Theology Club: What is Open Theism?

[Lighthouse]

The behavior of Sodom was perceivable, your example doesn't even meet your own standards here.

You haven't been paying attention then, or you've made an assumption without enough evidence.

I have made the statement that God cannot know that which does not exist to be known, and I have also said that He can choose to be ignorant of that which is knowable.

So you then conclude that God was not also in Sodom?

Apparently not.

Lets get to the heart of this ridiculous argument.
First, God is not unaware of what will happen in the lake of fire, in fact scripture says that the damned will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the Lamb (Rev 14:10), so it is not as if God has no presence whatsoever in the lake of Fire. He is fully aware of that happenings therein.

Being fully aware of what He created it for does not require Him to be present.

Second, even if you were right in your previous assumption (which you weren't) what does that have to do with your silly assumption that God was ignorant of Sodom's sin until He went down there Himself as a Theophany to check it out?

Assumption? I have it straight from Scripture, in His own words.

Sodom existed and could be known, so your silly example fails, and demonstrates your inability to turn biblical data into sound exegesis.

What fails is your ability to understand the multiple facets of my position. You shouldn't assume one negates the other unless they are truly a logical contradiction. These are not. Not knowing the unknowable does not preclude willful ignorance of the knowable.

No, He didn't have to. He didn't have to show up as three Men either, but that is what He did. Your attempt to use this passage in order to develop a doctrine of God's omniscience fails because God is using anthropomorphic language to describe His anthropomorphic appearance.

Why use such language if it is unnecessary to do so?

He said He was going to see if the outcry He had heard prior to the theophany was true. Then He went. Why do that if He already knew?

Huh?

God did what He did. He didn't tell you or I why He did it that way. What isn't clear is why God chose to talk to Abraham as Three Men. It also isn't clear why He said that He would go to Sodom to see with the eyes of those Three Men what any omniscient being would already know.

So you don't have an answer. As I thought.

What is clear is that the consistent testimony of scripture is that God may use Human eyes to see things if He so chooses, but He does not need to do so. If you had read my post to Desert Reign, you would realize that God doesn't need to come down and do recon via theophany in order to know what is going on in Sodom and arguing to the contrary (A) does open theism no good, (B) is clearly cross-ways with other clear passages of scripture and (C) makes you look totally silly.

What other "clear passages" does it contradict?

"Where shall I go from your Spirit, or where shall I flee from your presence?" (Ps 139:7)

What of it? God will always be with David. You've led to no contradiction with my position.

David says that he can't go anywhere that God does not see him (see Psalm 139:7-12). Really, just read the Psalm, its getting a little tiresome explaining to you what is obvious to most. David can't hide from God anywhere because God's presence is everywhere.

It does not read that God's presence is everywhere; it reads that God is always with David.

 

[Dialogos]

Lighthouse, you appear to deny God's omnipresence by saying that God (A) isn't present in the lake of fire and (B)wasn't present in Sodom and needed to come down and see what was going on with his own 6 Theophanous eyes in order to figure it out. I am sure you have similarly concluded that God was totally baffled as to where to find Adam.

If you refuse to let the scripture interpret scripture and instead insist on following your own ill informed, and frankly silly, interpretations of these things then there is precious little than anyone can do dissuade you. There is ignorance that comes from a lack of information and there is ignorance that comes from a willful refusal to consider the facts.

You appear to fall into the later category. All that is left is to show just how mistaken you are so that you aren't able to drag other into ignorance with you.


Lets start with the Lake of fire. You said:

Being fully aware of what He created it for does not require Him to be present.

It helps if you actually read the passage.

" Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. (Rev 14:9-10 NKJV)"

Those who took the mark of the beast are tortured IN THE PRESENCE of the Lamb.

You do know that the Lamb is Jesus Christ, Who is God, right?

That's not just knowing what the lake of is fire prepared for, it is being "IN THE PRESENCE of those being tortured in the lake of fire.

