ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Lon]

Here is what I don't get. When we sight an OV verse, like "God repented that He made man" AMR says it is "clearly a figure of speech", because we are finite beings and that is the only way God could explain it so we can get it. Yet when AMR explains that God is outside of time I clearly get what AMR is saying. So, if it were true, why would God not have explained it just that clearly?
I do understand that God would not have used the "hovering above time on a helicopter" example, but even the Greeks had mount Olympus!

"Hovered over the waters of the deep" but it is clear enough that God created all, therefore all our references for measuring the progressions and intervals we call 'time,' but without movements and progressions, time is an irrelevant concept for our discussions. It is only when we are trying to rate a duration that it becomes important, like school getting out in 3 minutes, or being to work on 'time' or when this show comes on. But God's time isn't like ours. He does say things that are simple, but we see them as too simple perhaps: 'A day is as a thousand years, a thousand years as a day,' is fairly clear that in His perspective, time perception is very different than ours.

The way we read and interpret scripture is an important point. Figurative and literal interpretations are almost reverse between us.

 

[Lon]

Well, that's the contradiction. When God said "Let there be light", that was new. Before that, there was no universe. The physical existence of light, even if the idea was eternal, was new to God. That had never happened before. It was NEW.

And that's how we have to speak of "ex nihilo" creation: Before God created, there was nothing. And then the universe was brought into existence by God, after that nothingness.

Do you see the temporal terms we must use with reference to God's existence in order to embrace ex nihilo creation? Ex nihilo creation and atemporality are logically incompatible. You can't have both and claim a logically consistent position.

Muz

Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty is its temple, even the Lamb.
Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, nor of the moon, that they might shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb.
Rev 21:24 And the nations of those who are saved will walk in the light of it; and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it.
Rev 21:25 And its gates may not be shut at all by day, for there shall be no night there.
Rev 21:26 And they shall bring the glory and honor of the nations into it.
Rev 21:27 And there shall in no way enter into it anything that defiles, or any making an abomination or a lie; but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.
Rev 22:5 And there will be no night there. And they need no lamp, or light of the sun; for the Lord God gives them light. And they will reign forever and ever.

From our perception, things are 'new' because they do not eminate from the center of our being. Everything is new initially because we are not the whole or sum of creation. All things are not held together by our being. All things were not spoken into existence by our Words. God's universe is not only huge, it is exponentially so, we are less than ants in even our solar system in a scenario like this, yet "In Him, all things hold together and have their being." In Him, all things are created, sustained, and have being, by Him, for Him, and in Him.
"New" for us, and "New" for God are completely different contexts.

Even in just knowing all things that are knowable past and present, what would be really 'new?' If the traditional view, based on scripture is correct concerning EDF, nothing is or ever will be 'new' as we understand it 'to God.' Everything introduced into 'our' consideration is 'new.'

 

[themuzicman]

Uhhhggg, this is getting repetitious, I deny that it is 'new' to God, and that it was 'God's' starting point in life.

Our concept is 'finite' God is infinite. If you can explain with 'words' an infinite aspect, you can only define a very small segment of what your mind can measure, in effect saying "God is only (holds up thumb and forefinger gap) this big."
Note the 'if' please. I'm trying to get you on the same page with me, not overtly accuse OV of anything but missing the difference entirely.

The problem is the logical inconsistency between saying that God is atemporal, and that all things are eternally "now" for him, and yet somehow something that did not exist came into existence by God's actions. We can only describe such a relationship using 'before' and 'after' with respect to God in temporal terms, except that an atemporal existence doesn't permit such terms to be used.

Perhaps you could explain how God could be the only being, and then act to create a universe, and describe the relationship between the two without using temporal terms?

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

From our perception, things are 'new' because they do not eminate from the center of our being. Everything is new initially because we are not the whole or sum of creation. All things are not held together by our being. All things were not spoken into existence by our Words. God's universe is not only huge, it is exponentially so, we are less than ants in even our solar system in a scenario like this, yet "In Him, all things hold together and have their being." In Him, all things are created, sustained, and have being, by Him, for Him, and in Him.
"New" for us, and "New" for God are completely different contexts.

