Replies

Those are interesting passages. Talk about the oldies is sure to raise red flags for the purist, but I wonder, does Pannenberg cite anybody from the 2nd, 3rd 4th century? Not that a German would . . : )

Plotinian--Kabbalist version appears in the 13th c.--emanation is something they struggled against. Gregory is one author who combined trinitarian theology with cosmology and for whom the incarnation is analogous to creation.

We have two extremes, (a) Stoicism--Kant and co. loved the likes of Sextus Empiricus, I hear--with a world-immanent divine force, and (b) Neoplatonist mysticism, with a transcendence that leaves creation limping into the abyss. Both were unacceptable for Christianity which forged right between the two.

Here's a bit from Against Eunomius "Human reason in its weakness cannot reach the whole way to the contents of creation . . .this creative power itself, while circumscribing by itself the growth of things has itself no circumscribing bounds; it buries in itself every effort of thought to mount up to the source of God's life, and it eludes the busy and ambitious strivings to get to the end of the Infinite. Every discursive effort of thought to go back beyond the ages will ascend only so far as to see that that which it seeks can never be passed through: time and its contents seem the measure and the limit of the movement and the working of human thought, but that which lies beyond remains outside its reach;

"All, I say, with any insight, however moderate, into the nature of things, know that the world's Creator laid time and space as a background to receive what was to be; on this he builds the universe. It is not possible that anything which has come or is now coming into being by way of creation can be independent of space or time. But the existence which is all-sufficient, everlasting, world-enveloping is not in space, nor in time: it is before these, above these in an ineffable way; self-contained,

Yet IMHO, nothing is so d*mned transcendent that it does not have application to the most humble immanent conditions pertaining to life here on earth. IMHO. Either view in isolation was unacceptable for Christian philosophy, which forged the way between the two in order to reconcile them....

In other words, cornelis -- assuming either/or/both these visions were to prove legitimate, then no wonder we humans today are in search of God -- whose Truth alone could reconcile them.

I think the point might be that human beings ought every once in a while to get their nose out of doctrine, and try on God-given reality for size. Doctrine is enormously helpful. But unless a person eventually can verify it spiritually -- that is, by means of the light and grace of the Holy Spirit -- then it cannot, and will not, change a human soul.

And reformation, renovation, of the life of the soul seems to be the main "function" or purpose of the Holy Spirit....

If you mean to suggest (personally I find this doubtful) that you have elucidated a way that can heal the breach between stoicism and Neoplatonist mysticism -- as you define the terms of this debate -- without recourse to Spirit, then I'm truly looking forward to your elaboration of this problem.

Especially as, personally, I'm not exactly a Stoic -- the idea of a world-immanent divine force is risible to me on its face. Nor am I a Neoplatonist: I try to take my "classical Greeks," "straight." (Hold the vermouth, hold the onion/olive.)

But I will say that, at some deeply profound level, I believe the Creation and the Incarnation are truly "analogous" events.

We are really wandering far from the common field this evening, my friend. My thanks for your insights.