PDA

View Full Version : Is God temporal or atemporal?



God_Is_Truth
March 27th, 2004, 01:23 AM
i am curious as to whether or not the bible shows God as being temporal or atemporal. if anyone needs me to give definitions of these terms just ask.

so, what do you think? temporal, or atemporal?

Turbo
March 27th, 2004, 01:40 AM
Genesis 1 describes God creating over the course of six days, and then ceasing from creating on the seventh day. (And there's nothing in that chapter mentioning the creation of "time.")

God_Is_Truth
March 27th, 2004, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

Genesis 1 describes God creating over the course of six days, and then ceasing from creating on the seventh day. (And there's nothing in that chapter mentioning the creation of "time.")

suggesting that he is which one? temporal or atemporal? does this mean you believe time is not a created thing? in which case it is either eternal or not a thing at all right? which view do you hold?

Lovejoy
March 27th, 2004, 02:58 AM
I connect time with entropy. I do not think entropy is going to be around much when all things are made new. I say atemporal. Although, if Revelation is any judge, his is not atempermental.

Turbo
March 27th, 2004, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

suggesting that he is which one? temporal or atemporal?
Temporal.

does this mean you believe time is not a created thing?
Correct. (But God did create the sun, moon, and stars as means of measuring time.)

in which case it is either eternal or not a thing at all right? which view do you hold? Not a "thing" at all. "Time" is just a result of events occuring in sequence.


God does not exist "outside of time." On page one of the Bible we are introduced to God, reading that He created things in sequence over the course of six days. Then He ceased from creating on the seventh day. He isn't still creating. He wasn't always creating. And He wasn't creating while at the same time resting from creating.

lost anomaly
March 27th, 2004, 11:16 AM
I would like the definitions. Please and thankyou.

Turbo
March 27th, 2004, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Lovejoy

I connect time with entropy. Why?



I say atemporal. Although, if Revelation is any judge, his is not atempermental. :chuckle:

Revelation also speaks of God acting in sequence, opening each the seven bowls and seven seals, etc.
When He opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour. Revelation 8:1

Also, when we read about the new earth and the new Jerusalem, we read about the tree of life yielding fruit every month.
In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit [b]every month.[/i] The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. Revelation 22:2

Turbo
March 27th, 2004, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by lost anomaly

I would like the definitions. Please and thankyou. As I understand God_Is_Truth's question:

Temporal means "in time." God is temporal if He experiences events in sequence, and if His actions and thoughts occur in sequence.

Atemporal means "not in time" or "outside of time." God is atemporal if He exists in a state of "eternal now," existing everywhen simultaneously. He is "present" right now at every point in the past, present and future. If God is atemporal He must be totally immutable, meaning He cannot change in any way whatsoever.

Does this make sense, lost anomaly?

God_Is_Truth
March 27th, 2004, 12:02 PM
Temporal.


ok. that's what i was thinking.



Correct. (But God did create the sun, moon, and stars as means of measuring time.)


so would you agree that the definition of time is merely "duration"?



Not a "thing" at all. "Time" is just a result of events occuring in sequence.


aka duration.



God does not exist "outside of time." On page one of the Bible we are introduced to God, reading that He created things in sequence over the course of six days. Then He ceased from creating on the seventh day. He isn't still creating. He wasn't always creating. And He wasn't creating while at the same time resting from creating.

that actually makes pretty good sense. i started this thread because a friend of mine recently heard a talk about open theism (which i missed unfortunately) and says that all the times God repents in the bible it's taken anthropomorphically because God is atemporal and outside of time. i'm really just looking for some good biblical evidence to try and convince him of otherwise.

Lion
March 27th, 2004, 12:02 PM
The entire bible describes God as being temporal. As Turbo stated, Genesis shows God creating matter, energy, and life, but not time.

We find time everywhere in the bible. Even in heaven.

Besides, if there was any time that had no time, then all time would be in that one time. Enough to make your mind mush like most stupid ideas.

God_Is_Truth
March 27th, 2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

As I understand God_Is_Truth's question:

Temporal means "in time." God is temporal if He experiences events in sequence, and if His actions and thoughts occur in sequence.

Atemporal means "not in time" or "outside of time." God is atemporal if He exists in a state of "eternal now," existing everywhen simultaneously. He is "present" right now at every point in the past, present and future. If God is atemporal He must be totally immutable, meaning He cannot change in any way whatsoever.

Does this make sense, lost anomaly?

exactly.

God_Is_Truth
March 27th, 2004, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Lion

The entire bible describes God as being temporal. As Turbo stated, Genesis shows God creating matter, energy, and life, but not time.

We find time everywhere in the bible. Even in heaven.

Besides, if there was any time that had no time, then all time would be in that one time. Enough to make your mind mush like most stupid ideas.

so why do you think so many people hold a view that God is atemporal?

lost anomaly
March 27th, 2004, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

As I understand God_Is_Truth's question:

Temporal means "in time." God is temporal if He experiences events in sequence, and if His actions and thoughts occur in sequence.

Atemporal means "not in time" or "outside of time." God is atemporal if He exists in a state of "eternal now," existing everywhen simultaneously. He is "present" right now at every point in the past, present and future. If God is atemporal He must be totally immutable, meaning He cannot change in any way whatsoever.

Does this make sense, lost anomaly?

Yes. Thanks turbo.

Lovejoy
March 27th, 2004, 12:23 PM
I don't know, that definition does not sit well with me. Christ said that "before Abraham was born, I am". It has linearity without being temporal. Things go in a row, but are not in the proper tenses. When all things are made new, they will not get old again. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. And I have not even got to God yet. I think we relate to Him temporally now, and with the New Creation, things change. In fact, heaven and earth are supposed to change, perhaps time does as well, and this is a moot arguement.

God_Is_Truth
March 27th, 2004, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Lovejoy

I don't know, that definition does not sit well with me. Christ said that "before Abraham was born, I am". It has linearity without being temporal. Things go in a row, but are not in the proper tenses. When all things are made new, they will not get old again. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. And I have not even got to God yet. I think we relate to Him temporally now, and with the New Creation, things change. In fact, heaven and earth are supposed to change, perhaps time does as well, and this is a moot arguement.

how would you define temporal and atemporal then?

Turbo
March 27th, 2004, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Lovejoy

I don't know, that definition does not sit well with me. Christ said that "before Abraham was born, I am". Jesus was quoting what He had said to Moses (Exodus 3:14), thus claiming to be God.

"I AM" is a perfectly appropriate way for God to identify Himself, because He has existed eternity past, He will continue to exist for eternity future, and His holy and righteous character is unchanging. But none of that means that God exists outside of time. If He did, He would not be able to utter the phrase "I AM." Speaking requires time, or sequence.


When all things are made new, they will not get old again. As in, they will not wear out.

That does not mean that there will be no passage of time! I pointed out a verse that says that in the new creation, the tree of life will yield fruit each month.


Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. ...in his holy and righteous character. But do you agree that He was not always flesh, but that He became flesh? And he was separated from the Father (when he became sin, and then He was later reunited with the Father? That He was alive, and then He died, and then He rose again? And that while He was/is not simultaneously dead and risen? Do you agree that "It is finished," that Jesus is no longer being crucified?


And I have not even got to God yet. Jesus is God the Son.


I think we relate to Him temporally now, and with the New Creation, things change.:chuckle: No pun intended?

Lovejoy
March 27th, 2004, 03:08 PM
I knew this was going to be tougher than it looked at first! Dern' it. Yeah, I agree with your points. My problem is that these arguments are usually to push some kind of theological agenda, and I hate getting caught up in that. I have always looked at the earth (meaning universe rather) as being caught up in a temporal bubble, and the advent of the fleshy Christ as being the Word made flesh in that temporal bubble. That does not mean that actually need that belief, it just makes it simple for me to approach Revelation. You know, I believe that we will measure events in a timely fashion in the New Creation, at the very least so as to keep holy festivals and the like. But I think it will be because it is comfortable to do so.

Where we are parting ways simply has to do with how we see time. I look at it as being a part of entropy, and he gets tossed into the the lake of fire with satan. You are more focused on the linearity of time, which does not go for sure. Linearity is not evil or part of the flesh as far as I know, so there is no reason for it to not continue.

