know why? Because I’m fragile.

     Things changed at the back of my head a year ago [36:19]      I might fall down at any second.

     You know why? Because I’m a human becoming.

     And I’m becoming older & weaker, right.

     And so on.

     But GOD doesn’t go through that, there aren’t any      contingencies in HIS being, there’s no      might have been in who HE is.

     HE is from everlasting to everlasting.

     Pure BEING. Perfect BEING.

     And as a necessary being, HE never has to stop &      tie HIS shoe. The being in GOD’s shoes are eternally tied.

     1.] 1st Reference for this necessary being is this:           that GOD is that GOD’s being is ontologically necessary

         That is the SEEB, who is dependent on nothing for          HIS BEING, derives from nothing upon HIS BEING,          has no contingency in HIM.

         Cannot not be!

         That the very idea of being carries within it conceptually          it’s necessity. Because that which is, always (what?) is          Thank you.

         HE is by eternal necessity.

         That can never be said of any creature.

         There was a time when you were not, there was a time          when I was not. There was a time when the universe          was not. But there never was a time when GOD was not.          [38:28]

         Because GOD cannot, not be.

         HIS BEING is eternally necessary.

     And so that’s one reference in which we speak of the      BEING of GOD.

     2.] 2nd Reference is this: GOD’s BEING is necessary           not only in the ontological sense, but HIS being is           necessary in the logical sense.

          This is why I plead with my contemporaries who’ve           abondoned all attempts to prove the existence of           GOD by arguing from a rational basis.

          Why give up? [39:07]

          These unstoppable arguments, that the Church has           deposited in her faith through 2K years.

          That not only is GOD’s being ontologically necessary;           it’s logically necessary!

          Logic demands that you affirm the reality of a SEEB,           as I said a moment ago, without that nothing could           possibly be. People say can you prove to me the           existence of GOD & I say, “Yes.”

          They say: “How?” By this pen. It’s all it takes.           If this pen exists, then GOD exists.

          Unless this pen is GOD.

          But if anything exists, something has to have the power           of BEING within itself, or nothing could exist.

          Is that clear? Again, if ever there was a time there was           nothing, what would there be now? Nothing [40:15]

          What could there be now?           Nothing, thank you very much.

          But if anything does exist, something exists that has           the power of being within itself. If anything exists, if           there’s any becoming, somewhere along the way there           has to be being—because without being there can be           no becoming. And that BEING which is the ground of           all existence—which may have been true for Aristotle           but it’s even more true for Christianity, is the Creator           GOD, who’s from everlasting to everslasting.

          Who has the power of life within HIMSELF, & the           power of BEING within HIMSELF.

          And then when Paul, speaks to the philosophers as           we’ve already heard [41:04] at Morris Hill in Acts 17

               Acts 17:16-19 | While Paul was waiting for them                in Athens, he was deeply disturbed in his spirit                to see that the city was full of idols.

               So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews                & GOD-fearing Gentiles, & in the marketplace                with those he met each day.

               Some Epicurean & Stoic philosophers also began                to debate with him. Some of them asked,                “What is this babbler trying to say?” while others said,                “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.”

               They said this because Paul was proclaiming the                good news of JESUS & the resurrection.

               So they took Paul & brought him to the Areopagus,                where they asked him, “May we know what this new                teaching is that you are presenting?

     Paul walked into the intellectual center of the ancient Greek      culture, & he got off the tour bus & said: “Wow, look at the      Parthenon. Oh think of the insights of Socrates & Plato &      Aristotle. I’m at the center of the highest level of human      achievement—of speculative thought.” [41:56]

     No instead his heart was filled with grief.

     Because he saw the whole city given to idolatry.

     You ever been to Athens?      You ever gone to the Acropolis?      You ever stood on the steps of the Parthenon?

     And look down in this direction over here? The little bald hill      with no ruins, nothing there. But it’s haunted. [42:30]

     The ghost of the Apostle Paul is on that hill.