How is it that you keep denying that God has a presence in the lake of fire when I have pointed out that the Lamb (Who is God) has a PRESENCE with those being tortured.

So, you are completely wrong on the lake of fire and you are similarly wrong about Sodom. Do you know how I know?

Because God says,

“Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.” (Gen 18:20-21)

God already knew that their "sin was very grave." He already knew that the outcries against Sodom and Gomorrah were true. God didn't go to discover whether or not the outcries were valid, He went to confirm what He already knew. That's why God can confidently say "their sin is very grave" rather than having to say, "I think their sin might be very grave."

In both cases, the case of the Lake of Fire and the case of Sodom, you are mistaken because you haven't taken the time to actually read the text carefully enough to see that God's limitations as a theophany do not preclude His omnipresence and omniscience.

Second, you appear to argue that the sin of Sodom is "unknowable." With all due respect, that's just dumb. Of course it was knowable. Those who made the outcries knew the sin of Sodom or there would not have been any outcries and God knew the sin of Sodom or He would not have said that "their sin was very grave."

He said He was going to see if the outcry He had heard prior to the theophany was true. Then He went. Why do that if He already knew?

Why say, "their sin is very grave" if He didn't already know? Surely you don't think God has judged them on ignorance do you?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Lighthouse, you appear to deny God's omnipresence by saying that God (A) isn't present in the lake of fire and (B)wasn't present in Sodom and needed to come down and see what was going on with his own 6 Theophanous eyes in order to figure it out. I am sure you have similarly concluded that God was totally baffled as to where to find Adam.

If you refuse to let the scripture interpret scripture and instead insist on following your own ill informed, and frankly silly, interpretations of these things then there is precious little than anyone can do dissuade you. There is ignorance that comes from a lack of information and there is ignorance that comes from a willful refusal to consider the facts.

You appear to fall into the later category. All that is left is to show just how mistaken you are so that you aren't able to drag other into ignorance with you.

Lets start with the Lake of fire. You said:

It helps if you actually read the passage.

Those who took the mark of the beast are tortured IN THE PRESENCE of the Lamb.

You do know that the Lamb is Jesus Christ, Who is God, right?

That's not just knowing what the lake of is fire prepared for, it is being "IN THE PRESENCE of those being tortured in the lake of fire.

How is it that you keep denying that God has a presence in the lake of fire when I have pointed out that the Lamb (Who is God) has a PRESENCE with those being tortured.

So, you are completely wrong on the lake of fire and you are similarly wrong about Sodom. Do you know how I know?

Because God says,
God already knew that their "sin was very grave." He already knew that the outcries against Sodom and Gomorrah were true. God didn't go to discover whether or not the outcries were valid, He went to confirm what He already knew. That's why God can confidently say "their sin is very grave" rather than having to say, "I think their sin might be very grave."

In both cases, the case of the Lake of Fire and the case of Sodom, you are mistaken because you haven't taken the time to actually read the text carefully enough to see that God's limitations as a theophany do not preclude His omnipresence and omniscience.

Second, you appear to argue that the sin of Sodom is "unknowable." With all due respect, that's just dumb. Of course it was knowable. Those who made the outcries knew the sin of Sodom or there would not have been any outcries and God knew the sin of Sodom or He would not have said that "their sin was very grave."

Why say, "their sin is very grave" if He didn't already know? Surely you don't think God has judged them on ignorance do you?

Making two different things the same thing by using the same term is the most common means to distort the truth.

For something to be in the presence of God is not the same thing as God being present in the thing itself.

The Lake of fire is in the presence of God does not mean that God's presence is in the Lake of fire.

Christ is not present "with" those being tortured, they are in his presence in the same way as in God's presence.

To be in the presence of God and be in the presence of Christ means there is a locality for both. There is a locality for the Lake of fire as well.

