ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[DFT_Dave]

There is no paradox for OV, because time is not a thing in itself, it is an aspect of the activity of God, just as love is an aspect of fellowship in Trinity.

Time has always existed because God has always been a Trinity.

Aristotle was logically correct when he stated that a timeless God is singular and inactive (unmoved mover)and is the cause of activity in a world that must also be eternal.

The only logical way to explain the creation of a temporal world is to believe in an eternal and active God, which is what the Bible says, and OVer's.

Once we say God is active we cannot logically say he is timeless.

God is actively engaged within a Trinity of infinite potentiality.

 

[DFT_Dave]

That's just more wood on the fire. If you say he is outside of time, and created time, it is like you say he is actively making round squares(He makes them round because he is outside of shapes).

Excellent post and perfect response. :the_wave:

He "gotcha" AMR

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes, an omnipotent God cannot do things that are illogical or inconsistent, such as making rocks that He cannot lift. But, your other observations ignore the idea that God's eternal existence is outside of time in every way we can think of time and has to do with God's pure actuality. See also here.

"Pure actuality" is a term authored by Aristotle, not Geisler, Aquinas, nor Augustine. The proper and logical conclusion of "pure actuality" is that the world is eternal; if you ever read an original work you would know that and you would also know that Augustine's and Aquinas's theologies are a "synthesis" of Biblical revelation and Greek philosophy.

 

[themuzicman]

Mr. Religion's error is imposing our chronological existence on God. God being temporal only means that He experiences before and after. That doesn't mean that God isn't in control of His own temporality, and when He decides to stop, time stops.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

"Pure actuality" is a term authored by Aristotle, not Geisler, Aquinas, nor Augustine. The proper and logical conclusion of "pure actuality" is that the world is eternal; if you ever read an original work you would know that and you would also know that Augustine's and Aquinas's theologies are a "synthesis" of Biblical revelation and Greek philosophy.

And there you have it. The beginning of the Calvinistic 'square circle'.

Calvinists are more guilty of brokering Grace than the 'indulgences' the reformers fought against.

What may be know of God as God has revealed himself in all scripture, in the flesh, and through creation, by the Spirit, etc. involves both circles and squares. Calvinism must toss one out and fill all the holes they create with the other, forcing squares to look like circles and/or circles to look like squares. (Square pegs in round holes.) Perhaps no other doctrine has done more to suppress the truth about God than Calvinism. To preserve their view of God, Calvinists must exaggerate and distort the fallenness of man. To preserve their view of man they must exaggerate and distort what may be know about God. To even hint at reconciliation they must distort the simple beauty of the love of God, limit Grace, distort scripture to create categories for God to relate, and eliminate hope.

God so loved the WORLD that God choose to send His Son (in the fullness of time) to die for everybody, AMR! Get over it. There isn't a darn thing you can do about it. Just accept it while your future (by grace) remains open to HOPE through FAITH and share it like its Good News for your neighbor as well.

'Christ in you, the hope of glory.'
Philetus

That's just more wood on the fire. If you say he is outside of time, and created time, it is like you say he is actively making round squares(He makes them round because he is outside of shapes).

Awesome, Patman!:thumb:

 

[Philetus]

For me, the challenge posed by Leibniz yields a cogent argument for finite time. No one who understands God's attributes can imagine Him idlying away in eternity continually delaying creation. We have solid ground here for confirming that the past is finite and time has a beginning. Moreover, we can claim that since time had a beginning and God is eternal, God must have existed outside of time before time was created. God's eternal existence cannot be assumed to be an indefinite extension of what we know as time. Rather eternity must be something else: a timeless existence, an eternal presence, with the most distant past or future present to God.

:rotfl:
I just don’t/can't think of God as being bored, or ‘idling away in eternity continually delaying creation’. Such a small view of God, AMR, as if God has nothing but His precious 'elect' to consider. That is so shallow and revealing about your view of both God, yourself and others. I think God could sufficiently ‘entertain himself’ without resorting to 'a timeless existence, an eternal presence,' experiencing the whole thing in the twinkling of an eye and having to watch reruns while we act out our pre-written scripts. Not only do you seem to think little of God’s creation, you seem to think even less of God and His resourcefulness.

God has always been relational. God is relational. God will always be relational. There is no such thing as being idly relational even in patience.

Philetus

 

[godrulz]

Mr. Religion's error is imposing our chronological existence on God. God being temporal only means that He experiences before and after. That doesn't mean that God isn't in control of His own temporality, and when He decides to stop, time stops.

