Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Watson on the Duration of Eternity
Theological Institutes | 1821 | Richard Watson

Posted on 02/09/2004 2:50:37 PM PST by The Grammarian

On this subject of the eternal duration of the Divine Being, many have held a metaphysical refinement. "The eternal existence of God," it is said, "is not to be considered as successive; the ideas we gain from time are not to be allowed in our conceptions of his duration. As he fills all space with his immensity, he fills all duration with his eternity; and with him eternity is nunc stans, a permanent now, incapable of the relations of past, present, and future." Such, certainly, is not the view given us of this mysterious subject in the Scriptures; and if it should be said that they speak popularly, and are accommodated to the infirmity of the thoughts of the body of mankind, we may reply, that philosophy has not, with all its boasting of superior light, carded our views on this attribute of the Divine nature at all beyond the revelation; and, in attempting it, has only obscured the conceptions of its disciples. "Filling duration with his eternity" is a phrase without any meaning: "For how can any man conceive a permanent instant, which co-exists with a perpetually flowing duration? One might as well apprehend a mathematical point co-extended with a line, a surface, and all dimensions." (Abernethy's Sermons.) As this notion has, however, been made the basis of some opinions, which will be remarked upon in their proper place, it may be proper briefly to examine it.

Whether we get our idea of time from the motion of bodies without us, or from the consciousness of the succession of our own ideas, or both, is not important to this inquiry. Time, in our conceptions, is divisible. The artificial divisions are years, months, days, minutes, seconds, &c. We can conceive of yet smaller portions of duration, and whether we have given to them artificial names or not, we can conceive no otherwise of duration, than continuance of being, estimated as to degree, by this artificial admeasurement, and therefore as substantially answering to it. It is not denied but that duration is something distinct from these its artificial measures; yet of this every man's consciousness will assure him, that we can form no idea of duration except in this successive manner. But we are told, that the eternity of God is a fixed eternal now, from which all ideas of succession, of past and future, are to be excluded; and we are called upon to conceive of eternal duration without reference to past or future, and to the exclusion of the idea of that flow under which we conceive of time. The proper abstract idea of duration is, however, simple continuance of being, without any reference to the exact degree or extent of it, because in no other way can it be equally applicable to all the substances of which it is the attribute. It may be finite or infinite, momentary or eternal, but that depends upon the substance of which it is the quality, and not upon its own nature. Our own observation and experience teach us how to apply it to ourselves. As to us, duration is dependent and finite; as to God, it is infinite; but in both cases the originality or dependence, the finity or infinity of it, arises not out of the nature of duration itself, but out of other qualities of the subjects respectively.

Duration, then, as applied to God, is no more than an extension of the idea as applied to ourselves; and to exhort us to conceive of it as something essentially different, is to require us to conceive what is inconceivable. It is to demand of us to think without ideas. Duration is continuance of existence, continuance of existence is capable of being longer or shorter, and hence necessarily arises the idea of the succession of the minutest points of duration into which we can conceive it divided. Beyond this the mind cannot go, it forms the idea of duration no other way; and if what we call duration be any thing different from this in God, it is not duration, properly so called, according to human ideas; it is something else, for which there is no name among men, because there is no idea, and therefore it is impossible to reason about it. As long as metaphysicians use the term, they must take the idea: if they spurn the idea, they have no right to the term, and ought at once to confess that they can go no farther. Dr. Cudworth defines infinity of duration to be nothing else but perfection, as including in it necessary existence and immutability. This, it is true, is as much a definition of the moon, as of infinity of duration; but it is valuable, as it shows that, in the view of this great man, though an advocate of the nunc stans, the standing now of eternity, we must abandon the term duration, if we give up the only idea under which it can be conceived.

It follows from this, therefore, that either we must apply the term duration to the Divine Being in the same sense in which we apply it to creatures, with the extension of the idea to a duration which has no bounds and limits, or blot it out of our creeds, as a word to which our minds, with all the aid they may derive from the labours of metaphysicians, can attach no meaning. The only notion which has the appearance of an objection to this successive duration, as applied to him, appears wholly to arise from confounding two very distinct things; succession in the duration, and change in the substance. Dr. Cudsorth appears to have fallen into this error. He speaks of the duration of an imperfect nature, as sliding from the present to the future, expecting something of itself which is not yet in being, and of a perfect nature being essentially immutable, having a permanent and unchanging duration, never losing any thing of itself once present, nor yet running forward to meet something of itself which is not yet in being. Now, though this is a good description of a perfect and immutable nature, it is no description at all of an eternally-enduring nature. Duration implies no loss in the substance of any being, nor addition to it. A perfect nature never loses any thing of itself, nor expects more of itself than is possessed; but this does not arise from the attribute of its duration, however that attribute may be conceived of, but from its perfection, and consequent immutability. These attributes do not flow from the duration, but the extent of the duration from them. The argument is clearly good for nothing, unless it could be proved, that successive duration necessarily implies change in the nature; but that is contradicted by the experience of finite beings—their natures are not at all determined by their duration, but their duration by their natures; and they exist for a moment, or for ages, according to the nature which their Maker has impressed upon them. If it be said that, at least, successive duration imports that a being loses past duration, and expects the arrival of future existence, we reply, that this is no imperfection at all. Even finite creatures do not feel it to be an imperfection to have existed, and to look for continued and interminable being. It is true, with the past, we lose knowledge and pleasure; and expecting in all future periods increase of knowledge and happiness, we are reminded by that of our present imperfection; but this imperfection does not arise from our successive and flowing duration, and we never refer it to that. It is not the past which takes away our knowledge and pleasure; nor future duration, simply considered, which will confer the increase of both. Our imperfections arise out of the essential nature of our being, not out of the manner in which our being is continued. It is not the flow of our duration, but the flow of our natures which produces these effects. On the contrary, we think that the idea of our successive duration, that is, of continuance, is an excellency, and not a defect. Let all ideas of continuance be banished from the mind, let these be to us a nunc semper stans, during the whole of our being, and we appear to gain nothing—our pleasures surely are not diminished by the idea of long continuance being added to present enjoyment; that they have been, and, still remain, and will continue, on the contrary, greatly heightens them. Without the idea of a flowing duration, we could have no such measure of the continuance of our pleasures, and this we should consider an abatement of our happiness. What is so obvious an excellency in the spirit of man, and in angelic natures, can never be thought an imperfection in God, when joined with a nature essentially perfect and immutable.