     Pointing to the Parthenon; pointing to the Acropolis, speaking      in the Areopagus, saying: “I see in all things you are very      religious, you’ve got a temple for this, a temple for that, &      a temple for this. And in case you missed Vesta or Hessia      you’ve got one for her.

     Then just to be on the safe side, you hedged your bets &      got this one over here, the idol to the unknown GOD.

     Well that which you worship in ignorance, I’m going to      declare to you in power, then he goes on to give probably      the most intense & unfathomable profound statement in      the whole BIBLE [43:14]

     That in HIM, we live & move. And have our being.

           Acts 17:28 | ‘For in HIM we live & move &            have our being.’ As some of your own            poets have said, ‘We are HIS offspring.’

     Real quick, last week out in LA I used an illustration like      this—I’ve done it here in other context, I had this thing that      doesn’t write & I’m going to make it move.

     You watch me carefully, in a moment I’m going to throw it      up in the air, & try to catch it. You ready?

     Now you watch at no time, will my hands ever leave my      wrists. 1-2-3-here-we-go, see that? It moved!

     It changed it’s position; & what caused that change?      You’ve been taught since you were infants what caused      that change. It was the inherent power in the strength of      my right-arm, coupled by the strength of gravity to bring      it back down. These are natural laws that govern every-      thing in the universe. [44:29]

     At a secondary level, that’s true.

     But Paul said, “I can’t move a finger without the power      of GOD. I can’t breathe the breath of life apart from GOD”

     I cannot exist apart from GOD.

     Because in HIM is life, & in HIM is my life.

     I’ll talk about this tomorrow.

           GOD can’t die; if GOD ever stops living,            what happens to your life? It’s over.

     Vaporized.

     If GOD’s power of motion ceases, remember the game      we used to play? Called statues, we’re running around      the yard & somebody yells, “Freeze!”

     That’s the end of motion; that’s the end of gravity.

     And if anything should happen to the BEING of GOD,      human becoming becomes potentially everything &      actually nothing. [45:57]

     As we disappear, from the face of the earth.

     I mean everything that the philosophers of antiquity      sought to discern, speculatively Paul announced to      them at Morris Hill:

          In HIM we move, we life & have our being. And           in HIM, HE lives, & moves & has HIS BEING.

     We can’t move, we can’t move, we can’t be apart from      HIM, but before we were: HE lived & moved & was.

     Because HE has the power of being in HIMSELF.

     And that is the transcendent majesty of who HE is.

     You know, we idolize people in the realm of becoming,      who reach a higher level of potential than others.

     Competitively.

     We look at Michael Jordan & say: “How can this be?”

     We look at Tiger Woods & say: “How can this be?”

     And we’re still at the level of becoming.      We’re still at the level of creatureliness.

     And we tend to think how great we are, then we      turn our eyes to heaven.

     And the ONE who is, from everlasting to everlasting.

     We owe HIM, whatever participation in being we have      & as creatures we owe the ONE who is not a creature      the glory of the perfection of HIS very BEING.

Source: oldfarmhouse via thursdaysatthecafe SEEB: Self-existent eternal BEING

A Portrait of God: 2004 National Conference | RC Sproul ligonier.org/learn/conferences/orlando_2004_national_conference/aseity-of-god/

[ooluwole]

What Is Love? What The Bible Says About Love, According To Scripture

What Is Love? What The Bible Says About Love, According To Scripture

According to the Bible it means that in essence, in His being, God is Love. He is Love personified, it is not simply that His actions are Loving but His very nature. Divine aseity means that God is absolutely independent and self-existent, self-sufficient. His existence does not depend on anything outside Himself. True Love is difficult to define, but from a Christian standpoint, love is best…

[ontosonontosoff]

Eric Perl - Theophany

Parmenides’ law (as unfolded in Neoplatonism):

Ontology & epistemology are from the outset inseparable

“To be” is an incomplete sentence. to be what? being is concrete not generic, it always has content.

