Theology Club: Does Open Theism Question/dispute the Omniscience of God

[Rosenritter]

The interactions between God and Satan in the book of Job are along similar lines.

[Job 1:6-9, 11 KJV] 6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? 9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? ... 11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

The interesting thing in this first passage is that Satan had an impression of God that God didn't know how things would work out, otherwise it would have been a sucker's bet. Now, Satan might have been wrong, but if the story means anything at all, at least Satan was not convinced that God's knowledge was exhaustive. on God's part Could Satan, who knew God well, and was able to be in His presence, have that wrong? And God didn't offer His foreknowledge as proof of the outcome--He pointed to Job's character/integrity (Job 2:3).

The passage also addresses the idea that God knows based on ordaining--there is a hint of it, when Satan says in vs 10: Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

But Satan didn't think God knew the future exhaustively for that reason either, else he would never have asked God to remove the hedge of protection in order to win the bet.

Finally, also from Job 2:3, God presents Himself as "movable", rather than immovable. [Job 2:3 KJV] 3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

This is not a didactic passage, I suppose, but if it means anything at all, it must be taken as representative of God in His own environment, as you pointed out in the 1 Kings passage. And to say this is not how God interacted with Satan, or that God didn't really say what He said to Satan is a direct blow to the inerrancy and integrity of scripture as a whole, and especially the inspiration of scripture as a whole. I say this because the passage can only come to us in two ways--God revealed the events to a prophet/the author of the book or a man made up the events. There were no human attendees at the meetings of the sons of God. If a man made up the story, and it is wrong, then what parts of the scripture CAN we trust? And how do we know what we can trust?

And later parts of the book ARE didactic. Do they carry more weight than the earlier parts?

... I was saving Job for the follow-up.

 

[Lon]

Maybe if you are thinking like Orson Wells, or like Dr. Who that time is "wiggly jiggly."

I 'think' open theists need to take some classes. This isn't wiggly jiggly. It is logic and it is science and is well-established. You can do a few philosophy searches regarding 'infinite.' "Wiggly Jiggly" is part of the definition and understanding of infinity. Get that right before you work on your understanding of God. Whatever mathematics demands, must at least open the door to God's eternal nature without constraining Him. I'm saying He at least is eternal to our limited grasp: At the very least.

 

[Rosenritter]

I 'think' open theists need to take some classes. This isn't wiggly jiggly. It is logic and it is science and is well-established. You can do a few philosophy searches regarding 'infinite.' "Wiggly Jiggly" is part of the definition and understanding of infinity. Get that right before you work on your understanding of God. Whatever mathematics demands, must at least open the door to God's eternal nature without constraining Him. I'm saying He at least is eternal to our limited grasp: At the very least.

I don't need to take a class to know that the distance between events is called time. Least of all should I need to take philosophy classes to explain away what God has already made plain and revealed in scripture.

 

[Derf]

This:

I 'think' open theists need to take some classes. This isn't wiggly jiggly. It is logic and it is science and is well-established. You can do a few philosophy searches regarding 'infinite.' "Wiggly Jiggly" is part of the definition and understanding of infinity. Get that right before you work on your understanding of God. Whatever mathematics demands, must at least open the door to God's eternal nature without constraining Him. I'm saying He at least is eternal to our limited grasp: At the very least.

Made me go back to read this:

If man were held in check by distance? How so? How is lightening held in check by speed? Yet God, according to Open Theism, is indeed held in check by linear time.

What I was trying to figure out is, What were you referring to in that last post (quoted first here)? If "It" is logic and science and well established, what does "It" refer to? Infinity? Infinity is hardly established by science, as I think you say yourself: "'Wiggly Jiggly' is part of the definition and understanding of infinity."

Mathematics nor science give us any description of "infinite". All they require it in some equations, but nobody has ever offered a description of what "infinity" is. It makes sense to talk of God as "infinite", BECAUSE it (and He) is beyond our grasp, but it makes little sense to define a concept we have no concept of, nor appeal to science for our understanding of it.

And, reading those two posts made me go back one more to this one:

The idea that "God is not really God if he created anyone with free will" is not a biblical concept nor a right conclusion.

I disagree. As I've stated, Genesis 3:15 IS biblical. To me? Undoes any 'unbiblical' assertion. I'm getting it 'from' the Bible.

Nor the idea that God can't create anyone with a free will and maintain His sovereignty.

