Comments on: Story of the Universe–Part 2: The Father-Creator http://www.jrdkirk.com/2010/01/19/story-of-the-universe-part-2-the-father-creator/ Telling the story of the story-bound God Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:08:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Of Course! « Dappled Thoughts http://www.jrdkirk.com/2010/01/19/story-of-the-universe-part-2-the-father-creator/#comment-13157 Of Course! « Dappled Thoughts Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:57:55 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=69#comment-13157 [...] Part Two- The Father Creator [...] [...] Part Two- The Father Creator [...]

]]> By: J. R. Daniel Kirk http://www.jrdkirk.com/2010/01/19/story-of-the-universe-part-2-the-father-creator/#comment-46 J. R. Daniel Kirk Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:21:14 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=69#comment-46 I resemble: I do believe in eschatology--but a significant dynamic in eschatology is protology. The end is always told in terms of the beginning, even if it's not a mere recapitulation of it. The 2d and Last "man" is the second "Adam," he is the "image of God" as was the first. This is but the tip of the iceberg. Part of the point in drawing a full picture of the glories of the beginning is to illustrate what was lost and therefore where the story must head if all is to be set to rights. I resemble: I do believe in eschatology–but a significant dynamic in eschatology is protology. The end is always told in terms of the beginning, even if it’s not a mere recapitulation of it. The 2d and Last “man” is the second “Adam,” he is the “image of God” as was the first. This is but the tip of the iceberg. Part of the point in drawing a full picture of the glories of the beginning is to illustrate what was lost and therefore where the story must head if all is to be set to rights.

]]> By: iresemblethatremark http://www.jrdkirk.com/2010/01/19/story-of-the-universe-part-2-the-father-creator/#comment-45 iresemblethatremark Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:55:11 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=69#comment-45 (WCF language can well be glossed as "the-heaven-stuff".) Is eschatology necessary or contingent to the creation? IF people were created in a wonderful, fecund and fit-for-all-their-capacities world, then you have God the father per your elaboration (splendid), but that doesn't mean there isn't a greater state possible that God did not give to them as created, nor that he had been miserly by not crafting them for that state/activity/sphere so, where is God? in the story of the OT he consistently seems to live somewhere else with somebody else (throneroom, cherubim-esque folk). He visits, or his angels visit. looks to me like IN THE STORY God is far away from where his kids live and comes to visit them; could there be a better possible state? And isn’t the BETTER expressed in terms of “here” and “not here”? I think it is far beyond their capacity and equipment to think about being the bride. Well, yeah, they are married, to each other, and they have a hands-on appreciation for how unfathomably rich this is-- what in the world (or, again, out of it) could God ever mean by talking of them as bride? Where law fits in, or what it is, as you say is another quibble. Maybe if you start believing in eschatology, you can sort that out [This laststatementbeing a playful jibe toillustratewhereIthink the difference mightwelllie.] (WCF language can well be glossed as “the-heaven-stuff”.)

Is eschatology necessary or contingent to the creation?

IF people were created in a wonderful, fecund and fit-for-all-their-capacities world, then you have God the father per your elaboration (splendid),

but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a greater state possible that God did not give to them as created, nor that he had been miserly by not crafting them for that state/activity/sphere

so, where is God? in the story of the OT he consistently seems to live somewhere else with somebody else (throneroom, cherubim-esque folk). He visits, or his angels visit.

looks to me like IN THE STORY God is far away from where his kids live and comes to visit them; could there be a better possible state? And isn’t the BETTER expressed in terms of “here” and “not here”?

I think it is far beyond their capacity and equipment to think about being the bride. Well, yeah, they are married, to each other, and they have a hands-on appreciation for how unfathomably rich this is– what in the world (or, again, out of it) could God ever mean by talking of them as bride?

Where law fits in, or what it is, as you say is another quibble.

Maybe if you start believing in eschatology, you can sort that out

[This laststatementbeing a playful jibe toillustratewhereIthink the difference mightwelllie.]

]]> By: pduggie http://www.jrdkirk.com/2010/01/19/story-of-the-universe-part-2-the-father-creator/#comment-35 pduggie Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:02:54 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=69#comment-35 But the kids he make have a LACK. They 1) aren't mature 2) don't have clothes. 3) don't have a wife (at first) 4) don't have undying eternal life as part of their image. They need to mature in god-likeness. And they can't do that "on their own" because that's meaningless to the creature. But the kids he make have a LACK.

They 1) aren’t mature 2) don’t have clothes. 3) don’t have a wife (at first) 4) don’t have undying eternal life as part of their image.

They need to mature in god-likeness. And they can’t do that “on their own” because that’s meaningless to the creature.

]]> By: pduggie http://www.jrdkirk.com/2010/01/19/story-of-the-universe-part-2-the-father-creator/#comment-34 pduggie Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:00:52 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=69#comment-34 the Kenneth Hagin comment was supposed to go here. Ok then the Kenneth Hagin comment was supposed to go here. Ok then

]]> By: J. R. Daniel Kirk http://www.jrdkirk.com/2010/01/19/story-of-the-universe-part-2-the-father-creator/#comment-32 J. R. Daniel Kirk Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:57:43 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=69#comment-32 Geeze, pduggie, can't you wait a few thousand years? I'm only in Genesis 1 here! ;) Geeze, pduggie, can’t you wait a few thousand years? I’m only in Genesis 1 here! ;)

]]> By: pduggie http://www.jrdkirk.com/2010/01/19/story-of-the-universe-part-2-the-father-creator/#comment-29 pduggie Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:55:34 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=69#comment-29 So no, "wow, even without us, God is father, because he is trinity of Father, Son and Spirit"? And no "Only begotten son of God?" (one and only?) So no, “wow, even without us, God is father, because he is trinity of Father, Son and Spirit”?

And no “Only begotten son of God?” (one and only?)

]]>