philosophizer
New member
Serious? If you can't taste time, why do I have some in my spice rack?
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Serious? If you can't taste time, why do I have some in my spice rack?
Yikes, I am wrong after all.
Do you know what thyme it is now that daylight savings thyme is in effect?
Maybe we should ask Simon and Garfunkel or their friend, Rosemary?
I'm parsley to consulting a sage...
Lon
Well-known member
Ignoring the peanut gallery, as I knew they'd not get it but still need to chime in...
See, if you'd have stated this a bit more clearly, you'd not have lost your own crowd, but I know where you are headed and no problem.
First off, philosophically is this: Colossians 1 "...by Him all things hold together and exist..." as well as "...all things are created for Him..."
To me, it seems awkward to imagine a scenario where 'other things' can come into play. You'll note LH and GR's response seems to play with other sources playing in our universe. To say that 'time' isn't an outcome of 'all things' is problematic to my understanding of creation. The things of creation are requirements for the mere concept of time or we'd have none, just endless duration with no marks anywhere. It is the difference between a series of segments and a line. Time, is merely a marking off of points or segments.
And Second, I believe God's Word is emphatic with His foreknowledge of the future and the implications are severely discrediting to the OV position.
God is certainly relational to us in scripture, answers prayer, intervenes, and in all other ways is Sovereign over creation "...all things were made for Him..." Both philosophically and Biblically, He cannot be constrained to time as we know and define it. We are within a limitation, God is not.
See, if you'd have stated this a bit more clearly, you'd not have lost your own crowd, but I know where you are headed and no problem.
Even OV concedes to nth. We are talking about both what is knowable and unknowable to us. No problem there. Obviously we are going to disagree on some of the logical conclusions, but I'm on page with you here.
Again, to be careful in our dialogue, we agree on the premise but not where the lines are drawn between them.
Oh, this is my que? "Maybe...."
Now we are getting to the sticky part where things always seem to break down but I'm game and believe you've the mind for the discussion.
First off, philosophically is this: Colossians 1 "...by Him all things hold together and exist..." as well as "...all things are created for Him..."
To me, it seems awkward to imagine a scenario where 'other things' can come into play. You'll note LH and GR's response seems to play with other sources playing in our universe. To say that 'time' isn't an outcome of 'all things' is problematic to my understanding of creation. The things of creation are requirements for the mere concept of time or we'd have none, just endless duration with no marks anywhere. It is the difference between a series of segments and a line. Time, is merely a marking off of points or segments.
And Second, I believe God's Word is emphatic with His foreknowledge of the future and the implications are severely discrediting to the OV position.
This can be somewhat reasoned through from the answer directly above.
God is certainly relational to us in scripture, answers prayer, intervenes, and in all other ways is Sovereign over creation "...all things were made for Him..." Both philosophically and Biblically, He cannot be constrained to time as we know and define it. We are within a limitation, God is not.
There is no reason to assume God doesn't know the future nor that the future is somehow out of His hands/power. The ONLY reason to assume so is a philosophical premise that forces exegesis in that direction. In other words, if OV doesn't do this, OV ceases to exist BUT, and this is my contention, it is a matter of interpreting scripture surrounding bias rather than presention. The only way to get away with that kind of thing is to discredit tradition with some kind of secular taintings, as both Boyd and Sanders initially attempted to do. If you read AMR's book link, you'll see that effort refuted adequately. All of history of God's revelation to His people have them convinced of these two truths: God is foreknowing and Sovereign.
It is an attempt at showing that even the OV has a logical set of pointers that God is indeed foreknowing where you and I are not. I'm a Calvinist and believe that God ordains all that will ever be. Because this is understood by, it seems, none but other Calvinists, it is my point to try to wrest this view from within the Arminian and OV position, where it is also a logical must. In effect, I'm trying to show that logically you must come to the same conclusion even if you arrive at it from a different perspective.
Lon
Well-known member
Time is a measure (in some way shape or form) of segments of a continuation. We are finite, so naturally think in segments or portions. God is infinite, so is beyond your imaginings of segment. We've been over and over this. You simply reasserting, screaming louder, plugging your ears and repeating a line over and over; doesn't win an argument, doesn't make it true. Time is a marking of change, motion and duration. I agree with a lot of what you've said here, but it is a fabrication of the mind for marking duration. It is a contrived system of meaning and it is finite (has a beginning and end). God already is beyond this thinking.
Why can't God experience endless time without beginning nor ending? This is the biblical portrayal of God's experience, yet you blindly accept philosophical timelessness with no basis to do so. Who is the one with their head in the sand?
The subjective measure of time should not be confused with time itself. Whether or not we use a watch, hourglass, moon, sun, etc. or nothing, duration is still reality. There is no reason to think God is not sequential in His experience as a personal being, but many reasons to think He is. You wrongly assume that duration is a limitation on God, but it is not (He is not finite like us).
If I am asserting, so are you. I have studied the major views on time and eternity, so my convictions are based on ideas that satisfy myself and greater thinkers, even if you are unaware of the arguments and issues (I pointed you to some resources).
The subjective measure of time should not be confused with time itself. Whether or not we use a watch, hourglass, moon, sun, etc. or nothing, duration is still reality. There is no reason to think God is not sequential in His experience as a personal being, but many reasons to think He is. You wrongly assume that duration is a limitation on God, but it is not (He is not finite like us).
If I am asserting, so are you. I have studied the major views on time and eternity, so my convictions are based on ideas that satisfy myself and greater thinkers, even if you are unaware of the arguments and issues (I pointed you to some resources).
duration
duration
The experience of time is subjective. It begins when I become aware of it and ends when I am no longer aware. My awareness of duration is as a drop of water in the ocean. God is timeand space and movement and awareness. We are somewhere in the midst of it. bybee
duration
The experience of time is subjective. It begins when I become aware of it and ends when I am no longer aware. My awareness of duration is as a drop of water in the ocean. God is timeand space and movement and awareness. We are somewhere in the midst of it. bybee
Lon
Well-known member
No, and again this is absolute assertion. There is no reason to think such a thing unless there is underpinning (and there so OBVIOUSLY is) to think that God is constrained by our constraints.
Here, let me make some similarities for you so you can see why this just boggles my mind:
How many more should we do?
Oh yeah....
Two OVer's have already conceded this logical premise as false by admitting that God can if He desired. They 'assume' He does not (for LWF preservation) but this is a far cry from your assertion that He 'cannot.'
He surely can.
Lon,
In response to the first section of your post: You are incapable of knowing anything.
God is, as are all things that are real, "enslaved" by reality. Time is not real. That is to say that it is merely a concept, a convention of language used to communicate duration and/or sequence. God CANNOT change the past because the past does NOT exist. And the only sense in which God can "change" the future is in so far as the future is effected by the present. The present is all that exists. There is no past to change nor future to travel too. All that exists does so now, in the present moment. The past and future are merely ideas that exist only in the minds of thinking beings.
God is no more a slave to time than he is of Alice's Wonder Land. He can no more change the past than He can pet the Cheshire Cat.
Resting in Him,
Clete
In response to the first section of your post: You are incapable of knowing anything.
No Open Theist who knows what he's talking about and who wasn't tricked into doing so would ever concede such a thing.
God is, as are all things that are real, "enslaved" by reality. Time is not real. That is to say that it is merely a concept, a convention of language used to communicate duration and/or sequence. God CANNOT change the past because the past does NOT exist. And the only sense in which God can "change" the future is in so far as the future is effected by the present. The present is all that exists. There is no past to change nor future to travel too. All that exists does so now, in the present moment. The past and future are merely ideas that exist only in the minds of thinking beings.
God is no more a slave to time than he is of Alice's Wonder Land. He can no more change the past than He can pet the Cheshire Cat.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Changing gears, lets look at a terrific verse that cannot make any sense at all unless Open Theism is true - a proof text if you will!
I don't recall any Calvinist (or any other person who rejects Open Theism) ever responding to the simple reading of this really clear passage of Scripture. That's not at all surprising to me but I thought I'd give you guys a chance to address it directly if you think you can.
Resting in Him,
Clete
I Samuel 2:27 Then a man of God came to Eli and said to him, “Thus says the LORD: ‘Did I not clearly reveal Myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh’s house? 28 Did I not choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be My priest, to offer upon My altar, to burn incense, and to wear an ephod before Me? And did I not give to the house of your father all the offerings of the children of Israel made by fire? 29 Why do you kick at My sacrifice and My offering which I have commanded in My dwelling place, and honor your sons more than Me, to make yourselves fat with the best of all the offerings of Israel My people?’ 30 Therefore the LORD God of Israel says: ‘I said indeed that your house and the house of your father would walk before Me forever.’ But now the LORD says: ‘Far be it from Me; for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed.
I don't recall any Calvinist (or any other person who rejects Open Theism) ever responding to the simple reading of this really clear passage of Scripture. That's not at all surprising to me but I thought I'd give you guys a chance to address it directly if you think you can.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Since this is not your thread, I feel free to give you a "Calvinist" answer.
From the time of Cain and Abel, it has been made abundantly clear in the Holy Scriptures, that God does not intend to save all men universally, but rather, has ordained a lineage of spiritual seed, who will in fact, inherit the spiritual covenant promises.
The ungodly are sometimes promised material blessings, but only the Godly seed will inherit the promised, spiritual (eternal), blessings.
There is one example after another of God judging the wicked while blessing His spiritual children with everlasting life. Noah versus the entire world; Isaac versus Ishmael, Jacob versus Esau, etc.
