ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[godrulz]

You will have to do better than Gal. 5:22-23

Character. God has character and so do we. The same words used of man can be used of God. This is not humanizing God nor deifying man. It is the I.D. Character is volitional/moral, not ontological/metaphysical. Go review your secular and Christian intro philosophy books.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Character. God has character and so do we. The same words used of man can be used of God. This is not humanizing God nor deifying man. It is the I.D. Character is volitional/moral, not ontological/metaphysical. Go review your secular and Christian intro philosophy books.

Our essence is not God's essence. Therein lies your error.

 

[godrulz]

Our essence is not God's essence. Therein lies your error.

Yes, God is ontologically distinct from us. He is uncreated triune Creator. We are spirit, soul, body.

However, God is loving and man has capacity to love. This is volitional, not ontological/essence. Therein lies your error.

God's very nature is love, but He expresses this by sending His Son (Rom. 5:8; Jn. 3:16). This is more than determinitive nature, but a right use of mind and will by a personal being. We also have a mind and will and can express love, even as unregenerate men without partaking of His divine nature (Peter).

 

[tetelestai]

Wait a minute. I thought you said that you believed that everyone who would end up in Heaven had their names written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world. am I mistaking you for someone else?

From our perspective (In time): Everyone’s name is written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world. When an unbeliever dies, his or her name is blotted out of the Book of Life. When the last unbeliever dies, and has his name blotted out of the Book of Life, the Book of Life will then become the “Lamb’s Book of Life”. Those in the Lamb’s Book of Life will have eternal life, and not face judgment at the Great White Throne. Thus the “Evolving Book of Life”

From God’s perspective (outside of time): Since God sees the past, present, and future all at once, God could see the Lamb’s Book of Life before Adam. This explains predestination and election from the foundation of the world.

You still didn’t reply to the verse in Philippians where Paul references the Book of Life. Since you do not believe the Book of Life applies to believers in the Body of Christ, and believe it is for Jews only, how do you explain the Philippians verse?

Is this a bump for MAD?

 

[Lighthouse]

From our perspective (In time): Everyone’s name is written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world. When an unbeliever dies, his or her name is blotted out of the Book of Life. When the last unbeliever dies, and has his name blotted out of the Book of Life, the Book of Life will then become the “Lamb’s Book of Life”. Those in the Lamb’s Book of Life will have eternal life, and not face judgment at the Great White Throne. Thus the “Evolving Book of Life”

From God’s perspective (outside of time): Since God sees the past, present, and future all at once, God could see the Lamb’s Book of Life before Adam. This explains predestination and election from the foundation of the world.

Why would we need a different perspective than God on this? Why couldn't God just tell us that He knows who will and who won't, and leave it at that?

Also, if God knows, as you postulate He does, why would He need to have a version of the book that wold have names blotted out of it? If He already knows, why not just write the book with the names of those who will be saved, and leave out all the rest?

You still didn’t reply to the verse in Philippians where Paul references the Book of Life. Since you do not believe the Book of Life applies to believers in the Body of Christ, and believe it is for Jews only, how do you explain the Philippians verse?

Is this a bump for MAD?

I told you. We're discussing it.

 

[tetelestai]

Why would we need a different perspective than God on this?

Because we are "in time", and God is "outside of time"

Why couldn't God just tell us that He knows who will and who won't, and leave it at that

(Psalm 139:16) Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

You should be familiar with this verse. Isn’t this the verse you anti-abortionists always throw at the pro-choice people?

Also, if God knows, as you postulate He does, why would He need to have a version of the book that wold have names blotted out of it? If He already knows, why not just write the book with the names of those who will be saved, and leave out all the rest?

For the Great White Throne Judgment. Not for Him, for the unbelievers before Jesus. God is fair.

 

[Lighthouse]

Because we are "in time", and God is "outside of time"

Not the question.

This only answers why [in your belief] why we have a different perspective on time.

In no way does it answer the question of why the Book of Life needs to be written in the way you say it is.

(Psalm 139:16) Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Wrong book.

And even if it were the same book, that still wouldn't answer the question I asked. Why would the book need to be written with the names of the unbelievers?

You should be familiar with this verse. Isn’t this the verse you anti-abortionists always throw at the pro-choice people?

Are you not anti-abortion?

For the Great White Throne Judgment. Not for Him, for the unbelievers before Jesus. God is fair.

lain:

 

[Bright Raven]

Yes, He is God of gods, who is like Him?