I don't know if God is linear. Mateo and I have been talking about Ecc. and Solomon, and he makes things out to be pretty circular. Even space is supposed to be bent. Light, times second cousin, is twisted in ways I don't understand. For that matter, light is going bye-bye in the next world, to be replaced by the Light of the Holy Spirit. Maybe this is one of those things we will enjoy talking about, but should not plan on understanding.

Tell ya' what. I'll meet there (at the New Creation) and if time is there as well, I'll give you a buck. I should be able to afford it by then. Blessings.

Lovejoy
March 27th, 2004, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

how would you define temporal and atemporal then?

Sounds like you guys have been around this before. I don't have a description of time that makes sense, except for how I relate to it. Temporal has always meant "things not eternal" to me. If time is here, than all things are subject to it, and all things end. When dealing with things that do not end and are not subject to time, I use the word "eternal". I guess atemporal fits as well.

I should probably disqualify myself from the discussion unless you decide to set some operational guidelines for the words. Then I will follow your lead. If I have the time. ;)

Clete
March 27th, 2004, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

so why do you think so many people hold a view that God is atemporal?

It IS because of Calvinism.

Calvinism's basic premis is that God cannot change. Proceeding through time would blow that idea to smitherines.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Balder
March 27th, 2004, 04:41 PM
An unchanging God could not create anything, could He?

Lovejoy
March 27th, 2004, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

It IS because of Calvinism.

Calvinism's basic premis is that God cannot change. Proceeding through time would blow that idea to smitherines.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I won't subscribe to an opinion on this, one way or the other, based on someone elses theology, good or bad. I can't help but feel that making God temporal somehow implies a beginning or an end to Him. When both Christ and God say that They are the "Alpha and the Omega", I assume that They are referring to the fact that They initiated the making of this world, and will also end it in favor of the eternal kingdom of heaven on earth. On the flip side, if They are not subject to time, how and "when" did They decide to make the earth? From now on, I am going to refer to us being in "time", and Them in "Time". We get temporary time, where things start and stop, and they get Eternal Time, which is linear but knows no beginnings or endings. One has the infinite presence of the Holy Spirit, the other one gets entropy.

Of course, my naming it doesn't change it or explain, but it makes me feel better. :)

Lovejoy
March 27th, 2004, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Balder

An unchanging God could not create anything, could He?

But how could something infinite change? Which is to say, if He is unlimited how does He take on new aspects?

I don't absolutely subscribe to the above idea, but the question is there.

Clete
March 27th, 2004, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Lovejoy

But how could something infinite change? Which is to say, if He is unlimited how does He take on new aspects?

I don't absolutely subscribe to the above idea, but the question is there.

Your question seems non-sequitur. Why wouldn't something that was infinite change?

What do you mean by infinite?

I forget who originally asked the following question but I think perhaps it will be appropriate here...

"A flame (a candle flame for example), obviously it is the same flame from one moment to the next, yet it is alive with change, does that make it a different flame?"

Lovejoy
March 27th, 2004, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Your question seems non-sequitur. Why wouldn't something that was infinite change?

What do you mean by infinite?

I forget who originally asked the following question but I think perhaps it will be appropriate here...

"A flame (a candle flame for example), obviously it is the same flame from one moment to the next, yet it is alive with change, does that make it a different flame?"

Inifinite is without boundaries. Where would it get something new? Or how could it lose something, where would it go?

A flame is fed by evolving a substance in a combustion reaction, which means it needs a source. What is the source of God? Technically, a flame is always new, until it runs out of flammables.

Once again, though, we are dealing something far out of our league, as far as full comprehension goes. Mostly, I am making conversation.

lost anomaly
March 27th, 2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

It IS because of Calvinism.

Calvinism's basic premis is that God cannot change. Proceeding through time would blow that idea to smitherines.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I don't know. In my mind if God changed he would cease to be the Christian God. God created the laws of christianity and he above all must keep them or else they would be meaningless. If he changed the laws he has given us, Christianity would be meaningless.

Lovejoy
March 27th, 2004, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by lost anomaly

I don't know. In my mind if God changed he would cease to be the Christian God. God created the laws of christianity and he above all must keep them or else they would be meaningless. If he changed the laws he has given us, Christianity would be meaningless.

To my mind (which does not mean much), the "laws" you refer to are the characteristics of Gods righteousness. If indeed, God were to change in character (which Christ, in several different way, says is impossible), christianity would be meaningless. My fear and trust of the Lord is based in my faith of His unwavering righteousness. He is absolutely trustworthy, and therefore, absolutely unwavering in His character.

Does that leave room for change? If He is "slave" to His own character (I am stealing a little from my friend Lightson), than He is limited. If He is limited, He may be subject to time. Hence, there may be parts of Him that can change.

Hows that for circular reasoning? I managed to paint myself into corner and had to knock the wall out to get free. Your turn.

Turbo
March 27th, 2004, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by lost anomaly

I don't know. In my mind if God changed he would cease to be the Christian God. God created the laws of christianity and he above all must keep them or else they would be meaningless. If he changed the laws he has given us, Christianity would be meaningless. lost anomaly,
Clete, God_Is_Truth, and I are not suggesting that God's righteous and holy character changes.

Righteousness does not change. God does not arbitrarily decree what is right and what is wrong. God could not change his mind and decide that rape is right.

However, our God is not a stone idol. He is the Living God, and even perfect living things change. Our God is relational. He chose to give His man true free will, and God is able to respond to His creation's choices, decisions, and actions.

Would you like a couple examples of God changing in some ways (while maintaining his righteous and holy character)? Or better yet, can you think of any examples?

lost anomaly
March 27th, 2004, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Lovejoy

To my mind (which does not mean much), the "laws" you refer to are the characteristics of Gods righteousness. If indeed, God were to change in character (which Christ, in several different way, says is impossible), christianity would be meaningless. My fear and trust of the Lord is based in my faith of His unwavering righteousness. He is absolutely trustworthy, and therefore, absolutely unwavering in His character.

Does that leave room for change? If He is "slave" to His own character (I am stealing a little from my friend Lightson), than He is limited. If He is limited, He may be subject to time. Hence, there may be parts of Him that can change.

Unless time is just a duration that has no end, therefore not limiting Him. Does that make sense?


Hows that for circular reasoning? I managed to paint myself into corner and had to knock the wall out to get free. Your turn.
I've already done that.

Turbo
March 27th, 2004, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by lost anomaly

Unless time is just a duration that has no end, therefore not limiting Him. Does that make sense? :up:

Lovejoy
March 27th, 2004, 10:25 PM
Quote:
Unless time is just a duration that has no end, therefore not limiting Him. Does that make sense?

All things are made new at some point, excepting the Almighty Himself. The problem with time is that is seems to be mutable, such as dilation at light speed. I know that there are people doing crazy things with it now, dinking with light beams traveling through absolute zero temperatures (ever seen light travel, I mean slow it down until it is visible? They can do that now.) If it is mutable, than it exists. If it exists, than it will change with the crashing boom of the heavens and the earth. No, I am back to thinking that the time we see here is just an analog of the Time we will see there, just like everything else around here. I know that is still not helpful, sorry.

lost anomaly
March 27th, 2004, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Lovejoy

No, I am back to thinking that the time we see here is just an analog of the Time we will see there, just like everything else around here. I know that is still not helpful, sorry.

But is it an analog of what God sees? That's the key.

Is it possible God's perception of time is different then our own? After all I'm sure if we wanted to we could put 62 seconds in a minute if we wanted to. After all aren't we the ones who institued the system of marking the duration of time?

Turbo
March 27th, 2004, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Lovejoy

Where we are parting ways simply has to do with how we see time. I look at it as being a part of entropy, and he gets tossed into the the lake of fire with satan. You are more focused on the linearity of time, which does not go for sure. Linearity is not evil or part of the flesh as far as I know, so there is no reason for it to not continue. Do you believe that entropy is a result of the Fall?


For that matter, light is going bye-bye in the next world, to be replaced by the Light of the Holy Spirit.Actually, light won't go bye-bye, but our main source of light will change (as you pointed out).

This distiction reminds me of a problem that often arises when discussing God and time. Sometimes people confuse methods of measuring time with time itself.

