ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[DFT_Dave]

To DFT_Dave:

Hi Dave,

I'm very interested in understanding the Open View's position on these matters:

Really? How about hatred for evil? Was that extrinsic application already applied intrinsically?

How so? Please explain how that applies to the Settled View.

Thank you for considering my questions.

Hilston

I have some catching up to do, I was to busy this Labor Day week end to make any posts.

Why would God have to see evil in the world to know, intrinsically, that evil is something he would hate?

God in OV does not have to say to us what Tom Cruise said in his film Jerry Maguire, "You complete me." Unfortunately the God of SV and panentheism cannot say the same.

You have stated, "The God of the Settled View knows because He has decreed all things, past, present and future, in every meticulous detail, all according to His own good pleasure and His freely chosen and predetermined purposes."

If this is how God "knows" then he is "dependent" upon the world he has created and programmed to do everything he wants done--no world, no program, no way for God to know--the world, the program, complete God.

And since, in SV, God decreed and created everything "timelessly" --all at once in the eternal now, then logically, God, his decrees, and the world and every event are eternal. But I suppose you will object to this logical conclusion, declare your view to be rational and I will have to explain this again, if God has decreed that I should.

--Dave

 

[patman]

That'd be relational to time. This passage is difficult for either, any of us. There are a lot of 'huh?' moments in here we have to guess at. In Job, Satan cannot do what he wishes to Job w/o God's permission. Could a messenger from God be held up? Regardless, he was held up in our time, right? In Revelation, I understand the time question but in repeat, if you take one truth, you have to take the other: This is the future John is seeing, so it is already out of sync with our time, right? Read between the lines, that's why I said 'whim.' It isn't really dealing with the entire text forthright.

Lon, why do you say Satan can't something without "OK'ing" it with God? Clearly God setup boundaries that Satan upheld... but that doesn't equate with God giving Satan permission for something he otherwise couldn't have done.

Why didn't God make this covenant with Saul, then?

David's promise was conditional as Saul's would have been. I imagine God was more confident in David than he was Saul by the time he made the promise to David.

Yes, to an extent. There are pedantic teachings in narrative, of course there are, but, what is not implicitly taught, we must be careful in assuming. My point is, whatever we take away from the narrative must agree with doctrine (pedantic teaching passages of scripture). Many people come away from narrative with wrong ideas. For example the word 'expect' in Isaiah is a translation word. The actual word means 'to gather together/collect.' If folks would take a little time and enroll in a Hebrew and Greek class, a lot of discussion on this board wouldn't need to take place. It is just that clear in the original languages.

As you know, I disagree with you on this point. But it takes a turn in our discussion that I'd rather not take yet. I hope to focus on the nature of time as it applies to creation.

Yes, my point was that it isn't constant. By reminder, I point again to time succession in Revelation that was occuring in the future. It is a foregone conclusion, I'd have to think even by you, that it is out of synch as well.

I am sorry to have ignored this. In the prior post to your answer involving Revelation, I tried to use Daniel as an example. You switched on me, so I just switched it back. I could have addressed it, and I'll do that now:

To make this point, you'd have to say John was taken into the future. In order to say that, I'll need evidence to back it or say it's an assumption. It could just as easily be said that it was a vision, aka a dream, where the happenings were staged to illustrate future events. Why prefer one view over the other? Furthermore, I think it is accurate to say scripture describes this as a "vision" and not as "time travel"

This goes back to your "the narrative must agree with doctrine (pedantic teaching passages of scripture)" which extends to we shouldn't read things that aren't there when there are other answers that are just as likely.

That is why the example from Daniel was restated over Revelation. It took place entirely on earth, but the Angel told him about the time it took to get there from a spiritual point of view. This is strong evidence that, aside from visions (that could just be.... visions) the spiritual time frame is in synch with the earthly time frame.

Look forward to your thoughts

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I think this reasoning requires a pre-assumed position. You claim "with Him all things are simultaneous" in order to say "God doing something "before" another thing cannot be taken literally." Neither statements are evidence to the claim and only serve to support each other. Why do you think all things are simultaneous with God?

