I will give consideration to what you have said... however I am not prepared to engage in conversation with you at this time.
That may change in the future.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Time doesn't exist.
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
That may change in the future.
I will consideration what you have said... however I am not prepared to engage in conversation with you at this time.So I know JudgeRightly doesn't like doubt negatives but I just have to say that, as for me, double negatives have never been uncomfortable. You can feel free to not refrain from using them all you like as far as I'm concerned.
That may change in the future.
Huh? I have no problem with double negatives...
Are you thinking of someone else?
@Right Divider maybe?
but I just have to say that, as for me, double negatives have never been uncomfortable. You can feel free to not refrain from using them all you like as far as I'm concerned.
Haha!
Well, you might find it tedious but one of the major aspects of our doctrine is precisely the fact that it conforms itself to the limits of sound reason. It is a foundational principle of our hermeneutic as it ought to be for everyone who does theology. It is, therefore, something we naturally gravitate toward when either establishing our own doctrine or refuting a competing doctrine.
Further, citing a well recognized fallacy is a convenient, almost short-hand way, of establishing that a particular point is in error. Put another way, if you think citing fallacies is tedious, try wading through the formal arguments that would have to be presented in place of citing the fallacy! The volume of text would probably crash the site and if it didn't, it would surely glaze your eyes over permanently! I mean, that would be tedious beyond description!
Yes! I meant Right Divider! I seem to always get you two mixed up!
It happens quite a lot, and I'm not sure how....
The only thing in common we have with each other is the word "right"...
This would seem to suggest that we are merely concepts within God's mind. I just don't get it.
I literally see nothing in what you've presented here that even suggests that we exist "internally to God". Creation isn't God and God did not create Himself.
The problem here is that the baby is LITERALLY inside the mother! That isn't an analogy, that's the literal truth, right?!
Paul was not speaking literally as if we are inside God. It's that we are identified or considered by God as if we were "in Him". He is our spiritual covering but that is meant as an analogy not a literal statement as if we are physically enveloped inside God as you are inside your shirt. If I take a friend to lunch and the waitress brings the bill and I say that "I've got you covered!", I'm not saying that I'm going sit on my friend or throw a sheet over his head. I'm telling my friend that I'm going to pay the whole bill and that, therefore, his debt is "covered". It's a very intuitively understood figure of speech.
And in no sense would any of that apply to the concept of time which is purely a mental abstraction.
I'm sorry mb, but the highlighted portion of your comment here is simply heresy. The creation does not exist within God! The creation is fallen and evil. Satan is a created being. Do you believe that Satan exists within God too? Surely not!
I could see if you want to say that God permeates the creation in some way but even that you'd have to hold at arms length because you'd be speaking of things well outside our human existence. You couldn't be precise, never mind dogmatic, about precisely what such an idea means any more than a mathematician can precisely explain to you the concept of a seven dimensional cube. Not because the concept is irrational or otherwise false but because we have no frame of reference for such a comment and thus no way to formulate a meaningful vernacular by which to communicate such ideas. We are, therefore, left with the ability to make somewhat vague, while still accurate and meaningful, statements like "For in HIM we live, and move, and have our being".
The bible expresses several such things, by the way. The most prominent of which is easily the Triune nature of God, where there is One and ONLY One God within Whom exists three Persons. And doesn't even begin to touch the concept of "seven Spirits of God" that are spoken of in Revelations 4 & 5.
In short, God's existence transcends our own by a long way and we should be careful about being too bold with our interpretations of such passages.
That's not the only thing. You both post here. You both believe very similar things. You're both brilliantly articulate in expressing your doctrine and you're both fans of Bob Enyart and his ministry. From my perspective, you have more in common than not. You might as well be twins!
Okay, maybe not twins but certainly brothers.
Right Divider
Body part
Sometimes there is a use for the double negative. But I often see them used inappropriately, where they cause confusion (and clutter) and where it would be much better to simply use the direct statement. I think that "not uncontested" is a perfect example, where "contested" is more concise and clear.So I know JudgeRightly doesn't like doubt negatives but I just have to say that, as for me, double negatives have never been uncomfortable. You can feel free to not refrain from using them all you like as far as I'm concerned.
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
Bobbsey twins...same theological clothing.
Lon
Well-known member
Something akin to panentheism or exactly that. Colossians 1:16-20 that I often repeat on TOL. Open ideas/paradigms, often come from thinking "God is inside of the universe." "Creation, Concept, Expression, Handiwork, etc. are all equated if I'm grasping his intent.
