WandererInFog
New member
Given the topic of the debate, it might be beneficial if both sides define precisely what they mean by "time".
Discussion thread: One on One: AMR and JCWR on the Temporality of God
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
P8ntrDan
New member
I don't know if it's clearly not mentioned. How do you explain it saying 'In the Beginning...'? It doesn't take God time to create anything, the 7 days was an example for us.
In the beginning of creation. Isn't that how you understand it? :idunno:
The beginning was the beginning of us! Our universe, our world, our realm, our planet, etc.
It wasn't the beginning for God and His existence therefore there is absolutely no reason to assume that time was created "in the beginning". Keep in mind, God does in fact detail what He created during creation and time wasn't one of those things.
P8ntrDan
New member
Couldn't it also be just as easily understood as the beginning of time? Since time requires a period to pass between one event and the next, could creation be that first marker by which time is measured? By creating the heavens and the earth (an act) doesn't that mean that God 'created/started' time? It wasn't the beginning of God, and he existed before that, but there is no point of reference, making God timeless.
A necessary effect of that is to believe that nothing happened before creation.
God apart from sequence = God apart from reality
Have you read my signature lately? I absolutely agree with you, that our perspective of time is not the same as God's.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Has anyone read the posts in the actual debate of question, lately?
Does anyone have a comment or reply to make to AMR's argument?
This thread has become its own debate, whose arguments are being answered on the One To One . . . if anyone is really interested in getting to the biblical truth of the matter. :sigh:
Nang
I agree!
However, JCWR said:
AMR did a fantastic, and superb job making his point against JCWR, as did AMR against Bob Enyart when they debated. The only difference is that JCWR is mature enough, humble enough, and gracious enough to recognize scriptural truth.
Bob Enyart and the Enyartites on the other hand, insist on fighting to their death to be right no matter how much scriptural truth is presented to them.
What’s sad is how much fear can overtake people. There are unbelievers who live their whole life never accepting Jesus as their Savior because of the fear of telling their family, friends, and co-workers. These people will die and go to hell because of the fear of what other people would think of them if they tell people they have decided to believe in Jesus.
Now, I’m not saying that open theists are going to hell. I consider open theists believers in the Body of Christ. I just believe that when one is so “deep” into a particular theology, it becomes that much harder to recognize the truth because of the fear of admitting one was wrong. This goes for Calvinists too, and to everyone including me.
Anyway, it is so refreshing seeing the above statement from JCWR. If anything, it shows that we can be wrong, and if we are smart we can see it as a “WIN” and not a loss.
Thank you JCWR.
And thus the risks of agreeing to set up One on One's with members that we know very little about. :idunno:
Sorry guys, clearly this "conversation" could have been done on the regular forums.
Can you say..... dud?
So... if this applies to everyone (you included) why go out of your way to lambaste "Enyartites"??? That was a really odd and strange way to make a point.
The measurement of time and time itself are two very different things.
Of course not. Unless you can provide some type of compelling argument that explains why we should all make the same leap in logic that you have.
Do you believe that God DIDN'T experience one thought after another thought, and one event after another event prior to our creation?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
My apologies the lack of entertainment value in the debate, Knight. I reviewed all of JCWR's posts and he seemed to be quite articulate. I even agreed with a few things he had to say!
Apparently Door thinks very highly of JCWR, too, from some of the posts I reviewed.
Anyway, I hope you don't hold this against JCWR. I appreciated his graciousness in conceding the debate.
It wasn't your fault.My apologies the lack of entertainment value in the debate, Knight. I reviewed all of JCWR's posts and he seemed to be quite articulate. I even agreed with a few things he had to say!
Well... JCWR might be a great fella... I guess he just didn't have the time to actually or maybe he didn't realize all of this could have been accomplished on the regular forums.
No biggie. Not every battle is gonna be a "winner".
Because if you remember the BR X - A Calvinist's Response (Ask Mr. Religion vs. Enyart) it didn’t matter what AMR said, everyone who was pro-Enyart said Enyart won the debate, and everyone who was pro-AMR said AMR won the debate.
It was like a sporting event. Let me try to explain. I have been to many Pittsburgh Steelers games over the last 35 years. However, when the Steelers play the Cleveland Browns, the games are just a little more fun and intense. There are a lot of people from Cleveland who come to the games, and vice versa with the games in Cleveland (the two cities are less than 2 hours apart)
No matter who wins the game, when the game is over, and people are walking to their cars, if some Steelers fans see people wearing Cleveland jerseys, they yell “Cleveland sucks” even if the Browns just won the game. Likewise, after games the Steelers have won, Cleveland fans yell “Pittsburgh Sucks”
Unfortunately that is how I saw the BRX thread with AMR and Enyart. It didn’t matter what either guy said, each side was loyal, and pretty much said the other side “sucked”, but in different words.