Hi patman,

In answer to your question, first notice how God chooses men for salvation:

"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)."

So in "time" no one is saved until they believe.

But here we see that the choosing was "from before the foundation of the world":

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

How could Paul say that we were chosen before the foundation of the world since in "time" no one is saved until they believe?

Actually, the answer is quite simple. In the eternal state the same "moment" when the sinner believes the gospel can be said to be the same "moment" that existed before the world began. After all, since God lives in the ever present "now" then the moment when a sinner believes belongs to the same "now" as does a moment that existed before the world began.

We can see the same thing in the following verse:

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Tim.1:9).

This salvation by grace is said to be given us "before the world began." But we know that in "time" no one is saved before they believe the gospel. Therefore it is obvious that the "time element" at 2 Timothy 1:9 cannot be taken literally.

Now a question for you. If God is in "time" then cannot we understand that before the foundation of the world only some men were chosen so therefore only they will be saved? That certainly teaches a "settled view" but if the "time element" at Ephesians 1:4 is not taken literally and then when we look at 2 Corinthians 2:13 and see that no one is saved until he believes. That represents an "open" view.

 

[Lon]

Lon, why do you say Satan can't something without "OK'ing" it with God? Clearly God setup boundaries that Satan upheld... but that doesn't equate with God giving Satan permission for something he otherwise couldn't have done.

This particular doesn't matter, it just set up the rest of the premise.

David's promise was conditional as Saul's would have been. I imagine God was more confident in David than he was Saul by the time he made the promise to David.

Go back and look, no conditions.

As you know, I disagree with you on this point. But it takes a turn in our discussion that I'd rather not take yet. I hope to focus on the nature of time as it applies to creation.

How can you disagree without a language degree? I'd be much more harsh with Sanders and Boyd who must have these credentials. I really do question their grades in this portion of the their programs.

To make this point, you'd have to say John was taken into the future. In order to say that, I'll need evidence to back it or say it's an assumption. It could just as easily be said that it was a vision, aka a dream, where the happenings were staged to illustrate future events. Why prefer one view over the other? Furthermore, I think it is accurate to say scripture describes this as a "vision" and not as "time travel"

Uhggg, then you are saying he was in a trance for literal hours? That when the lamb opens the scrolls that's already been done? Christ's return? You can't have it both ways. At this point, I don't think you are really understanding the context we are talking about. You cannot assert a literal half and hour and the rest conveniently slide under the rug.

This goes back to your "the narrative must agree with doctrine (pedantic teaching passages of scripture)" which extends to we shouldn't read things that aren't there when there are other answers that are just as likely.

Exactly, stay consistent in application.

That is why the example from Daniel was restated over Revelation. It took place entirely on earth, but the Angel told him about the time it took to get there from a spiritual point of view. This is strong evidence that, aside from visions (that could just be.... visions) the spiritual time frame is in synch with the earthly time frame.

Look forward to your thoughts

This is an assumption view. Of course I already addressed this more broadly, saying that angels and heaven are creations to which sequence applies and may coincide, either completely or to a lesser extent (I lean toward the latter because of Revelation etc.). Too many 'if's' for your assumption here to be set in stone. I have no problem with coincidal time interactions in creation. God is both relational to and unconstrained by creation, including time. Without creation, there is no singular duration. God's past is still going into infinity. It already breaks the durative rules and is unapplicable. It is very clear to me that God is beyond our durative progressing existence.

 

[DFT_Dave]

First of all, your last statement ignores the fact that the Lord Jesus was not speaking of the "present" time when He was indeed "in time" but instead he spoke about "before Abraham" when He was not "in time."

Secondly, He could have said "before Abraham I existed" and made the point which you say He was trying to make but since He said, "Before Abraham I AM" He was making another point.

Exodus 3:13 Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” 15 God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.

John 8:53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you claim to be?” 54 Jesus answered...56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.” 57 The Jews then said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they took up stones to throw at him...

John 5:18 This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God...

John 10:33 It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God...

