ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Jerry Shugart]

Individual election is a denial of free will, love, relationship (Calvinism) or based on the wrong assumption of 'eternal now'/simple foreknowledge (not defensible). Corporate election is biblical, but North Americans (unlike Hebrews) think individualistically.

you do not know what you are talking about. The following verse shows that He chooses those who believe:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

You want to read Calvinism imto that verse but there is nothing said in that verse that sipports the theories of Calvism.

The words at 2 Thess. 2:13 are not in regard to a "corporate" choosing but instead they are referring to choosing "individuals" for salvation. you butcher Paul's words when you insist that this verse is not speaking of an "individual" salvation but instead a "corporate" one!

 

[themuzicman]

you do not know what you are talking about. The following verse shows that He chooses those who believe:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

You want to read Calvinism imto that verse but there is nothing said in that verse that sipports the theories of Calvism.

The words at 2 Thess. 2:13 are not in regard to a "corporate" choosing but instead they are referring to choosing "individuals" for salvation. you butcher Paul's words when you insist that this verse is not speaking of an "individual" salvation but instead a "corporate" one!

You get an "A" for tenacity, but an "F" for exegesis.

Again, this only supports Calvinism if you assume individual election.

Apart from that assumption, this verse says nothing of the sort. Please keep in mind that "YOU" here is PLURAL not SINGULAR. That would be corporate not individual.

Muz

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You get an "A" for tenacity, but an "F" for exegesis.

Again, this only supports Calvinism if you assume individual election.

Apart from that assumption, this verse says nothing of the sort. Please keep in mind that "YOU" here is PLURAL not SINGULAR. That would be corporate not individual.

Muz

You get a big fat "F" for reasoning. Unless those who believe are compelled to believe then the verse does not support Calvinism in any way. Think!

 

[themuzicman]

You get a big fat "F" for reasoning. Unless those who believe are compelled to believe then the verse does not support Calvinism in any way. Think!

My apologies, Jerry.. Apparently the labor day weekend has taken my reading comprehension. I misread your previous post. Please continue without me.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

Individuals are added to the predestined/foreknown Church if and when they believe. If they are freely able to receive or reject Christ, there is an element of uncertainty until they actually make the choice. A contingent choice cannot be foreknown if it may or may not happen. If it is foreknown, it is fatalistically fixed or someone other than the moral agent is settling the choice. A person cannot believe before they are even born, so it is not a possible object of knowledge, even for an omniscient being, to know with certainty how the contingent choice will be actualized.

Assuming Platonic-Augustinian 'eternal now' is not even helpful if we examine it closely (not to mention that it is a false view of time/eternity anyway).

 

[DFT_Dave]

First we must attempt to get an idea about the "eternal" state, an existence that existed before the creation of the universe. Here Paul speaks about things which are eternal:

"For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor.4:17-18).

From this we can understand that the things which make up the universe are temporal and can be seen as opposed to eternal things, things which cannot be seen.

This does not mean that the eternal things have no form or shape, only that we, while in our temporal bodies, are not equipped to see eternal things. That is why we find the following description of things "eternal":

"Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever" (1 Tim.1:17).

That is the difference between the earthly body and the eternal, spiritual body which the Christian will put on when we meet the Lord Jesus in the air:

"For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our lowly body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Phil.3:20-21).

Here Paul makes a distinction between a "natural" body and a "spiritual" body:

"It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Cor.15:43-44).

The two different types of bodies are not the same. One is designed for life on earth while the other is designed for life in heaven (see 1 Corinthians 15:49-50).

Paul describes the glorious body which the Christian will put on as "our house which is from heaven":

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven" (2 Cor.5:1-2).

That is also the same "hope" that is spoken of in the following verse:

"We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints, For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel" (Col.1:3-5).

