About

I am 34 years old, married, with three kids. My professional training is in theology, but I am an avid student of Christian apologetics.

54 Responses to “About”

Tim Says:

August 28, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I noticed your thoughts about the possibility or not of an infinite universe (a universe without a beginning), and I think I have a reply. A simple case for why the universe cannot be infinite goes like this:

If the universe is truly infinite than prior to today there has been an infinite amount of days. But this would mean that to get to today we would have to pass through an infinite number of days. We realize that, if the number of days is truly infinite, then by definition (“infinite” means something without end) we cannot really pass through all these days to get to today. There would be an endless amount of days and so could never all be passed by. You could always add a day prior to today.

Thus this proves that an infinite universe could not exist, because if it really was infinite we could never reach today.

What do you think of this idea (I didn’t come up with it, but find it a powerful argument)? I find it pretty solid, and cannot find anything wrong with it. I hope you like it too!

Keep it cool man,
Tim
Tim Says:

August 28, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Oh, and sorry I posted this in the wrong spot. You can move it, or even delete it if you want. But I wanted to tell you that argument.

Keep it cool,
Tim
jasondulle Says:

August 29, 2008 at 10:01 am
Tim,

Yes, I use that same argument often. In fact, it is presented in a post from a week or two ago. William Lane Craig refers to it as the “impossibility of traversing the infinite” argument.

Jason
Barry Says:

March 10, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Hi Jason,

I’m trying to contact William Arnold III

I’d tried emailing him but it bounced back.
jasondulle Says:

March 11, 2009 at 8:11 am
Barry,

He is nearly impossible to get a hold of these days. He may have changed his email, but more likely, it is so full that emails are bouncing back.

Jason
Peter Connell Says:

April 30, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Jason, On one of your blogs from May of last year you wrote about modesty and mentioned a book by C.J. Mahaney, “Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World.” You mentioned then that the book was “soon to be released.” I have not been able to find out anything else about that book and would like to get it. Do you have any further information? Any help would be appreciated. An email would be nice.

Blessings,
Peter Connell Says:

April 30, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Actually just found it. Thanks nonetheless.
Scott Speight Says:

June 9, 2009 at 6:26 am
Why is there no RSS feed on the blog?? that would be handy
jasondulle Says:

June 9, 2009 at 10:33 am
Can’t you do it by going to “Blog info” in the upper right corner and selecting “Subscribe to Blog”? Nevertheless, I added an RSS feed button to the site, although you’ll have to tell me if it actually allows you to subscribe to an RSS feed. I’m not good at this stuff.
Scott Speight Says:

June 12, 2009 at 1:51 am
Erm, yeah – didn’t realise could do it from the URL toolbar. As for the RSS feed button, it works.
James Says:

September 18, 2009 at 10:41 am
Are you on any social media sites (Facebook, Twitter)? Where are you from? I know your name but can’t connect the dots.
jasondulle Says:

September 18, 2009 at 1:25 pm
James,

No, I avoid social media sites (and most message boards) like the plague.

I am originally from Ohio, but I’ve been in CA for the past 15 years.

Jason
Xochi Adame Says:

October 8, 2009 at 10:14 am
Are you a Theosophist? Theosophy may be very different than what you are referencing in you blog title. It’s an occult term for divine wisdom, most commonly known for the int’l society that was created in 1875. I’m just wondering because I handle social media(FB & Twitter) for the Theosohical Society in America and have the term among my google alerts, which for obvious reasons, tags you.
jasondulle Says:

October 8, 2009 at 10:21 am
Xochi Adame,

No, I am not a Theosophist. “Theosophical” is a term some non-Theosophist’s use to describe an approach to religion that bridges theology and philosophy (which is why my blog’s tagline is “a collage of theological and philosophical musings”).