For instance, Genesis 1 states that God created the sun, the moon, and the stars to divide the day and the night, for seasons, etc. So He created means of measuring the passage of time, but He did not create time itself. In fact these means for tracking time were created on the fourth day of creation.

Lovejoy
March 27th, 2004, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by lost anomaly

But is it an analog of what God sees? That's the key.

Is it possible God's perception of time is different then our own? After all I'm sure if we wanted to we could put 62 seconds in a minute if we wanted to. After all aren't we the ones who institued the system of marking the duration of time?

When I say analog, I am just leaping into purely speculative space. No facts to burden me, buddy. What I mean is, what we have here is just a version of what God deals with. Since He can foretell all (His prophecy does not fail) I assume that we were built around a finite time, rather, a time that is limited in duration and variability. His, I imagine, is not. Ours seems to limit our options. I can't imagine His doing that.

As far as putting 62 seconds into anything, I sure we could. But I am not talking about clocks. I am talking about entropy, mutability, and linearity. Mostly, I want to know what the heck we are going to be dealing with after New Jerusalem. I think this thread was started to deal with a doctrinal issue, though. I am stepping on toes, I fear, and have drug things off subject.

Lovejoy
March 27th, 2004, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

Do you believe that entropy is a result of the Fall?

Actually, light won't go bye-bye, but our main source of light will change (as you pointed out).

This distiction reminds me of a problem that often arises when discussing God and time. Sometimes people confuse methods of measuring time with time itself.

For instance, Genesis 1 states that God created the sun, the moon, and the stars to divide the day and the night, for seasons, etc. So He created means of measuring the passage of time, but He did not create time itself. In fact these means for tracking time were created on the fourth day of creation.

This is where things get weird. I think that the Light of the Spirit is something other than light (useless, I know, but I am picky, picky, picky), rather it is a spiritual clarity that will guide us. Our light is subject to heat and gravity. I don't "see" that with the light of the Spirit. But that is just silly speculation that makes the day go by.

Entropy is so tied to death, and death goes I am sure. That is in Revelation. What made the world go round before the fall? I think entropy was just waiting outside the Garden, held off by Gods presence. Perhaps that is a good case for the exisitence of capital T Time.

How do we seperate time from subjectivity? He created things in the first day, and then invented days later? Very tough. We are still stuck between linearity and immutability. You say things still go in a row after the New, I agree. Is this time? I don't know.

Turbo
March 27th, 2004, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by lost anomaly

But is it an analog of what God sees? That's the key.

Is it possible God's perception of time is different then our own? After all I'm sure if we wanted to we could put 62 seconds in a minute if we wanted to. After all aren't we the ones who institued the system of marking the duration of time?

But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:8-9Since God is all knowing and all powerful, there is no limit to what he can accomplish in an instant. And since He is eternal, He can work and plan on a much longer timetable than we do in our short lives. In that way, "God's perception of time" is quite a bit different than ours. But He still exists in time just like the rest of reality.

It might be somewhat analogous to the differences between the way a young child and an older adult perceive time. To a four-year-old, a year seems like forever. It is a great percentage of his life. But to an older adult, the years just seem to fly by. The difference becomes especially apparent in the fall. To the child, it seems like Christmas will never get here. Meanwhile, the adult can't believe that Christmas is coming up so quickly. "It seems like it was just here!"

Lovejoy
March 27th, 2004, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:8-9Since God is all knowing and all powerful, there is no limit to what he can accomplish in an instant. And since He is eternal, He can work and plan on a much longer timetable than we do in our short lives. In that way, "God's perception of time" is quite a bit different than ours. But He still exists in time just like the rest of reality.

It might be somewhat analogous to the differences between the way a young child and an older adult perceive time. To a four-year-old, a year seems like forever. It is a great percentage of his life. But to an older adult, the years just seem to fly by. The difference becomes especially apparent in the fall. To the child, it seems like Christmas will never get here. Meanwhile, the adult can't believe that Christmas is coming up so quickly. "It seems like it was just here!"

Einstein as Christian apologist? Why not, it is relevant to the issue. God invented relativity for us, didn't He. Perhaps that is the only difference. Good thinking.

Turbo
March 27th, 2004, 11:19 PM
I think Einstein was among those who confused the measurement (or perception) of time for time itself.

Clete
March 28th, 2004, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

I think Einstein was among those who confused the measurement (or perception) of time for time itself.

This is a good point.
Einstein said that time slowed with increased speed. But actually there is no way to tell if it is time itself that has changed or if it is the instruments with which we measure time that have changed. A temporal change is fundamentally immeasurable because we have nothing to measure it by except by what physical changes have occurred. So there is no way to say for sure that anything is going on outside of what we can see physically. In other words, if someone doesn't age as quickly as someone else, is it because time has slowed down for them or because they are physically different in some way? If you say, as Einstein did, that it is the former, then you have no way of proving it which Einstein himself readily admitted. He was convinced that time itself was changed primarily because of the eloquence of the mathematics involved not by any experimental evidence or proof.

Great discussion, by the way!

Resting in Him,
Clete

geoff
March 28th, 2004, 02:31 AM
I would say that God is OMNItemporal.

That is, He is both IN and OUT of time.


The essence of God is timeless, outside and apart from time.
The Trinity is the manifestation of God inside in time, in order that he might interact with His creation.

and of course, I am always right :)

and extremely modest.

Clete
March 28th, 2004, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by geoff

I would say that God is OMNItemporal.

That is, He is both IN and OUT of time.


The essence of God is timeless, outside and apart from time.
The Trinity is the manifestation of God inside in time, in order that he might interact with His creation.

and of course, I am always right :)

and extremely modest.

Have any Scripture to back this sort of an idea up with?

I have a t-shirt that says...
"I'm not opinionated, I'm just always right!"
The shirt fits me quite well! ;)

Resting in Him,
Clete

lost anomaly
March 28th, 2004, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Have any Scripture to back this sort of an idea up with?


I would like to see the back-up too.

Lovejoy
March 28th, 2004, 01:37 PM
I think that he is in my shoes: shootin' at everything until he hits something that makes sense.

How many people think that God created the universe already in progress, as in real time began having to play catch-up with subjective time?

lost anomaly
March 28th, 2004, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Lovejoy

How many people think that God created the universe already in progress, as in real time began having to play catch-up with subjective time?

I'm not usre I understand the question.

Lovejoy
March 28th, 2004, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by lost anomaly

I'm not usre I understand the question.

That's because it does not make any sense:confused:

What I meant, if I understand myself, was: did God start the universe with the light of the stars already hitting the earth, with the galaxies already in motion, and the universe expanding. From our perspective, it should have taken billions of subjective years. Did it? Or did He start it in that shape already, so that we would perceive that this time has passed, when it had not?

lost anomaly
March 28th, 2004, 02:20 PM
Now I'm all confused. Forget I said anything.

Lovejoy
March 28th, 2004, 02:23 PM
Only if you forget what I said first!

Clete
March 28th, 2004, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Lovejoy

That's because it does not make any sense:confused:

What I meant, if I understand myself, was: did God start the universe with the light of the stars already hitting the earth, with the galaxies already in motion, and the universe expanding. From our perspective, it should have taken billions of subjective years. Did it? Or did He start it in that shape already, so that we would perceive that this time has passed, when it had not?

I don't think that one could come to any other conclusion than that the universe was created in a state of maturity. It wouldn't make sense to do it any other way. For example, Adam and Eve would have had basically nothing to eat without fruit bearing trees around. They would have gotten quite hungry having to wait until the seedlings grew to maturity. Also God brought all the animals to Adam to see what he would call them. I don't think that it would make any sense to think that all the animals were anything but fully mature adult specimens just as Adam and Eve themselves were.

Resting in Him,
Clete

BTW - That passage I just mentioned about God bringing the animals to Adam "to see what he would call them" is an interesting passage to ponder when discussing whether or not God can change or if He exists outside of time.
How would a statement about God having to see what would happen, fit into a view of God that has Him outside of time?
There are several passages of this nature in the Old Testement. I think its pretty safe to say that Moses did not think of God as existing outside of time.

geoff
March 28th, 2004, 08:28 PM
It seems to me that no one can prove that God much about this subject from Scripture.

Scripture doesnt provide a definitive teaching on the subject. We have a few statements in Scripture, and logic and reasoning to figure it out.

