ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Nang]

Wow, science is pagan now and humanistic?

Maybe you didn't know this, so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, but science explains Gods creation.

"Science" is an imperfect work-product of the imperfect creature made by God . . . man.

So you are incorrect. The Spirit of God, through His inspiration of Holy Scripture, perfectly gives account for creation.


Your erroneous response is evidence of the humanistic mindset lurking behind OVT.

Nang

 

[drbrumley]

"Science" is the work of the creature . . .man.

So you are incorrect. The Spirit of God, through His inspiration of Holy Scripture, accounts for creation.


Your erroneous response is evidence of the humanistic mindset lurking behind OVT.

Nang

Did you even graduate elementary school? Probably not but thats a topic for another day.

Science my dear Nang, explains Gods creation. God gave us the means, thru a brain, to investigate His creation, as a means of fulfilling His orders, to rule the earth and subdue it. Science proves God. Science does not and never has been opposed to any scripture and has amptly proven scripture.

 

[Nang]

Did you even graduate elementary school? Probably not but thats a topic for another day.

Science my dear Nang, explains Gods creation.

Science might partially (and imprecisely) describe God's creation, but science does not come close to explaining or teaching God's creative acts.

Only God Himself can give us insight into such wondrous workings.

God gave us the means, thru a brain, to investigate His creation,

But the human brain is thoroughly corrupted by sin; unable to properly comprehend and glorify God for His creative powers and wondrous works.

as a means of fulfilling His orders, to rule the earth and subdue it.

You speak of pre-fall commands and human responsiblities, corrupted and made impossible for man to fulfill since the sin of Adam.

Science proves God.

100% Humanism clearly presented and stated.

Such is not Christian religion or faith, at all.

Science does not and never has been opposed to any scripture and has amptly proven scripture.

Bah . . .who do you think to deceive . . .

Not the true sons of God, who live by faith, and thereby supersede the importance of science by their demonstration of Godly Spirit and righteousness on this sorry planet, giving all glory to the Creator rather than to the creature.

Nang

 

[Lon]

You don't understand. We are all going to hell, OV and SV. It's because God loves us.

Thanks for clarification? I'm still not tracking with you. "We" as in, "you and I?"

I need a bit more to latch onto here. There is much need for a treatise that I can discuss intelligently with you.

So you are saying the majority didn't decide the elections they voted in?

Of course they did. I even said so about the reason I believe the Republicans took both the Presidential office and congress. I also talked about picketing, lobbying (including writing letters) and being vocal.

We are a bit off-track here so I want to steer it back (please).
The initial premise was that the majority of believers are traditional.
We all 'could' be wrong but it doesn't track in my mind with God's sovereignty. He does not abandon His people for that long regarding doctrine. 2000 years is a very long time to be mistaken. I'd been totally 'open' to listening to and even being corrected by OV theists if it was warranted but my problem is that OV seems to downgrade God from beyond my imagination to just about within its (my imagination's) limits and I'm not scripturally comfortable with many OV premises about Him. I do not believe the majority of these disagreements to be salvific but they do cross those paths occassionally. Only TOL brand of OV has ever suggested traditionalists are hell-bound if they don't convert. This makes me leary. TOL fruit also makes me leary (there are a few who break that bitter mold and I'm thankful or would believe our issues would be salvific). The child of God will be known by his/her fruit, no question whatsoever.

 

[Clete]

Incorrect.

"Time" is measured, and the measurement of time is according to the created stars and light created in heaven for such purpose. Time as created man knows it, has beginning and end, according to the Genesis account.

The measurement of time is not time you mouth breathing idiot!
The creation of clocks is not the same thing as the creation of time. You really are too stupid to understand the difference, aren't you?

Incorrect. All of God's creation is meant to measure (and limit) time.

This is just ridiculous.

I thought you just said that time was created? How is time supposed to be "meant to measure (and limit) time"?

Created man exists within created (temporal) time and space, created by God to contain his earthly experience.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Nang.

Time and space have nothing to do with God's eternal Being.

So says you. I'd rather believe the Bible...

Genesis 18:14 Is anything too hard for the LORD? At the appointed time I will return to you, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.”

Exodus 9:5 Then the LORD appointed a set time, saying, “Tomorrow the LORD will do this thing in the land.”​

God does not experience time by duration, or by definition.

You know, Nang, this whole theology debating thing would be a lot easier for you if you would just simply read the Bible from time to time...

Revelation 8:1 When He opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.

Revelation 22:2 In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.​

God created time, and is not subject to His creation to experience His duration or be described according to time-limited definition.

Funny how there's no mention of the creation of time in the Bible. Not in Genesis or anywhere else. God certainly created lots of things that can be used as clocks, but that is not the same thing.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. By the way, clocks are what is effected by Relativity, not time itself. Clocks exist and are subject to the forces of nature, time does not exist except as a concept and so cannot be effected by mass or momentum the way clocks can. Nothing ever leaves the present moment regardless of their momentum - period.

 

[themuzicman]

In that case he would have said "before Abraham was I was, because I'm God".

He did. God calls Himself "I AM" to Moses. That is who is introduced to Israel as God. Read the verses that follow this claim. You'll see that the Jews clearly understand exactly what Jesus said.

But instead he is explicitly connecting his existence with God's "eternal now" existence.

Again, the context says nothing of the sort. Jesus is explaining how He saw Abraham desiring to see His day.

Your view seems to claim that the divinity is explicit and the temporal consequences are implicit.

Huh? I've stated, based upon this verse, that Jesus is making a claim to be God and to have existed when Abraham lived, just as the Jews have asked him. You certainly cannot get "eternal now" from that claim.

But the context makes it clear that what is being discussed is Jesus temporal character, which it seems is atemporal, and his temporal character implies his divinity.

You gotta be kidding me. Are you saying that if Jesus were temporal, He'd have died or ceased to exist between the time He saw Abraham and the time He was incarnated? That's just SILLY.

Your view implies that Jesus was using a grammatically incorrect figure of speech to say that he was God. While this is possible, I'm more inclined to take his use of tense as meaningful in itself.

My view uses the historical and cultural context along with the entirety of the conversation that took place to properly exegete this verse. Go ahead. post the entire pericope, and then show us how Jesus is making an "eternal now" claim. Once you try that, you'll be exposed as the one who is eisegeting.

Muz

 

[Yorzhik]

Thanks for clarification? I'm still not tracking with you. "We" as in, "you and I?"

Yes, "we" as in, "You and I". Of course.

Of course they did. I even said so about the reason I believe the Republicans took both the Presidential office and congress. I also talked about picketing, lobbying (including writing letters) and being vocal.

So the majority DID decide all the elections since 1972, but abortion is still legal. Is that correct?

I'll have to get to the rest of your post later.

 

[Yorzhik]

We are a bit off-track here so I want to steer it back (please).
The initial premise was that the majority of believers are traditional.
We all 'could' be wrong but it doesn't track in my mind with God's sovereignty. He does not abandon His people for that long regarding doctrine.

Do you think going to hell is abandonment by God? Why do you think that?

Lon continues:

2000 years is a very long time to be mistaken. I'd been totally 'open' to listening to and even being corrected by OV theists if it was warranted but my problem is that OV seems to downgrade God from beyond my imagination to just about within its (my imagination's) limits and I'm not scripturally comfortable with many OV premises about Him.

Scripturally? So far your defense of the SV has been based on tradition. What are these scriptures you speak of? If I had scriptures pointing to the OV postion, would tradition mean less than those scriptures?

Lon continues:

I do not believe the majority of these disagreements to be salvific but they do cross those paths occassionally. Only TOL brand of OV has ever suggested traditionalists are hell-bound if they don't convert.

Whoa there Hos. I don't think you'll ever find an OV'er on TOL saying someone is not saved because they are SV. I'm sure it would have to be for another reason. Could you cite where an OV're on TOL said an SV was not saved because they were SV?

Lon continues:

This makes me leary. TOL fruit also makes me leary (there are a few who break that bitter mold and I'm thankful or would believe our issues would be salvific). The child of God will be known by his/her fruit, no question whatsoever.

"that bitter mold"... what does that mean? (It isn't that important. I'm just curious)

We are known by our fruit, and one of those fruits is love. Thus, we should expect to see a lot of name calling and righteous anger. Isn't that what you've experienced and seen from OV'ers?

 

[Lon]

Do you think going to hell is abandonment by God? Why do you think that?

Like I said, needs a treatise on your part so I can track with you on the whole. You are quipping glimpses of your theology, not presenting it.

Scripturally? So far your defense of the SV has been based on tradition. What are these scriptures you speak of? If I had scriptures pointing to the OV postion, would tradition mean less than those scriptures?

Historically, they go hand in hand. This doesn't mean that it has never diverged but as I believe, God's Sovereignty will not allow it to go unchecked and He is the One who restores His people. The Majority isn't always right on everything, but they are right on most things.

Whoa there Hos. I don't think you'll ever find an OV'er on TOL saying someone is not saved because they are SV. I'm sure it would have to be for another reason. Could you cite where an OV're on TOL said an SV was not saved because they were SV?

Many times, ask GR. He's corrected several of these himself.

"that bitter mold"... what does that mean? (It isn't that important. I'm just curious)

We are known by our fruit, and one of those fruits is love. Thus, we should expect to see a lot of name calling and righteous anger. Isn't that what you've experienced and seen from OV'ers?