There is none like Him!

It is the glory of a king to search out a matter. If a view can take Scripture at face value and identify negative pagan philosophical influences on the classical view. then it is not liberal. You must make the OVT motif figurative without warrant to retain your views. You must assume philosophical ideas about B-theories of time, eternal now simultaneity, etc. without biblical evidence to retain your views (despite the wealth of scholarship to debate these things).

So your presupposition is that God is bounded by time?

My theology is not Calvinistic, so it is liberal? This is a false dichotomy. Is Arminianism liberal because it denies determinism? This is like me saying you are very Muslim because they also are a deterministic/fatalistic religion.

You answered the first question you asked. I'll let you answer the second question also. Your example mixes apples and oranges.

Liberal is denying the Deity and resurrection of Christ, virgin conception, Word of God, cross, etc., not saying the future is partially settled and partially unsettled. Denying determinism and asserting self-evident free will has implications for theodicy. Saying God is responsible for evil is worse than liberal. The nature of creation, predestination, free will, etc. has been debated for centuries without having to use argumentum ad hominem 'liberal' commie attacks.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Are not you the one the one who speaks of dynamic omniscience in order to accommodate "man's" free will choice without God's "interference"? Your saying God is responsible for evil. I haven't. And you fault others for name calling. :chuckle:

You effectively shut down dialogue when the mature position is to make points/counterpoints like the 4 view books I recommend without the authors denigrating each other's love for God and truth.

I hope you are enjoying the dialogue. I have told you that I do not agree with your view. I have said your view is liberal, only in comparison to mine in in that they are drastically different. I apologize if that is denigrating you. But if the shoe fits, wear it.

We all use the Bible, but interpret it differently. Amos Yong (not OVT) concludes: "Each system interprets the Bible consistently and coherently within its presuppositional framework...factors extraneous to the Bible itself determines how one reads and interprets the biblical text...with regard to the doctrine of divine omniscience in particular."

Yes, we all interpret differently. Amos Yong, still questionable.

Since creation is dynamic, a dynamic view of omniscience is more coherent without compromising His exhaustive knowledge. If creation was deterministic, God would be responsible for evil, we would not be responsible for anything, and God would know the future as certain vs possible.

So do you still say that God's omnipotence is dynamic, inferring that He does not know all future events?

I would reject OVT if I thought it did not have the best biblical support based on a stronger hermeneutic. I would reject it if is was illogical or philosophically indefensible. I doubt you have studied a fraction of the academic literature on both sides of the debate. Until you do, you are little better than I was when I first started the journey 30 years ago.

I'm impressed by your humility.

I differ from you, but that does not make you a liberal. Cmon.

I know I'm not.

 

[tetelestai]

Why would the book need to be written with the names of the unbelievers?

To show that salvation is available to all.

Everyone at one point has his or her name in the book. Only unbelief gets one's name blotted out.

 

[godrulz]

If your assumption that God is outside time and man is inside time is wrong, you will have to rethink your views. My contention is that timelessness vs temporality is an important issue and that you are wrong on it. You miss the fact that you are essentially saying that our choices are made and fixed and real even before we are born. This is nonsense. God sees and knows reality as it is. You are simply speculating with sci-fi (not Scripture) to retain your traditional views.

 

[tetelestai]

You miss the fact that you are essentially saying that our choices are made and fixed and real even before we are born. This is nonsense.

I’ll try this again:

Our perspective (in time): We do not know the future; God has given us prophecy of the future of what He has determined we need to know via the Bible. Every decision we make is free, including the decision to believe or not to believe that Jesus is our Savior. God intervenes in our lives as He chooses, God answers prayers, God disciplines us for our negative volition, etc.

God’s perspective (outside of time): God sees the past, present, and future all at once (omniscience), therefore God knows every free will decision we make before we make it. This DOES NOT mean the decisions are not free.

There is nothing "fixed" about our volition.

 

[Bright Raven]

I’ll try this again:

Our perspective (in time): We do not know the future; God has given us prophecy of the future of what He has determined we need to know via the Bible. Every decision we make is free, including the decision to believe or not to believe that Jesus is our Savior. God intervenes in our lives as He chooses, God answers prayers, God disciplines us for our negative volition, etc.

God’s perspective (outside of time): God sees the past, present, and future all at once (omniscience), therefore God knows every free will decision we make before we make it. This DOES NOT mean the decisions are not free.

