ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Lon]

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

This is double-speak again. Asking a ludicrous question doesn't apply. The problem with God making a rock too big too lift is in the question that can't be answered because it is chaos. Ask a question that doesn't get caught in a yes/no continuum for infinity. Read the scriptures and believe them: "Nothing is too difficult for Thee." You with your finite mind are trying to grasp the living God within your hands.

 

[godrulz]

This is double-speak again. Asking a ludicrous question doesn't apply. The problem with God making a rock too big too lift is in the question that can't be answered because it is chaos. Ask a question that doesn't get caught in a yes/no continuum for infinity. Read the scriptures and believe them: "Nothing is too difficult for Thee." You with your finite mind are trying to grasp the living God within your hands.

You said nothing is impossible for God. Omnipotence being able to do the doable (somethings are logically not doable for an omnipotent being) and omniscience knowing the knowable (somethings are inherently unknowable, even for an omniscient God) is an important principle (we differ on objects of doing/knowing, not whether He is omnipotent/omniscient or not...He is). I am trying to open your closed mind to the open view from the closed view before you close your eyes and mouth and open a can of beer....er, time for bed...

 

[Totton Linnet]

You said nothing is impossible for God. Omnipotence being able to do the doable (somethings are logically not doable for an omnipotent being) and omniscience knowing the knowable (somethings are inherently unknowable, even for an omniscient God) is an important principle (we differ on objects of doing/knowing, not whether He is omnipotent/omniscient or not...He is). I am trying to open your closed mind to the open view from the closed view before you close your eyes and mouth and open a can of beer....er, time for bed...

This is desperado stuff...sounds more like a Beatle song than theology

 

[patman]

Go back and look, no conditions.

This is just a side note.

2 Kings 1:4 that the LORD may fulfill His word which He spoke concerning me, saying, ‘If your sons take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul,’ He said, ‘you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.’

2 Chronicles 6:16 Therefore, LORD God of Israel, now keep what You promised Your servant David my father, saying, ‘You shall not fail to have a man sit before Me on the throne of Israel, only if your sons take heed to their way, that they walk in My law as you have walked before Me.’

While God was able to keep his promise about Christ, he couldn't keep David's lineage on the throne without interruption, which is evident through the rest of Kings and Chronicles.

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.

Ya know, just because we disagree doesn't mean you need to throw my understanding into question. No big deal, I was the one who used "dream" as an example, but I never stated he was in a trance. I tried to push the word "vision" because that's what it really was. John said he was taken into heaven, so he was.

While he was there why couldn't God manufacture a vision? Do you think there's really these crazy animals with 10 horns that break or mens faces and wings or animals thousands of eyes are in the future? They are symbolic of future events, not the actual events.

It's a vision.

So, to say John was taken to the future is a huge stretch - which was my REAL point. Lon, I respectfully ask you address my entire point and not get stuck on the one word here and there. If this is frustrating you, then we can give it a rest.

I am glad to see you "have no problem with coincidal time interactions in creation." I think this is progress. It would really be good to hear that you understand from scripture that there is no reason to believe otherwise. So far, I have submitted the Daniel 10 passage, examples of time in heaven, and I could submit other events where God is in heaven talking about current events and sends spirits. There is of course Job (which I would still appreciate knowing why you think Satan needs permission to act) which depicts Satan roaming the earth, going to heaven and then going back to earth. Sequential events.

Again, unless you can submit a "teaching" verse that states time isn't the same between heaven and earth, we must rely on the stories that show us how it works.

If we can agree that time in the spirit world is the same as it is on earth (or more broadly, "creation" as you say), we have much less to tackle when we look at God.

Since you don't have a problem with it, why do you resist agreeing? Let's look at that too, if necessary.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

From the beginning is an idiom, not a statement about eternity past.

The words "from the beginning" must mean something so what do they mean?

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.

Then how do you explain the following verse which says that salvation by grace was given "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).

 

[Lon]

You said nothing is impossible for God. Omnipotence being able to do the doable (somethings are logically not doable for an omnipotent being)

Jibberish isn't asking a yes/no question so you can't say God can or can't do it.
It isn't asking anything. God says of Himself, "nothing is too difficult (except when William confounds me?)." Asking if God can make a "square-circle" is jibberish. No answer can address this or baby-talk......except goo goo gah gah.

 

[Lon]

This is just a side note.

2 Kings 1:4 that the LORD may fulfill His word which He spoke concerning me, saying, ‘If your sons take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul,’ He said, ‘you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.’

