Proof from the Bible that God is In Time

[Nathon Detroit]

Don't be a baby.

Okay... no more thread hijacking from you or ghost. This is a good thread don't ruin it. Next offense will result in infractions.

 

[godrulz]

This place is filled with posters who hate Jesus. Are you saying you can't be in a thread with them and either ignore them or agree on points unrelated to that?

Okay. You gotta do what ya gotta do I suppose. :idunno:

This is the problem with having two only children (sozo/me) in the same room.

This would be a boring site if we all agreed on everything.

 

[godrulz]

Okay... no more thread hijacking from you or ghost. This is a good thread don't ruin it. Next offense will result in infractions.

Can infractions be traded in for Christmas gifts?

Many of my posts here are supportive and agreement with him and the topic. It is hard to stand by when he makes indefensible statements that are unfair (can't be Calvinist and Christian; even you corrected him on this point...and so should we).

 

[godrulz]

A face value reading of Scripture, page after page, supports endless time, not timelessness (the few proof texts for the latter have been addressed).

sky: neg rep 'You're not a Christian'.

If I am not a Christian for accepting Hebraic understanding of eternity over your pagan, Platonic view of timelessness, then you are an idiot, but still a Christian.

How old are you? 12?

 

[Lon]

I didn't say that did I?

Aha, no indeed, you did not!
(I hope I'm not 'too' messed up for you)

 

[godrulz]

Aha, no indeed, you did not!
(I hope I'm not 'too' messed up for you)

It is hard to take a pink bunny seriously.each:

 

[Lon]

It is hard to take a pink bunny seriously.each:

Don't make Knight or I have to pull this car over!

 

[Lighthouse]

If you assert that time is circular, bizarre metaphysical consequences follow. Refer to Nietzsche.

Your argument is not that time is circular but that it is simultaneous.

You're talking to the wrong person. Again.

I'll just back-out of this thread so your pet poster (who hates our Jesus) can add more crap to your website. :wave2:

He asked you because William is too much of a fool to heed correction; as evidenced by his response to Knight's warning that the next offense would result in infractions. I'm halfway between surprise and not regarding his response. It is actually quite disrespectful of Knight's authority here.

 

[Paulos]

Paulos, thanks for your comment. Can you please consider though that what you've posted contains the kinds of longstanding extra-biblical arguments that the Opening Post was written to rebut, but with biblical evidence. So it'd be great if you could address the biblical arguments in the OP.

Thanks!

And thank you, Pastor Enyart. This has certainly been a thought-provoking thread!

Actually, I didn't find much in the OP that stood out as something I really disagree with, except perhaps the issue of exhaustive foreknowledge. I would consider God to be omniscient, and I would consider exhaustive foreknowledge to be included in the definition of omniscience. As scriptural evidence of God's exhaustive foreknowledge, I offer the following:

Psalm 139:16
"Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."​

Paulos, Did "Jesus as a human being," BECOME flesh? Or did God the Son become flesh?

The Son of God became flesh, of course (John 1:14; Galatians 4:4; 1 John 1:1, etc...).

You should use the Bible as your source for information, not dead theologians that worshiped Plato.

I'm not aware of any theologians who worshiped Plato. I'm sure many probably agreed with him on much and disagreed with him on much, but I doubt that any Christian theologian agreed with Plato on everything. He was a mixed bag, much like any other human being. Even Plato's foremost student, Aristotle, disagreed with Plato on a number of points.

 

[godrulz]

Your argument is not that time is circular but that it is simultaneous.


He asked you because William is too much of a fool to heed correction; as evidenced by his response to Knight's warning that the next offense would result in infractions. I'm halfway between surprise and not regarding his response. It is actually quite disrespectful of Knight's authority here.

Take a joke. ghost is the worst offender (I am not the one slandering everyone).

 

[Traditio]

Your argument is not that time is circular but that it is simultaneous.

You've misunderstood, Lighthouse. On the contrary, I say that there are two things: time and eternity. Eternity is identical to the nature of God (as such, to say that something is eternal is merely to say that it is not in time; since we can't know God as He is directly, to affirm that God is eternal is actually to deny something unworthy of Him). God, however, is the Eternal Exemplar. God is imitable in an infinite number of possible ways. From all eternity, God chooses that He should be imitated by a created order in a certain way (namely, by the creation of this world). In creating the world, God creates time. Creation, you see, is a moving image of the Eternal Exemplar. That's what time is. It's a moving image of eternity.

 

[DFT_Dave]

You've misunderstood, Lighthouse. On the contrary, I say that there are two things: time and eternity. Eternity is identical to the nature of God (as such, to say that something is eternal is merely to say that it is not in time; since we can't know God as He is directly, to affirm that God is eternal is actually to deny something unworthy of Him). God, however, is the Eternal Exemplar. God is imitable in an infinite number of possible ways. From all eternity, God chooses that He should be imitated by a created order in a certain way (namely, by the creation of this world). In creating the world, God creates time. Creation, you see, is a moving image of the Eternal Exemplar. That's what time is. It's a moving image of eternity.

Plato: When the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving and living, the created image of the eternal gods, he rejoiced, and in his joy determined to make the copy still more like the original; and as this was eternal, he sought to make the universe eternal, so far as might be. Now the nature of the ideal being was everlasting, but to bestow this attribute in its fulness upon a creature was impossible. Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity, and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image eternal but moving according to number, while eternity itself rests in unity; and this image we call time. For there were no days and nights and months and years before the heaven was created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them also. They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time, which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal essence; for we say that he "was," he "is," he "will be," but the truth is that "is" alone is properly attributed to him, and that "was" and "will be" only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of which generation is the cause.

http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/physis/plato-timaeus/time.asp​

Are you going to follow Plato or Moses, Greek philosophy or Biblical Revelation?

Plato: First then, in my judgment, we must make a distinction and ask, What is that which always is and has no becoming; and what is that which is always becoming and never is? That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state; but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason, is always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is.​

If you understand this then you can understand why we must reject Plato on God and time.

--Dave

 

[Bob Enyart]

I asked a question earlier though it seemed to get forgotten in the heat of the discussion. Could Bob, Knight, ghost or any of you with the open view tell me if this view has implications as it relates to our salvation? and if so what are they? I am just trying to understand the Open view vs. Settled view and it's implications in either case.

Hello rocketman! Open Theism helps restore the belief in a relational God. A god of Plato's imagination who is utterly immutable cannot change in any way, and true personal relationship requires interaction. God changes in relationship to His creatures, both in grieving over their sin, and rejoicing over their humility. Extrapolating from what I've seen, millions of people stumble over the false teaching of an exhaustively settled future. People pay a price for false teachings, and the utterly unchangeable god and future is one of the biggest false teachings. Men can still come to Christ in spite of this, but their conversion is in spite of, and not because of, this error.

Thanks for reminding us about the context of all this!

-Bob

 

[DFT_Dave]

Time can be measured, but I don't think that God is limited to physical measurements. God is both in time and outside of time, both immanent and transcendent.

It is my understanding that matter, energy, space and time are all attributes of the physical universe; however, God is Spirit (John 4:24). If time is an attribute of the physical universe, and God is a Spirit, then God transcends time because God is not a physical Being.

Then why did God become a "physical being" in the incarnation of Christ? The physical world suffers entropy, God as spirit does not.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

If God is not Sovereign, how did Jesus know Peter would deny Him three times?

Peter had a sword that he intended to use to protect Christ from the Roman soldiers. Christ knew Peter would not carry out his boast to die with him because he knew in Peter's heart there was no desire to give up life. God is not the cause of Peter's failure and Christ knew in "real time" the condition of Peter's heart. Satan was involved in this as well, it's not by seeing the future that this test of Peter's faith was known about before it took place. It was known before hand because God let Satan test Peter just as he let him test Job.

--Dave

 

[sky.]

Hello rocketman! Open Theism helps restore the belief in a relational God. A god of Plato's imagination who is utterly immutable cannot change in any way, and true personal relationship requires interaction. God changes in relationship to His creatures, both in grieving over their sin, and rejoicing over their humility. Extrapolating from what I've seen, millions of people stumble over the false teaching of an exhaustively settled future. People pay a price for false teachings, and the utterly unchangeable god and future is one of the biggest false teachings. Men can still come to Christ in spite of this, but their conversion is in spite of, and not because of, this error.