"In Him we live, and move, and have our being." Acts 17:28 "In" isn't 'internal??'
Yes, but no. He is saying that God created women in a way that expresses/parallels how we exist in creation. The analogy would break down because what MoonB is saying is panentheism: that we are yet existent within God. As I've discussed this with you and other Open Theists, the panentheism discussion is progressing toward EDF and all the other Omnis. In His creation especially, He is the Alpha and Omega, not 'progressing' to Omega. Our grasp of scriptures, as MoonB rightly says, demands we understand truth points in which to build our respective theologies. This is a Christianity/Theology Foundations discussion. Freewill Theism sees us 'birthed' apart from God (by analogy given). Panentheism isn't Calvinist, but rather a paradigm of scripture interpretation where John 15:5 is seen as literal. The foundational disagreement has us going our separate ways thus will often be seen as needing revisit on TOL because it is where theology battles have to be won.
Sure, because by analogy, it is physical within physical and isn't true. Paul literally says "...live, and move, and have our being." Such cannot be taken figuratively in any sense (thus I agree with MoonB upon the proposition).
Right, but "...live, and move, and have our being" is in no way a figure of speech.
Mental how? "Inside" creation? Yes. It is a measurement (construct/somewhat abstract but consistent/observable with physical things and movement). Because the abstract only coincides with the physical, it is an abstraction of the physical (proposition to be inspected, but it seems sound enough).
If MoonB was advocating pan( )theism instead of panentheism, yes. It'd amount to that, but there is a strong distinction between the two. For me, the answer is a very specific statement: God is relational to, but apart from His creation (my qualified panentheism statement). Acts 17:28, John 15:5, Colossians 1:16-20, Philippians 2:13
I'm not sure this particular has to be an appeal to mystery though. Not sure how MoonB will answer but since he's on a plane, I thought I'd do intermission.
True, and I'm on page when it comes to mysteries of God. Not sure if the above can stem some of the mystery or add to it, but such is, I think, where he is coming from. In Him
Lon
Well-known member
Certainly 'in' pertaining to the topic, but no, wasn't in mind. Rather it is that I render all offerings 'in Him' to 1) acknowledge I'm a servant and need to bring all my conveyance under His watchful eye and 2) a bit of submission to my fellow man (you certainly) in humility. Only what God renders profitable is profitable. As to thread, yes, but not the intent but I acquiesce it under the topic. I believe you've seen me include the amen on a great many posts, in humility.
Support? I don't believe even if I meant it exactly as pan-en (in)-theism, it'd be meaningless but would have great meaning specifically because of the topic. Why? I'd assume even you may have used it in closing your comments
If so, there could only be rebuttal in hues because the one saying so would to some variant have to mean "God in us." Acts 17:28, "In Him, we live and move, and have our being." Could it be figurative? It is on the debate table. Figuratively or literally would I say I am "in Christ"?
Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Act 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
The context speaks very clearly: 1) God made all, gives all life (the verb gives is present meaning He "gives now" and active meaning 'ongoing.'
Greek means Paul was being very specific that God gives life to all now. Figurative? It'd have to travel a long way to get convince. 2) Acts 17:28 "In Him" we live and move and have our being. Whether figurative, or literal, "In Him" is how it is stated.
Derf
Well-known member
What I meant, though I admit to poor haste in my post (post haste?), is that if everything is "in Him" like panentheism, then Christians are no more in Him than anyone else, and thus unlikely to benefit from such a phrase.Certainly 'in' pertaining to the topic, but no, wasn't in mind. Rather it is that I render all offerings 'in Him' to 1) acknowledge I'm a servant and need to bring all my conveyance under His watchful eye and 2) a bit of submission to my fellow man (you certainly) in humility. Only what God renders profitable is profitable. As to thread, yes, but not the intent but I acquiesce it under the topic. I believe you've seen me include the amen on a great many posts, in humility.
Support? I don't believe even if I meant it exactly as pan-en (in)-theism, it'd be meaningless but would have great meaning specifically because of the topic. Why? I'd assume even you may have used it in closing your comments
I would say "figuratively." I don't see how we are encapsulated by His...body? ...Spirit? And isn't also true that He is "in us"?
[Col 1:27 KJV] To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
[Rom 8:10 KJV] And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.
