BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 4 thru 7)

[elected4ever]

Oh, now Darby is the father of Openness too? Pretty soon you'll guys will have him as the author of the Pentateuch!

-Bob

I really don't know that if he did or not but it is just as true as what the CVers are accused off.

 

[theo_victis]

MK??? are you going to respond to my last post.. if not i dont have to check this thread then!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Bob said:

Also, the Open View would be more difficult to defend if God had stated or showed, “I created time,” but then this would create tension with the whole Bible, including God’s being eternally relational, and things like His planning “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4) to establish the Body of Christ.

Actually,if one could demonstrate that God created time then this would prove that the “open view” is true.

If “time” does not exist in the “eternal” state then that would mean that the Lord God only lives in the “present”.There is no such thing as “foreknowledge” with God because all things exist in the “present” for Him.

Then someone will ask,”How do you explain the passages in Scripture that speak of God’s ‘foreknowledge’?”

The answer is simple.These passages are written in “phenomenal” language.This is a “figurative” language that is not to be taken literally,but instead it is describing how things appear to man.For instance,the Scriptures speak of the sun “rising” but the sun does not acually rise but instead it only appears to rise.

The following verse uses “phenomenal” language:

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

The Christian is chosen by God through “belief in the truth”.In “time” that does not occur until one actually believes the gospel.But since the Lord is outside of time and all things with Him are in the “present” tense then it could be said that with Him that things that are happening now also happened from the beginning.At least that is how it appears to man.

The Calvinsts make the mistake of taking the verses that speak of His “foreknowledge” literally instead of figuratively.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[M. K. Nawojski]

Speaking the Truth in Love

Speaking the Truth in Love

I was genuinely intrigued by Mr. Enyart’s personal views on “suggestion” and “manipulation,” as stated in his “Post 4B.” For example, while enlightening his readers on the “power of suggestion,” he writes: “Scripturally, God, demons, and people all use *THE POWER OF SUGGESTION.” A bit further along in the same paragraph, he adds, “ . . . *WE CAN ALL RELATE TO HOW EASILY WEAK MINDED PEOPLE ARE MANIPULATED.”

In this post, as well as his three previous ones, I believe I could perceive quite a number of times when he was good enough to provide clear illustrations of how easily he himself is able to wield this “suggestion/manipulation” tool, to gain his point. For example, in his discourse on whether “ . . . even the dictionary can distinguish between the meanings of such passages*2 . . . . “ he declares: “The only way to adjudicate this is by submitting the meaning to the constraints of the true nature of God, and not the expert lexicographer, but *THE CAREFUL STUDENT OF GOD’S WORD IS MOST QUALIFIED TO DECIDE THIS. Context is so compelling that, forgive the hyperbole, you should know the meaning of even a completely foreign word in a sentence.”

So, the “careful student” (who, by the by, is “*MOST qualified to decide such matters”) would be best advised, in his study of the Scriptures, to base any thorny linguistic decisions on “context” -- not on data gleaned from leading authorities in the ancient [Koine] Greek language. Very nice. By using this method, the aforementioned “careful student” can avoid a lot of dry, laborious research; can secure the praises of an individual he admires and looks up to; and can make the Holy Bible support the Open View or any other theology which tickles his itchy, little ears. (Another delicious side effect of this phenomenal method of study is that a person can become proficient in any language whatsoever, so long as “context” is available, to direct his progress.)

But I’m left to wonder: this type of guidance (based, as it is, on what I would have thought was the weakest and most obvious flattery) wouldn’t perchance fall into the category of “suggestion” and/or “manipulation” of weak-minded people, now would it?

*1. Emphasis mine.
*2. Passages about which Greek scholars “remain non-committal on whether Peter indicated Judas’ action [the betrayal of Jesus] was required by “divine destiny,” or [was] merely “fitting.”

MK
http://twilight-tales.com

 

[M. K. Nawojski]

MK??? are you going to respond to my last post.. if not i dont have to check this thread then!

I apologize for my delay in responding to your last post. I can see you put some time and effort into clarifying your position. For that reason, I’ve been inclined to reply to your major points. On the other hand, the fact that you seem to be as firmly entrenched in your views as I am in mine has caused me to hesitate . . . I would not like to think that either of us might be expending our time on a fruitless effort.

