ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

dale

New member
Please forgive me, I'm somewhat a simple man.

I was under the impression that man couldn't freely choose because "we can only choose according to our strongest inclinations of the moment" Are you saying before the fall man wasn't affected by that and he could indeed choose contrary to his "...strongest inclinations of the moment"?


the two are not tying together for me here. What specifically are you asking?

Lonster,

The dicussion (at least on my part) was whether Adam had a "free" will. As I understand him, AMR seemed to be saying that although man today does not have a free will, Adam did. Today, man cannot "freely" choose whereas Adam could "freely" choose.

If AMR is correct that Adam had a "free" will, then I believe according to AMR's own words that would mean that God was NOT exercising providential control over all events. But that also isn't possible according to AMR.

So, I guess I don't understand what he's trying to say because he seems to have contradictory statements.

Maybe if you understand what he's trying to say, you can shed some light on the subject because he's decided not to talk to me any more. I guess I'm a lost cause.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well, you told me everything you misunderstand about Open Theism, told me nothing of your position and never defined dominion.
I think my position was clear, else you would not have popped such a large gasket. Anyone reading my words will see that dominion means to have authority over, just as God has authority over us.
I am in no way talking back to God, I’m talking back to Calvinists, you arrogant so-n-so!
A Calvinist is talking back to you. Your post clearly laid claim to going beyond a discussion with Calvinists, given your "I see nothing in [this or that chapter/verse] that tells us..." As such, you get the answer that the bible clearly teaches. That said answer happens to agree with Calvinist's beliefs is what apparently motivates the vitriol in your present response.
I'm demanding nothing from God. I'm quite satisfied with God and all God has provided...I don’t disagree with God. I disagree with Calvinists
...I certainly believe God can and does do as God pleases.
Apparently you do not disagree with Calvinists.:chew:
I just think that Calvinism denies Him this right and totally denies the gift of life God gives.
Then explain why. I explained why God's freedom is wholly within His own counsel to act as He has done. I have also stated that we have no warrant to claim more freedom that we have been given. All you have effectively said is, "I disagree."
Let’s start with God, ‘what did God say about giving DOMINION to mankind?’ and then tell me what the Calvinist thinks that means.
Done in my post and again above.
How does God granting dominion to mankind (even over a fallen creation that is subjected to futility in mercy) compromise His sovereignty; His omnipotence?
You ask one thing, claiming to be asking extant of any doctrinal position, yet you clearly want to tie your question to sovereignty and omnipotence, two issues you clearly disagree with any Calvinist about since you advocate open theism. Your other post intimated that "Calvinists have some explaining to do."]Yet all you did is post some verses. Try explaining something yourself.

 

Lon

Well-known member
Lonster,

The dicussion (at least on my part) was whether Adam had a "free" will. As I understand him, AMR seemed to be saying that although man today does not have a free will, Adam did. Today, man cannot "freely" choose whereas Adam could "freely" choose.

If AMR is correct that Adam had a "free" will, then I believe according to AMR's own words that would mean that God was NOT exercising providential control over all events. But that also isn't possible according to AMR.

So, I guess I don't understand what he's trying to say because he seems to have contradictory statements.

Maybe if you understand what he's trying to say, you can shed some light on the subject because he's decided not to talk to me any more. I guess I'm a lost cause.

He actually hit this right after I asked, sorry I should have edited.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Already answered this: "new" is a temporal finite term.

It can have only meaning for us. It measures, and God is measureless.

You are asking for a starting point (new, now). God has no starting point. He is eternal in past.

Knight, for one who says we confuse these two, I'd say you are stuck to your tape measure.

SO, you deny ex nihilo creation, and say that creation is co-eternal with God?

Muz
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Any creation of God's is not "new" to God. For it would mean that God did not know this new creation. Yet we know that an effect pre-exists in the mind of its efficient cause. Hence, whatever exists must pre-exist in God, who is its efficient cause.

The Bible begins, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," Gen. 1:1. The bible was addressed by God to all classes of people, therefore it employs the ordinary language of daily life, and not the technical language of philosophy.

The Hebrew term bereshith (lit. "in beginning") is indefinite, so naturally it gives rise to the question, "In the beginning of what?" It would seem best to take the expression in the absolute sense as an indication of the beginning of all temporal things and even of time itself; but some hold that it refers to the beginning of the work of creation. Technically speaking, it would not be correct to assume that time was already in existence when God created the world, and that God at some point in that existing time, called "the beginning", brought forth the universe. Time is only one of the forms of all created existence, and therefore could not exist before creation. For that reason it would be more correct to say that the world was created with time than to assert that it was created in time.