Jason
Chaplain Grady Powell Says:

January 4, 2010 at 9:26 am
How can i get in touch with you? I need to speak with you.
jasondulle Says:

January 4, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Grady, you can email me at jasondulle@yahoo.com and we can go from there.
JT Says:

January 10, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Hello Jason,

I have enjoyed reading some of your material and appreciate the quality of your thought and your expression of it, as well as the service you undertake to share it on the web. After reading your arguments for the oneness model of the Godhead, I would like to make a brief (relatively) comment in response.

I think that the key to reaching clarity for the contemporaries of both sides of this argument is a consideration of the concept of “person”. I think that a close examination of the evolution of the concept from a biblical context to the modern western Christianity context will show that it has changed considerably.

Our idea of a person today portrays a very independent and isolated entity the qualification of which as a person is grounded entirely within its own being. A more ancient Near East idea, on the other hand, portrayed an interdependent and communal entity whose ground of being as a person is found only within the context of a relational community existing around it.

One person necessitates two, and two persons necessitate three. (Witness the creation progression for the completion of mankind). One person cannot exist in isolation. There simply is no such thing as a person-by-itself. E.G., A human being raised by wolves would not have the faculties necessary to constitute a “person”. While the evidence is abundant for this facet of human nature, I think we can deduce from implication and biblical data that the same is true of Divine nature.

When one properly understands the concept “person” it becomes apparent that unity and community (of persons) are not in the least antithetical, but are rather synthetical. This explains why God has found it necessary to create a community of persons to bear His image for eternity.

T

It is readily apparent that the nature of God’s revelation through history has been progressive with regard to the disclosure of His personal nature and His works. Thus, it is not surprising that the post-incarnational and culminating revelation of the NT would reveal greater depth and clarity regarding the One God’s personal nature. One could imagine that the primitive Sinaitic Jews might have been confused by as much in their historical/spiritual context to the degree that they would have falsely separated the persons. Indeed, they demonstrated such a propensity when they manufactured the false god at the base of Sanai, which Egyptology instructs us may have represented a dual God, the calf and its invisible rider. Thus, the unity of God stressed in the OT was not necessarily meant to be analytical of His nature, but rather it was probably intended to identify and stress His distinction from the variety of false deities that surrounded Israel and the exclusive nature of His relationship to His people. Whereas, once God has Himself revealed the Son through the incarnation and the proceeding scriptural witness, and imparted the Spirit unto the believers, it becomes safe to make the distinction on the part of worshipers, for the accurateness and veracity of the distinction is sure.

It may seem contradictory to speak of three persons as one entity and to use a singular pronoun. But this manner of speaking is not any more contradictory than God’s speaking of the people Israel (and the Church) and other nations and groups as singular entities. They are, in fact, singular entities. Israel or the church is a plurality of persons but one people, one temple, one image-bearing entity. YHWH is a plurality of persons but one (and the only) Divinity.

I know my writing is a bit rough and unclear, but supposing you catch my drift, what are your thoughts in response to this line of argument?
Jay Says:

April 12, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Jason,

I just wanted to comment that your blog here, and at onenesspentecostal.com, are refreshing to my mind and spirit beyond belief! i have been involved in apostolic/pentecostalism for going on four years now. i am still wrestling with issues such as baptism in Jesus’ name being essential to salvation, and some theology issues regarding the Godhead. the civility and intellectual appeals from your blogs make me happy and encourage me. just wanted to let you know bro.

Jay
Aaron King Says:

April 14, 2010 at 3:17 pm
I love this blog site! Excellent material and a great read. Well composed and thoughtfully presented. Even the reply comments are intelligent and a good read. Well done.
Hope Says:

April 28, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Your “What is your worldview?” image…may I use it? Where did it come from?

Please let me know.
Thank you and blessings,
Hope
faithinhumanity72@yahoo.com
Francis Says:

June 19, 2010 at 7:30 am
Hi Bro Jason,

I’m Francis, a oneness believer from the Philippines. I have a question and hope u can help me clarify on this matter.