In regards to Genesis.

Scripture doesnt *say* time existed before creation.
Consider this simple arguement from logic.

If time exists for God prior to creation, when did God begin? God is infinite, having no beginning nor end. So then, how did God get from an infinite time ago to the point of creation? He cant do that, its illogical.

Some might say, well, we can take the point of creation and measure back infinity from there. But thats begging the point. God didnt begin at creation and go backwards an infinite succession of durations. If God is in time, He moved FORWARD an infinite succession of durations to the creation point.

Some might then so, Ok, God doesnt measure time like we do. Ok I can live with that, because to all intents and purposes, time as we know it doesnt exist for the eternal, pre-existant essence of God from whom creation sprung forth.

But then, they say, God, if He is timeless, can not relate to humanity, because we are in time. True. He cant. And only Trinitarian Deists have the answer to this. With creation, began the neccessity for measuring "durations" - or "successions". Thus we are told God called them day, and night.
With creation time began, time was not created. Time is the result of the creation of a universe.
In order to interact with His Creation, in fact, we find it visible in the act of creation, God manifests Himself in time in three ways, the Father/Creator, The Son/Word, and the Spirit/Power.

Thus God is out of time, but is *in* time in the form of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God is OMNItemporal. He occupies time and outside Time.

God_Is_Truth
March 28th, 2004, 10:28 PM
geoff,

that actually makes pretty good sense.

geoff
March 29th, 2004, 02:51 PM
Why.. thanks :)

Its about time I made sense :P

lost anomaly
March 29th, 2004, 03:05 PM
At least somebody is :)

philosophizer
March 29th, 2004, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

I don't think that one could come to any other conclusion than that the universe was created in a state of maturity. It wouldn't make sense to do it any other way. For example, Adam and Eve would have had basically nothing to eat without fruit bearing trees around. They would have gotten quite hungry having to wait until the seedlings grew to maturity. Also God brought all the animals to Adam to see what he would call them. I don't think that it would make any sense to think that all the animals were anything but fully mature adult specimens just as Adam and Eve themselves were.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I agree. I but I think it's only a "mature" universe because that's what we want to call it. It's only because we've decided that it looks old. We look deep into space and see what looks like an expanding universe. And then we extrapolate some imagined "big bang" to explain why the universe looks like it's expanding. And then, since the big bang must have happened several billion years ago (judging by the expansion), then we begin to assume that the universe must look old. And then we ask why God created a new universe that looks so deceptively old. But really, we only think that because we've already decided that universal expansion assures a big bang and that must have happened a very long time ago. It's a very backwards logic.

geoff
March 29th, 2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by philosophizer

I agree. I but I think it's only a "mature" universe because that's what we want to call it. It's only because we've decided that it looks old. We look deep into space and see what looks like an expanding universe. And then we extrapolate some imagined "big bang" to explain why the universe looks like it's expanding. And then, since the big bang must have happened several billion years ago (judging by the expansion), then we begin to assume that the universe must look old. And then we ask why God created a new universe that looks so deceptively old. But really, we only think that because we've already decided that universal expansion assures a big bang and that must have happened a very long time ago. It's a very backwards logic.

Fact is, we dont know how long it was from creation to the fall. There is no specified time. Also, Adam was sinless, and living in a body that should have been "eternal" - I expect time didnt pass the same for him as it does for us. Our life expectancy is say 70 years. We get to 40, and the days go past so quick. Imagine how fast and insignificant a day is when you are 400, or 900, or 1500 years old.

God_Is_Truth
March 29th, 2004, 07:57 PM
perhaps this should be a new thread in the general theology forum?

Lovejoy
March 29th, 2004, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

perhaps this should be a new thread in the general theology forum?

Dang, I think he wants his thread back. I will have something on topic to say later (I have homework right now), and Turbo, I will see you in GT!

Turbo
March 29th, 2004, 08:37 PM
:doh: oh yeah. Sorry, GIT.

I split this thread. Discuss "the Fall" here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13564).

God_Is_Truth
March 29th, 2004, 09:45 PM
that's alright guys. just didn't want us too off topic for too long ;)

godrulz
March 29th, 2004, 10:54 PM
Time is succession, duration, sequence. It is not a thing nor a place. It is an aspect of any personal beings experience, including God.

'Eternal Now' is a philosophical concept from ?Philo to Augustine to Calvin, etc. Timelessness is illogical.

God experiences an endless duration of time (eternity) with no beginning and no ending. This is a requirement of will, intellect, emotions, acts, etc.

The present exists, the past is fixed, and the future is not yet (even for God).

lost anomaly
March 30th, 2004, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by godrulz


The present exists, the past is fixed, and the future is not yet (even for God).

Unless everything is predestined then the future is .

Swordsman
March 30th, 2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

Time is succession, duration, sequence. It is not a thing nor a place. It is an aspect of any personal beings experience, including God.

'Eternal Now' is a philosophical concept from ?Philo to Augustine to Calvin, etc. Timelessness is illogical.

God experiences an endless duration of time (eternity) with no beginning and no ending. This is a requirement of will, intellect, emotions, acts, etc.

The present exists, the past is fixed, and the future is not yet (even for God).

So you're saying God is not eternal, right? He lives in time?

OMEGA
March 30th, 2004, 02:49 PM
LOVEOFJOY said:

What I meant, if I understand myself, was: did God start the universe with the light of the stars already hitting the earth, with the galaxies already in motion, and the universe expanding. From our perspective, it should have taken billions of subjective years. Did it? Or did He start it in that shape already, so that we would perceive that this time has passed, when it had not?
=========================

Answer: NO , God started the Starmaking Machines which over

Billions of years compressed the Gas that was already in the Universe

and formed Billions of Stars to light the Darkness.

God_Is_Truth
March 30th, 2004, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

So you're saying God is not eternal, right? He lives in time?

i think it depends on how you define eternal. and what you believe time to be.

i believe eternal to be has always been and will always will be and that obviously includes being now. kinda the whole "necessary existence" deal. God must exist and by that definition, he is eternal.

as for time, i like how godrulz put it as being "succession, duration, sequence.". thus, it's not a created thing. so, perhaps you could say he lives "in" it but really there's nothing to live "in".

thats how i think i see it.

Swordsman, do you believe God is temporal or atemporal?

philosophizer
March 30th, 2004, 03:24 PM
"Is God temporal or atemporal?"


Yes. :D

God_Is_Truth
March 30th, 2004, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by philosophizer

"Is God temporal or atemporal?"


Yes. :D

:darwinsm:

godrulz
March 30th, 2004, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by lost anomaly

Unless everything is predestined then the future is .

True. It seems that there are 2 motifs in Scripture (Dr. Gregory Boyd 'God of the Possible"). Some of the future is predestined (e.g. the first and second coming of Christ...hence the Calvinist proof texts), and some of the future is open (free moral choices of moral agents, hence Open Theism).

It is an unnecessary assumption to assume all the future is fatalistically predestined (Calvinism, Islam...'sovereign, meticulous control' or foreknowledge=Arminian). Free will is genuine and does not make God less sovereign (providential vs meticulous control would be a better understanding).

philosophizer
March 30th, 2004, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by godrulz
'Eternal Now' is a philosophical concept from ?Philo to Augustine to Calvin, etc. Timelessness is illogical.

Yes, timelessness is illogical. But so is an everlasting being experiencing time without beginning or end. Both ideas defy logic. Yet one of them has to be true.

All we can derive from that paradox is that "logic" is a construct which cannot escape our limited universe. There's no way to fully understand the logic of either argument on logic alone, because the logic begins to break down. And when that happens, all we can do is turn to the Word of God.

We shouldn't be so quick to assert either argument. We just simply cannot understand them.

godrulz
March 30th, 2004, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

So you're saying God is not eternal, right? He lives in time?

