Nang
TOL Subscriber
Well, there goes the 2-hour opportunity for the "rational" genius, Clete, to disprove the doctrine of "predestination."
What a joke and empty suit, this guy proves over and over, to be!
Nang
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Well, there goes the 2-hour opportunity for the "rational" genius, Clete, to disprove the doctrine of "predestination."
What a joke and empty suit, this guy proves over and over, to be!
Nang
There are two questions, is God timeless, does God know "all" future events.
Scripture, here, says God has a future, right?
--Dave
patman
Active member
I think we can safely say spiritual things are indeed only understandable through the spirit based on the following verses
1 Corinthians 2
12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.[c] 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
However, God makes certain basics understandable to anyone:
Acts 2:33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.
I think it is easy to see that what they "saw and heard" was given to the entire world. As Peter quoted earlier "In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams."
God needed to, so the world could be accountable and understand enough to know they needed salvation.
If you have a conversation with someone, it isn't hard to imagine that they understand that Jesus died for them to take the punishment of a sin. The concept of a scapegoat isn't hard for the average non-believer. They may not understand the deeper things, but these basics are within their capacity to comprehend.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
So you are disagreeing with Clete . . .
Who posted this hateful evaluation of ordinary human beings:
"I am not asking whether some dim witted ding bat on the street who wouldn't know a skillful thought if one jumped out from behind a fire hydrant and screamed "BOO!" can intuitively understand the basic principles of the Christian faith.
Indeed, it is precise that sort of human cattle, those people who do not actively think their way through life, that God says the message of the gospel won't make any sense too."
We're talking about God's activity, relationship to time, and freedom. You're talking about God's size, apples and oranges.
Please, get on the same page. If you want to talk about God's relationship to space and matter that's another subject. Do you agree that God has a future of things not yet done, like judgment day?
--Dave
patman
Active member
No. Clete is saying some people don't get the gospel out of willful stupidity. I agree. While they are actually capable of understanding -- because the Spirit's teaching is available to them -- they are unwilling to lead their brains to the concept.
I don't really think this was "hateful" either Nang. You and I have had our own share of hateful words between the two of us, I'd call this nicer than that. Especially since it wasn't directed at anyone, but a group of people who foolishly ignore sound teaching.
You (and I, and everybody) can be hateful from time to time. It's just some of us like to point out other's hatefulness to discredit their arguments.
You see, attacking his character as you misunderstand his point doesn't make him willing to give you a 2 hour lesson. It's the pot calling the kettle black, and then the pot wanting the kettle to paint the pot a different color.
Does the Bible contradict itself, in your mind? It's God's will that we might know him, right? Didn't God give us a rational mind in order to do that? We can know things about him that are true with out having to know everything about him. How would we know what is true about God as opposed to what is not true, what a text of scripture says verses what it does not say, if not for our rational mind. Do you think it's ok to be irrational?
--Dave
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Whatever . . .
But I have never known a person, supposedly coming in the name of Jesus Christ, who is so consistently ugly and hateful and disparaging of other human beings, as Clete.
Defend him if you must, but in my book, you deny the loving nature and gospel of Jesus Christ by doing so.
Nang
patman
Active member
Nang,
This post represents a problem in this thread. "My way or the highway" arguments are everywhere. Just because someone isn't like you doesn't mean they deny Jesus. Your problem with this last post is that you misunderstood it.
I tried to clue you in, and I get "whatever" like I am somehow defending Clete's attitude. All I am saying is it's hard to get someone to talk to you when you insult them... right?
My original post was to you, not for Clete. When you thought that original post and Clete's post as contrasting and pointed out your thoughts, I just tried to show you how they don't really contradict because you misunderstood his point (and chastised him over nothing, really).
I posted to you because I thought you were against the idea that a fallen man could get the basics of the gospel. The reason I thought that was as follows:
Reading Clete's answer to Aa I saw that Clete was saying only the willingly stupid don't get the gospel. Then you bashed Clete's paragraph about the willingly stupid. Therefore, I thought you though that ONLY the saved get the gospel and no one else... so I thought I'd share the scripture that I thought showed the contrary.