Q: We believe that in Christ, the divine (Father) and human nature are united inextricably and inseparably. Did the Father (divine nature) leave the body of Christ at the point of death on the cross? Is this possible? David Bernard teaches in his oneness of God that the Father left the body of Christ during his death…

I believe that the Father never left the body at death even until Christ burial. The Father that is united inseparably in the flesh suffered the passion and death. And that it was buried also, and it is that Spirit in the dead flesh that resurrected it….is my belief correct or not?

Thank you so much…
Scalia Says:

August 10, 2010 at 12:00 pm
JT writes,

One person necessitates two, and two persons necessitate three.

And three persons necessitate four, and four persons necessitate seven, and seven persons necessitate seven thousand….

Why stop at three? The problem here is your use of the word necessitate. There is no logical necessity attached to a person. Perhaps you meant to use the word implies. Adam was a person prior to Eve, so the claim one cannot be a solitary person is demonstrably false, but the fact he was probably created with reproductive capacity implies, but doesn’t necessitate other persons.

A more ancient Near East idea, on the other hand, portrayed an interdependent and communal entity whose ground of being as a person is found only within the context of a relational community existing around it.

Thus, the idea of person is tied to a compound unity.

You later state this more clearly:

When one properly understands the concept “person” it becomes apparent that unity and community (of persons) are not in the least antithetical, but are rather synthetical. This explains why God has found it necessary to create a community of persons to bear His image for eternity.

Your definitions here are imprecise, which is a common feature of trinitarian apologetics. You use singular personal pronouns for God like “His” and “Himself.” Thus, God is a He. Yet, within God three persons apparently exist in a relational community. If God, as a whole, is a He, and the three persons are themselves, individually, “He,” then there are four “He’s” in the Godhead (a Quaternity, not a Trinity). If God is not a He, then “God” is an abstract term akin to a corporation, with no personal identity except in the three persons that compose this divine corporation (what you later affirm). In that case, God cannot be a He, but an It, except as a figure of speech.

Against this you might argue that each person shares in the one “He” of the Godhead. But if the “He – God” is a composite of three, then God becomes a composite or fractional unity (your position). As classical trinitarians have noted for centuries, the compound is posterior to its components (the components being ontologically prior to the whole), which necessitates an explanation of the whole in terms of its composition. This negates the affirmation the composite is divine. For what is composed cannot be uncaused, nor can it be the first principle of being; its parts are the first principles.

Moreover, if omnipotence is composed, then the omnipotence (along with the other omni-attributes) of each person is contingent upon two other persons (a person is not omnipotent in himself). But three contingent beings cannot compose a non-contingent being. Three fractions cannot create an infinite. If the parts are finite, the whole is finite; if the parts are contingent, the whole is contingent.

You are thus saddled with affirming each person is, in himself, infinite. If that is the case, you have three Gods, by definition. Additionally, it makes your affirmation unintelligible in another way: It affirms each part (which is alleged to be infinite) is equal to the sum of the whole. This is logically unintelligible because the whole is the sum of its parts.

On the other hand, if one argues from the perspective of divine simplicity, then there is no intelligible way there can be three personal relations within a being whose existence is identical with His essence — whose essence is identical with His attributes. If God is entirely simple, having no potency in His being (a being of pure act), it is unintelligible to then insist His being is somehow “divided” among three persons. If each person shares divine essence equally (and that includes the mind of God which is identical with His essence), there can be no “sphere” or “region” of divine substance unique to a person. The “distinction” of persons then becomes a division of persons which ipso facto makes God a composite being (the opposite of simplicity). This is a classical attempt to divide God while insisting God cannot be divided (one in substance, three in relation). If, however, the distinction is one of name or mode, not personality, then you have modalism, not trinitarianism.

It may seem contradictory to speak of three persons as one entity and to use a singular pronoun. But this manner of speaking is not any more contradictory than God’s speaking of the people Israel (and the Church) and other nations and groups as singular entities.

This demonstrates your rejection of divine simplicity. A composite God cannot be God, by definition.

Israel or the church is a plurality of persons but one people, one temple, one image-bearing entity.