There is nothing "fixed" about our volition.

godrulz does not what to accept the truth you have stated. The view he holds is flawed. The basic supposition that God cannot know the future is flawed. When the foundation is flawed the entire construct is flawed. He cannot come to the conclusion that the God who created time is not bound by it.

 

[godrulz]

godrulz does not what to accept the truth you have stated. The view he holds is flawed. The basic supposition that God cannot know the future is flawed. When the foundation is flawed the entire construct is flawed. He cannot come to the conclusion that the God who created time is not bound by it.

Time is an aspect of God's experience, but that does not mean it is a limitation on Him.

The only way for EDF to be true is determinism. I would rather give up EDF (no loss of ability for God to rule) than self-evident free will found on every page of Scripture and every minute of billions of lives.

 

[Bright Raven]

It's all about Him, not about us!

It's all about Him, not about us!

Time is an aspect of God's experience, but that does not mean it is a limitation on Him.

The only way for EDF to be true is determinism. I would rather give up EDF (no loss of ability for God to rule) than self-evident free will found on every page of Scripture and every minute of billions of lives.

He is Elohim, El Roi, El Shadday, Adonay, El Olam, Yahweh Yireh, Yahweh, Esh Oklah, El Kanna. Would you like more? What is it you don't understand about Exodus 3:14, the Eternally Self-Existent One? Does this God impinge upon your free will choices. Get over it! Bank tellers know real bills from the counterfeit because they handle the real bills every day. When the counterfeit shows up its easy to spot. So it is with the truth of God's Word. Omniscient is omniscient. Omnipotent is omnipotent. Omnipresent is omnipresent. Immutable is immutable. God knows "ALL" including the future. He's the Creator. He makes the rules, we don't.

 

[godrulz]

He is Elohim, El Roi, El Shadday, Adonay, El Olam, Yahweh Yireh, Yahweh, Esh Oklah, El Kanna. Would you like more? What is it you don't understand about Exodus 3:14, the Eternally Self-Existent One? Does this God impinge upon your free will choices. Get over it! Bank tellers know real bills from the counterfeit because they handle the real bills every day. When the counterfeit shows up its easy to spot. So it is with the truth of God's Word. Omniscient is omniscient. Omnipotent is omnipotent. Omnipresent is omnipresent. Immutable is immutable. God knows "ALL" including the future. He's the Creator. He makes the rules, we don't.

You beg the question by assuming your definitions and understanding are the only possible ones. Open Theism shows the negative philosophical influences on these concepts and returns them to a biblical understanding without denying them.

I AM shows that God is self-existent. He is uncreated Creator, no beginning and no ending (both views agree on this). All of Scripture shows that God has a history and that He distinguishes past, present, future. This is not accommodation but reality. He is from everlasting to everlasting, the eternal one. You error to assume that this also must mean He is timeless. If He is timeless, He is not personal since acting, thinking, feeling requires duration/sequence/succession (time), even in the triune God's relations before creation.

Rev. 1:4 uses tensed vs timeless expressions about God. Revelation also uses time e.g. in relation to the eternal state. If timelessness is true, then creation is co-eternal with God. God is static and impersonal. Impassibility makes prayer pointless. Strong vs weak immutability makes God a stone, not living.

You would benefit from my misunderstanding Open Theism thread. You are case in point of someone who is not aware of the intricacies of this debate.

 

[tetelestai]

All of Scripture shows that God has a history and that He distinguishes past, present, future. This is not accommodation but reality.

No, all of scripture shows that angels and man have a history. All of scripture shows that God created angels first, and then created humans second. All of scripture shows not only the creation of angels and man, but the history of angels, fallen angels, Satan, and man; including the future of man, angels, fallen angels, and Satan.

Scripture does not show the history of God from a past, present, and future aspect.

Open Theism shows the negative philosophical influences on these concepts and returns them to a biblical understanding without denying them.

Open theism IS a philosophy. The concept that open theism blames philosophy as the need for it's existence, is like the Mafia blaming crime as the need for it's existence.

 

[Bright Raven]

You beg the question by assuming your definitions and understanding are the only possible ones. Open Theism shows the negative philosophical influences on these concepts and returns them to a biblical understanding without denying them.

There are no other definitions. For Open Theism to be acceptable the definition of Omniscience was changed by "scholars", "learned men". This philosophical construct assumes that the decisions that God makes right now could not have been made yesterday for the "now" was still in the future. God didn't have enough information? Please, spare me. The sad thing is that you have looked to the wisdom of men rather than the wisdom of Almighty God. You've been deceived.

