Ryan Mullins, Timelessness and God: Pt. 3

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
A very large response. Thank you for it. We don't agree, certainly. Rather, let's see where the evidence goes rather than a series
of posturing, then counter posturing. While I realize you like Clete, there is no sense that I can enjoin meaningless posturing over
this issue. He just brings the calibur of conversation down to basal lowbrow levels. I really cannot do theology, the things I lvo



Saying it doesn't make it so.


Blather, blather, blather...

Insult Clete...

More meaningless nonsensical blather...

Blah blah blah...

I didn't say God was illogical. People are. What is it about Open Theists that they cannot see their own shortcomings in thread? You aren't whooping anybody's tail.
Why is that more important than the person or being of the Lord Jesus Christ? I could give a care less about whipping your tail. I care if your walk with Christ is true. That's it. You don't even know a lot of the discussion that has taken place in theological circles regarding Open Theism. The arrogance should be a lot more humble at this point.

This entire mostrosity of a post could have been stated is eight words...

"In my opinion, you and Clete are wrong."

Of course, Lon would have had to forgo any opportunity to be insulting and we couldn't have that!


Lon whines and cries about insults and the degrading of the discussion while repeatedly insulting people and never bothering to offer a single substantive affirmative argument for his doctrine nor any counter arguments to those that have been presented against his unsupported doctrinal claims. The best he can do is convert figures of speech into statements of absolute fact and cite passages that he seems unwilling to actually quote.

I'm convinced that this inability to defend his doctrine against the simlest of rational arguments is the real issue that he has with me. If JudgeRightly continues to undress him publicly the way he as in this thread, it won't be long at all before he won't have anything to do with him either. He'll find something to accuse JudgeRightly of and then blow him off as a waste of time. If Lon was half as intelligent as he likes to tell everyone he is and had one third the ability to defend his doctrine as he claims, he would do it. He desires to be seen as dignified, intelligent, articulate and learned and so couldn't keep himself from crushing us to powder if he had a clue where to begin the process of doing so.

He's a hack and a hypocrite.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Time and its implicit connection to this physical universe:
Physicists define time as the progression of events from the past to the present into the future. Basically, if a system is unchanging, it is timeless. Time can be considered to be the fourth dimension of reality, used to describe events in three-dimensional space. It is not something we can see, touch, or taste, but we can measure its passage. -https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-time-4156799



Physics equations work equally well whether time is moving forward into the future (positive time) or backward into the past (negative time.) However, time in the natural world has one direction, called the arrow of time. The question of why time is irreversible is one of the biggest unresolved questions in science.

One explanation is that the natural world follows the laws of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that within a closed system, the entropy of the system remains constant or increases. If the universe is considered to be a closed system, its entropy (degree of disorder) can never decrease. In other words, the universe cannot return to exactly the same state in which it was at an earlier point. Time cannot move backward. --https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-time-4156799

It means, clearly that it then, cannot be applied to God who has no beginning, eternally.

Further:

"As far as the universe is concerned, time had a beginning...One argument for the origin of time is that if it extended backward infinitely, the night sky would be filled with light from older stars."


Proofs? No, this is basic stuff. Anyone can and should look these up and seek on their own to prove or disprove the statements. The onus of truth is given to us by God. Assistance is viable, that 'the student must share all good things with his/her teacher.' It simply means that truth is verifiable and can be demonstrated (including in threads like these).

Much of this I've already discussed in the Clock Summit experiment threads here on TOL, where I've posted. Others have weighed in there as well. Any definition given in dictionaries and encyclopedias reiterate in some form, the invariable connection between time and its understanding in the physical universe.

The Simplicity of God:

Exodus 3:14 John 8:58

When Moses was given instructions to bring to Pharoah, he asked "Who should I say sent me?"
The answer was one of identity. Egypt had many gods and for them, God who is the only God, would demonstrate His existence and authority to them by Himself. It answers the question of "Who is God?" with "God is God, and nothing else." Hence, Divine simplicity is the idea that God is alone and unique, not just 'in' the universe, but more so, that everything that exists came from Him and nowhere else. If someone miscaptures Divine simplicity, a form of pantheism becomes prevalent in discussion where other things 'beside' God are present with God in the beginning, and where a finite glimpse could be cause for an idol of thinking 'this is all God is.' The 'part' is therefore the incorrect perception: God gave Moses the whole of His being, stated simply as a state of being God.
Moses later asked to see God Exodus 33:18 God told Moses that he could not see Him and live. He was instead allowed to see only so much of what he could absorb without perishing.

Deuteronomy 6:4 John 10:30
The Lord Jesus Christ, used "I Am" (before Abraham which is a proof against time as anything but a property of the created universe),

Deuteronomy and John 10:30 proclaim that God is One (simplicity). The statement "I AM" is the cohesion of all God is, as the definition of God. The largest part of Divine Simplicity, as a doctrine in the church, is given to avoid using terms to understand God, rather than God, as the definition and epitome of all good definitions. For instance: "God is love" is 1) Not a definition of love applying to God as much as God, being the embodiment of what love is, and the definition of the term.

It is demonstrably incorrect to assume that God the Father, Son, and Spirit equates tri-theism (a polytheism problem again, and not divine simplicity). There is One God (Divine Simplicity as a given) and Father, Son, Spirit is Him. As the Lord Jesus Christ said "The Father and I are One."
 

Aimiel

Well-known member
This is called an argument from silence. It's a fallacy for a reason.

You can ask "In the beginning of what?", and you can use your doctrine to answer it if you like but don't kid yourself into thinking that it's anything more than a pretext rather than any sort of proof. In other words, your doctrine informs your reading of the text rather than the text informing your doctrine. A practice which is rampant throughout the church and in Calvinists circles in particular, by the way.

The context makes it perfectly clear that its talking about the beginning of creation not of God Himself because while creation had a beginning God did not.

Clete
I agree that God had no beginning, but that implies that time did, since He called what He did when He created light: "The Beginning." He is eternal, for sure, but time obviously isn't.

Even an atheist and one of the smartest men to yet live believed that time began at the 'big bang.'

The following from Stephen Hawking...

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside. -- SOURCE ARTICLE
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I agree that God had no beginning, but that implies that time did, since He called what He did when He created light: "The Beginning." He is eternal, for sure, but time obviously isn't.
You are making a category error here.

Time does not exist now! It never has existed.

That is, it is not ontological. It doesn't exist in the same sense the the Earth exists or that an atom or a tree or that you exist. Objects in the material universe exist ontologically, meaning that there existence is real and independent of the existence of other things.

Time is in an altogether different category. It is a concept, not a thing. It does not exist at all outside of a thinking mind. The only sense in which time had a beginning is that there was a time before anyone had ever thought of it before. And yes, I stated it that way on purpose.

Other "things" that are in fit in this same category of metaphysics are things like numbers and the concepts of length, distance and volume. These are all idea that we use to communicate the nature of things and events but do not exist in an of themselves.

Even an atheist and one of the smartest men to yet live believed that time began at the 'big bang.'
As I've already pointed out, space-time is not at all the same thing as what we are talking about. Every physicist on the planet is capable of discussing the notion of what occurred before the big bang. They'll tell you that they don't know what happened but that doesn't keep them from being able to articulate the concept.

In addition to that, despite what you hear on the Discovery Channel and PBS, Einstein's theories have not been proven and there are GIGANTIC holes in the big bang theory such that one wonders why it's still considered a viable cosmology.

The following from Stephen Hawking...

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside. -- SOURCE ARTICLE

Notice what he's doing in this statement. He is acknowledging that discussing the idea of before time began is like attempting to discuss length without a unit of measure. It is a contradiction. And he's entirely correct! It is a contradiction! He says that it's undefined but its worse than that, it's undefinable. No, worse even than that because even saying that a thing is undefinable acknowledges its existence which implies the question "how long has it existed?" It is meaningless to discuss existence of anything before time began or "outside of time" or any other such construct because you're contradicting yourself by making the attempt. It's meaningless gibberish because existence implies duration - BY DEFINITION. (You should look up "by definition" - it's actually a form of rational argument and should not be glossed over.) Thus if God exists, He has endured for some period of time, again by definition. Even if no one had ever thought of it in those terms for the first ten thousand millennia of His existence, those ten thousand millennia still occurred and included events that happened in a particular sequence.

Clete
 

Aimiel

Well-known member
Should time have always existed, that would mean that, going backward in time, there could be no beginning, as you could argue that the 'time' to begin creation would never arrive, since eternity goes forever backward. It just doesn't make any sense, unless time itself were created. We're not capable of understanding eternity, since we have a finite number of brain cells and a limited capacity. The One Who is Eternal isn't tied down by a clock. Thinking that He is makes Him less than time. One is subservient to what one is subject to. God isn't subject to time. Time is subject to God.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Should time have always existed, that would mean that, going backward in time, there could be no beginning, as you could argue that the 'time' to begin creation would never arrive, since eternity goes forever backward. It just doesn't make any sense, unless time itself were created. We're not capable of understanding eternity, since we have a finite number of brain cells and a limited capacity. The One Who is Eternal isn't tied down by a clock. Thinking that He is makes Him less than time. One is subservient to what one is subject to. God isn't subject to time. Time is subject to God.

This is known as "infinite regress" and it is a logical problem similar to some paradoxes proposed by an ancient mathematician named Zeno. There's more than one version of Zeno's Paradox but they're all similar and basically argue that motion is impossible and our existence must be illusory because there are an infinite number of points between any two points. Thus, to drop a rock or to walk across the room, an infinite number of points must be passed through in a finite period of time. Since an infinite number of events cannot occur in a finite period of time, motion is impossible.

The problem of infinite regress is just another version of Zeno's Paradox because it doesn't matter if you're talking about ten trillion years ago or ten seconds ago, there are an infinite number of moments one must exist through in order to exist for any length of time.

There are several ways to deal with this issue. One of the best is to acknowledge that time DOES NOT EXIST! It is only an idea this is also true of distance. There is no substance that you can point at and say's "There's a big bunch of distance over there!". Distance is just an idea. Just as time is a convention of language used to convey information about the duration and sequence of events relative to other events, so distance is a convention of language used to convey the size and location of objects relative to other objects. This means that there isn't anything that needs to be divided into an infinite number of parts and that therefore, what is happening in these paradoxes has more to do with mathematics (another non-ontological idea) than it has to do with reality.

That doesn't satisfy everyone, for hopefully obvious reasons, and so others have used more concrete, less semantic means to resolve Zeno's Paradox. Not the least of which is the use of Calculus. If you're interested how calculus would be useful is resolving such issues, look up how to calculate the value of pi using calculus. In short it gives you a means by which to deal with infinities in a way that makes sense and doesn't send you off into the land of nonsense as many modern cosmologies do when they talk about big bangs, black holes and other assorted singularities.

There are, in fact, a seemingly endless line of thinkers, philosophers and mathematicians that have tackled these issue with various degrees of success. Bertrand Russel in the 1920s and Max Black in the 1950s and even I, back in the 1980s, when I was in high school and was basically obsessed with Einstein and all things associated with theoretical physics, came up with my own solution to this problem. I proposed, not before but quite independently of anyone else I might proudly point out, the idea of quantum space and quantum time. Meaning that there is a shortest distance and a shortest duration of time. (By extension, I pointed out at the time, that this would imply a slowest speed which, in turn, would imply a lowest energy state (i.e. coldest temperature) above absolute zero.) This, while a point of interest and a point of personal pride, does solve Zeno's paradox easily but does nothing to help with the issue of infinite regress. Indeed, some argue that nothing I've mentioned here does in a very satisfactory way.

There is, however, yet another way to deal with this issue, and it's probably my favorite of them all. That way is to simply acknowledge that we do not know the answer to the question. That, to many, seems like a flippant answer and many who state it are probably doing so in a very flippant and indeed an irrational manner so I want to be super clear here at state outright that my acknowledging an ignorance of the answer should not imply in anyone's mind that I am willing to accept the irrational in my worldview. I accept the issue of infinite regress as a paradox NOT an outright contradiction. There is a whopping huge difference between the two! Contradictions do not exist - period. If you ever think you've encountered one, check your premises. You'll find that one of them is wrong. A paradox, on the other hand, is a rationally coherent argument that presents a conclusion that is contrary to fact. Do you see the difference? An argument that contradicts itself is irrational but a paradox does not contradict ITSELF. Rather, it forms a rational argument that proceeds from valid premises with a conclusion that logically follows but that is contrary to actual fact. In other words, the contradiction stands outside the argument itself rather than being contained within it. This is an important distinction because it permits the that the argument, while rationally sound in and of itself, is missing information. And acknowledging that there MUST be missing information is the only rational way to deal with any unresolved paradox. Otherwise, you end up making the same error that some followers of Zeno made and actually reject reality in favor of your paradox.

Lastly, there is one more crtical point that must be made here and it's the most important point of my whole little essay here..

Your position does nothing resolve the problem either!

There are two facts that are not in dispute...

1. God had no beginning and will not have any end (infinite duration of existence).
2. Both God and we all exist now. (the present moment has arrived).

Your belief that time had a beginning does not imply that you believe that God had a beginning and so by proposing a beginning to time, all you've resolved the issue of infinite regress as it applies to the existence of time but you've done nothing to resolve infinite regress as it relates to the existence of God.

And so where's the pay off to the belief that time had a beginning? There isn't one! It's is an inherently irrational (i.e. self-contradictory) notion with no philosophical or theological benefit whatsoever. The cost/benefit ratio is literally nonexistent.

My position also resolves the issue of infinite regress as it relates to time by simply understanding that it does not actually exist except as an idea. My position, however, has the advantage of not being self-contradictory.

Clete
 
Last edited:

Aimiel

Well-known member
I fail to see your position, even after wading through all that (twice): though I still believe that all our understanding is less than infinite. When we see Him, Face-to-face we will fully understand His Purposes and how, why, when, where (etc., ad infinitum) and the mystery will be un-veiled. Just knowing Him, for me, is enough for now. Knowing that He is Omniscient is not a far stretch at all. Thinking that we can understand, whether through logic or any other discipline, any type of limitation He might have is (IMHO) going too far. God doesn't fit into any box man might design.

I've read several books which expounded some of Zeno's philosophies, and he was just whacked out.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I fail to see your position, even after wading through all that (twice):

I hope you're not trying to make an appeal to incredulity here...

though I still believe that all our understanding is less than infinite.

So what? What does "our understanding [being] less than infinite" have anything to do with the topic, which is God, not our understanding of Him.

When we see Him, Face-to-face we will fully understand His Purposes and how, why, when, where (etc., ad infinitum) and the mystery will be un-veiled.

Not sure why you used "mystery" here.

God has revealed Himself to us through His word in just the right amount that we can clearly understand Him. There's no need to wait until He returns...

Just knowing Him, for me, is enough for now.

So you're conceding the discussion?

Knowing that He is Omniscient is not a far stretch at all.

He's not, but why are you bringing that up. The topic is on whether God is "timeless," not "omniscient."

Thinking that we can understand, whether through logic or any other discipline, any type of limitation He might have is (IMHO) going too far.

So you're saying that we cannot "know" anything about what the Bible says about God?

That's a cop out if I've ever heard one.

God doesn't fit into any box man might design.

But He put a description of Himself in the Bible, which is (aside from the original manuscripts being inspired by God) man-made. How is that not "putting God in a box"?

Either way, how are you not conceding the debate here and now, because you're ignoring that God put Himself into a finite body and dwelt among us (effectively a human-made box for His Son)? There's nothing wrong with allowing God to define Himself, and trying to understand that definition.

Again (in getting back to the topic), as I pointed out to Lon, God describes Himself in the Bible through men as:


is - and was - and is to come - whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting - forever and ever - the Ancient of Days - from before the ages of the ages - from ancient times - the everlasting God - He continues forever - from of old - remains forever - eternal - immortal - the Lord shall endure forever - Who lives forever - yesterday, today, and forever - God's years are without number - manifest in His own time - everlasting Father - alive forevermore - always lives - forever - continually - the eternal God - God’s years never end - from everlasting to everlasting - from that time forward, even forever - and of His kingdom there will be no end. (references here)



Not once do we see God giving any indication that He is:

- timeless
- in an eternal now
- without sequence or succession
- without moment or duration
- atemporal and outside of time
- not was, nor will be, but only is
- has no past
- has no future.

NOT ONCE.

Those phrases come from pagan Greek philosophy, from Plato and Aristotle, and it was Augustine who introduced those concepts into scripture, when his mother's bishop told him to interpret the scriptures in light of the former two.

God describes Himself as in time, not outside of it.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I fail to see your position, even after wading through all that (twice): though I still believe that all our understanding is less than infinite. When we see Him, Face-to-face we will fully understand His Purposes and how, why, when, where (etc., ad infinitum) and the mystery will be un-veiled. Just knowing Him, for me, is enough for now. Knowing that He is Omniscient is not a far stretch at all. Thinking that we can understand, whether through logic or any other discipline, any type of limitation He might have is (IMHO) going too far. God doesn't fit into any box man might design.
We didn't design logic, Amiel! We didn't design sound reason. We didn't design reality, which is all reason is, conforming our minds to the limits of reality.

With this attitude, what are you even doing discussing / debating theology in the first place? What benefit is there? You believe what you believe and no amount of logic or reason will be sufficient to persuade you away from whatever doctrine you already hold. One is tempted to ask, if not by logic and reason, by what means did you come to understand the doctrine you now hold and how do you have any clue as to whether its the real truth?

I hope that question answers itself!

The very same logic and reason that you think puts God in a box becaise I use it to defend a doctrine withwhich you disagree is the very same logic and reason that taught you your doctrine. The question isn't whether one of us uses reason or not because there isn't any other tool our minds have to use withwhich to understand anythimg. The only question is whether our use of it was correct or in error. In other words, if reason puts God in a box, then you just have a different box and the trick is discover which of our boxes more closely resembles reality (i.e. the truth).

I've read several books which expounded some of Zeno's philosophies, and he was just whacked out.
Quite so, but he was also brilliant. I wasn't advocating Zeno's philosophy, I was merely pointing out that the problem of infinite regress is related to other logical issues that arrise when you attempt to apply the mathematical idea of inifnity to reality. It causes problems all over the place and the gist of my post was to point out that the issue rests at the very outer limits of our ability to understand things, which is where we should always attempt to push our minds.

It isn't wise to simply throw up our hands and give up and simply, mindlessly, accept a doctrine because we can't make sense of it. Your bible, the book that the God you worship inspired, does not teach that He is omniscient. It very simply does not teach it. It isn't in there - period. What does teach it is the writings of a man that very much admired and lauded the guy you just rightly called "wasked out". If you believe that God is omniscient, it is because of Aristotle and the writings of Plato. It is 100% a doctrine that comes from a box known as Greek philosophy which was contructed by the rather poor use of the very logic which you are here trying to undermine.

The same goes for all of the classical doctrines about the nature of God such as immutability, impassibility, omnipotence and omnipresence....
(The term "classical" refers specifically to the writings of Plato, by the way)

Omniscience:
Greek: God knows everything (period.)
Bible: God knows what He desires to know of that which is knowable.

Omnipotence:
Greek: God is all powerful and can do ANYTHING (period).
Bible: God cannot do the rationally absurd. (e.g. God cannot make spherical cubes. God cannot make someone love Him. God cannot do evil. etc.)

Omnipresence:
Greek: God is everywhere and every-when (period).
Bible: God is in every place He wants or needs to be. There is no biblical evidence that God exists outside of time or that He is able to travel to or by any means alter the past. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary. If God could change the past, where's the need for the cross? (Note the overlap. This point fits just as well, if not better, under the issue of omnipotence.)

Immutability:
Greek: God is utterly unchangeable. He cannot change in any way whatsoever (period).
Bible: God's character does not change but God Himself changed from pure Living Spirit into flesh and blood that willingly died on the cross. God the Son was forsaken by the Father and spent three days in the grave (a place He had never been before) and then by His own power rose from the dead, acquiring a glorified physical body which He never had before and which He retains to this day and will so forever more.

Impassibility:
Greek: God has no passions (period).
Bible: God is a God of both loving kindness to those who trust in Him and of wrathful vengeance to those who reject Him.Totally the opposite of impassible, by any definition.

In short, the Greek idea of God is almost entirely antithetical to the God of scripture and you're here ready to turn off your mind and simply be content with a total lack of understanding just to preserve for yourself beloved doctrines that have nothing to do with the God you worship and who gave you a book to read precisely because you are capable of using sound reason both to read AND understand it.

Clete
 

Lon

Well-known member
Not once do we see God giving any indication that He is:

- timeless
- in an eternal now
- without sequence or succession
- without moment or duration
- atemporal and outside of time
- not was, nor will be, but only is
- has no past
- has no future.

NOT ONCE.

Those phrases come from pagan Greek philosophy, from Plato and Aristotle, and it was Augustine who introduced those concepts into scripture, when his mother's bishop told him to interpret the scriptures in light of the former two.

God describes Himself as in time, not outside of it.
The rest of us traditional theists have to be careful, God is relational/unrestrained by time. While there are absolutely indicative scriptures, no Traditional theist ever means to argue God isn't relational, simply that He is unconstrained by time. Even Open Theists agree God 'could' do as He likes.

*Quick question for any Open Theist: IS God able to supercede time in any manner or fashion (according to Open Theism)? For us, the answer is yes, but what is God 'capable' of doing according to Open Theism?


-Timeless Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ, the same today, yesterday, forever..."
- An Eternal Now: John 8:58 "Abraham 'was/ I 'AM'" :think:
-Without sequence/succession, moment or duration 2 Peter 3:8 "Thousand years as a day, a day as a thousand years" It isn't just an idiom, because there is nothing to 'teach' by it except this expressed truth, in the scripture, as grace.
- atemporal and outside of time
- not was, nor will be, but only is Isaiah 46:10 "Declaring the end 'from' the beginning, against assertion, definitely beyond indicative, and compelling.
- not was, nor will be, but only is Exodus 3:14 with John 8:58 "I AM" especially from the Lord Jesus Christ, from 'was' (past) declared as "AM" in that past, doesn't just indicate, it expresses an eternal 'now.' It cannot be taken otherwise, it both expresses as God, and atemporal.
- has no past Hebrews 7:3 "Without genealogy" indicates 'without a past.' There is no sense, however, that I don't agree on this point. All of Christianity with you: John 17:5 "Glory I had with you before the world was formed."
- has no future. Isaiah 46:10 restated. God is relational to His creation in every sense. "...No matter where people go, sooner or later there's the law. And sooner or later they find God's already been there." -John Wayne, Chisum

*Simply to point out where we might agree as well as the extent of our disagreements.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The rest of us traditional theists have to be careful, God is relational/unrestrained by time. While there are absolutely indicative scriptures, no Traditional theist ever means to argue God isn't relational, simply that He is unconstrained by time. Even Open Theists agree God 'could' do as He likes.

No we don't!

I mean, I suppose it depends on just what you mean by that statement but my instinct is to reject it outright. God is flatlly incapable of being unjust. He could no more be arbitrary in the fashion that Calvinists believe than the wall next to me could cook chicken tortilla soup. If God even wanted to be so arbitrary, He would no longer be righteous and no one would care what He was capable of because there'd be no functional difference between Him and Satan.

*Quick question for any Open Theist: IS God able to supercede time in any manner or fashion (according to Open Theism)?
No!

There isn't anything to supersede. Time does not exist except as a concept. It's like asking whether God could supersede math. Can God have two apples but because of some power all His own cause it to be that he actually only has one apple without making either of the apples go away. No, God cannot do that. He either has two apples or He doesn't. The definition of the words "have" and "two" and "apples" make nothing else possible. God cannot do the self-contradictory.

Likewise, God either exists or He doesn't. If He exists then He has duration - BY DEFINITION. Time is nothing at all except our way of communicating information about the duration and / or sequence of events. To superseded time, He'd have to supersede existence which is a contradiction. It's an absurdity that cannot occur - period.

For us, the answer is yes, but what is God 'capable' of doing according to Open Theism?
No the answer is not yes for anyone!

This is not a matter of opinion. We aren't talking about person preferences here. We are talking about the nature of reality. Reality is what it is, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. There is not one reality for Calvinists and another for Open Theists. One of us is right and the other is wrong.


The rest of your post is a list of pretexts...

-Timeless Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ, the same today, yesterday, forever..."
This is your doctrinal interpretation of this verse. The verse itself does not teach nor even suggest timelessness.


-An Eternal Now: John 8:58 "Abraham 'was/ I 'AM'" :think:
Again, 'eternal now" is nothing but your doctrinal interpretation of this passage. What the context makes clear is that Jesus was intentionally taking on a very well known name of God Himself. He wasn't claiming to be timeless or to exist in an eternal now or anything of the sort. He was claiming to be God. That's what this verse is about and that's all its about.

-Without sequence/succession, moment or duration 2 Peter 3:8 "Thousand years as a day, a day as a thousand years" It isn't just an idiom, because there is nothing to 'teach' by it except this expressed truth, in the scripture, as grace.
This seems to be two unrelated comments smashed together. I'll deal with the passage and leave your commentary alone...

There are just about a thousand different ways to understand this passage but none of them include "without sequence/succession, moment or duration"! The text itself is explicitly stating the exact opposite. The most obvious meaning of the passage is that God can get done in a day what one might expect to take a thousand years and God is patient enough that for Him to wait a thousand years is as it would be if we had to wait a day. God can wait two thousand years for His Amazon deliveries without getting put out by it.


- atemporal and outside of time
- not was, nor will be, but only is Isaiah 46:10 "Declaring the end 'from' the beginning, against assertion, definitely beyond indicative, and compelling.
It's not compelling at all! The verse doesn't say one single word about God being outside of time! NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY WORD!!!

God tells people in advance what He is going to do and then He does it.

That's as easy to understand as can be. Any child can understand it. But even as simple an idea as that is, it's only a general rule. We know this because there are several instances where God wanted one thing and got quite another no matter how hard He tried to bring what He wanted to pass.

You should realize that even one single counter example to your doctrinal interpretation of this passage blows your entire theological construct to smithereens and there's way more than one. There are several.

- not was, nor will be, but only is Exodus 3:14 with John 8:58 "I AM" especially from the Lord Jesus Christ, from 'was' (past) declared as "AM" in that past, doesn't just indicate, it expresses an eternal 'now.' It cannot be taken otherwise, it both expresses as God, and atemporal.
This is a repeat of the earlier point. It's weaker here than it was before because you've added a bald lie to what was simply a doctrinal interpretation.

What you're doing here by baseless declaring that your doctrine is obvious and that the passage cannot be taken any other way is no more substantive or persuasive that when a preacher pounds the pulpit because he knows that the biblical material he has for the point he's making is weak.

I, for one, am not at all impressed by either pulpit pounding or your baseless and totally unsupported declarations of truth.

- has no past Hebrews 7:3 "Without genealogy" indicates 'without a past.' There is no sense, however, that I don't agree on this point. All of Christianity with you: John 17:5 "Glory I had with you before the world was formed."
This is stupidity on a level not hardly worth addressing. Calvinism is a mental disorder.

Without genealogy does not in any way indicate anything similar to "without a past". That's just ridiculous nonsense. It means that God had no mother who bore Him and that He has no father from whom He descended. If anything, it means that God no beginning and that God's past goes back forever. Just the complete opposite of what you are suggesting here.

- has no future. Isaiah 46:10 restated. God is relational to His creation in every sense. "...No matter where people go, sooner or later there's the law. And sooner or later they find God's already been there." -John Wayne, Chisum
Meaningless gibberish.

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure,’

Heaven forbid any Calvinist actually quote the verses they rip out of their context!

This verse says exactly nothing whatsoever that is in anyway similar to this nonsensical gibberish that you posted here.

*Simply to point out where we might agree as well as the extent of our disagreements.
I can find next to no common ground here with you at all.

God exists. We agree on that - I think.

Do you believe that God became a man, that God died for your sin and that He rose from the dead, acquired a glorified physical human body that He retains to this day?

Do you believe any of that. I wouldn't bet my house on your willingness to acknowledge it without caveat.

Clete
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
-Timeless Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ, the same today, yesterday, forever..."

Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, the First and the Last.

- has no future. Isaiah 46:10 restated. God is relational to His creation in every sense. "...No matter where people go, sooner or later there's the law. And sooner or later they find God's already been there." -John Wayne, Chisum

Mat 26:34 Jesus said to him, Truly I say to you that this night, before the cock crows, you shall deny Me three times.

Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial onto the sun. And it was given to him to burn men with fire.
Rev 16:9 And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Aimiel

Well-known member
So what? What does "our understanding [being] less than infinite" have anything to do with the topic, which is God, not our understanding of Him.

Obviously you can't understand me, who is finite; and I cannot understand you NOT understanding that if we cannot fully know or understand God, we cannot exhaustively expound the topic. Makes little sense to argue over things that are merely opinion or theory as if we're capable of making fully-informed decisions about things which clearly aren't spelled out.

Not sure why you used "mystery" here.

God holds a LOT in obscurity for His Purposes; which Mystery shall one day be un-veiled. Not sure what you don't understand.

God has revealed Himself to us through His word in just the right amount that we can clearly understand Him. There's no need to wait until He returns...

When all is revealed, understanding will be shared with all. Until then we can only see as if we're looking through a very dark beer bottle.

He's not, but why are you bringing that up. The topic is on whether God is "timeless," not "omniscient."

The God that I serve IS Omniscient. Sorry, were you referring to maybe someone other than The King of the Universe?

So you're saying that we cannot "know" anything about what the Bible says about God?

Of course not, but guessing or attempting to apply logic, reason or even wisdom to find Him out isn't the same as knowing Him. Those who do know Him understand that His Ways are higher than ours and that His Thoughts are higher.

But He put a description of Himself in the Bible, which is (aside from the original manuscripts being inspired by God) man-made. How is that not "putting God in a box"?

He defined the terms, specifically. Those who write 'about' God don't speak on His behalf without permission. Every one who does will line up with His Logos. Speculation, through logic or understanding (such as the observed laws of physics) is merely man's attempt at reasoning God into a box. Scripture is God trying to get man to come into His Kingdom.

Either way, how are you not conceding the debate here and now, because you're ignoring that God put Himself into a finite body and dwelt among us (effectively a human-made box for His Son)? There's nothing wrong with allowing God to define Himself, and trying to understand that definition.

I agree with coming into a relationship with God, through The Holy Spirit that He puts inside of believers, but taking license from knowledge or reason and trying to define God with it isn't the same thing.

Again (in getting back to the topic), as I pointed out to Lon, God describes Himself in the Bible through men as:


is - and was - and is to come - whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting - forever and ever - the Ancient of Days - from before the ages of the ages - from ancient times - the everlasting God - He continues forever - from of old - remains forever - eternal - immortal - the Lord shall endure forever - Who lives forever - yesterday, today, and forever - God's years are without number - manifest in His own time - everlasting Father - alive forevermore - always lives - forever - continually - the eternal God - God’s years never end - from everlasting to everlasting - from that time forward, even forever - and of His kingdom there will be no end. (references here)


To me, when He calls Himself: "Eternal," I read: "Timeless." Not bound by or subject to time.

Not once do we see God giving any indication that He is:

- timeless
- in an eternal now
- without sequence or succession
- without moment or duration
- atemporal and outside of time
- not was, nor will be, but only is
- has no past
- has no future.

NOT ONCE.

He said that He is the same: yesterday, today and forever. That, to me, doesn't just mean that He won't change His Character but also that He knows the future and is in the future right now. To me, that isn't un-reasonable or illogical; it's a day in the life of The Eternal One.

God describes Himself as in time, not outside of it.

He does so for our understanding.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Aimiel

Well-known member
We didn't design logic, Amiel! We didn't design sound reason. We didn't design reality, which is all reason is, conforming our minds to the limits of reality.
Now you sound like Plato. God said that His Ways are higher than ours. The ways that He is, walks in and has His Glory within are far above our minds' abilities and man's reasoning capabilities. The revelation of God will thrill, surprise and clear up all understanding; when He chooses to reveal His Mystery.
With this attitude, what are you even doing discussing / debating theology in the first place? What benefit is there? You believe what you believe and no amount of logic or reason will be sufficient to persuade you away from whatever doctrine you already hold. One is tempted to ask, if not by logic and reason, by what means did you come to understand the doctrine you now hold and how do you have any clue as to whether its the real truth? I hope that question answers itself!
I've changed many things about my theology by discussion on TOL and I hope for the better. I've come to understand myself and others far better than what I've accomplished in the flesh as far as theological discussions go. I've found most friends have a very shallow understanding and little or no curiosity regarding the subject. Often it seems like you scratch the surface and find a quivering mess of a person who any moment expects God to strike them down with lightning. Here on TOL the discussions often are deep and revealing, just reading. I'm also researching the several schools of thought on this subject now, regarding time and it's creation. I'm intrigued, but certainly not inflexible. Just not easily convinced that what I've seen of God, personally is un-reasonable.
The very same logic and reason that you think puts God in a box becaise I use it to defend a doctrine with which you disagree is the very same logic and reason that taught you your doctrine. The question isn't whether one of us uses reason or not because there isn't any other tool our minds have to use with which to understand anythimg. The only question is whether our use of it was correct or in error. In other words, if reason puts God in a box, then you just have a different box and the trick is discover which of our boxes more closely resembles reality (i.e. the truth).
I don't attempt to define God; though we can understand His Word (to a point) and logically determine most of It's meanings, we cannot exhaustively or even remotely describe God even using Scripture. He is beyond our capabilities to comprehend. The one who came closest to seeing Him had God's Hand placed over his eyes until after He had passed by. All Moses saw was the very residue of God's Glory after that He had passed by. His countenance was so changed that no one could bear to look at him for quite some time. We can't understand that or quantify it. But it is enough to know that God is so far beyond us that we could not bear to see Him in these frail bodies. Same goes for His ways and His understanding. It just won't fit into our tiny minds.
Quite so, but he was also brilliant. I wasn't advocating Zeno's philosophy, I was merely pointing out that the problem of infinite regress is related to other logical issues that arrise when you attempt to apply the mathematical idea of inifnity to reality. It causes problems all over the place and the gist of my post was to point out that the issue rests at the very outer limits of our ability to understand things, which is where we should always attempt to push our minds.
I don't agree. The limit is there for a reason. He could have been more forthcoming on a lot of things regarding His creation, but kept the things it isn't necessary or profitable to dwell on to Himself.
It isn't wise to simply throw up our hands and give up and simply, mindlessly, accept a doctrine because we can't make sense of it. Your bible, the book that the God you worship inspired, does not teach that He is omniscient.
I find that It does.
In short, the Greek idea of God is almost entirely antithetical to the God of scripture and you're here ready to turn off your mind and simply be content with a total lack of understanding just to preserve for yourself beloved doctrines that have nothing to do with the God you worship and who gave you a book to read precisely because you are capable of using sound reason both to read AND understand it.
I've found far more understanding of His Word by listening to Him and meditating His Words than all the study or thinking that I've ever done with Scripture. I take Scripture as a whole and try to use all the knowledge and wisdom that God has granted me every time I read or hear His Word. I don't believe that Scripture gives us sound doctrine by defining it line-by-line or attempting to use It to place limits upon God. I believe that God spoke of Himself the ways that He did in Scripture many times for our understanding. I don't believe that He didn't know where Adam was when He asked, "Adam? Where are thou?" I also don't believe that He has to wait for the newspaper to come out to find out what happened yesterday. He knows what will be on the last page of paper ever printed. That's my God. I see Him as beyond time or wisdom. He is past finding out. I'm still gonna' seek His Face, but I know I won't see Him until Heaven (or the rapture, whichever comes first). But men can't understand how He operates or say, "God HAS to obey my reasoning." It's going too far.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
We don't agree, certainly.

I'm with Clete on this one. You should have stopped here.

a series of posturing, then counter posturing.

Then allow me to move all the posturing you do in your very own post to here, so I don't have to deal with it later:

Flippant?

Its pure assertion. There is no 'flippant' in the observation. He made an audacious claim, you 'back him up.' These are facts.


While I realize you like Clete, there is no sense that I can enjoin meaningless posturing over
this issue. He just brings the calibur of conversation down to basal lowbrow levels. I really cannot do theology, the things I lvo

He is Open Theism's worst spokesman. All you are telling me is that he articulates what you like to hear. So what?

Realize this: Some TOLer's are ONLY nice to their own. Matthew 5:46 Luke 6:32-38.

AND THIS, is why I don't do Clete. He completely lacks grace or integrity in conversation. You certainly can entertain and love every word from his mouth. Many do. Problem: It shows either a lack of discernment, or a complete disregard for poor behavior. He's TOL oldschool and cannot change. "SMACK" is the moniker in his name. This is NOT listening to or espousing Knight's call to higher communication. "We" meant you and I and anybody who'se concern it is, to please God in his/her conversation. Not you? Frankly, I'm shocked. You are hanging out with this man way too much if this is the fruit. Don't do it. Be better. Do better. All of us.

A lot of us have him on ignore. I've no desire to discuss things with a man that degenerates very important conversations about God to basal flaming out. They aren't bold claims, its just history at this point.

This thread is serving just fine. Bring up points and I'll address them.

Your above assertion points that direction. As I've said, I don't think any of you intentionally mean this, but read your 'blasphemy' statement.

I cannot be accused of 'assertion' simply because of ignorance. I've been very careful with a couple of terms and the do indeed mean something. There is a learning curve and in my purview, you need to know them.

I normally love conversations with you, you sort of morphed hanging around him too long :(
A bit too strong but I do want you to realize how less than stellar his posts have been on TOL.

With links? Proofs? To date, its never happened. I've posted substantially in the summit clock and summit
clock two. What are you looking for, for proof? What level of math did you complete in school? Let's talk about it.

He's on ignore. I hope he does do his devotions and prays for those he disagrees, and blesses, not curses them. Most especially toward fellow believers whether they agree with him or not. When I said "it shows" it certainly does. Sorry. Grace comes by spending time with the Savior, daily. How are
yours doing? Me, I'm praying more afterwards, including for those on TOL who disagree.

To you? Agree. He loves his own. Matthew 5:46 Luke 6:32-38

He has a decidedly 'ill' effect on you, for instance:

It doesn't matter. We don't need to talk about him. I'm glad you love him and stick up for him. I've found I cannot do any meaningful discussion with him and mostly because he flames out and is ultimately immature. There is a pattern that I've seen over the years that just isn't worth time. Flaming out is usually the one who has lost the argument. I don't really want this to become the 'me and Clete' thread.

Long history, he ends up incapable and flaming out...every time. He cannot do it without namecalling, getting angry, doing nothing but assertion and re-assertion (I've actually posted links and verses). His recent discussion on a thread with WonderfulLordJesus, hasn't given me any inkling his character or level of debate abilty has changed an iota. Again, I'm glad you like him, and in this, he indeed has become a bit of 'guru-ish' in your esteem. I simply don't find him capable.

Agree. He is nearly always kind to fellow OT's.

Looks like you engage below, I can certainly rise to that occassion. I rather, was commenting on your attaboy post and his assertion about 'this man.' He talks behind my back. That's enough. At present, my ignore list is quirky anyway. I once tried to remove Clete to see what fires he'd started, but it doesn't work so for now, this part of the conversation doesn't have to be carried.

Hence my concern for his daily devotions, despite disagreeing that he won. Its a loss at that point, sight unseen.

You too, cannot assert your way through this. Some ideas/concepts are hard but to call it a non-answer? Judge, you have a good head on your shoulders, but this isn't what I'd expect.

You've been hanging around Clete too much. This is an undeliverable assertion. It is much too optimistic and overconfident.

Your thinking is thin here.

You asserted. That means 'hesaid/she said' as far as I'm familiar with the term. I'm simply trying to get past preliminaries of posturing. While they may be necessary, I find them of little use. Most of this thread doesn't deal with anything but posturing.

For example, there is a reason I'd not do this conversation with Clete, and for the obviously given reasons.

Not engaging. Nor worth my time either.

Only arrogance in ignorance would allow you to think so. This too is what Clete does. He only cares about 'whooping' my tail when Its plain, even in this post, that you are ignorant of some of the scriptures, argue for no good reason (You really aren't better than the Apostle Paul, and he said 'glass darkly). Worse? It's your 'reward.' There are and ever will be very few Open Theists on the planet. I see it as counter-intuitive, lacking in an understanding of biblical languages where translation becomes the point of debate, and prideful where there is lack.

What is it about Open Theists that they cannot see their own shortcomings in thread? You aren't whooping anybody's tail. Why is that more important than the person or being of the Lord Jesus Christ? I could give a care less about whipping your tail. I care if your walk with Christ is true. That's it. You don't even know a lot of the discussion that has taken place in theological circles regarding Open Theism. The arrogance should be a lot more humble at this point.

...

...

Now that THAT'S taken care of...

==================================================

First off I'd like to retract a claim I made earlier, that time is not a measurement. It is, to some extent, simply because the words we use to describe periods of time define the measurement.

What it is not, however, is a physical measurement, because time does not actually exist except as an idea, a concept that we use to describe duration.

With that out of the way...

Nope. We cannot actuate anything by declaration alone. Nor by consensus.

Then why, in much of your post, do you simply "actuate by declaration alone"?

Hypocrite.

Where? Show please.

You said he was incapable.

The thread is still here to read, though. So are many of his posts throughout the forum.

Oh, but, I guess if you stop your ears, there is no evidence contrary...

:think: Do you READ links?

I try to. But you clearly don't, and that's assuming you read everything I posted. I quoted a list from kgov.com/time, and... well, I'll address it down below.

I suppose if you stop your ears, there is no evidence contrary?

:think:

Time necessarily is a physical property

Saying it doesn't make it so, Lon.

(see the link).

What link?

God is Spirit.

No argument there.

With links? Proofs?

With sound reasoning and logic and scripture.

Says more about you than me? AMR has scads of posts on privation. Do you know what the term means?

I do.

"Privation" means a 'lack.' Sin is a warping of all God is and does, a 'privation.'

You said, "everything is contained in God." (post #2)

Question:

Is the sinner contained in God?

Yes, but 'nothing' is also a concept. One doesn't lead to the other becoming a 'thing' if it is a 'nothing.' Rather the concept of the 'no thing' is a thing. Sin is the absence of all that is God, all that is good.

So, you either have God as the product, co-existing with something so it can contain sin, but not God,

God created the universe and everything in it. He didn't create "nothing."

or you have to grasp that Colossians 1:17 is correct.

Of course it's correct. The argument is that your woodenly literal understanding of it is incorrect. (Which is what I was trying to get at earlier.)

It isn't to say God 'created' sin, but that it was created in the Universe which exists in Him. Acts 17:28

Again, your woodenly literal interpretation is incorrect.

Sin wasn't created.

God created beings (man) who had the choice of rebelling against Him. Sin is rebellion against God, and RESULTS in a deprivation of God (from man's perspective. (This ties into the idea that death is separation, where spiritual death is separation of mans' spirit and God.)

Please discuss the scripture with me. I'm not asserting, I'm presenting ideas and proofs found in scripture. Read them and discuss them with me. This isn't an assertion, the two scriptures are proofs.

I'm trying to discuss scripture with you.

It's rather difficult.

Read the verse.

I did. I ALSO read the verses surrounding it. You should too.

God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising.Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” - Acts 17:24-31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV

What does it mean?

It means that we were made in His image.

Panentheism takes this a step too far because advocates of it (such as yourself) take the above passage woodenly literally, when it, while true, is only referring to the fact that we are made in His image and His likeness.

Is it more comfortable for a person to believe God is at the mercy of sin and the universe?

Meaning, what, exactly?

God is angered when men sin, because He is good. That doesn't put him "at the mercy of sin."

I will follow scripture wherever it leads, regardless of the damage it does to 'my' sensibilities, theology.

Yet you constantly interpret scripture to fit your beliefs. Stop that.

You don't seem to grasp the difference between panentheism and pantheism.

I grasp it just fine, thank you very much.

You say something below that suggests the same.

You're reading that into what I said, then.

Similar to your statement here.

That's not a citation.

When he argued with Lamerson, he argued on the side of pantheism. For this, it'd be better to understand where we differ: Pantheism says God is everywhere (except where He doesn't want to be).

No, you seem to be confused: Pantheism is the belief that everything is God.

I thought you knew that. Now I know you do.

From Merriam-Webster:
Pantheism - a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe

Open Theism is NOT and DOES NOT TEACH pantheism.

You said, and I quote:

Enyart often argues for a physical God, not spirit.

I asked you to cite two examples of Pastor Enyart doing so.

You then said (as shown above) that he did so, but didn't actually link to where in the debate with Lamerson (I'm assuming Samuel Lamerson, yes?) he did.

That's not citing, and even if it were, it would only be ONE example. I asked for two.

Would you care to try again?

Panentheism is an idea from Scriptures,

No, it's not, actually. You should know better what it is that you preach:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

The term panentheism was coined by a German philosopher who was trying to reconcile monotheism with pantheism, and the idea can be found in both Ancient Greek philosophy (there's those silly Greek philosophers again, creeping into Christianity), and even earlier, in Hindu philosophy.

Now you know.

like the one given above, that says 'nothing exists, that exists, without Him.'

The phrase simply refers to the fact that God created everything except Himself.

Remember too, that I've said sin isn't a thing, so your statement of 'blasphemy' isn't correct. You simply didn't listen to the one and the other for definitions. When one
is understood, the other is too. Sin isn't a 'thing' to be contained in God.

Again, I ask:

Are sinners contained in God?

This isn't the part where you should say "See? He doesn't respond!" Rather, I can do so,

Then why don't you?

BUT it wasn't an accusation. It was an observation.

... framed as an accusation against him.

Substantiate your claims, observation or otherwise.

If I need to travel down this road, I can, BUT I've lost my links from old TOL to new TOL and this would be a lot of work. Needful? Let me know.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology.

Thank you.

For the sake of the discussion, would you please reiterate your argument regarding it?

"It is as true to say that God is permanent and the World fluent, as that the World is permanent and God is fluent"

I have no idea what the context is of that statement.

:up: Yes it is.