2 Chronicles 6:16 Therefore, LORD God of Israel, now keep what You promised Your servant David my father, saying, ‘You shall not fail to have a man sit before Me on the throne of Israel, only if your sons take heed to their way, that they walk in My law as you have walked before Me.’

While God was able to keep his promise about Christ, he couldn't keep David's lineage on the throne without interruption, which is evident through the rest of Kings and Chronicles.

You realize here, you are destroying messianic prophecy? The promise was unconditional because our Lord Christ Jesus would come from Davidic lineage.
Don't go to other passages for different promise covenants, deal with the passage cited. It is unconditional.

Ya know, just because we disagree doesn't mean you need to throw my understanding into question. No big deal, I was the one who used "dream" as an example, but I never stated he was in a trance. I tried to push the word "vision" because that's what it really was. John said he was taken into heaven, so he was.

No, don't take it as a cheapshot. I honestly don't believe you are understanding my argument. This part of the conversation was about the half hour that you are taking literally, but then you are relegating the rest to non-literal. To me, it seems randomly inconsistent (where the whim idea came in originally).

While he was there why couldn't God manufacture a vision? Do you think there's really these crazy animals with 10 horns that break or mens faces and wings or animals thousands of eyes are in the future? They are symbolic of future events, not the actual events.

Well, yes and no. They represent real things in imagery.

It's a vision.

It seems like we are rabbit trailing a bit. The original discussion is about synch of time between heaven and earth. As I said, both are creations so I'd think we need not progress too far on peripherals. The main point here is consistency between a literal half an hour and then relegating the rest to a vision. It is hodge-podge to me.

So, to say John was taken to the future is a huge stretch - which was my REAL point. Lon, I respectfully ask you address my entire point and not get stuck on the one word here and there. If this is frustrating you, then we can give it a rest.

Yeah, but my point is that originally, this is your topic point trying to show that a literal half an hour took place, but the rest doesn't apply. My whole point is that it isn't consistent. Originally, you brought up this text to prove a literal half an hour. Through the laborious discussion, I think you've substantiated my stance.

I am glad to see you "have no problem with coincidal time interactions in creation." I think this is progress. It would really be good to hear that you understand from scripture that there is no reason to believe otherwise. So far, I have submitted the Daniel 10 passage, examples of time in heaven, and I could submit other events where God is in heaven talking about current events and sends spirits. There is of course Job (which I would still appreciate knowing why you think Satan needs permission to act) which depicts Satan roaming the earth, going to heaven and then going back to earth. Sequential events.

Yes, relational to, unrestricted by.
As to Satan, my point was that the archangel couldn't have been held up if God decided it wasn't going to happen. He is in complete control. Nothing can thwart Him.

Again, unless you can submit a "teaching" verse that states time isn't the same between heaven and earth, we must rely on the stories that show us how it works.

It is eisegesis rather than exegesis (an assumption).

If we can agree that time in the spirit world is the same as it is on earth (or more broadly, "creation" as you say), we have much less to tackle when we look at God. Since you don't have a problem with it, why do you resist agreeing? Let's look at that too, if necessary.

No, I said they may coincide. I would suggest that you and I have no idea. These are assumptions. Assumptions are fine, but we don't build indelible doctrines from them. So, I have no problem with theories, except when we try and use them as proofs. They are no good for that. We must look to other passages and topics. I have a few whims of my own, but I'm very careful about asserting them. I don't, they cannot be fully supported other than a good framework for understanding passages. I hold them loosely and don't debate them tenaciously. Example: I believe the OT saints went to paradise (Luke 16) and others on the other side of the chasm mentioned there. I believe it was a holding place until Christ's work was finished. The paradise side is no longer in use "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord."
Another example: I believe Hebrews was written exclusively to a Hebrew audience but contains truth for gentiles.

Both of these, I try not to debate over. They both are minority views and I present them with trepidation though they both are important doctrinal points to me.

In Him,

Lon

 

[Lighthouse]

How does one write a new song if God decreed it from the beginning?

 

[Lon]

How does one write a new song if God decreed it from the beginning?

New to you. As I said, I think Spielberg would enjoy watching his own movies. I enjoy playing songs I've already written (amature though they are). I don't think God is bored that He needs our rescuing from 'been there, done that.'

 

[Jerry Shugart]

God's Foreknowledge

God's Foreknowledge

Foreknowledge does not eliminate our experiences.

Lon, what do you mean when you speak of foreknowledge"?

Are you saying that God actually gains knowledge about the future in some way?