Can you see that the eternal state is very different than the existence that we as humans experience in our lifes? Again, Sir Robert Anderson writes:

"One of the most popular systems of metaphysics is based upon the fact that certain of our ideas seem to spring from the essential constitution of the mind itself ; and these are not subject to our reason, but, on the contrary, they control it. A superficial thinker might suppose the powers of human imagination to be boundless. He can imagine the sun and moon and stars to disappear from the heavens, and the peopled earth to vanish from beneath his feet, leaving him a solitary unit in boundless space ; but let him try, pursuing still further his madman's dream, to grasp the thought of space itself being annihilated, and his mind, in obedience to some inexorable law, will refuse the conception altogether."

It is difficult and almost impossible for the human mind to grasp the existence within the eternal state, a state that existed before the creation of the universe. Before I go on will you agree with this? Is there anything that I said to which you do not agree?

In His grace,
Jerry

I appreciate what you have written, I took a look at your website, it is well done, but what I want to make sure that we mean the same thing when we write to each other. I would like to know how you would define "time" as opposed to "timelessnes" and make sure we mean the same thing.

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I appreciate what you have written, I took a look at your website, it is well done, but what I want to make sure that we mean the same thing when we write to each other. I would like to know how you would define "time" as opposed to "timelessnes" and make sure we mean the same thing.

--Dave

Dave, thanks for your kind words about my site. Again:

It is difficult and almost impossible for the human mind to grasp the existence within the eternal state, a state that existed before the creation of the universe. Before I go on will you agree with this? Is there anything that I said to which you do not agree?

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, thanks for your kind words about my site. Again:

It is difficult and almost impossible for the human mind to grasp the existence within the eternal state, a state that existed before the creation of the universe. Before I go on will you agree with this? Is there anything that I said to which you do not agree?

In His grace,
Jerry

It should not be to difficult for anyone who studies theology to be able to explain what they mean when they say that God is timeless.

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It should not be to difficult for anyone who studies theology to be able to explain what they mean when they say that God is timeless.

It should not be difficult for anyone to answer my questions but this is twice that you have refused to answer them. Is there a reason, especially since I went to the trouble to explain how I see the eternal state?

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[DFT_Dave]

It should not be difficult for anyone to answer my questions but this is twice that you have refused to answer them. Is there a reason, especially since I went to the trouble to explain how I see the eternal state?

In His grace,
Jerry

I asked first. You seem to be refusing to honor my request for a definition on timelessness. Do you see the eternal state as "timeless"?

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I asked first. You seem to be refusing to honor my request for a definition on timelessness.

I believe what Augustine says here defines timelessness:

"In the eminence of Thy ever-present eternity, Thou precedest all times past, and extendest beyond all future times, for they are still to come--and when they have come, they will be past. But 'Thou art always the Selfsame and thy years shall have no end' (Ps.102:27). Thy years neither go nor come; but ours both go and come in order that all separate moments may come to pass. All Thy years stand together as one, since they are abiding. Nor do Thy years past exclude the years to come because Thy years do not pass away. All these years of ours shall be with Thee, when all of them shall have ceased to be. Thy years are but a day, and Thy day is not recurrent, but always today. Thy 'today' yields not to tomorrow and does not follow yesterday" (Augustine, Confessions, Book 11, Chapter XIII).

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[DFT_Dave]

I believe what Augustine says here defines timelessness:

"In the eminence of Thy ever-present eternity, Thou precedest all times past, and extendest beyond all future times, for they are still to come--and when they have come, they will be past. But 'Thou art always the Selfsame and thy years shall have no end' (Ps.102:27). Thy years neither go nor come; but ours both go and come in order that all separate moments may come to pass. All Thy years stand together as one, since they are abiding. Nor do Thy years past exclude the years to come because Thy years do not pass away. All these years of ours shall be with Thee, when all of them shall have ceased to be. Thy years are but a day, and Thy day is not recurrent, but always today. Thy 'today' yields not to tomorrow and does not follow yesterday" (Augustine, Confessions, Book 11, Chapter XIII).

In His grace,
Jerry

That's good, but I alreadly knew what Augustine has to say about time and timelessness http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/Augustine.html

Could you sum this up in your own words because I want to know what is in your head not Augustine's.

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

That's good, but I alreadly knew what Augustine has to say about time and timelessness http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/Augustine.html

Could you sum this up in your own words because I want to know what is in your head not Augustine's.