Psalms 40:16 Let all those that seek [God] rejoice and be glad in [Him]: let such as love [His] salvation say continually, The LORD be magnified.

MK
http://twilight-tales.com

 

[Bob Enyart]

in [Bob's] discourse on whether “ . . . even the dictionary can distinguish between the meanings of such passages*2 . . . . “ he declares: “The only way to adjudicate this is by... THE CAREFUL STUDENT OF GOD’S WORD."

MK: I wasn't talking about *whether* or not a dictionary can distinguish between meanings. Your confusing footnote notwithstanding, that's misleading, and the confusion makes your argument look better. Doesn't it? As for "had" in Acts 1:16. I wrote:

"Not even the dictionary can distinguish between the meanings of such passages."

You omitted the "not," and also that I was not alleging, but that I had just proved, that the lexicon *cannot* resolve this word meaning issue.

I had just demonstrated, with a scan of the BAG lexicon no less, that, "The lexicon gives two different meanings for the exact same word in the same sentence!"

See the BAG entry.

So, then you continue:

[Bob then] declares: “The only way to adjudicate this is by submitting the meaning to the constraints of the true nature of God, and not [to] the expert lexicographer, but [to] *THE CAREFUL STUDENT OF GOD’S WORD [who] IS MOST QUALIFIED TO DECIDE THIS.

So, MK, I'm teachable. Rather than pretend that I just ignore research and standard reference words, please give us your instruction as to how to determine the meaning of an important word in a verse when the leading Greek authority gives two different meanings?

-Bob

 

[Bob Enyart]

Read first, then critique

Read first, then critique

And here's a comment for Mr. Shugart, Jerry, in your post about my explanation of the prophecy of Peter's denial, you betrayed that you hadn't read the post at that time, but just the abbreviated answer at the end.

I really enjoy reading rebuttals to my understanding, as it helps to find my own errors.

So, I'm asking you to value the time of the people reading the Critique Thread such that you will read a post first before critiquing it.

Fair enough? -Bob

 

[Jerry Shugart]

And here's a comment for Mr. Shugart, Jerry, in your post about my explanation of the prophecy of Peter's denial, you betrayed that you hadn't read the post at that time, but just the abbreviated answer at the end.

I did read your entire post,but I do not agree with your conclusion since it is based on nothing but your "assumptions".You said:

Jesus knew Peter was too weak to give his life, and yet impetuous.

First of all,Peter was not too weak to stand up for the Lord Jesus when He was arrested since he cut off the ear of one of the high priest's servants.And you assume that if Peter admitted that he was a disciple of the Lord Jesus then he would be put to death.But there is no evidence of that.If the soldiers wanted to put to death all of the Lord’s disciples then they certainly would not have allowed all of them to escape when they arrested the Lord Jesus.

There is no evidence that Peter would have expected to be put to death for admitting that he was a disciple of the Lord Jesus,but you base your whole argument on that assumption.

So, I'm asking you to value the time of the people reading the Critique Thread such that you will read a post first before critiquing it.

I read your post before I made my comments.You said that the Lord Jesus could predict Peter’s denials and their timing because God knows the heart of men.Yes,but according to you the Lord only knows the “present” state of a man’s mind,and not his future state of mind.So how did the Lord know that Peter would not change at a later time?

I also pointed out that those who support the open view put forth by you use the following verse to show that the Lord did not even know whether Abraham had a fear of God until he drew back the knife to slay Isaac:

” And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me”(Gen.22:12).

According to the interpretation of this verse by those who support the open view the Lord did not know whether or not Abraham had a fear of God until He saw him draw back his knife to kill Isaac.

This despite the fact that Abraham's faith was counted to him for righteousness previously when he believed that his seed would be as numerous as the stars (Gen.15:6),and once again "he staggered not at the promise of God...but was strong in faith" when told that Sarah would be a mother of nations (Gen.17:15-19;Ro.4:19-21).

So despite the fact that Abraham's faith was strong the Open Thesists say that Genesis 22:12 reveals that the Lord did not even know if Abraham had a fear of God until He saw Abraham draw back the knife to slay Abraham.

But then you say that the Lord was certain that Peter would deny Him three times based on His previous experiences with him.If the Lord could not be certain whether or not Abraham feared God until he saw an outward demonstration of that fear then how could the Lord be so certain of Peter's future actions?

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[Vaquero45]

Jerry, I don't think you get the Open View. God did what He did with Abraham obviously to test him, but why not also to have the account to pass down and use as a sign of what God was planning to do on Mount Moriah later with His own Son? It is glaringly obvious the two events are linked by similar aspects. I actually agree with you that OV'ers would/should think that God could have predicted that Abraham would carry out God's order to sacrifice his son without making Abraham go so far. But I think you lack vision, at least as an OV'er would see things.

As far as Peter goes... yeah, he used a sword to defend Jesus, (which the gun toting redneck part of me see's as an incrediblely awesome thing to be able to claim, but I digress) when the soldiers came. I consider that a knee jerk reaction. Later after watching the soldiers take Jesus, reality set in. He would have known they meant no good for Jesus, and Peter himself being a close ally, would not be popular either. It is easy to see how he would be scared. My view of God allows for Him to easily predict this.

The big difference in our views is that the OV lets our real, living, relational God control the world as He chooses and still allow real love, (yes, "free will") while the settled view leaves us asking silly questions about flossing Augustine's teeth.

Jeff

 

[Bob Enyart]

I did read your entire post,but I do not agree with your conclusion since it is based on nothing but your "assumptions".

That would be a proper approach. But the aforementioned post is suspect because it ONLY addressed my abbreviated answer and COMPLETELY IGNORED my responses to the objections you thereby leveled against it .

-Bob

 

[Jerry Shugart]

He would have known they meant no good for Jesus, and Peter himself being a close ally, would not be popular either. It is easy to see how he would be scared.My view of God allows for Him to easily predict this.

Jeff,

Let me go through Bob’s answers.He said:

Jesus knew Peter was too weak to give his life, and yet impetuous.

If the Lord Jesus “knew” that Peter was too weak to give his life then He must have been totally surprised when Peter risked his life here:

”Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear”(Mt.26:50,51).

Even if this was a knee-jerk reaction,as you say,the fact is that Peter did indeed risk his life.Bob continues,saying:

The typical person who hung around Caiaphas’ household would be inclined of his own accord to question Peter, and Satan would likely reinforce such inclinations, adding his influence to pressure Peter to turn on Jesus, as Lucifer had already asked to “sift” Peter (Luke 22:31).

The Lord Jesus knew that Peter would indeed flee after He was arrested because the Scriptures must be fulfilled.But how in the world would He know that Peter would hang around Caiaphas’ household?If the Lord Jesus was so sure that Peter was too weak to give his life then there would be no reason to think that after Peter fled he would take a chance on being exposed by mingling with those who had seen him cut off the ear of Caiaphas’ servant.In fact,if the Lord Jesus thought that Peter was too weak to give his life then there was no reason for the Lord Jesus to even suspect that Peter would endanger himself by being around those who could identify him.But according to Bob’s ideas it was absolutely necessary for Peter to be at the palace of Caiaphas.

And even if somehow the Lord knew beforehand that Peter would take a chance on being exposed by going to the household of Caiaphas,how is it that God can be sure that one or two of those three people will not decide, at the last minute, not to question Peter? How would He know that Peter would be asked if he was a disciple of Jesus Christ exactly three times before the rooster crowed twice?

The Lord would have no reason to think that Peter would be asked this exactly three times.The only answer that I see Bob giving for this is:

Even if all men were utterly impotent to influence others, God is not.

If God influenced three people to ask Peter the question then God would indeed be tempting Peter to sin by denying the Lord three times.But the Scriptures declare in no uncertain terms that God will not tempt a man to sin (Jas.1:13).

That leaves us with these questions unanswered.If the Lord Jesus knew that Peter was too weak to risk his life then why did Peter do just that when he cut off the ear of one of those who came to arrest the Lord Jesus?If the Lord knew that Peter was to weak to risk his life then why would he go to the one place where he could be exposed as being a disciple of the Lord?And why would the Lord Jesus think that Peter would go to the one place where he could be exposed?And finally,how would the Lord know that Peter would be asked if he was a disciple exactly three times?

