Incarnation in Time

[rkwright]

Thanks Jeff! thats a great article. Anslem seems to make more sense to me than does Aquinas, I don't feel like I need a dictionary when I read him.

So is Anslem saying that....
1- God must be everywhere at every time to sustain all contingent beings
2- God must be no where at no time
(2a)- Divine Nature cannot be in 2 place at the same time for what is wholy at one place cannot be wholy at another at the same time
(2b)- Divine Nature being eternal cannot said to be in the past present or future

:. God must be both somewhat inside time (1) and outside time (2)

Is this fair?

[Guest JeffCR07]

Almost, if you will allow me, I will change your points just slightly to make them (I believe) more true to Anselm's intent:

1.) God must be always and everywhere to sustain all contingent beings
2.) No time or place [i]contains[/i] God
(2a) If two different places [i]contained[/i] God then there would be either two Gods or God would be in two parts, both of which are false
(2b) If two different times [i]contained[/i] God then there would be either two Gods or God would be in two parts, both of which are false

:. Time and place do not contain God, but God is present in all times and places.

This is true because, as Anselm says,

[quote]only
those things which exist in place or time in such way that they do
not transcend spatial extension or temporal duration are bound
by the law of place and the law of time. Therefore, just as for things
which do not transcend place and time it is said in all truth that
one and the same whole cannot exist as a whole in different places
at once and cannot exist as a whole at different times at once, so
for those things which do transcend place and time the foregoing
statement need not hold true.[/quote]

[rkwright]

Thanks Jeff.

A question on claim #1. Does it follow that for God to sustain all contingent beings, He must be in time? Can it be done in the one pure timeless act?

[Guest JeffCR07]

Simply by asking the question you are falling away from the logical conclusions that we just admitted were true:

It is not proper to say that God is "in" every place and time, but rather, it is more proper to say that God is "always and everywhere." This is true because neither place nor time can circumscribe God, but God must be wholly present for time and place to exist.

[rkwright]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Mar 2 2006, 09:38 PM'] This is true because neither place nor time can circumscribe God, but God must be wholly present for time and place to exist.
[right][snapback]901981[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Maybe I'm making some mistake and just not seeing it yet.

I'm more interested in the first claim of the proof above or the second part of the sentence I quoted. I agree with both statements, but I don't see that claim #1 or the second half of the sentence bring a conclusion that means God is also 'in time'.

Lemme try it like this...
Our proof from earlier
1.) God must be always and everywhere to sustain all contingent beings
2.) No time or place contains God
(2a) If two different places contained God then there would be either two Gods or God would be in two parts, both of which are false
(2b) If two different times contained God then there would be either two Gods or God would be in two parts, both of which are false
:. God is a soley timeless being, 'outside' of time and in no way temporal (from 2)

I don't see that conclusion contradicting #1 in any way. God must be wholly present for time and place to exist, but need not be in time for them to exist.

Again forgive me if I'm making some silly error, I appreciate your work on this.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Again, I believe you are equivocating with your use of the phrase "outside of time." As Anselm teaches us, God really is [i]in[/i] time, but [i]not in the same way as things that are circumscribed by time[/i]. Because God circumscribes time itself, his presence "within" time is not the same as your presence or my presence in time.

This quote from chapter 22 will help you get this clear:

[quote]since an inescapable necessity demands that the Supreme Being be present as a whole in every place and at every time, and since no law of place or of time prohibits the Supreme Being from being present as a whole in every place at once or from being present as a whole at every time at once, the Supreme Being must be present as a whole in each and every place at once and present as a whole at each and every time at once. Its being present at one place or time does not prevent it from being simultaneously and similarly present at another place or time. Nor is it the case that because it was or is or will be, something of its eternity (a) has vanished from the temporal present along with the past, which no longer exists, or (b) fades with the present, which scarcely exists, or © is going to come with the future, which does not yet exist. For the law of place and the law of time do not in any way compel to exist or not to exist in any place or at any time (and do not in any way prevent from existing or not existing in any place or at any time) that which does not in any way confine its own existence within place and time.[/quote]