--Dave

The Lord lives in the ever present "now." With Him there is no past and there is no future. As I have already shown the eternal state is very different than the existence we live. Can you describe what it is like in the eternal state, a time before the creation of all things of the universe? Of course you cannot. Therefore you should understand that it is difficult to even understand the things in regard to the eternal state, much less put those thoughts into writing.

Now I will ask you to do something. Will you describe the "spiritual" body which Paul speaks of here and tell me how it differs from a "natural" body:

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Cor.15:42-44).

I believe that the "spiritual body" is a body designed to inhabit the eternal state (see 1 Cor.15:42-44).

It is not an easy thing to do but try to desribe the "spiritual body."

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[godrulz]

I am still impressed with the old, conservative International Standard Bible Encyclopedia that reminds us of the problem with philosophical views on eternity/time like Augustine's convoluted quote vs biblical views on eternity as endless time/duration.

I concur with Wolterstorff (if one is not familiar with other views besides eternal now, they should be to test strengths and weaknesses....William Lane Craig might be an easier compromise for Jerry).

http://www.amazon.com/God-Time-Gregory-E-Ganssle/dp/0830815511 (click look inside for contents)

http://www.amazon.com/Treatise-Time-Space-J-R-Lucas/dp/0416750702/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_9

Difficult book, but right conclusions...very technical...affirms that time is more fundamental than space and that it must accompany the existence of a personal being, including God.

 

[andyc]

I am still impressed with the old, conservative International Standard Bible Encyclopedia that reminds us of the problem with philosophical views on eternity/time like Augustine's convoluted quote vs biblical views on eternity as endless time/duration.

I concur with Wolterstorff (if one is not familiar with other views besides eternal now, they should be to test strengths and weaknesses....William Lane Craig might be an easier compromise for Jerry).

http://www.amazon.com/God-Time-Gregory-E-Ganssle/dp/0830815511 (click look inside for contents)

http://www.amazon.com/Treatise-Time-Space-J-R-Lucas/dp/0416750702/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_9

Difficult book, but right conclusions...very technical...affirms that time is more fundamental than space and that it must accompany the existence of a personal being, including God.

If God were to transverse an infinite amount of time, wouldn't this prove that time is no longer infinite?
And yet this is exactly what he would have to do in order to reach any specific point in time. I know I've mentioned this a few times in the past, but you always run from it

You should be ready to respond with an answer, and not simply say, "Dr so and so can explain it in his book.........".

 

[godrulz]

Your point is pointless, like Zeno's paradox and an arrow supposedly being unable to reach a target. Instants vs intervals is part of the solution.

God has no beginning and no end. Integers can go from -1 and +1 in both directions forever. You don't doubt the interval between numbers despite there being no beginning or ending of numbers.

God experiences an endless duration of time (Rev. 1:4; Ps. 90:2; Ps. 102:27). Jesus, the God-Man, lived during a specific duration on earth. He lives forever, world without end. He also pre-existed. The Father also related to Him during this time. Timelessness is pure philosophical theory, not seen in Scripture, illogical to defend.

 

[andyc]

Your point is pointless, like Zeno's paradox and an arrow supposedly being unable to reach a target. Instants vs intervals is part of the solution.

An arrow begins at the bow and ends at the target.

God has no beginning and no end. Integers can go from -1 and +1 in both directions forever. You don't doubt the interval between numbers despite there being no beginning or ending of numbers.

As I said, if God can transverse an infinite amount of time, time would cease to be infinite, but created. In the beginning God.

God experiences an endless duration of time (Rev. 1:4; Ps. 90:2; Ps. 102:27). Jesus, the God-Man, lived during a specific duration on earth. He lives forever, world without end. He also pre-existed. The Father also related to Him during this time. Timelessness is pure philosophical theory, not seen in Scripture, illogical to defend.

None of these verses imply that God experiences endless time. Time a natural law created for this natural realm. And of course it would be futile to try and understand timelessness with our natural mind.