But it may be said, that eternal duration, considered as successive, is only an artificial manner of measuring, and conceiving of duration; and is no more eternal duration itself than minutes and moments, the artificial measures of time, are time itself. Were this granted, the question would still be, whether there is any thing in duration, considered generally, or in time considered specially, which corresponds to these artificial methods of measuring, and conceiving of them. The ocean is measured by leagues; but the extension of the ocean, and the measure of it, are distinct. They, nevertheless, answer to each other. Leagues are the nominal divisions of an extended surface, but there is a real extension, which answers to the artificial conception and admeasurement of it. In like manner, days, and hours, and moments, are the measures of time; but there is either something in time which answers to these measures, or not only the measure, but the thing itself is artificial—an imaginary creation. If any man will contend, that the period of duration which we call time, is nothing, no farther dispute can be held with him, and he may be left to deny also the existence of matter, and to enjoy his philosophic revel in an ideal world. We apply the same argument to duration generally, whether finite or infinite. Minutes and moments, or smaller portions, for which we have no name, may be artificial, adopted to aid our conceptions; but conceptions of what? Not of any thing standing still, but of something going on. Of duration we have no other conception; and if there be nothing in nature which answers to this conception, then is duration itself imaginary, and we discourse about nothing. If the duration of the Divine Being admits not of past, present, and future, one of these two consequences must follow,—that no such attribute as that of eternity belongs to him,—or that there is no power in the human mind to conceive of it. In either case the Scriptures are greatly impugned; for "He who was, and is, and is to come," is a revelation of the eternity of God, which is then in no sense true. It is not true if used literally; and it is as little so if the language be figurative, for the figure rests on no basis, it illustrates nothing, it misleads.


TOPICS: Religion & Science; Theology
KEYWORDS: eternity; everlasting
From Watson's Institutes, Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 4.
1 posted on 02/09/2004 2:50:38 PM PST by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: xzins; P-Marlowe; winstonchurchill; SoothingDave; Corin Stormhands; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; ...
Ping
2 posted on 02/09/2004 2:51:53 PM PST by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
How is "time" a "divine attribute"? Is God the perfection of time? Is He the source of time? Is He time personified?

It relates back to his eternity, in that it is everlasting duration.

What is this all supposed to mean? How is "time" an attribute of God in the same way "mercy" might be?

Sorry, it would seem those examples only confused the case. The point was not that 'time' was comparable to 'wisdom' and 'mercy' but that time is an uncreated concept straight from God's own mind.

3 posted on 02/09/2004 2:56:14 PM PST by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian
Wow, my head hurts.

I can't imagine Peter and Paul sitting around a campfire toasting marshmellows discussing the duration of God.
4 posted on 02/09/2004 4:44:06 PM PST by HarleyD (READ Your Bible-STUDY to show yourself approved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian
God is infinite. We humans are finite, so grasping the duration of eternity is not necessarily possible.

Excuse my not having an exact reference, but awhile ago I read a book, "One Minute After You Die: A Preview of Your Final Destination" by by Erwin W. Lutzer (Moody Publishers). If memory serves correctly, he said to try to conceptualize how long eternity is, think of a planet on a distant galaxy; think of a little bird here on earth taking a grain of sand in its beak and flying to that planet, returning for another grain, etc. After the bird had taken one whole beach, the first iota of eternity would not yet have passed.

It's either a message of life unto life or death unto death.

As Keith Green sang, I hope you find out before it's too late, that there's really nobody else, you know it's breaking His heart the longer you wait, and you're only lying to yourself. No one believes a thing you say, not even you. You know you're gonna find out that He's the Way, no matter which way you choose. I pray you find out by His love for you.
5 posted on 02/09/2004 5:04:23 PM PST by EvaClement
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EvaClement
God is infinite. We humans are finite, so grasping the duration of eternity is not necessarily possible.

Did you even read the article? The article wasn't about grasping how long eternity is, but what is meant by 'duration.' And what's with the Keith Green song? (For that matter, who is Keith Green?)

6 posted on 02/09/2004 5:12:55 PM PST by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian
Another excellent does of Watson. I think he nails it. One cannot do away with duration and succession without impugning Scripture.
7 posted on 02/09/2004 6:07:52 PM PST by winstonchurchill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill
Have you been reading the replies I've gotten in this and the "Eternity of God" thread? It's like I'm stepping on a sacred cow for some of these people, given their responses. Gah....
8 posted on 02/09/2004 6:41:27 PM PST by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian
Bookmarked.
9 posted on 02/09/2004 6:50:32 PM PST by Corin Stormhands (www.wardsmythe.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian
It's like I'm stepping on a sacred cow for some of these people, given their responses

Yes, I noticed a certain desperation in their responses.

10 posted on 02/09/2004 6:50:49 PM PST by winstonchurchill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson