Ps. 90 and 102 shows continuation in the experiences of God, not timelessness. He is from everlasting to everlasting. There is a before and after creation, even for God. Duration does not limit God, but is simply an aspect of the experience of personal beings who must think, act, feel in sequence for it to have any meaning. Confusing time with space or created things is also a flawed assumption (as is EDF, eternal now, etc.). The tensed verses can and should be taken at face value since there is nothing in the context to make one assume that God is eternal now/timeless. How else could God say He experiences duration apart from what He has said? There would be other ways to say He is timeless, but we can assume it means what it says if God has past, present, future (just because He is aware of the past does not make the events actual/real in the present, even for God...Jesus is not still on the cross in any sense; the future is also different than the past since it is not there yet, unlike the past which has existed in reality already).
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Philetus
New member
Language is like theology, never understatement the power of preconceived word usage.
Going to pot?
I I I I
r r r r
r r r r
e e e e
gg g g
a a a a
r r r r
d d r r
l l l l
ee e e
ss s s
s s s s;
Pot is the number one cash crop in Kentucky. Maybe we should pull out of Afghanistan and send our troupes to Lexington.
Not!
P
themuzicman
Well-known member
Is Kentucky run by the Taliban?
Muz
Muz
Philetus
New member
It think its the Bellyban down there now.
lee_merrill
New member
By not doing what I mentioned above, then I would be inclined to think the statements about God's years were from his perspective. How else would God say he has a real arm? I can use the same argument in other areas.
Such as the above! Let's discuss those points more specifically, and not skip any, please...
Blessings,
Lee
An athropomorphism is evident from context and other verses.
Eternal now simultaneity/timelessness is not explicitly found in Scripture. It was uncritically adopted by Augustine and others because of their desire to mesh pagan philosophy with Scripture.
A word study of Hebrew 'eternal', 'everlasting', etc. does not support timelessness but does support duration or endless time.
Scientifically, Einstein's relativity does not apply to spiritual beings like God (uncreated Creator before creation) and cannot be used to determine God's eternal relationship to time. Some have tried to argue that 'God is light' (I Jn.) refers to God's metaphysical nature and get off on nonsense about God, speed of light, timelessness, omnipresence, etc. In context and Johannine use, it refers to God's moral nature and cannot be a metaphysical proof text for timelessness.
We should base our understanding on revelation and Scripture. It clearly presents God as experiencing an endless duration of time or sequence with no beginning and end. Your pet phrases of 'I am' or Alpha/Omega are fully consistent with this. You are simply reading your concept of timelessness back into the text. It is clear that there is a before and after for God. He uses tensed expressions about His existence because that is true reality. To say it is only from His perspective is to make the Bible say whatever you want. No statements can be accepted at face value if they contradict your ideas (poor hermeneutic; appealing to God not having arms is not parallel...God can reveal things about Himself literally; not everything is figurative).
He is from everlasting to everlasting. Creation happens before incarnation and Second Coming. To say that this really is simultaneous for God and that we are in a Matrix and perceive differently is beyond stupid.
Eternal now simultaneity/timelessness is not explicitly found in Scripture. It was uncritically adopted by Augustine and others because of their desire to mesh pagan philosophy with Scripture.
A word study of Hebrew 'eternal', 'everlasting', etc. does not support timelessness but does support duration or endless time.
Scientifically, Einstein's relativity does not apply to spiritual beings like God (uncreated Creator before creation) and cannot be used to determine God's eternal relationship to time. Some have tried to argue that 'God is light' (I Jn.) refers to God's metaphysical nature and get off on nonsense about God, speed of light, timelessness, omnipresence, etc. In context and Johannine use, it refers to God's moral nature and cannot be a metaphysical proof text for timelessness.
We should base our understanding on revelation and Scripture. It clearly presents God as experiencing an endless duration of time or sequence with no beginning and end. Your pet phrases of 'I am' or Alpha/Omega are fully consistent with this. You are simply reading your concept of timelessness back into the text. It is clear that there is a before and after for God. He uses tensed expressions about His existence because that is true reality. To say it is only from His perspective is to make the Bible say whatever you want. No statements can be accepted at face value if they contradict your ideas (poor hermeneutic; appealing to God not having arms is not parallel...God can reveal things about Himself literally; not everything is figurative).
He is from everlasting to everlasting. Creation happens before incarnation and Second Coming. To say that this really is simultaneous for God and that we are in a Matrix and perceive differently is beyond stupid.
lee_merrill
New member
Agreed, now I conclude that the verse is from our perspective, based on the context (Alpha and Omega) and other verses (lack of "is to come" later on).
Nor is "God is three persons."
That doesn't mean it's wrong, and how do you know Augustine put no thought into whether this was Scriptural?