 

[themuzicman]

The Lord lives in the ever present "now." With Him there is no past and there is no future. As I have already shown the eternal state is very different than the existence we live. Can you describe what it is like in the eternal state, a time before the creation of all things of the universe? Of course you cannot. Therefore you should understand that it is difficult to even understand the things in regard to the eternal state, much less put those thoughts into writing.

Now I will ask you to do something. Will you describe the "spiritual" body which Paul speaks of here and tell me how it differs from a "natural" body:

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Cor.15:42-44).

I believe that the "spiritual body" is a body designed to inhabit the eternal state (see 1 Cor.15:42-44).

It is not an easy thing to do but try to desribe the "spiritual body."

In His grace,
Jerry

Given this assumption, you cannot accept the bible as inerrant, as God would be incapable of creating, and thus Genesis 1 and 2 would be lies.

If God is in an eternal "now", then everything that exists must be co-eternal with God. If God creates, then God's state prior to creation would not be part of "now" for Him.

This is also borderline gnosticism, as the "spiritual body" has no physical form, but rather the spiritual is superior to the physical.

And, as Paul said, without bodily resurrection, there is no hope, and you deny both Christ's and our bodily resurrection, which is the hope of the gospel.

Effectively, Jerry, you are now a heretic according to Paul.

The "Spiritual body" is simply a pre-fall human being. Physical body which experiences he passage of time, but not the effects of death by aging. The emphasis on the resurrection being physical cannot be overstated. When Paul refers to a "spiritual body", he isn't saying we won't be physical human beings. Indeed, just the opposite. We will be more fully human than we have ever been, living in a perfected world without sin and incorruptible.

Muz

 

[Jerry Shugart]

And, as Paul said, without bodily resurrection, there is no hope, and you deny both Christ's and our bodily resurrection, which is the hope of the gospel.

Effectively, Jerry, you are now a heretic according to Paul.

I never denied a bodily resurrection. We disagree on what type of body that those living in the present dispensation will be raised. So please cease from making false accusations against me.

The "Spiritual body" is simply a pre-fall human being. Physical body which experiences he passage of time, but not the effects of death by aging.

From the context where Paul discusses the spiritual body it is clear that the spiritual body is the same as a heavenly body. And in the same context he makes it plain that a heavenly body is not 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).

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[themuzicman]

I never denied a bodily resurrection. We disagree on what type of body that those living in the present dispensation will be raised. So please cease from making false accusations against me.

If the body we are resurrected into isn't a physical human body like what we have today, then you deny bodily resurrection. Your statements make it fairly clear that you don't mean a physical body.

From the context where Paul discusses the spiritual body it is clear that the spiritual body is the same as a heavenly body. And in the same context he makes it plain that a heavenly body is not 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).

In His grace,
Jerry

Congratulations, you're a heretic. 1 Corinthians 15 can only refer to a flesh and blood body. When Jesus was resurrected, He asked for and ate fish to demonstrate that He wasn't a ghost, that He wasn't just spiritual, but that He was physical, flesh and blood. He invited Thomas to come and touch the holes in His hands, feet, and side. These are flesh and blood manifestations. Jesus wanted to make it clear to His apostles that His resurrection was in a physical, flesh and blood body.

Ask yourself this:

If Christ did not resurrect in a flesh and blood body, then what was raised from the dead?

For that matter, if you are to be resurrected in the future what will be raised from the dead?

If you're getting a new, different body, then what is resurrected from the dead? Nothing.

Pay attention to the whole text:

1 cor 15:35But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another.

Notice that Paul is talking about planting seeds. You don't plant wheat seeds and get celery! What will be raised will be like what was planted!

1 Cor 15:42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

In the same way, the raised spiritual body will be from the seed of the natural body, but glorified by God to be imperishable.

The portion in 42-29 is contrasting Adam with Christ, but just as Christ was raised in a flesh and blood body, so we will be resurrected in His image.

Sorry, Jerry, but if you deny flesh and blood resurrection, you are the one Paul is addressing in 1 Corinthians 15. If you deny bodily resurrection in flesh and blood, you're standing opposed to Paul.

Muz