So you see, this isn't about helping Clete. But you made it about that, and then you demonized me on false grounds. Do you see how that is hateful also?
It's a discussion thread. A thread has strings that make up the whole. If you aren't going to commit the time to read the strings that make up a thread, it isn't going to be very productive. If you aren't going to commit the time to understand, it'll be easier for you to make these mistakes and throw people under the bus when you really just didn't get it.
Lecture over. So, this leaves me confused. Do you think a sinner has been given just enough of the spirit to understand the basic gospel message or not?
The answer is obvious, but Clete's worldview, taken to its logical conclusion, cannot sustain the question itself. The reason is that the notion of "rational" (i.e., of or pertaining to justified logic) depends upon exhaustive and universal experience, which only an infinite God -- unbounded by space or time -- has. Clete's theology, Open Theology, does not affirm an infinite God, but rather a God that is bound by space and time. He does not have exhaustive and universal experience, and therefore, cannot provide a foundation for the reliability of logic. Without a sure foundation for logic, everything is reduced to dubious speculation and lucky guesses, which is exactly the kind of God (and hence, world) the Open View reduces to.
This is a remarkable statement, coming from a theology that cannot sustain a firm ground on any subject whatsoever. Even something as fundamental as logical vs. illogical has no solid basis on the Open View.
How does one know if the law of identity is universally true? If one believes in an infinite God who has exhaustive and universal knowledge of past, present and future, then one has assurance that the law of identity is universally true -- because one relies upon the testimony of the infinite God.
Whereas, if one's conception of God is of One Who is finite, limited by space and time, ignorant of the future and the future thoughts and actions of finite men, that God cannot have universal experience and knowledge of all cases of the law of identity. God cannot provide adequate or reliable testimony concerning that or any law of logic. Thus the Open View leaves man (and God) adrift in a sea of uncertainty and incoherence, without reliable tools by which to understand our world or God.
Ironically, Clete's worldview is not capable, in logical terms, to justify anything, from his reliance upon logic to his assessment of the world based thereon, to say nothing of his judgments concerning opposing theologies or worldviews.
Clete knows that I've never dodged a question from him or anyone. Clete also knows that he has dodged plenty of my questions, and has even gone as far as declaring me dead to him so that he could continue to avoid my questions.
At bottom, the Open View has no justified grounds on which to even use the word, "truth," let alone "rational," because there can be no absolutes or universally true principles in an open universe. The God of the Open View is guessing, using trial and error, experimenting and blindly poking around His sandbox, just like the rest of us.
The Settled Theist could ask God, "Is the law of identity universal?" and God could answer, "Yes, because I've decreed, and therefore have full knowledge and experience of all cases, past, present and future. There are no cases that have not been decreed and known and experienced by Me."
The Open Theist could ask God, "Is the law of identity universal?" and the Opposable Thumb God would have to answer, "So far, that appears to be the case. But since I have not decreed every detail of the future, nor do I have full knowledge and experience of all cases, future cases in particular, I cannot say whether the law of identity is universal or even constant for that matter."
Hilston
Lon
Well-known member
"...as long as it is sequential so it doesn't mess with my open view."
Well, no, I wasn't picking on OV there but trying to get you to understand that what God is, is not a movement. I'll try and explain this better below, as you asked for clarification.
In order to get a grasp on this, I will try an illustration. Lets say there is a jar that contains everything. Now, this is impossible because God cannot fit into any size jar but you and I can't either so I think it will work to illustrate the point. If the jar were capable of holding God (I know, its impossible, I'm trying to show something here), it would have to contain all of Him and only Him, no air, nothing else, just Him. Now, with a jar filled with God, there is no place for Him to move to. He already fills every atom of the jar. Inside the jar, the universe is created and it moves, planets, people, everything. This universe is created with space such that we must move from one point to another. For doing this effectively, we came up with random measurements. Prior to the Amercan and meteric systems, it was cubits (elbow to fingertip), and days. Time was measured rather haphazardly as well, morning, noon, evening, night.