No. That is, I've seen name calling and anger but our definitions aren't lining up.
You ask for verses and I give them all the time. "Be angry and sin not" "A gentle answer turns away wrath" "Be wise as serpents but gentle as doves" "not violent, but gentle, not contentious"

Tit 3:1 Remind them to be subject to rulers and1 authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work.
Tit 3:2 They must not slander anyone, but be peaceable, gentle, showing complete courtesy to all people.
Tit 3:3 For we too were once foolish, disobedient, misled, enslaved to various passions and desires, spending our lives in evil and envy, hateful and hating one another.
Tit 3:4 But "when the kindness of God our Savior and his love for mankind appeared

Jas 3:8 But no human being can subdue the tongue; it is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.
Jas 3:9 With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse people made in God's image.
Jas 3:10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. These things should not be so, my brothers and sisters.
Jas 3:11 A spring does not pour out fresh water and bitter water from the same opening, does it?
Jas 3:12 Can a fig tree produce olives, my brothers and sisters, or a vine produce figs? Neither can a salt water spring produce fresh water.

Jas 3:13 True Wisdom
Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct he should show his works done in the gentleness that wisdom brings.
Jas 3:14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfishness in your hearts, do not boast and tell lies against the truth.
Jas 3:15 Such wisdom does not come from above but is earthly, natural, devilish.
Jas 3:16 For where there is jealousy and selfishness, there is disorder and every evil practice.
Jas 3:17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, accommodating, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial, and not hypocritical.
Jas 3:18 And the fruit that consists of righteousness is planted in peace among those who make peace.

 

[Lon]

Lon: I think you do not fully understand OT. If you think it limits God, you are off track.

In OV, God cannot do the impossible

Mat 19:26 But Jesus looked on them and said to them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

 

[themuzicman]

In OV, God cannot do the impossible

Wow.. you've been reduced to that, Lon?

You might as well give up. you've lost.

Muz

 

[Clete]

In OV, God cannot do the impossible

Muz is right! You've completely lost your mind as well as the debate.

Matthew 19:26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Mark 10:27 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”

Luke 1:36 Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible.”

Luke 18:27 But He said, “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.”​

The Biblical teaching is clearly that there are many things that are impossible for men to accomplish that God can accomplish. It does not teach that God can do the rationally absurd! On the contrary, the Bible teaches us that rationality is a key attribute of God, that rationality exists because God is rational. Indeed the Bible teaches us explicitly that just as God is Love, God is Logic! For God to do the rationally absurd would be for Him to act contrary to His Himself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Eli_Cash]

He did. God calls Himself "I AM" to Moses. That is who is introduced to Israel as God. Read the verses that follow this claim. You'll see that the Jews clearly understand exactly what Jesus said.

Jesus uses the present tense of himself, not the past. I believe that the tense is significant. You apparently don't. So my view is a logical consequence of the passage, whereas yours must ignore or explain away aspects of the passage.

Again, the context says nothing of the sort. Jesus is explaining how He saw Abraham desiring to see His day.

And how does he explain this? He doesn't say He was before Abraham. He says He is before Abraham. Is the tense of this statement significant, or is it just a play on words to use the divine title?

Huh? I've stated, based upon this verse, that Jesus is making a claim to be God and to have existed when Abraham lived, just as the Jews have asked him. You certainly cannot get "eternal now" from that claim.

Yeah I can, since Jesus refers to his past existence (from human perspective) in the present tense. He doesn't claim to have existed, but to exist in the past.

You gotta be kidding me. Are you saying that if Jesus were temporal, He'd have died or ceased to exist between the time He saw Abraham and the time He was incarnated? That's just SILLY.

No, that's not what I'm saying. My point is exegetical, not metaphysical. The discussion in this passage is Jesus' temporal relation to Abraham, not his divinity. And the significance of Jesus' answer should be interpreted primarily in relation to the question. Thus the tenses he uses are significant in themselves, and His divinity is a consequence.

My view uses the historical and cultural context along with the entirety of the conversation that took place to properly exegete this verse. Go ahead. post the entire pericope, and then show us how Jesus is making an "eternal now" claim. Once you try that, you'll be exposed as the one who is eisegeting.

Muz

I'm not reading anything into the passage. I'm simply trying to make a literal sense of Jesus' use of tense in this passage. Of course it may be better to take a non-literal approach, but I don't see anything in the text that warrants it.

 

[themuzicman]

Jesus uses the present tense of himself, not the past. I believe that the tense is significant. You apparently don't. So my view is a logical consequence of the passage, whereas yours must ignore or explain away aspects of the passage.

