Tongues should not be confused with preaching. They are praise and worship to God and for self-edification. Preaching is done in ones own languages. A careful reading of Acts 2 and I Cor. 12-14 will support this. It is a Baptistic theory to say tongues was preaching or that the gifts have ceased (no exegetical basis for this).
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Tongues should not be confused with preaching. They are praise and worship to God and for self-edification. Preaching is done in ones own languages. A careful reading of Acts 2 and I Cor. 12-14 will support this. It is a Baptistic theory to say tongues was preaching or that the gifts have ceased (no exegetical basis for this).
So because someone cannot fathom in their finite,limited mind how time travel is possible ....that makes it impossible for the Creator of the Universe ?
"I find the idea of time travel to be absurd and illogical. I know God is logical, therefore God cannot time travel" :think:
Is that more or less how your mind is working ?
This is how I see you thinking. I say that God sees me as a man, not a woman. He knows reality as it is. You seem to imply that I should say that God may see me as a woman, because He is not bound by logic or our thinking, so he may see things differently that we cannot understand because we are finite and He is God, so He can do anything, even demonstrable nonsense, because He is God and we are not?!
God sees me as a man, because He knows truth and reality. I am suggesting that the future is not a reality. It is a nothing. It is not there yet to see. Not knowing it does not involve ignorance. Saying it has happened before reality unfolds is problematically absurd. Just saying that we are finite, but God could know it is like saying God sees me as a woman, but everyone else, including Satan, sees me rightfully as a man. This makes God wrong and the rest of us right?
Just because you do not see the reasons that make God's omniscience dynamic vs static and that time travel or timelessness is indefensible, does not mean playing the God card resolves the issues.
It is the glory of a king to search out a matter (Proverbs). Defaulting to 'I don't know, but everything is possible to God' is not critical thinking, logical, nor biblical. It leaves us unable to prove or disprove anything, because God can do anything, no matter how absurd (frog eating mango).
Yes, there are things that we do not know or do not understand fully, but there are others things we can understand in a limited way.
God is either experiencing endless time or timelessness. There is a wealth of academic debate on the subject you are not familiar with. It is important and practical, but not salvific. The evidence points to one view and against another view. Defaulting to tradition has gotten the church and individuals in trouble before. I challenge you to know what you believe and why. These are things that can be understood better than you think they can (revelation and reason).
Secular atheists and Christian philosophers have both argued for and against time travel. The ones who argue against it are right.
Lon, should Christians play poker and drink beer? Is gambling a sin?
You can't answer whether God is real or not? How does that seem like a trick question to you?
I can ineed, and do describe God as logical, and not absurd. I can't imagine why you think that is a problem.
Not what I said Lon, I believe that the God of the Bible is real and Logical! It is you who are bluffing!
You made the claim now show it.
Lon
Well-known member
"Show-n-tell"
Was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I appreciate the challenge.
Here we go:
Your question was "Is God bound by reality."
"...eye of the beholder..."
My point is simply this: "Who's reality?" It seems to me, God can fly, that is, there is a difference between my reality and ability and God's. I believe with or without intent, OV limits God's reality to man's cognitive status such that what you see as fictional, I see as real and potential for God. For instance: God cannot be constrained to time as we are because omnipotence carries logical parameters which must allow Him to be unbound by finite man's conventions. We are bound more firmly in time dead-lines because all of the sudden, sin carries expiration dates that did not exist prior to the fall. I believe some of our time frames are artificially induced due to sin's effects on us and the planet.
Yes, but again, OV demands that my answers be logical: to them and on their playing field and upon their definitions which I certainly don't ascribe to. Does this make my position fictitious? It certainly appears that way from your leading question and other's past assertions (..Cough...GR...Cough). So, I see the accusation but work from a different set of principles and disagree and reject the limitation upon your logic. For me, it is similar to "what is real?" Am I only able to use my five senses to convey reality? If so, I reject that person's criteria. Similarly, OV has a limitation upon reality for God that I also reject. It is bound, in my estimation, to man's finite thinking. I approach the topic with an overarching truth that I accept and work from implicitly:
I should sig this, for it is a crux issue and assumptive difference between the OV and the rest of Christendom. Time, cannot be a limitation upon God by sheer omnipotence. The OV definition works okay to discern this: God can do all that is doable. It is within the OV parameter, then, that God can, in fact, know the whole future of man, according to even the OV (but just doesn't). This would be a 'self-limitation' and thus not an impossibility or fiction.
Do you see the difference? This is specifically why I say your question is leading. It has only one other option and I choose "C-Non of the Above."
"If a tree falls in the forest..."
You just agreed with me. However, just because we cannot fathom a thing, it isn't automatically relegated to 'fiction.' You agree with me, but gave me no third option which I am still looking for. The truth is somewhere else other than "Real or fiction." Why?