God cannot be located "in" the lake of fire, and to be located everywhere would mean he is never "specifically" located anywhere.

God has Angels who inform him, Genesis 18:20 Then the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomor'rah is great and their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me; and if not, I will know."

If God was omnipresent he would be everywhere in space. If God was spaceless he would be no-where in space.

If God was omnipresent he would be everywhere in time. If God was timeless he would be no-where in time.

God would be indistinguishable from space and matter if he were onmnipresent.

Open theism means that God has unlimited time and unlimited space. and is free to do what he wants, when he wants, and where he wants. To say God is everywhere and in everything would be pantheism or panentheism and there would be no distinction between us and God, between God and the world.

--Dave

 

[Lighthouse]

Lighthouse, you appear to deny God's omnipresence by saying that God (A) isn't present in the lake of fire and (B)wasn't present in Sodom and needed to come down and see what was going on with his own 6 Theophanous eyes in order to figure it out. I am sure you have similarly concluded that God was totally baffled as to where to find Adam.

:doh:

Choosing to not know does not equate to being baffled. I am completely convinced of God's sovereignty in that He would know if He wanted to.

I also recognize that He need not go into Sodom to know the truth. The issue is that He had thus far chosen not to look upon their wickedness, or to know exactly how many within the cities were actually righteous and not engaging in the debauchery. It was because He came to Abraham as a theophany that He chose to stay in that and use it to go see if the outcry was true; as He said. I take Him at His word.

If you refuse to let the scripture interpret scripture and instead insist on following your own ill informed, and frankly silly, interpretations of these things then there is precious little than anyone can do dissuade you. There is ignorance that comes from a lack of information and there is ignorance that comes from a willful refusal to consider the facts.

What part of that entire passage leads anyone to believe God didn't actually mean what He said? Why would Abraham think God didn't already know how many righteous were in the cities [because he obviously wouldn't have tried to negotiate as he did if he believed god already knew]?

You appear to fall into the later category. All that is left is to show just how mistaken you are so that you aren't able to drag other into ignorance with you.

Lets start with the Lake of fire. You said:

It helps if you actually read the passage.

Those who took the mark of the beast are tortured IN THE PRESENCE of the Lamb.

You do know that the Lamb is Jesus Christ, Who is God, right?

That's not just knowing what the lake of is fire prepared for, it is being "IN THE PRESENCE of those being tortured in the lake of fire.

How is it that you keep denying that God has a presence in the lake of fire when I have pointed out that the Lamb (Who is God) has a PRESENCE with those being tortured.

I see no mention of the Lake of Fire in the verses you quoted.

The Lake of Fire isn't mentioned until Revelation 19.

Abraham's Bosom shows that God has a presence wherein he can see Hell and those tormented therein.

But I'm not opposed to the possibility I might be wrong on that one, but DFT_Dave makes an excellent point.

So, you are completely wrong on the lake of fire and you are similarly wrong about Sodom. Do you know how I know?

Because God says,
God already knew that their "sin was very grave." He already knew that the outcries against Sodom and Gomorrah were true. God didn't go to discover whether or not the outcries were valid, He went to confirm what He already knew. That's why God can confidently say "their sin is very grave" rather than having to say, "I think their sin might be very grave."

:doh:

According to the outcry their sin is very grave. If He already knew the outcry was true He would not have needed to go see if they had "done altogether according to the outcry..." And if He already knew it was true He would not have said, "...if not, I will know."

“Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”

In both cases, the case of the Lake of Fire and the case of Sodom, you are mistaken because you haven't taken the time to actually read the text carefully enough to see that God's limitations as a theophany do not preclude His omnipresence and omniscience.

It looks like you are the one who failed to read the text carefully.

And His limitations as a theophany have nothing to do with this. I never stated they did; nor have I ever believed they did. They also don't limit His sovereignty.