Jesus was simply, in clear terms to the Jews, saying he was God along side the Father. He said he was "I Am" the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Jesus was not saying he was "timeless".

A timeless God and a timeless Christ cannot be in time, and not be in time, at the same time.

You can't say there was a time when Christ was in time, and a time when he was not in time, and then say he is timeless without contradicting yourself with every breath you take.

Heaven is a place in time and space.

John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man

John 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."

Mark 16:19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.

Hebrews 8:1 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven,

Hebrews 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

Ephesians 1:19 what is the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20 which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places.

Ephesians 2:6 raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus

Ephesians 3:10 that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

John 10:33 It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God...

Dave, I see your point but nothing you provided demonstrates that what I said is not true. But let us say that you are right and God exists in time. What do you say about the following verse then?

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

If God exists in time then it certainly seems that a "settled" view is supported by this verse. It was settled before the foundation of the world who would be saved.

I am not sure how you would answer this but I am interested in knowing.

Thanks!

 

[godrulz]

Dave, I see your point but nothing you provided demonstrates that what I said is not true. But let us say that you are right and God exists in time. What do you say about the following verse then?

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

If God exists in time then it certainly seems that a "settled" view is supported by this verse. It was settled before the foundation of the world who would be saved.

I am not sure how you would answer this but I am interested in knowing.

Thanks!

Corporate, not individual election. The flight was predestined a year in advance to go from NY to LA. Who actually boards on the actual date and completes the flight was not settled far in advance.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Corporate, not individual election. The flight was predestined a year in advance to go from NY to LA. Who actually boards on the actual date and completes the flight was not settled far in advance.

There is a BIG problem with that answer, godrulz. In the following verse Paul tells us exactly how we are chosen:

"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)."

Since the following verse says that the choosing is "in Him" it is obvious that being chosen is in regard to salvation:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

It is impossible that God's choosing for salvation by faith is in regard to a "corporate" choosing.

Please read my post #2963 on this thread.

Thanks!

 

[godrulz]

Individuals at Ephesus were added to the corporate elect in the first century. Israel and the Church were chosen from the beginning, but individuals cannot be chosen before they are born unless you affirm Calvinistic double predestination/decretal error.

Election is corporate, conditional, in Christ, not individual, unconditional, apart from vital, personal connection with Christ (only possible after born/born again, not from eternity past).

http://www.amazon.ca/Elect-Son-Robert-Shank/dp/1556610920

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Election is corporate, conditional, in Christ, not individual, unconditional, apart from vital, personal connection with Christ (only possible after born/born again, not from eternity past).

This verse is speaking about election and it is impossible that it is corporate:

"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)."

It is individuals who are saved. It is individuals who believe. Also, this is not the Calvinist view because this verse is not speaking of "unconditional election."

 

[godrulz]

This verse is speaking about election and it is impossible that it is corporate:

"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)."

It is individuals who are saved. It is individuals who believe. Also, this is not the Calvinist view because this verse is not speaking of "unconditional election."

The context is individuals at Thess. who are part of the elect through faith in Christ in the first century. It is eisegesis to assume that they were individually chosen by decree in eternity past. We are chosen to be saved and sanctified in Christ. This is predestined that all who believe will be saved and sanctified. It is not predestined which individuals will be saved or damned even before they are born (other verses bear this out, so proof texting a verse and making it say more than it does is not valid). It is a paradigm vs proof text problem (cf. Rom. 9-11 does not have to be interpreted deterministically nor is it about individual decreed salvation in advance just because a verse talks about individuals/salvation, but most of the context is corporate, about service).

 

[DFT_Dave]

Doesn't matter, we are talking about us.

"He is relational to yet unconstrained by His creation. Show me the contradiction.

I fail to see how your post is addressing anything we were discussing. As I understand it, here are the points we were arguing 1) That God is indeed involved with His creation, yet is apart from it, as is Dave with his goldfish.
2) That God is indeed apart from His creation including time because He has no beginning place to measure from and no end place to measure from in His existence. Time is already meaningless to His existence (cannot comprehend it at all) similar to Dave's fish constrained by the movements and parameters of their environment, Dave has no such restrictions.
3) How much do we know about God? How much do Dave's fish, arrogantly intelligent though they may be, know about Dave? Me: "Not a lot."