Time is not a thing or place that God 'lives' in. It is not a created thing, but an aspect of His experience (duration). He is everlasting, eternal (no beginning, no end...the problem is the pagan philosophical influence that says eternity means timelessness...this is contrary to Hebrew word studies and understandings of God being from everlasting to everlasting... Ps. 90:2 "BEFORE the mountains were born...from everlasting to everlasting you are God." (i.e. eternal=uncreated)

"A Treatise on Time and Space" - J.R. Lucas (p. 3)

"Time is more fundamental than space. Indeed, time is the most pervasive of all the categories. Some theologians say that God is outside time, but it cannot be true of any personal God that He is timeless, for a personal God is conscious, and time is a concomitant (accompany) of consciousness. Time is not only the concomitant of consciousness, but the process of actualization and the dimension of change....Time is connected with persons, both as sentient beings and as agents; it is connected with modality, and the passage of the open future to the unalterable past..."


"God and Time: 4 views" IVP ed. Gregory Ganssle

1) Divine Timeless Eternity -Paul Helm ? (Calvinistic; Augustinian)

2) Eternity as Relative Timelessness - Alan Padgett (Lutheran) ?

3) Timelessness and Omnitemporality - William Lane Craig ? (maybe....timeless in eternity past; temporal after creation; Open View camp)

4) * (seems to resonate with reality and revelation) Unqualified Divine Temporality - Nicholas Wolterstorff (I emailed him once) (Open View) *

godrulz
March 30th, 2004, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by philosophizer

Yes, timelessness is illogical. But so is an everlasting being experiencing time without beginning or end. Both ideas defy logic. Yet one of them has to be true.

All we can derive from that paradox is that "logic" is a construct which cannot escape our limited universe. There's no way to fully understand the logic of either argument on logic alone, because the logic begins to break down. And when that happens, all we can do is turn to the Word of God.

We shouldn't be so quick to assert either argument. We just simply cannot understand them.

There is a difference between something that is difficult to fully comprehend, and that which is a logical contradiction or absurdity. God cannot be timeless and experience time at the same time.

The simplist understanding is that timelessness does not make sense if God is personal, since He would not be able to think, feel, or act (all require sequence). Eternity as everlasting duration is cogent and consistent with Scripture. Timelessness has its roots in pagan philosophy.

Swordsman
March 30th, 2004, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

i think it depends on how you define eternal. and what you believe time to be.

i believe eternal to be has always been and will always will be and that obviously includes being now. kinda the whole "necessary existence" deal. God must exist and by that definition, he is eternal.

as for time, i like how godrulz put it as being "succession, duration, sequence.". thus, it's not a created thing. so, perhaps you could say he lives "in" it but really there's nothing to live "in".

thats how i think i see it.

Swordsman, do you believe God is temporal or atemporal?

God is atemporal. He is not limited by time. He created the concept of time. He is outside of time. Before Abraham was, I AM.

godrulz
March 30th, 2004, 04:14 PM
Jn. 8:58 shows the preexistence of Christ. Before Abraham existed, the uncreated Word always existed.

cf. Jn. 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word..."

When there was a beginning (creation), the eternal Word was already existing ('was' = imperfect tense= continuous vs punctiliar/aorist past tense). Again, it teaches preexistence and uncreatedness, not a concept of timelessness.

Time is linear and unidirectional moving from the present into the 'future' becoming the fixed past.

Time is not a limitation on God. He never dies and is not limited to doing one thing at a time in one place (like mortals). This does not mean that He is 'in' the past, present, and future at the same time ('eternal now'= absurdity).

God_Is_Truth
March 30th, 2004, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

God is atemporal. He is not limited by time. He created the concept of time. He is outside of time. Before Abraham was, I AM.

are there any other verses you know of to support the idea of an atemporal God besides the "I AM" reference?

godrulz
March 30th, 2004, 04:21 PM
'Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End, First and Last' imply endless duration (no beginning, no end), not timelessness.

philosophizer
March 30th, 2004, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

There is a difference between something that is difficult to fully comprehend, and that which is a logical contradiction or absurdity. God cannot be timeless and experience time at the same time.

Both sides of the argument can be reduced into absurdity.

On one side:
God is said to be timeless or "existing outside of time." But how would an atemporal God interact with temporal beings when an interaction requires a sequence?


On the other side:
God is said to be eternal or everlasting, meaning that He always has been and always will be, but He experiences "time" just like everything. But what was He doing before He created the universe? How long was it before He created it? In this view, either God had a beginning or He has existed infinitely into the past.

--If He has a beginning-- What brought God into being? And why?

--If He has existed infinitely into the past-- Did He do other things before He created the universe? Does an "infinite past" make any logical sense? And if time is simply a measurement of change, would time have existed without a universe to cause changes?

**If God was the only thing that existed before the universe, then would time have existed?

**If yes** Then, since time is only a measurement of change, God must have been changing somehow. That means He must have been doing something. What could He have been doing before the universe? Is that logical?

**If no** Then God was not changing. That means He wasn't doing anything. If He was not doing anything, could we even say that He existed? If not, then He did in fact come into existence when He started doing things. Is that logical?



Both arguments can be reduced into absurdity where they no longer make any logical sense. Does that mean neither are True? No. It just means the "logic" is not the proper tool to use here.

godrulz
March 30th, 2004, 05:15 PM
Karl Barth emphasized that God is known in acting.

God is the First Cause, the uncreated Creator. This is known by relelation (not reason, though it is not unreasonable) and is an absolute of wonder. It is difficult to fathom, and causes us to worship Him as God in all His glory.

God is not a solitary being. He reveals Himself as Triune: one God (essence/nature) with 3 personal distinctions (Father, Son, Spirit). Before the universe was created, there was communication, thought, feeling, love, fellowship, etc. in the triune Godhead.

The subjective measure of time at creation (space-time history measured by sun, moon, clocks, etc.) is not a prerequisite for the reality of succession, duration, sequence experienced by the Godhead from all eternity.

One view is more consistent with reason and revelation. What appears to be illogical to both views is probably a lack of understanding or not thinking through the implications of each view from a philosophical or theological viewpoint.

Lovejoy
March 30th, 2004, 07:30 PM
Is, then, the function of time for God to give linearity to His actions?

godrulz
March 30th, 2004, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Lovejoy

Is, then, the function of time for God to give linearity to His actions?

Time was not 'created' to assist God. It is merely an inherent reality of His existence. One cannot listen to Beethoven's symphonies all at once. This would be incoherent cacophony. Actions, thoughts, emotions all presume sequence, duration, succession to have any meaning for a personal Being. For example, creation occurred at a specific point in God's history (and ours). It is not co-eternal with Him (despite the Mormon's false idea that matter, not God, is eternal).

Lovejoy
March 30th, 2004, 10:39 PM
Quote: One cannot listen to Beethoven's symphonies all at once. This would be incoherent cacophony. Actions, thoughts, emotions all presume sequence, duration, succession to have any meaning for a personal Being.

And yet God hears all our prayers at once, sees all our deeds at once, etc. There are billions of us, and He manages. Not only that, but He knows future deeds (He is the God of prophecy, after all). Does not mean I think you are wrong, I just would like you to expound on this part.

godrulz
March 30th, 2004, 11:11 PM
The omnicompetent God (all-wise, all-powerful, omnipresent, etc.) can and does listen to billions of conversations at once in a coherent way. This is not parallel to all notes of a sequential work of music being played all at once vs measure after measure. God can listen to multiple symphonies at once, but it is a logical contradiction to imply these symphonies would be meaningful if their playing took place in one instant rather than over a period of time.

I would suggest that God knows some of the future as a certainty/actuality (that which He intends to bring to pass by His ability vs 'foreknowledge') and other aspects as possibilities/uncertainties in the realm of free will moral and mundane choices (hence, the openness of God's creation vs openness of God). Some prophecy is unilateral and unconditional, while other prophecies are contingent or conditional on man's responses.

A possible definition of omniscience is that God knows all that is knowable (logically possible to know). cf. omnipotence means that God can do all that is doable...He cannot do logically contradictory things like creating a rock so big that He cannot lift it or make a square a circle at the same time.

Philosophically, it is not possible to know future free will, contingent (may or may not happen) moral/mundane choices as a certainty/actuality until they are made. Before that, they are correctly known as a possibility. This is not a deficiency in omniscience, but God knowing reality as it is (truth).

Thank you for your humility, Lovejoy...or are you laying a trap for me?

Swordsman
March 31st, 2004, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by godrulz

'Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End, First and Last' imply endless duration (no beginning, no end), not timelessness.