Even in just knowing all things that are knowable past and present, what would be really 'new?' If the traditional view, based on scripture is correct concerning EDF, nothing is or ever will be 'new' as we understand it 'to God.' Everything introduced into 'our' consideration is 'new.'

In an eternal setting, God could be perfectly happy with His existence, not intending to do anything, and then decide to create a universe with beings that He could love and interact with. That's because a temporal being can use terms like "before" and "after." There can be a "time" when nothing else exists, and then a "time" after that when God creates and a universe exists, and it would be new to God, because He conceived it. One might even say that all the art and music that has been created was conceived by God as new when He created, because they are bound and limited by the laws of the universe He implemented for us to live in.

And God does not need to have actually known all possible worlds before He decided to create, simply because He had not yet conceived of them. God may have yet not conceived of other possible universes, simply because He has not done so. In fact, God may chose to veil Himself from His knowledge of what we might create artistically or musically so that He can enjoy watching us create them. (Last I knew, most evangelicals say that Christ veiled Himself from His divine abilities, right?)

But all this requires a temporal existence. Once you embrace atemporality, action by God is impossible.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

Here is what I don't get. When we sight an OV verse, like "God repented that He made man" AMR says it is "clearly a figure of speech", because we are finite beings and that is the only way God could explain it so we can get it. Yet when AMR explains that God is outside of time I clearly get what AMR is saying. So, if it were true, why would God not have explained it just that clearly?
I do understand that God would not have used the "hovering above time on a helicopter" example, but even the Greeks had mount Olympus!

That's because underling all of AMR's non-answers is his self-presumed assumption that he can communicate and explain what God was unable to say in plain language. Anytime he is presented a simple question he doesn't care to answer or can't answer he retreats behind the thin accusation that others 'are not r-e-a-d-i-n-g' his posts or that 'that part' of God isn't for our understanding. He truly lives in a world of make-believe. It's called Calvinism.

We don't disagree with AMR because we aren't reading him. We disagree with him because we are! People don't reject God in Christ because they aren't hearing God through AMR (Calvinism) as if people can only hear him if God has elected them to do so. How arrogant of him and how slick to develop an entire theology to justify himself. People aren't rejecting the Gospel because they aren't hearing the Calvinists message. They are rejecting it because they in fact do hear it. And even non-Christians know better.

As for his argument that millions have embraced classical Theism and therefor it must be correct ... I would appeal to the fact that billions have rejected it and even reject the pagan philosophy that informs it. The great tragedy is that along with it they have rejected the simple Gospel of Jesus because for centuries we have not been honest enough with ourselves or them to address these questions. They remain in untruth because we (the church) have been off on a wild goose chase chasing after a goose that doesn't move. The church must recognize that as its own failure and stop suppressing the truth about God by presenting not 'an unmoved mover' but a personal, dynamic, self-sacrificing God who enters into their/our suffering in order to redeem.

Calvinism is truly a 'MAKE BELIEVE' theology. The cross of Jesus is the cure for 'make believers'. Jesus didn't say, "Follow me OR I will make you." God didn't say, "If you eat I will kill you." God is love. Jesus is the perfect expression of that love. The remedy of 'make believe' is the grace of God that simply offers "IF you believe".

It is true; Open Theists have their work cut out for them. I am at the point of wondering if we are not in fact wasting our time on Calvinists who like their depiction of God, are stubbornly mixed and firmly set and that we shouldn’t rather address ourselves to the people who have already rejected their theology/philosophy and are truly open to the truth about God as revealed in His word and His Son. At least all that is at stake with the Calvinists is a few to long cherished assumptions. What is that in comparison to the many who will be lost because we are unwilling to give them (Calvinists and their long cherished assumptions) up?

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

"Hovered over the waters of the deep" but it is clear enough that God created all, therefore all our references for measuring the progressions and intervals we call 'time,' but without movements and progressions, time is an irrelevant concept for our discussions. It is only when we are trying to rate a duration that it becomes important, like school getting out in 3 minutes, or being to work on 'time' or when this show comes on. But God's time isn't like ours. He does say things that are simple, but we see them as too simple perhaps: 'A day is as a thousand years, a thousand years as a day,' is fairly clear that in His perspective, time perception is very different than ours.

