Is God free to withhold His love?
No.
Then He is not capable of love, for love must be freely given.
Says that God loved the world.
That doesn't answer my question of if He could choose not to love.
You're answering "did He?" I'm asking "could He not?"
Completely different question.
While God caused the flood, His love fo=r mankind caused Noah and His family to live. Jesus' work in redemption was the plan from the very beginning. His love, rather, doesn't reach the unreachable.
That's all well and good, but doesn't answer my question.
It isn't that He could not create a planet of lovers, but that man, using his/her will to disobey, caused a rift in which love cannot reach. Let me make sure, however, of what you are asking: Are you saying God can choose whom not to love? No. Are you asking if His love doesn't reach where love cannot go? Yes.
Now you're telling me what I'm asking.
Your arrogance is tiring, Lon.
Here is my question again:
Is God free to withhold His love?
As in, can He choose to not love someone
Is He able to love someone more than He already did?
Not according to scripture: Jeremiah 31:3 Everlasting, unfailing.
“At the same time,” says the Lord, “I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people.” Thus says the Lord:“The people who survived the swordFound grace in the wilderness—Israel, when I went to give him rest.” The Lord has appeared of old to me, saying:“Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love;Therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn you. Again I will build you, and you shall be rebuilt,O virgin of Israel!You shall again be adorned with your tambourines,And shall go forth in the dances of those who rejoice. You shall yet plant vines on the mountains of Samaria;The planters shall plant and eat them as ordinary food. For there shall be a dayWhen the watchmen will cry on Mount Ephraim,‘Arise, and let us go up to Zion,To the Lord our God.’ ”
The Remnant of Israel Saved - “At the same time,” says the Lord, “I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people.” Thus says the Lord: “The people who survived the sword Found grace in the wilderness— Israel, when I went to give him rest.” The Lord has appeared of...
www.biblegateway.com
Hmm, I'm not seeing anything within this passage that says that God cannot love someone more than He already did.
Could you point it out?
Can He love one person more than another?
John was called the beloved of Jesus our Lord. Does it mean He didn't love the other 10? Even the 11?
Again, not what I'm asking.
I'm not asking if God loves one person and NOT another.
I'm asking if God can love one person MORE than another.
John having the nickname "the Beloved" seems to indicate, on its face, that the answer is "yes."
In fact, there's a Hebrew idiom that Jesus used, present in the Old Testament, that definitively answers in the affirmative that God can love one person more than another!
It's "to love and hate."
It doesn't mean "I love this person and hate this other person.
It means "I love this person so much, that it's as if I hate this other person."
"Jacob whom I have loved, and Esau whom I have hated" is not talking about God loving one nation and hating another, nor is it referring to God loving Jacob and Hating Esau. It's about God loving Israel (Jacob) so much, that it's as if He hates Edom (Esau), and the Bible clearly shows that God loved Edom, and blessed them!
Not arguing, giving more for thought
It's not helping your position, Lon. It makes you seem like you're reaching for anything that can maybe rescue your position. You're on the defensive, as far as I'm concerned.
as we delve into His unchanging nature: As with Ezekiel, when we see Him unmoving, with wheels within wheels that have Him in one place, yet able to go in every direction, it is vision of His moving but constancy.
Supra. It's not talking about God.
Not only that, Open Theists agree He is unchanging in aspect.
Stop trying to twist our position to make it seem like we're actually agreeing, Lon.
We're not.
God even says He doesn't change.
Getting really tired of you ripping phrases out of their context within Scripture.
There is a CONTEXT to God saying "I change not." You can't just ignore that context.
We can intimate what is and is not immutable with God, but entertain a sense of 'within' from His creation.
You're not making any sense, now.
God changes. The Bible says so.
God says He does not change, within certain contexts, that show His righteous character does not change. It has nothing to do with man's perspective.
I'm playing a game ESO on occasion. It is so vast that the story line lasts 10 years. While I can traverse a path no other of hundreds of thousands haven't gone, none of it a place the authors didn't make. While it 'seems' that I may do something within the game, there is nothing there that another doesn't know about. They created everything. Is the game immutable? Yes. Is it vast? Yes.
None of this addressed what I said.
Back to the game: Does it change? No.
The coding behind the game does not change.
But the game world changes constantly. The 1s and 0s are constantly changing as they are fed through your CPU, GPU, RAM, and Motherboard, constantly pulling different voltages form your PSU.
Is the terrain different?
If you move your mouse, the camera's position within the world changes, changing what's on your screen. Do you open a door? The world changed.
