ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Philetus]

It is not the motivation to believe that is in question but the work of God accomplished in our lives as a result of believing. It is what we are as a result of God's accomplishment. I doubt that any of us had any knowledge of what would happen to us as a result of believing in Christ. Our knowledge of salvation evolves and not salvation itself. Salvation, the giving of life from the dead,. is a finished work and not a work in progress. We are saved, not being saved. We are the children of God , not becoming the children of God. Just as Jesus was the Son of God so have we become. We are in the world but not of the world.

Actually my conclusions are the only rational conclusions if one is to believe the testimony of scripture. I do not believe God created sin.

I believe that the children of God are in this world and not of this world. That makes us different from the normal inhabitants of this word that are not born of man. Though our bodies are born of men the life that sustains it is not. If we continue to believe we are still of man then we will give place to sin because as a person thinks in his heart so is he. It will not matter in the least if the belief is true or not. Everyone will act according to who he believes he is. We have the mind of Christ, not the brain of Christ. The mind of Christ speaks to the thoughts of Christ and not the thoughts of man.

Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

I have this unction within to use the words with there proper definition and adjust my thinking to accommodate their original intent and not what men think the definitions ought to be. Such is the weakness of human language and its evolvement.

I am saved! Done deal! I am also still IN the world. Hard fact!

It is me … not the me I’m going to be, but the me I am that God loved and loves and has saved. Like Paul said, I have not yet reached perfection but I press on HOPING to take hold of that for which God in Christ Jesus has taken hold of me. I haven’t’ yet reached perfection, yet I’m perfect in Christ’s love. What grace!

You keep on claiming that your ‘conclusions are the only rational conclusion because you believe the testimony of scripture’ and live with that ‘unction within to use the words with there proper definition and adjust [your] thinking to accommodate their original intent and not what men think the definitions ought to be’. The rest of us will just keep stumbling around in the dark, trying to get a grip on reality.

Human reason isn't as weak as some wish it were. That would excuse so much.

 

[Mystery]

Philteus, I'm having a hard time believing that you believe your motto.

 

[elected4ever]

I am saved! Done deal! I am also still IN the world. Hard fact!

It is me … not the me I’m going to be, but the me I am that God loved and loves and has saved. Like Paul said, I have not yet reached perfection but I press on HOPING to take hold of that for which God in Christ Jesus has taken hold of me. I haven’t’ yet reached perfection, yet I’m perfect in Christ’s love. What grace!

You keep on claiming that your ‘conclusions are the only rational conclusion because you believe the testimony of scripture’ and live with that ‘unction within to use the words with there proper definition and adjust [your] thinking to accommodate their original intent and not what men think the definitions ought to be’. The rest of us will just keep stumbling around in the dark, trying to get a grip on reality.

Human reason isn't as weak as some wish it were. That would excuse so much.

It is not my fault you are liberal in your thinking thought you clame otherwise.

 

[Lighthouse]

" . . .Before the foundation of the world . . ." Ephesians 1:4

I could be wrong, Aletheia correct me if I am, but I don't think that answers the question.

 

[Lighthouse]

"Never" is a time constraint. Try to say what you are trying to say with no time restraint at all.

That's not possible.

 

[Philetus]

Philteus, I'm having a hard time believing that you believe your motto.

What part of Christ in Mystery are you having a hard time believing?

Or is it just the hope part?

 

[Philetus]

It is not my fault you are liberal in your thinking thought you clame otherwise.

I haven’t clamed anything of the sorte.
You are right for once ... its not your fault ... either way.
In fact I'm sure it is fair to say that you haven't influenced my thinking in anyway whatsoever thought you clame otherwise.

What a hoot.

 

[Clete]

"Never" is a time constraint. Try to say what you are trying to say with no time restraint at all.

Don't you understand that the point you've made here disproves your own position?

This is a point I've made a thousand times and no one seems to want to let it sink in! You cannot talk about a timeless God without contradicting yourself! The reason you cannot is because the words and concepts that we use are not plucked out of thin air but are based on other, more fundamental concepts.

The concept of red implies the concept of color, which in turn implies sight, all of which combined implies cognition and intelligence, which implies an intelligent Creator.

All concepts are based on other more foundational concepts - all of them! (Aside from God, of course). If you deny the truth of a concept which is foundational to a concept you affirm, you beg the question (a.k.a. the Stolen Concept Fallacy), which is irrational. This is presuppositional apologetics in its most basic form and yet every Presuppositionalist I've ever known (which isn't many) commits this fallacy in regards to the timeless existence of God! They affirm the existence of God but deny that God has duration or experiences sequence, and, as you have correctly pointed out to Philetus, you can't talk about God without using terms which imply both duration and sequence (i.e. time) and so anyone who holds to such a position cannot keep from contradicting themselves because they beg the question right off the bat when they utter the first syllable concerning the existence of a timeless God.

Your own point proves your worldview to be false because the self-contradictory cannot be the truth.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

God purposed, willed, and intended . . . and acted upon His purpose, will, and intentions.

So?