Everlasting strength, everlasting rock (Isa. 26:4) indicates an intensive quality of presentness, more than just duration of time, as does everlasting righteousness (Dan. 9:24). Also, "from everlasting to everlasting you are God" (Ps. 90) speaks in present tense of all God's rule from start to finish.
But time is a physics quantity, and relates to matter. Unless you have some different definition of time--in which case we need to hear it.
Physics time has an inertial frame of reference.
"Before Abraham was, I am" is not so indicative of God in time, nor is "a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day."
But you are simply reading your concept of time back into the text.
Just as it is clear he has a real arm?
Again, simultaneous is a concept of time, and to repeat this is to miss a basic point. But let's refrain from insults please.
And God speaks of events that were yet in the future as if they were done in the past, really done then:
2 Tim. 1:9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time.
And once you have foreknowledge, and omniscience, you have "eternal now," events are ever-present if all past and present history is completely known. So I don't think the philosophers are even required here to make the case in this area.
Blessings,
Lee
P.S. Why do you skip strong points, Godrulz? Let's be Elijahs of God, and not flinch at the prospect of a radical test to our position.
God can speak about some things in the future as certain, but that still does not make them real (things he settles by His ability, not foreknowledge). He also speaks of other things as open or unsettled.
The fact that creation precedes fall, Noah was before David, Jonah before Jesus, incarnation before resurrection, 2006 before 2008, etc. shows that God thinks, acts, feels in sequence.
There is no verse that must lead to a timeless 'eternal now' conclusion. There are endless passages that show God's interaction in an endless duration of time. I can defend a triune understanding from many verses put together. You cannot defend timelessness except through philosophical assumptions and proof texts that make more than sense with an endless time perspective (the fact you have to divorce our view from God's view leads to subjective opinion and makes many verses ambiguous or uninterpretable by that technique).
I think I have checkmate, but we will have to be content with stalemate...next topic?
(Timothy refers to God's potential plan that was implemented after the Fall and actualized centuries later; it points to corporate vs individual grace since we did not exist in the beginning).
The fact that creation precedes fall, Noah was before David, Jonah before Jesus, incarnation before resurrection, 2006 before 2008, etc. shows that God thinks, acts, feels in sequence.
There is no verse that must lead to a timeless 'eternal now' conclusion. There are endless passages that show God's interaction in an endless duration of time. I can defend a triune understanding from many verses put together. You cannot defend timelessness except through philosophical assumptions and proof texts that make more than sense with an endless time perspective (the fact you have to divorce our view from God's view leads to subjective opinion and makes many verses ambiguous or uninterpretable by that technique).
I think I have checkmate, but we will have to be content with stalemate...next topic?
(Timothy refers to God's potential plan that was implemented after the Fall and actualized centuries later; it points to corporate vs individual grace since we did not exist in the beginning).
lee_merrill
New member
I think if God settles it, it's in the bank.
Certainly, it is an inference, as would be a good number of theological conclusions.
Well, I would mention this:
Deuteronomy 18:21-22 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.
But the Open View says God does speak and then not act, he promises, and does not fulfill.
Blessings,
Lee
Conditional prophecies are a specific matter. Deut. 18 is a specific context and is affirmed by OTs. It contrasts true and false prophets. Jonah was not a false prophet just because God acted one way and not another based on men's responses to His warnings. Prophecies may be declarative, not just predictive. Deut 18 is not an issue for OT (it is for JWs or Mormons), but it is an issue for you because you do not fully understand OT.
This is RobE saying "I agree with you, thus I've proved my point"
Or, more accurately, it's RobE saying "How do you like my face to foot style".
Philetus
New member
:rotfl:
'And then he killed the dog."
That is one sick and funny movie. I love having a teenager in the house. It keeps things ... relevant.
P
lee_merrill
New member
So God did not change his mind? He did not threaten unconditional judgment, and then reverse himself?
Does God speak and then not act, or promise and not fulfill?
themuzicman
Well-known member
lee_merrill
New member
Unless there were understood conditions--then the huge problem is with the Open View, which view this thread is set up to discuss.
If you have a complaint about Calvinism, you may start another thread, though a hole in another boat would not fix the one in your own.
This also went unanswered:
Blessings,
Lee
lee_merrill
New member
This is a misunderstanding of what Rob is saying. The mocking just makes it worse.
No it isn't, Lee. Rob makes this sort of ridiculous argument all the time. And as it is a ridiculous argument, ridiculing it and him is the only appropriate response.
Resting in Him,
Clete
elected4ever
New member
WHY ARE YOU GUYS ARGUING WITH CLETE? He is right because Clete said so. Clete is a carnal Christian who is a Christian in the flesh and according to fleshly logic. He is one of the weak ones for whom Christ died.
patman
Active member
Yeah, how dare christians be logical and well studied individuals
patman
Active member
Lee, do you believe some prophecies are conditional?
- Status