ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Clete]

If it is getting back to a Biblical theology, how far? I mean since the commentaries for the Torah support Omniscience, Omnipresence, etc. What do you have to go back to?

Just a very good and perplexing question.

I don't believe that any such commentaries exist but even if they do, I am not interested in commentaries Lonster!

How difficult is it for you to understand that my authority for all things doctrinal is Scripture and sound reason and nothing else - period. If Moses himself or even an angel showed up with something to say contrary to the Scripture he would be a false teacher and I would throw his opinion in the same trash heap as I do E4e's. (Gal. 1:8)

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[baloney]

I posted several links. I could post a thousand links more. I could ask any scholar in either Old Testament writing or New Testament writings.

They will all tell you that the ancient hebrews and new Testament writers believed in a God that transcends time because he created time and everything else. They will also tell you they believed in an omnicient, omnipresent God will all the attributes of "closed theism."

All the Reformers, all the people of Christianity before them agree on these basic attributes of God. Even the Greek words like prooridtz are specific and can't mean anything else but foreknowledge.

Open theists depend on false and subjective interpretations of Scripture.

Time is a subjective relationship of a succession of events, but so is spatial dimensions and gravity subjective.

They are all "things."

This is why you cannot separate spatial coordinates from time coordinates hence the space-time continuum.

This is why gravity affects time because it warps the space time continuum.

 

[patman]

Patman, the link I provided was about ancient Hebrew beliefs not modern jewish beliefs.

If open theism is based on this false representaion of old Hebrew thinking than it fails by the very base of its argument.

Baloney, sorry for the delay and this short answer, I'm not wealthy with time.

It has always been my understanding that the ancient hebrews concept of time is nothing at all like the greeks. But on occasion, well, on many occasion the hebrews were following other God's and their views were very often quite wrong.

From documentaries and readings I have done, sorry not to have any to post here (time is the only reason) the concept of time was based on the hear and now. Future, past, they didn't exist any more than what did and what might happen.

My question to you tho, is why do you care what the hebrews thought? What about what the Bible thinks? It told them truth that they often rejected. Who cares if you or I am right about their theories on time.

 

[baloney]

Patman, you seem to be a fair person to debate with.

I agree, you could argue that Christianity is a replacement theology for the Hebrews way of thinking.

But we do care about what the New Testament writers and what Paul thought and I haven't seen a single shred of evidence to suggest that these New Testament writers didn't believe that God was omniscient, omnipresent etc. all the attributes of "closed theology."

 

[Clete]

I posted several links. I could post a thousand links more. I could ask any scholar in either Old Testament writing or New Testament writings.

I only links you posted that I saw were links to what modern Jews believe, nothing more.

They will all tell you that the ancient hebrews and new Testament writers believed in a God that transcends time because he created time and everything else. They will also tell you they believed in an omnicient, omnipresent God will all the attributes of "closed theism."

This is a lie! How stupid do you think I am baloney? If you want to find the oldest historical records of where people believed God to be outside of time you go to Aristotle and nowhere else. You've posted nothing to the contrary nor will you because nothing to the contrary exists. Prove me wrong baloney!

All the Reformers, all the people of Christianity before them agree on these basic attributes of God.

This is not so. There is plenty of evidence that the earliest Christian believed and taught what would be called today Free Will Theism.

Even the Greek words like prooridtz are specific and can't mean anything else but foreknowledge.

So what? Do you know of an Open Theist who denies the use of the term "foreknowledge" in Scripture? I don't!

Open theists depend on false and subjective interpretations of Scripture.

Saying it doesn't make it so baloney.

Time is a subjective relationship of a succession of events, but so is spatial dimensions and gravity subjective.

Gravity is not subjective. It is detectable and quantifiable. It is not a mere concept like "length" or "duration".

They are all "things."