The significance of the opening statement of the Scriptures lies in its teaching that the world had a beginning. Scripture speaks of this beginning also in other places, Matt. 19:4,8; Mark 10;6; John 1:1,2; Heb. 1:10. That the world had a beginning is also clearly implied in such passages as Ps. 90:2, "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God."; and Ps. 102:25, "Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands."

To get to a plausible solution we need to establish the proper idea of the relation of eternity to time. A great deal of the difficulty encountered in these sort of discussions is no doubt due to the fact that we like to think of eternity too much as an “indefinite extension of time”, as, for instance, when we speak of the ages of comparative inaction in God before the creation of the world. God's eternity is not indefinitely extended time, but something essentially different, of which we can form no conception.

God’s is a timeless existence, an eternal presence. The ageless past and the most distant future are both present to God. He acts in all His works, and therefore also in creation, as the Eternal One, and we have no warrant to draw creation as an act of God into the temporal sphere. In a certain sense this can be called an eternal act, but only in the sense in which all the acts of God are eternal.


They are all as acts of God, works that are done in eternity. Theologians generally distinguish between active and passive creation, active denoting creation as an act of God, and passive creation, its result, the world's being created. Active creation is not, but the passive creation is, marked by temporal succession, and this temporal succession reflects the order determined in the decree of God. As to the objection that a creation in time implies a change in God, creation is not the Creator's but the creature's passage from potentiality to actuality.

Let's summarize a few points. God's eternity may be defined as that perfection of God whereby He is elevated above all temporal limits and all succession of moments, and possesses the whole of His existence in one indivisible present.

God is infinite in relation to time. Time does not apply to God. God was before time began. God is not restricted by the dimension of time. That God is not bound by time does not mean that God is not conscious of the succession of points in time that He has created. God knows what is now occurring in human experience. God is aware that events occur in a particular order. God is equally aware of all points of that order equally vividly. God is aware of what is happening, has happened, and what will happen at each point in time. Yet at any given point in time God is also conscious of the distinction between what is now occurring, what has been, and what will be.


There is a successive order to the acts of God and there is a logical order to his decisions, yet there is no temporal order to God’s willing. God’s deliberation and willing take no time. God has from eternity determined what He is now doing. Therefore God’s actions are not in any way reactions to developments. God does not get taken by surprise or have to create contingency plans.

Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'?

Muz
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I can live with your agreement of this as a starting point, but can you. You have now doubled the dilemmas you now have to wrestle with.

I don't see how this is so. I think Open Theists on this site have argued for a long time that the Settled View arguments concerning the nature of time, which almost always run to Einstein and other unproven scientific theories, make what amounts to a category error.

The properties of "time" which Einstein theories discuss are about clocks, not time itself, even though you and most scientists would insist otherwise, while we are talking about the CONCEPT of duration and sequence.

You deny the later applies to God and use the former to support that claim but the two, while related to one another, are not the same thing. In short, time is absolute, time keeping (i.e. the way clocks work) is relative.

For a full and detailed discussion on this topic I strongly recommend reading the following thread (the opening post in particular)...


The Summit Clock Experiment (Ver. 2.0)


Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Philetus

New member
I think my position was clear, else you would not have popped such a large gasket. Anyone reading my words will see that dominion means to have authority over, just as God has authority over us.
A Calvinist is talking back to you. Your post clearly laid claim to going beyond a discussion with Calvinists, given your "I see nothing in [this or that chapter/verse] that tells us..." As such, you get the answer that the bible clearly teaches. That said answer happens to agree with Calvinist's beliefs is what apparently motivates the vitriol in your present response.
Apparently you do not disagree with Calvinists.:chew:
Then explain why. I explained why God's freedom is wholly within His own counsel to act as He has done. I have also stated that we have no warrant to claim more freedom that we have been given. All you have effectively said is, "I disagree."
Done in my post and again above.
You ask one thing, claiming to be asking extant of any doctrinal position, yet you clearly want to tie your question to sovereignty and omnipotence, two issues you clearly disagree with any Calvinist about since you advocate open theism. Your other post intimated that "Calvinists have some explaining to do."]Yet all you did is post some verses. Try explaining something yourself.


"Anyone reading my words will see that dominion means to have authority over, just as God has authority over us."​

That's it? That's your 'clear' answer to my question as to how a Calvinist views human dominion?


If you can't fit it into your view, just say so. You are a master at not answering and making it look like its the asker's fault. I'll bet your students love you.