Read outside of your own theology circles. These are not novel statements and I'm not the one making the assertion. I'm the one reporting the assertion.

You're the one making the argument, thus the onus is on you to substantiate it, regardless of whom the assertion originally comes from.

See here, he's fair and very clear and sourced in his presentation. It isn't biased or assertion. https://bible.org/article/examination-open-theism



Like I'm pulling it out of my hat? See here. I'm not making stuff up. https://reknew.org/2019/03/process-t...he-difference/ This one is a little short. If you read the wiki
article above on Process Theology, there are a number of shared statements, meaning the proximatey is there, substantiated. Sanders has been in discussion with both Mormons and Process theologians, as an Open Theology representative, etc.





You said I know you.

I said no, I don't.

What are you confused about?

I know that there is a user on TOL named Lon, and I know how he posts and to some extent what he believes, but I don't know the user himself.

Absolutely. I wasn't lamenting such. I was simply saying that a disagreement on this thread is hardly noticeable. Shoot ▲ I didn't realize I was even this invisible ▲ to you!

The only thing really worth talking about, is whether time is an absolute or a product of creation. The rest will not stand the 'test of time.' It's just aside notes toward that discussion. A lot of this is lost in detail.



Without 1 scripture? Pure assertions.

Here is the portion I was referring to near the beginning of this post.

Did you even bother to read through the entire list? You certainly didn't read the whole thing, because, right there at the very end of the list there is a parenthetical, with the words "references here", and the word "here" is a link to a page that contains ALL OF THE VERSES that are used to support open theism, and specifically it links to the section titled "God exists in time" with all of the supporting verses below it, and in fact sections 2 (the one linked to), 3, 4, 7, and for the most part the entire list of the 33 categories of scriptures on that page describe a God that is NOT outside of time.

I can and have given many verses. Genesis 1:5 "first" day. Greek? :nono:

Are you asserting that time began in verse five? Even if you aren't, God created the universe BEFORE the end of the first day, and DURING His existence. That's sequence, not timelessness.

God had never created before. Then He had a new idea, to create something new, because He could. Then He planned the creation. Then He started creating, and He began by creating the heavens and the earth.

That's sequence. Not an "eternal now."

It was more of a nod to Clete at that point, lost in details. Let's move on.

That's like saying "an 'inch' isn't a measurement, rulers or tape measures are." The instrument simply gives further meaning to the contrivance.

Behind the eightball on what's going on outside of one's own fellowship, these are given in physics classes and I assume a good many open theists just don't take these higher math classes with these kinds of assertions?

One doesn't need to take a physics class to understand that time is not physical and cannot be physical if God created the universe.

I linked this: Time is a measurement of physical properties.

Did you intend for that to be a link? Because it's not a link...

It is/was not. It was trying to get you to think and grasp something.

You said:


How 'big' is God?



As if that were along the lines of the argument I was making.

I'll say again: time is a physical measurement.

HItchens's razor applies here:
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

You cannot rewrite textbooks on this subject.

I'm not trying to rewrite the textbooks. That would be like trying to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I'm saying (so is Clete, Bob, Mullins, and others) that the textbooks are WRONG and need to be discarded, and new ones written.

Time is a physical property.

Repeatedly asserting your position does not magically make it so.

Regarding my comment:
Allow me to crush your entire argument then:

I had meant to come back and change "argument" to "premise."

Your statement was:

If God moved, something is 'bigger' than Him and He is no longer God, but the product of another eternal.

Your premise is that God cannot move, and the above is your reasoning.

I then quoted only the second verse in the Bible to destroy that premise, which shows him moving.

It is not Greek that influences my understanding,

Perhaps not, but it certainly influenced the source of your understanding, such as your education and who taught you, what you learned from.

it is God Himself.

Usually when people say they got their understanding from God Himself, it's because they are trying to establish themselves as having the correct understanding where everyone else is wrong by default.

That won't work here, especially not with me.

Colossians 1:17.

Has nothing to do with what you're saying.

See above.

The 'movement' you are seeing is within Himself AND not physical.

Well, no, it IS physical.

He was literally above the waters, moving over them.

As was stated REPEATEDLY throughout the flat earth threads from a while back, movement has no meaning except in relation to something else.

Did He 'hover' in some form over the waters?

That's literally what the verse says.

I, for one, am not going to disagree with it.

How thin or profound is your thinking here? Whatever the scriptures mean, the do NOT mean that God was somehow eternally part of the universe,

Straw man.

I never claimed that He was. In fact, quite the opposite.

it means that the universe and all that is therein, are found in the being of God.

Now you've gone off topic.

Try to stay focused:

We're talking about God moving over the waters of the earth, the face of the deep.

Your 'philosophy' here may be inspired by the bible, but it is also a part of Eastern Mysticism called 'pantheism.'

No, Lon, that's false, and a straw man.

Again, Pantheism is the belief that EVERYTHING is equivalent to God.

That is NOT what Open Theism asserts, nor is it what I believe.

When you asked above whether Bob Enyart has ever said anything, asking for examples, this is one of them.

Supra.

Fair enough. What 'unseen' then is what the universe was made of? God, who is Spirit? :think:

No, out of nothing.

Nothing means just that. No thing.

You answered your own question earlier: ex nihilo.

John 4:24 Colossians 1:17 I probably sustain your objection, but to what point?






No, we really have to get this: As far back as you can think or imagine, "God's past is still going." There is no end to it.

I'm not in disagreement. I'm saying that "present" fits better in regards to the argument you made.

You're the one who says God doesn't have a past (by saying He is outside of time, is timeless, is in an eternal now), remember?

Eternal, by definition, is already beyond the grasp of time.

Uh, no it's not, Lon.

Eternal by definition means ENDLESS time.

See? Not beyond the grasp of time.

In other words, it can be some property of God, as is beauty, but time certainly, by inference, logic, mathematics and physics, as well as by scriptural givens; is not a sufficient or adequate descriptor when applied to God.

So you're saying God is not eternal?

Or does "it" refer to time? or, if not, what does "it" refer to?


Another indication that you didn't actually read what I excerpted from kgov.com/time.

Here it is again:


is - and was - and is to come - whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting - forever and ever - the Ancient of Days - from before the ages of the ages - from ancient times - the everlasting God - He continues forever - from of old - remains forever - eternal - immortal - the Lord shall endure forever - Who lives forever - yesterday, today, and forever - God's years are without number - manifest in His own time - everlasting Father - alive forevermore - always lives - forever - continually - the eternal God - God’s years never end - from everlasting to everlasting - from that time forward, even forever - and of His kingdom there will be no end. (references here)



I truly appreciate this. I disagree that time applies to spirit, but if the rest of what he says is true, in what sense could a clock be accurate? I'm not understanding the Clock Summit experiment, if time is solvent as the above suggests.


Emphasis. It is an acceptable usage, but I realize few use it. Also, I'm still learning the new TOL format. It isn't that it is hard, just that old habits I've grown used to over years on TOL die hard. Thanks for a bit of grace.


One is an assumption of the other so this isn't a proof. Rather, if 'time' is created, logically there is no need to understand it

Again, in order to assert that time was created, you have to throw logic out the window, which you seem to have already done, because...:


Time is a Prerequisite of Creation: Many have been told that time was created by God, and that it is not an aspect of His existence. Please consider though that time cannot be created. Why not? Because creation means going from non-existence to existence, which itself is a sequence, a before and after. And any before and after sequence requires time. Time therefore is a precondition of creating. Thus time itself cannot be created. Scripture describes God's creation of matter and space, light and life, but not of time. And even the secular BBC begins their Before the Big Bang program acknowledging that the notion of time coming into existence, "may be a logical contradiction." The scientific fad, with its ubiquitous acceptance, of claiming that time came into existence with the big bang, could effortlessly disappear if not needed by the next fad, the multiverse. For although the statement that "time came into existence" launched a million words in its defense, men have no way of even thinking about the notion. Why not? Because it is meaningless. (Similarly, men have no way of even thinking about the evolutionary notion of how a merely physical system could give rise to a biological information system, let alone, achieve consciousness. So in the alleged materialist evolution of information, and of consciousness, and in the claim that time came into existence, meaninglessness reveals itself through this inability even to think about such things.) If God indeed were atemporal and could experience no sequence and hence, no change, He could never decide to create time, nor could He ever move from a decision to the actual act of creating time. If such an irrationality were plausible, God would have had to always have created time, and all of creation, from eternity past. Yet this is all gibberish. Further, because time does exist, even if that time had been created, an atemporal deity who experiences no succession and no change in His knowledge could therefore only know Himself as co-existing with time. Thus for theologians to say that God exists apart from time would be positing something of Him that He Himself could not know. Instead, the simple truth is that a timeless deity could not create time and does not exist.



other than as it pertains to created things. It is rather an Open paradigm, that in order to hold an "Open" God, God must be 'temporal.' Think about that. It is counter intuitive to the proof.

No, Lon, it's not.

Time doesn't exist except as a convention of language used to convey information about the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. As Clete pointed out (which obviously you will never see), time cannot be created any more than numbers and the concepts of length, distance, and volume.

It shows that time is difficult to pin down,

Uh, no, it's not.

Time is the convention of language used to convey information about the duration and sequence of events relative to other events.

See? Easy.

but generally, time means 'duration' thus change is necessary for it to be observed. "A watched pot never boils," It does, but what the author was saying is that time begins to have no meaning when compared to something where progression is needed. Time 'seems' to slow down and not be much help during the process. Time is simply the observation of movement/change,

Supra.

especially when reading Enyart's quote above.

Which is... what?

It is not absolute, it is tied to our physical understanding of things.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Yes, but think with me for a second (pun?), it is 'before' and thus adds to my idea of time 'beginning.'


. . . creation means going from non-existence to existence, which itself is a sequence, a before and after. And any before and after sequence requires time. Time therefore is a precondition of creating. Thus time itself cannot be created.



As far as I understand time, it cannot apply to God.

Then your understanding is extremely limited.

Time means temporal, and temporal means specifically "pertaining to the physical world."

Your premise is wrong, and thus your conclusion is wrong.

Time DOES NOT EXIST as an ontological thing. It is simply the convention of language used to convey information about the duration and sequence of events relative to other events.

Such as...

Before the foundation of the earth.

Before the world was.

If the term means something different, given above, then the disagreement becomes more of definitions.



No it means 'exist' in the text. Existed (γενέσθαι) vs. (εἰμί) 'am.'

So the verse says:

"before the world exist"?

"before the world am"?

Because I have two different renderings, one of them says "existed," and the other says "was."



and

And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. - John 17:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...5&version=NKJV

"Einai" is the word used, a form of "eimi" (sorry for the romanized greek, I'm too lazy to switch to my greek keyboard on my phone).

In the context, I'm pretty sure that the intended message is that Christ existed BEFORE the world was created.

Don't miss the forest for the trees, Lon.

The Lord Jesus made a timeless statement

No, that's you reading your beliefs into the text.

Jesus is, quite literally, saying that prior to creating the world, He existed.

but we likely don't agree on the definition of time, so meaning is going to be rough between us.

Time is the convention of language used to convey information about the duration and sequence of events relative to other events.

That's the definition I'm using.

True, but I gave you Merriam Webster's definition and it says so.

No, Lon, you didn't.

I provided a link prior and it says so.

Even if you did, an argument from definition is only as valid as the definition.

The definition is WRONG and therefore the argument is wrong.

Because you say so?

Because I've shown so. The thread is still here for all to read, Lon.

Hebrews 11:3 specifically says that the world came from a nonphysical origin.

So what?

Time, as I've provided in definition, says that temporal things (where time applies) are physical things.

Again: An argument from definition is only as valid as the definition. The definition is wrong, therefore so is the argument.