Being -> identity -> differentiation -> form -> limits -> relative absence

This seems superficially like rationalism, a project to hammer beings into the shape of thought, when it is in fact a powerful kind of irrationalism, not anti- or sub- but supra-rational, not a move below reason but above it. Positive & negative are always simultaneous, to posit anything is to posit its limits, every distinction is a relation and identity unifies both aspects without blending them.

The only alternative to Parmenides’ law is nihilism

Intelligibility:

Thinking is something mutual and two-sided, neither side being passive but rather both being receptive. So intelligibility has two components: our ability to think about things, and things’ having a character that allows them to be thinkable

Apophasis:

Nothingness is content-free. To be empty of content is to not be. Every instance of nothingness is totally identical with the rest. This absoluteness without variation or degree, because it makes information possible by eliminating possibilities (determination), is what makes speaking in negations viable

The one & the all:

All the properties of being are coextensive, and this web of simultaneous, interdependent similarity & distinction is the totality (the All, Nature, Reality) *

Vertical causation, priority, & dialectics:

not excluding horizontal causation, that among things on the same level, but cutting thru and encompassing all levels. The lower is always dependent on the higher, for its subsistence, meaning, & purpose— this hierarchical account of creation is the one that really matters, in any case. Above is prior to below, the sense in which this really counts is not one of before/after, but of independence/dependence. What is above contains & negates what is below, both in one stroke, because by situating the lower in a fully integrated (concrete) whole its status (on its own level) as an independent (abstract) thing is also negated.

Appearance ≠ illusion:

a mode, or a differentiated presence, does not constitute an additional presence. When my image is reflected in a mirror or my shadow cast on the ground, there is still only one person there; the reflection, while not a mere illusion lacking existence, has an utterly dependent kind of existence— my body must be there to appear in front of the mirror. Appearances for Plato are something inbetween being & non-being, but this “inbetween” is not some middle way or mixture of the two, not a location or a ratio, it’s a strictly apophatic neither/nor formula

Transcendence or impassibility:

purity, freedom, aseity, non-confinement, independence. If God is something like Spinoza’s “Substance”, something indestructible, his liberty must be preserved, never getting his hands dirty, no matter how much he seems bound up in everything, no matter how many pies he seems to have his fingers in

Immanence:

the same God is common to all things, as all things in all things. All features of all things are god-in-them, making them to be by making them what they are (now you can see why the intelligible forms are said to have the most Being)

3 term participation:

participant (effects), participated (relations), unparticipated (cause)

Two directions:

Enfolding = complicatio = undifferentiated containment = reversion = analytic = diastole = ascent from particular to universal = permeation (rock)

Unfolding = explicatio = differentiated overflowing = procession = synthetic = systole = descent from universal to particular = diffusion (branches)

Axiom of containment (or pre-possession)

* But there is no part among this totality with the power to hold it all together, to make it whole, such that the parts really would be parts. That the totality, to be total at all, must be comprehensive necessitates an “outside” perspective (a metaperspective & an omniperspective) to comprehend it, to take it in all at once, not just different aspects successively, being totally free of it and unconfined to any part of it, simultaneously within and without. There is no other example of a creation available for us to compare with the work of God. If everything you saw was the colour blue, you would be puzzled if someone told you there was such a thing as the colour blue, because it would necessarily be outside of the web which is required for anything to be intelligible. This is the meaning of creation ex nihilo: when you or I create something, it will reflect our personality but this is offset by whatever material we have make it out of. Creation reflects God and only God, unmixed with any external influence. What is all-pervasive is so obvious that is escapes detection, rightly being called invisible (since visibility requires the laundry list of being). This is the true end of metaphysics, and of all the sciences.

[cpdevos]

4/16/21: “I AM WHO I AM”

Happy Friday afternoon! We’ve made it to the weekend :) I hope you are all doing well and enjoying the beautiful weather.