Such is revealed in this portion of Scripture. It is only an elect remnant from amongst the priesthood who will be honored with an everlasting priesthood, which will be provided by God, according to the Abrahamic covenant.
The rest of the ungodly priests might temporarily inherit earthly provisions, and status, but they will be cut off from inheriting the eternal promises of grace to be found in the Priest promised from God; the Messiah:
"Then I will raise up for Myself a faithful priest who shall do according to what is in My heart and in My mind. I will build him a sure house, and he shall walk before My anointed forever." I Samuel 2:35
This promise, too, was fulfilled in two ways:
To King David (I Kings 11:36)
Through the spiritual lineage, the Priesthood of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:22-28)
So one does not read in I Samuel 2:27 that God changes His mind, as I am sure you would imply.
God is not changing His mind.
God is changing the priesthood; bringing judgment upon the ungodly amongst their midst, while continuing to honor the promises of an everlasting priesthood through His spiritual elect seed.
"For is the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law, for it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood." Hebrews 7:12-14
Nang
Nang
TOL Subscriber
"Think a little!!!" (puh-leez)
If Christ fulfilled that promise, what was 'far from Him?'
(An anonymous Calvinistic question/response passed on by Nang to Clete.)
:chew:
I thank God for the ministry of Bob Enyart! - Seriously!
Thank you Bob for teaching me how to understand the Bible by simply reading it without having to jump through insane hoops like the ones just presented by Nang. I can't believe that I actually used to believe nonsense similar to what she said and that there was a time when I would have bought every word of her ridiculous explanation!
Oh! How powerful is the Word of God when one isn't afraid to believe what it plainly says!
Are there any other Calvinists, or others who reject the notion that God changes His mind, who want to give a stab at dealing with 1 Samuel 2:30 ?
Oh, by the way...
Nang, you can tell you idiot husband or whoever your anonymous question came from, that if he doesn't have the nut sack to post it himself, he can keep his questions to himself. I'm certainly not interested in questions from a man who lets his wife do the speaking for him on matters of religion and spirituality.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Thank you Bob for teaching me how to understand the Bible by simply reading it without having to jump through insane hoops like the ones just presented by Nang. I can't believe that I actually used to believe nonsense similar to what she said and that there was a time when I would have bought every word of her ridiculous explanation!
Oh! How powerful is the Word of God when one isn't afraid to believe what it plainly says!
Are there any other Calvinists, or others who reject the notion that God changes His mind, who want to give a stab at dealing with 1 Samuel 2:30 ?
Oh, by the way...
Nang, you can tell you idiot husband or whoever your anonymous question came from, that if he doesn't have the nut sack to post it himself, he can keep his questions to himself. I'm certainly not interested in questions from a man who lets his wife do the speaking for him on matters of religion and spirituality.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Nang
TOL Subscriber
What amazes me, Clete, is that you must have posted this as you prepared to go to church to supposedly worship this Lord's Day.
How could one love and adore Jesus Christ while harboring such vile anger and hostility in their hearts?
Nang
This thought came to my mind. After spending time praying with my wife today, his post does grate me as fleshly (even if it has some truth). How hard to speak the truth in love with grace, mercy, concern, edification, rebuke, godly spirit, humility, etc.
(I appreciate that you can be frustrating to deal with and wrong ideas about biblical truth raise one's hackles, but a modicum of respect in dialogue would be helpful...more light, less heat, retain relationship, not just win argument and lose soul).
:BRAVO:
I hate Nang and her despicable husband with every fiber of my being. The more offended she is by me the better, especially on a Sunday!
And in case you haven't noticed, I've stopped caring what you think. If you don't get it by now, its because you either can't or willfully choose not to. In either case, it isn't my problem but your own.
I try to be fair and objective, but can't please everyone. I got one pos and one neg rep for the comments. Trying to be reasonable does not mean I condone any particular belief of any given person.
I love Nang, but don't like her. I don't know her husband. I don't like your beliefs, but this is not reason to hate her guts.
Really?
Her belief that God ordains, causes and unalterably forces to occur every rape, every child molestation, every murder and every homo porking strangers in the backside isn't reason enough to hate her guts?
What, pray tell, would be enough reason? How much blasphemy are you willing to tolerate?
Don't even bother answering that, godrulz. I really don't care what your answer is. That isn't why I posed the question.
Leave it to you to want to get along with all the poor blasphemers that Clete insults.
Resting in Him,
Clete
If she really believes that (I can see Zman, beloved57, and Hilston saying stupid things like that), I would have zero tolerance for that view, but it is in a theist, hyper-sovereignty delusional context, not one coming from an atheist or enemy of God. She would be sincerely wrong, but not evil for being a consistent Calvinist thinking she is upholding His glory and Word (as crazy as it is)...still no excuse...
I would not defend a wrong view, but I do not have to hate her guts like I would Satan or Hitler.
I would not defend a wrong view, but I do not have to hate her guts like I would Satan or Hitler.