Same as above. These are mere assertions from an embraced presuppositional desire. It is trying to over-inflate ego that I am independent of God :nono: John 15:5 Colossians 1:17 1 Corinthians 4:7 Even if you have scriptures that show you have an independent will (meaning from God), explain that. Why do you want or need a will 'independent "from" God's will?" :think:

I would like to explain what a will independent from God means, and why it is necessary, although I think I've already done this a couple times.

I define "independent" using the first definition you get when you type in "define independent" in a Google search: 1. free from outside control; not depending on another's authority.

The necessity of this is to keep from blaspheming God by saying He is the author of sin.

I can expound on those two ideas, but I don't think I need to. They are pretty clear-cut, don't you think?

But because I can't let well enough alone, I'll expound just a bit on the last idea. If my will is NOT independent from God, meaning (using the definition) my will is not free from His control or is not free from His authority, then my will is His will. And if my will is His will, that means He wants me to want whatever I want. So when I want to steal, kill, rape, or be dishonoring to my parents, for example, it is not ME wanting to do those things, it is God wanting me to do those things and either controlling me to do them or commanding me to do them (according to the definition).

If God really wants (wills) me to do those things, rather than refrain from those things, He is contradicting His own instructions. If God wills both righteousness and unrighteousness, there is NO such thing as sin. These is no such thing as "unrighteousness", since the very concept is the opposite of God's will. In fact, if God wills me to commit those acts, HE is calling evil good and good evil. There is no relief from this dilemma if God REALLY WANTS/WILLS me to commit "sin".

 

[Rosenritter]

This:

Made me go back to read this:


What I was trying to figure out is, What were you referring to in that last post (quoted first here)? If "It" is logic and science and well established, what does "It" refer to? Infinity? Infinity is hardly established by science, as I think you say yourself: "'Wiggly Jiggly' is part of the definition and understanding of infinity."

Mathematics nor science give us any description of "infinite". All they require it in some equations, but nobody has ever offered a description of what "infinity" is. It makes sense to talk of God as "infinite", BECAUSE it (and He) is beyond our grasp, but it makes little sense to define a concept we have no concept of, nor appeal to science for our understanding of it.

I was thinking of this reference:

 

[Lon]

If God had to tell Hezekiah that he would die in order that he lives, that doesn't negate the need for God to always tell the truth, according to His character.



You can only say this thinking as a settled futurist. And of course, if that's your presupposition, you will have to say it. But the settledness of the future makes the statement a lie. Open theism allows the answer to be "a" at one time and "b" at another (both as future outcomes) and still allow God to be truthful. Their is no Lying accusation, because both were true within their respective time of utterance. That is NOT the case for settled theism. One of those was always true ("b", perhaps), and the other was NEVER true ("a").

Like I said, only with a sly reliance on an open theistic model can a settled theist ever believe that God can say both "a" and "b" are true when "a" and "b" are contradictory.

Calvinism has some good points that I agree with. The settledness of the future isn't one of them.


I hope I'm never a "settled" theologian, at least in this life. I hope I can always be convinced of where I'm wrong, and that these conversations wouldn't just allow me to voice a wrong opinion and make it more concrete (but still wrong) in my mind.

I'm addressing quite a bit of this to Rosen as well, but may come back to this. You make a large number of assertions you believe are correct but are wrong. In order to grasp that and be corrected, you'd have to readdress some of your 'truths' that you've built theology upon. You also make a 'I hope I'm never a settled theologian' expression of emotion rather than, imho, clear thought. We do grasp at our areas of comfort and I know that Calvinists cause a lot of this reactionary polarization. I pray for both of you that my comments here are not further cause of that, but I do need to be a bit more blunt to challenge such ideas and mere assertions as if they are correct. They are not. Basic math IS true math, but it can never challenge the veracity of algebraic expression. It is called 'simple' and basic for a reason. The latter is called higher and advanced for a reason. Basic math is good math, but it is not all there is, nor all we need to live and breathe. We need algebraic expression and higher math because our genius population's thoughts are important and not to be discarded nor dismissed. Having proceeded into higher math, I recognize the truth and value of what it provides as well as the overwhelming truth of those expressions. One who cannot comprehend these truths is remiss if they dismiss. That is ignorant/arrogance and a sad state of simpleton affairs. Thankfully, we don't have many that do this purposefully or knowingly, but in conversations like this, it is still express from an position of ignorance:

I don't need to take a class to know that the distance between events is called time. Least of all should I need to take philosophy classes to explain away what God has already made plain and revealed in scripture.