What have I ignored or explained away? Jesus is using the NAME that GOD CALLS HIMSELF to ISRAEL. "I am" has come to you. It's a claim to be God as an answer to the question. Has nothing to do with whether He is "eternally now" or not.

And how does he explain this? He doesn't say He was before Abraham. He says He is before Abraham. Is the tense of this statement significant, or is it just a play on words to use the divine title?

It's a play on words to use the divine title. Look at the Jews' respnse.

Yeah I can, since Jesus refers to his past existence (from human perspective) in the present tense. He doesn't claim to have existed, but to exist in the past.

He claims to be God. And in claiming to be God, He claims to have existed when Abraham was alive.

No, that's not what I'm saying. My point is exegetical, not metaphysical. The discussion in this passage is Jesus' temporal relation to Abraham, not his divinity. And the significance of Jesus' answer should be interpreted primarily in relation to the question. Thus the tenses he uses are significant in themselves, and His divinity is a consequence.

Except that Jesus isn't making a claim about being atemporal or temporal. He's claiming to be God. Your exegesis is based upon a proof text that ignores the context.

If you didn't assume that "I am" meant "eternal now", you'd never arrive at that conclusion from reading the passage.

I'm not reading anything into the passage. I'm simply trying to make a literal sense of Jesus' use of tense in this passage. Of course it may be better to take a non-literal approach, but I don't see anything in the text that warrants it.

Literal? Show me where the Jews are asking Jesus whether He's temporal or atemporal, and I'll show you where they're more concerned with Jesus' claim to having seen Abraham, and Jesus' answer that He is God, without any reference to temporality.

Muz

 

[Lon]

Wow.. you've been reduced to that, Lon?

You might as well give up. you've lost.

Muz

I don't think it was much of a statement in which to make any kind of "Wow" assessment or conclusion.

Perhaps focus on the horse before the cart here...

 

[themuzicman]

I don't think it was much of a statement in which to make any kind of "Wow" assessment or conclusion.

Perhaps focus on the horse before the cart here...

You just lowered God to being equal to man in order to say that God does the impossible. You've just become what you accuse OV of being.

Muz

 

[Lon]

You just lowered God to being equal to man in order to say that God does the impossible. You've just become what you accuse OV of being.

Muz

Oddly enough, I was saying the same thing you are saying, but in classic TOL style you guys fire first, ask questions later.

1Co 2:9 But as it is written, "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard," nor has it entered into the heart of man, "the things which God has prepared for those who love Him."

 

[themuzicman]

Oddly enough, I was saying the same thing you are saying, but in classic TOL style you guys fire first, ask questions later.

Show me where any OVT has said that God can only do what man can do.

Muz

 

[Eli_Cash]

What have I ignored or explained away? Jesus is using the NAME that GOD CALLS HIMSELF to ISRAEL. "I am" has come to you. It's a claim to be God as an answer to the question. Has nothing to do with whether He is "eternally now" or not.

You are ignoring the tense.

It's a play on words to use the divine title. Look at the Jews' respnse.

The Jews' response was to attempt to stone him. I don't recall that it says why.

He claims to be God. And in claiming to be God, He claims to have existed when Abraham was alive.

No, he claims that he does exist before Abraham.

Except that Jesus isn't making a claim about being atemporal or temporal. He's claiming to be God. Your exegesis is based upon a proof text that ignores the context.

This is absolutely demonstrably false. The context is the crux of my argument. The context is the Jews' question of Jesus' chronology in relation to Abraham.

If you didn't assume that "I am" meant "eternal now", you'd never arrive at that conclusion from reading the passage.

I don't assume here that "I am" means "eternal now". I assume that the tense is relevant, and the fact that Jesus combines the past tense (with regard to Abraham) and the present tense (with regard to himself) is the definition of the eternal now doctrine.

Literal? Show me where the Jews are asking Jesus whether He's temporal or atemporal, and I'll show you where they're more concerned with Jesus' claim to having seen Abraham, and Jesus' answer that He is God, without any reference to temporality.

Muz

The Jews are asking about his chronology with respect to Abraham. His answer based on their question.

 

[Lon]

Show me where any OVT has said that God can only do what man can do.

Muz

"God 'cannot' know the future. It is illogical" (impossible, absurd, ridiculous, sci-fi).

"God cannot make a rock He cannot pick up or make square circles..."

The logic breakdown is in the question, not the answers.

"God cannot lie."

"Ha! Then He is not omnipotent!"

"You sir, have no command of English."

"How can you say that? If God cannot do something, He isn't omnipotent!"

"To 'not' be able do something is equally the mark of omnipotence."

"Then you are OV!"

"Yes, in that sense we agree but I agree with some JW doctrine as well, let's not jump to conclusions too hastily. We have agreements, let's celebrate those and continue."