So if we are "in Him" and He is "in us", it seems one, at least, has to be figurative. Most of the "in Christ" scriptures purport well with figurative language, especially remembering that He rose bodily from the dead and bodily ascended into heaven, where He sits (sometimes stands?) at the right hand of His Father. Or is that the figurative description?
Giving life doesn't have to be figurative, just because "in Him we live and move and have our being" might be. For it not to be figurative, we would have to be in the physical body of Christ, right? You were talking of Christ in your closing, right?
Lon
Well-known member
Nehemiah 9:6 Jeremiah 51:15,16 and see:
Why does the universe continue to exist?
God is not simply a passive observer, the Bible tells us that He sustains His creation—something that is evident from scientific research.
answersingenesis.org
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
So "in Him", according to that, is figurative, not literal. It means "by His power" or some such. Or are you saying that God has no power to create or sustain anything that isn't actually inside Himself? Sounds like a limitation. @moonbeam made that case, but I can't see that he was able to back it up except by quoting the scripture and saying "that's the clear meaning of the text." Which sounds kind of familiar.Nehemiah 9:6 Jeremiah 51:15,16 and see:Why does the universe continue to exist?
God is not simply a passive observer, the Bible tells us that He sustains His creation—something that is evident from scientific research.
Lon
Well-known member
The link says everything would fly apart, like an atomic bomb went off, if God stopped sustaining the universe by His power. Just the opposite of "not literal" -> Literal.
Nehemiah: 9:6 "...and thou preservest them (all God has made) all..." It is ongoing 'literally.'
Jeremiah 51:15,16 says rain doesn't fall, but that God makes it happen.
One way to read it, and I believe why JR doesn't like 'sustains' but scripture does mean 'sustains.' The alternative is God made and we exist now on our own, apart from Him, without needing Him but for eternal life. It actually is odd to hear Open Theism try and mean this, because they are talking about a 'relational' God and relational paradigms; and then alternately Open theology holds God at a distance, not needed for existence at the moment: almost and odd, a hands-off approach and decision with us.
Not limitation, rather the proposition isn't logically tenable. If there is no substance but from God, everything is 'in/of' Him. Can He make something and then go 'hands off?' I think we are arguing in a sense, AC vs. DC and what God did as far as how everything in the universe works today. I'd be on the AC-plugged in understanding and theology. "In" comes from 'where did all of creation come from?' Answer: God. Thus 'in' is the best idea so far, at least, of 'what, how, where' things come from. Definitely not 'outside' of God thus 'in' makes the best sense.
That He could use a battery if He wanted? First, it'd still be Him because something has to have powered those batteries. Second, Is it possible? Yes. We have, in analogy, AC & DC electricity today. Science likes to tell us that the universe is winding down but everything, with wear and tear is winding down thus DC isn't necessary. Further, we see what science calls evolution; against the notion of entropy and what theists believe is rather God 'sustaining' His universe. I don't have a problem with Open Theism thinking DC and batteries, God with hands off, it just doesn't look accurate to what I'm seeing. Neither should be seen in a negative light as a 'limitation' but rather a 'reality'- what is.
Derf
Well-known member
Would it? I don't know. Or would it just run down and die of "heat death"? The description sounds like God is actually going to step away from His creation at some point in the future, and when He does, everything will fly apart like an atomic bomb went off. This is described here:
[2Pe 3:10 KJV] But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Note that the verse doesn't say "God will go away and everything will fly apart," but "God will come and everything will fly apart." So the verse actually says the opposite of what you are saying. God will actively destroy the heavens and earth that He made to function correctly without constant manipulation.
But in either case, it seems like God is moving from a position relating to His creation to another position relating to His creation (in to out or out to in), and thus not everything is literally "in" Him.
Wrong "it". We were talking about "in Him", not "Him preserving everything". I don't have any argument with God preserving everything. We could probably have a discussion about what that means, and I no doubt could learn something by having that discussion.
I'm not seeing that. God certainly "formed" man personally from the dirt. Then He granted him enough self-direction to make decisions for himself. You agree with that, correct? In other words, God does not make our decisions for us, right? (I would appreciate a yes or no answer on that one.) I can't see that such should drive anyone to think that because we are allowed to make our own decisions that somehow that means that we don't need God to sustain us, even if so little a thing as providing air that we breathe. At the same time, God is capable enough to make a system that actually continues to work (to provide air for us to breathe, etc.) even if He isn't constantly manipulating it. "He set the earth on pillars"/"He hung the earth on nothing" both talk about God setting up the world so that it would be stable, not requiring Him to hold it up. So figuratively we live, move, and have our being "in Him"--we NEED Him to survive--while not physically residing inside Him.