Thanks for reminding us about the context of all this!

-Bob

Some of us at least (I) am able to worship the God of the universe who existed before time began and still believe that He is relational. I don't plan on ever making Him less than what He is so that I can satisfy my fancy. All knowing, All powerful, Everywhere at once, Eternal, Outside of Time God.

 

[Paulos]

Then why did God become a "physical being" in the incarnation of Christ? The physical world suffers entropy, God as spirit does not.

This is why I say that the correct answer is neither thesis nor antithesis, but synthesis. God is both transcendent to and immanent within His material creation.

 

[Bob Enyart]

As I posted to Traditio over in the thread he's created on this topic...

Traditio,

It's about time that someone squarely confronted us Open Theists here at TOL with this dilemma of how God could cross an infinite time to get to the moment of creation. Thanks!

The Open Theists assert that God always exists, but that He exists "in time." ...

They assert that the universe was created in time. Therefore... An infinity extends prior to the creation of the world. And God must pass through each point of the infinity prior to the creation of the world in order to reach that point. Therefore God is still waiting to create the world.

Well stated.

Since it seems logically irrefutable that infinity could never be crossed, the Settled View camp of Calvinists and Arminians use this argument against Open Theism. But they ignore the exact same argument against their belief that God has exhaustive knowledge of the infinite future including all of each of our thoughts throughout eternal life as we live in His Kingdom which has no end.

So if God is unable to cross infinity, then just as He could never get to the moment of creation, then also regardless of how many of His own future thoughts that He foreknew, and of the thoughts of the billions of creatures who will exist eternally (both those living with Him and apart from Him, for as the Bible says, He put "eternity into their hearts" to exist in a "Kingdom that will never end"), He would never be able to have complete and final knowledge of an infinite number of thoughts.

If I am thinking clearly here Traditio, this argument does not favor Exhaustive Foreknowledge over Open Theism. For the "God exists in time" doctrine to be correct, the one God would have had to cross infinity. For Arminians and Calvinists to be correct, God's mind's eye would have had to cross infinity for billions of creatures for Him to know the unending particulars of the eternal future of each created angelic and human being, as they relate with one another, with Him, and as the Persons of the Trinity relate to one another, eternally.

Thus while I am not aware of an answer to your argument, I think I have established that it does not favor those who reject Open Theism for a Settled Future. For God did not create finite beings, but eternal beings, not to enjoy Him for a while, but forever in a Kingdom without end.

In Christ,

-Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com

 

[rainee]

IF the sun stopped in the sky today, how much more time would you have to do those things you can do when the sun is up?

Hi Ghost, good morning
You were being so kind to me above trying to give me something off what I said - I hope you did not get angry or feel you had to live up to a reputation after I then wrote something about you to BE?
I only found this that you wrote this AM.

I don't want you to care about us getting things done as much as I wanted to point out the measurements of time were appearing to be stopped. If time froze and Joshua and the battle and indeed the whole area were in a pocket of this frozen time - what would it be a pocket of - timelessness or endless time? Or is that splitting hairs?

The point is God could manipulate time, isn't it? So He could do something outside the defined area of time that we exist in - maybe yes?

Now the other thing I was thinking was that time could be the result of a recipe. But I don't know where to go with that.

 

[ghost]

Hi Ghost, good morning
You were being so kind to me above trying to give me something off what I said - I hope you did not get angry or feel you had to live up to a reputation after I then wrote something about you to BE?
I only found this that you wrote this AM.

I don't want you to care about us getting things done as much as I wanted to point out the measurements of time were appearing to be stopped. If time froze and Joshua and the battle and indeed the whole area were in a pocket of this frozen time - what would it be a pocket of timelessness or endless time? Or is that splitting hairs?

The point is God could manipulate time, isn't it? So He could do something outside the defined area of time that we exist in - maybe yes?

Now the other thing I was thinking was that time could be the result of a recipe. But I don't know where to go with that.

God did not manipulate time. He manipulated the sun.