Second, you appear to argue that the sin of Sodom is "unknowable." With all due respect, that's just dumb. Of course it was knowable. Those who made the outcries knew the sin of Sodom or there would not have been any outcries and God knew the sin of Sodom or He would not have said that "their sin was very grave."

I've already clarified that my argument is not that the sin of Sodom was unknowable; it was perfectly knowable. I have never argued otherwise. My argument is that God can choose to be ignorant of the knowable if He so desires to be. This is one such case; and it was because of the outcry that He decided to look into it.

Why say, "their sin is very grave" if He didn't already know? Surely you don't think God has judged them on ignorance do you?

I've explained that above: He was modifying the outcry being great. According to the great outcry their sin was very grave. It was for this reason He decided to look into it.

P.S.
While I am a Trinitarian, you shouldn't just assume such because I have the designation of "Christian," on my profile.

 

[Dialogos]

For something to be in the presence of God is not the same thing as God being present in the thing itself.

Really? Because that is how presence usually works. If I'm in your presence you are in my presence and vice versa. One might argue that the lake of fire is, in some way, proximal to God and as such God is able to "have a presence" in the lake of fire without being ontologically located in the lake of fire.

That's an interesting discussion but not really all that relevant because Lighthouse brought up the lake of fire to buttress the argument that God was limited in omniscience and omnipresence such that He needed to actually come down from heaven and see Sodom with two eyes in order to know what was going on there.

The central problem with this interpretation is that it ends up denying the clear teaching of other passages of scripture.

One of those is Psalm 33:13-15 where it is clear that God sees all men, from heaven and considers their works without the need for angelic recon or a person fact finding mission.

You may claim that angels inform God about things He is otherwise ignorant about, but the scriptures tell us otherwise.

First, I don't read of any account where any angels are the ones voicing the outcry of Genesis 18:20, in fact the two angelic beings who went on toward Sodom while Abraham spoke with the LORD (Genesis 18:22) said of the wicked men of sodom that the outcries against the city were great (Genesis 19:13). That passage also gives us an important clue.

God did not hypothesize that the sin of Sodom was great nor did God hear the outcries of others and pronounce summary judgment without knowing with certainty what he said in Gen 18:20). Rather, God knew even before He came down from heaven that the outcries were true, and that their sins were, in fact, very grave. And that is why the angels didn't tell the sodomites that they came to ascertain the truth or falsity about the sins in the city, they spoke the truth and said, "...and the LORD has sent us to destroy it." (Gen 19:13).

Now, think carefully. When did God send those angels? God sent the the two angels in in Genesis 18:22, before Abraham has his negotiation with God. Before the men entered the city, before the sodomites demand that lot send them out to be abused. God knew what He was about to do (Genesis 18:17) even before He brought it up to Abraham.


So what about your point about verse 21?

God has Angels who inform him, Genesis 18:20 Then the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomor'rah is great and their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me; and if not, I will know."

Again, there is no biblical evidence that the angels informed Him. In fact the angels who went to sodom describe those outcries as coming from elsewhere.

Also, I think you are making too much of the statement "and if not, I will know." I don't think we need to take this clause and interpret it in a way that invalidates Psalm 33:13-15. Rather, God is assuring Abraham that if the rumors regarding Sodom are false, He will know it. But He knew otherwise already and that is why He knew what He was about to do (verse 18:17) and why angels are telling the truth when they said God sent them to destroy the city.

If God was omnipresent he would be everywhere in space. If God was spaceless he would be no-where in space.

Why do you keep applying physical truisms to God? God isn't physical and as such can be omnipresent without have a "physical" presence in space.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Really? Because that is how presence usually works. If I'm in your presence you are in my presence and vice versa. One might argue that the lake of fire is, in some way, proximal to God and as such God is able to "have a presence" in the lake of fire without being ontologically located in the lake of fire.

That's an interesting discussion but not really all that relevant because Lighthouse brought up the lake of fire to buttress the argument that God was limited in omniscience and omnipresence such that He needed to actually come down from heaven and see Sodom with two eyes in order to know what was going on there.