There is no way to talk about a 'before' with a God who has none.

Question begging.

God has a past:

https://opentheism.org/verses#time

As you rightly said, 'before' is also a temporal term about time. So, how does God explain a time 'before' time?

That's the entire argument we've been making, Lon!

THERE CANNOT BE A "BEFORE TIME" BECAUSE IT IS IRRATIONAL!

I believe with 'before.' It doesn't mean He was caught in time, but in time very different than we grasp the concept.

You should have stopped with "I believe."

Your beliefs do not define reality, Lon, nor do they mirror them.

Reality is that God has always (a time word) existed, and then at some point during (another time word) His existence, He decided to do something new (a sequence, but definitely not the first), to create a universe. And then He planned out His creation, and then once He was finished with that, He started creating, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

For the most part, the term is attached to this physical universe

This is question begging.

and always was, in dictionaries, encyclopedias, physics, and however expressed in the Bible.

This is an appeal to tradition.

This is completely from your own context somewhere from left field. "Again?" "Figure of speech?" I see neither true from me OR the text. Where did either come from? What is driving you to even remotely think this was a 'figure of speech?' :idunno:

Allow me to rephrase what I said, as I mentioned before:

The verses you use to support your position, you are taking them woodenly literally. Yes, they are literally true. But you take that too far.

15 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.


Yowch. We both have to stand before Him upon what He says. Obviously I'm seeing literal here.

You're seeing literal and taking it woodenly literally.

Psalm 139:7Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
10 even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.
11 If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me
and the light become night around me,”
12 even the darkness will not be dark to you;
the night will shine like the day,
for darkness is as light to you.

Which does not at all say that God MUST ALWAYS be in those places.

If anything, all it says is that God is with those who trust in him...

Figurative? At LEAST you can see it isn't Greek pagan. It's an strawman, always has been. God knows the number of hairs on your head.

He didn't know how many there were before I existed.

It doesn't logically stand to reason, against an Open Theology assertion, that He has to count them.

The explanation is that God can instantly know anything and everything about what He is interested in knowing.

Or is that another scripture I'm not supposed to take literally? How many of these are there going to be in Open Theism?

Supra.

When do you realize it isn't a Greek that influenced me,

Most of what you have said so far has roots in Greek philosophy.

but the very scriptures you are talking about? How well do Open Theists actually know these? :think:

Quite well.

Scripture? Or a philosophical (cough...'Greek')reasoning?



I've explained myself. I stated further, we are ALL in the dark to some degree. You say 'no' later. You are wrong. I really do think you've been hanging out with the wrong crowd. Don't let 'Open Theism' become your god. What level of math and physics have you completed?




Incorrect. Sanctity means 'set apart.'

And now you've moved the goalposts.

YOU SAID:


God as holy, means He is apart from His creation



So I quoted, verbatim, the definition of holy from Merriam-Webster.

Further? Why would you want to argue this point? Are you arguing just to argue at this point? :confused:

:think:

Here's an idea, don't make things up.

You're the one who moved the goalposts to "sanctity."

Oh come, let us sing to the Lord! Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation.Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving;
Let us shout joyfully to Him with psalms.For the Lord is the great God, And the great King above all gods.In His hand are the deep
places of the earth; The heights of the hills are His also.The sea is His, for He made it; And His hands formed the dry land.Oh come,
let us worship and bow down; Let us kneel before the Lord our Maker.For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture, And the
sheep of His hand. Today, if you will hear His voice:“Do not harden your hearts, as in the rebellion, As in the day of trial in the
wilderness,When your fathers tested Me; They tried Me, though they saw My work.For forty years I was grieved with that generation, And
said, ‘It is a people who go astray in their hearts, And they do not know My ways.’So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My
rest.’ ” - Psalm 95:1-11
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...p;version=NKJV

By the way, this is another passage where God clearly describes Himself in time, specifically having to endure through 40 years of Israel's complaints and whinings before they entered Canaan.

Yowch again. What else are we going ot relegate to 'not literal' so we don't have to observe them?

Supra.

Further, how can we possibly discuss things when about all of them, you can CLEARLY see, are NOT in fact Greek, but scriptures. We are just disagreeing on which are figurative. While His 'hands' are figurative, it is yet true, not in fact figurative.

Something being true doesn't necessarily imply that it is literal.

He is the Author of all physical life. To not think so? A God who isn't what scripture says He is. No amount of attempted relegation to Greek philosophy will stand. It cannot. Clearly, without controversy, what I believe is what I take literally in scripture. Literally, you cannot do any one thing without the sustaining power of Christ. COlossians 1:17. It is as clear as day and we radically disagree. It says what it says.



It 'seems' because of an arbitrary relegation of the scriptures to 'figurative.' Rather, taken at face value, these scriptures are clear, I believe and so support what I'm trying to get across. Literal sheep? No. Literally made everything and creation held with 'in?' Yes. You can't wave any Open Theism wand. That is what doesn't work.



It is, for me, a mindless mantra. How could God not be with a child?

Once again, you're missing the point, and shifting the goalposts.

Of course God is with the child. But that doesn't mean He is in everything.

You're the one who said that God is in everything.

I was showing that God is not in everything.

The mindless mantra is, as you have demonstrated, "God is in everything."

Some of the worst times of my life I suffered as a child. Where was God? Right there. Yes. He was right there with me. Your 'sensibilities' (and other's) are getting in the way of proper theology.

Supra.

Rather borderline 'troublesome to my theology.' It doesn't matter if our concepts of God trouble us. I was greatly troubled by 'hate your mother and father or you are not worthy of me.'

That's because it's a Hebrew idiom, not to be taken woodenly literally, as you seem to imply that you learned to take it as.

It simply means that you should love God so much that it's AS IF you hated your mother and father.

Otherwise, why would God say something contradictory to what He Himself wrote on the two tablets of stone?

It was a hard truth. Many people rejected the Lord because what He said was hard. He wasn't trying to repel people, but give truth.

And you missed it entirely.

He confounds the wisdom of men, JR.

And?

The wisdom of men isn't very wise to begin with.

God is wise beyond measure.

That doesn't mean he confuses men, but that he shows how illogical man's reasoning can be.

In other words, this is a similar idiom to love and hate.

God's wisdom is so far greater than man's that it's as if man's wisdom were foolishness.

The point was that God is not always going to measure 'up' to what you think is sensible.

The same applies to you.

Theology isn't about sensibilities (Of course God was with me through atrocity), it is about truth and often that truth challenges our own rendition of it.

And?

It has everything to do with it. We have a strong disagreement over our view of God. The point here is that you and I are at HIS mercies for getting this right. At this point, I strongly believe you and a few other Open Theists are getting it wrong.

Good thing that's just your opinion, then.

Incorrect. 1 Corinthians 13:12 "We see through a glass darkly."

Which is a general statement about our understanding as a whole of who God is.

That DOES NOT MEAN, however, that we can't know what He has Himself defined for us in Scripture.

And this is from a better thinker either of us, or the wise men of our respective camps

Then why do you assert yourself as having such a clear understanding about that which is irrational?

(means you are wrong and just arguing now, sorry).

Saying it doesn't make it so, Lon.

I've read it my whole life and we disagree. Interesting, though 1 Corinthians 13:12 I took note of, and you seem to have either overlooked it or relegated it to a 'figure of speech' :( Why this posturing?

It's not a figure of speech?

Please explain how Paul is saying there is a literal dim mirror that we see things through with our eyes.

Which, to me, illustrates that you 'do' believe you own it. You should have been very careful after 'but' because it was about to undo what you were going to assert, and it did. Lets read the scriptures: 1 Corinthians 13:12 "glass darkly."

Are you asserting that God cannot be reasoned with?

“Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord, “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool. - Isaiah 1:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...8&version=NKJV

Are you asserting that God is not the source of reason?

You do quantum physics then?

I'm a truck driver. What do you think?

:think: Disagreement with Einstein's theories?

Einstein was brilliant, but he wasn't perfect, and he rejected God's existence.

I've not seen any Open Theist to date carry on quantum physics discussions.

A lot of it is over my head. What I do know is that most of the scientific field is off simply because most of the ones doing the research reject God's existence.

Yet, Paul, when touting them,

Fix your formatting, and I'll come back to the part that didn't get quoted in this post.

Some doctrines in error are built off of poor understanding of English translation.

Other errors are due to poor translations.

For example:


Bad Translations: "Before time began" (2 Tim. 1:9 & Titus 1:2) is widely quoted yet in the Greek text of the New Testament there is no verb "began" in the original language. And the singular word "time" does not appear. Instead, Paul wrote, "before the times of the ages," which is very different from the way many of our Bible versions render this phrase, which translations do not flow from the grammar but from the translators' commitment to Greek philosophy.
- "Time shall be no more" (Rev. 10:6; hymns) is corrected even by Calvinist translators in virtually all modern versions as is also made overtly clear from the text and the context, "There will be no more delay!"
- "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" at Revelation 13:8 can be corrected (as at the NIV footnote) by cross-referencing the passage with Revelation 17:8. For the Bible teaches that "only those written in the Lamb's Book of Life" (Rev. 21:27) shall be saved, and that God could save Old Testament believers because He looked forward to the cross, and He can save believers now because He looks backward to the cross. So in the Old Testament God looked forward and in the last two millennia He looks backward to that wonderful and yet terrible time. However, if Christ had been slain previously, before the foundation of the world, then there would have been no need for the righteous dead to wait in Abraham's Bosom "until the death of the one who is high priest in those days" (symbolizing Christ). The parallel passage at Revelation 17:8 shows that the qualifier does not apply to the slaying of Christ but to the wicked, "whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world." This means that these evil men were not believers who had fallen away, but that their names were NEVER written in the book. (See a similar construct in Jeremiah 2:32.) Revelation 13:8 can even be seen as giving the title and sub-title of The Book of Life – Of the Lamb Slain.


kgov.com/time

He isn't the product of His universe,

I have NEVER made this argument.

it is His. You relegate the scripture to not being literal

No, I don't.

Quotes aren't scriptures,

Where have I ever implied that they were?

I didn't say God was illogical.

Your entire argument implies that He is.

People are.

That's for sure.

==================================================

I may come back and finish this, but it's extremely long, so I may just leave it at that. I have other things to do, and other posts to reply to.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
No time for editing this one! I did a spell check and that's it so forgive any weird typos!

Now you sound like Plato. God said that His Ways are higher than ours. The ways that He is, walks in and has His Glory within are far above our minds' abilities and man's reasoning capabilities. The revelation of God will thrill, surprise and clear up all understanding; when He chooses to reveal His Mystery.
No, I don't sound anything at all like Plato but in this regard, that is - in the way you are meaning it here, I'll take that as a gigantic compliment. Plato, whether anyone agrees with him or not, is the single most important philosopher in the history of philosophy. I mean, the man practically invented it as a systematic field of study.

Regardless of that, you attempt to discredit my arguments by associating me with someone you think Christians ought not want to sound like does exactly nothing to refute a syllable of what I've said to you and what you said following that comment is far worse.

First, simply repeating what I've already refuted does not count as a rejoinder of any kind. All it does is force me to repeat my refutation, which, in a sentence, is that reason is the only tool that your mind has by which to understand or communicate anything and your attitude toward your ability to think would mean, if true, that we are entirely unable to know anything at all. You have effectively stripped yourself of the only means you have of falsifying any truth claim whatsoever. Don't believe me? Think it through...

Let's say David Koresh was still alive and he came to your house claiming to be the messiah and he spent hours quoting scriptures from memory and answering every argument you can think of with the following refrain...

"God said that His Ways are higher than ours. The ways that He is, walks in and has His Glory within are far above our minds' abilities and man's reasoning capabilities. The revelation of God will thrill, surprise and clear up all understanding; when He chooses to reveal His Mystery."

