On an earlier topic, the subject of God’s relation to time came up.
In the discussion, John dropped this quote… “Ken has an interesting point of view that Sproul puts forth – if God is outside of time, then He does not exist. He simply is.”
That prompted Pat to post… “The verb “to be” implies existence in its very nature. This existence may or may not be bound by time or other constraints, but this “being” seems to include existing. Help me understand this conundrum.”
Pat never got a reply. R.C. is a first rate apologist, theologian, and philosopher, but I don’t see the distinction either; so, I’ll put it out there. Anyone understand the distinction?
PS: If I don’t respond over the next few days, it is just because I’ll be traveling through the end of the week.
I wonder it it has to do more with the meaning of “exist”. Using the common meaning of the word, the statement doesn’t make much sense to me either. Maybe there was some kind of pretext to that quote that we really need to grasp its meaning in its glorious entirity. Hmmmmm.
There is no spoon.
You’ll have to go to Ken – because I was simply repeating something that he had said to me – no details.
I think perhaps it means that God’s “existence” is beyond our vocabulary – and that he exists, or is, embodies our full ability to describe his infiniteness.
Don’t know. Just thinking.