Yes, as a matter of fact, you do. You have a veneer grasp of time. I may not be the go-to for time conversation, but I do know, in fact, your concept of time is stagnant and limited. This will ALWAYS taint your theology until you get this right. It doesn't require a comprehensive grasp, but higher math and a grasp of metaphysical concepts will always trump concrete sequential because concrete sequentials cannot entertain even the concept they aren't correct. Why? Because they only grasp 2+2=4 Such is fine for concrete sequential thinking, but it will never grasp algebraic expressions. These are called 'higher' math for a reason. If one is not capable? Forgivable but wrong nonetheless. If capable, it is a far greater problem. I again without proving it, assert you are wrong if all you understand is basic math and basic time consideration. Again, forgivable, but try not to over-assert from ignorance what you cannot possibly assert. ONLY algebraic expressions can fully express accurately who God is. Basic math cannot do this without constraining God to finite expression. This is what we are talking about here. An Open Theist (as well as Mormons and other cultists) does damage to God's eternal nature by making and insisting only upon basic math expressions, which is what is happening here. It is essential, as far as I understand this debate, that one grasps that this is where it comes from, boiled down: Basic vs Higher mathematics. Essentially, this is the discussion and the problem.

I'm also not saying all Calvinists understand this, though a good many know why it is necessarily true both as a scriptural-given and knowing that their mathematics teachers are probably right. You 'can' if you decided to, trust those who are able to grasp what you or not OR you can keep asserting in ignorance but it is as bad as a child saying there is no such thing as algebraic expression. He/she is right in his/her own mind and will not be convinced, but ignorance is no virtue of such arrogant-ignorant expression.

Got Questions tries to explain this and calls all nay-sayers 'foolish' rightly, if a bit harsh. My stance is that it is ignorance and forgivable. Simply said, many cannot comprehend the truth of metaphysical concepts. Others simply have not worked on it, but they 'can' if they work at it, attain to metaphysical facts and observations.

Got Questions attempts on a number of points to show or prove the points, but I've one other attempt: God has no beginning. What that necessarily means is that God's eternal non-beginning is already beyond time. His existence both ways (at least) is still going! IF you can grasp that alone, there would be no Open Theists. It is just this clear and metaphysically simple. It is why I can, literally, never be just a basic math is all there is, nor open theist, kind of guy. It cannot happen literally because I understand this concept. I'd also go so far as to say anyone that does grasp this, cannot be an Open Theist. It is literally a denial of metaphysical truth that we know to be accurate.

 

[Lon]

I was thinking of this reference:

Right, I'm saying rather, what you call wibbly wobbly, is merely an expression of your lack of comprehension. I was not embracing your vernacular as correct, but your 'wibbly' being actually your lack, not mine nor any of us that grasp these metaphysical truths and concepts. Again, to me, and I apologize for the condescending tenor: you simply comment on what you do not or cannot comprehend regarding truth. Just because you don't get it does not mean you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. That is truly an ignorantly arrogant tragic position. I honestly and humbly ask you to recognize it here. I know I'm greatly challenging open theism as ignorant and arrogant itself and so a good many of you will take offense, but my prayer is that it is all set before the throne of God, and not fodder for anger or hurt expressions. I truly believe Open Theism comes for a good deal of ignorance. At times, in certain Open Theism corners, sadly unearned arrogance as well. The definition of God's eternal nature obscures Open theism as viable theology. Again, I realize these are strong statements, but I'd have to do exactly the same if arguing with a basic-math-is-all-there-is or is-all-is-true, student. Truth must be stated as strongly as the ignorance against it and so I have to posit this rebuttal in the strength of its context. Denying God's eternality (and this IS literally what Open Theism does), must be met as the ignorant problem it is. No theologian that understands God's eternal state can acquiesce Open Theism statements here. It is an impossibility. -Lon

 

[Lon]

Would you please explain how you see any relation between Genesis 3:15 and the denial of free will? That seemed like a very random response.

Nutshell: You have God as the purposeful author of sin, just as any Calvinist you'd accuse. Freewill demands that man is made with the 'gift' to do otherwise: sin. Literally. Perhaps it is our grasp and definition of 'free' will that is the problem. For me, it is literally the thing created that 'allows' man to choose sin. I'm saying that for God to do that, it purposefully gives him a choice to sin and thus is a programmed gift, by God, to go against everything good and decent and right, and choose to do other than God's will. Further? Open Theists tell me that if man doesn't 'choose' love then it is not truly love. That frankly, is a very problematic definition and proposition. Inadvertently, you embrace all of the most extreme Calvinist, that believes God created man to sin. Simply giving him a 'choice' that a roll of the dice would allow man to fall into sin, is every bit as problematic as extreme Calvinism. It is the exact same problem albeit with a few variables of difference, but essentially the same exact problem. You MUST see that you never escaped Calvinism at that point. Genesis 3:5 IS the answer for me: it doesn't give man a 'gift' of self-willed direction, it introduces it as a 'gift' from the serpent: You will not die, you will be 'like' God. He caused it. To me, that is the only biblically sound foundation, else I'm an extreme Calvinist/Open Theist, where God is the purposeful author of the sin condition. :nono:

