Theology Club: Is the Future Open?

Lon

Well-known member
Fine by me. I was just wondering if you wanted to carry on that conversation. If you can't or don't wish to respond, it's up to you. I suppose every conversation must end somewhere.
Yes. At least I want to honoor the tenor here. :think: IntoJoy was kind of complaining that we were hijacking that thread. I'll try and move it to one of the OV time threads.


You are seriously missing something here, Lon. You haven't understood the problem at all.
Of course we have this between us. It is only my deposit here of good faith and counterpoints to ponder in a classic debate with closing words (mine given here).
I am arguing that time is not a thing. It is just a concept to help communicate the idea that things happen in sequence. Hence the idea that time began is absurd.
Time is not a thing. Time is not a dimension. Time cannot be measured.
Actually, I'm not opposed to that, but it only relates to our physical universe. To whatever degree God interacts with His creation, He interacts with time like points that create segments on a line that otherwise has no points nor marks. It is true that we must plot two points in order to discuss which line we are talking of/logically grasping.

After the same fashion, I don't have a problem with people saying God experiences time, because He does, He interacts with us. The problem will always be where we perceived limitation ends or if we see it at all. Also, because a noun is a person place or thing like a concept, I do believe Time must be a 'thing.'
Time is the language of measurement of duration. Things are thought 'timeless' because duration has no perceived affect on objects we label as such and it conveys a truth we all understand and agree exists.

So, food for counterthought and I'll leave it at that: There is such a thing as timelessness that correctly surmises realities.
 
Yes, very true. Good of you to admit it. If you would like help getting a new understanding, feel free to ask away. It's better than going to great lengths to explain away the obvious meanings of countless passages of the Bible and brings great peace of mind.

Help from you? No thanks. I'll just stick to the Bible.
 

Bob Enyart

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Jerry, Abram, and Abraham

Jerry, Abram, and Abraham

Hello Jerry! It's helpful that you openly admit (as below) what we think is a powerful argument against timelessness. For if Plato were correct on that doctrine, then because God the Son is today also the Son of Man, that would mean that He was always and throughout eternity past the Son of Man. Thus, man would be co-eternal with God, as would Mary, because He would then also always have been the Son of Mary (Gen 3:15; Lk 3:23).

Regarding the use of the term Son of Man to refer to Jesus in the past, this is a kind of postdiction. It is common to use current information to discuss the past. Jerry refers to "Abraham" even when he is speaking of early points in his life prior to the Gen. 17:5 change of his name from Abram. As far as I recall, the New Testament never uses Abram (Greek Αβραμ) but only Abraham (Ἀβραάμ) even though it references his earlier years (Gal. 3:6 from Gen. 15; Heb. 7:9 from Gen. 14; etc.). None of this is proof that Abraham's name was always Abraham, nor does referring to Jesus prior to the Incarnation mean that He had always been the Son of Man; had eternally come down from heaven; had eternally humbled Himself; had eternally lowered Himself; had eternally emptied Himself of some of this powers of deity; etc. These are merely instances of referring to the person in the past by a name that He is known by today.

Bob argues that God experienced a change in sequence when He became the Son of Man. The problem with this argumentis the fact that the Scriptures reveal that the Lord Jesus was Son of Man before He came to the earth, as witnessed by His own words here:

"What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).​

Here the pronoun "he" must refer to "the Son of Man" so before he came to earth He was in heaven as the Son of Man. The only change that took place was in "time" when He put on a flesh and blood body. We can also see the same teaching here:

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).​

The Lord Jesus came down from heaven as the Son of Man. And this should surprise no one, since we read the following about Him:

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb.13:8).​

- Bob Enyart

p.s. For more, see my OT debate at opentheism.org/james-white.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Hello Jerry! It's helpful that you openly admit (as below) what we think is a powerful argument against timelessness. For if Plato were correct on that doctrine, then because God the Son is today also the Son of Man, that would mean that He was always and throughout eternity past the Son of Man. Thus, man would be co-eternal with God, as would Mary, because He would then also always have been the Son of Mary (Gen 3:15; Lk 3:23).

Hi Bob,

You assume that a flesh and blood body is essential to being a "man". But when the Man Jesus Christ ascended into the heavenly kingdom of God He did not enter with a flesh and blood body:

"And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor.15:49-50).​

The Lord Jesus is now sitting at the right hand of the Father in the heavenly kingdom without a flesh and blood body but despite that fact He remains a Man.

Regarding the use of the term Son of Man to refer to Jesus in the past, this is a kind of postdiction. It is common to use current information to discuss the past.

Why would the Lord use the term "Son of Man" if He did not exist as a Man prior to coming to the earth? If He wanted to use what was then current information when speaking of who He was before He came down to the earth He certainly would have used the term "Son of God" instead of the term "Son of Man."

The only thing which makes sense it the fact that by using the term "Son of Man" He was saying that He existed as both Man and God before He came to earth. And that explains how we are made in the image of God:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea..." (Gen.1:26).​

It takes little imagination to understand who is spoken of here:

"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" (Gen.3:22).​
 
Last edited:
Top