The central problem with this interpretation is that it ends up denying the clear teaching of other passages of scripture.

One of those is Psalm 33:13-15 where it is clear that God sees all men, from heaven and considers their works without the need for angelic recon or a person fact finding mission.

You may claim that angels inform God about things He is otherwise ignorant about, but the scriptures tell us otherwise.

First, I don't read of any account where any angels are the ones voicing the outcry of Genesis 18:20, in fact the two angelic beings who went on toward Sodom while Abraham spoke with the LORD (Genesis 18:22) said of the wicked men of sodom that the outcries against the city were great (Genesis 19:13). That passage also gives us an important clue.

God did not hypothesize that the sin of Sodom was great nor did God hear the outcries of others and pronounce summary judgment without knowing with certainty what he said in Gen 18:20). Rather, God knew even before He came down from heaven that the outcries were true, and that their sins were, in fact, very grave. And that is why the angels didn't tell the sodomites that they came to ascertain the truth or falsity about the sins in the city, they spoke the truth and said, "...and the LORD has sent us to destroy it." (Gen 19:13).

Now, think carefully. When did God send those angels? God sent the the two angels in in Genesis 18:22, before Abraham has his negotiation with God. Before the men entered the city, before the sodomites demand that lot send them out to be abused. God knew what He was about to do (Genesis 18:17) even before He brought it up to Abraham.

So what about your point about verse 21?

Again, there is no biblical evidence that the angels informed Him. In fact the angels who went to sodom describe those outcries as coming from elsewhere.

Also, I think you are making too much of the statement "and if not, I will know." I don't think we need to take this clause and interpret it in a way that invalidates Psalm 33:13-15. Rather, God is assuring Abraham that if the rumors regarding Sodom are false, He will know it. But He knew otherwise already and that is why He knew what He was about to do (verse 18:17) and why angels are telling the truth when they said God sent them to destroy the city.

Why do you keep applying physical truisms to God? God isn't physical and as such can be omnipresent without have a "physical" presence in space.

Job: 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “Whence have you come?” Satan answered the Lord, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” 8 And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job,​

"Before the Lord" would mean here in Job that God has a presence and a location in space, heavenly place, in the same way Satan has one.

A spirit can have a location.

2 Peter 2:6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomor'rah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example to those who were to be ungodly; 7 and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the wicked 8 (for by what that righteous man saw and heard as he lived among them, he was vexed in his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds), 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and wilful, they are not afraid to revile the glorious ones, 11 whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a reviling judgment upon them before the Lord.​

Angels are God's messengers.

The "omnis" of God have been framed in the perfection of "pure actuality".

Aseity (Self-Existence). Most classical theists see God's Aseity or Pure Existence as a key attribute. The early church fathers, as well as Augustine (354-430), Anselm (1033-1109), and Aquinas, continually cite the Bible in support of this position. In defending God's self-existence (aseity) classical theists such as Aquinas are fond of citing Exodus 3:14 where God identifies Himself to Moses as "I Am that I Am." This they understand to refer to God as Pure Being or Existence.

God is Pure Actuality, with no potentiality in His being whatsoever. Whatever has potentiality (potency) needs to be actualized or effected by another. And since God is the ultimate Cause, there is nothing Him to actualize any potential (i. e. ability) He may have. Nor can God actualize His own potential to exist, since this would mean He caused His own existence. But a self caused being is impossible, since it cannot create itself. Something has to exist before it can to do anything. Even God cannot lift Himself into being by His own ontological bootstraps. Thus, God must be Pure Actuality in His Being.​

But the notion of pure actuality is not Biblical at all, it's comes from the philosophy of Aristotle.

Aristotle We must say that everything changes from that which is potentially to that which is actually, e.g. from potentially white to actually white...

