There is no "also" about it. It does not mean "time," period. "Time" is not one of the possible translations of the word.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
penofareadywriter
New member
That is fine with me...I just wonder why they translate it like that?
penofareadywriter
New member
So does the fact that the idea of God being timeless, and that it comes from Hellinistic Greek philosiphy worry anyone else about the state of the Church like it does me?
Some translations are more literal to the Greek (NASB), while others are dynamic equivalence (NIV). There are issues going from Gk. to English, so there is a place for both. There is also potential for translator bias to support their own beliefs. Even using the word time (interpretative, not literal, not necessarily totally wrong), it does not have to mean that time had a beginning. It can be a reference to the beginning of earth time, not time itself or God's endless time.
'Before the ages' conveys the idea of eternity before Gen. 1:1 and is not a technical statement on time vs eternity (timelessness or endless time).
It shows we cannot uncritically accept tradition without searching Scripture and doctrinal history.
Most Christians think God is timeless without understanding the issues or affecting their faith. Truth sets free so we should endeavor to be biblical and coherent.
penofareadywriter
New member
Amen!
This ? is for anyone !!!(Although I would love to hear assuranceagents and Godrulz opinion)
I have been asking this ? to all of my friends and no one can give me a cohisive anser (or they just dont anser at all) and it is this; If God had EDF before He (this is important) FREELY created the universe, dont you have the same theological problem that Calvinism does as far as God being responsible for evil?
Whether He "determined in His will" or simply "saw the end from the begining" HE STILL FREELY CHOSE TO CREATE THE UNIVERSE!
I still cant make my own thread but when I can this will definitely be my first
It would be better to post in one relevant thread, not in several redundant places that will break up the responses.
Simple foreknowledge is based on seeing the future. It claims that free will still takes place and God just knows it. If God knew for sure that evil would exist, He would be responsible indirectly by creating angels and men. He would not be directly responsible like in determinism. The alternative would be to not create, so God must have felt it more worthwhile to create and redeem man then to not create and have no evil.
In determinism, God is omnicausal and would definitely be responsible for evil. This is sufficient reason to reject this view since it is contrary to God's character and ways. Calvinists do not have a good doctrine of the problem of evil and suffering. It wrongly assumes that evil is God's will and has a higher purpose in the big plan. Everything is as God intends it.
You are on to something in that both views are flawed. I would take simple foreknowledge over determinism though.
Another view is Molinism/middle knowledge. It has some advantages for this question, but is indefensible in the end. It talks about possible worlds, etc.
The issues are technical and one of the more difficult questions in theology (evil, suffering, why God allows, etc.).
http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-God-over-Evil-Initiatives/dp/0830828044
This is a philosophical book dealing with these issues. It is not easy, yet readable. Boyd also writes in these areas (e.g. http://www.amazon.com/God-Blame-Moving-Answers-Problem/dp/0830823948
http://www.amazon.com/Satan-Problem-Evil-Constructing-Trinitarian/dp/0830815503 )
The Open view is strongest understanding that evil was not a foregone conclusion, but a possibility that God neither desired nor intended. It is contrary to His will. There is risk in creating free moral agents, but it was deemed wiser than not creating or creating robots vs children. God had a contingent plan to mitigate evil that was implemented when it actually occurred. God is not responsible for evil because He created things 'very good' and there was no good reason for angels or men to fall (though possible). It grieved God when things went bad. He knew it was possible, not that it had to happen in line with His supposed decree or will. He will triumph in the end.
A view that does not take into account Satan, demons, and man's free will eventually pins the blame on God for evil, contrary to revelation.
There is no escape for determinism. There is less of an issue with SFK since God did not desire or cause evil. It was not His fault that we misused our freedom anymore than it is a parent's fault if a child does something wrong. Knowing it would happen then leaves God with a decision to not create. Even in SFK, God must have had a reason to allow evil.
The problem is a risk-free assumption about creation or providence. When this is rejected (Sanders- 'The God who risks') we have a better chance of explaining things.
OVT is the least problematic, most promising, as to explaining your question.
Simple foreknowledge is based on seeing the future. It claims that free will still takes place and God just knows it. If God knew for sure that evil would exist, He would be responsible indirectly by creating angels and men. He would not be directly responsible like in determinism. The alternative would be to not create, so God must have felt it more worthwhile to create and redeem man then to not create and have no evil.
In determinism, God is omnicausal and would definitely be responsible for evil. This is sufficient reason to reject this view since it is contrary to God's character and ways. Calvinists do not have a good doctrine of the problem of evil and suffering. It wrongly assumes that evil is God's will and has a higher purpose in the big plan. Everything is as God intends it.