The way we read and interpret scripture is an important point. Figurative and literal interpretations are almost reverse between us.

That verse indicates God's long suffering and patients with us. Not how long He perceives a day to last.

 

[themuzicman]

I don't think the point of the debate is to convince the Calvinists. They seem to embrace their doctrine as the basis of their belief in God.

The point is to expose both the veracity and biblical basis for Open View Theism, and the logical and biblical problems with Calvinism to others who may be following the thread.

Something that the OVTs, here, are doing quite well. As long as the Calvinists keep reciting the party line in spite of the obvious problems, they'll be sending those who are investigating our way.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

Well, that's the contradiction. When God said "Let there be light", that was new. Before that, there was no universe. The physical existence of light, even if the idea was eternal, was new to God. That had never happened before. It was NEW.

And that's how we have to speak of "ex nihilo" creation: Before God created, there was nothing. And then the universe was brought into existence by God, after that nothingness.

Do you see the temporal terms we must use with reference to God's existence in order to embrace ex nihilo creation? Ex nihilo creation and atemporality are logically incompatible. You can't have both and claim a logically consistent position.

Muz

The problem is the logical inconsistency between saying that God is atemporal, and that all things are eternally "now" for him, and yet somehow something that did not exist came into existence by God's actions. We can only describe such a relationship using 'before' and 'after' with respect to God in temporal terms, except that an atemporal existence doesn't permit such terms to be used.

Perhaps you could explain how God could be the only being, and then act to create a universe, and describe the relationship between the two without using temporal terms?

Muz

In an eternal setting, God could be perfectly happy with His existence, not intending to do anything, and then decide to create a universe with beings that He could love and interact with. That's because a temporal being can use terms like "before" and "after." There can be a "time" when nothing else exists, and then a "time" after that when God creates and a universe exists, and it would be new to God, because He conceived it. One might even say that all the art and music that has been created was conceived by God as new when He created, because they are bound and limited by the laws of the universe He implemented for us to live in.

And God does not need to have actually known all possible worlds before He decided to create, simply because He had not yet conceived of them. God may have yet not conceived of other possible universes, simply because He has not done so. In fact, God may chose to veil Himself from His knowledge of what we might create artistically or musically so that He can enjoy watching us create them. (Last I knew, most evangelicals say that Christ veiled Himself from His divine abilities, right?)

But all this requires a temporal existence. Once you embrace atemporality, action by God is impossible.

Muz

I don't think the point of the debate is to convince the Calvinists. They seem to embrace their doctrine as the basis of their belief in God.

The point is to expose both the veracity and biblical basis for Open View Theism, and the logical and biblical problems with Calvinism to others who may be following the thread.

Something that the OVTs, here, are doing quite well. As long as the Calvinists keep reciting the party line in spite of the obvious problems, they'll be sending those who are investigating our way.

Muz

:first: X 363 X 1000 =

Posts of the "Thousand Days" award.

Good work Muz!
Philetus

 

[Philetus]

Perhaps the reason is that some of us understand why it took 726,109 words (NIV) for God to reveal Himself to us. You apparently would reduce His revelation to a fortune cookie insert.

"Man who push Calvinism push unmoved rock."​

 

[themuzicman]

You know, with OVT, I can sum up what God is saying to us in Scripture with two words:

"Trust Me."

And, of course, much of Scripture revolves around what happens when we don't.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

You know, with OVT, I can sum up what God is saying to us in Scripture with two words:

"Trust Me."

And, of course, much of Scripture revolves around what happens when we don't.

Muz

Amen! And God is trustworthy because of the witness in His Word and experience; not because He knows and controls the future exhaustively, but precisely because He is faithful both to Himself and His creation no matter how unfaithful we may be.

I do trust Him,
Philetus

 

[themuzicman]

That's the interesting part about Calvinism: No trust required.

Muz

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Amen!