How would you refute him?

That's a real question, Amiel. It isn't rhetorical. I want you to answer it. How would you refute him?

I've changed many things about my theology by discussion on TOL and I hope for the better. I've come to understand myself and others far better than what I've accomplished in the flesh as far as theological discussions go. I've found most friends have a very shallow understanding and little or no curiosity regarding the subject. Often it seems like you scratch the surface and find a quivering mess of a person who any moment expects God to strike them down with lightning. Here on TOL the discussions often are deep and revealing, just reading. I'm also researching the several schools of thought on this subject now, regarding time and it's creation. I'm intrigued, but certainly not inflexible. Just not easily convinced that what I've seen of God, personally is un-reasonable.
I have no idea what the comment about "a quivering mess of a person who any moment expects God to strike them down with lightning" means. That comment made no sense and doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the paragraph. Was that supposed to be a description of me? If so, your mind is broken.

Regardless, how can you use such terms as "understand", "schools of thought", "convinced" and "unreasonable" after having just told me that your doctrine isn't based on reason? Reason, in your view, is somehow "below God's thoughts"! Reason, according to you, is no path toward God! If your doctrine is unreasonable, what is that to you? Why shouldn't it be unreasonable? God is a mystery, after all, is He not? We, according to you, can't hope to understand the things of God so what is all this talk about learning and being convinced to change your doctrine by being shown that it is unreasonable? By what possible means could anyone show you that your doctrine is unreasonable if not by reason?

Further, the fact is that I have shown you that your doctrine is unreasonable. I have made perfectly clear arguments that demonstrate the contradictory nature of your doctrine. Arguments that you've not even addressed, never mind refuted. You act as if I didn't ever even write them! Like they aren't even there! How do you propose to be convinced that your doctrine is unreasonable if you won't even engage the debate?

I don't attempt to define God;
Really?

Is God real?

Is God alive?

Is God personal?

Is God relational?

Is God loving?

Is God righteous?

Is God Just?

You've spend this entire thread defining God as omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, immutable. etc. You also started this very post by reminding us all that God's ways are higher than our ways, which is true but not in the convoluted sense in which you're applying it.

Of course you define God. The only question is whether your definition is accurate.

I don't attempt to define God; though we can understand His Word (to a point) and logically determine most of It's meanings, we cannot exhaustively or even remotely describe God even using Scripture.
Then why do you believe so dogmatically that God is omniscient?

That much of your doctrine isn't even stated in the bible!

He is beyond our capabilities to comprehend.
No one has suggested otherwise.

But what you are doing is going well beyond a simple acknowledgment of ignorance or even intelligence. What you are doing is allowing the irrational to be accepted as truth! Surely you can understand the difference. I am not here trying to tell you that our understanding can approach even 1% of what there is to know and understand about God and His existence. No way is that even remotely what I'm getting at! What I'm trying to tell you is simply that whatever God is and whatever there is about Him that we cannot know is not what we should be concerned about. What we should be concerned about is what we can understand and that is simply that God is real and that reality is not self-contradictory and that therefore we can know for a fact that certain doctrines are right and that other are wrong. We don't have to guess or blindly believe or any other such thing. We can know because God has given us the ability to think for ourselves and to read and understand His word and thereby understand the truth at least to a degree sufficient to have a genuine relationship with the God Who created us and Who says to us, "Come let us reason together."

The one who came closest to seeing Him had God's Hand placed over his eyes until after He had passed by. All Moses saw was the very residue of God's Glory after that He had passed by. His countenance was so changed that no one could bear to look at him for quite some time. We can't understand that or quantify it. But it is enough to know that God is so far beyond us that we could not bear to see Him in these frail bodies. Same goes for His ways and His understanding. It just won't fit into our tiny minds.
There was nothing remotely contradictory or in any other way irrational that happened to Moses when God passed by him. And there is nothing implicit in that story that would suggest that we must be willing to accept the irrational in our doctrine. That's just you saying so because you have doctrines that you know don't make any sense but aren't willing to drop them on that basis. You might as well believe in unicorns and fairy dust.

I don't agree. The limit is there for a reason. He could have been more forthcoming on a lot of things regarding His creation, but kept the things it isn't necessary or profitable to dwell on to Himself.
You're contradicting yourself. Is there a limit to our reason or isn't there? I didn't say we should go beyond it. On the contrary, you are the one who is disregarding the limits of reason, not me!

I find that It does.
No you don't. The bible flat out does not in any way whatsoever teach that God is omniscient. It teaches quite the reverse, actually.

I've found far more understanding of His Word by listening to Him and meditating His Words than all the study or thinking that I've ever done with Scripture.
You're contradicting yourself again. Understanding requires reason. Reading requires reason. Listening requires reason. Meditating requires reason. No more or less than study or thinking of any other kind. All of it requires reason. Every intelligible thought or feeling, decision or action you have ever undertaken or even considered required reason from start to finish. The only question is whether you used it properly or not.

You cannot do anything without reason. You cannot even feed yourself without reason. Every action whether in thought word or deed requires an act of the mind. Reason is man’s only means of grasping reality and of acquiring knowledge—and, therefore, the rejection of reason means that men should act regardless of and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality.

I don't care what form it took or what you choose to call it, if you have ever learned anything - anything AT ALL - you learned through a process of reason.

I take Scripture as a whole and try to use all the knowledge and wisdom that God has granted me every time I read or hear His Word.
Thank you for conceding your use of reason.

I don't believe that Scripture gives us sound doctrine by defining it line-by-line or attempting to use It to place limits upon God.
What you believe in this regard is irrelevant. The bible either does so or it does not.

Do you believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth?

Do you consider that to be sound doctrine?

Is it not a verbatim (i.e. line-by-line) quotation of the first first sentence of the bible?

You should avoid doctrinal believes that can be demolished to this degree by simply quoting the very first sentence of the bible! Especially after having just claimed that you take the bible as a whole - whatever that means.

I believe that God spoke of Himself the ways that He did in Scripture many times for our understanding. I don't believe that He didn't know where Adam was when He asked, "Adam? Where are thou?" I also don't believe that He has to wait for the newspaper to come out to find out what happened yesterday. He knows what will be on the last page of paper ever printed. That's my God. I see Him as beyond time or wisdom. He is past finding out. I'm still gonna' seek His Face, but I know I won't see Him until Heaven (or the rapture, whichever comes first). But men can't understand how He operates or say, "God HAS to obey my reasoning." It's going too far.
The god you call "my God" doesn't exist.

You render countless passages meaningless in order to preserve your belief in the god of Aristotle and Plato.

Don't believe me? Then tell me what the following passage means. Not what it says, I know what it says because I can read it. You are telling me that it doesn't mean what it says and so I want you to tell me what it does mean. You won't be able too...

Genesis 18:17 And the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing, 18 since Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? 19 For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.” 20 And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”


Clete
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
God is relational

Yes He is.

/unrestrained by time.

This is question begging.

You are assuming that time exists as an ontological thing, whereas it simply doesn't exist as such.

Time is the convention of language used to convey information about the duration and sequence of events relative to other events.

While there are absolutely indicative scriptures, no Traditional theist ever means to argue God isn't relational, simply that He is unconstrained by time. Even Open Theists agree God 'could' do as He likes.

As Clete said, NO HE COULDN'T!

God cannot go back in time and change something that happened in the past, nor can He go into the future to change what might happen, as if everything that has happened or will happen are written down somewhere, and all He has to do is erase part of it, and rewrite it.

God cannot make a triangle with two sides. He cannot count the number of hairs on the head of a person who does not exist.

God cannot do evil and remain righteous.

What we argue is that God is COMMITTED to the good of men, SO COMMITTED that He sent His Son to die for us, who went willingly to the cross so that we might be able to spend eternity with Him.

*Quick question for any Open Theist: IS God able to supercede time in any manner or fashion (according to Open Theism)?

Again, this is begging the question.

Time is not an ontological thing.

For us, the answer is yes, but what is God 'capable' of doing according to Open Theism?

There is NO SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE that God EVER went back and changed something in the past, either to correct something or to prevent something from happening, etc.

What the Bible shows is that God endured 40 years in the wilderness with Israel, that he poured out His wrath on His Son ONCE, never to do it again, that He led captivity captive, bringing those who wanted to be with Him from Abraham's Bosom to heaven, and that He WILL RETURN AGAIN.

-Timeless Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ, the same today, yesterday, forever..."

@Clete:
This is your doctrinal interpretation of this verse. The verse itself does not teach nor even suggest timelessness.



- An Eternal Now: John 8:58 "Abraham 'was/ I 'AM'" :think:

Clete:
Again, 'eternal now" is nothing but your doctrinal interpretation of this passage. What the context makes clear is that Jesus was intentionally taking on a very well known name of God Himself. He wasn't claiming to be timeless or to exist in an eternal now or anything of the sort. He was claiming to be God. That's what this verse is about and that's all its about.



-Without sequence/succession, moment or duration 2 Peter 3:8 "Thousand years as a day, a day as a thousand years" It isn't just an idiom, because there is nothing to 'teach' by it except this expressed truth, in the scripture, as grace.

Clete:
This seems to be two unrelated comments smashed together. I'll deal with the passage and leave your commentary alone...

There are just about a thousand different ways to understand this passage but none of them include "without sequence/succession, moment or duration"! The text itself is explicitly stating the exact opposite. The most obvious meaning of the passage is that God can get done in a day what one might expect to take a thousand years and God is patient enough that for Him to wait a thousand years is as it would be if we had to wait a day. God can wait two thousand years for His Amazon deliveries without getting put out by it.



- atemporal and outside of time

Did you forget to address this one?

- not was, nor will be, but only is Isaiah 46:10 "Declaring the end 'from' the beginning, against assertion, definitely beyond indicative, and compelling.

Clete:
It's not compelling at all! The verse doesn't say one single word about God being outside of time! NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY WORD!!!

God tells people in advance what He is going to do and then He does it.

That's as easy to understand as can be. Any child can understand it. But even as simple an idea as that is, it's only a general rule. We know this because there are several instances where God wanted one thing and got quite another no matter how hard He tried to bring what He wanted to pass.

You should realize that even one single counter example to your doctrinal interpretation of this passage blows your entire theological construct to smithereens and there's way more than one. There are several.



- not was, nor will be, but only is Exodus 3:14 with John 8:58 "I AM" especially from the Lord Jesus Christ, from 'was' (past) declared as "AM" in that past, doesn't just indicate, it expresses an eternal 'now.' It cannot be taken otherwise, it both expresses as God, and atemporal.

Clete:
This is a repeat of the earlier point. It's weaker here than it was before because you've added a bald lie to what was simply a doctrinal interpretation.

What you're doing here by baseless declaring that your doctrine is obvious and that the passage cannot be taken any other way is no more substantive or persuasive that when a preacher pounds the pulpit because he knows that the biblical material he has for the point he's making is weak.

I, for one, am not at all impressed by either pulpit pounding or your baseless and totally unsupported declarations of truth.



- has no past Hebrews 7:3 "Without genealogy" indicates 'without a past.'

No, it doesn't. :dunce:

FIRST: Considering that Christ has not just one but FOUR geneologies written out, at the beginning of each of the four gospels, perhaps you should reexamine what "without geneology" means within the context of the verse.

So there goes your assertion, blown out of the water completely...

SECOND: The verse isn't even talking about Christ. It's talking about Melchizedek! In fact, THE WHOLE CHAPTER is about the priesthood of the order of Melchizedek!!!!