You say:

Jerry, I don't think you get the Open View.

I do not believe in the “settled view”.I do not believe that at some epoch in the past that God decided that one man would be saved and the other lost and therefore a man’s destiny depends on an iron decree of fate.I believe a man’s destiny depends on the present actions of God Who can appeal to man’s heart by the gospel.

But I believe that a theology that depends on the idea that God can be mistaken is not the correct approach to explain the Open View.Instead,there is another approach that explains it better.

If “time” does not exist in the “eternal” state then that would mean that the Lord God only lives in the “present”.There is no such thing as “foreknowledge” with God because all things exist in the “present” for Him.

Then someone will ask,”How do you explain the passages in Scripture that speak of God’s ‘foreknowledge’?”

The answer is simple.These passages are written in “phenomenal” language.This is a “figurative” language that is not to be taken literally,but instead it is describing how things appear to man.For instance,the Scriptures speak of the sun “rising” but the sun does not acually rise but instead it only appears to rise.

The following verse uses “phenomenal” language:

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

The Christian is chosen by God through “belief in the truth”.In “time” that does not occur until one actually believes the gospel.But since the Lord is outside of time and all things with Him are in the “present” tense then it could be said that with Him that things that are happening now also happened from the beginning.At least that is how it appears to man.

Those who believe in the "Settled View" make the mistake of taking the verses that speak of His “foreknowledge” literally instead of figuratively.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[Ecumenicist]

God Bless you Bob, we are all brothers and sisters in our struggle against computer
programs and protocals that think they know better than us what we want to present...

Dave

I want to explain the formatting difficulty with my fourth round post. The TOL user options allow us to select one of three different editors for composing a post. Trying to make a long post look good and readable with indents, etc., and inserting graphics and hyperlinks is EXTREMELY TIME CONSUMING. For me, that has always translated to about two hours of messing with formatting and codes, and then proofreading the post, all as the deadline approaches! So after all the time I wasted posting round three, I switched to TOL’s more powerful editor (wysiwyg, for What you see is what you get). Well, I hear wysiwyg works great for short posts! But apparently, when I copy a 6,000-word post from a Microsoft Word document into the Reply box, bugs appear in the functionality. The formatting was weird, the wysiwyg inserted all kinds of smiley faces (of all things), and weird codes in the post. Well, I fought this for about two hours, editing and constantly previewing (but even just clicking preview would cause the post to revert and again mess up repeatedly fixed parts of the post)! Finally, I decided to re-format the WHOLE post in one pass, and forgo previewing (a TOL no-no except that now, just previewing was repeatedly making things worse), and then pray, and hit the Submit Post button. I didn’t pray hard enough.

Well, it wasn’t too bad, and I still had about ten minutes to go to the deadline. Cheryl and I checked the post on different computers in our home, and we saw that the font was one size larger than the rest of the debate, and there was some weird spacing, but otherwise, it seemed ok!

That’s when the real trouble began. Knight phoned me to say that there were serious formatting problems, strange codes, weird smileys, etc., that appeared to different people using browsers other than Internet Explorer, and so he would go in and try to edit the post as he had also done with Dr. Lamerson’s fourth round post.

Fine. I’m taking my family out for lunch. I’m exhausted.

Well, I’m out in the driveway, and Knight called back. “Bob, there’s a problem. Trying to edit this makes it worse.” (I could of told him that ). “Can you switch back to the Standard Editor, and re-format and re-post?” (That’ll only take a couple hours or so, with checking all the formatting, and all.)

“Sure. I’ll just copy the post with the Edit button, and start formatting by hand.”

Knight: Silence. Then: “You can’t do that.”

Bob: “Why not?”

Knight: “Because I just deleted the post… You did save your post right?”

Well, as it turns out, the last 45 minutes of editing and formatting that I was doing on TOL I had not saved. And I’ve recorded all this to say that, over the next two hours, I furiously inserted formatting codes by hand, and tried to bring wording in my older version back up to where the post had been when I posted it. I know that I introduced some extremely minor edits, but ABSOLUTELY CHANGING NO CONTENT. So, if anyone has a copy of my original post (which of course I wanted to REMAIN POSTED), we can compare the two and whatever alterations we find, if Knight wants to change the wording back exactly as it was, that’s wonderful by me.