Was there a time when He "purposed, willed, and intended"?

Let me ask it in a different way....

Think about a flower and it's structure. With it's petels that attract insects which in turn help with pollination. Think about how a flower has incredibly functional reproductive organs and all the other amazing pieces and parts that make up flowers. All of this combined with the beauty of the flower and how flowers give us silly humans so much joy!

Was there a time when God designed the flower? (I am not asking about when God created the flower i.e., Genesis, instead, I am speaking of the design, the plan, the blueprint of the flower) Or.... did the design of the flower always exist with God eternally so that there was never a time when God actually designed it?

 

[Philetus]

This hypothetical, because it is dream fantasy creates all kinds of logic problems, but God has told us plainly things about Himself that are factual and fall without our conception to explain. Having no beginning, is a defined existence of God that does exactly this in our logic.

Then why do those of the closed view consistently opt for those things God has 'plainly said that fall without our conception' and flat out dismiss those things God has plainly said about Himself that fall well within our conception of reality?

Is God moved or not?

 

[Nang]

Was there a time when He "purposed, willed, and intended"?

Let me ask it in a different way....

Think about a flower and it's structure. With it's petels that attract insects which in turn help with pollination. Think about how a flower has incredibly functional reproductive organs and all the other amazing pieces and parts that make up flowers. All of this combined with the beauty of the flower and how flowers give us silly humans so much joy!

Was there a time when God designed the flower? (I am not asking about when God created the flower i.e., Genesis, instead, I am speaking of the design, the plan, the blueprint of the flower) Or.... did the design of the flower always exist with God eternally so that there was never a time when God actually designed it?

How about this thought? . . .

Everything created in this material world (i.e. the pretty flowers and all their intricacies) reflect the essence of the spiritual realm and powers of God:

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead . . ." Romans 1:20

All persons, actions, and events that occur in time, are copies of heavenly (timeless) realities:

"Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things . . ." Hebrews 8:5

Therefore, we have no idea what the pattern of earthly flowers reflects from the eternal sphere; but we can imagine pretty flowers represents a far greater beauty and glory than has ever been seen and appreciated by finite eyes and minds.

In the "third heaven" where God dwells are glorious and indescribable realities, eternally existent; of which this creation is a mere copy and dim reflection.

"For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him." Isaiah 64:4

"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." I Cor. 2:9

I am not real big on a literal "intelligent design" concept. I do not think it was necessary for God to engineer His creation, but by the power of His Word, He caused His intelligence and glories to manifest in a vast multitude of material and living things; including mankind.

What was made, reflects I AM.

(And no, I do not advocate pantheism, for I do not say God is in all things, but that all things reflect the many glories of God.)

So to infer God might have needed time to design or engineer a creation, seems too plodding and pedestrian, to me.

Nang

 

[Lon]

That's not possible.

Exactly.

We only know how to express things in time constraints.

There is no possible way to discuss a non-beginning from our perception.

We have a truth from God with some description, but no logical grasp of that truth. God is timeless.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Nang....

So.... basically your answer is "no".

When asked.... "Was there a time when God designed the flower?" You would answer "no" and the give the explanation in your last post, correct?

 

[Lon]

Then why do those of the closed view consistently opt for those things God has 'plainly said that fall without our conception' and flat out dismiss those things God has plainly said about Himself that fall well within our conception of reality?

Is God moved or not?

My clock doesn't move, but the numbers move.

God doesn't move, but parts of Him are moved.

God says of Himself "I change not." Yet we know He is relational. Both aspects are correct, the need is to determine exactly what we are talking about. I am correct, my clock does not move, but you are correct, it changes. These understanding of our statements and the concepts are not contradictory, they just seem that way in discussion. Both are correct, but because we are discussing two different aspects, we are often coming to two different conclusions and describing two completely different things. Yet the clock is still there, doing what it does and doesn't do.

 

[PKevman]

So to infer God might have needed time to design or engineer a creation, seems too plodding and pedestrian, to me.

Right. So God didn't need to have the flower in His mind for all eternity past. He could have just said, "Hmm let's make THIS", and made a flower. It seems your statement here is perfectly in line with an Open View perspective actually.

 

[PKevman]

I do not advocate pantheism, for I do not say God is in all things

Good. So then you deny the unBiblical doctrine of Omnipresence?

 

[Nang]

Nang....

So.... basically your answer is "no".

When asked.... "Was there a time when God designed the flower?" You would answer "no" and the give the explanation in your last post, correct?

In the beginning of time, God created time and the flower, whose purpose and design are a small reflection of the very essence and power of God.

 

[Mystery]

In the beginning of time, God created time and the flower, whose purpose and design are a small reflection of the very essence and power of God.

He created the flower physically, or in His mind at "the beginning of time"?

 

[Nang]

Good. So then you deny the unBiblical doctrine of Omnipresence?

You are a pastor and do not comprehend the difference between pantheism and divine omnipresence?

My, my . . .

 

[Nang]

He created the flower physically, or in His mind at "the beginning of time"?

God created the flower materially, when He created time, from His essence and by His power.