As you suggest in this portion of your comments... I think it would be helpful if you would expound to some degree on your understanding of the two scriptures I have used - Acts 17:28 and Gen 1:1
That would give you the opportunity to clarify what thoughts are generated in your mind regards the issue of ontological distinctions and related spheres of influence (application) as they pertain to the creation in general and the creatures therein.... I will reply to your comments mentioned in the quote box, and other comments you have made in your post #31 after reflecting on your forthcoming thoughts on those two scriptures.
All right.
Acts 17:28 KJV - For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
This verse tells us that apart from God, we can't exist. He supplies the life-force we need to function. We come from Him. We can compare this latter half, "we are His offspring", to this:
Luke 3:38 KJV - Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.
In some way, Adam was the "son" of God, just as Seth was the son of Adam, and all of us are descended from Adam, making us all "sons"/offspring of God. Because we are offspring of God like we are offspring of our fathers, we can say a few things about being offspring:
1. It doesn't require that we be made of the same stuff (we are offspring of God, who is not physical)
2. It results in us being in the image of the person we are offspring of...like begets like.
3. It certainly doesn't require that we remain an integral part of the person we are offsprung from.
It helps to consider the following verse in Acts to see if it holds further gems of information for us:
Acts 17:29 KJV - Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
In other words, God is not like those things He made that are unthinking and unfeeling and unobserving...those things which are essentially "timeless", in that they don't relate to the people and creatures around them.
Genesis 1:1 KJV - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
This tells us that the earth and heavens had a beginning, and it was caused by God. Perhaps one could surmise a little more from it, but those are surmises, rather than information provided by the words.
Again, we should consider following verses to see if they hold relevant information for our discussion.
Genesis 1:26 KJV - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
God made all the world, then put man over all the world and everything on the earth.
Now, you seem to think those verses such more than that, so would you like to explain
1. What else you think they say,
2. Why you think that extra information is there, when I must not be seeing it,
3. Why do you think such extra information bears on our conversation.
Regarding that 3rd one, I'm hoping that you will explain why "in Him we live and move and have our being" is germane to our discussion. That may seem obvious to you, but it isn't to me, at least not so far.
I agree that there is a fusion (hypostatic union) between the divine nature and the human nature in regard to the man, Jesus of Nazareth... who is God in the flesh.
That hyperstatic union is a feature, the center piece, or component, of the created order (Creation) within which we live, and move, and have our being, and within which are the heavenlies (scripture mentions that there are seven heavens) ... that is all contained within the domain of the Creation... the small circle in my illustration.
But that small circle, if I understood you correctly, doesn't intersect with the outer circle. So how could it both intersect (hypostatic union) and NOT intersect? And if we are merely made with components that are part of God, why isn't there already an intersection, even if we ignore the hypostatic union?
That hypostatic union does not extend, beyond, the specific domain of the created order (Creation)... because of the ontological distinction between God (self-existent) and the creature (not self-existent).
It does, if the material God made us all out of is really part of God, and remains part of God (Venn diagram), then the ontological distinction is somewhat blurry.
The attributes of God... specifically the incommunicable attributes of God... are the sole possession, exclusively, of the One God, the Triune God... who's domain is the Large Circle in my illustration... within which is the small circle (Creation)
Right, the small circle is within the large circle. So if the large circle includes everything that has those attributes of God, then the small circle also has those attributes.
I believe this illustration (Venn diagram) captures that fundamental distinction, without any diminishment or dilution of the twin natures of the one (singular) person who is The LORD God Almighty Jesus Christ.
Again, I've offered reasons why I don't think that is so, at least according to the Venn diagram illustration.
One way that this ontological distinction (in accordance with my illustration) can be intellectually accessible, in terms of valid consideration, is to take note of what is said in the first statement of scripture where it says - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"... it doesn't say "in the beginning the God - man created the heavens and the earth" .... just saying.
Well, yes, I agree. And what can we learn from that? I suggest that one of the things we can learn from that is that at one time God's Son was not "God-man", and then later He was. Do you see how that forces us to consider that God has a sequence/time characteristic?
The illustration I've employed is a Venn diagram of a relationship between a Super set and Subset.
The Super set (Large Circle) comprises the exclusive domain of the three persons that comprise the One God, the Triune God... (no God/man)
The Subset (small circle) comprises the three persons that comprise the One God, the Triune God, and the Creation exhaustively... including the God/man.
In Venn diagram terminology, the small circle would have ALL of the attributes of the larger circle, plus some additional attributes that are lacking, or that set the members apart from the larger circle. For instance one can imagine a Venn diagram that contains in a large circle all of the even numbers, and a smaller circle that contains all of the even numbers that are also prime numbers (consisting only of the number 2).
In regard to the issue (apparent dilemma) of physical matter being present in the Subset (small circle) and not present in the Super set (Large Circle) ... which the logical constraints of the Super set - Subset relationship demand... I would answer that objection in the following manner.
What is matter?
I content that matter is the tangible manifestation of the intangible thought of God.
Ok, but what does that mean in terms of physical creation?
That intangible thought (in the domain of the Super set) is transposed into tangible thought (in the domain of the Subset)
The scripture reference I would use to support this understanding are "Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD" - Jeremiah 23:24
And in addition, "Upholding all things by the word of his power" - Hebrews 1:3
Both of which are intriguing, but neither of which actually defines matter in some way that we can use in our discussion.
I certainly could... but they are born of very much pondering.
I think one way that you can discover them for yourself... is by very much pondering.
You will know you have done enough pondering... when they begin to disturb your mind.
Ok. That's not something I am currently pondering.
I agree that conjecture (thought experiments) are useful tools of discovery... and an unavoidable and necessary element in our pondering.
I agree that language is sufficent to communicate all the necessary data and fine nuances which God would have us discover and know.
In your earlier comments where you mentioned that you have become an adherent of Open Theism, described both Arminianism and Calvinism as fulfilling the gamut of settled theology.
Yes, though I'm open to being corrected. My reasoning is that Calvinism says all things are settled by the decree of God, and Arminianism says all things are settled by the decisions of God and God's creation, but known ahead of time, before the created things existed. If you can think of another entity that helps to settle things, please explain.
I presume than that you have some familiarity with the theological term "decree" and its varied usage, both logical and temporal.
Would you agree that there is some equivalence between the term decree, and your preferred terms of sequence/time?
No, not equivalence. Perhaps "decree" can be seen as evidence for sequence, but I do not see any reason to equate "decree" with "sequence" or "time". Why do you think that might show some equivalence?