So, since we were talking about "in Him", and you're equating that to "of Him", doesn't that mean all people are "in Him", and therefore my premise is correct--that there's no great difference between us and the nonbelievers regarding that term? Nor is there any difference between us and a rock, since both are "in/of Him", right? What it seems like to me is that you've made the phrase meaningless by saying it applies to everything.
Would the battery and us be "in Him"? Is it possible for God to make a battery that is not internal to Himself? For instance, the sun. Is it only possible to have a Sun, and a solar system, and a galaxy, etc. that is inside God? Maybe it is, but that sounds...limiting. It sounds like there are a whole bunch of logically useful but physically impossible things for God.
Can He make a system (world/solar/galactic/universe, etc.) that can function, or not? Can a human actually make a decision, or does God have to manipulate his mind for every decision?
I think you were saying it is impossible for God to make something that is outside Himself, meaning that all that is, is God. I'm not ready to accept that.
Lon
Well-known member
Reread, I think you'll catch your mistake.
Does He answer prayer? Wouldn't that be considered to be manipulation? In such instance, if we went back to our alternating current (plugged in AC) and direct current (batteries DC), it'd be akin to getting plugged in, if we went with the hands-off thought. The issue is whether these 'hands-on' theologian are right, or the ones who say 'hands off' are correct and it boils down to how we read scripture. Reread your scripture, if it said what you thought it did, It'd have more weight.
Here is a point where we can see eye to eye: God is involved/relational to His creation, but isn't living 'in' it as best as I grasp scripture: Act 17:24 He is Spirit. Such intimates something like a different dimension and also intimates that the physical comes from Spirit which often confuses us as physical beings (Scientists thing dark-matter or matter existed always). Yet Acts 17:24 says 'in' Him.
I think pouring through these commentaries will be helpful toward your desire.
Yes, but...
"How free is free?"
We are given responsibility which means independence and a bit like the AC vs. DC discussion. Relationship means 'still plugged in' to a degree, meaning my decisions are functioning only by His sustaining power. A good argument for DC is that God could have pulled the plug just before Eve took the fruit, shooed the serpent from the Garden, and plugged them back in. That it doesn't go down that way suggests that DC is the better analogy. Regardless, it is how we basically grasp Acts 17:24, John 15:5 and similar verses, that informs our opinions. It is an old debate, I'm not sure we'll conclude it here, but be informed by the ongoing thoughts over these specific scriptures.
It is why I think, for present, that AC vs DC helps and works for analogy.
There is a theological need to make sense of our autonomy and also, to remember 'you are not your own, you were bought with a price' as well as "We being many, form one body, and each of us belongs to all the others." Living in a nation with a Declaration of Independence often has us thinking of our individual God-given rights. I'm pretty independent and especially as I get older with these 'pesky kids' need to remember we are lights on a hill and supposed to be interacting for the spread of the Gospel.
I think in a continuation just above, we 'can' be independent by choice, but 'take up your cross and follow me' is a call to be 'plugged in' such that I think it is something inbetween the respective views of AC vs DC. It seems, by analogy, both AC and DC.
God isn't physical. Whenever I hear 'in' and scripture does use it, it isn't 'inside' as if God were a physical being. A lot of people hate mysteries, but this is one of mine, I have no idea how everything is 'in' Him. I'm not sure Panentheism from a Christian perspective does either. They certainly do not mean 'physically in.'
I think you'd agree with me that God certainly has manipulated your and my every decision because we 'no longer live to ourselves' as Scripture says. I'm not sure if analogy will work, but it is like we became DC. Adam and Eve were told they'd surely die and it seems the AC connection is the breaking point. It seems to me the answer, again however crude but serviceable the analogy: that we are both AC and DC. There is every sense that we recharge by the sun, by food, etc. on this planet for the sense that we have to get 'plugged in' to recharge/keep going. It seems Acts 17:24 emphasizes the 'plugged in' idea.
That is pantheism. I reject that as well. I also reject any idea that God is physical such that we are 'inside' of Him physically yet when those who are saying we are 'in' Him else we'd combust, they are intimating a physical idea. So, for me, we aren't 'physically' in God in that way.
One day we will not have physical bodies, and will not cease to exist 'in' Christ.
In a nutshell, I'm not sure if the universe would fly apart, just 'how' He sustains. In Him