You are on to something in that both views are flawed. I would take simple foreknowledge over determinism though.
Another view is Molinism/middle knowledge. It has some advantages for this question, but is indefensible in the end. It talks about possible worlds, etc.
The issues are technical and one of the more difficult questions in theology (evil, suffering, why God allows, etc.).
http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-God-over-Evil-Initiatives/dp/0830828044
This is a philosophical book dealing with these issues. It is not easy, yet readable. Boyd also writes in these areas (e.g. http://www.amazon.com/God-Blame-Moving-Answers-Problem/dp/0830823948
http://www.amazon.com/Satan-Problem-Evil-Constructing-Trinitarian/dp/0830815503 )
The Open view is strongest understanding that evil was not a foregone conclusion, but a possibility that God neither desired nor intended. It is contrary to His will. There is risk in creating free moral agents, but it was deemed wiser than not creating or creating robots vs children. God had a contingent plan to mitigate evil that was implemented when it actually occurred. God is not responsible for evil because He created things 'very good' and there was no good reason for angels or men to fall (though possible). It grieved God when things went bad. He knew it was possible, not that it had to happen in line with His supposed decree or will. He will triumph in the end.
A view that does not take into account Satan, demons, and man's free will eventually pins the blame on God for evil, contrary to revelation.
There is no escape for determinism. There is less of an issue with SFK since God did not desire or cause evil. It was not His fault that we misused our freedom anymore than it is a parent's fault if a child does something wrong. Knowing it would happen then leaves God with a decision to not create. Even in SFK, God must have had a reason to allow evil.
The problem is a risk-free assumption about creation or providence. When this is rejected (Sanders- 'The God who risks') we have a better chance of explaining things.
OVT is the least problematic, most promising, as to explaining your question.
penofareadywriter
New member
(I am replying to both of your posts)Ya, I guess, for now(untill I here a cohisive anser), I will have to disagree with you on this one point; that God would only be responsible indirectly for evil in the EDF view. This is the ? that I am proposing.
I'm with you on everything else though!
penofareadywriter
New member
Does anyone else have any thoughts?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It is quite simple. Responsibility implies accountability. God is not responsible since He cannot be called to account by a higher authority. You may not like being held to account by a higher authority, and may wail and gnash at so being held to account, yet it does not remove your being responsible. As soon as you can make an argument that God is responsible, thus, being held to account by some other being greater than He, you will have at least one leg for the stool you are trying to build an argument upon. As things stand you are merely like so many who would hold God to account for Himself, so much like the friends of Job.
Spurgeon summed it up nicely:
“There is no attribute of God more comforting to his children than the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe troubles, they believe that Sovereignty has ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all.
There is nothing for which the children of God ought more earnestly to contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation—the kingship of God over all the works of his own hands—the throne of God, and his right to sit upon that throne.
On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a football, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne.
They will allow him to be in his workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow him to be in his almonry to dispense his alms and bestow his bounties. They will allow him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean;
but when God ascends his throne, his creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and his right to do as he wills with his own, to dispose of his creatures as he thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on his throne is not the God they love. They love him anywhere better than they do when he sits with his sceptre in his hand and his crown upon his head.”
There is nothing for which the children of God ought more earnestly to contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation—the kingship of God over all the works of his own hands—the throne of God, and his right to sit upon that throne.
On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a football, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne.
They will allow him to be in his workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow him to be in his almonry to dispense his alms and bestow his bounties. They will allow him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean;
but when God ascends his throne, his creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and his right to do as he wills with his own, to dispose of his creatures as he thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on his throne is not the God they love. They love him anywhere better than they do when he sits with his sceptre in his hand and his crown upon his head.”
AMR
andyc
New member
Let's not forget that, God is accountable to his word. His sovereignty does not allow him to ignore his word (Psa 138:2).
God chose to establish Saul's kingdom forever, but Saul overruled him (1 Sam 13:13).
God's sovereignty is not divorced from His righteousness (Lex Rex, not Rex Lex).
Free will theists do not reject God's sovereignty or buck against it. We react to a wrong view of it that impugns His character and makes Him responsible for heinous evil, contrary to His character. If God is the first cause of everything or omnicausal, then Houston has a problem. Let's leave determinism for B.F. Skinner/Darwin/Islam, not biblical Christianity.:sheep:
Free will theists do not reject God's sovereignty or buck against it. We react to a wrong view of it that impugns His character and makes Him responsible for heinous evil, contrary to His character. If God is the first cause of everything or omnicausal, then Houston has a problem. Let's leave determinism for B.F. Skinner/Darwin/Islam, not biblical Christianity.:sheep:
penofareadywriter
New member
I think you are missing my point. My point was not to be dogmatic on God being RESPONSIBLE in the strictst sense(though I belive andyc has a point), but rather my argument concerns the CAUSALITY of God.
