What is good?
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
eveningsky339
New member
For the sake of simplicity, let's say the ten commandments are good. Therefore the opposite of the ten commandments is evil.
One cannot develop a proper theodicy (problem of evil) without understanding God's character and ways, as well as irrevocable, but finite freedom that He gives to creatures in His image.
An omnicausal view of sovereignty impugns God's character, so part of the answer must lie with free moral agents who are able to and allowed to reject God's will and purposes (Lk. 7:30).
i.e. the Bible presents a warfare vs blueprint worldview
Gregory Boyd's "Satan and the problem of evil" is an interesting perspective on this age old question.
http://www.amazon.com/Satan-Problem-Evil-Constructing-Trinitarian/dp/0830815503
(look inside for contents)
Lon
Well-known member
Too much looking, instead go to Boyd's page for the overview then read Boyd's fellow Baptist SBC member, John Piper (a pdf study on the topic) or this one (an analysis of Boyd's book).
He gives Boyd good marks for this work overall and shows minimal concern over his exegesis on this particular doctrine.
T_A_Crider
New member
Excuse me Lon, but that last link you submitted is not an analysis of Boyd's entire book. Instead, it is a [very] brief analysis of two chapters about eternal suffering & annihilation. Moreover, I am not so sure I would call this an analysis. A more precise word would be "review," and a [brief] review of only 40 pages out of about 400 pages. This hardly can be considered an analysis, and doesn't even come close to overturning the central thesis of the book.
Lon
Well-known member
I'm not sure what the point is here.
Amiable approach, perhaps review is a better term. I'll consider it.
Analytical approach: All this over the word analysis? I suppose I deserve it for being pedantic with the OV definition of omniscience but I think this is splicing hairs for no apparent reason. Didn't I say Piper didn't appear to have major problems? What is your point?
analysis: a form of literary criticism in which the structure of a piece of writing is analyzed (not exclusive, but certainly not all-inclusive either-I reject your narrow definition).
Pick which one meets your intention most objectively. It seems there is rhetoric for the second but I'd like to believe the best and hope for the first as suitable.
oftenbuzzard
New member
assuranceagent
New member
Last edited:
assuranceagent
New member
:shut:
The eternal, triune God experienced love relationships before creation. Love, communication, fellowship are eternal in the being of God (triune).
I recognize Gary B., but who is the other guy? You or Clete?
Lon
Well-known member
I debated whether to trade jabs. You have one premise that cannot be defeated because of stubbornness and a bit of an Aristotle-delusion. Just one. You believe 'your' logic infallible or at least act as if the premise is true. The center of your objection to everything I said comes from this. I assert you nor I have perfect logic therefore some things in this life will never make sense in this economy. You will acquiesce this of course, but the difference is where we are drawing the line. I'm comfortable with dichotomy and mystery. Even OV carries much of the same whether it actually eliminates some or not. I assess that it doesn't and makes others in its wake.
From two years ago I said this:
There is perfect math, but no man a perfect mathematician.
Similarly, there is perfect logic, but no man a perfect logician.
We are completely dependent upon the Spirit for placing us firmly in Logic and it is a process in all other respects as conforming to His image. This is exactly why I don't ever call you stupid. I don't believe in 'stupid' Christians but for perhaps the exception of those still on milk (I'd use other terms, however). They may not have the same grasp of a truth, but for His grace alone, we are only a step or two ahead if we are at all. I see growing in logic as part of our reconstruction. Losing objectivity in sin means we must, as new creatures, seek His realities and adjust our own thinking appropriately. When I come to a dichotomy or logical incongruity, I stop and wrestle but not all answers are apparent.
For two years I've wrestled with trying to prove that God is atemporal.
I've known it to be true, but have only recently come to a consideration that I believes presses the truth. My logic needed more information to come to an answer.
A line represents eternity. The arrows mean that God has no beginning and no end, they point to what we cannot draw.
<____________________________________>
Somewhere along eternity past and future we were created.
<__________________0_________________>
Along the line we can plot points and segments:
<____________.__.__.__0__.__.__._____________>
Each of the segments can express a portion of duration: time considerations.
God has never had a beginning. If He were ruled by duration and sequence, the earth would never have been created and here is why.