Muz

Time will not stop. God is from everlasting to everlasting experiencing endless time (as will we, but only God had no beginning).

 

[godrulz]

God has always been relational. God is relational. God will always be relational. There is no such thing as being idly relational even in patience.

Philetus

Waxing eloquent again?

The triune God's relations show that love, communication, fellowship, etc. are eternal. God is not bored nor does He listens to a symphony in one cacophonic (is that a word?) eternal now moment. Music, thinking, acting, feeling, relationship, etc. requires succession, sequence, duration (time). God is personal and dynamic, not impersonal and static.

 

[Lighthouse]

Why is everybody afraid to answer my question?

 

[Philetus]

Waxing eloquent again?

The triune God's relations show that love, communication, fellowship, etc. are eternal. God is not bored nor does He listens to a symphony in one cacophonic (is that a word?) eternal now moment. Music, thinking, acting, feeling, relationship, etc. requires succession, sequence, duration (time). God is personal and dynamic, not impersonal and static.

Yeah, thats what I said. Was that eloquent? I thought it was rather mundane and redundant; something from Sunday School 101.

I think the proper word would be cacophonous. Either way I'm not sure it really applies. :think: God in fact does 'hear' all present creation at once and is able to distinguish each and every sound. God simply doesn't hear the sound yet unuttered, as a sinner's prayer NOT YET prayed for forgiveness or the sound of a tree NOT YET falling in the woods. And I seriously doubt God goes around during the week knocking trees over out of boredom just to hear them scream.

If you follow AMR's reasoning, even creation would bore the heck out of God. I mean, shoot, even meticulous control and exhaustive foreknowledge would get old after about 20 minuets. :jazz:



P

 

[Philetus]

Why is everybody afraid to answer my question?

Maybe the profundity of it eludes us. Or maybe terrorism has us all shook up. Just look at what is happening to the trees.


Ask it again.

 

[Philetus]

Perhaps it is OT if OVT'ers do not believe in the necessity of God's grace for salvation.

Is that the case?

:vomit:





(Now that is an eloquent response, godrulz!)​

 

[Lighthouse]

Maybe the profundity of it eludes us. Or maybe terrorism has us all shook up. Just look at what is happening to the trees.


Ask it again.

I wasn't asking you. I already know your answer. But I will ask again:

Can an immutable being be omnipotent?

 

[Lon]

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you are saying here. If it is in reference to me getting a response on this thread, I understand not everyone has the time or inclination to answer everything. I was saying that this has been mentioned before as in "I've seen this question over the years". Not in this thread necessarily, although it had been mentioned here before, too. I was just commenting that a trend seemed to be forming.

Well, you got a response from me, I was just guessing why you'd not had a response. You could have helped it along by making a propositional statement and asking for response I think.
No, it's the same for all worldviews if logic is the basis for thought.

So can we cut to the chase and rather should you ask, "What contradiction? I don't see a contradiction."?
Okay, "What contradiction? I don't see a contradiction."


No, the contradiction cannot be seen with so many other variables. The test is if freewill can exist with exhaustive foreknowledge. In other words, we cannot test if Peter's will was to see if he could overcome exhaustive foreknowledge. (At the time, Peter's will was being affected by many factors and the evidence suggests that exhaustive foreknowledge was the furthest thing from Peter's mind.)

Sure it was, he denied that he'd do it. One of two scenarios here or a combination of both: 1) Extensive foreknowledge (Since foreknowledge by definition means exactly this, it is an easier interpretation for me (regardless of what logical problems occur, because it is straight from scripture). and/or God's determinitive will impossing. OV sees this much more often than nonOV. God has to control and negate free-will in order to make His determined will work. I see this too, but foreknowledge has a stronger hermenuetic as Romans 8:28 is understood.
Huh? Where did I say this? I don't think that is part of the hypothetical at all. Could you show me what you are talking about?
I don't understand what you mean here. Could you clarify? Maybe break up the ideas and explain more?
First of all, EF doesn't negate freewill. It is easy to extrapolate, but it is the way you are looking at it: "If God knows I'm going to wear a black T-shirt tomorrow, I have no choice." Let me try this from a different perspective. If I watch a movie, and the main character is wearing a black T-shirt, there is no way he can wear any other shirt, but was there a choice involved? Your logical train of thought should be the same with the initial question. Just because God knows something doesn't mean we had no choice in the matter. Knowledge doesn't mean determinism and negation of free-will. It is the same question: Did the actor have a choice? Of course he did. The only portion of definite knowledge we share with God, and only partially is hindsight. Hindsight is the only definite knowledge we have. God has foreknowledge (Definite knowledge before it happens). We do not share this at all. All of our foreview is not knowledge of absolutes, but prediction & guesses. OV continually pairs our ability to see future to God's. This is incorrect. God has foreknowledge, we have no such thing.