It is only our downfallen nature to not understand the truth of eternity outside of time (i.e. timelessness). We cannot comprehend it, but that does not make it untrue.

godrulz
March 31st, 2004, 08:12 AM
My feeling is that timelessness is speculative, rather than the simple revelation of God's reality and relationship to creation in Scripture.

e.g. There was silence in heaven for 1/2 hour. This is an example of time in eternity.

Swordsman
March 31st, 2004, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by godrulz

My feeling is that timelessness is speculative, rather than the simple revelation of God's reality and relationship to creation in Scripture.

e.g. There was silence in heaven for 1/2 hour. This is an example of time in eternity.

You are correct in how you see it. I'm not denying you at all. We cannot interpolate anything outside of time. We are bound by time. God is not. Even Webster's dictionary mentions timelessness as a synonym for eternity.

godrulz
March 31st, 2004, 01:47 PM
Webster was a believer, but must have accepted the traditional view of timeless eternity. This is not a theological dictionary, and does not mean it is an accurate understanding (which must come from Scripture and godly philosophy).

We are limited, and God is not. Time is not a limitation on God, but an aspect of His existence.

Swordsman
March 31st, 2004, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

Webster was a believer, but must have accepted the traditional view of timeless eternity. This is not a theological dictionary, and does not mean it is an accurate understanding (which must come from Scripture and godly philosophy).

We are limited, and God is not. Time is not a limitation on God, but an aspect of His existence.

Then what is your point? God lives in time somehow? How does have an effect on you if you truly believe this? If He does live in time, how can He possibly be sovereign over all things? He is bound by time as you say it. He doesn't know everything either?

godrulz
March 31st, 2004, 06:54 PM
Time is not space/place, so God does not 'live' in time. Personal beings experience sequence, duration, succession (time). This is reality, not a limitation.

God_Is_Truth
March 31st, 2004, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

Then what is your point? God lives in time somehow? How does have an effect on you if you truly believe this? If He does live in time, how can He possibly be sovereign over all things? He is bound by time as you say it. He doesn't know everything either?

why wouldn't he be sovereign? he's still be omniscient as well, but the change would be how he knows things, not what he knows.

OMEGA
March 31st, 2004, 10:07 PM
Goddrulzzzzz said:

'Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End, First and Last' imply endless duration (no beginning, no end), not timelessness.
----------------------------

Did someone mention my name ?

Alpha means Beginning , Omega means end.

So, how can you say that it means Endless when it means the End.

(Rev 22:13 KJV) "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

(Rev 21:6 KJV) "And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely."

This statement by Jesus is referring to the Gospel Procession.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

God is not a solitary being.

He reveals Himself as BIUNE, the Father and the Son.

Before the universe was created, there was communion,

thought, feeling, love, fellowship, Mindmelding in the Biune Godhead.


The objective measure of time at creation (space-time history measured by sun, moon, Atomic clock.) is a prerequisite for the reality of succession, duration, sequence experienced by the Godhead from all eternity.

In other words All Living Beings live INSIDE time

= God and Man.

:thumb: :angel:

Lovejoy
March 31st, 2004, 10:29 PM
Quote: Thank you for your humility, Lovejoy...or are you laying a trap for me?

HAHAHAAHAH! My trap is sprung..........................I got nuthin'.

Good possibilities, all. I will come back later and actually respond. Thanks.

lost anomaly
April 1st, 2004, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

There is a difference between something that is difficult to fully comprehend, and that which is a logical contradiction or absurdity. God cannot be timeless and experience time at the same time.

Who says he can't?

godrulz
April 1st, 2004, 10:35 PM
These concepts are mutually exclusive. Either God is a timeless 'eternal now', or He experiences duration, sequence, succession (the past, present, and future are valid for God and us). He cannot be timeless and experiencing time...it is either/or. This is not a limitation on God, but a description of the way He experiences reality.

1+1=2; 1+1 never equals 5.

God_Is_Truth
April 1st, 2004, 11:20 PM
on that note, i just finished listening to a talk a guy gave last week at a college ministry on open theism (i wasn't able to attend but got the cd). his position basically came down to thomism which he used to try to destroy open theism. IMO he did a horrible job. some quotes:


Open theism claims:

1) God chose to create creatures with the kind of freedom in which he cannot exercise total control.
2) God’s knowledge is limited to the present and the past

neither of these are true. God CAN excercise total control in this universe but CHOOSES not to. so it's not that he CANT its that he WONT. and the God of open theism DOES know the future. the difference is HOW it's known, as possibilites not actualities. so right off the bat, this guy has misconceptions about open theism :down: :nono:


Isaiah 41:21-24

To be divine, show them the future

Knowing the future in an essential aspect of a divine being.

here he tried to use Iasiah 41:21-24 to show that to be divine means that God has foreknowledge of the future.

21 "Present your case," says the LORD .
"Set forth your arguments," says Jacob's King.
22 "Bring in your idols to tell us
what is going to happen.
Tell us what the former things were,
so that we may consider them
and know their final outcome.
Or declare to us the things to come,
23 tell us what the future holds,
so we may know that you are gods.
Do something, whether good or bad,
so that we will be dismayed and filled with fear.
24 But you are less than nothing
and your works are utterly worthless;
he who chooses you is detestable.

and again, open theism affirms that God knows the future, the difference is in HOW the future is known.


Open theists insist evangelicals take the bible at face value

Uses Sodom and Gomorrah to say that God is ignorant of the past if taken at face value

Uses Abraham “now I know” to say God is ignorant of the present"

here he attempted to show that if we take the bible at face value then God is ignorant of the past and present. both of these are taken care of and explained here

http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/Custom/4/Documents/beltstudies.htm



Bible is not a book in philosophy or systematic theology. Is a dealing in man’s life. Describes God in human terms-walking, hearing etc. are metaphors. Leads to the god of Mormonism.

Unwelcome conclusions of open theism: physical body parts, ignorance of the past, ignorance of the present


as i've already shown, the open view of God does NOT lead us to the god of mormonism and does not portray God as having physical body parts, ignorant of the past and ignorant of the present.

he then went into some philosophical areas but used his thomism to wish them away to nothing. here is a summary statement of why God can know our decision and have us still be free



God does not believe anything “in advance”.
God knows things from eternity. He is a timeless, unchanging, immutable. Thus, he doesn’t foreknow anything. Including human free acts. God “sees” in eternity what free creatures are freely doing. God lives in “pure present”. God has all of his life at once. Can’t measure him in time. Every event in time is present to God in eternity.


however, he gives absolutely NO support for his idea of this "timeless, eternally present all at once" God. i see absolutely no reason to accept it as such given the nature of time: succession, duration, sequence.

so, in summary, this guy misrepresents the position of open theism, uses a passage of scripture to defeat his strawman which gains him nothing and then gives his belief of thomism as reason that open theism is philosophically incorrect. :doh:

Swordsman
April 2nd, 2004, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

why wouldn't he be sovereign? he's still be omniscient as well, but the change would be how he knows things, not what he knows.

I guess you have to really dig down and research what Sovereignty is all about. God created the heavens and the earth. He CREATED it ALL. He is the author of time. He even had a plan for the Trinity. Why do you think Jesus Christ the Son exists? The Holy Spirit? The angels? Satan? He knows. And I believe we do to. We often just can't accept the fact He knows everything. He injects Himself into time, but is not bound by time.

It is only our downfallenness that we cannot understand that God had a plan for us before the world began.

2 Thessalonians 2:13
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

God_Is_Truth
April 2nd, 2004, 09:58 AM
but you see, i don't believe time to be a created thing. i don't see it as a thing at all. it's just a concept. it's duration. it's not something one "makes" at all. so i don't hold that God is the author of time.

i'm curious as to what you are saying about the trinity though. are you saying that God wasn't always a trinity? or just in reference to the incarnation?

i also hold that God chose us from the beginning. but the difference is that i believe the "us" is a group of people and unspecific. in other words, God chose this group of people, whoever ends up being in the group, for salvation from the beginning. i believe the group was chosen, but not who makes up the group.

but i don't see how any of this would make God any less sovereign.

godrulz
April 2nd, 2004, 12:01 PM
I concur that corporate vs individual election is in view in most predestination passages.

philosophizer
April 2nd, 2004, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

These concepts are mutually exclusive. Either God is a timeless 'eternal now', or He experiences duration, sequence, succession (the past, present, and future are valid for God and us). He cannot be timeless and experiencing time...it is either/or.