 

[Lon]

Timeless non-beginning

Timeless non-beginning

I am finite. I'm not saying I completely understand the timelessness of God. Rather I'm saying I completely understand the certainty that an eternal non-beginning 'is still going forever in the opposite direction' is paramount to a denial that God is or can in any way, whatsoever, allow God to be time-bound. It is a certainty that God is timeless, based on anybody's ability to grasp 'why' it is necessary at that point because it is both logically/mathematically demonstrable and scripturally given that God is eternal and has no beginning (his past 'is still going, forever' if you grasp this). See Hebrews 7:13 Revelation 1:8 Isaiah 40:28 Colossians 1:17 Scripture and logical truth (Greek or not, doesn't matter, it is simply 'guilty by association' as if we need to hate Greek philosophy. We don't. We just don't embrace whenever they were wrong as Christians. Don't listen to such shallow rhetoric. That IS all it is friends, brothers, sisters) is, in my mind the crux, answer, proof, and dividing line of this topic.

In other words, if anyone does or can grasp that God has no beginning and the fact that that eternal non-beginning necessitates that God has no beginning, then their thinking will break out of Open Theism constructions and recognize that these cannot be biblically or mathematically true.

For those who have ears to hear and prayers for those who cannot or won't -Lon

 

[Rosenritter]

I'm addressing quite a bit of this to Rosen as well, but may come back to this. You make a large number of assertions you believe are correct but are wrong. In order to grasp that and be corrected, you'd have to readdress some of your 'truths' that you've built theology upon. You also make a 'I hope I'm never a settled theologian' expression of emotion rather than, imho, clear thought. We do grasp at our areas of comfort and I know that Calvinists cause a lot of this reactionary polarization. I pray for both of you that my comments here are not further cause of that, but I do need to be a bit more blunt to challenge such ideas and mere assertions as if they are correct. They are not. Basic math IS true math, but it can never challenge the veracity of algebraic expression. It is called 'simple' and basic for a reason. The latter is called higher and advanced for a reason. Basic math is good math, but it is not all there is, nor all we need to live and breathe. We need algebraic expression and higher math because our genius population's thoughts are important and not to be discarded nor dismissed. Having proceeded into higher math, I recognize the truth and value of what it provides as well as the overwhelming truth of those expressions. One who cannot comprehend these truths is remiss if they dismiss. That is ignorant/arrogance and a sad state of simpleton affairs. Thankfully, we don't have many that do this purposefully or knowingly, but in conversations like this, it is still express from an position of ignorance:

Yes, as a matter of fact, you do. You have a veneer grasp of time. I may not be the go-to for time conversation, but I do know, in fact, your concept of time is stagnant and limited. This will ALWAYS taint your theology until you get this right. It doesn't require a comprehensive grasp, but higher math and a grasp of metaphysical concepts will always trump concrete sequential because concrete sequentials cannot entertain even the concept they aren't correct. Why? Because they only grasp 2+2=4 Such is fine for concrete sequential thinking, but it will never grasp algebraic expressions. These are called 'higher' math for a reason. If one is not capable? Forgivable but wrong nonetheless. If capable, it is a far greater problem. I again without proving it, assert you are wrong if all you understand is basic math and basic time consideration. Again, forgivable, but try not to over-assert from ignorance what you cannot possibly assert. ONLY algebraic expressions can fully express accurately who God is. Basic math cannot do this without constraining God to finite expression. This is what we are talking about here. An Open Theist (as well as Mormons and other cultists) does damage to God's eternal nature by making and insisting only upon basic math expressions, which is what is happening here. It is essential, as far as I understand this debate, that one grasps that this is where it comes from, boiled down: Basic vs Higher mathematics. Essentially, this is the discussion and the problem.

I'm also not saying all Calvinists understand this, though a good many know why it is necessarily true both as a scriptural-given and knowing that their mathematics teachers are probably right. You 'can' if you decided to, trust those who are able to grasp what you or not OR you can keep asserting in ignorance but it is as bad as a child saying there is no such thing as algebraic expression. He/she is right in his/her own mind and will not be convinced, but ignorance is no virtue of such arrogant-ignorant expression.