One entity, but not one personal being. Corporate status is not personal identity, except in metaphor. God, according to you, is not a personal being; “he” is merely an impersonal club of immaterial beings. Real personal identity is not in God, it is in its constituents. All personal pronouns associated with God are mere personifications. This philosophically self-destructs (per above) because one cannot be commitment to monotheism under a Trinitarian paradigm.
Guillermo Says:

August 18, 2010 at 3:31 pm
hello, i was wondering what you use to write your articles in your website, and for this blog. do you use the web base interface, or some software in your computer?
thanks.
God Bless
jasondulle Says:

August 18, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Guillermo

I use Dreamweaver for my website, and for the blog, I paste my content into the WordPress “new post” box from either a MS Word doc, or from a MS Outlook email (I often write my blog posts in advance and save them in my drafts folder of Outlook).

Jason
Guillermo Says:

August 18, 2010 at 4:55 pm
thanks
JT Says:

August 20, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Cool! Someone responded to my post! Thanks Scalia!

I’d like to respond for the purpose of constructive dialogue, but I don’t want to clutter Jason’s blog with my amateur theosophying any more than I already have.

Perhaps you would allow me to email you a response directly?
jasondulle Says:

August 23, 2010 at 2:07 pm
JT,

Please email me your email address to jasondulle@yahoo.com and I’ll pass it along to Scalia.
C Cook Says:

September 28, 2010 at 11:18 am
So when are you going to start your apologetics page? With the resurgence of Calvinism, it seems like there is a growing number of theological works on the Trinity, and a growing number of popular blogs, calling the oneness view heretical. Unfortunately there is not equal number of scholarly blogs on the oneness view.

Unfortunately many of the student who have came out of CLC and have become scholars have rejected the oneness position. I believe the have because

a. they first rejected our hard stance on salvation (which I am agreement on),

b. but also because it easier to be a trinitarian (and accepted) than one of the oneness persuasion.

Not to say that any came to real belief of the Trinitarian doctrine, (I just don’t see it as the ONLY reason) It is apparent that peer pressure and lack of any strong scholars or strong scholarly pastors in our theological movement is eroding the scholars among us, because there is little room for scholars within the UPC itself. Scholars question everything, while our movement has doctrine of What Type of clothing is actually considered women’s clothing.

In other words, I am looking forward to your apologetics site up and running, and focusing apologetics as it concerns the nature of God. I am just curios to when we’ll start to see it, and if we’ll be seeing it linking to the other scholars in the movement.

Our movement needs it. Many of the young pastors who have come out of our movement and even out of CLC have rejected the idea of only oneness people people saved, but still want to see some strong scholarly work on the oneness position of God. It’s not easy being rejected by your trinitarian or oneness brothers, especially when you hold a high standard of truth and the word of God.
jasondulle Says:

October 19, 2010 at 10:45 am
C Cook,

I have already bought the domain for thinkingtobelieve.com, but I have not put any content up there yet. In the meantime, this blog and onenesspentecostal.com are housing my apologetics material. But when I do get the site up and running, it won’t be about doctrinal apologetics. It will be about Christian apologetics: atheism, the problem of evil, moral relativism, religious pluralism, etc. The kind of content you seem to be looking for is already up at onenesspentecostal.com.

Jason
Scalia Says:

October 25, 2010 at 12:37 pm
For the record, Jason emailed me JT’s email address on August 25th. On the same day, I emailed JT and invited continued dialog. I have yet to hear from him. Of course JT may have valid reasons for not replying, but s/he has not given me any explanation for h/er nonresponse.
Aaron Says:

February 28, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Hi, Jason.

Wasn’t sure how else to contact you. Hopefully you see this soon.

I have a question. I came across a term on this blog that a commentator used to describe a doctrine or idea regarding the level to which Christ was in the Father and the Father was in Christ, especially in a mutual sense. I’d never heard of the term before, so I looked it up. But now, I cannot remember it, nor find it on your blog. I only remember thinking it starts with a “p” and is either an -ism or -logy of some sort from perhaps the 2nd or 3rd century.