In this universe (our universe), everything created is measured by movement from point A to point B.
This is the focus: God is already everywhere in the jar. He doesn't progress in the jar because He's all there already filling the entire thing.
Another illustration: A clock doesn't move, persay. It sits where it always has on the wall or desk or mantle. It has movement inside of it, yes but what we are arguing for is whether anything new happens with the clock. The face changes, but not unexpectedly. It progresses exactly as it always has and this is what we mean by immutable, that God doesn't change. His love is perfect. His Justice is perfect...
In some ways, I appreciate the OV. Whereas, I believe God has every tool for every job already made, already available, the OV has God with a foundery as well as the shop so that tools can be made and applied.
My contention would be that such a view does damage to verses like
Peter tells us that the right tool for the right job was anticipated and set in place, even before man was created. My problem with the OV is that it thinks God expected a good vintage but got sour grapes, as if He were surprised.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
I believe that God has spoken and revealed Himself in reasonable fashion, so that even the ungodly are without excuse for not worshiping Him as He deserves.
Ungodly men can comprehend the gospel, but they cannot and will not believe in the grace and righteousness of Jesus Christ, apart from the Holy Spirit regenerating their hearts and gifting them with repentance and faith unto everlasting life.
That is why I say, ungodly men prove to be irrational, when the reasonable propositions and promises revealed by God in His Holy Scriptures are not believed.
Clete repeatedly posts on TOL telling people they are irrational for not being logical and applying logistics like he does.
The word of God is quite logical (God is the Logos!), but sinners are only saved by believing and executing faith in the reasonable propositions of God . . . never by simply reasoning them through. Not because they cannot be reasoned, but because unbelievers do not want and will not believe the reasonable propositions of God.
It is called "Total Depravity" which can only be overcome by being born again from above.
Nang
patman
Active member
Thank you, Nang.
The above quote from you was interesting to me. Jesus taught his followers that faith the size of a mustard seed could move a mountain into the sea. Those mustard seeds are pretty small.
So by that reasoning, it doesn't take much faith to do something amazing. So if a little faith can do so much, then how much faith do you need to get to heaven? Apparently, you don't need much.
People use faith all the time, but this one kind of faith can only come from God? Some Joe on the street can have faith that when he crosses the street he'll make it alive - even though there are reasons to doubt that - but he can't throw in his lot with God without some divine appointment?
It's like wanting to vote for a candidate, but the person at the pole booth won't let you because you weren't selected to vote for that person, even though you'd like to.
Calvinist, more and more, are conceding to some degree of free will to mere mortals. So they can freely believe in el chupacabra, but believing in God is not a free choice? Why?
You can show me scripture, but I also want you to reason this through for me.
It is akin to telling someone "you can read any book in the world, but you can only read the Bible if God lets you." Logically, it makes no since because applying the skill of reading is the same for any book, so why should I need God just to read his book? Does that make since? I just want you to understand my confusion.
So if you please, show me scripturally, and show me logically why.
patman
Active member
Lon, I really am having a difficult time understanding the jar analogy. Thanks for trying, but I'm stuck, especially in how it really applies because neither of us think anything remotely close to the scenario is possible.
Let me move ahead... I am restating some of what I already said, but I hope it is clearer. I think it is worth examining.
A spirit in heaven can talk to God without a mouth, without a voice, without air to carry the sound waves. I don't know how it works. I don't think they are texting each other on iPhones... but regardless, communication happens without atoms moving or any of the such.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you would agree these events in heaven happen "in time" and in sequence in synchronization to earthly events.
So if Michael the archangel wanted to get your robe and put it in the laundry, he could tell you it's already done when he has yet to pick it up.
More realistically, Daniel can pray for help and in real time an angel can be dispatched to help, but be held up by a demon for a few weeks until he finally makes it to Daniel... and the events of Daniel praying and the angel's journey are in synchronized timelines.
So heaven is in the same time as earth... we agree, right?
You argument is that heaven and earth are created, thus so are their timelines. Correct? Just let me know and I'll move forward.
