Brine, Proper Eternity of the Divine Decrees

[JM]

I found this sermon just yesterday and it really got me thinking, just wanted to share a few quotes:

This divine Act of Election was eternal: According as he hath chosen us in him, before the Foundation of the World. From the Beginning, and before the foundation of the world mean the same. And, there never was an instant, wherein the Church was not the object of a gracious choice unto salvation, or the enjoyment of eternal life. A learned Writer hath been pleased to distinguish upon eternity, a parteante, or that duration, which was before the existence of the world, or things created, and speaks of a first, and an after date therein. The first date respects, he says, God’s existence, which was eternal, and had no beginning: The after date refers unto his decrees, or acts within himself relating unto Christ and the Church, which he affirms had beginning: He sums up what he had before more largely, expressed, and pleaded for, in this assertion, viz. God himself was before the conceptions and thoughts which he entertained of his Works: Before, besure in order of nature; but how long before, the Thing neither speaks nor the Word declares.

The divine decrees are of the same date with the existence of God. His Being is not of one date, and his purposes of another, a later date. Besides, to suppose, that there was an everlasting, or a duration, before the existence of a creature, that really had a beginning, or commencement, is to imagine, that there was a duration, which was neither eternal, nor temporary; but something between both, which is an highly absurd imagination.

If there was a duration before the production of the world, which had commencement, why may there not be a duration, after the dissolution of it, which will have an end? And if the former is called everlasting, though’ it had beginning, why may not the latter be so called, though’ it should have an end? As some imagine it will; but both are foolish dreams and alike untrue. Farther, if this Liberty may be taken in interpreting the Scripture...

Just wondering what you good folks thought, I'm struggling to understand this topic, thank you.

jason
link to the rest of the sermon

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Jason,

My guess is that this topic may fit in the Philosophy section as well as it does in the Theology section. The existence of God sans time is a hot topic in philosophy and theology. My personal feeling is that Scripture clearly teaches that God exists sans time, and as such inquiring minds seek to understand how this “works” in terms of God’s eternal decrees and what this existence would be like. I feel that our finitude is such that we cannot ever comprehend God’s existence sans time; however, I will give some of my thoughts, which are not worth very much, on this topic.

1. It is not proper to speak in temporal terms of anything prior to creation.
2. As such, the only thing analogous that might help us understand existence sans time would be to think in terms of logical rather than temporal priority.
3. The consequences of this is that God’s existence sans time is all present – the beginning (if you will) and the end.
4. Other consequences of this might be that everything is necessary. That is to say, God’s actions are rooted in His nature, but they are not free in the sense we think of freedom. They are all necessary – this is analogous to logical necessity. For instance, the creation could not have been any different, and God had to create. Everything is necessary.

This should spark some discussion. I hold to these ideas tentatively. Again, I think as created beings who will always exist in time, we can never understand God’s existence sans time. It is an existence on a whole other plane. His thoughts are not temporal, but are all rather eternally present to Him. Again, if there is no succession of time, then there can be no succession of thought in temporal terms. There could be succession of thought in logical terms as I mentioned above. OK, now I am rambling.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

This is a little metaphysical for me and I have not read the sermon, but . . .

Brine seems to be arguing against the logic that God's thoughts or decrees by necessity came temporally after his existence -- and thus implies a duration in eternity such that things with a beginning (and therefore an implied end) may be spoken of as eternal. I would tend to agree with Brine here. If God exists outside of time, i.e. the space-time continuum of the created universe, then we cannot think of the contemplations and purposes of God as temporally sequential or temporally related.

God doesn't exist in time, He conceived time as part of creation. This may not be quite correct, but it seems there is a sense in which to God, the sin of Adam, Christ's crucfixion, the second coming, and everything else in the created order are eternally present to Him.

 

[JM]

Is it safe to say that God doesn't view time in a chronological order as the human mind does, or would this be too much of a presumption?

For example, does God see a person as a sinner and then a saint, or both at the same time?

 

[JM]

bump