Can you help?

Thanks,

Aaron
Jason Dulle Says:

February 28, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Aaron,

I think you are referring to “perichoresis.”

Jason
Aaron Says:

March 3, 2011 at 3:57 pm
That’s it. Thank you!
Pachomius Says:

March 18, 2011 at 4:24 am
May I just suggest that you call your blog instead of Theosophical Ruminations,Theo-philosophical Ruminations.

In that way people will not right away turn away from your blog when it comes up with Google search,* people for example like myself who am not into the writings of theosophists.

Pachomius

*Search Results Science Cannot Identify Uncaused Entities « Theosophical Ruminations 10 Mar 2011 … For example, when scientists detect a new particle such as the neutrino, … If uncaused things can only be identified philosophically, …
theosophical.wordpress.com/…/science-cannot-identify-uncaused-entities/ – Cached
jasondulle Says:

March 18, 2011 at 7:03 am
Pachomius,

Others have mentioned this to me in the past, but I like the word and refuse to let a cult own it. The first time I came across it was while in seminary to describe the confluence of theology and philosophy, and I think it is an apt description. So despite its potential drawbacks, I decided to keep it the way it is.

Jason
Danzil Monk Says:

July 20, 2011 at 10:07 am
Greetings brother Jason, long time I know, but as you I stay quite busy.
Just want to give you a shout out and encourage you in what you do so well.
stay encouraged and focused. I have not forgot our last contact discussion.
I am interested in your take on the topic. I did respond to your email but I don’t know if you received it. I will resend as your input is welcome always.
blessings.
Brother Monk
jasondulle Says:

July 28, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Yes, I did receive it (assuming you are referring to the issue of the age of the universe). I don’t have anything written on the topic to send you.

Jason
Aaron Deskin Says:

November 11, 2011 at 8:36 pm
It seems that you are more of a philosopher than a Christian.

Are you still challenging Oneness on Theological, Salvational, Christological teachings?

Are you holding the Son is God and eternal?

Are you holding the two persons of Jesus doctrine?

Have you been blacklisted yet from UPCI for false teaching yet?\

Aaron
aka Scmit on CARM

Oneness Apostolic Pentecostal Christian
jasondulle Says:

November 15, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Aaron,

I didn’t realize that being a philosopher and being a Christian were antithetical categories. But no, I’m not more of a philosopher than a Christian. My formal training is in theology, not philosophy.

I am doing my best to understand God. If that results in challenging specific formulations of God I think are in error, then so be it. Is there any theologian alive who does not challenge other theologies, including some theologies within the group he associates with? No. If rigorous study leads you to believe everything that someone else believes, one of you isn’t thinking. That’s just the nature of scholarship.

Of course the Son is God and is eternal, if by “Son” you are referring to the divine person who is incarnate.

No, I have never held to a two-persons view of Jesus. I oppose such a view adamantly.

No, not yet. And I don’t expect to be anytime soon. Have you been blacklisted for being so disrespectful yet?

Jason
Susan Says:

November 20, 2011 at 6:24 am
You look handsome for an apologist !
Aaron Deskin aka Scmit Says:

December 14, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Jason you are a philosopher and not much of a Christian if you hold to the trinity doctrine of the Son is God, for to tbe so he must be eternal and that is not what Oneness teach (maybe you pander to them, we don’t).
Oh and is threates of banning and the only way you can win a argument?
Sounds just like a Inquistional Trinitarian as well.
I see your false teachings as teaching two gods!, two persons of Jesus and you slip and slide about the Son, now we have the divine person what inside the human person and you got two persons now?
Maybe you should understand, Jesus is the person ALONE!, the sole person of which is FATHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST!

You think following the common salvation, the one God truth, Spirit baptism, Jeuss name baptism is then following and not thinking as we get it from the Bible and for ourselves and not your mind, then you are not sound at all and teaching your own heresy.