I don't know if we can honestly say that those things are mutually exclusive. It would seem mutually exclusive for someone to be both fully God and fully man at the same time, yet Christ was.

Arguing about the "nature" of time and how it pertains to God won't prove anything because the premise remains unproven. The best arguments have always come from the authority of God's word, not from theories about the nature of existence.

Swordsman
April 2nd, 2004, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
but you see, i don't believe time to be a created thing. i don't see it as a thing at all. it's just a concept. it's duration. it's not something one "makes" at all. so i don't hold that God is the author of time.

Genesis 1:3-5
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


i'm curious as to what you are saying about the trinity though. are you saying that God wasn't always a trinity? or just in reference to the incarnation?

Correct, I'm just referring to the incarnation. The Trinity always has been and always is.


i also hold that God chose us from the beginning. but the difference is that i believe the "us" is a group of people and unspecific. in other words, God chose this group of people, whoever ends up being in the group, for salvation from the beginning. i believe the group was chosen, but not who makes up the group.

So you believe in corporate election. Why does Paul in Romans 9 address figures such as Pharoah, Esau, and Jacob? Were they not individually picked out (elected or not elected)?

Mark 13:20
And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

If corporate election is true, then this would mean "but for the sake of all humanity he has shortened the days". Doesn't make much sense to phrase it this way. Its very clear election is of the individual sense.


but i don't see how any of this would make God any less sovereign.

He either is or isn't sovereign. Meaning He is in control of all things. He doesn't have to respond because His will always comes to pass. Then you may ask, "Does God create evil?"

Proverbs 16:4
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

The answer, of course, is yes.

God_Is_Truth
April 2nd, 2004, 01:07 PM
Genesis 1:3-5
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


the dividing of the light and dark created us a way to measure duration. if you wish to say that in this instant time was created then i ask how did God create without time? don't you agree that it takes time to create something? all actions take time do the not? even if it's just a moment. so, seeminly, if time is a thing, then it would take time to create it. but that leads to nonsense which is why i hold that time is not a thing which can be created.



Correct, I'm just referring to the incarnation. The Trinity always has been and always is.


:thumb:



So you believe in corporate election. Why does Paul in Romans 9 address figures such as Pharoah, Esau, and Jacob? Were they not individually picked out (elected or not elected)?

Mark 13:20
And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

If corporate election is true, then this would mean "but for the sake of all humanity he has shortened the days". Doesn't make much sense to phrase it this way. Its very clear election is of the individual sense.


Paul used the decision of God to have the messiah go through Jacob and not Esau on the basis of His sovereign right as evidence that God has the right to make the basis of who enters into his kingdom be faith.



He either is or isn't sovereign. Meaning He is in control of all things. He doesn't have to respond because His will always comes to pass. Then you may ask, "Does God create evil?"

Proverbs 16:4
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

The answer, of course, is yes.

sov·er·eign ( P ) Pronunciation Key (svr-n, svrn)
n.
One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as:
A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch.
A national governing council or committee.
A nation that governs territory outside its borders.
A gold coin formerly used in Great Britain.

why would sovereign mean "in control of all things"? :confused:

but even if we did, surely you agree that there is a difference between "being in control of all things" and "controlling all things" right?

as for the verse about evil, my interpretation is that all people are made by God, even those who have become wicked. i do not hold that God created them as evil beings. that would seem to go against God's goodness.

God Bless

God_Is_Truth

Clete
April 2nd, 2004, 02:16 PM
It seems to me that everybody is just talking past one another here, stating and restating our own respective positions. In an attempt to break through the mud we seem stuck in on this topic I would like to pose a question to the Calvinists.

What would it mean if God DID NOT exist outside of time?
Whether time actually exists or not, is just a semantic issue with respect to this question. In other words I'm not looking for a why or how as to God's existence outside of time.
Just assume that by whatever means, God exists outside of time and explain what you think would be the ramifications of such a truth.

Also, if one of your answers is "It would mean that God is not Sovereign.", then please explain why that necessarily is so. Just don't leave pat answers unsubstantiated.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Swordsman
April 2nd, 2004, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

the dividing of the light and dark created us a way to measure duration. if you wish to say that in this instant time was created then i ask how did God create without time? don't you agree that it takes time to create something? all actions take time do the not? even if it's just a moment. so, seeminly, if time is a thing, then it would take time to create it. but that leads to nonsense which is why i hold that time is not a thing which can be created.

To us, time is a nescessity to create anything. To God it isn't. Why do you say God cannot act outside of time? You say God is omniscient. Then He must have to exist also in a different realm in order to make provisions for the future.


Paul used the decision of God to have the messiah go through Jacob and not Esau on the basis of His sovereign right as evidence that God has the right to make the basis of who enters into his kingdom be faith.

Correct. It was God's free will to love Jacob and hate Esau. The wind blows where it pleases.




sov·er·eign ( P ) Pronunciation Key (svr-n, svrn)
n.
One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as:
A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch.
A national governing council or committee.
A nation that governs territory outside its borders.
A gold coin formerly used in Great Britain.

why would sovereign mean "in control of all things"? :confused:

It does not do God any justice to define His Sovereignty by a dictionary reference.


but even if we did, surely you agree that there is a difference between "being in control of all things" and "controlling all things" right?

A difference? No. God has written the script. Now, it is just playing itself out.


as for the verse about evil, my interpretation is that all people are made by God, even those who have become wicked. i do not hold that God created them as evil beings. that would seem to go against God's goodness.

I think you have to understand the fall of man before you jump to these conclusions. Man is utterly wicked anyway. Pharoah was raised to power so that God would show His power by destroying the Egyptian armies. And what about Judas? He played his part in the handing over of Jesus, just like Jesus had foretold. Judas was a disciple, but obviously not one of the elect.

Swordsman
April 2nd, 2004, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

It seems to me that everybody is just talking past one another here, stating and restating our own respective positions. In an attempt to break through the mud we seem stuck in on this topic I would like to pose a question to the Calvinists.

What would it mean if God DID NOT exist outside of time?
Whether time actually exists or not, is just a semantic issue with respect to this question. In other words I'm not looking for a why or how as to God's existence outside of time.
Just assume that by whatever means, God exists outside of time and explain what you think would be the ramifications of such a truth.

Also, if one of your answers is "It would mean that God is not Sovereign.", then please explain why that necessarily is so. Just don't leave pat answers unsubstantiated.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Uh, well, I like the way GIT and I are conversing. Why do we have to play by your rules?

godrulz
April 2nd, 2004, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by philosophizer

I don't know if we can honestly say that those things are mutually exclusive. It would seem mutually exclusive for someone to be both fully God and fully man at the same time, yet Christ was.

Arguing about the "nature" of time and how it pertains to God won't prove anything because the premise remains unproven. The best arguments have always come from the authority of God's word, not from theories about the nature of existence.

I concur that the Word is the authority. The simple, straightforward reading of Scripture shows God and man moving through history. His Story predates ours, but it still involved unidirectional 'time'. Timelessness/'eternal now' concepts have their roots in Greek speculative philosophy and influenced Augustine. The Hebraic view is one of endless duration. From everlasting to everlasting, He is God.

The incarnation/kenosis does not have a mutually exclusive component, since it is reasonable that the Word/Son could take on humanity= one person with 2 natures (cf. we have a spirit and body).

Clete
April 2nd, 2004, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

Uh, well, I like the way GIT and I are conversing. Why do we have to play by your rules?

You don't. You have free-will, exercise it.

I'm just asking a question, no one is saying you have to answer if you choose not to, and if even you did answer my question, there is no requirement to end the parallel conversation with GIT.

Resting in Him,
Clete

lost anomaly
April 2nd, 2004, 03:38 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

but you see, i don't believe time to be a created thing. i don't see it as a thing at all. it's just a concept. it's duration. it's not something one "makes" at all. so i don't hold that God is the author of time.[QUOTE]

I like you defintion of time in that it is a concept. I completely agree.

