ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Clete]

Sorry Dave,
You missed his point entirely. I'd suggest a re-read before the premise gets lost.

It looks to me like he nailed the point to the wall! Are you suggesting that Aristotle believed that the gods did not transcend time?

Have you ever read the Westminster Confession of Faith? It's argument for the immutability of God is taken straight out of the mouth of Aristotle. If God is immutable then He must also be timeless. The two go together like flies and cow dung.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

Sorry Dave,
You missed his point entirely. I'd suggest a re-read before the premise gets lost.

My only point here is what Greek philosophy is about. No one can deny Plato's, Aristotle's, and Plotinus' infuence on those who followed: Jewish; Philo and Maimonides. Islamic; Faylasufs and Averroes. Christian; Origin, Augustine, Aquians, and Calvin.

 

[elected4ever]

It looks to me like he nailed the point to the wall! Are you suggesting that Aristotle believed that the gods did not transcend time?

Have you ever read the Westminster Confession of Faith? It's argument for the immutability of God is taken straight out of the mouth of Aristotle. If God is immutable then He must also be timeless. The two go together like flies and cow dung.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Is there anything about God that you would consider immutable?

 

[patman]

Patman, I don't see the point of verse sliding. I know the Old Testament was written by the people of the Jewish faith who believe that God is omniscient and therefore know the past present and future and that he is eternal and transcends time.

This is the view of God that we have inherited from the Jewish faith.

http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm

Surely you do not think Jews of today do things the same way they did 2000 years ago. Or 3000 years ago? Judaism today is really a shadow of what used to be. Also, I find it very interesting you accuse me of not sticking to scripture, yet you say "I don't see the point of verse sliding."



We can only use the Bible when it i in favor of your beliefs?

 

[patman]

Patman: Hey Lonster, I didn't think you would ever talk to me again.
How come?

My point to E4E was in response to the, what I think of as, ODD thought process the SV has to go through to come to in order to believe.
Here I'm seeing a difference in our perspectives. God is the power for this belief. It is a quickening of the soul more than a thought process. I came to Christ when I was 7. I had not a lot of thought processes going on. It was rather simple. I knew I needed a Savior as a sinner.
If God repents from something he said, SV says he meant to repent all along, even when he originally said he would do what he repented of. That's just ODD.
The conundrum is again, in trying to fit God into our context. God just doesn't fit. This isn't anti-intellectual, it is super-intellectual.
The verses you shared are great. As an Open Theist I completely agree. His words are here to stay.

I am just going to quote those:

19 “God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

Yeah, I think so. But the logic shown by many S.V. means God did lie, do you agree? noAnd repent in the fashion of repenting of lying is not the repenting that God does and proudly proclaims he will do in the event that we repent first.
You bolded the print, I concur. God does not lie.
I know you may never become an Open Theist. All along you have shown no interest in changing your mind no matter what we showed you because it just wasn't for you.
It hasn't been purported as a strong theological position. I believe it has gotten many things wrong. So yes, you are right, it isn't for me. I do appreciate the strenuous exercise it gives for a theological work-out. I appreciate the rigor in which you debate. I appreciate your commitment to the doctrines you hold, even though I see them as incorrect.
But on the other hand, I did make the change. I can't believe I read verses such as the ones you present in the way I did. The OV makes much better use of scripture.

Clete said that the difference between our views is likened to the percentage of how much we can understand concerning God. SV, he said might be considered1% while OV is likened unto 50%. When we don't even use 10% or our brains, I find this unlikely, but it does very much point to a foundational difference that is telling. When someone says 'your view of God is too small' what they really mean is that your self-perception of Him is too large. I get canned concerning anti-intellectualism often enough, to point to a basic philosophical difference. I believe it is telling more of our approaches than actual banter. (Romans 12:3; 1 Corinthians 1:20,21,25; 2:4,5,14;3:19; 2 Corinthians 1:12; Ephesians 1:17;Colossians 1:9). My perception is that we are in the 1% club, however intelligent I may or may not be.

Yeah, I agree with a lot of what you said. Being once a S.V.'er and seeing what I knew about God then compared to after researching the O.V., I must agree there is more understanding.

If it is true that we only use 10%, then the O.V.er's brain is 4.9% closer than the S.V. is. No offense. I would consider you closer than that because you reject calvinism so much when we were talking there a while back.

That is not to say we love God more, per-say. I think we give him more honor than many in the S.V. camp because we don't say he does crazy stuff to, as you put it, fit God into our view.

The O.V. doesn't really do that. We just say this is what God does and what he doesn't, based on what he tells us in his word. The well-read S.V.er adds on to scripture to say he does more than he ever admitted, then they must mold their vision of him so it fits.

 

[godrulz]

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-15524303.html

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, Godrulz. As the article in the link explains the truth is actually vice versa. It was the Hebraic view that God transcends time and nature.

The Greek Gods evolve out of time. This is why Aquinas and other theologians had to defend the Hebraic view of time against rediscovered Greek philosophy.

By Hebraic view, I mean the view found in the OT (do word studies on eternal, etc.). I do not mean various Jewish philosophical views that were not necessarily based on the Bible.

Eternal now/simultaneity is foreign to the OT and NT. It was derived from Plato and others and adopted by Greek philosophy loving Augustine and others.

This can be traced by a more detailed study on time/eternity.

 

[baloney]

You guys are so far off the mark that its sad to see you struggle with this.

One thing we know for certain. The Hebrews believed that all life has purpose. This idea that we make any old decision and its not part of God's historic plan would be completely foreign to them. That didn't mean they didn't believe in free will. They believed God could see the decisions we make and he knew the future as his revelation unfolded historically.

The Greeks on the other hand believed that nothing was preordained. Life was a purposeless cycle like the seasons similar to reincarnation ideas. Life was cruel chancey and there were the Fates.

The Greek idea of eternal was the antithesis of temporaland more mathematical, but not for the Hebrews.

They believed the eternal was distinct but they worked together. God created time and was transcendant to it by nature, but through his power he worked and moved time to reveal himself in historic events.

http://www.restorationfoundation.org/volume 10/43_4.htm

 

[baloney]

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]

godrulz, as my last post states, I agree with you, but it makes no difference to the argument.

 

[DFT_Dave]

You guys are so far off the mark that its sad to see you struggle with this.

One thing we know for certain. The Hebrews believed that all life has purpose. This idea that we make any old decision and its not part of God's historic plan would be completely foreign to them. That didn't mean they didn't believe in free will. They believed God could see the decisions we make and he knew the future as his revelation unfolded historically.

The Greeks on the other hand believed that nothing was preordained. Life was a purposeless cycle like the seasons similar to reincarnation ideas. Life was cruel chancey and there were the Fates.

The Greek idea of eternal was the antithesis of temporaland more mathematical, but not for the Hebrews.

They believed the eternal was distinct but they worked together. God created time and was transcendant to it by nature, but through his power he worked and moved time to reveal himself in historic events.

http://www.restorationfoundation.org/volume 10/43_4.htm

A Different View of Time and History
"the Hebrew view of time and history was essentially linear, durative, and progressive. In short, it was going somewhere; it was enroute to a goal, a glorious climax at the end of this age. The consummation of history in the age to come will see nature transformed through the removal of evil from the earth."

This quote from your link is exactly the open view, I did not see anything said about time being something that was created. Time is an aspect of something that exists, not a thing in itself. The creation of the world is in God's "past" and the "end of the age" is in His future as it is in ours.

One cannot say that "the Hebrew view of time and history was essentially linear, durative, and progressive" without inferring that God also experiences it the the same way. A "timeless" view means that God does not and therefore cannot actually enter time and history. To believe that God is timeless and still enters history and time is irrational. You can believe it to be true but this view is simply an "irrational faith."

 

[Clete]

Is there anything about God that you would consider immutable?

His righteous character. WHO God is does not change. He is always perfectly consistent in His eternally righteous wisdom.

