... If we use the creeds as a guidepost of what is orthodox and what is heretical, does OT and its implications agree with the creeds? You said: God remainsMessage 1 of 5 , Jul 23, 2007View Source
On 7/23/07, Robert M. Bowman, Jr. <faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:
I didn't understand your question about whether the OT is heretical.
Of course, it is not. Its anthropomorphic language is figurative, not
If we use the creeds as a guidepost of what is orthodox and what is heretical, does OT and its implications agree with the creeds?
God remains transcendent over time even while interacting with us in time.
I agree. But when Someone got down in the mud and made man, They were in time and space. When He formed the animals and birds out of the dirt, how is that language any different from a potter forming a clay pot? I don't see why there is some reason to believe that this was *not* Christ in physical form as seen in other places in the Old Testament. That is why I asked about taking off and putting on a temporal nature prior to the Incarnation. How can Christ be physical and do physical things prior to the Incarnation without being in time as well? It seems to me that either a temporal nature is something that isn't permanent and can be taken off or put on as needed by the Godhead or, if Christ was only temporal after the Incarnation, there were no real physical Christophanies in the Old Testament. Is there a third option that I haven't thought of?
My answer here assumes a more classical approach to God's relationship to time; I don't follow William Lane Craig on this issue.
I'd love to see you debate it with him. :) Speaking of debates, are you aware of any MP3 debates online on the topic of Open Theism? I can't seem to find any.