Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

[Stripe]

If I cannot understand your question then I cannot help you. If you don't know how to let me understand then I can't help you. Your premise that some ethereal standard of ability to think internally is required for salvation is incorrect.

[Lon]

What leads you to believe this is a salvation issue? As best as I can tell, we are talking about the difference in reformed and open views, the nature of what and how God knows, and the proposition that God cannot exist outside of time.

My discussion so far, as dubiously clear as it may be or not, has been to simply say that I see a philosophical paradigm that is demanding that I respond to it. Because it is a new propositon for me, and because Clete has challenged that I cannot logically deny it, I have to at least clear the playing field and put as many cards on the table I own for this discussion.

It would be unfair to have just jumped in and I'd have been seen malicious or irrational in my cross examination because I have not encountered this particular proposition prior.

Further, I have a reformed theological bias that will color the discussion. Clete is right that not many of us tend to get into philosophical discussion.

[Stripe]

What leads you to believe this is a salvation issue?

Your words:

Premise: It is proven that a large percentage of people cannot even think or conceive on a metaphysical level. I believe the OV stance here to not be plain and must require a philosophical understanding. Here then, you will have a large portion of your congregations that will ascend to the truth without perception.

Question: If close to half of the body is left out of this discussion and understanding, how will you reach this half with truth?

[Clete]

Lonster,

I ask you again...

If you are not willing to reject a doctrine on rational grounds then on what grounds are you willing to reject it?

Or put another way...

Is any of your doctrine falsifiable and if so, on what grounds?

I keep asking because we are at an impasse until this question is resolved. You've already shown with your own words that you don't really know whether what you believe it true or not when you said this...

"If I were to accept that God is constrained to time, because He cannot exist outside of it, I'm saying that it is a concept that is proved on a metaphysical plane. My mind is already asking if it could be an incorrect perception of time that leads to this dichotomy. In other words, is it possible that this too could be the 'illogical question?'"

How would you ever hope to resolve the mystery if you accept a priori that man cannot think clearly?

The dichotomy is flawed, by the way, but not in the way I think you might suspect. The error comes from your still ingrained notion of time being a thing instead of an idea. You cannot live outside of an idea nor can you be constrained within it. Time does not exist and thus God neither exists outside of it nor is He constrained by it. Time is not a place or a location, it's just a concept, nothing more.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Lighthouse]

Oh great! my watch stopped! Now everybody else is moving so fast I can't see them!

[Stripe]

*grin*

[Johnny]

Oh great! my watch stopped! Now everybody else is moving so fast I can't see them!

Is that an argument or are you making a joke (some jokes are arguments). I'd like to know before I spend time responding.

[Stripe]

Some arguments are jokes too...

[Lighthouse]

It was both Johnny.

[Lon]

Lonster,

I ask you again...

If you are not willing to reject a doctrine on rational grounds then on what grounds are you willing to reject it?

Or put another way...

Is any of your doctrine falsifiable and if so, on what grounds?

I keep asking because we are at an impasse until this question is resolved. You've already shown with your own words that you don't really know whether what you believe it true or not when you said this...

"If I were to accept that God is constrained to time, because He cannot exist outside of it, I'm saying that it is a concept that is proved on a metaphysical plane. My mind is already asking if it could be an incorrect perception of time that leads to this dichotomy. In other words, is it possible that this too could be the 'illogical question?'"

How would you ever hope to resolve the mystery if you accept a priori that man cannot think clearly?

The dichotomy is flawed, by the way, but not in the way I think you might suspect. The error comes from your still ingrained notion of time being a thing instead of an idea. You cannot live outside of an idea nor can you be constrained within it. Time does not exist and thus God neither exists outside of it nor is He constrained by it. Time is not a place or a location, it's just a concept, nothing more.

Resting in Him,
Clete

#1) This is somewhat incorrect as well. One truth 1 meets truth 2 and they are contradictory then: one of the truths are incorrect or one of the truths are perceived as incorrect. As a thinker and a theologian, I would want to ask way more questions and I see this as a good thing, but 'for you' it could become 'exasperating' because you already see the answer to this dilemma for you. This should make it pretty clear about the ground for provability: lots of questions, my logic is not so shallow as to concede an illogic for the very next questions are: why must this be true? Is his perception correct? Is his question meaningful? Is his conclusion correct? and so forth.

#2)

"If I were to accept that God is constrained to time, because He cannot exist outside of it, I'm saying that it is a concept that is proved on a metaphysical plane. My mind is already asking if it could be an incorrect perception of time that leads to this dichotomy. In other words, is it possible that this too could be the 'illogical question?'"

Aha, this is important: I see logic as important because God is absolutely logical. HOWEVER, this does not make MY logic a pinacle importance. I would say simply this: Christ is the imperative, NOT logic. "To Him who is able to keep you!" How do I know if I am kept in logic? Christ. Logic is important for understanding and helps us walk through the eggshells of broken doctrine to identify false teaching (God does put emphasis on our logic to be certain). I am completely moved by logic in this sense, but it is God who brings this and does this. Our arguments are terrific or I wouldn't be here, but I'd ask that you pray with me for the Holy Spirit to validate our thinking. Only He is the true source of any truth. I am quite easily swayed in logic where His logic is concerned, but I would definitely want to see this clearly from Him. Does that work?

I like the last idea here, but science is in disagreement still even understanding these ideas. What this means for me, is that either they are wrong, or we. IBecause it is so hot in debate, it is very difficult at this time, for me to ascertain God's truth concerning time, which is exactly why I'm in this discussion. I would like to discern as much of this for its real truth as God will enable us to understand it. When I say 'we' perhaps it is solved for you, but I think the doubts and concerns regarding it from my perspective will bring further enlightenment, because my doubts are not superficial, shallow or in denial.

[Lon]

A question of Salvation

Your words:

I'm going to ask Clete for help here because I believe the misunderstanding needs correcting desperately. Clete: Are we talking about our Salvation in any way, shape, or form here?

And in case it is dubious on my part: Have I made a comment that you can see that would lead Stipe to this conclusion? If so, what was it? This needs serious clarity.

[Clete]

I'm going to ask Clete for help here because I believe the misunderstanding needs correcting desperately. Clete: Are we talking about our Salvation in any way, shape, or form here?

And in case it is dubious on my part: Have I made a comment that you can see that would lead Stipe to this conclusion? If so, what was it? This needs serious clarity.

Well I think I see Stipe's point. You made the comment earlier about how the Open View is a very philosophically rigorous doctrine and so surmised that there would be some large percentage of our potential audience that would be left behind because of a lack of ability or desire to delve into such philosophic heavy lifting and you then asked how we planned to reach such people with the truth.

Stipe might be stretching a little bit to think that you must be discussing salvation rather than the "deeper truths" of the gospel but it's not that big of a stretch given the way you put the question. When you talk about "reaching people with the truth" it sort of comes off as though you are referring to reaching lost people with the truth of the gospel.

For the record, the answer is no, we are not discussing salvation but rather things which I would call the "deeper truths" for want of a better, less lofty sounding term.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Stripe]

I'll haul in my line then..

[bob b]

Are we talking about our Salvation in any way, shape, or form here?
.

If I might chime in here, my opinion would be that anything that causes people to doubt that scripture is telling the truth could potentially affect Salvation.

Where does doubt about scripture stop? Or might it eventually cause some to doubt that Jesus is God, so that His atoning sacrifice on the cross was sufficient to pay the debt for all the sins of all humanity for all time?

[Clete]

#1) This is somewhat incorrect as well. One truth 1 meets truth 2 and they are contradictory then: one of the truths are incorrect or one of the truths are perceived as incorrect. As a thinker and a theologian, I would want to ask way more questions and I see this as a good thing, but 'for you' it could become 'exasperating' because you already see the answer to this dilemma for you. This should make it pretty clear about the ground for provability: lots of questions, my logic is not so shallow as to concede an illogic for the very next questions are: why must this be true? Is his perception correct? Is his question meaningful? Is his conclusion correct? and so forth.

Lonster, I don't think you understand what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about someone's mere opinion about whether truths 1 & 2 are contradictory. What I'm talking about is when they are in fact contradictory.
Now the question you should be asking right now is, "How do we know for certain that truths 1 & 2 are in fact contradictory?" or "How do we tell the difference between the factual truth and our mere opinion?" Such questions strike at the very heart of the Christian worldview because we claim to have access to ultimate truths which concern issues like the existence of God and salvation and eternity and if we aren't any better equipped to know for certain that we are right than the atheist is, then in what way is our worldview superior to theirs? The Reformed theologian really does unwittingly throw the baby out with the bath water when they accept antinomy and thereby reject a rational worldview. They forfeit the only ground they have from which to mount a successful fight against the enemy. They disarmed themselves before the fight ever begins.

#2)

"If I were to accept that God is constrained to time, because He cannot exist outside of it, I'm saying that it is a concept that is proved on a metaphysical plane. My mind is already asking if it could be an incorrect perception of time that leads to this dichotomy. In other words, is it possible that this too could be the 'illogical question?'"

Aha, this is important: I see logic as important because God is absolutely logical. HOWEVER, this does not make MY logic a pinnacle importance. I would say simply this: Christ is the imperative, NOT logic. "To Him who is able to keep you!" How do I know if I am kept in logic? Christ. Logic is important for understanding and helps us walk through the eggshells of broken doctrine to identify false teaching (God does put emphasis on our logic to be certain). I am completely moved by logic in this sense, but it is God who brings this and does this. Our arguments are terrific or I wouldn't be here, but I'd ask that you pray with me for the Holy Spirit to validate our thinking. Only He is the true source of any truth. I am quite easily swayed in logic where His logic is concerned, but I would definitely want to see this clearly from Him. Does that work?

Not really no, it doesn't. I mean it sort of does but not in the way you are thinking. This statement of yours is one of those oddball statements that can seemingly only happen within Christian circles. What you've said is true but what you meant is not. Let me explain.

I've highlighted what seems to me to be the central point of the above paragraph where you said, "Christ is the imperative, NOT logic." When I read that sentence it rings in my ear as though you said something like, "Water is necessary for life, not H²O." In other words, you're right Christ is the imperative but, as I have shown previously, Christ IS Logic! (John 1:1-17) You might as well have just said, "Christ is the imperative not Love!" The sentence makes no sense in light of what the Bible comes right out and blatantly says.

I like the last idea here, but science is in disagreement still even understanding these ideas. What this means for me, is that either they are wrong, or we. IBecause it is so hot in debate, it is very difficult at this time, for me to ascertain God's truth concerning time, which is exactly why I'm in this discussion. I would like to discern as much of this for its real truth as God will enable us to understand it. When I say 'we' perhaps it is solved for you, but I think the doubts and concerns regarding it from my perspective will bring further enlightenment, because my doubts are not superficial, shallow or in denial.

I have no problem with your not having yet been convinced. Please understand that. It's just that I think your major hurtle here isn't so much an understanding of the philosophical issues or the science but rather your own ability to trust your ability to think. You like to point out verses of Scripture that you take to mean that we can't think clearly when all they really mean is that we don't understand fully; that there is a whole lot more to know than we can imagine. I recommend that instead of focusing on verses that artifically denigrate man to a position lower than he is actually in and focus instead on verses like Psalms 32:9 & 49:3, Proverbs 1:1-7, John 1, I Corinthians 2:16, Eph 5:17, Col. 1:9 & 2:2, Hebrews 11:1-3 and of course many others (indeed the entire book of Proverbs).

And let me close with one additional observation that I don't think you've considered.
You've talked several times now about about how your logic is imperfect and flawed because of sin and likened it to seeing through a glass darkly, etc. And you use this premise to say basically that we cannot trust our own ability to use logic. But hasn't it ever occurred to you that you came to that conclusion via the use of logic? If your use of logic brings you to the conclusion that your use of logic is systemically flawed then how do you know that this conclusion is correct? Do you see how your position is self-defeating? Without logic, we can't know anything, including the fact that we can't know anything! Every time you attempt to argue against the trustworthiness of logic, you have to use logic to do it! That's irrational in the extreme!

Resting in Him,
Clete