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

  • Ask Mr. Religion
    replied
    Originally posted by godrulz View Post
    I have the book, read the book, read Helm, read counter-arguments, emailed Wolterstorff, etc.


    When you are ready, please feel free to discuss in detail, using direct quotations from the chapter, how you differ from Helm's response in Paul Helm, “Response to Nicholas Wolterstorff,” in Four Views: God and Time 215.


    Would make for a lively discussion.

    AMR

    Leave a comment:


  • godrulz
    replied
    Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Expand your library and actually read its contents versus skimming free previews at Amazon.com:

    Paul Helm, “Response to Nicholas Wolterstorff,” in Four Views: God and Time 215.

    Paul Helm, God and Time: Essays on the Divine Nature

    AMR
    I have read God and Time and just recommended it, right? Helm is not convincing, but Wolterstorff is. You disagree because you think Helm is right. I have read enough of Helm to reject his views. I don't believe he won the debate in the two books I mentioned. I think refuting William Lane Craig would be more challenging and that I would have more in common with Arminian authors who also attack Open Theism than with the Calvinists who do (though Ware and I agree on time vs eternity...I appreciate his heart and convictions, but disagree with his Calvinistic conclusions).

    I like these books because they can agree to disagree respectfully and maturely, unlike some on TOL. It is easy for AMR to be gracious when the opponent caved and said AMR was right after all. If Clete and AMR went at it, we would see a different attitude and outcome of character. Things would get personal and heated without either giving an inch.

    Leave a comment:


  • godrulz
    replied
    Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Expand your library and actually read its contents versus skimming free previews at Amazon.com:

    Paul Helm, “Response to Nicholas Wolterstorff,” in Four Views: God and Time 215.

    Paul Helm, God and Time: Essays on the Divine Nature

    AMR
    I have the book, read the book, read Helm, read counter-arguments, emailed Wolterstorff, etc.

    The amazon links are for those who do not have the book or are not aware of where to find some source materials. I have done my homework and I am pointing others to some resources so they can go beyond AMR pontifications.

    Helm is a strident Calvinist. I think he was adequately dismantled by the others who do not share his dogmatic views. You disagree because birds of a feather flock together.

    The same is true in this book on the doctrine of God. Everyone jumped on Helm for a weak contribution that was off topic. Helm left me dazed and confused, unedified, and unconvinced. My notes in the book were an adequate response for me personally that he was off track. The other Calvinist agreed more with Helm, while the free will theists appreciated each other more (naturally). I honestly believe Sanders and Open Theism was the strongest case. Just because I link it here does not mean I have not thought things through or read the book. Unlike you, bullying people, spoon feeding people and expecting them to come up to my lofty levels, is not my M.O.

    You do not like me because your style is steeped in formal academia. People simply do not generally read long articles no matter how good here. This is a forum where the majority would be bored with this, lack formal training to engage at this level, etc. Just because Knight does not play your game does not make him wrong and you right. I am not anti-intellectual, but some simple Christians have better insights than some of the doctorate level Christians who are locked into tradition and indoctrination from their institutions with ideas that are not defensible or true. You obviously would not objectively see this, a form of arrogance, perhaps?

    For those who would like a readable point, counter-point view edited by an anti-Open Theist/pro-Calvinist, I recommend this with the other book. Here, test and see if Sanders does not present a good case and AMR's Helm is dogmatic, but off track (the Calvinists will uncritically accept it, but the point of 4 others is to weigh the arguments and make up your own mind; Olson is a solid Arminian and closer than Helm):

    http://www.amazon.com/Perspectives-D.../dp/0805430601

    (click look inside for contents)

    AMR does not like my links and resources from published, credible sources that are people he accepts and likes.

    He would rather have the attention and have us read his long posts and here here here here links.

    I personally do both, but find the published works better written and a comparison of views for consideration, not just one person's view (AMR) that others in his camp would not always agree no every point.

    We can learn from AMR, but why is he critical when I share other sources that I have read that include some of the same author's that he references? Petty?

    Open Theism is one issue. I feel the same about TULIP. AMR is dogmatic about it, but many have taken exception with its assumptions/conclusions for centuries.

    As Clete says, saying it does not make it so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ask Mr. Religion
    replied
    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?
    Is this the sole litmus test for open theism? What are the universally accepted essentials of a person being able to lay claim to the label?

    Nature of the Trinity?

    Omniscience as defined by the church divines?

    Omnipotence as defined by the church divines?

    Temorality?

    OSAS? POTS?

    Lots more work needed here.

    AMR

    Leave a comment:


  • Ask Mr. Religion
    replied
    Originally posted by godrulz View Post
    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.
    Expand your library and actually read its contents versus skimming free previews at Amazon.com:

    Paul Helm, “Response to Nicholas Wolterstorff,” in Four Views: God and Time 215.

    Paul Helm, God and Time: Essays on the Divine Nature

    AMR

    Leave a comment:


  • godrulz
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Looks like AMR had posted another victim to death.
    If JCWR would have posted like AMR did and vice versa, we would think JCWR's view was right.

    The same seems to apply to those who speak forcefully, eloquently, persuasively compared to an insecure, weak, feeble speaker. Uninformed people will believe the authoritative sounding first speaker, though wrong, and dismiss the weak speaker, though right.

    AMR is to be commended for his effort, but that does not mean everything he dogmatically says is actually right.

    Of course, he would be right to tell us to put up or shut up and refute him.

    Leave a comment:


  • godrulz
    replied
    Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
    Dear Godrulz:

    You do realize open theism could be wrong don't you?
    Huh? Ce n'est pas possible, mon ami.

    Not every detail is infallible, but it is generally on the right track.

    I have had 30 years to try to prove it wrong and cannot do so. I suppose many things are theoretically possible, but I am as sure of the basic understanding of OVT as I am of most other doctrines I and others find biblical and truthful.

    I can refute Mormonism, JWs, etc., so I think it is possible to reject Calvinism and Arminianism or accept some vs all of their ideas. I see the problems with TULIP or determinism, but I do not have a problem with free will, omniscience as knowing all that is knowable, God experiencing endless time vs timelessness, etc. The more criticism of the view I see, the more it becomes apparent that it stands up to scrutiny.

    I appreciate that others are not here yet or beg to differ (like any other thing believers disagree about).

    I could never really defend EDF, timelessness, etc., but just accepted it as traditional and apparently true. When I tried to understand or defend it, my mind and heart fritzed out. The opposite is true with OVT as I can see it and understand it in light of logic and Scripture.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evoken
    replied
    Originally posted by godrulz View Post
    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).
    godrulz, let’s break this down a bit so that it becomes clear what it is that you are saying:

    1) “God's triune relations ... requires duration/sequence/succession (time)”
    2) “...even if there are no specific events or a first event”
    3) “The no beginning-no ending God is eternal”
    4) “...but this does not mean timeless since duration is a reality if one is personal”


    On the one hand you say that God’s triune relations require time (1), then go on to say that this is so, even if there are no specific events (2). But specific events, that is, duration/sequence/succession are things that pertain to time and without which time would not be, or rather, to speak about time is meaningless without such concepts. It makes no sense to say that God’s triune relations involve time even if there are no specific events, for time involves sequential relations between events that succeed one another.

    Then you go on to say that God has no beginning or ending and is thus eternal (3). This, of course, is true. However, you then deny a necessary corollary of eternality which is timelessness and thus end up affirming that God is both temporal and timeless by inserting duration into that which is eternal and has neither beginning nor end (4). But duration presupposes the beginning or ending of an event and the beginning or ending of another. It takes a specific amount of time or an interval. That which has neither beginning nor ending (God), cannot have duration or be temporal.

    With regards to Genesis 1:1, your claim that this refers to “the beginning of our unique measure of time” is refuted by the fact that in Genesis 1:14 God creates the two lights for the express purpose of them being signs for seasons, days and years. This text actually fits better with your claim than Genesis 1:1 which is better taken as referring to the absolute beginning of time. This also fits with the fact that it is the position of these lights that humans would use across history to determine time.

    The passing of days starting from day one even before the lights were made, signifies that time is now passing and that time was not before the beginning. Genesis 1:1 does not says “When God began to create...” or “The day God created Heaven and Earth” as if implying the passage of time before the creation. It says “In the beginning...” referring to the absolute beginning, not of the creation itself, but on which the creation was made.


    Originally posted by godrulz View Post
    Two motifs...knows some of future as settled (his ability) and other aspects as unsettled (our contingencies).
    Well, godrulz, Scripture does not presents two motifs on this issue. No restriction or compartmentalization is made on God's knowledge of the future.

    Daniel 13:42
    "O eternal God, who knowest hidden things, who knowest all things before they come to pass"


    He knows all things before they come to pass, no distinction between a settled/unsettled future is made. Likewise, the verses on Isaiah do not restrict God's knowledge of the future to just the things that he will bring about by his ability.

    Isaiah 42:9
    "The things that were first, behold they are come: and new things do I declare: before they spring forth, I will make you head them."

    Isaiah 44:7
    "Who is like to me? let him call and declare: and let him set before me the order, since I appointed the ancient people: and the things to come, and that shall be hereafter, let them shew unto them."


    It is clear from the Scriptures that God knows the future and they do not place any restriction on this knowledge. His ability to declare the future is actually the proof he gives for being the one true God (Isaiah 48:3-7).

    Deducing that God doesn’t knows the future from verses that say “nor did it come into My mind” or “He was seeking an occasion to move against the Philistines” demands a forced interpretation of said verses, for the verses are not making an explicit declaration about the nature of God’s knowledge. The clear and explicit statements in Scripture that affirm God’s knowledge of the future actually preclude giving these and similar verses such an interpretation.

    By what means God knows the future is a separate issue from the fact that He knows it. You are confusing things, godrulz, by taking the verses on Isaiah as referring to God's ability to bring any future thing to pass and not to the simple fact that he knows the future (which is what they actually affirm).


    Evo

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Looks like AMR had posted another victim to death.

    Leave a comment:


  • tetelestai
    replied
    Originally posted by godrulz View Post
    Before I cry myself to sleep (did anyone hear me gasp in disbelief when JCWR quit!?):
    Dear Godrulz:

    You do realize open theism could be wrong don't you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Delmar
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • godrulz
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • godrulz
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • Delmar
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • godrulz
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X