I AM shows that God is self-existent. He is uncreated Creator, no beginning and no ending (both views agree on this). All of Scripture shows that God has a history and that He distinguishes past, present, future. This is not accommodation but reality. He is from everlasting to everlasting, the eternal one. You error to assume that this also must mean He is timeless. If He is timeless, He is not personal since acting, thinking, feeling requires duration/sequence/succession (time), even in the triune God's relations before creation.

Huh? Changing definitions again? There was no history until God created. He created time and is outside of it. Nor is He bounded by it. You think you can bind God.

Rev. 1:4 uses tensed vs timeless expressions about God. Revelation also uses time e.g. in relation to the eternal state. If timelessness is true, then creation is co-eternal with God. God is static and impersonal. Impassibility makes prayer pointless. Strong vs weak immutability makes God a stone, not living.

No solid definitions. The same old violin song is beginning to bore me. Have you even thought about the comparison you are making between the wisdom of man and that of God. Pretty sad because I know you love God.

You would benefit from my misunderstanding Open Theism thread. You are case in point of someone who is not aware of the intricacies of this debate.

Been there, read it and posted. Catch up or take notes. OT is a misunderstanding of men about the character and nature of God.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

If your assumption that God is outside time and man is inside time is wrong, you will have to rethink your views. My contention is that timelessness vs temporality is an important issue and that you are wrong on it. You miss the fact that you are essentially saying that our choices are made and fixed and real even before we are born. This is nonsense. God sees and knows reality as it is. You are simply speculating with sci-fi (not Scripture) to retain your traditional views.

2 Cor 4
18: 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.

Seems to be a contrast between temporal (bound by time) and eternal (not temporary)

 

[godrulz]

No, all of scripture shows that angels and man have a history. All of scripture shows that God created angels first, and then created humans second. All of scripture shows not only the creation of angels and man, but the history of angels, fallen angels, Satan, and man; including the future of man, angels, fallen angels, and Satan.

Scripture does not show the history of God from a past, present, and future aspect.




Open theism IS a philosophy. The concept that open theism blames philosophy as the need for it's existence, is like the Mafia blaming crime as the need for it's existence.

The Bible is His Story (history). It shows God as the Creator in the beginning, the covenant God walking with Israel in the OT, the incarnational God in the NT, present in the Church Age, and the consummation of history centuries later. There is clearly a chronology, not a simultaneity. Scripture is a theocentric story of God interacting with creation (but distinct) in real space-time. Time is unidirectional. The biblical narrative of God and man walking together in the midst of a Satanic warfare fits endless time, not timelessness. You must dismiss this narrative as a Matrix illusion to fit your views. If God was timeless, He could have stated that in Hebrew or Greek (He did not; your assumption).

Are you denying the historicity of the Gospels and Acts where we see God with a face forming His history on earth?

 

[godrulz]

There are no other definitions. For Open Theism to be acceptable the definition of Omniscience was changed by "scholars", "learned men". This philosophical construct assumes that the decisions that God makes right now could not have been made yesterday for the "now" was still in the future. God didn't have enough information? Please, spare me. The sad thing is that you have looked to the wisdom of men rather than the wisdom of Almighty God. You've been deceived.



Huh? Changing definitions again? There was no history until God created. He created time and is outside of it. Nor is He bounded by it. You think you can bind God.



No solid definitions. The same old violin song is beginning to bore me. Have you even thought about the comparison you are making between the wisdom of man and that of God. Pretty sad because I know you love God.



Been there, read it and posted. Catch up or take notes. OT is a misunderstanding of men about the character and nature of God.

There is no verse in the Bible that defines omniscience, especially as EDF. There is also only 2 references to the word sovereign, so it does not spell out whether it is meticulous or providential (the evidence clearly supports the latter, especially as related to evil= warfare vs blueprint model seen in ministry of Jesus). Defining omniscience and omnipotence as knowing all that is knowable and doing all that is doable is more precise and should be acceptable to both views (since there are things logically not doable by God...self-contradictory, for e.g.).

In God's triune relations before creation, duration/sequence/succession (time) still existed if He is personal with will, intellect, emotions. I could compromise with William Lane Craig's view (atemporal before creation; temporal after creation), but Wolterstorff's case seems stronger (divine temporality before/after).

Are you a Calvinist.