They are all nouns, if that's what you mean but that does not mean that they are ontological things with their own independent existence outside of a thinking mind. Time and length and many other concepts are just that, concepts; they are abstract ideas not physical things like electrons and photons and light bulbs and automobiles.

This is why you cannot separate spatial coordinates from time coordinates hence the space-time continuum.

This is a change of subject. Words always have a range of meaning and in the discussion about time we are talking about duration not some mathematical relationship between mass, motion and the motion of clocks found only in theoretical physics.

This is why gravity affects time because it warps the space time continuum.

Theoretically!

The fact remains, whether Einstein was right or not, that everyone everywhere resides together in the present moment.

For a further discussion about the absolute nature of time (duration) see the following thread (particularly the opening post)....

The Summit Clock Experiment (Ver. 2.0)

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Baloney, sorry for the delay and this short answer, I'm not wealthy with time.

It has always been my understanding that the ancient hebrews concept of time is nothing at all like the greeks. But on occasion, well, on many occasion the hebrews were following other God's and their views were very often quite wrong.

From documentaries and readings I have done, sorry not to have any to post here (time is the only reason) the concept of time was based on the hear and now. Future, past, they didn't exist any more than what did and what might happen.

My question to you tho, is why do you care what the hebrews thought? What about what the Bible thinks? It told them truth that they often rejected. Who cares if you or I am right about their theories on time.

This point has been made many times already. He is intentionally ignoring it and I believe has no intention of addressing it at all, although having said so may prompt him to do so but I doubt it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

It's a contradiction to believe that the future activity of a finite (limited to present activity only) being is knowable even to God who created him that way. When you accept contradictions your faith becomes irrational. If this is the kind of faith you want to have that's fine with me, but then don't accuse me of "faulty logic" when you have abandoned "logic" altogether in order to believe this, hypocrite.

This is like saying 'a car cannot fly, so therefore, neither can it's creator.'
The car is wrong, logical, but wrong.

 

[Lon]

What is the open view about?

There are two opposing camps with competing models within Evangelical Christianity; 1) the open view, 2) the closed view.

Both groups share the belief that God created the world according to Genesis and has a beginning and that God has always existed and has no beginning.

Both believe that God is infinite/eternal and that man is finite/temporal.

Both believe that Christ is the incarnate Word of God and is the eternal Son of God.

Both believe that the atonement alone is the bases for the salvation of mankind, all of whom are under the penalty of death because of sin.

Both believe there will be a future day of judgement and the return of Christ to rule this world for the rest of eternity.

Then what is the difference and why is there a difference between the two if there is this much agreement?

I would start with the nature of God's will and power and then to his knowledge. In that God has created man and is the cause of his existence, does it follow that God creates and is the cause (directly or indirectly) of all that man does--closed view--or has God given man the ability to be the cause of his own activity--open view?

In that God is the cause of mans activity in the closed view, it follows that God being infinite, foreknows all that man will do.

In that God gives man the ability to be the cause of his own action in the open view, it follows that God does not foreknow all that man being finite, will do.

In the open view the activity of man has options and alternatives, free will exists and the future is open but free will does not control the consequences of our choices. If we believe in the atonement of Christ we will have eternal life, if we do not we will perish.

In the closed view the activity of man has no options nor alternatives, free will does not exist and the future is closed because God controls the choices the consequences are assured and we are already in heaven or hell.

We will go back an forth accusing each other of taking verses out of context, being guilty of committing logical fallacies, and of reading Greek philosophy into our view, but the differences and their conclusions will remain as I have stated them.

If my analysis of this debate holds up after others have commented on it, I will render my reason for believing in the open view.

Where were you when I posed my commonality thread? This was a good succinct picture. I'd love for you to take over that ancient thread just for this kind of discussion. It is less debate and more informative however, which generally does not lead to high participation. It also is more congenial, also leading to waning interest, but I'd attend.

 

[Lon]

Free refills!
More butter?
Is this an interadmission, or is it over?
There be no sequel, Johnny Boy?