You don’t know what rigorous study is, what you got a few hours as college and that makes you someone, something?
I hope not to see your writings again in print in Oneness magazine, you are a false teacher and a fraud.

on carm SCMIT
JC Lamont Says:

February 12, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Just wanted to say hi and more power to you. I never get used to the Christians pick fights with Christians concept. I’d really like to understand how all Jesus admonitions to love one another get so lost. It’s very sad. Anyway, keep up the good work.
Gordon Says:

June 27, 2012 at 3:31 am
Would you please enter into a web blog subject dealing with the word “nature”? I have seen this word (I beleive) used in ways in which the writer seems to want to project deity by capping the “N” regardless of where it is in the sentence. Further I have read various sentences where the word is used as if to replace the word God (and of course its meaning) and even read the sentences putting “God” in replacing the word ‘Nature’ and it reads just fine. I know there are dictionary definitions (and I could look them up–and have) but I feel this is not what the various authors are portraying. What are your comments on this?
jasondulle Says:

June 27, 2012 at 10:26 am
Gordon,

I agree with you that those who do this tend to see “nature” as the God substitute. I find this telling. While they reject God, they need to find a substitute for Him because His role is necessary in explaining reality. There must be some ultimate being, and they know it. They just don’t want it to be a personal God who makes demands on their life.

Jason
Greg Says:

December 27, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Hey Jason. I am doing some research in the scriptures on who baptized the apostles during Jesus ministry. I am looking at John 3:22 & 4:2. It shows that Jesus didn’t baptized the apostles and John 4:2 is a continuation of John 3:22. Only Paul is mentioned being baptized and we know who did the baptism. What are your thoughts according to the scriptures?
jasondulle Says:

December 28, 2012 at 12:32 am
Hi Greg,

John 3:22 and 4:2 doesn’t rule out the possibility that Jesus baptized the apostles. It only shows that the apostles, rather than Jesus, were baptizing the masses. But it would be odd for the apostles to be baptizing if they themselves had not been baptized. And since disciples of a rabbi were often baptized by the rabbi as a mark of their discipleship, it makes the most sense to think that Jesus had previously baptized the apostles before the events of John 3:22.

Jason
jasondulle Says:

February 27, 2013 at 4:35 pm
Scmit,

You write, “Jason you are a philosopher and not much of a Christian if you hold to the trinity doctrine of the Son is God, for to tbe so he must be eternal and that is not what Oneness teach.” You did not read what I wrote carefully enough. I said, “Of course the Son is God and is eternal, if by ‘Son’ you are referring to the divine person who is incarnate.” My statement was qualified. I didn’t know if you were using “Son” as a synonym for “Jesus” or not. Given your usage of the term, no, the Son is not eternal because “Son” refers to God’s human mode of existence which began just 2000 years ago.

Then you say, “Oh and is threates of banning and the only way you can win a argument?” Again, you need to read more carefully. In response to your previous question, “Have you been blacklisted yet from UPCI for false teaching yet?”, I responded, “No, not yet. And I don’t expect to be anytime soon. Have you been blacklisted for being so disrespectful yet?” So the context was about being banned by someone else, namely the UPC. I was not talking about banning you from my blog, but asking whether you had been banned from the UPC for your disrespectful demeanor.

As for the two persons view you ascribe to me, as I noted in another comment thread (just a few minutes ago):

“I do not hold that the Father and Son are two divine persons, nor that the Father is a divine person while the Son is a human person. When it comes to the Father and Son there is only one person in view. Jesus and the Father are the self-same divine person. So what is there two of? Natures. There is a divine nature and a human nature. Via the human nature He assumed in the incarnation, God is able to personally exist and function as a genuine human being (Jesus) while continuing to exist and function as God (Father) via his divine nature, simultaneously. So there are two natures, which allow for the one divine person to exist in two distinct ways simultaneously. I repeat, “There are not two persons!” Any construal of my theology as teaching two persons – whether two divine persons or one divine person and one human person – are radically off-base.”

