"The mind looks backward in time till the dim past vanishes, then turns and looks into the future till thought and imagination collapse from exhaustion; and God is at both points, unaffected by either."
I have always heard that God is simultaneously in the past, the present and the future because time has no restraints on God. But How? I know that this question is one that I cannot understand, but I will always wonder. Time has no restraints on God because God created time, the creation has no control over the creator. Our minds cannot comprehend God and his being, because he is infinite and we are finite. Our rules do not and cannot pertain to God.
Monday, October 26, 2015
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Tozer ch 6
"Whatever God is, and all that God is, He is in Himself."
"The word necessary is wholly foreign to God."
"Nothing is beyond him (God), nothing beyond him (God)."
All of these facts about God, we accept, but why? We know so little about God, there are so many unanswered questions, yet we still believe. Why?
I began asking myself this question when I was reading Tozer ch 6, and I had trouble answering. I know that God is self-sufficient, that God is above everything, that he needs nothing, and i accept these facts. Whenever asked, however, I always reply "Faith, we need to have faith." Which is a right answer, and I know that I cannot try to explain God because he is incomprehensible, but whenever I ask myself this question I honestly don't know how to answer
"The word necessary is wholly foreign to God."
"Nothing is beyond him (God), nothing beyond him (God)."
All of these facts about God, we accept, but why? We know so little about God, there are so many unanswered questions, yet we still believe. Why?
I began asking myself this question when I was reading Tozer ch 6, and I had trouble answering. I know that God is self-sufficient, that God is above everything, that he needs nothing, and i accept these facts. Whenever asked, however, I always reply "Faith, we need to have faith." Which is a right answer, and I know that I cannot try to explain God because he is incomprehensible, but whenever I ask myself this question I honestly don't know how to answer
Monday, October 12, 2015
Tozer Ch 5
1). Tozer says that “Man is…dependent upon the continuing creative impulse” of God (p.28). Have you ever considered the fact that you and I were not merely created at one time, and then let go till we “run out” our life, but that God is continually holding you in existence, and that he is constantly creating and recreating us in his work of new (and ever new) creation? Ponder this reality. How does it settle with you? How do you respond to this?
It kind of makes sense, almost. When I start thinking about it, it makes less sense. But it does support the claim that God is truly almighty and that he is undoubtedly in control of everything, no matter what.
2). Tozer reflects on what sin is in this chapter (28-31). (A) How do you understand sin? (B) How does Tozer seem to present it? Strive to capture the many nuances of his understanding.
Sin is anything that goes against God and his principles, anything that dethrones God and puts us in his place, or pride, as Tozer mentions. through an action of pride sin entered the world, so naturally pride is considered a sin.
It kind of makes sense, almost. When I start thinking about it, it makes less sense. But it does support the claim that God is truly almighty and that he is undoubtedly in control of everything, no matter what.
2). Tozer reflects on what sin is in this chapter (28-31). (A) How do you understand sin? (B) How does Tozer seem to present it? Strive to capture the many nuances of his understanding.
Sin is anything that goes against God and his principles, anything that dethrones God and puts us in his place, or pride, as Tozer mentions. through an action of pride sin entered the world, so naturally pride is considered a sin.
Thursday, October 1, 2015
Tozer Chapter 3
1). On pg. 13 Tozer says, "We might be wise to follow the insight of the enraptured heart rather then the more cautious reasoning of the theological mind." What lies behind such a statement as this? Why do you think Tozer would say this? (Do you think he is disparaging the "Theological mind").
Tozer is saying that it is better to listen to those who truly love God, than to those who only think about God. Since God is incomprehensible, no one can actually understand God, so one can only speculate, and even then we should not limit God to our descriptions because they are used to describe humans and cannot fully tell of all of God's being. I do not think that Tozer is disparaging the "Theological mind" he is merely saying that we need both the Theological mind and The enraptured heart. We need to love and worship God, but at the same time it would benefit us if we knew who we were worshipping. I think that Tozer prefers that we do worship God without studying him, because studying God is a futile mission.
2).Tozer is trafficking in deep theological reflection on p.15-16. He draws the distinction between the “creature-thoughts” we have when we consider attributes of humans. Human attributes are parts of who we are because we are composite creatures. Though thoughts we must have when we consider the nature of God are infinitely different, because God is One.
In good company with many theologians before him, T. expresses that, “[God’s] being He owes to no one. His substance is indivisible. He has no parts but is single in His unitary being. The doctrine of the divine unity means not only that there is but one God [Deut.6:4ff]; it means also that God is simple, uncomplex, one with Himself. The harmony of his being is the result not of a perfect balance of parts but of the absence of parts…All of God does all that God does; He does not divide Himself to perform a work, but works in the total unity of His being. An attribute, then, is not a part of God. It is how God is, and as far as the reasoning mind can go, we may say that it is what God is…He is simply BEING Himself.” (p.15) How do you respond to these weighty ideas? What questions, thoughts do you have? Any connections made? Describe.
It is a very confusing concept because we know that God is three in one, the trinity. But we also know that he is distinctly God, so it can get very confusing. And how can the harmony of God come from the absence of all parts. What parts? And how can these parts be absent from God. It does not really make sense to me. Which is mainly why I do not try to study God because it is absolutely pointless. No one can understand God.
Tozer is saying that it is better to listen to those who truly love God, than to those who only think about God. Since God is incomprehensible, no one can actually understand God, so one can only speculate, and even then we should not limit God to our descriptions because they are used to describe humans and cannot fully tell of all of God's being. I do not think that Tozer is disparaging the "Theological mind" he is merely saying that we need both the Theological mind and The enraptured heart. We need to love and worship God, but at the same time it would benefit us if we knew who we were worshipping. I think that Tozer prefers that we do worship God without studying him, because studying God is a futile mission.
2).Tozer is trafficking in deep theological reflection on p.15-16. He draws the distinction between the “creature-thoughts” we have when we consider attributes of humans. Human attributes are parts of who we are because we are composite creatures. Though thoughts we must have when we consider the nature of God are infinitely different, because God is One.
In good company with many theologians before him, T. expresses that, “[God’s] being He owes to no one. His substance is indivisible. He has no parts but is single in His unitary being. The doctrine of the divine unity means not only that there is but one God [Deut.6:4ff]; it means also that God is simple, uncomplex, one with Himself. The harmony of his being is the result not of a perfect balance of parts but of the absence of parts…All of God does all that God does; He does not divide Himself to perform a work, but works in the total unity of His being. An attribute, then, is not a part of God. It is how God is, and as far as the reasoning mind can go, we may say that it is what God is…He is simply BEING Himself.” (p.15) How do you respond to these weighty ideas? What questions, thoughts do you have? Any connections made? Describe.
It is a very confusing concept because we know that God is three in one, the trinity. But we also know that he is distinctly God, so it can get very confusing. And how can the harmony of God come from the absence of all parts. What parts? And how can these parts be absent from God. It does not really make sense to me. Which is mainly why I do not try to study God because it is absolutely pointless. No one can understand God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)