That’s it. I’m going to have lunch with the family. -Bob

 

[Ecumenicist]

I just looked back at some of the comments addressed to me 100 posts ago, I mean 5 days ago,
well, same thing. Sorry, couldn't keep up, last week was particularly challenging with work and
mom gone and me alone with the twins and all.

e4e asked about "God out of time." If time is viewed as a line, a string, and we are all ants
travelling along the string, then God is the Big One holding the string, and our perception is
limited to the string on which we crawl. God can see the whole thing, we can only see
what we've just experienced.

Einstien's theory of relativity doesn't sound logical either, but its real. Two objects which are
traveling near the speed of light towards each other are not, in fact, approaching each other
a rate greater than the speed of light. Its not logical, but its real. Just like in faith, sometimes
we have to let go of logic in order to experience the bigger picture.

Now also there was something about 1way asking Delmar if I had responded to something,
sorry if I dropped something, like I said, I just lost track. If anyone wants to pm a pointer to a
thread or point that I dropped, I'd be happy to rejoin the fray, as it were. In general, if I miss
something, please pm me, even if a point I'm making is wrong or going no where, I'd rather
ride it out than drop it, but life and circumstance sometimes derails things.

Dave

 

[Delmar]

Now also there was something about 1way asking Delmar if I had responded to something,
sorry if I dropped something, like I said, I just lost track. If anyone wants to pm a pointer to a
thread or point that I dropped, I'd be happy to rejoin the fray, as it were. In general, if I miss
something, please pm me, even if a point I'm making is wrong or going no where, I'd rather
ride it out than drop it, but life and circumstance sometimes derails things.

Dave

I found it.
from the Critique thread

...Nope, trusting in God's absolute power to bring about goodness from the midst of evil, and
trusting that God has absolute control even in the midst of the worst evil. As Sam has said many
times, the thought that God has no control in the midst of evil is far more frightening than the
thought that God allows evil to occur...

To claim that the OV asserts that God has no control is simply not true and for you to claim that Bob asserts this after reading his last post, quite frankly Dave I thought better of you than that!

(it was originally post 583 from the BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3) thread and it was somewhat out of context because we are not allowed to answer responses from the Critique thread in the Critique thread.)

 

[Ecumenicist]

I found it.
from the Critique thread
To claim that the OV asserts that God has no control is simply not true and for you to claim that Bob asserts this after reading his last post, quite frankly Dave I thought better of you than that!

(it was originally post 583 from the BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3) thread and it was somewhat out of context because we are not allowed to answer responses from the Critique thread in the Critique thread.)

Well, yes, I will concede, that based on Bob's round 4 submission, suddenly God
has the ability and willingness to interfere with human free will by subconsciously
co-ercing people to do God's bidding. This supports the assertion that
"God can make it happen, but God doesn't know that its going to happen."

Also, you can probably save yourself some frustration by not thinking better of me under
any circumstances...

Dave

 

[Vaquero45]

Jerry, ok, I understand your opinion now. You come from the "God is outside of time" point of view, and if you can settle that for yourself logically it can explain many things, but I just can't come to the point where "outside of time" makes sense. (at least not so far)
And I don't know of any scriptures that directly support the idea.

As I've said before, I think the personal predictions about Judas, Peter, Pharoh, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, are the hardest to explain in the open view. My dad asks me the same questions, and always feels that he has won the debate. I am good with Bob's explanation though. We are talking about God after all. We say that God doesn't "know" the future, but for all purposes, He is infinitely smarter than us, and can predict and manipulate things to His plan, and remain righteous.

Jeff

 

[jhodgeiii]

From this Battle Royale critique thread:

The question Bob, how did Jesus know what Peter was going to do if He has no idea about the future choices of individuals?

Your question, Z Man, hints that you haven't been paying close attention to Bob's lengthy arguments. Never did Bob say or even hint that God has "no idea" of man's future choices. Can you admit that?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, ok, I understand your opinion now. You come from the "God is outside of time" point of view, and if you can settle that for yourself logically it can explain many things, but I just can't come to the point where "outside of time" makes sense. (at least not so far)

Jeff,

Do you only believe the revelations of God of which you can “logically” understand ?