God_Is_Truth
April 2nd, 2004, 03:54 PM
To us, time is a nescessity to create anything. To God it isn't. Why do you say God cannot act outside of time? You say God is omniscient. Then He must have to exist also in a different realm in order to make provisions for the future.


why can't God act outside of time?-there's nothing to act outside of. it's impossible to be outside of something that doesn't exist, no matter how powerful you are.

hmm. why must he exist sometime else to make provision for the future? why couldn't he make provision for every possible future back all the way at creation?



Correct. It was God's free will to love Jacob and hate Esau. The wind blows where it pleases.


well remember that Paul was using Jacob and Esau in reference to whom the messiah's line would be through, not about who got saved and who didn't.

and yes, i agree the wind most certainly blows wherever it pleases.



It does not do God any justice to define His Sovereignty by a dictionary reference.


could you show me where the bible defines sovereign as "in control of all things"?



A difference? No. God has written the script. Now, it is just playing itself out.


i see a big difference between "in control of all things" and "controlling all things". i can be "in control" of a situation withough "controlling everything in the situation". my power or authority would could guaruntee things going as i wanted them to go but that wouldn't mean i need to control every aspect of what went on in the situation.

can you see the difference?



I think you have to understand the fall of man before you jump to these conclusions. Man is utterly wicked anyway. Pharoah was raised to power so that God would show His power by destroying the Egyptian armies. And what about Judas? He played his part in the handing over of Jesus, just like Jesus had foretold. Judas was a disciple, but obviously not one of the elect.

while i don't think God raised pharaoh solely for destroying the Egyptian armies, it's certainly a reason. Judas was certainly not one of the elect shown be the verse in John which says Satan entered him. i don't believe Satan can enter the elect.

God bless.

God_Is_Truth

Lovejoy
April 2nd, 2004, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

but you see, i don't believe time to be a created thing. i don't see it as a thing at all. it's just a concept. it's duration. it's not something one "makes" at all. so i don't hold that God is the author of time.

i'm curious as to what you are saying about the trinity though. are you saying that God wasn't always a trinity? or just in reference to the incarnation?

i also hold that God chose us from the beginning. but the difference is that i believe the "us" is a group of people and unspecific. in other words, God chose this group of people, whoever ends up being in the group, for salvation from the beginning. i believe the group was chosen, but not who makes up the group.

but i don't see how any of this would make God any less sovereign.

In an effort to be unhelpful, which really isn't much work for me, I would state that if time is not a created thing, then our ability to relate to it is. If it is an aspect of God (He is linear and, as such, so are we), then it is an aspect that we work with for less ably then He. If that is true, then we can only understand this aspect as well as He allows us, just as we only come to Him under His terms. What, then, are our chances of coming to any kind of real conclusion here?

God_Is_Truth
April 2nd, 2004, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Lovejoy

In an effort to be unhelpful, which really isn't much work for me, I would state that if time is not a created thing, then our ability to relate to it is. If it is an aspect of God (He is linear and, as such, so are we), then it is an aspect that we work with for less ably then He. If that is true, then we can only understand this aspect as well as He allows us, just as we only come to Him under His terms. What, then, are our chances of coming to any kind of real conclusion here?

well, the question i guess that comes to mind for me is this: do we think God would purposely hide some of how reality is from us? or would he make things look one way and in reality be another?

perhaps. but i look at scripture, and the way i perceive things around me and base my conclusions off that; first scripture, then reality.

but in the end, everything could be completely wrong. but i don't believe God has done that.

hope that helps.

God Bless.

Lovejoy
April 2nd, 2004, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

well, the question i guess that comes to mind for me is this: do we think God would purposely hide some of how reality is from us? or would he make things look one way and in reality be another?

perhaps. but i look at scripture, and the way i perceive things around me and base my conclusions off that; first scripture, then reality.

but in the end, everything could be completely wrong. but i don't believe God has done that.

hope that helps.

God Bless.

I will concur that what we can glean from scripture has to be true, if it of the Holy Spirits prompting. However, I wonder if we are given the faculties to understand it all? Would full comprehension preclude faith? Nonetheless, what is being determined here is something that is very scriptural, and needed, so I would say that some part of it has to be knowable. My question was mostly meant as an idea teaser. My next question would be: did Calvin have enough knowledge to establish his opinion on Gods relation to time?

Clete
April 2nd, 2004, 04:43 PM
Alrighty then, If you don't wish to answer my on topic question, then lets discuss your off topic signature.

You quote me as saying...

"ALL PEOPLE, that is you and me and everyone else is damned to hell apart from faith is Christ, homo's included. People who commit the crime of having sex with a person of the same gender should be executed. If they repent and accept Christ before their execution has been carried out then they will be saved just as the thief on the cross was but that doesn't mean that their sentence should not still be carried out."

A quote, by the way, that I not only acknowledge as mine but that I stand behind and proudly so on the basis of scripture.

You think that I am an idiot for saying such a thing?
Well, let’s find out who the idiot is!

Do you support the execution of murderers?
Would you support the execution of someone who molested your daughter?
How about a man who raped your wife, would you let him go or would rather see him justly executed?

And here is the most important question...

On what do you base your answers to these questions?

Don't you dare say the Bible! Because the same One who said execute murders also said to execute homosexuals. The same One who said to execute rapists also said to execute adulterers. The same One who said to execute those who have sex with animals also said to execute those who would rape your child.
An eye for eye was God's idea, not mine. If you don't like it take it up with Him, but personally, I think that makes you the idiot.

Resting in Him,
Clete

lost anomaly
April 2nd, 2004, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
animals also said to execute those who would rape your child.
An eye for eye was God's idea, not mine. If you don't like it take it up with Him, but I personally think that makes you the idiot.



Just out of curiosity, didn't Jesus sort of....revamp that law?

Turbo
April 2nd, 2004, 04:49 PM
No, but that is a common misconception. Jesus did not correct, update, or abolish any law. He clarified the Law.

Turbo
April 2nd, 2004, 04:52 PM
(I wish I could go into more detail, lost anolamy, but I don't have time right now... And I probably won't be on much this weekend. Maybe Clete will give you a more thorough answer.)

lost anomaly
April 2nd, 2004, 05:02 PM
ok. I just remember reading something about it though nad the verse seems to elude me...drat.

Lovejoy
April 2nd, 2004, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by lost anomaly

Just out of curiosity, didn't Jesus sort of....revamp that law?

I know what you are hinting at, and you are right. If you look in Isaiah and Psalms, you will see where the greatest men to worship God show us Gods heart. Isaiah showed us how the Sabbath, and fasting in general, where to relieve the burden placed on man, and create justice. But some still used it to work their slaves even harder. David showed us how God wanted contrition and love more than he wanted burnt offering.

Jesus brought the heart of the law, Gods heart, to the rest of us.

Does not mean that there are no rules, though. We just have to exercise much more personal conscienciousness. We have more truth now, and more will be expected of us. I, personally, hope only in Gods grace, since only the Holy Spirit could possibly guide us in such issues. Goodness knows I can't.

Clete
April 2nd, 2004, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by Lovejoy

I know what you are hinting at, and you are right. If you look in Isaiah and Psalms, you will see where the greatest men to worship God show us Gods heart. Isaiah showed us how the Sabbath, and fasting in general, where to relieve the burden placed on man, and create justice. But some still used it to work their slaves even harder. David showed us how God wanted contrition and love more than he wanted burnt offering.

Jesus brought the heart of the law, Gods heart, to the rest of us.

Does not mean that there are no rules, though. We just have to exercise much more personal conscienciousness. We have more truth now, and more will be expected of us. I, personally, hope only in Gods grace, since only the Holy Spirit could possibly guide us in such issues. Goodness knows I can't.

Fortunately the Holy Spirit has done just that by having the Bible written.
Forgive my sarcasm, I'm not trying to insult you at all, its just that saying such things are somewhat meaningless when you really boil it down. After all, do you have any Scripture that suggests that we should not execute murders, adulterers, rapist, child molesters, homos, etc.?
No, on the contrary...
1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully; 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

If you would like to read a thorough treatment of the issue go here (http://www.enyart.com/features/writings/death.shtml).

Resting in Him,
Clete

Duder
April 7th, 2004, 04:54 AM
It is very odd how some posters can't go very long without bring up the need to kill folks. And I can't help but wonder - why does killing seem to be such a pressingly important issue, no matter what the thread is about?