God's thoughts come from his mind which is not made up of "grey matter", neither his thoughts nor ours occupy space but God's communication to us requires a sequence of words--time, for us and for God. If there is no sequence of word's coming to us from God we would not be able to comprehend anything God was saying.

Matthew 3:17 and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

Matthew 17:5 He was still speaking, when lo, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him."​

You're not just saying that God "is relational to yet unconstrained by His creation", because you believe that "time" constrains God you are saying that God is relational--in time, but is unconstrained--not in time, at the same time. That would be a contradiction.

The fish in my fish tank are not made in my image and likeness.

--Dave

 

[godrulz]

This verse is speaking about election and it is impossible that it is corporate:

"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)."

It is individuals who are saved. It is individuals who believe. Also, this is not the Calvinist view because this verse is not speaking of "unconditional election."

They were chosen when they believed, not in eternity past. They were added to the corporate elect in real space-time in the first century. This was settled when they believed, not eons before they were conceived.

Agree?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, I see your point but nothing you provided demonstrates that what I said is not true. But let us say that you are right and God exists in time. What do you say about the following verse then?

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

If God exists in time then it certainly seems that a "settled" view is supported by this verse. It was settled before the foundation of the world who would be saved.

I am not sure how you would answer this but I am interested in knowing.

Thanks!

Godrulz's answer is correct, but I will explain further. I don't take the Greek phrase, "προ καταβολης κοσμου" to mean "before the foundation of the world" it should be translated, "before the fallen or degenerate world". Katabole means to cast down, there is another Greek word for foundation, "themelios".

Ephesians 1:4 he chose us in him before the degenerate world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.​

I would say that this verse, simply put, says God wants us to be holy in an unholy world.

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

They were chosen when they believed, not in eternity past. They were added to the corporate elect in real space-time in the first century. This was settled when they believed, not eons before they were conceived.

Agree?

Yes, I agree. But how do you explain the part in "bold"?:

"...because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

In "time" we were not chosen for salvation from the beginning or before the world began. The following verse says that we were saved by grace before the world began:

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Tim.1:9).

Again, we were not given salvation before the world began since we did not even exist or believe then. The only way that this can be explained is that Paul is using figurative language and it is called "Anthropopatheia": "Ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings, irrational creatures, or inanimate things" (The Companion Bible, Appendix #6: Figures of Speech).

Since God exists outside of time then the "time element" of any verse which places Him in "time" cannot be taken literally.

John Wesley understood that God lives in a timeless state but he also understood that any verse which has Him predestinating things cannot be taken in a literal manner:

"The sum of all is this: the almighty, all-wise God sees and knows, from everlasting to everlasting, all that is, that was, and that is to come, through one eternal now. With him nothing is either past or future, but all things equally present. He has, therefore, if we speak according to the truth of things, no foreknowledge, no afterknowledge...It is merely in compassion to us that he speaks thus of himself, as foreknowing the things in heaven or earth, and as predestinating or fore-ordaining them. But can we possibly imagine that these expressions are to be taken literally?" (John Wesley, "Sermons on Several Occasions," 1771, Second Series, On Predestination, Sermon #58; Christian Classics Ethereal Library).

When we see these truths then we can understand that the "settled" view is in error. In "time" no one is chosen for salvation until they believe.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I don't take the Greek phrase, "προ καταβολης κοσμου" to mean "before the foundation of the world" it should be translated, "before the fallen or degenerate world". Katabole means to cast down, there is another Greek word for foundation, "themelios".

Then how do you interpret the following verse?:

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Tim.1:9).

Here we see that Paul said that God saved us by grace and it was given us "before the world began"?

 

[godrulz]

From the beginning is an idiom, not a statement about eternity past. The potential plan of redemption was formulated in eternity past, implemented in Gen. 3 after the Fall, and actualized in the first century. There is no indication that individuals were predestined/foreknown in the same way the generic people of God was. God purposed to have a people for Himself. All who respond in real space-time are added to this group. The group was predestined/foreknown, not every individual who would actually believe (it is still open/unsettled for many people).