When you are Muz are finished with your love-in, please let everyone know and we can resume the discussion.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

When you are Muz are finished with your love-in, please let everyone know and we can resume the discussion.

I hadn't realized I had bumped you up to moderator status? Did I do it while I was sleeping?

AMR, the universe does not revolve around you. This forum does not revolve around you. Other people (besides you) participate on this forum. Sometimes these "other people" discuss stuff between themselves without your consent (horrifying isn't it?).

 

[Stripe]

When you are Muz are finished with your love-in, please let everyone know and we can resume the discussion.

OK, let's resume. AMR - Simple question time. Do you trust God?

 

[godrulz]

Can God forget our sins completely and utterly? If so then there are things that God chooses NOT to know. Can God turn His back on the wicked completely? If so, then there are things God chooses NOT to know. Those are two examples. We say if God wants to forget what wicked people are doing He can because He is free. He is not a meaningless database full of information that cannot be wiped away......

The idea of God forgetting our sins is evangelistically speaking The words and context support the idea that forgiveness and not 'remembering' our sins does not relate to amnesia (impossible for an omniscient being), but chosing to not bring it up again or hold it against us. When humans forget and forgive, it does not mean that we could not read a paper and recall the crime story, remember the past, have others remind us of the past, etc. It is chosing to not bring it up or hold against, not a literal amnesia. If God forgets my previous sins, how is it that Satan, myself, my family, my friends can remember, but God cannot?! He can divert His attention and not dwell on things, but a literal forgetting of knowable past and present knowledge compromises omniscience and is not even held by scholastic open theists. The only time I have heard this concept is by Enyart and others on TOL. I do not think it is defensible and gives ammunition to the anti-Open Theists to rightly criticize this denial of omniscience.

In His intelligence, God is not overwhelmed by a database of knowledge or the wickedness of men. Explicit statements say that His eyes rove to and fro and that nothing is hidden from His sight. This is why He is a perfect Judge. In your view, people could get away with murder because they could hide their acts, motives, thoughts, etc. from the omniscient, omnipresent one. The devil and the person would have more capacity and capability that God Himself. God cannot turn off His essential attributes. He cannot cease to exist. He cannot take a day off as Judge of the universe, go to a beach to tan, and not be aware of new evil that He must hold people accountable for as an impartial, just, holy Moral Governor of the universe.

This does not have to mean God is metaphysically in hell or that He must equally dwell and focus on every molecule, every rock concert, etc. It is speculation how God does this, but I would be careful not to say that He can be ignorant of knowable things by somehow chosing not to know? God is transcendent and immanent, not a Deist.

 

[godrulz]

Can God choose where He is and isn't? Or is He an innocent bystander forced to watch every single wicked act that has ever occurred? Was God always in Sodom for instance?

God can handle being omniscient and omnipresent. He does not have to dwell and focus, but He cannot hide in a corner of the universe and live a sheltered life. He has infinite joy and grief because of who He is. His broken heart, love, vulnerability are all the more profound because He is not a Deist God.

 

[godrulz]

I was not aware of OT/Mormon commonality. I think the JW view of omniscience is also closer to OT than classical theism. While these cults are wrong about most essential things, it does not mean they cannot be right about a point or two (JWs are wrong to limit heaven to 144,000, but they are correct that there will be a new earth and millennial Paradise).

Exploring concepts with Mormons does not have to mean we compromise the essentials of the faith or condone their false gospel and teachings. Our views on family and moral issues can resonate without saying their church is true or their gospel will save someone.

 

[Yorzhik]

I don't think the point of the debate is to convince the Calvinists. They seem to embrace their doctrine as the basis of their belief in God.

And it's worse than that. Settled Viewers believe in antinomy so convincing is impossible by definition. It is only when they get sick of antinomy will they have the opportunity to believe the bible as it is written.

 

[Philetus]

When you are Muz are finished with your love-in, please let everyone know and we can resume the discussion.

:baby:

Is little cuchey, cuchey AMR feeling left out again. now we can't have that little poo-poo, no no. Come on now give us that big calvinist smile.