Please pray before you begin reading.

Exodus 3:13-15

“13 Moses said to God, ‘Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?’

14 God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’

15 God also said to Moses, ‘Say to the Israelites, ‘The Lord, the god of your fathers — the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob — has sent me to you.’

‘This is my name forever,

The name you shall call me

From generation to generation.’”

This passage is taken from the famous Biblical story of Moses and the Burning Bush, where God calls Moses to lead the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt and bring them to the land that God had promised Abraham and his descendants, thus fulfilling God’s covenant with him. Moses, feeling inadequate and hesitant to be a leader for the Israelites, makes excuses for following God’s calling — one of these excuses is not knowing how to respond to the question, “what god sent you?” (verse 13)

Keep in mind that Moses “was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action” (Acts 7:22). He would’ve served Pharaoh, whose role was heavily tied with ancient Egyptian mythology that included numerous deities that govern different aspects of life (for example, the god of death, the goddess of maternity, the god of war, etc). In fact, the entire Egyptian society was run on their religious beliefs, and seeing as the Hebrews most likely did not have a close relationship with their God (yet), they wouldn’t have any reason to know much about Him. So Moses’ question isn’t completely out of the blue.

And that’s what makes God’s response so powerful: God simply states, “I AM WHO I AM”. In Hebrew, the phrase translates to ehyeh asher ehyeh: “ehyeh” is the first person verb “to be” and can be used in the context of all three tenses: “I was”, “I am”, and “I will be”.

And...that’s it. End of discussion. Nothing more, nothing less. But that’s all that needs to be said, because instead of there being multiple gods, like the Egyptians believed, God is saying that He is EVERYTHING that the Egyptian gods stand for, and more. When this phrase is used to describe oneself (or rather, Oneself), it connotes a statement of:

Self-existence (aseity). God did not come from anything — He has no beginning, nor an end. If anything, He is the Beginning and the End. Everything in this world has come into existence because of our God. (Psalm 90:2, John 5:26, 1 Timothy 6:15-16, Revelation 22:13)

Self-sufficiency. God is not dependent on anything for His existence. He does not need to have a relationship with us (He already has perfect fellowship within Himself through the Trinity) — but He wants a relationship with us. On the contrary, all of creation is dependent on God with every breath that we breathe. (Psalm 102:25-27, Acts 17:24-25, 2 Corinthians 3:5-6

God’s self-existence and self-sufficiency go hand in hand)

Immutability. God is not determined by any outside forces. God is unchanging — He has and will continue to always be the same. If God is faithful, we can trust He will always be faithful. (Numbers 23:19, Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8, James 1:17)

Omnipresence. God is ever-present with His people. He was aware of the Israelites’ suffering as slaves, and He desired to deliver them and have a relationship with them. Similarly, He is aware of what is going on in our world today (even if it doesn’t feel like it), and Jesus intends to return to resurrect us to be with Him, and to restore His kingdom here on earth. (Deuteronomy 31:8,  Psalm 16:11, Thessalonians 4:16-17, Revelation 1:8)

Uniqueness/Incomparability (if that's a word?). There is no one/nothing that can even match God, let alone surpass Him. He is above all and He is sovereign over all. This does not focus on a particular aspect of God, but rather includes all aspects of God — therefore, God is unmatched and unparalleled in every single way. (Job 38-41, Psalm 113:4-6, Isaiah 45:5, Jeremiah 10:6, 1 Corinthians 8:6)

Just to be clear, it wouldn't have been right for Moses to say “I AM WHO I AM is the One who sent me”, (since the term uses the first person verb) so God instructs Moses, “YAHWEH [yahweh asher yahweh, or “He is who He is”], the god of your fathers...has sent me to you” (verse 15). And that’s where we get the term, ‘Yahweh’, from.