Calvinism would be consistent in that if God decrees and causes salvation unilaterally, then it would be foreknown.

Arminian simple foreknowledge is an assumption without being able to explain the mechanism of it (it would have choices known before the agent even exists, an incoherent concept). It has the loop hole of philosophical eternal now that is also impossible to explain, merely uncritically assumed.

Open Theism is the biblical, coherent view emphasizing corporate election (as do most Arminians), rejecting eternal now, and seeing that exhaustive definite foreknowledge of future free will contingencies (salvation is reciprocal love relationship, not something decreed, caused, coerced unilaterally) is simply not possible, even for an omniscient God. If you insist on EDF, you are insisting on determinism/mechanistic robotics, not love, freedom, relationship, responsibility.

Just because you do not 'get it' yet does not mean it is false (the proofs are technical and detailed, modal logic, etc. and/or simple, common sense, intuitive, biblical).

 

[Lon]

God's thoughts come from his mind which is not made up of "grey matter", neither his thoughts nor ours occupy space but God's communication to us requires a sequence of words--time, for us and for God. If there is no sequence of word's coming to us from God we would not be able to comprehend anything God was saying.

We think with gray matter, God doesn't. I'll repeat again 'til blue in the face that I agree with you that God speaks to us in our time frame -->relational to, unrestricted by.....

Matthew 3:17 and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

God doesn't have a mouth like you and I. Not only is He outside of our time frame, He doesn't require a physical mouth to speak.

Matthew 17:5 He was still speaking, when lo, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him."

So, I'd imagine you agree He doesn't have a mouth and is not constrained to one in order to communicate. Now apply that to time. We have to do things in sequence. It is a physical constraint. God is not a physical being but at the time He became a man, that He subjected Himself to time.
​

You're not just saying that God "is relational to yet unconstrained by His creation", because you believe that "time" constrains God you are saying that God is relational--in time, but is unconstrained--not in time, at the same time. That would be a contradiction.

You'll have to explain this a bit more. Relational to means He can meet us in our time frame.

The fish in my fish tank are not made in my image and likeness.

--Dave

No, but what is made in His likeness in us? Our values, love, companionship, etc. These God has given us, but physically we are in the same kinds of constraints as the fish in the bowl. We can't escape our limitations. God has no limitation.

 

[godrulz]

God cannot make square circles and married bachelors. He cannot know where Yoda is right now.

 

[Lon]

Open Theism is the biblical, coherent view emphasizing corporate election (as do most Arminians), rejecting eternal now, and seeing that exhaustive definite foreknowledge of future free will contingencies (salvation is reciprocal love relationship, not something decreed, caused, coerced unilaterally) is simply not possible, even for an omniscient God. If you insist on EDF, you are insisting on determinism/mechanistic robotics, not love, freedom, relationship, responsibility.

I agree, the OV doesn't get it. Foreknowledge does not eliminate our experiences. Do you think Spielberg enjoys watching the movies he's made?
I'd think He does. His absolute knowledge of it doesn't diminish anything.
If God absolutely knows the random typing string you are going to type chaotically against the assertion, so what?

Just because you do not 'get it' yet does not mean it is false (the proofs are technical and detailed, modal logic, etc. and/or simple, common sense, intuitive, biblical).

No, I get it but disagree that the proofs are technical, based on common sense, or biblically intuitive. An existence that has no start date defies the sequential.
To me, the OV has God being born or created so many years ago that we cannot count. Why? Because always having existed defies sequential time and is beyond our logical parameters to comprehend. One thing I can see very clearly is that God always having existed is completely outside of each and every concept and measurement of time I can comprehend. It just isn't possible to say God is limited to sequential duration. It is obvious He is not. I have no action words, descriptors, or labels that can conceive of none beginning eternal existence. Histon, a page back defines this clearly imo. God cannot be understood by durative progression but for His interactions with us in our finite/limited creation.