LOL! You Baiter!

 

[Lon]

I don't believe that any such commentaries exist but even if they do, I am not interested in commentaries Lonster!

How difficult is it for you to understand that my authority for all things doctrinal is Scripture and sound reason and nothing else - period. If Moses himself or even an angel showed up with something to say contrary to the Scripture he would be a false teacher and I would throw his opinion in the same trash heap as I do E4e's. (Gal. 1:8)

Resting in Him,
Clete

Yes, but you'd have to concede, there is nothing to go back to and this is a new train of thought in theology, or possibly an offshoot from somewhere.

You'd also have to figure out where the influences came from since it couldn't have been Greek.

(how could you not be interested in commentaries? I love commentaries, please tell me you have commentaries. I think I saw commentaries on Enyart's Battle Royale, You have to have commentaries. Come on Clete, tell me you have at least one)

 

[elected4ever]

Does God make you sin?

Did God make you god?

 

[elected4ever]

I get so tired of this bunch trying to mold God in their own image.

 

[godrulz]

I get so tired of this bunch trying to mold God in their own image.

Straw man. Just because God can think, act, feel like us (affirm as true since He is personal like we are) does not mean we are making Him in our own image!

 

[baloney]

"How stupid do you think I am, baloney.."
Well now that you mention it.

 

[baloney]

Clete,

Like I said. I'm dealing with creationsits here so for them to be calling other people liars and stupid is laughable.

 

[patman]

Patman, you seem to be a fair person to debate with.

I agree, you could argue that Christianity is a replacement theology for the Hebrews way of thinking.

But we do care about what the New Testament writers and what Paul thought and I haven't seen a single shred of evidence to suggest that these New Testament writers didn't believe that God was omniscient, omnipresent etc. all the attributes of "closed theology."

I don't think you'll find any to suggest that. Assuming you define omniscient as knowing everything. I think God knows everything too. But no where is there evidence that time is a thing. Not even in physics, not in the spirit world, and most importantly not the Bible.

God knows everything. But he doesn't know the future because it isn't here yet, but when it is here, he will know it perfectly. (Disclaimer... he knows some of the future, but not all of it.)

 

[patman]

Both to you and Clete, The OT Hebrews did believe in an Omniscient God who has Exhaustive foreknowledge. It is written in ancient commentaries well before Plato or Aristotle influences. I had to varify and so went to a Hebrew scholar friend. He's looking up the references for me (He is Jewish, not messianic). Where does that leave your argument?
After this, I also saw Baloney's post:


In Him,

Lonnie

Hey Lonnie.

I disagree, like I was telling baloney, the ancient Hebrew's concept of time wasn't like the greeks, and even if it were, so what? They weren't the most God fearing people through out most of their history. They followed other gods all the time..

Lets just stick to what the Bible tells us about God, not what the hebrews said.

 

[Nang]

This is a lie! How stupid do you think I am baloney?

Calm down, Clete . . .take the breath which might give you a reasonable opportunity to answer the argument . . . without resorting to name-calling in order to denigrate the person you answer.

Can you do it?

Nang

 

[DFT_Dave]

It's a contradiction to believe that the future activity of a finite (limited to present activity only) being is knowable even to God who created him that way. When you accept contradictions your faith becomes irrational. If this is the kind of faith you want to have that's fine with me, but then don't accuse me of "faulty logic" when you have abandoned "logic" altogether in order to believe this, hypocrite.

This is like saying 'a car cannot fly, so therefore, neither can it's creator.'
The car is wrong, logical, but wrong.

No, its like saying if the creator of the car did not make it to fly we will never see it in the sky an neither will the creator, even if he is infinite.

 

[Clete]

Calm down, Clete . . .take the breath which might give you a reasonable opportunity to answer the argument . . . without resorting to name-calling in order to denigrate the person you answer.

Can you do it?

Nang

Dork!

Hmm, Guess not!

Go away now. PLEASE!