How do you logically explain the fact that the Scriptures reveal that the Lord Jesus is totally man but at the same time they reveal that He is totally God?

As I said previously,the idea that the eternal state is outside of time cannot be “logically” understood since “time” is a law of man’s very existence.But just because we cannot understand the concept of an existence devoid of time does not mean that that kind of an existence cannot be a reality.The Scriptures reveal truths that are above our reason but that does not mean that they are contrary to reason.

And I don't know of any scriptures that directly support the idea.

Peter gives us a clue as to the Lord’s relationship to “time” in the following verse:

”But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”(2Pet.3:8).

I do not think that Peter is trying to tell us that there is a timepiece in the eternal state where a day as measured on that timepiece equals a thousand years.Instead,is it not clear that Peter is telling us that the Lord is not bound by the contraints of time as is man.And how could that be unless the eternal state exists outside of time?

If the eteral state includes "time" then the Lord would indeed have a “past” and a “future”.But I believe that there is a great significance in the words of the Lord Jesus when He said:

” Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am”(Jn.8:58).

Here we can see that the Lord Jesus said an amazing thing.If He was going to use ordinary language then He would have said,”Before Abraham was,I was”.He would have used the “past” tense.But instead He used the “present” tense to speak of the time “before Abraham”.

Arthur Custance has this to say about the words of our Lord:

The subject of the conversation had been the patriarch Abraham. The Lord took Abraham's time as the pivot and spoke of two periods balanced on either side, namely, the ages which preceded Abraham, and all that followed (including the present). He then deliberately picked up the present and put it back before Abraham, but still referred to that distant period in the present tense. Though it was centuries ago, to Christ it was "now." Even if He were here today, He would still refer to the time before Abraham as the "present" time. Why? Because He is God, and to God there is no passage of time, but all is "present."

Although I do not put the ideas of scientists on the same level as the Scriptures Albert Einstein himself believed that outside of matter and motion “time does not exist”:

” If you don't take my words too seriously, I would say this. If we assume that all matter would disappear from the world, then, before relativity, one believed that space and time would continue existing in an empty world. But according to the theory of relativity, if matter and its motion disappeared there would no longer be any space or time.”

As I said,if “time” does not exist in the “eternal” state then that would mean that the Lord God only lives in the “present”.There is no such thing as “foreknowledge” with God because all things exist in the “present” for Him.The Scriptual passages that speak of His foreknowledge are to be understood to be “figurative” and should not be taken literally.Therefore,if we understand this then we know that the “settled” view is in error and we also know that a man’s destiny is determined by the “present” actions of the Living God Who appeals to the heart of man through the gospel.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[Vaquero45]

Jerry, Ok, Scripture to support the idea that God exists outside of time. I do not accept the two you gave.

2 Peter 3:8 The next verse, verse 9, explains just what Peter meant. God is "longsuffering" meaning patient. I don't take that to mean God lives outside of time, but that God will wait a day if necessary or a thousand(s) years because He is not willing that any should perish. I think you have to twist it substancially and ignore the context to make it say God is outside of time.

John 8:58 Start reading at 53 and go through to 59. Jesus was asked if He was greater than Abraham, and the prophets, and then asked who do you make yourself? (as in "who do you say that you are?") By saying what He said in His answer He said He was not only greater, but He equated Himself with God with the statement "I am", also meaning He existed and was greater even before Abraham. The Jews knew exactly what He was infering, that's why the Jews took up stones to kill Him. I do not see that this scripture is meant in any way to say that God/Jesus is not 'in" time. You have to read that into it.

I do not hold Einstein in high regard, but I agree with his statement you quoted. Time is nothing but a unit of measurement between two events. You cannot fill a bucket with time. We never see that God "created" time. And If God does one thing, then another, we can say, there were 6 days, or 3 days, or 40 years, or 1/2 an hour between those two events. It is incoherent to say God does not exist in time.

Jeff

 

[Ecumenicist]

Jeff,

I agree that wrapping one's mind around the idea of God existing outside of time is difficult,
but I wonder if its any easier to understandable eternity from the view of God "in time,"
which stretches from infinity past to infinity future.

Dave