What is the antecedent to "This"? What's in the previous paragraph? What is the previous paragraph? Another idea? I just don't know what you think I'm making a mistake on so I cannot respond.
For 'this' refer to the statements above on foreknowlege and prediction comparison.

Is the antecedent to "this" the same as the previous sentence. If so, I couldn't understand, and if not then please tell me the antecedent.
ibid

What is the right view? Could you explain?

We do not have definite foreknowledge. We have merely informed predictive ability. God has foreknowledge by definition. This is the crux of our difference, the actual definition of foreknowledge.
That is what the thought experiment is for. It includes a contradiction. Is the bottom line that you don't see the contradiction?
I see 'your' contradiction, but I continue to try and dispell it. Foreknowledge does not affect freewill, just like my knowledge that an actor wore a black shirt did nor negate his freewill. The only definite knowledge we have is past. God has definite foreknowledge, we do not. Knowledge of future does not affect freewill any more than knowledge of the past. It is the same issue.

But none of these passages speak to the problem at hand. Also, don't you think OV'ers have seen your proof texts? Do you know enough about the OV position to know the standard answers to these proof texts?

Yes, but again, the difference is the actual definition of 'foreknowledge.' knowledge means 'knows' so it is definite, and 'fore' means before it happens. Your extrapolation is that God knows by determinism and that it is impossible to know that which does not exist yet but it totally emasculates the term 'foreknowledge' to make it merely predictive and/or determinism. It changes the meaning of actual words that you will not find in a dictionary. You are adding two definitions to foreknowledge that do not exist. Foreknowledge

Lon

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

"Pure actuality" is a term authored by Aristotle, not Geisler, Aquinas, nor Augustine. The proper and logical conclusion of "pure actuality" is that the world is eternal; if you ever read an original work you would know that and you would also know that Augustine's and Aquinas's theologies are a "synthesis" of Biblical revelation and Greek philosophy.

Your presumptuousness is unwarranted. How have I provoked this attitude in you? Tell me so I can improve my communications. If you were not so badly behaved, perhaps you would be more often engaged with persons, both of whom might learn from one another. I never cease to marvel at the lack of civility in many of the persons in these forums. It is as if some were never taught the proper means of rigorous discourse. Please review my posts. You will find that baiting me to evoke a response just won't do.

Of course I have formally studied the original works. What does it matter if they are a synthesis as long as they ultimately biblical? The proper and logical conclusion for pure actuality is not that the world is eternal if you synthesize the concepts with biblical revelation.

It really gets old hearing others, especially open theists, bemoaning the Greek connection of Calvinism, when Arminianism and open theism rely upon the same, else there is no explaining concepts such as infinitude, time, omnipotence, and or other attributes of a supreme being. You speak as if no truth was revealed to the Greeks through God's common grace. You have got to come up with something better than this to overthrow a system that has held together since the time of Paul. I hear these wails and immediately dismiss the messenger as a fanatic-- a person, who, having forgotten their original aim, merely redoubles their efforts. Shrilly shouting something over and over again won't make it any more believeable. Arminianism and open theism hinges on the temporality of God. Without this as a belief system, no matter how unbiblical, neither can stand. You started there and built up a theology around the assumption versus starting with the special revelation and working out the theology. In effect, you have embraced a contradiction.

 

[Lighthouse]

AHEM!

Can an immutable being be omnipotent?

 

[Nang]

I wasn't asking you. I already know your answer. But I will ask again:

Can an immutable being be omnipotent?

Sure.

 

[Lighthouse]

Sure.

How?

He's omnipotent, so He can do whatever He wants. He's immutable, so He cannot change, in anyway, or even be moved. How does that work?

 

[Nang]

How?

He's omnipotent, so He can do whatever He wants. He's immutable, so He cannot change, in anyway, or even be moved. How does that work?

There is no necessity for God to change.

 

[Lighthouse]

There is no necessity for God to change.

Really? Why not?

And what does that have to do with my question? If God was omnipotent He would be able to change, whether it was necessary or not. And an immutable being cannot change, no matter what. So how can God be both?