Got Questions tries to explain this and calls all nay-sayers 'foolish' rightly, if a bit harsh. My stance is that it is ignorance and forgivable. Simply said, many cannot comprehend the truth of metaphysical concepts. Others simply have not worked on it, but they 'can' if they work at it, attain to metaphysical facts and observations.

Got Questions attempts on a number of points to show or prove the points, but I've one other attempt: God has no beginning. What that necessarily means is that God's eternal non-beginning is already beyond time. His existence both ways (at least) is still going! IF you can grasp that alone, there would be no Open Theists. It is just this clear and metaphysically simple. It is why I can, literally, never be just a basic math is all there is, nor open theist, kind of guy. It cannot happen literally because I understand this concept. I'd also go so far as to say anyone that does grasp this, cannot be an Open Theist. It is literally a denial of metaphysical truth that we know to be accurate.

Lon, you did just say this above (quoted below for effect):

What that necessarily means is that God's eternal non-beginning is already beyond time. His existence both ways (at least) is still going! IF you can grasp that alone, there would be no Open Theists. It is just this clear and metaphysically simple.

"Still going" is an open time concept. Closed Theology dictates that God is not "still going" forward and has never "gone" forward but always was in both directions.

 

[Rosenritter]

Right, I'm saying rather, what you call wibbly wobbly... .

Denying God's eternality (and this IS literally what Open Theism does), must be met as the ignorant problem it is. No theologian that understands God's eternal state can acquiesce Open Theism statements here. It is an impossibility. -Lon

That's not what Open Theism does. Open Theism (at least what I've seen of it) embraces that God is Eternal and always was and will for ever continue to be, not because "he has already existed for ever in the future" but because he simply will exist in the future. These acknowledgments are embraced in the clear language of which we are accept as given to us by God, where God acknowledges that things will happen in the future, or might happen depending on actions not yet decided.

 

[Rosenritter]

Nutshell: You have God as the purposeful author of sin, just as any Calvinist you'd accuse. Freewill demands that man is made with the 'gift' to do otherwise: sin. Literally. Perhaps it is our grasp and definition of 'free' will that is the problem. For me, it is literally the thing created that 'allows' man to choose sin. I'm saying that for God to do that, it purposefully gives him a choice to sin and thus is a programmed gift, by God, to go against everything good and decent and right, and choose to do other than God's will. Further? Open Theists tell me that if man doesn't 'choose' love then it is not truly love. That frankly, is a very problematic definition and proposition. Inadvertently, you embrace all of the most extreme Calvinist, that believes God created man to sin. Simply giving him a 'choice' that a roll of the dice would allow man to fall into sin, is every bit as problematic as extreme Calvinism. It is the exact same problem albeit with a few variables of difference, but essentially the same exact problem. You MUST see that you never escaped Calvinism at that point. Genesis 3:5 IS the answer for me: it doesn't give man a 'gift' of self-willed direction, it introduces it as a 'gift' from the serpent: You will not die, you will be 'like' God. He caused it. To me, that is the only biblically sound foundation, else I'm an extreme Calvinist/Open Theist, where God is the purposeful author of the sin condition. :nono:

Your take on Genesis is that the serpent "gave' man free will that otherwise man did not have? But by extension, who gave the serpent the ability to change man's nature? I don't think you've escaped anything.

Regardless, evidence of man's ability to choose comes prior to the introduction of the serpent. It's drawn directly from God's commandment. I don't make a commandment of "all apples shall fall down from the tree" if natural law made it impossible for them to do otherwise. A commandment itself is proof that there disobedience is a possibility. Thus, free will is well proved from the inception of the commandment.

 

[Derf]

I'm addressing quite a bit of this to Rosen as well, but may come back to this. You make a large number of assertions you believe are correct but are wrong. In order to grasp that and be corrected, you'd have to readdress some of your 'truths' that you've built theology upon. You also make a 'I hope I'm never a settled theologian' expression of emotion rather than, imho, clear thought.

I think I made that statement in an expression of humility acknowledging that I doubt I'll fully understand God on this side of the resurrection, and maybe not on the other, either. But perhaps you misunderstood and thought I meant I would never want to be a "settled theist". I can assure you that I'm happy to accept the settled theist view and embrace it fully if I'm shown via trustworthy source(s) that it is correct. But a "settled theologian" is one who has determined he is absolutely correct in his theology and there will never be a reason to change it. His theology allows for no errors in his understanding.

We do grasp at our areas of comfort and I know that Calvinists cause a lot of this reactionary polarization.