<_________________________________________________>
First of all, eternity is without end (both directions). As far back as our minds can take us, God is before that. If we exponentially produce numbers increasing by trillions, there is never a time that is expressed for the part of the line we see. Wherever and whenever we stop, even if we allowed computers to crunch numbers for a billion-trillion years, we'd not even be able to distinguish a pixel in comparison with a line that stretch from here to Pluto because eternity past is beyond comprehension.
<__________<_____________________<_________________>
This pattern repeats to infinity. If it is necessary for God to move sequentially in duration, the earth would never have been formed because there is never a time from eternity past that the sequence would reach the point of creation. Why? Because no matter how far you go back, there is always going to be trillions and trillions of durations and sequences progressing because He never had a beginning. In other words, if God were incapable of escaping sequence and duration, 'Now' would never take place for the mere fact that an eternal past cannot ever reach a time called now.
Why God must also be foreknowing. Since it is impossible for God to be considered as progressing through time, He also cannot be constrained to future considerations of duration. This means what God knows, is not contingent upon time parameters. Again, if He could not exist outside of it, the earth would never have been formed because there is never a beginning in which duration can progress other than eternally into the past. Logically, it should be assessed that time duration is a concept based upon that which is created. Because it is created, He cannot be constrained by the mechanics or concept of time. He is relational to it but it is not a logical constraint upon Him, a logical concept in which He must acquiesce.
Lon
Well-known member
I don't think Boyd, at least from what I read from his short overview and Piper's "Review," actually does either but scholastically treats them both, he seems to lean towards the traditional stance, as do I, but this certainly wouldn't be a huge division point for me. I can see support from scripture for those assertions. I hold to the classic understanding because it seems more appropriate and supported from the texts. I've not read anything from Pinnock or Sanders on this particular.
I think your time lines are flawed and that Zeno's solved paradox may be relevant. Lucas (A treatise on time and space) also distinguishes instants and intervals. God can experience endless time and create at a certain point. I would not get hung up on superficial philosophy or speculation when it is simple.
<-------------------------creation------------------> There is no reason to think God does not have a before and after (Ps. 90:2; Rev. 1:4) or that past, present, future are not meaningful to Him and parallel to our experience. A bigger problem with atemporality is that creation becomes co-eternal with God.
<-------------------------creation------------------> There is no reason to think God does not have a before and after (Ps. 90:2; Rev. 1:4) or that past, present, future are not meaningful to Him and parallel to our experience. A bigger problem with atemporality is that creation becomes co-eternal with God.
Lon
Well-known member
If you think there is a flaw, show it.
Scriptural passages must be seen as God relating truths to His creation. They are true, but not constraints. In relation to time, God is these things. All that is God is not conveyable to man any more than quantum physics to a six year old.
Zeno dealt more with parsing time than views outside of it. His philosophy was dealing with minute dividing of one consideration or increment.
Lucas does not mandate himself, a strict adherence to his findings but that as time is considered, it should do justice to what we take for granted concerning it.
Dr. William Lane Craig synthesized many contributors including Lucas and summarized their views:
Dr. William Lane Craig said:
Again, with an eternal past, there would never come a point that God would have created us because succession, no matter how long it is conceived, would continue where it would always be an eternity before we are created. It is logically impossible to assign time and duration for God's existence. His beginning never occurred. His infinite past would still be occurring.
2 Timothy 2:23
Avoid foolish and unlearned questions
You cannot understand space and time except that they are necessary to allow motion
Avoid foolish and unlearned questions
You cannot understand space and time except that they are necessary to allow motion
oftenbuzzard
New member
The Time Warp -- the OV Horror Theology Show
Humanism takes its toll
God was sovereign, not for very much longer
Man has got to keep control
Then they invented using the Time Warp
Postulating those moments when
The Deity quickly acceded to human decisions
Let's do the time warp again...
Let's do the time warp again!
It's just a twist of the Text
And a bit of Star Trek
With your hands on the keys
You begin to type
But it's the cute little charts that really drives them insane,
Let's do the Time Warp again!
And a bit of Star Trek
With your hands on the keys
You begin to type
But it's the cute little charts that really drives them insane,
Let's do the Time Warp again!
Last edited: