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

  • godrulz
    replied
    Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    But that is time from our perspective which I am not convinced is the same as time from Gods perspective.
    This is a logical issue relating to reality, contingencies, etc....it will get technical, so don't jump to conclusions unless you can wade into piles of academic detail for and against.

    Leave a comment:


  • godrulz
    replied
    Originally posted by P8ntrDan View Post
    So if time is described as the passing of events in sequential order, what was God's first event?
    Uncreated Creator exists, without a first event in His being. He exists/is, period. His first event in relation to our universe is recorded in Gen. 1:1 (angelic creation is not mentioned, so timing uncertain). God has eternally fellowshipped in His triune relations. He is the First Cause of our universe, but an eternal being does not have a first event. This does not mean He is timeless, though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lon
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    You must not know Bob very well. Bob is one of the most gracious, friendly guys you will ever meet.

    How can you kick me out... of what is mine?



    That isn't true. AMR has his own website and own following that would all have to change. AMR has as much if not more invested in his beliefs as I do I. And I am sure he would confirm this for you if you just asked.

    And if I am dead wrong and AMR is dead right there isn't anything I can do about it. I was predestined for all eternity to be dead-wrong and there isn't you are AMR or anything else can do about it.

    However... if I am right.... both of you are responsible for disparaging God's character by claiming that He is responsible for sin and wickedness while man can do nothing of himself.

    Open theism rightly credits God for all that is good and man for all that is bad.

    Settled theism wrongly credits God for all that is bad, and wrongly lets man off the hook for being responsible for his own actions. (settled theists claim man is responsible for his own actions but that is a hollow claim because what they really believe is that God is responsible for everything without exception).

    Said in short.. as an open theist I am in a "win win" position, while you as a settled theist is in a "lose lose" situation (i.e., even if you are right what difference would it make?).

    Because I am.

    How do you answer a question like that?
    Answered many many, many many times.

    The answer? "OV does not escape the same accusation. It is not a 'denominationally' specific question AND furthermore, because OV REFUSES to acknowledge this, it MUST be asserted that it's answer is inadequate to task (and perhaps doesn't really understand the question at all in the first place). The indictment is against OV here by virtue of the repetitious and inadequate address. I see this not only as 'wrong-headed' but purposefully obtuse. I can be wrong in that assessment, but I'm perplexed that this has been explained and explained and explained.

    I'm blue in the face.

    Leave a comment:


  • godrulz
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    Do you believe God (from His perspective) is still hanging on the cross? Or is that part of God's past?
    God has a history (His Story). He is not atemporal. Case closed.

    Leave a comment:


  • godrulz
    replied
    Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    It is speculation about the mysteries of God. It is not doctrinal and plays no role in whether a person is saved or not. It is nothing more than trying to come up model of something the Bible is silent on.

    I don't agree with Knight that time is part of God. I think time is something God created for us. And I don't agree that knowing what will happen in the future unchangeably settles that future. As I said, it is one of God's deeper mysteries for me.
    The Bible is not silent and it is the glory of a king to search out a matter. Claiming mystery can become an excuse for lazy thinking or justification for believing inaccurate things. The debate is beyond your interest and expertise, but it is important, though not essential.

    Leave a comment:


  • Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    More presuppositional reading into the text. Sampson was a tool, God's tool. The way to read this text is as the HCSB renders it:

    His father and mother didn’t realize the Lord was at work in this, creating an opportunity to work against the Philistines, who ruled over Israel at that time.
    Speaking of tools.

    I could do this all day.
    What? Give lame answers to arguments that obliterate your position? Why would you want to do that all day?

    Leave a comment:


  • Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    You posted this knowing full well I have answered it in the past. My, what a provocateur you are, kind sir!
    The universe (especially the TOL universe) does not revolve around you AMR, I am not compelled by your answer(s). (heck I rarely if ever read your posts, no offense)

    Leave a comment:


  • Ask Mr. Religion
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    Judges 14:4 But his father and mother did not know that it was of the LORD — that He was seeking an occasion to move against the Philistines. For at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel.

    God says He was seeking an occasion, i.e., God was looking for the right moment to interact. Yet the settled theist is forced to believe that is a lie. After all, according to the settled theist God knows all occasions for all of time and has known eternally when He would move (which by the way is impossible for those who believe God is immutable).

    Just one (more) of hundreds of clear examples.
    More presuppositional reading into the text. Sampson was a tool, God's tool. The way to read this text is as the HCSB renders it:

    His father and mother didn’t realize the Lord was at work in this, creating an opportunity to work against the Philistines, who ruled over Israel at that time.

    I could do this all day.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ask Mr. Religion
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    The above notion is simply not biblical. It may appeal the "theologians" who enjoy imagining such things but it simply isn't biblical.

    There are literally hundreds if not thousands of examples that we can read about in God's word that objectively prove that God doesn't stand outside of time looking at all future events as if they were present events.

    Let me give just one such example....
    Jeremiah 19:5 “(they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind),

    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.’
    God is clearly saying that there was a time (possibly before creation or at some point after creation) where it had not entered God's mind that people would be burning there own children as a sacrifice to a false idol.

    Now, either:

    A. God does not "see" all events into the future and therefore did not see such an evil being devised.

    or...

    B.
    God is lying and all of this was in fact in God's mind for an eternity past.

    Now...
    Prepare for 18 pounds of theological gobbledygook as a defense by the settled theists.
    You posted this knowing full well I have answered it in the past. My, what a provocateur you are, kind sir!

    The "did not come into my mind" is not read as a declarative sentence, but as an expression of rebuke. Just as someone would exclaim, "Well, I never thought you would do that!" when confronting outlandish behavior, it does not mean the person (or God) was clueless, just terribly annoyed at the behavior in view, expressing outrage and scandal.

    Now that is not 20lbs of theological mumbo-jumbo, just $0.02 of proper grammar instruction. You are reading into the text from a openist presupposition, plain and simple.

    Leave a comment:


  • tetelestai
    replied
    Originally posted by Delmar View Post
    800 years before anyone did it? Please show your work.
    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

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • SaulToPaul
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    The verse makes it own context. I don't need to finesse it, I can just take it at face value.

    Even your own explanation defeats your theology. If it didn't come into God's mind that they should do it.... then it didn't come into God's mind that that they should do it! There was something NOT in God's mind that came to pass - exhaustive foreknowledge debunked.
    Not really. If I walk on the Golden Gate Bridge, I know I can jump off if I want. But, it doesn't come into my mind that I should jump off.

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Delmar
    replied
    Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
    If God didn't know they were going to do it, why did He command against doing it 800 years before they did it?

    (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.
    800 years before anyone did it? Please show your work.

    Leave a comment:


  • tetelestai
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    The verse makes it own context. I don't need to finesse it, I can just take it at face value.

    Even your own explanation defeats your theology. If it didn't come into God's mind that they should do it.... then it didn't come into God's mind that that they should do it! There was something NOT in God's mind that came to pass - exhaustive foreknowledge debunked.
    If God didn't know they were going to do it, why did He command against doing it 800 years before they did it?

    (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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
    I think you're so focused on the "didn't come into my mind" segment, you lose the context of his point.
    The verse makes it own context. I don't need to finesse it, I can just take it at face value.

    Even your own explanation defeats your theology. If it didn't come into God's mind that they should do it.... then it didn't come into God's mind that that they should do it! There was something NOT in God's mind that came to pass - exhaustive foreknowledge debunked.

    Leave a comment:


  • Delmar
    replied
    Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
    I think you're so focused on the "didn't come into my mind" segment, you lose the context of his point.
    Please explain the point, because I sort of thought that God not conceiving evil, was the point.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X