Many Calvinists come across as settled theologians (not just settled theists).

I pray for both of you that my comments here are not further cause of that, but I do need to be a bit more blunt to challenge such ideas and mere assertions as if they are correct. They are not. Basic math IS true math, but it can never challenge the veracity of algebraic expression. It is called 'simple' and basic for a reason. The latter is called higher and advanced for a reason. Basic math is good math, but it is not all there is, nor all we need to live and breathe. We need algebraic expression and higher math because our genius population's thoughts are important and not to be discarded nor dismissed. Having proceeded into higher math, I recognize the truth and value of what it provides as well as the overwhelming truth of those expressions. One who cannot comprehend these truths is remiss if they dismiss. That is ignorant/arrogance and a sad state of simpleton affairs.

I think I can say I know you well enough from your posts to think that you think you have explained these truths sufficiently--that you have taught the higher theological math to us, and we're not getting it. But, like me I'm sure, I expect some of what you are saying does not come across quite like you meant it.

I appreciate the prayers for my understanding, and I appreciate bluntness, when it is for a specific purpose. I don't think you are being very blunt here. I don't think you have pointed out what the errors are that I'm making, nor the remedy. Talking about basic and higher math does me little good if the answers I'm looking for are found in the application of such math. Show me where my math is wrong. Show me the correct expression. Show me where you get it from. If it appears to come from you, pardon me for saying so, I'll likely reject it as one man's opinion.

Thankfully, we don't have many that do this purposefully or knowingly, but in conversations like this, it is still express from an position of ignorance:

Yes, as a matter of fact, you do. You have a veneer grasp of time. I may not be the go-to for time conversation, but I do know, in fact, your concept of time is stagnant and limited. This will ALWAYS taint your theology until you get this right. It doesn't require a comprehensive grasp, but higher math and a grasp of metaphysical concepts will always trump concrete sequential because concrete sequentials cannot entertain even the concept they aren't correct. Why? Because they only grasp 2+2=4 Such is fine for concrete sequential thinking, but it will never grasp algebraic expressions. These are called 'higher' math for a reason. If one is not capable? Forgivable but wrong nonetheless. If capable, it is a far greater problem. I again without proving it, assert you are wrong if all you understand is basic math and basic time consideration. Again, forgivable, but try not to over-assert from ignorance what you cannot possibly assert. ONLY algebraic expressions can fully express accurately who God is. Basic math cannot do this without constraining God to finite expression. This is what we are talking about here. An Open Theist (as well as Mormons and other cultists) does damage to God's eternal nature by making and insisting only upon basic math expressions, which is what is happening here. It is essential, as far as I understand this debate, that one grasps that this is where it comes from, boiled down: Basic vs Higher mathematics. Essentially, this is the discussion and the problem.

May I suggest a settled theist does similar damage by assuming full understanding of time and eternity? Perhaps the answer is to only deal in the environment we know about, and not think we can fully understand how God perceives things, except the way He expresses.

Got Questions tries to explain this and calls all nay-sayers 'foolish' rightly, if a bit harsh. My stance is that it is ignorance and forgivable. Simply said, many cannot comprehend the truth of metaphysical concepts. Others simply have not worked on it, but they 'can' if they work at it, attain to metaphysical facts and observations.

Got Questions attempts on a number of points to show or prove the points, but I've one other attempt: God has no beginning. What that necessarily means is that God's eternal non-beginning is already beyond time. His existence both ways (at least) is still going! IF you can grasp that alone, there would be no Open Theists. It is just this clear and metaphysically simple. It is why I can, literally, never be just a basic math is all there is, nor open theist, kind of guy. It cannot happen literally because I understand this concept. I'd also go so far as to say anyone that does grasp this, cannot be an Open Theist. It is literally a denial of metaphysical truth that we know to be accurate.

Do you really think the GotQuestions author understoods fully what he was talking about? Why is his understanding, presumably at least somewhat faulty, more accurate than mine or [MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION]'s? Is it because it matches more closely with yours? Or is it because it matches more closely with current theory of space-time? I'm quite enamored by current space-time theory. I see it confirmed in my work. But I don't think Einstein had a full grasp of the relationship between time and eternity, any more than the GotQuestions author does.

Lacking a full understanding of space-time, I'm hard-pressed to cling stubbornly to current theories, no matter how well they are confirmed so far, to explain what even those theories don't claim to explain.

 

[Rosenritter]

I think I made that statement in an expression of humility acknowledging that I doubt I'll fully understand God on this side of the resurrection, and maybe not on the other, either. But perhaps you misunderstood and thought I meant I would never want to be a "settled theist". I can assure you that I'm happy to accept the settled theist view and embrace it fully if I'm shown via trustworthy source(s) that it is correct. But a "settled theologian" is one who has determined he is absolutely correct in his theology and there will never be a reason to change it. His theology allows for no errors in his understanding.


Many Calvinists come across as settled theologians (not just settled theists).

I think I can say I know you well enough from your posts to think that you think you have explained these truths sufficiently--that you have taught the higher theological math to us, and we're not getting it. But, like me I'm sure, I expect some of what you are saying does not come across quite like you meant it.

I appreciate the prayers for my understanding, and I appreciate bluntness, when it is for a specific purpose. I don't think you are being very blunt here. I don't think you have pointed out what the errors are that I'm making, nor the remedy. Talking about basic and higher math does me little good if the answers I'm looking for are found in the application of such math. Show me where my math is wrong. Show me the correct expression. Show me where you get it from. If it appears to come from you, pardon me for saying so, I'll likely reject it as one man's opinion.


May I suggest a settled theist does similar damage by assuming full understanding of time and eternity? Perhaps the answer is to only deal in the environment we know about, and not think we can fully understand how God perceives things, except the way He expresses.

Do you really think the GotQuestions author understoods fully what he was talking about? Why is his understanding, presumably at least somewhat faulty, more accurate than mine or @Rosenritter's? Is it because it matches more closely with yours? Or is it because it matches more closely with current theory of space-time? I'm quite enamored by current space-time theory. I see it confirmed in my work. But I don't think Einstein had a full grasp of the relationship between time and eternity, any more than the GotQuestions author does.

Lacking a full understanding of space-time, I'm hard-pressed to cling stubbornly to current theories, no matter how well they are confirmed so far, to explain what even those theories don't claim to explain.

God speaks to us in linear terms. He tells us that there was a time when the universe had not yet been spoken, and he relates himself to us in a linear fashion, dealing with us and the results of our actions as they occur. We are condemned from the outset but he is willing to forgive if and when we repent. No one needs "time algebra" to accept God "always existing" ... everyone I know accepts this on simple faith. If there is such a thing as "time algebra" it isn't something God needs us to know or even particularly wants us to be concerned about this side of salvation.

By means of demonstration, Ask Mr. Religion has a similar closed view of time that Lon does, but he says that we should interact with God and his warnings as if time is in a linear open fashion. Thus, the warnings given in Hebrews 6:4-6 are to be read and acted upon as if they were real, that we as the saints could fall away and not be renewed to repentance. That regardless of our theory of how time might be closed, we should act as if it were open.

Hebrews 6:4-6 KJV
(4) For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
(5) And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
(6) If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

So is the driving force behind "time algebra" really about helping us to accept "God is eternal" or more to do as a necessary construction for a greater theory, that the elect were chosen as individuals before they were created? Regardless, we need to act as if time is linear and the future is open.

 

[Lon]

Lon, you did just say this above (quoted below for effect):



"Still going" is an open time concept. Closed Theology dictates that God is not "still going" forward and has never "gone" forward but always was in both directions.

Well and good. It is not an Open Theist premise, however. It is strictly traditional in that God is not and cannot be, trapped in any sense, by a time line. Being finite, sure. We indeed ARE caught at present (time), in a timeline. The Open Theist, however, demands that God be vulnerable thus under the restraint of a timeline in order to be 'relational.' I disagree in the same manner that I'd argue that putting my finger into my fish tank makes me wet. It does not. It is a 'partial' capitulation to my fish and them getting to know me. John 3:2 "When we see Him, we will be like Him." John 3:3, Everyone who has this hope... Thus a traditional theology is WAY more interested in what I need to become (by God's hand) and does not take the greatest comfort that God is relational to me, as that He is making me and other brothers and sisters, relational to Him. Ephesians 2:10

I'd imagine, as opposed as our theology may be on points, I have to think the actual goals of our faith must necessarily be and remain the same.

Respectfully, -Lon

 

[Derf]

Well and good. It is not an Open Theist premise, however. It is strictly traditional in that God is not and cannot be, trapped in any sense, by a time line. Being finite, sure. We indeed ARE caught at present (time), in a timeline. The Open Theist, however, demands that God be vulnerable thus under the restraint of a timeline in order to be 'relational.' I disagree in the same manner that I'd argue that putting my finger into my fish tank makes me wet. It does not. It is a 'partial' capitulation to my fish and them getting to know me. John 3:2 "When we see Him, we will be like Him." John 3:3, Everyone who has this hope... Thus a traditional theology is WAY more interested in what I need to become (by God's hand) and does not take the greatest comfort that God is relational to me, as that He is making me and other brothers and sisters, relational to Him. Ephesians 2:10

I'd imagine, as opposed as our theology may be on points, I have to think the actual goals of our faith must necessarily be and remain the same.

Respectfully, -Lon

Hi Lon,
While some open theists might be "demanding" God be vulnerable in order to be relational, I think the general impetus is geared toward what is provided in scripture. That might be (probably is) skewed a bit by personal preconceptions, but not all are driving their theology by them.

And I don't think any true believer, open theist or not, would argue that God is not making us better able to relate to Him.

One question: Are you saying putting your finger in your fish tank does NOT make you wet? Any part of you? If I caught your gist correctly, I must say that you becoming a fish and living in the fish tank with the other fish would indeed make you wet--all of you--especially if that is the best way for you to understand and mediate for the fish. Perhaps you also have the capability to be fully dry at the same time in some way that I don't understand, but wet you would still be.

 

[Lon]

Hi Lon,
While some open theists might be "demanding" God be vulnerable in order to be relational, I think the general impetus is geared toward what is provided in scripture. That might be (probably is) skewed a bit by personal preconceptions, but not all are driving their theology by them.

And I don't think any true believer, open theist or not, would argue that God is making us better able to relate to Him.

One question: Are you saying putting your finger in your fish tank does NOT make you wet? Any part of you? If I caught your gist correctly, I must say that you becoming a fish and living in the fish tank with the other fish would indeed make you wet--all of you--especially if that is the best way for you to understand and mediate for the fish. Perhaps you also have the capability to be fully dry at the same time in some way that I don't understand, but wet you would still be.

Yes, I'm saying that only my finger being wet leaves me significantly without water. Furthermore, Yes the Lord Jesus Christ came in the flesh, no, He was not ALL wet. He was/is fully God, fully man. Man is a tiny tiny thing on this planet. Because a tiny being's brain cannot contain the entirety of God, "He grew in wisdom and stature." Our concept and grasp of Christology will GREATLY impact our respective theology. It is of utmost import that we understand doctrinal truths given in scripture. -Lon

 

[Derf]

Yes, I'm saying that only my finger being wet leaves me significantly without water. Furthermore, Yes the Lord Jesus Christ came in the flesh, no, He was not ALL wet. He was/is fully God, fully man. Man is a tiny tiny thing on this planet. Because a tiny being's brain cannot contain the entirety of God, "He grew in wisdom and stature." Our concept and grasp of Christology will GREATLY impact our respective theology. It is of utmost import that we understand doctrinal truths given in scripture. -Lon

With that answer--that Jesus was not ALL wet--it seems like you are saying He wasn't fully submersed in humanity. But such a statement is not compatible with Jesus being fully man, which you also assert. If "Man is a tiny tiny thing on this planet", and Jesus was fully man, then Jesus was just a part of a tiny tiny thing on this planet. I don't want to belittle Jesus' glory, but neither must we belittle His sacrifices, leaving heaven for earth, and earth for the grave.

Going back to the fish analogy, if Jesus were to come to earth as a fish, of what use would it be for Him to stay dry? How could He experience the same kinds of trials and temptations as a fish without getting wholly wet? 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin. [Heb 4:15 KJV]

 

[Lon]

Not what I'm saying. He was 'fully' man, but think about size difference here. Is a physical mind capable of containing 'fully' God? We know He grew in stature and wisdom in His body.

 

[Derf]

Not what I'm saying. He was 'fully' man, but think about size difference here. Is a physical mind capable of containing 'fully' God? We know He grew in stature and wisdom in His body.

The best I have to offer in answer to your question is this:

Colossians 2:9 - For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

John 1:1-5 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ,,,
John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


What can "contain" God? On a simple level, a man can build a house and live in that house. But while the house is a container of man, it isn't a constrainer of man, just a tool of man.

Can God make a body that can contain Him, but doesn't constrain Him? I'd be very hesitant to say "no". I'd have no basis for the statement, just philosophy. And the verses above seem to shout "yes".

I'm not even sure "contain" applies to a mind, anyway. Comprehend? Yes, but we don't know the limits of what a physical mind can comprehend. All we know is what we currently might be able to comprehend.

I'm also not sure that "physical" applies to a mind. Physicality might constrain a mind, but a promise of resurrection from dust and ashes implies that a mind is NOT merely physical.