No, that really isn't what we think about Salvation. Yes, God can expect one thing but get another - but only in lesser events that he didn't painstakingly plan.. i.e. Salvation. It is more of a Plan A Plan B thing in those lesser events. However, Salvation was to be Plan A with no chance if it not happening.
For example, God planned to call Jesus' bloodline through Saul but went to plan B and chose David after Saul sinned.
In light of the road to Salvation, God didn't require Saul to be obedient because he knew someone else would be. The ultimate plan, Salvation, was never hindered by Saul - But Saul ruined the blessing of an eternity for his own sake.
So plan A and plan B can exist, but God had specific plans for Jesus' life on earth... To be more precise, God may have thought Saul was going to be the bloodline to Christ, but was "surprised" that he had to hand that honor over to David, BUT there was no surprise when it came to the fact that Jesus would die for sinners.
To say "He was chosen before the creation of the world...." is absolutely a plan he was committed to. But the specific individual sinners he was to save was never a plan. I don't think he "expected" Adam being the one eating of the tree, though he was prepared. It might seem logical that one of his kids, or his kid's kids would eventually need the cross somewhere down the road because the potential for sin would become a reality one day. For whoever it would be, Jesus would eventually have their sin's paid for. So in that way salvation was always planned.
Likewise, the specific individuals who would be saved wasn't planned. The elect is a group of people who turned to God when he called, whose individual members were not predestined to join but came when they heard the call.
Let me move ahead... I am restating some of what I already said, but I hope it is clearer. I think it is worth examining.
A spirit in heaven can talk to God without a mouth, without a voice, without air to carry the sound waves. I don't know how it works. I don't think they are texting each other on iPhones... but regardless, communication happens without atoms moving or any of the such.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you would agree these events in heaven happen "in time" and in sequence in synchronization to earthly events.
So if Michael the archangel wanted to get your robe and put it in the laundry, he could tell you it's already done when he has yet to pick it up.
More realistically, Daniel can pray for help and in real time an angel can be dispatched to help, but be held up by a demon for a few weeks until he finally makes it to Daniel... and the events of Daniel praying and the angel's journey are in synchronized timelines.
So heaven is in the same time as earth... we agree, right?
You argument is that heaven and earth are created, thus so are their timelines. Correct? Just let me know and I'll move forward.
No, that really isn't what we think about Salvation. Yes, God can expect one thing but get another - but only in lesser events that he didn't painstakingly plan.. i.e. Salvation. It is more of a Plan A Plan B thing in those lesser events. However, Salvation was to be Plan A with no chance if it not happening.
For example, God planned to call Jesus' bloodline through Saul but went to plan B and chose David after Saul sinned.
In light of the road to Salvation, God didn't require Saul to be obedient because he knew someone else would be. The ultimate plan, Salvation, was never hindered by Saul - But Saul ruined the blessing of an eternity for his own sake.
So plan A and plan B can exist, but God had specific plans for Jesus' life on earth... To be more precise, God may have thought Saul was going to be the bloodline to Christ, but was "surprised" that he had to hand that honor over to David, BUT there was no surprise when it came to the fact that Jesus would die for sinners.
To say "He was chosen before the creation of the world...." is absolutely a plan he was committed to. But the specific individual sinners he was to save was never a plan. I don't think he "expected" Adam being the one eating of the tree, though he was prepared. It might seem logical that one of his kids, or his kid's kids would eventually need the cross somewhere down the road because the potential for sin would become a reality one day. For whoever it would be, Jesus would eventually have their sin's paid for. So in that way salvation was always planned.
Likewise, the specific individuals who would be saved wasn't planned. The elect is a group of people who turned to God when he called, whose individual members were not predestined to join but came when they heard the call.
I think He is saying that He IS the future, it isn't just that He knows it but He actively calls it into being. God is Creator of time He holds times and seasons in His own power. He is as much the God of time as He is the God of eternity, I think to Him time and eternity are the same.
Christ died for sins at the right time....but the offering was made through the eternal Spirit.