Because real to you and me is 1) Subjective in the context you are bringing up. Truth is truth and real is real, but 2) I've limitations upon knowing all that is real (I cannot leave the galaxy, etc.), I'm 'finite.' There are plenty of 'real' things outside of my ability to quantify or qualify.
Colors are not 'real' to a blind man, but they are not fiction.
Lon
Well-known member
Gambling, as in money? Gambling with what we have been given is a sin because it leads to trust in chance rather than God (not to mention the house always wins). This is really a side-topic needing address rather the OV concern this thread carries.
Brief answer on gambling: Is it okay to play cards? Well, is it okay to pay to play golf? I think intent is really the issue with gambling. If someone wants to spend ten bucks to play a game with friends, cards or golf are not problematic for me or my understanding. I'd think this issue is a bit like sacrificial meats where we must be careful with our convictions, but no, personally I don't see this as a problem other than being careful not to lead a brother into temptation or get so caught up in the game that money is the main object. If fun and friends is always the goal, I've no problem.
Brief answer on Alcohol, I think also important for discussion with similar concerns and it too should have its own thread. Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach. There are studies that show moderation may even increase your life expectancy. If you are drinking for the intoxicant, I have problems.
Both of these topics deserve their own thread, I believe both would go a few pages and is certainly important for Christian discussion. I'd have a lot more to say other than these brief overviews. There are concerns, context, scriptures to consider etc.
Yikes, I have created a monster. I was kidding and threw out the topics as a joke to distract you from the topic at hand lest you get an upper hand. I must have been sleep deprived. Thx for your wise and balanced answers anyway. They are worthy of practical discussion.
What a bunch of nonsense! I didn't claim that we could understand everything about God's reality, but if you can't bring yourself to simply agree that God is real, you can, in no way be expected to carry on a reasonable conversation. Please don't bother reading my posts in the future.
The fact that a blind man does not understand color is irrelevant.
Lon
Well-known member
You are asking me to agree with you before we even agree upon what is logical and what is not and again, you gave no other option.
I've tried very hard to show you that your black and white world isn't so to me.
'Is God logical?' Yes, but you and I are not. I'm trying to say that He is right and you and I get it wrong all the time. When we don't even know what is truly logical, how can we qualify God's? At any point that the world, math, science or philosophy just doesn't make sense to us, we are incapable of ratifying 'logic.'
Lon
Well-known member
I wouldn't want to go too far in either direction. We must allow God's Word to shape our truth and reality (logic), correct, and remold it. We are in process, not arrived imho, such that we must be careful with such assertions especially when we both logically disagree. It is important because it is obvious that one or the other of us aren't really logical or we'd not be disagreeing. That said, our positions 'seem' logical to either of us and we are both committed to truth, but I think Delmar jumps the gun in assuming mine is not. It is presumptive to begin that way without really examining the logic. Our goal then, is to shine His light in dark and gray corners of our respective positions. I esteem the OV position as limited along with other scholars and have problems with seeing God through finite eyes. I think the infinite has room in logic to escape our ability to grasp and again lift up the truth that He is infinite and I (we) are finite.
Just because something may not make immediate sense, is no indication that the position is wrong. It just means that it is not apparent. I believe, with Theology, we have many truths given to us by God that are just not going to be apparent, but we should not move hastily to a dismissal even if it does tidy up our doctrinal system. I think a system in a bit of disarray can be more sincere than placing things where they don't belong.
If you have all the green emerald statues of animals in one case, yet place an ebony gorilla in that case, or in the case with the rest of the ebony men, is it more correct to have it in a case or by itself on the coffee table?
I think, we argue most over where the odd pieces should fit. Occasionally, when we are more convinced, (like all animals ivory, ebony, or emerald should be in the same case regardless) we have a bit more steam and conviction in arguing.
We of the traditional persuasion have a display case labeled 'foreknowledge.' The OV does not. For us, it is a huge case, for you, not at all. We are necessarily going to have conflict over that.
I believe in foreknowledge, but not EDF. If OVT makes sense and can be supported with biblical, theological, historical, philosophical evidence, why sit around waiting for something to fall from the sky to support a traditional view that can be shown to be problematic and deficient? Give it up...you are fighting a losing cause.:cheers:atrol:
atrol:I think they are clinging to tradition at all costs. They are implying that those who have insight cannot have it unless it agrees with them.
The bottom line is that we can know things about God and His ways, not exhaustively, but truthfully.
If there is no revelation on the subject, we can speculate without dogmatism (what God did before Genesis).
If there is clear revelation, we can defend and proclaim it (Deity and resurrection of Christ).
If there is some biblical revelation and godly philosophical arguments, we can take a stand one way or another until proven otherwise with more evidence or thought (issues relating to God, time, eternity, knowledge, etc.).
The bottom line is that we can know things about God and His ways, not exhaustively, but truthfully.
If there is no revelation on the subject, we can speculate without dogmatism (what God did before Genesis).
If there is clear revelation, we can defend and proclaim it (Deity and resurrection of Christ).
If there is some biblical revelation and godly philosophical arguments, we can take a stand one way or another until proven otherwise with more evidence or thought (issues relating to God, time, eternity, knowledge, etc.).
Lon
Well-known member
Yes, but your leading question led nowhere significant, that was my point.
As I've said, of course God is logical and again, I don't have to agree with you for Him to remain logical or even me for that matter. The difference, perhaps, I'm not afraid of my problems and can assess them correctly in my thinking.
I'm not at all afraid to say I cannot make logical sense sometimes, that some higher math is a bit beyond me, or that God is a bit beyond me. GR and Muz are the only ones on here that have ever admitted to me that He is, but I wonder if they believe in the exponential like I do. It seems if we were dealing with percentages, God is a bit more known in his mind. How can we honestly talk about logic when God is beyond us? Are there no mysteries left to Him? Can you not see why we have problems with the OV and what we are convinced it is reaching here?
I believe in foreknowledge, but not EDF. If OVT makes sense and can be supported with biblical, theological, historical, philosophical evidence, why sit around waiting for something to fall from the sky to support a traditional view that can be shown to be problematic and deficient? Give it up...you are fighting a losing cause.:cheers:
Because OV is seen as more problematic?
Clinging like in a 'pathetic attempt?' Sometimes I think you admire and other times I get a distinctly different impression. Probably, in honesty, there is a bit of that from me as well. We have a mutual disdain for the other's position, wonder whether the other is really being logical, and whether we are being Biblically faithful.
I'm pretty much alone on my take on Hebrews, so I understand where minority comes from, but I deem when we are in the minority, we move much more graciously and carefully and with fear and trepidation before our Maker.
I'd qualify this statement by 1) Leaving out "bottom line" or perhaps qualifying it. 2) I'd add 'some' before things for emphasis on our differing exponentials. I believe we know a lot about Him, but in the grand scheme of who He is, very little, 'glass-darkly' (1 Corinthians 13:9,12; 1John 3:2; Isaiah 55:8,9; Exodus 33:20)
Agreed, dogmatism is problematic. When in our limited finite thinking (logic), our speculation turns to dogmatism, we are in trouble.
Again, agreed and we rarely do enough of it. We'd rather bicker over what is and isn't logical than acquiesce any similarity. Caricatures help us feel better about ourselves. "At least my ears aren't THAT big..."
I think this is somewhat true but there are consequences for our thoughts. These should align with scripture and be maleable by God. When we are divergent, there should be much greater caution. I do believe the OV audacious, especially when it claims to be more logical. It always means the rest of us are not. Instead of taking offense, I try to embrace the accusation and see if an OVer will also, even if eventually, rightly assess their own logic. As it sits, to say the OV is more logical, carries a gauntlet with metal studs. Delmar gets flustered, but I'm trying to turn the other cheek rather than confront the challenge head on and say the first thing that pops into my head. It wouldn't be nice and we'd be dueling at dawn.
No matter what OV thinks, these audacious assertions are a slap in the traditionalist's faces. The usurper is always the aggressor. If truth is compromised, then I understand and acquiesce, but I've not seen OV really prove a point of falsehood. There are assertions, I started out here 3 years ago open to rebuke, if it were needed, but have found those accusations flimsy and the challenge rather bold upon paper-thin grievances.
I've endeavored these years to show graciously, that the OV accusations are unfounded, unqualified, and untenuable.
lee_merrill
New member
Well, won't we all?As always, I appreciate your heart, head, and attitude, Lon. I believe you will have your eureka moment here or in eternity, for sure.
"... on the other side, He must constantly work as the iconoclast. Every idea of Him we form, He must in mercy shatter. The most blessed result of prayer would be to rise thinking 'But I never knew before. I never dreamed….' I suppose it was at such a moment that Thomas Aquinas said of all his own theology, 'It reminds me of straw.'"
(C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm)
"Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable. How many hours are there in a mile? Is yellow square or round? Probably half the questions we ask--half our great theological and metaphysical problems--are like that."
"Heaven will solve our problems, but not, I think, by showing us subtle reconciliations between all our apparently contradictory notions. The notions will all be knocked out from under our feet. We shall see that there never was any problem."
"We cannot understand. The best is perhaps what we understand the least."
(C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed)
Blessings,
Lee
assuranceagent
New member
Do you honestly believe the God who designed and created the frog could not turn Himself into a frog if He wanted ? :think: :jump::think:
Can God make a donkey speak if He wanted ?
And yet you believe that God, who designed and created man, could not bring that man's will into conformity with His own if He wanted...
:think:
Those who live in glass houses...
The difference, if I understand both points correctly, is that one is rational the other is not.
God can take any physical form He desires but He cannot make you love Him. There is nothing inherently self-contradictory about God taking on the physical form of a frog or causing a donkey to speak but there very definitely is something inherently contradictory about God making you love Him.
If you don't believe that I feel sorry for you because it means you do not understand what it means to love someone.
Resting in Him,
Clete