William Ames was one of the foremost of Reformed thinkers, often known as "the Learned Doctor Ames" because of his great intellectual stature among Puritans, said:

"Thereis properly only one act of the will in God because in Him all things are simultaneous and there is nothing before or after. So there is only decree about the end and means, but for the manner of understanding we say that, so far as intention is concerned, God wills the end before the means." (William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, translation and introduction by John,Dystra, Eudsen, [Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1968], 153-154).

According to Ames all things in the eternal state are "simultaneous and there is nothing before or after." And since all things with God are "simultaneous" then the idea of Him having a "foreknowledge" of anything is an oxymoron, is it not?

Another respected person within the Calvinists community is Loraine Boettner and he wrote:

"We are creatures of time, and often fail to take into consideration the fact that God is not limited as we are. That which appears to us as 'past,' 'present,' and 'future,' is all 'present' to His mind. It is an eternal 'now'...Just as He sees at one glance a road leading from New York to San Francisco, while we see only a small portion of it as we pass over it, so He sees all events in history, past, present, and future at one glance" (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination; Chapter VI [Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1932]).

Since God sees the past, present and FUTURE in one glance then there is really no such thing as "FOREknowledge" with Him, is there?

Thanks!

 

[Jay Walk]

How does one write a new song if God decreed it from the beginning?

Probably the most pathetic attempt I ever saw to disprove/discredit God's sovereignty.

 

[godrulz]

Probably the most pathetic attempt I ever saw to disprove/discredit God's sovereignty.

God being personal, creative, alive, dynamic is NOT an attack on biblical sovereignty, just false deterministic/Calvinistic erroneous views of it. His point is minor, not an exhaustive refutation of your omnicausal view that makes God responsible for evil, contrary to His love and holiness.

 

[Vaquero45]

Probably the most pathetic attempt I ever saw to disprove/discredit God's sovereignty.

It was also probably the worst attempt I've ever saw to pole vault over the Grand Canyon. /high_five

 

[Jay Walk]

God being personal, creative, alive, dynamic is NOT an attack on biblical sovereignty, just false deterministic/Calvinistic erroneous views of it. His point is minor, not an exhaustive refutation of your omnicausal view that makes God responsible for evil, contrary to His love and holiness.

He has no point and it was more of a troll post. Its a retarded statement that invokes the fallacy of equivocation. Even if he succeeded a song isn't "new", so what? A god who gives false/failed prophecies, has to be calmed down by humans, cant get what he wants/desires among countless other impotent attributes are an attack on bibilical sovereignty. A sovereign God makes you sick and disgusted like an atheist. I allready know you will only worship the god of your mind where you are autonomous, free from him, and get to personally define love/holiness. So as I said, go back to ignoring me so I dont have to read your diatribes about how much you hate God and spew your new occult movement of open theism.

 

[patman]

You realize here, you are destroying messianic prophecy? The promise was unconditional because our Lord Christ Jesus would come from Davidic lineage.
Don't go to other passages for different promise covenants, deal with the passage cited. It is unconditional.

Lon, I don't think you are being fair here. The only reason we are discussing this is because we were talking about Saul's missed opportunity. You CHANGED to an unrelated passage by quoting David's promise.

I pointed out the conditional part. Unless you have no clue about the history of the kingdom of Israel, and its kings, you'd understand which part was conditional, and that conditions exist (which I suppose you do).

I also made it clear that the "Christ promise" was kept.

In my opinion, this is your way or dismissing an argument so you don't have to deal with it. Why would you tell me not to change passages when you did that? Why would you tell me I destroyed messianic prophecy when I pointed out the difference?

By the way, Saul did miss out on having that promise for himself.

No, don't take it as a cheapshot. I honestly don't believe you are understanding my argument. This part of the conversation was about the half hour that you are taking literally, but then you are relegating the rest to non-literal. To me, it seems randomly inconsistent (where the whim idea came in originally).

Lon, you are the one writing out your arguments. I don't think I need to answer everything you assert because, like the above "David promise" discussion, things can get off topic. I am trying to answer your stronger points that are like the can at the bottom of the pyramid of cans. If I am missing something, you can just point it out without the shots below the belt, because either you not explaining things well, or I am not.

Like when you said I substantiated your point. I was in defense mode standing against an unfair argument (like now ) - or just an argument you didn't understand - and I had to back track to another post because you were not understanding me.

At the very beginning I mentioned the "thirty minutes" to kick off the discussion. But if you remember, I am saying that time is nothing more than sequential events. Again you are missing the forest for the trees. I am beginning to wonder why, as you are seemingly taking cheap shots. This is turning into a debate and the tactics are beginning to show.