There are so many implications we can take away from these couple verses, and as much as I'd love to, I don’t have time to dive into every single detail. But my main thought is: praise God! Isn't He so amazing, so glorious, and so worthy to be worshipped? Isn't it absolutely crazy that a God this powerful and sovereign wants to know and love each of us personally and intimately? I know I certainly don't always live like I believe this, and quite honestly I think many Christians in America (not you specifically, but in general) have forgotten who God is, or they become desensitized to it over time, because otherwise we would be living very different lives for Jesus. But the more I understand God's character revealed to us through His precious Word, the more I bow down in humility and in awe of our God Almighty. So right now, will you join me in worshipping the Great I AM?

Yahweh by Elevation Worship or a piano recording of me playing the song (sorry for the bad audio quality haha)  

Pray to close,

Joyce

Since I only really touched on a little bit of this very heavy, dense topic, here are some extra resources:

https://www.gotquestions.org/I-AM-WHO-I-AM-Exodus-3-14.html

https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/i-am-who-i-am

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/self-existent-god/

https://faculty.wts.edu/posts/gods-aseity/

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_364.cfm

https://tonyevans.org/god-is-unique/

[calebyap]

Caleb’s T4G summary. The excellent sermons exhorted us toward holiness:

by portraying a positive vision of the church -- God’s holy community -- and 9 things a pastor can do to promote holiness in the church (namely preach through the Bible, emphasise what we learn about God, emphasise conversion and the life of conversion, teach members to commit to love, more concerned about spiritual than numerical growth, press church discipline vs. hypocrisy, teach what right pastors are and how to find them, pray specifically and confidently about problems, explain how holiness is missional, not competing with it)  (Mark Dever, “Holiness Together”)

by emphasising the distinctly singular message of the Cross in 1 Cor 1 that distinguishes us from the world (it determines eternal destiny, describes true wisdom, and defines Christian ministry) (H B Charles Jr, “The Message of the Cross”)

by describing God’s righteous dissatisfaction with His people’s false worship in Amos, and applying the prophetic word to the particular sin of racism in modern-day America (David Platt, “Let Justice Roll Down Like Waters: Racism, And Our Need For Repentance”)

by critiquing the tendency of MTD-rejectors towards antinomianism and arguing in favor of “grace-driven effort” in the vivification of the soul and mortification of sin (Matt Chandler, ”Citizens In The World But Not Of”)

by showing the holy distinction of God from His Creation through the interconnectedness of His attributes (aseity, eternity, immensity, simplicity) to divine immutability for our warning, welfare and worship (Kevin DeYoung, “The God Who Is Not Like Us: Why We Need The Doctrine Of Divine Immutability”)

by exploring the 1 Cor 5 predicament of a holy, called-out church, which must deal with the sin of the world in its midst through loving church discipline as opposed to relativising it in liberalism, skirting it as in recent Roman Catholicism leadership or monasticism (Albert Mohler, “And Such Were Some Of You”)

by rejecting the false extremes of ignorant antimonians who don’t understand grace and legalistic hypocrites who don’t practice or understand the law to show that the law, a blessed means of grace, helps us be holy in imitating and imaging God (Ligon Duncan, “The Whole In Our Holiness”)

by expositing Jude 17-25′s instructions for what to do when the church is infiltrated by the world -- namely to look out for the unsaved scoffers, look in with edifying love, and look up to God who is able (Thabiti Anyabwile, “Distinctive Living In An Age Of False Teaching”)

by reminding pastors of their responsibility to be passionate for sanctification in their congregations through teaching “Christ formed in you” -- both the indwelling presence of Christ and our union with Him (John MacArthur, “Sanctification and the Pastor’s Passion)

by explaining how a powerful God-wrought conversion is the basis for our desire and love for holiness, and that this new delight and affective capability sets us apart from the world and drive our holiness (John Piper, New God, New Gospel, New Gladness: How Is Christian Joy Distinct”)