Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion thread: One on One: AMR and JCWR on the Temporality of God

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
    Written approx. 1400 B.C.

    (Deut 18:10) There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.



    Written appox 627 - 585 B.C.

    Jeremiah 32:35 ‘And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

    Deut was written about 800 years before Jeremiah
    I'll have to look at this more closely, but He could be saying that (when I created man) it never entered my mind, that they would behave this way.
    P.S. I'm still waiting for an open theist to tell me what "an observer of times" is as mentioned in the above Deut 18:10
    I don't know, what is an an observer of times?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Delmar View Post
      19:5 does not use the term should. It just says "nor did it come into My mind". As in I never even thought of such a thing.
      Of course not. In order to have this in mind, He'd have to be pondering a way they could honor Him that is in fact sin. God doesn't entertain the thought of sin. To say this is a proof-text against foreknowledge is simply weak. How in the world would He not know the second or umpteenth time what they were up to? Again, I see the answer as incredibly apparent and not a proof text against foreknowledge or Definite Foreknowledge or Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge.
      My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
      Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
      Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
      Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
      No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
      Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

      ? Yep

      Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

      ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

      Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by P8ntrDan View Post
        Time is the passing of events. Therefore, for time to exist, there has to be a first event. If God has always been, there never was a first event. Therefore, there was a time were time where time didn't exist (no pun intended). There was a 'time' where God simply was. Why not consider creation the beginning of time, especial since Genesis says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."?
        Gen. 1:1 is the beginning of our unique measure of time, not objective time itself. You are begging the question by assuming time is the passing of events. Even if there are no events, time still marches on (like the question of it there is a sound if a tree falls in the forest, even if there is no one to hear it...yes there is a sound). God's triune relations (personal includes will, intellect, emotions) requires duration/sequence/succession (time), even if there are no specific events or a first event. God is dynamic, not static, changing in His triune relations and experiences (hence divine temporality vs timelessness). Ps. 90:2 There is a before and after creation. The no beginning-no ending God is eternal, but this does not mean timeless since duration is a reality if one is personal (God is).
        Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

        They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
        I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

        Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

        "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

        The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

        Comment


        • [QUOTE=tetelestai;1928167]I agree!

          However, JCWR said:


          AMR did a fantastic, and superb job making his point against JCWR, as did AMR against Bob Enyart when they debated. The only difference is that JCWR is mature enough, humble enough, and gracious enough to recognize scriptural truth.



          ********************

          AMR out-debated JCWR who folded too soon and for the wrong reasons like a cheap lawn chair. Some evolutions or atheist have out-debated some Christians or creationists, but that does not make them right. Winning a debate by verbosity in the absence of an aggressive counter-challenge does not mean the winner was right about everything or the loser wrong.

          JCWR was humble, gracious, and to be commended. As to being up to the challenge, investing enough time, or having the right view on his side (he did and should have won)...another story.
          Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

          They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
          I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

          Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

          "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

          The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
            Why don’t you tell me how you are open to the possibility that you are wrong?

            Let’s say you decide to become a Calvinist. From what I can see, you would have to switch churches. Bob Enyart would probably not be involved with TOL anymore. You would be kicked out of the “SoS” on TOL, you would have to cancel some of your social group memberships, and all your open theist’s friends would probably try to convince you that you were wrong. In other words, it would be a huge change for you.

            For me, to become an open theist, I would have to change my sig on TOL, and that’s about it. Minor change for me compared to you.

            Same for AMR, think about how much of a huge change it would be for him to “switch” to an open theist.

            Here is the deal. At least one of you two is dead wrong in your systematic theology.

            So, again tell me how you are open to the possibility you are wrong?

            We cannot underestimate the power of bias and preconception. It is hard to be an objective, critical thinker/exegete.
            Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

            They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
            I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

            Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

            "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

            The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

            Comment


            • [QUOTE=godrulz;1928547]
              Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
              Winning a debate by verbosity in the absence of an aggressive counter-challenge does not mean the winner was right about everything or the loser wrong.
              I agree.

              Winning a debate does not mean that the winner has "proven" one doctrine is right and the other is wrong.

              Last I checked, I didn't see too many open theists switching to Calvinism.
              (1 Cor 1:13 KJV) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

              Comment


              • Before I cry myself to sleep (did anyone hear me gasp in disbelief when JCWR quit!?):

                JCWR: Just because he out-debated you and put more time and effort into it does not mean you were wrong in your intuitive understanding. I was cheering for you and lost my shirt at the betting table on this debate. You had truth on your side and you folded too soon. Don't just cave in because you thought AMR sounds like he knows what he is talking about. His views still have problems and can still be challenged by greater minds than you and I.

                I found it ironic that your signature line accuses me of exactly what you did during this short debate. I think you and AMR do not like my informal, assertive style is because you have higher education and confuse a fun, simple forum with a doctoral thesis and defense in an academic setting. We can all make assertions with or without support. This does not prove or disprove their veracity. Knight does not like 'theology' and I do. This does not mean the length of posts or depth or logical argument proves what we believe is true or false. It might not persuade you if assertive (like your assertions did not dent AMR), but they still may be perfectly true and irrefutable.

                AMR won the debate despite you having the truth Will I fall asleep tonight? Arggggg.

                AMR: You have a straw man if you think the Open View limits God because we reject timelessness. God's experience of duration is not a limitation on Him like it is for us (God is God; we are finite). Neither love nor time is a limitation on God, but they are aspects of His experience.

                You have a flawed view of the 'atonement' if you think Jesus/God had to be timeless in any sense in order to pay an infinite price for many people. I have heard TV evangelists say such things, but it is shallow thinking. His death is the issue, not whether He is timeless or not. It is not a literal payment, but a substitute for the penalty of sin (literal payment leads to universalism).

                Verbosity, debating skill, intelligence was good for winning the debate, but still does not mean your views are correct or that a more informed opponent could not knock you down and out.

                Bruce Ware, Calvinist and strident critic of Open Theism, rejects your view, but does not take it far enough. He uses a middle knowledge concept to retain determinism while rejecting free will and timelessness. The arguments are not as simple as you think. Have you refuted William Lane Craig's view of God being timeless in eternity and temporal after creation?

                Gen. 1:1 is about the beginning of a unique measure of time for us, not the concept of time itself. The other proof texts have been answered by Open Theists (you may want to recheck expository dictionaries and the Greek).

                I would not be willing to engage you and know you would be superior on many fronts.

                However, I do assert that you are missing the boat on this and rely on proof texts to retain a preconceived theology (you are anti-free will...does not help). You also underestimate how philosophical vs biblical-logical your view is.
                Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Delmar View Post
                  I'll have to look at this more closely, but He could be saying that (when I created man) it never entered my mind, that they would behave this way.

                  I don't know, what is an an observer of times?

                  I tried using this verse in the open theism thread.

                  An “observer of times” is a witch, wizard, sorcerer, etc. that claims to be able to predict the future.

                  If you believe that Satan perverts everything, then we have to assume the following:

                  God can predict the future with 100% accuracy because He has perfect foreknowledge. Satan cannot predict the future with 100% accuracy, but he makes some good guesses due to his superior intelligence, which enables him to lure unbelievers and foolish believers.

                  Now, if open theism is correct, and everyone was an open theist, then we would laugh at anyone who would claim to know the future. We would say if God does not know the future, a witch surely does not know the future.

                  So, because God does know the future, Satan can pretend to also know the future. If God does not know the future, Satan would have nothing to counterfeit.

                  Make sense?
                  (1 Cor 1:13 KJV) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

                  Comment


                  • For the rest of us who are not in ivory towers:

                    I have many books and articles that are very technical and beyond my scope to fully comprehend on this and related subjects. This is a readable, introductory discussion that can also get technical (modal logic, etc.). By looking at four views and hearing counter-arguments (pro/con), it is a good way to work out our own understanding. It is a practical, important subject for those who are interested in going beyond mere assertion or assumption.

                    I commend Wolterstorff's view (with some of Craig's ideas being similar after creation) as the most credible. The other view is capably explained/defended by the Calvinistic, etc. proponents.

                    I do not find AMR persuasive, though his effort is commendable and noteworthy. This book would be better than uncritically accepting AMR's posts or assuming JCWR was wrong because he quit too soon or was over his head from the beginning.

                    I do not get commission, but I should:

                    http://www.amazon.com/God-Time-Grego.../dp/0830815511

                    (look inside for contents)
                    Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                    They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                    I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                    Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                    "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                    The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                    Comment


                    • One thing I didn't get about the debate. If JCWR started believing this...

                      Originally posted by JCWR View Post
                      it is my intent to show that God is in fact temporal and that the future is not possible for God to know.
                      ...In what way was he not an Open theist?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
                        I tried using this verse in the open theism thread.

                        An “observer of times” is a witch, wizard, sorcerer, etc. that claims to be able to predict the future.

                        If you believe that Satan perverts everything, then we have to assume the following:

                        God can predict the future with 100% accuracy because He has perfect foreknowledge. Satan cannot predict the future with 100% accuracy, but he makes some good guesses due to his superior intelligence, which enables him to lure unbelievers and foolish believers.

                        Now, if open theism is correct, and everyone was an open theist, then we would laugh at anyone who would claim to know the future. We would say if God does not know the future, a witch surely does not know the future.

                        So, because God does know the future, Satan can pretend to also know the future. If God does not know the future, Satan would have nothing to counterfeit.

                        Make sense?

                        God knows the past and present perfectly. He can make accurate predictions about some of the future (even insurance guys and weathermen do the same to a lesser extent).

                        Fortune tellers, witches, etc. can guess at the future or influence it to happen at times. This is a counterfeit and pales to the infinite God, just as the counterfeit plagues could not keep up with God. These guys are deceivers and have a terrible track record guessing at the future.

                        In contrast, God is able to predict much of the future based on His ability to make it come to pass in some areas (nothing to do with simple or exhaustive foreknowledge, prescience, crystal ball, etc.) see Isaiah 46 and 48 for this principle.

                        God knows some of the future and much of it as possible. The scope of this is much greater than man or Satan (not even in the same league). It still does not prove EDF.
                        Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                        They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                        I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                        Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                        "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                        The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
                          I tried using this verse in the open theism thread.

                          An “observer of times” is a witch, wizard, sorcerer, etc. that claims to be able to predict the future.

                          If you believe that Satan perverts everything, then we have to assume the following:

                          God can predict the future with 100% accuracy because He has perfect foreknowledge. Satan cannot predict the future with 100% accuracy, but he makes some good guesses due to his superior intelligence, which enables him to lure unbelievers and foolish believers.

                          Now, if open theism is correct, and everyone was an open theist, then we would laugh at anyone who would claim to know the future. We would say if God does not know the future, a witch surely does not know the future.

                          So, because God does know the future, Satan can pretend to also know the future. If God does not know the future, Satan would have nothing to counterfeit.

                          Make sense?
                          I'm not clear on how this counters the Open view? God certainly can know part of the future for certain. The part which he intends to cause to happen.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Delmar View Post
                            One thing I didn't get about the debate. If JCWR started believing this...

                            ...In what way was he not an Open theist?
                            Ware rejects timelessness and is an enemy of OVT and a strong Calvinist. Eternal now is the most common view of non-OVT, but not the only one. God as temporal fits OVT and free will theism, but is only one of several things that define it. I think Ware is inconsistent and should become an OVT, but at least he has this one thing right (but does not follow through properly).
                            Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                            They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                            I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                            Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                            "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                            The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Delmar View Post
                              I'm not clear on how this counters the Open view? God certainly can know part of the future for certain. The part which he intends to cause to happen.
                              Two motifs...knows some of future as settled (his ability) and other aspects as unsettled (our contingencies).
                              Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                              They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                              I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                              Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                              "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                              The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post

                                Daniel 11 is the great equalizer, however. Future emotions and future decisions of future people listed in detail thousands of years before they take place.
                                Do you have other examples like Daniel 11, or is it the only one.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X