You have no regard for what this verse clearly says. You're reinterpreting scripture, as so many do, in order to fit your idea that God is.
--Dave
Since when does God have to "depend" on his knowledge and experience of the world in order to know what is or is not logical or validate the law of identity?
God is intrisically logical, the Trinity is the law of identity, the Father is who he is and he is not the Son or the Spirit, the Son is not the Spirit or the Father, the Spirit is not the Father or the Son.
In OV, God is free and not dependent upon the world to know what or what not is true. If God decreed the existence of everyone, everything, and every event--past, present, and future, and if he is "in" everything and everything is "in" him from all eternity then there is no distinction between the world and God, no distinction between what is eternal and what is not, no distinction between what God is doing and what is happening in the world.
--Dave
Lon
Well-known member
Heb 4:12 For the Word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Heb 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight, but all things are naked and opened to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.
Lon
Well-known member
This is like saying "there is no distinction from Dave and his heart even though they occupy the same space." Dave occupies and is the space where his heart is at, but this is only a tiny part of Dave. Dave is the heart, but the heart is not all of Dave. The OV has Dave wondering what is happening with his fingertips because he doesn't know.
Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of Jehovah as the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He will.
No, because space (something to measure) is required for something to be measured. Without it (God doesn't have it, He's not physical) --> no time.
Lon
Well-known member
Hello Pat,
Not a problem, it was a failed attempt. I agree to abandon the idea in favor of something more substantial.
This takes us back to Revelation, where John says "a half an hour," I think.
John certainly experienced time. There are some problems with his vision for us. For instance, do the spirits have physical properties that John could actually see them? Regardless, I would suggest that "synchroniz[ed] to earthly events" is an imposition on the text if taken too far. Yes I think there is an accomodation for John to see the spiritual but the events are future, such that this is out of synch with the OV interpretation. If I acquiesce the one point, you'd have to acquiesce the other, that the future is as 'today' with God.
In other words, if it is an actual half-hour, it is an actual trip to an actual future, right?
Yes, but are our observations in synch with the entirety of it? Don't you see that scripture reveals that future and a half an hour are equated? That time is no barrier where God is concerned? That the text we are talking about shows both truths and realities?So if Michael the archangel wanted to get your robe and put it in the laundry, he could tell you it's already done when he has yet to pick it up.
Yes, agreed, but again, we have a conundrum between the two unless --> God is relational to, but also outside of durative acts. Honestly, I believe my view encompasses and deals decisively with both realities while your's denies one of them. John's Revelation is both relational to and apart from his durative experience. If it is a literal half-hour, it would be a literal future event, no?
Yes, where they intersect.
Yes.
As I stated, this is why I do appreciate the OV. They see the need to have a foundery for God, so that He can meet every contigency. I think, while we'd deem it heterodox, that it keeps OV from tipping over the edge, but it troubles me that orthodoxy is attacked, because I think the open view actually doesn't understand what they are opposing. I believe everything already exists in God to meet whatever happens. Because the verb for "expected" is not the same term for 'anticipated', I believe the OV wrong concerning the Isaiah passage.
We of course, disagree. I believe He instated Saul specifically to reveal plan A (no plan B).
How do you see God planning a Savior through Saul here?
Yes, I agree, but it doesn't follow, other than in extrapolation here, that Saul was the plan. I Samuel 8:18 seems to point away from the idea.
It seems precarious to me, to build a doctrine upon a whim. That is, I understand why you read this as God not knowing, but it does damage to other passages like Revelation.
Again, this is building doctrine upon a whim. Yes, I can see how you come to this conclusion, but it is too vague for a doctrine to stand or fall upon when we provide others that point in a different and orthodox position with substance from scriptures and sound thinking.
This has been discussed as above at length with scriptural support. I used to try strongly, in vain, to get OV to realize that such doctrine is built off of story (narrative) rather than pedantic 'teaching' texts that are more explicit. It is my estimation (guide/rule) that the narrative supports pendantic texts and what one brings from them must adhere to scriptures clear teaching.
-Lon