 

[Clete]

A "timeless" view means that God does not and therefore cannot actually enter time and history. To believe that God is timeless and still enters history and time is irrational. You can believe it to be true but this view is simply an "irrational faith."

Would you mind actually fleshing out the argument that proves this point? I just love syllogisms!

 

[elected4ever]

His righteous character. WHO God is does not change. He is always perfectly consistent in His eternally righteous wisdom.

Would you agree that God is righteous because of who He is verses what He does? For example, Is a chicken a chicken because it clucks or does a chicken cluck because a chicken is a chicken? Does the nature of a thing define the thing or does the thing define its nature?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Would you mind actually fleshing out the argument that proves this point? I just love syllogisms!

One cannot say that "the Hebrew view of time and history was essentially linear, durative, and progressive" without inferring that God also experiences it in the same way.

Time = sequence, movement, change, duration, history, past, future, before, after, etc.

Timeless (no time) = no sequence, no movement, no change, no history, no past, no future, no before, no after, etc.

God existed "before" he created the world, God cannot exist "before" he created the world if there is "no time" in him.

God could not have created the world if there was "no movement" in him.

The incarnation is a "change" in form, "the word became flesh", God could not "incarnate" into the world if there was "no change" or "time" in him.

If God is timeless and he is infinite in all that he can create, then he has created everything in an infinite moment that has no beginning and no end and is therefore continuous and eternal. All his activity "is" and is not "will be" nor "has been", God is creating the world, always will be, and always has been, means the world and all his interaction with it is eternal as well. Every moment in history then has always existed and always will because God's eternity is the only "ultimate reality" and our perception of our own existence in time is rendered a meaningless illusion and human rationality becomes useless. If God does not have "time" to do what he wants, when he wants then he is "not free" and neither are we.

When one really sees the logical (rational) implication of this timeless concept of God he becomes a determinist, an atheist, a Buddhist Monk, or an alcoholic. :cheers:

 

[elected4ever]

I cannot accept the premmis that God is out of time. God cannot exist without time. It is rather that we are in God's time and by virtue of that God is in our time. We are part of a bigger whole called eternity which is time that has no known beginning and no known ending. We only have an allotted time. A measure of existence that has a measurable beginning and an ending.

 

[godrulz]

God is personal. Thinking, acting, feelings, even in the relations of the triune God before creation presume duration/sequence/succession (i.e. time). Time is not a created thing, but an aspect of any personal being's existence, including God.

Timelessness is indefensible and not the only view of eternity (endless time vs timelessness...He is from everlasting to everlasting...no beginning, no end. He is not an 'eternal now' simultaneity, whatever that could possibly mean).

 

[Philetus]

I cannot accept the premmis that God is out of time. God cannot exist without time. It is rather that we are in God's time and by virtue of that God is in our time. We are part of a bigger whole called eternity which is time that has no known beginning and no known ending. We only have an allotted time. A measure of existence that has a measurable beginning and an ending.

I just saw my whole life 'flash' before me.

Yes, God has never-ending time; no beginning and no end. We have at least a beginning.
Which part of God's time are we in? And which part of God's time is God in?

Same time?

 

[elected4ever]

I just saw my whole life 'flash' before me.

Yes, God has never-ending time; no beginning and no end. We have at least a beginning.
Which part of God's time are we in? And which part of God's time is God in?

Same time?

His part. We just don't comprehend what that is. We can only surmise as our allotted time passes. We can assume it it the same as ours but we cannot know for sure. We can only guess basted on the effect time has on us. We do not know what the effect time has on God.

 

[Clete]

Would you agree that God is righteous because of who He is verses what He does? For example, Is a chicken a chicken because it clucks or does a chicken cluck because a chicken is a chicken? Does the nature of a thing define the thing or does the thing define its nature?

The term righteous is meaningless without choice, thus God chooses to be righteous or He is not righteous at all.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[elected4ever]

The term righteous is meaningless without choice, thus God chooses to be righteous or He is not righteous at all.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I believe that is a basic flaw in your understanding. How about answering the question that I ask. We will leave aside the question of what righteousness is for the moment.