No, I said they may coincide. I would suggest that you and I have no idea. These are assumptions. Assumptions are fine, but we don't build indelible doctrines from them. So, I have no problem with theories, except when we try and use them as proofs. They are no good for that. We must look to other passages and topics. I have a few whims of my own, but I'm very careful about asserting them. I don't, they cannot be fully supported other than a good framework for understanding passages. I hold them loosely and don't debate them tenaciously. Example: I believe the OT saints went to paradise (Luke 16) and others on the other side of the chasm mentioned there. I believe it was a holding place until Christ's work was finished. The paradise side is no longer in use "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord."
Another example: I believe Hebrews was written exclusively to a Hebrew audience but contains truth for gentiles.

Looks like it's at least getting somewhere. In the past you used physics as evidence that time exists. But when there is no physics in spiritual world.

As I requested before, I would like for you to research and find a verse that talks about time in heaven not being parallel to our own, or out of sync with earth. If you can't find a teaching verse, and you are not willing to learn from what seems obvious in the text of many stories in the Bible, I still find myself wondering why?

Take the atheist's teapot argument: If you don't have a reason to say there's a teapot floating around in space, why say it could be there and put down those who doubt it is there?

Likewise, If don't have a reason to say time is out of sync then why say it could be, and then blast the person who disagrees?

If you are going to forever be "agnostic" to the idea that time in heaven is the same as is on earth then I'll just drop it. As much as I asked for a good reason for you to state why time in heaven is different form earth time, I have yet to see a good answer. Only "you and I have no idea" just like that teapot out there in space.

 

[godrulz]

He has no point and it was more of a troll post. Its a retarded statement that invokes the fallacy of equivocation. Even if he succeeded a song isn't "new", so what? A god who gives false/failed prophecies, has to be calmed down by humans, cant get what he wants/desires among countless other impotent attributes are an attack on bibilical sovereignty. A sovereign God makes you sick and disgusted like an atheist. I allready know you will only worship the god of your mind where you are autonomous, free from him, and get to personally define love/holiness. So as I said, go back to ignoring me so I dont have to read your diatribes about how much you hate God and spew your new occult movement of open theism.

Nothing worse than an idiot reactionary who thinks he is a theologian (can't differentiate actual beliefs of a view from straw men ones created out of ignorance and arrogance).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

From the beginning is an idiom, not a statement about eternity past.

The words "from the beginning" must mean something so what do they mean?

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.

Then how do you explain the following verse which says that salvation by grace was given "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).

 

[godrulz]

Grace/work of Christ is the grounds for salvation (reason by which saved), but the objective work is not subjectively appropriated until one actually believes and receives it. The perfect provision was formulated from the beginning as a possibility (the gift of free moral agency means that men could obey or disobey). The contingent plan was implemented after the Fall and actualized in the first century. The first century believers had this grace (foreknown from the beginning) applied in the first century. The principle applies to us when we believe in our century. None of this necessitates grace being applied or even foreknown individually (vs corporately) before we even exist (it was possible any given person would not even exist depending on many contingencies including miscarriage, which people have intercourse, abortion, infant mortality, etc.).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

From the beginning is an idiom, not a statement about eternity past.

Again, the words "from the beginning" must mean something so what do they mean?

Grace/work of Christ is the grounds for salvation (reason by which saved), but the objective work is not subjectively appropriated until one actually believes and receives it.

You did not answer how Paul could say that it was received "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).

The perfect provision was formulated from the beginning as a possibility (the gift of free moral agency means that men could obey or disobey). The contingent plan was implemented after the Fall and actualized in the first century.

Again, the verse under discussion says that the blessing was given "before the world began." The verse does NOT say that it was "actualized in the first century."

The first century believers had this grace (foreknown from the beginning) applied in the first century.

The verse says nothing about the grace being "foreknown" but instead it says that it was GIVEN "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).

 

[Jay Walk]

Nothing worse than an idiot reactionary who thinks he is a theologian (can't differentiate actual beliefs of a view from straw men ones created out of ignorance and arrogance).

You do a great job of making me tear up from laughter with your hypocritical/ironic posts. You're the king of idiots here when it comes to misrepresenting Calvinism on purpose despite many Calvinists on this forum setting you straight. Not once have you ever proved or attempted to show I straw-manned you out of the numerous times you accused me including the negative reps while I have pointed out your willful lying/dishonesty many times. I have asked you more than 3 times to back up your accusations coward. You know what happens to liars and them having their part in the lake of fire right? I think you are embarrassed of your own views of how you make God impotent and weak so you save face and just claim strawman when people point out your ridiculous super-human god.