And there is that word again. I just won $10.00 from my friend because I told him I could make you use it in a single post. Thanks.

vitrioly yours,
Philetus
 

Philetus

New member
Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'?

Muz

No, it's neither. We know it and so does he.

"Anyone reading my words will see that dominion means to have authority over, just as God has authority over us."

That's a statement that either a Calvinist, an Open Theists or just about anybody can make in good conscience and say yes to. He's a master at demanding content, ignoring it, and offering very little in response to honest questions.

Appreciate your efforts,
Philetus
 

Philetus

New member
Lets try this again:

... start with God, ‘what did God say about giving DOMINION to mankind?’ and then tell me what the Calvinist thinks that means. Shouldn’t be that hard. Just explain dominion from a Calvinist’s point of view … not from your misrepresentation of the Open View … if you can. How does God granting dominion to mankind (even over a fallen creation that is subjected to futility in mercy) compromise His sovereignty; His omnipotence?

You might take a look at the post that the resident genius AMR dismissed as ‘just posting scripture’ just after my original posting of the question.

And takers?
 

dale

New member
He actually hit this right after I asked, sorry I should have edited.

Since you apparently understand what he's saying, would you please try to explain to me how man today doesn't have a free will based on God exercising His providential control of all things, but Adam DID have a free will even though God was indeed exercising His providential control of all things?

How can man have free will in one instance, but not the other if the thing that prevents free will (God exercising His providential control of all things) exists in both situations?
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'?

Muz
AMR wrote: Any creation of God's is not "new" to God. For it would mean that God did not know this new creation. Yet we know that an effect pre-exists in the mind of its efficient cause. Hence, whatever exists must pre-exist in God, who is its efficient cause.

Means "no".
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
AMR wrote: Any creation of God's is not "new" to God. For it would mean that God did not know this new creation. Yet we know that an effect pre-exists in the mind of its efficient cause. Hence, whatever exists must pre-exist in God, who is its efficient cause.

Means "no".

I didn't ask about the concept of creation. I asked about the actual, physical creation. When it came into being, was it new to God? (As opposed to creation having a co-eternal existence with God, in which case it would never have been new.)

Muz
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
AMR's answer: Time would exist if the earth did not exist.

From physics we know that the property, time, is a function of space and matter. For time to cease to exist, all space and matter, not just the earth, would have to not exist. In other words, God's created universe would have to cease to exist. The obvious corollary is that upon God's decree to create, decreed from within His eternal existence, time began to exist, because matter and space began to exist.
So, for time to exist, space has to exist? And in order for time to not exist, space must not exist? If this is true, how did time ever not exist? When was there no such thing as space?
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I didn't ask about the concept of creation. I asked about the actual, physical creation. When it came into being, was it new to God? (As opposed to creation having a co-eternal existence with God, in which case it would never have been new.)
No it was not "new" to God when it (the physical universe) came into being.

God sees and acts within the temporal continuum He created. He understands the ordering of events within time; He understands these and all events comprehensively, exhaustively. Necessarily then, God, being omniscient and eternal, has known from eternity when and how He will act within this temporal continuum. In other words, whenever God acts in our time based existence, His actions were actualized from God's decrees that were made from eternity.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So, for time to exist, space has to exist? And in order for time to not exist, space must not exist? If this is true, how did time ever not exist? When was there no such thing as space?
Before the universe was created there was no time or space. Both are properties of the known universe.

Your comment is related to God's Immensity. Accompanying God's eternity is the attribute of immensity (nonspatiality). God is not limited in time, nor is he limited in space. In God’s immanence He fills space, but God is not spatial. Only material things exist in space and time, and God is not material. “God is spirit” (John 4:24). As spiritual, God is not material or spatial. It is part of God’s transcendence that He is beyond both time and space.

added: as Evoken indicates above, the universe was created by God ex-nihilo, out of nothing.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Before the universe was created there was no time or space. Both are properties of the known universe.
Time is an attribute of God, for He experiences duration and succession. And did so before creation began. And space is, by definition, nothing. So, when nothing existed there was space.:dunce::duh:

Your comment is related to God's Immensity. Along with eternity is the attribute of immensity (nonspatiality). God is not limited in time, nor is he limited in space. In God’s immanence He fills space, but God is not spatial. Only material things exist in space and time, and God is not material. “God is spirit” (John 4:24). As spiritual, God is not material or spatial. It is part of God’s transcendence that He is beyond both time and space.
:blabla:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top