Some games are even programmed to, for example, form a crater when a grenade goes of. The underlying code is the same, but the program running that code is constantly changing the output, to display an image on your screen.
So thanks for proving my position, Lon.
God is not a computer program. He is a living being. But I suppose if we were to compare Him to a computer program, the underlying code would be His fundamental attributes, and the display output would be His interaction within Himself and with His creation.
The Doctrine of Immutability says the display only shows an ever unchanging image that is completely static. in fact, instead of it being a running computer, it's just a box of parts that are put together, the PSU switch turned off, and the monitor is an old CRT that has a single image burnt into the display. There's no keyboard, no mouse, no microphone, no headphones. And it's all behind a glass window that you cannot go past.
Thanks for the great analogy! I'll probably use it the next time we have this conversation, in defense of the Open View.
Characters different, from place to place, yes. The game is immutable, it is what it is, by design. Developers can interact, there was a car that hit the server in December.
Supra.
Rather, we need to think of what immutable means and what it doesn't.
I told you what it means, Lon.
It means God is unable to change, in any way, at all, ever.
Thus, if God changes, He is not immutable.
Because God is the author of everything that exists, we need to understand that this world we live in is vast, and He interacts.
Has God ALWAYS been the author of everything that exists?
If not, then He is not immutable, per the doctrine of immutabilty.
Has God ALWAYS been interacting with this world?
If not, then He is not immutable, per the doctrine of immutability.
In order for anything to hold together (Colossians 1:16-20)
For once, you've used the correct terminology regarding this passage.
there has to be dependability, rules of engagement, and the have to be constant. We also need constancy in God that doesn't change that give us reason for doing what we do. If the rules changed, we'd be in a mess and chaos (it did, but God is yet the constancy).
So, in other words, you're scared of Open Theism because it presents a God who can change, who often changes the rules, and is capable of proving His dependability?
In what way is "there is no greater love than this, than a man lay down his life for His friends" and "Christ was crucified for our transgressions" not sufficient enough to put your trust in Him, even if He is capable of changing, and changes the rules often (in the Bible, that is)?
You're literally calling into question His love for you!
That's a change! Therefore, God is not immutable!
Man did not always exist within God's mind. God CREATED man, for all that entails!
Do not make man out to be a necessary part of His existence!
Whatever we believe, what actual change happened when God became man?
He BECAME FLESH!
He went from Having never been a man, having never experienced being a man, having no knowledge of what it was like to be a man... TO BEING ONE! And not only that, He will NEVER GO BACK TO NOT BEING ONE!
THAT! IS! A! CHANGE!
THEREFORE: God is NOT IMMUTABLE!
He already knew what it was like,
THIS IS HERESY, LON!
GOD DID NOT ALREADY KNOW WHAT IT WAS LIKE TO BE A MAN!
YOU ARE A HERETIC, LON, IF YOU THINK THIS!
YOU ARE LITERALLY DENYING WHAT IT MEANS FOR GOD TO BECOME A MAN!
SHAME ON YOU!
REPENT OF THIS HERESY!
for man was made in His own image. Isn't it rather from Philippians 2, that He 'emptied' to become man?
He emptied Himself of His Divinity!
He became a man for the very purpose of understanding what it was to BE a man, Lon!
That precludes the very notion of Him already knowing what it was like to be a man!
Again, food for thought, not necessarily that I'm arguing much in this post with you, just trying to expand points to ponder, and let a bigger picture inform our thoughts and what we believe.
You're literally calling heresy "food for thought." Let that sink in.
It's no wonder your theology proper is so messed up!
Okay, but even Open Theism believes He is immutable,
No. Supra.
they just narrow how much of Him is immutable.
Supra.
All we are asking is "Has Open Theism gone too far?
As though Calvinism hasn't done just that...
Can we reel them back a bit with question? Such is this conversation.
Go where the evidence leads, not with whatever evidence you think best supports your argument.
Yes, that is me telling you to do so. It's not a general observation of what is good.
You aren't. Your heresy above should be enough evidence of that.
It isn't wholesale. Even Open Theists don't believe He ever stops loving, ever stops being just and righteous, etc.
You've completely missed the point, if this is your rebuttal.
Revisit significant. In all important ways, God is immutable.
Once again, that's not what it means for God to be immutable. Supra.
Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
This is not the prooftext for immutability you think it is, Lon.
By His own mouth, is some specific way, He is immutable.
Context disproves this.
John 1:3 "Without Him was nothing made, that is made."
AMEN!
But irrelevant to what I said.
How can scripture be heresy?
I didn't call scripture heresy, you heretic!
I said what YOU SAID is heresy.
You said: "man and everything . . . that He is, is from God Himself."
Maybe I misread this, but are you not saying that man comes from God's eternal being?
Or are you simply saying that God created man? Because given your above heresy, I'm leaning more toward you saying that man was an eternal part of God's existence!
If I misread this, then please tell me, and I will retract my accusation!
God made dirt, then fashioned man, then breathed His own life into him. We are 'from' God. How can that be heresy?
Did man always exist in God's mind?
If not, that's a change, not just in general, but specifically within His knowledge, thus disproving EDF.
If you insist on holding to EDF, though, then you must, necessarily, hold to the position that man was eternally within God's mind, making man a necessary part of His existence.
Ideas have consequences, Lon. You can't ignore the consequences just because you like the idea.
I generally agree with you, but why man, then? Why do we exist if there wasn't a need? God isn't superfluous.
BECAUSE HE (God is a person) WANTED TO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP (God is relational) WITH A BEING OTHER THAN HIMSELF!
"God is living, PERSONAL RELATIONAL, good, and loving!"
Those are God's BIBLICAL attributes!
Realize 'emptying' isn't 'adding' with me.
Dangerously close to heresy, Lon.
He became what He already breathed into and made.
Was Jesus a man before He created?
Was Jesus a man before He incarnated?
Yes, I want you to answer BOTH of those questions.
It all 'from' Him in the first place.
Ideas have consequences. Some result in you being called a heretic.
I'd want to be very careful any time I'd say "God can change."
Rather, you need to be very careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater!
The Bible says God changes. Why is that so hard for you to accept, just even as a general concept?
Why? Because all of our relationship with Him depends on Him not changing lest we be consumed, yes?
No.
God has shown He will not go back on His word.
Our relationship is not dependent on Him being incapable of change, but rather on His unwillingness to go back on His word.
If you can't understand the difference between those two concepts, then you need to go back to basic grammar school.
Even an Open Theist must bank on some form of immutability.
False.
Yet the concept does indeed rely on a stopwatch concept.
No, it does not.
Time is not a clock.
Time is MEASURED by clocks. But clocks are not time.
Do any of us even have stopwatches?
Yes, on my phone, and on my watch. One at home, somewhere, too, I think.
Time doesn't stop when you hit the "stop" button on a stopwatch, Lon. That's just not how it works.
I'd reckon just coaches. Duration has to have a start, usually a stop.
Do you need a stopwatch to be already running in order for you to press the start button on a stopwatch?
No? Huh, almost like duration continues, without a stopwatch.
A parent of a lost child never goes into the child's room.
This is such a terrible argument for your position, it almost doesn't deserve a response.
In a way, it doesn't endure.
The fact that you have to appeal to a different way other than literal to make your argument shows how shoddy your argument is.
"in a way...."
Puh-lease.
The room still exists, Lon. Just because it has the appearance of having never changed, doesn't mean that it didn't actually change. The air still circulated, dust still settled, and eventually builds up, and the room still exists through it all.
That's duration. Just because change is slow doesn't mean there is no change at all.
Time stopped. Duration stopped.
No, it didn't.
Granted we can measure against it after 10 years, but for all intent and purpose, the room has stopped without durative meaning.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Immutability is such a conversation.
To the point of being an exercise in futility, with you.
We'd say the room has not changed.
You might. But as with anything: Saying it doesn't make it so.
We might argue 'endured' (duration), but that too is immutable.
Now you're just spouting gibberish.
The room existed throughout those 10 years, Lon. It had duration, even though the change was minimal.
There you go twisting what I said again.
Stop it.
I'm talking about duration. God has a past, exists in the present, and looks to the future.
It has nothing to do with immutability.
Look to the room analogy above. It is timeless.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
At best, it's a figure of speech that means "it hasn't changed much."
Don't guess or intimate. "Am" as a Name, is an immutable concept.
Begging the question.
Moses asked God what His name was. God answered that He is "The Being That Is," translated as "I AM WHO I AM." Then He told Moses to convey that "The Being" has sent him.
Reminder: Moses came AFTER Abraham, not before. He was one of Abraham's descendants.
When the Jews asked Jesus how he had seen Abraham without yet being 50 years old, Jesus' answer was not saying "I am timeless."
He making a claim to divinity, literally to "The Being That Is."
That is why they tried to stone Him. He was claiming to be God, The Being.
The Being that has always existed, exists, and will always exist.
There is no duration to a line.
You can continue to deny this until the cows come home. It doesn't make you right.
Let me put it this way: Imagine for a moment, a surface that is infinitely long and moving at a constant rate of speed. On that surface, on one half, there is a ray that has been drawn, in pen (with a reservoir that never runs out), with the pen remaining stationary. God is the one holding the pen, He is standing in the same spot He has always stood, yet the pen has been drawing that line for eternity past, and He will continue drawing the line using that pen for the rest of eternity.
That is duration. The line will never be finished being drawn, yet it is still being drawn by God.
The surface moving represents the flow of time. The ray represents everything that has ever ocurred, up until the present moment. The rest of the line does not exist, because the future hasn't happened yet. The point on that surface where the pen touches it, is the present, the "here and now."
God has never left the present, yet He has endured forever, drawing that line.
The line extends infinitely into the past, but not into the future, for the future portion has not yet been drawn.
Does that make things clearer?
When we say 'timeless' we are talking about something/anything that doesn't change, ever.
Yet God changes, therefore He is not timeless.
From Everlasting to Everlasting, Thou art God."
He has been drawing the line throughout eternity, and will continue drawing the line forever. He is drawing the line.
Infinite duration. Not no duration.
and unchanging unchangeable in that, He cannot become 'un-everlasting.'
Because He is necessary. He is "The Being That Is."
"We" confuse clocks with time.
Well, you certainly do.
Speak for yourself.
because when we conceive of time, it is always with the rotation of the sun
You mean the earth, right?
or by the clock, especially in the West.
Is there a mouse in your pocket?
We cannot separate the two easily.
Again, speak for yourself.
It invades our thinking of time, even when we endeavor to separate the two. Many ensuing arguments I see on TOL in veritably involves the concept of clocks.
Time is the convention of language we use to measure the distance between two (sometimes recurring) events. We measure the distance between events using clocks.
Yet without Him making them, that just isn't/couldn't be possible. Where does any man's energy come from?
You're being obtuse, Lon. Stop it.
Men do things apart from God. He is not the cause of their doing things.
Yes, He gave them their existence. He provided a means for them to sustain themselves, and even created the fuel for them to do so.
That's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about their actions, desires, and thoughts. They did NOT originate within God. If you say they did, then you are literally saying "God is the Author of evil."
Rather, they lead to outcomes.
No, not "rather."
You're missing what I'm saying.
Pause for a moment and consider what each word means:
Ideas
have
consequences.
Cause -> effect.
You are talking about being dedicated to an idea.
Now you're telling me what I'm talking about?
James 1:14 But each one is tempted by his lusts, being drawn away and seduced by them.
James 1:15 Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin. And sin, when it is fully formed, brings forth death.
AMEN!
You are talking about ideas entertained, and fruition.
No, Lon, I'm not.
Ideas are simply what goes through our brains.
Ideas.
They have consequences.
Satan cannot tempt us without them going into thoughts.
This sentence makes no sense.
Ideas do not exist outside of a thinking mind.
Jesus didn't entertain the thoughts, ideas. Rather scripture did.
No idea what you're talking about.
"Practice" being the key, following James' development of thought to action.
Not what I'm talking about.
See James: Ideas become action plans.
Supra.
It is only when that happens that consequences begin.
Wrong.
You don't seem to know the definition of "consequence."
Please go look it up.
No.
When we do that for another, it generally means we want them to do something we won't, no?
I'm willing to give up my position if you can convince me.
How is that me not wanting to do something I wwant you to do?
So far, you've done an absolutely terrible job, and have only solidified me in my beliefs, because of how irrational you've been.
I'll take the first step between us:
Too late. You're already several steps behind.
Do a search. I've seen it on TOL (provided these made the purge).
Do your own homework.
I stand by my claim. No Calvinist speaks in a manner consistent with Calvinism qua Calvinism.
Um, you'd get an answer, so why not?
Because no one thinks that way, least of all myself!
You can ask 'what would you like' and probably have to go to the store. You could give me a predetermined choice (what you have actually available barring going to the store), or you could hand me a cone from the one container you have. Not one of these is unloving on your part. It is rather and simply a loving act with however magnanimous your loving expression. "No thank you" might also be a response which isn't a rejection of your loving offer, but of lactose intolerance etc.
Talk about missing the point!
Actually, literally missing the forest for the trees on this one! You're still concerning yourself with the details. I'm talking about the big picture.
If all you have is chocolate?
If all there is is chocolate, then asking "what flavor would you like" makes ZERO sense!
Of course we live like this.
You're a liar, Lon.
You're lying.
Next time you're at the store with your wife in the ice cream aisle, ask her which flavor of ice cream God predestined for her to tell you she wants (which was also predestined by God) as a result of you asking her this question that God predestined you to ask her, and see what kind of look she gives you. I'd be amazed if she didn't ignore you or smack you upside the head.
I have a choice from whatever you have predetermined to have in your freezer. Rather, we are talking about 'how much determinism." For me? I think 31 flavors. I may be even able to have a pickle flavored one (well, not me, not even a choice and I'll definitely turn it down).
Thanks for conceding the entire discussion.
YOU HAVE A CHOICE.
If God infallibly knows all things, then you do not have a choice.
The two ideas are incompatible, are contradictory.
You cannot act freely (definition of having a choice) if the future is infallibly known.
Analogy is analogy is analogy.
Analogies are tools to help us understand concepts, or to hide certain truths from those unwilling to understand.
Paul brought up 'to an unknown god."
Because He was in Greece, talking to pagans, at the Areopagus, about a sign that was there, that they knew about.
I have no idea what this "elephant" analogy is referring to.
Would you care to explain? Or should I just keep ignoring it, because it bears no relevance whatsoever to me?
You're darn right it is!
You mention an analogy, but don't actually provide any information about it at all, then wonder why I reject it out of hand.
I even asked you "Is it part of scripture?"
That was your chance to write down the analogy/parable, but not only that, but to also explain it.
You did neither.
And no, I don't care to go research it myself, when the onus is on you to make your own argument.
By analogy, yes it is scripture:
Book, chapter, verse.
No man has seen me and lived.
So Jesus isn't God? Jesus was seen by over 500 people alone, after His resurrection, and countless thousands during his earthly life.
But nice job ripping yete another passage out of its rightful context! /sarcasm
It means blinders on and Moses saw the glory of the Lord only.
Yes, that's what happens when you rip verses out of their context.
Oh, and lets not forget that God is immutable, yes. Thus, "No man has ever seen God and lived" will ALWAYS be true, because God doesn't change!
I hope you can see the sarcasm dripping from my words, Lon. I hope its appearance disgusts you, oozing out of the text.
One blind man said the elephant was a snake. One blind man said an elephant was a brush. Another said an elephant was a tree.
That's it? That's the analogy? What a sad state of affaris if you think that that's wisdom.
All three of them are idiots, who couldn't be bothered to dig deeper for truth, just like how you're being right now, Lon.
Two verses come to mind:
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
www.biblegateway.com
And He spoke a parable to them:
“Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into the ditch?
And He spoke a parable to them: “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into the ditch?
www.biblegateway.com
Don't be like the blind men, Lon. Else you will become as stupid as they.
The point being, we are finite.
No, we're not. Not in the sense you want it to mean.
False.
There is no way a finite (blind) man can fathom the entirety of God.
Straw man.
Sure it does. It uses the word.
Book, chapter, verse.
If any one thing about God is infinite, guess what?
There is ONE verse (in the NKJV) where it describes ONE characteristic of God as "infinite."
Great is our Lord, and mighty in power;His understanding is infinite.
Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite.
www.biblegateway.com
His UNDERSTANDING is infinite. Not He Himself.
Ah, so you do know something of the elephant and four blind men (tease).
: plain :
"My dad can take your dad!" It may not be true, but don't you love that kid?
You're the one making the claim, Lon.
Yes, it is, Lon.
You make God out to be irrational.
Rather it is saying 'more than your or my' rational,
There is no "your" or "my" rational.
You've fallen for the atheist's lies.
There is Reason.
God is Reason.
Truth is truth. There is no "your truth" or "my truth."
God is truth.
where 'rational' is held suspect.
You are irrational.
There is no reasoning with you, if you hold what is rational suspect.
Stop it. Get some help.
I'm saying clearly God exceeds our rational ability.
Translation: "God is irrational."
You cannot be reasoned with.
Most that bring this up aren't saying God isn't rational, they are saying "your rational doesn't look right, and I believe God supersedes your's" most times.
Words have meaning, Lon. When you reject the meaning of a word in favor of an idea, you become irrational.
They may not mean that God is irrational. But that's what they are saying.
That's what YOU are saying.
Reason is reason.
A = A
You're trying to say [something that is not reason] is [reason]
You: A = !A
When this is your foundation, you lose all right to speak, because you have become irrational.
The challenge is "then prove it!"
So prove it, Lon. Prove that being irrational is somehow rational, that the laws of reason and logic aren't all encompassing. I DARE YOU!
You cannot, because the moment you try, you are forced to use the laws of logc and reason, the very thing which you are trying to disprove.
Whereas the answer may well be "He supersedes mine too!"
God does not supersede reason, Lon. He IS reason! (John 1:1)
Such isn't an irrational conversation,
Yes it is!
It is COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL to say that "God is beyond reason"!
just an admission, I think, to how smart one thinks he is and how smart he thinks his debater opponent.
You, right now:
Professing to be wise, they became fools,
Professing to be wise, they became fools,
www.biblegateway.com
Supra. Clete doesn't get the above either.
Because it is irrational.
Perhaps it is polite conversation that keeps one from saying "Yes, but I don't think you particularly are!"
Here is me, not being polite:
You are irrational, and a fool who thinks he is wise.
Stop it. Get some help. Otherwise you WILL descend into madness.
But I think that is the fodder for most misunderstanding: keeping conversation polite instead of saying "you are the one who actually seems irrational to me."
You don't just seem to be irrational, Lon, you ARE irrational!
There is no reasoning with you at this point, because you can claim "well, maybe my understanding is beyond your reasoning"!
There is no reasoning with someone who even entertains the possibilty of such a premise, let alone that actually says it!
Saying it doesn't make it so?
Indeed!
Which is why I didn't just say something! I MADE AN ARGUMENT!
"God cannot exist outside of Himself!
If you think He can, then you are irrational!
Supra the room that sits unchanging.
Addressed.
Time/duration is of no applicable value to a room that doesn't change.
Now you're moving the goalposts. Yet another irrational thing to do.
This is what I'm talking about, Lon: Ideas have consequences.
The idea that God exists outside of time, that God is unchanging in any way, that God knows everything past, present, and future, infallibly, has resulted in you accepting that which is irrational as rational, and you becoming a fool.
You are literally making a fool of yourself at this point, and nothing I say or do will stop you.
Duration makes no sense at all connected to the room.
Yes, it does.
Change is essential for time/duration
No, it's not. You're still confusing clocks for time. Clocks are not time.
else it is said, righty to be timeless.
Wrong.
Thus is durable, but not duration. Duration is meaningless to that which does not change.
You are irrational.
Yes, forget what the secular scientists say about time, Lon. They reject God anyways.
What does the Bible say?
It does not say that God is:
- timeless
- in an eternal now
- without sequence or succession
- without moment or duration
- atemporal and outside of time
- not was, nor will be, but only is
- has no past
- has no future
It says God: is - and was - and is to come - whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting - before all things - forever and ever - the Ancient of Days - from before the ages of the ages - from ancient times - the everlasting God - He continues forever - from of old - remains forever - eternal - immortal - the Lord shall endure forever - Who lives forever - yesterday, today, and forever - God's years are without number - rock of ages/everlasting strength - manifest in His own time - waiting until - everlasting Father - alive forevermore - always lives - forever - continually - the eternal God - God’s years never end - from everlasting to everlasting - from that time forward, even forever - and of His kingdom there will be no end.
We should not eschew anything if it is true, it is God's truth.
You should eschew that which is irratioanl.
Such as the irrational claim that God is "beyond reason" or "outside of time."
Superimposed 'over' the line. IOW, they interact, are not the same.
Missing the point. No pun intended.
And no, not "superimposed." I'm not talking about two different geometric objects. I'm talking about one.
How can 'beginning with no end' be the 'opposite of beginning?' Not arguing, trying to follow.
It would help if you pay attention to what I said.
We have a beginning, but no end.
An "end" in this case being the termination point of a line segment or ray, pointing backwards through time.
God does not have a beginning, and He will never cease to exist.
Refer to my pen on an infinitely long moving surface analogy above.
Supra: See how nice I was when you became confusing?
Your "niceness" makes me want to vomit.
kgov.com/nice
Be inviting. I know you have it in you.
:vomit:
On top of that, you've expressed this same idea just above and I know for a fact you aren't new age.
No, I haven't, Lon.
It is odd because you are agreeing with me, whether you knew it or not.
I know what I believe. It's nothing so irrational as what you teach.
3/X
opentheism.org
www.biblegateway.com
www.biblegateway.com
www.biblegateway.com
www.biblegateway.com
www.biblegateway.com
www.biblegateway.com
www.furniturelibrary.com