Spoiler
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,”without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils.And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham;but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises.Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better.Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives.Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak,for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priestwho has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life.For He testifies: “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.”For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness,for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath(for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: “The Lord has sworn And will not relent, ‘You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek’ ” ),by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing.But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood.Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens;who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever. - Hebrews 7:1-28 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews7:1-28&version=NKJV


Your assertion, blown out of the water completely, was just blown to bits!

THIRD:
Clete:
Without genealogy does not in any way indicate anything similar to "without a past". That's just ridiculous nonsense. It means that God had no mother who bore Him and that He has no father from whom He descended. If anything, it means that God no beginning and that God's past goes back forever. Just the complete opposite of what you are suggesting here.



There is no sense, however, that I don't agree on this point. All of Christianity with you: John 17:5 "Glory I had with you before the world was formed."

:yawn:

- has no future. Isaiah 46:10 restated. God is relational to His creation in every sense. "...No matter where people go, sooner or later there's the law. And sooner or later they find God's already been there." -John Wayne, Chisum

Clete:
Meaningless gibberish.

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure,’

Heaven forbid any Calvinist actually quote the verses they rip out of their context!

This verse says exactly nothing whatsoever that is in anyway similar to this nonsensical gibberish that you posted here.



*Simply to point out where we might agree as well as the extent of our disagreements.

Clete:
I can find next to no common ground here with you at all.

God exists. We agree on that - I think.

Do you believe that God became a man, that God died for your sin and that He rose from the dead, acquired a glorified physical human body that He retains to this day?

Do you believe any of that. I wouldn't bet my house on your willingness to acknowledge it without caveat.

Clete

 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Obviously you can't understand me, who is finite;

I can understand you just fine, Aimiel.

and I cannot understand you

You could if you put in more effort.

NOT understanding that if we cannot fully know or understand God, we cannot exhaustively expound the topic.

Who said anything about "exhaustively expounding the topic"?

God defined Himself in His word, and made it easy to understand Him.

Why do you then assert that He is impossible to understand at all?

Makes little sense to argue over things that are merely opinion or theory

Then why are you even on TOL?

as if we're capable of making fully-informed decisions

Paul has some words for you (and yes, I am using them out of context):

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge?I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren?But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated?No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. - 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV

about things which clearly aren't spelled out.

God didn't clearly spell out who He is and what He is like?

God holds a LOT in obscurity for His Purposes; which Mystery shall one day be un-veiled. Not sure what you don't understand.

I don't understand why you're saying that God is some unknown, when He has described Himself in an easy for us to understand way.

When all is revealed, understanding will be shared with all. Until then we can only see as if we're looking through a very dark beer bottle.

Dark beer bottles aren't completely opaque, you know. They do let light through.

In the same way, God did reveal some of Himself to us.

Why do you deny that?

The God that I serve IS Omniscient.

Sorry, but God isn't omniscient. He cannot know that which is impossible to know, such as what a triangle with two sides looks like, or the number of hairs on a non-existent person's head.

He cannot know what it is like to do evil and remain righteous, because it's not possible to do such.

in other words, you should stop bringing your a priori beliefs to scripture.

Sorry, were you referring to maybe someone other than The King of the Universe?

You know, it's ironic that you say "we can't know anything at all about God," yet you call Him (and rightly so) the King of the Universe.

Do you see the problem yet?

Of course not, but guessing or attempting to apply logic, reason or even wisdom to find Him out isn't the same as knowing Him.

So you're saying we cannot know God at all until we meet Him "face to face"?

Those who do know Him understand that His Ways are higher than ours and that His Thoughts are higher.

Usually when people say this in a discussion, it's to try to clinch the discussion in their favor.

Yes, God's ways are higher than ours.

But they're not lower, and they're certainly not unrevealed.

He defined the terms, specifically. Those who write 'about' God don't speak on His behalf without permission. Every one who does will line up with His Logos. Speculation, through logic or understanding (such as the observed laws of physics) is merely man's attempt at reasoning God into a box. Scripture is God trying to get man to come into His Kingdom.

So why are you putting God into the box of "beyond logic or understanding (such as the observed laws of physics)"?

Aren't you being a hypocrite?

:think:

I agree with coming into a relationship with God, through The Holy Spirit that He puts inside of believers, but taking license from knowledge or reason and trying to define God with it isn't the same thing.

Again, There is nothing wrong with learning from how God defined HIMSELF, and trying to learn more from that.

To me, when He calls Himself: "Eternal," I read: "Timeless." Not bound by or subject to time.

So, in other words, you're bringing your a priori beliefs to scripture.

How is that logical?

He said that He is the same: yesterday, today and forever. That, to me, doesn't just mean that He won't change His Character but also that He knows the future and is in the future right now.

As Clete said above to Lon:


This is your doctrinal interpretation of this verse. The verse itself does not teach nor even suggest timelessness.



To me, that isn't un-reasonable or illogical; it's a day in the life of The Eternal One.

Sorry, but your personal preferences don't define reality.

He does so for our understanding.

Well, yeah, so that we can understand that He isn't outside of time.

Why else would He describe Himself that way?
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
I'm with Clete on this one. You should have stopped here.
Assertions are like that. You generally are astute in theology conversations (and others), but perhaps its because we agree on most everything else.



Then allow me to move all the posturing
Couldn't be happier :up: Thank you.


Now that THAT'S taken care of...

??? You think assessment is the same as assertion? :think: Okay...

==================================================

First off I'd like to retract a claim I made earlier,

that time is not a measurement. It is, to some extent, simply because the words we use to describe periods of time define the

measurement.

What it is not, however, is a physical measurement, because time does not actually exist except as an idea, a concept that

we use to describe duration.
We are going to agree to an extent: an inch really is just a random division of a random ruler as

a foot. It was a way of establishing something similar so that two people could work on the same job. Standardization helps, but

feet and inches are man created items. The thing we measure, often enough, is something God made, as well as what we have made to it

is a nice created idea that helps keep us all on the same page. Time, by every definition (given already in thread) deals with the

progression of things in the physical universe. One of the definitions says "without the physical, no time."

Let's stop there for a moment: No need for posturing, right? Just discussing what time is according to definitions. We really

don't need a huge long piece on all this. It becomes smoke and mirrors. The only two points in thread are Time as it relates to God,

and God's simplicity. As for the other, I should have just ignored the random piece and subsequent high-five. You can agree with

Clete all day long. That isn't important, I just don't appreciate one who talks behind my back, knowing I don't see it. At this

point? I'd simply ask that you keep the conversation between you and I. He isn't a great influence on you. Your posts take a decided turn when you are in conversation with him. His 'lies' and other assertions are beneath both of our purview, whether you agree or not, it is. It is beneath what I've known of you and I don't appreciate it, even secondhand.






With that out of the way...



Then why, in much of your post, do you simply "actuate by declaration alone"?

Hypocrite.
About which? Clete? Most of your quotes from me were regarding him. It is 'my' assessment. It doesn't need

substantiation, it is what "I" believe. We don't agree. That's fine. As I said, I'm going to skip any of this in the ensuing

posts, the only two topics are God's simplicity and Time as it relates to God. For such discussion, we simply need to post and link

what definitions actually say. If we disagree after? We'll move along, each believing what we have chosen. The pertinent is that

we post what information we have that supports, for all intent and purpose, to give the other something to think about.




You said he was incapable.

The thread is still here to read, though. So are many of his posts throughout

the forum.

Oh, but, I guess if you stop your ears, there is no evidence contrary...



I try to. But you clearly don't, and that's assuming

you read everything I posted. I quoted a list from kgov.com/time, and... well, I'll address it down below.



:think:



Saying it doesn't make

it so, Lon.



What link?



No argument there.



With sound reasoning and logic and scripture.



I do.



You said, "everything is contained in God."

(post #2)

Question:

Is the sinner contained in God?



God created the universe and everything in it. He didn't create "nothing."



Of course

it's correct.
All good so far. One day, you may convince me he has some wherewithall. That'd be cool. All of the

discussion and problem is simply to say, even after reading a bit in thread without logging in so I could read him, he still is given

to overgeneralizations. He has no idea if I'm a Calvinist, nor if 'all Calvinists ever do.' He simply is making his own ideas,

observations, imperialized. It is a dominance posture. Again, after this, I'm just going to ignore any further discussion BUT if it

ever helps build a bridge, I'm up to moderation, as scripture calls, for two people to be reconciled. Let me know if you and perhaps

another Mod want to cross that bridge. It is biblical. -Lon


The argument is that your woodenly literal understanding of it is incorrect.
Here is what is taught in Bible study throughout most of Cristendom: Take it at face value (woodenly), unless there is a reason, from

the context of the text, to think otherwise. As far as I read these (not just me, most but for Open Theism and a few others), the

context demands 'literal.' If there is a disagreement (obviously) then food-for-thought is good here. You can own your own study.

Try not to let Open Theism paradigms drive the text. I try, often, to not run my theology leanings, first. At the end of it? I

trust God and leave you (and I) in His capable hands. We plant. We water, God gives increase.

(Which is what I was trying to get at earlier.)



Again, your woodenly literal interpretation is incorrect.

Sin wasn't created.

God created beings (man) who had the choice of rebelling against Him. Sin is rebellion against God, and RESULTS in a

deprivation of God (from man's perspective.
Good job (not patrinizing), this is what I was saying, and we agree. :up:

(This ties into the idea that death is separation, where spiritual death is separation of mans' spirit and

God.)



I'm trying to discuss scripture with you.

It's rather difficult.



I did. I ALSO read the verses surrounding it. You should too.

God,

who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.Nor is He

worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.And He has made from one

blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of

their dwellings,so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from

each one of us;for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His

offspring.’Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone,

something shaped by art and man’s devising.Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to

repent,because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given

assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” - Acts 17:24-31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV



It means that we were made in His image.
It is a great call to scriptures and reasoning with Him, together, through them. It also backs up what I said above, that we both

understand context drives meaning. Open Theism, on the matter of time, necessarily is incredibly small, nor does the world look to

theologians for definitions and understandings of time. Whatever we discuss here, assertion or otherwise, has a small audience and

impact. What we 'can' do is find meaning between the two of us and I'm going to call a few of your posits into question. Quoting Open

literature is okay, but it doesn't carry the scope of compelling data. While I love Answers in Genesis and ICR, the scope is who it

reaches and I have to do extra work to find the original cited material when talking with someone outside of these influences.




Panentheism takes this a step too far because advocates of it (such as yourself) take the above passage

woodenly literally, when it, while true, is only referring to the fact that we are made in His image and His likeness.
Colossians 3:11b "Christ is all, and is in all." This is the definition of panentheism (He is in all).




Meaning, what, exactly?

God is angered when men sin, because He is good. That doesn't put him "at the mercy

of sin."



Yet you constantly interpret scripture to fit your beliefs. Stop that.
We both do, but a call to drop our

preconceptions is noted and a good call. :up:

As far as the next post, I don't really want to do a discussion, even 2nd party, with the other. I've read enough of him when I didn't log in, and it just goes south too quickly. You and I are having a profitable conversation. If you want to channel him, in order to make a poor prophecy on his part, happen, I can stop the conversation, but I'm not going to put you on ignore. I don't have the same history with you and even here, even channeling a little of him, we have a much better history and you've written support to me enough times 'when I happen to be right' that I don't see you as blind to anything nor your own colored lenses making outlandish overgeneralizations, calling people 'liar' because you cannot understand a difference :dizzy: etc. Again, the last I'm going to say anything about him here. Your last post was him. His disdain for anybody not Open Theist, is evident. It is how he does debate. "Smack" is in his moniker. Reading the bible is not the same as devotions. Teaching Sunday School is not doing devotions.

I really don't want to talk about or with him after this point. Thanks for help moving the conversation along. It isn't about he and I. -Lon
 
Last edited:
Top