That’s not the way it is supposed to be, but for some reason that’s the way it always ends up 99.9% of the time. Today however was different, and it was nice to see the difference.
Remember Knight, you and Enyart and all the other open theists could be 100% correct, and all of us settled theists wrong. I am open to that possibility. That is why I don’t wear “Settled Theist” authentic jerseys, not even the cheap fake ones.
And the exact same could be said about all of those that agree with AMR (even by your own admission).
HINT: You are doing it again.
I don't think that was the case but you are free to believe whatever makes you feel good.
You are not at all open to the possibility that you might be wrong, and your post is compelling evidence of that.
Lon
Well-known member
And the exact same could be said about all of those that agree with AMR (even by your own admission).
HINT: You are doing it again.
I don't think that was the case but you are free to believe whatever makes you feel good.
You are not at all open to the possibility that you might be wrong, and your post is compelling evidence of that.
I agree, bias is bias is bias.
What we have to do in many of these Royale's and 1on1's is weigh the evidence. It is not cut and dry like a sporting event when we are trying to get to the root of things that can be vague enough to support two differing things. It is not easy traipsing between our choices and culpability and a God who is Sovereign. I believe in the middle, is grace and a genuine relationship with the Creator of the Universe. After several years here, I'm convinced we are both trying to preserve similar things and I applaud OV for trying to balance these scriptures we have from Him.
The question is, which presents a more consistent and faithful rendering of the texts we have from Him and thus, our debates here are important ones and deeply needed at this particular time of re-examining what is true and what is not. We have become a relative society and in many interviews, we see a relative truth in even 'Christian' thinking. A clash of ideology, in my mind, is an important stance upon solid truth and a rejection of relative thinking invading society.
We are at a time when these essential truths must be debated and that we walk away with a sense of the imperative and absolute truth of God that cannot be watered, mitigated, or compromised.
Debates such as this force us to look truth squarely in the eye and that we make adjustments, not that truth make adjustments: Truth cannot.
Why don’t you tell me how you are open to the possibility that you are wrong?
Let’s say you decide to become a Calvinist. From what I can see, you would have to switch churches. Bob Enyart would probably not be involved with TOL anymore. You would be kicked out of the “SoS” on TOL, you would have to cancel some of your social group memberships, and all your open theist’s friends would probably try to convince you that you were wrong. In other words, it would be a huge change for you.
For me, to become an open theist, I would have to change my sig on TOL, and that’s about it. Minor change for me compared to you.
Same for AMR, think about how much of a huge change it would be for him to “switch” to an open theist.
Here is the deal. At least one of you two is dead wrong in your systematic theology.
So, again tell me how you are open to the possibility you are wrong?
You must not know Bob very well. Bob is one of the most gracious, friendly guys you will ever meet.
How can you kick me out... of what is mine? :singer:
That isn't true. AMR has his own website and own following that would all have to change. AMR has as much if not more invested in his beliefs as I do I. And I am sure he would confirm this for you if you just asked.
And if I am dead wrong and AMR is dead right there isn't anything I can do about it. I was predestined for all eternity to be dead-wrong and there isn't you are AMR or anything else can do about it.
However... if I am right.... both of you are responsible for disparaging God's character by claiming that He is responsible for sin and wickedness while man can do nothing of himself.
Open theism rightly credits God for all that is good and man for all that is bad.
Settled theism wrongly credits God for all that is bad, and wrongly lets man off the hook for being responsible for his own actions. (settled theists claim man is responsible for his own actions but that is a hollow claim because what they really believe is that God is responsible for everything without exception).
Said in short.. as an open theist I am in a "win win" position, while you as a settled theist is in a "lose lose" situation (i.e., even if you are right what difference would it make?).
Because I am. :idunno:
How do you answer a question like that?
Last edited:
The above notion is simply not biblical. It may appeal the "theologians" who enjoy imagining such things but it simply isn't biblical.
There are literally hundreds if not thousands of examples that we can read about in God's word that objectively prove that God doesn't stand outside of time looking at all future events as if they were present events.
Let me give just one such example....
Jeremiah 19:5 “(they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind),
Jeremiah 32:35 ‘And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.’
Jeremiah 32:35 ‘And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.’
God is clearly saying that there was a time (possibly before creation or at some point after creation) where it had not entered God's mind that people would be burning there own children as a sacrifice to a false idol.
Now, either:
A. God does not "see" all events into the future and therefore did not see such an evil being devised.
or...
B. God is lying and all of this was in fact in God's mind for an eternity past.
Now...
Prepare for 18 pounds of theological gobbledygook as a defense by the settled theists.
- Status