Thoughts?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What is the point? That God causes all that happens? Yes, He does. That some would then shake their fist at God for this is telling, in that they fail to grasp that God wills righteously what man does wickedly. The fact that we cannot always fully understand (on this side of the grave) why God wills what He wills, is no excuse to disbelieve it, for it clear that Scripture teaches it. We have no Scriptural warrant to go off crafting some humanistic version of God, who is somehow at the mercy of fully autonomous creatures, as does the open theist.
But never fear, in a few minutes godrulz will be along with some boilerplate statements and assertions to the contrary, thus making my point even more obvious. :squint:
AMR
Part of open theism's propaganda is to convince everyone that traditional Orthodox teachings were influenced by Greek philosophers, therefore the OVT claims traditional Orthodox teachings are incorrect.
Let’s look at Acts 17:28:
(Acts 17:28) For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Paul was in Athens, Greece when he said this. Paul states that what the Greek philosophers have written regarding man having a soul separate from a physical body is true. Paul exclaims “as certain also of your own poets have said.”
This is Paul referring to Greek philosophers and confirming that the Greek philosophers were correct in what they wrote about the human soul. The teaching of a soul seperate from the physical body is in contrast to humanism, sceintism, and physicalism. The Greek philosophers believed in dualism, which is the correct view of the human soul and physical body.
So, before you let the open theists convince you that everything the Greek philosophers said is false, remember that Paul said otherwise, and agreed with the Greek philosophers re: the human soul.
This does not mean that everything the Greek philosophers said is true, but it points out that some things the Greek philosphers said about God were true, even though the open theists attmept to discredit everything by the Greek philosophers.
While I think of it (EDF not compatible with LFW), Witt (Arminian, not Open Theist) rightly observes:
"Not even God could know with certainty what a rational creature would do in a given situation prior to its free-will decision, not because God's knowledge is limited, but because (logically and temporally) prior to the actual decision of the creature's will, the outcome of the creature's act in inherently uncertain."
This argues against middle knowledge (Molinism) and simple FK.
"Not even God could know with certainty what a rational creature would do in a given situation prior to its free-will decision, not because God's knowledge is limited, but because (logically and temporally) prior to the actual decision of the creature's will, the outcome of the creature's act in inherently uncertain."
This argues against middle knowledge (Molinism) and simple FK.
William Witt is an Anglican "lay theologian" who teaches at the Trinity School for Ministry in Abridge, PA; which is about ten minutes from my house.
He received his Ph.D. in systematic theology from Notre Dame. At Notre Dame he did his dissertation on Jacobus Arminius.
That does not make him an Arminian. He is an Anglican.
P.S. Ann B. Davis who played Alice on the Brady Bunch went to Trinity School where Witt teaches.
Did God will, intend, desire, cause the Holocaust in any way? Allowing is not willing. Does God will the heinous rape and murder of babies?
Can anything be done by demons or man that is contrary to God's will? Is God omnicausal, the ultimate first cause of everything?
Your Orwellian semantics and mental gymnastics do not make your view more coherent or credible. You impugn the character and ways of God and have the nerve of saying Open Theists humanize God (straw man)?!
Mystery and antimony are a cheap cop out when we have clear revelation that contradicts your simplistic assumptions.
We do not deify free will, but a denial of it and wrong view of sovereignty leads to big doo doo, especially in the area of the problem of evil/suffering.
We do not reject sovereignty, but properly understand it. We reject your view of sovereignty, big difference.
You are reading too much into this and underestimating the magnitude of the problem. Even JWs know that the pagan concept of the immortality of the soul is not identical to a biblical view (though they do not even have a correct view themselves).
Paul made a passing reference to a specific quote to form a bridge and infuse greater understanding. He was not condoning syncretism or everything the poet believed, as you pointed out.
The same is when the Book of Enoch is referred to in Jude. Some use this as a defense for accepting non-canonical apocryphal books. One quote (like baptism for the dead; pagan vs Mormon) does not justify your principle.
The biggest reason to accept OVT and reject some traditional concepts is secondarily related to undue philosophical influence, but the primary strength is a biblical, exegetical one.
Interesting. I got the quote from Olson's book on myths about Arminianism that Calvinists propagate. Anglicans can be Arminian or Calvinistic without being Arminian or Calvinists per se (they are usually more Calvinistic). His ideas are Arminian or Open Theist and he attends an Anglican church. His views may not represent mainstream Anglican views (of which there is a spectrum of beliefs).