Jason
Scmit aka Aaron Says:

February 28, 2013 at 8:22 am
You have made comments to the effect that Oneness follow two persons, do you state that is not what you stated?
I say you did.
Joey Says:

March 18, 2013 at 11:24 am
Hi Jason

I was reading up on the topic raised last year.

‘Stephen Hawking: God Could not Create the Universe Because There Was No Time for Him to Do So’

I am in some what agreement (and puzzlement) with what Arthur says (no.23)

“the ball did not create the indent. Furthermore, no such cushion and ball exists. It’s no more helpful than asking if a toy were made by Santa’s elves, what would it prove about the existence of elves.”

I am slightly agreeing with Arthur because, the point he was raising was that if the ball and cusion scenario was the case then 2 possibilities would occur.

1. The universe would have created the dent in the cushion since it is there and there was no cause.

2. There would be no dent, if these properties were created at the same time in an instant, there may not even be a dent, The ball would have penetrated the cushion.

I understand that this ball and cushion scenario was the scenario sent up by Kant as a route to understanding cause and effect on a logical plane, But as Arthur may have implied, who says that there would have been a dent in the cushion, if you can make up scenarios like that then you can also make up scenarios like what was mentioned (“It’s no more helpful than asking if a toy were made by Santa’s elves, what would it prove about the existence of elves”)

If you want to understand the universe or its origins, then the scenario must be in compliance of the universe or it would not make sense.

Just to clarify, I am a christian and in agreement to what you posted in relation to the creation of the universe, but the point that was raised by Arthur shows that it could be a possibility that cause and effect may not exist on a logical plane

What are your thoughts?
Daniel Williams Says:

April 15, 2013 at 12:42 am
God is eternal; he was not created. The heavens and the earth (creation) are not. They were created. I wonder what God was up to prior to creation. Jason, can you write a post on this topic. We obviously don’t know what God was doing specifically… But if you could come up with some Theosophical Runinations on this topic I would love to read them. Thanks,
jasondulle Says:

April 15, 2013 at 10:36 am
Daniel,

I can answer that here. While I know what you mean by “prior to creation,” technically speaking that is a category error. “Before” is a temporal concept.” Time began with creation, so there is no “before creation.” A better way of describing it is “God without creation.”

So what was God doing? Technically speaking, nothing. If God was doing something, then there would be time because acts require temporal duration. But in eternity, there was no temporal duration, and thus God performed no acts. He was changeless.

Jason
Daniel Williams Says:

April 15, 2013 at 11:00 am
So that’s why God is still “changeless”, because he is simultaneously present in a changeless eternity and in his creation if time?

I was pondering over your reply for several minutes. I understood it completely. But something still had me puzzled on the topic. I think it’s my concept of God doing nothing during his existence of “without his creation”. So I was going to ask, if his thoughts and reasoning process would be considered “acts” that require time. But then I would assume that since God is supreme, and all knowing; that he would not have to reason or think since he already knows; So he therefor, could exist eternally without ever doing anything at all. Is that right?
jasondulle Says:

April 15, 2013 at 11:47 am
Daniel,

Actually, I don’t think God is still changeless. I think the act of creation, being a temporal act, “drew” God into time. God is now omnitemporal, enduring through time alongside His creation. Read http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/divineeternity.htm for the details.

When we think of God doing nothing, we tend to imagine a long period of time passing in which God is static. But there is no passage of time without creation. Without creation, God was just existing timelessly. He didn’t even have mental events. Unlike us, God does not reason discursively. In virtue of His omniscience, He simply knows all truths at once.

Jason
Daniel Williams Says:

April 15, 2013 at 11:59 am
I’ll check out that article.

I believe “He didn’t even have mental events. Unlike us, God does not reason discursively. In virtue of His omniscience, He simply knows all truths at once” is exactly where my thoughts led me at the end of my last reply.

Jason, thanks so much for your insight on this. I appreciate you.