We must assert that it is necessary that there should be an eternal unmovable substance...
There must, then, be such a principle, whose very essence is actuality...
There is something which moves without being moved, being eternal, substance, and actuality.​

The Biblical understanding of God is not changeless "pure actuality--an Unmoved Mover".

As "Pure Actuality" God must be everywhere at all times. Biblically, God is "free" to be where he wants, when he wants. God is a spirit, God is not space, he inhabits space as a spirit, with a presence, with location. God has infinite potentiality and that's what makes him free.

--Dave

 

[oatmeal]

In a nutshell: The belief that possibilities are real. God created a world in which the future is, to some degree, open; open to possibilities.

http://reknew.org/2012/11/video-qa-what-is-open-theism/

Indeed, the future is open.

Not only for God's decisions to act or intervene.

But also for man to make decisions that change the course, the direction of his life.

So many of the promises of God begin with the two letter word "if".

If you choose to do this, God will do this for you.

If you choose to do that, God will do this for you.

Romans 10:9-10 if you confess, if you believe, they choice is available. If you choose, then God will do.

Proverbs 3:5-6 if you trust, if you lean not, if you acknowledge, then God will

God responds when people believe.

oatmeal

 

[Shasta]

Dave;3402315]Aristotle
But it is impossible that movement should either have come into being or cease to be (for it must always have existed), or that time should. For there could not be a before and an after if time did not exist. Movement also is continuous, then, in the sense in which time is; for time is either the same thing as movement or an attribute of movement."


Einstein
"If we assume that all matter would disappear from the world, then before relativity, one believed that space and time would continue existing in an empty world. But according to the theory of relativity, if matter and its motion disappeared, there would no longer be any space or time."[/INDENT]

Yes this is true. Before God made matter there was no space or time. That has been my argument

Time is a characteristic of anything that exists and is active. Any kind of movement is a change of some type and incorporates time in three ways: 1. before and after; 2. past, present, and future; 3. duration. Time does not exist in itself as something material or as an invisible form of energy.

Time is the process whereby one state changes into another. All the properties of time you have mentioned can be explained in that one concept. This process necessarily follows from the design of the universe and arises from the properties of matter among other things. You cannot divorce time in the universe from matter. If you care to pursue a discussion on the evidence for this please say so.

The WORDS "before" and after" ordinarily do express a succession of temporal events. They are so often used that way that the words themselves are often offered as proof that time always existed but let’s use different words. Let’s say there are two states. State 1 is non-existence of the universe and State 2 is the existence of the universe. Now it IS true that State 2 had a beginning and because it did it is temporal. However, there is a disconnect between State 1 and State 2 since unlike all temporal events State 2 did not arise as a result of of necessary causes in State 1. Also since State 1 had no beginning it could not be temporal. All temporal states have beginnings. The first pages of a book are blank. The story begins on the following page. Now, while you could say the first chapter was AFTER the blank page, the blank page itself has nothing to do with the chronology of the story. It does not even have a page number. This analogy is not meant to prove anything only to illustrate the use of "before and after" in a non-temporal sense.

Time exists in God because he is active in the world he has created--Revealed Theology. We know that God existed 'before" he created the world and so we can also say that the creation of the world is in his "past".

In traditional theology God is active in the world. His immutability is not compromised by this as you elsewhere suggest when you equate unchangeability with immobility. Immutability has to do with His essential being. God actions affect changes extrinsic to His being. This is what makes it possible for God to make something so unlike Himself as the material temporal universe without becoming a part of it or enmeshed in its processes.

In Open Theism when God acts extrinsically, (interacting with His creations) He changes intrinsically. In fact, interacting with free agents is the primary means by which He changes Himself in His quest to realize His potential.

In that sense we could say that God and mankind are co-dependent. We need Him to grow. He needs us to grow. It also raises questions in my mind about the God’s love, for if He has something to gain from working with us how can it be considered as “disinterested” totally unselfish love?

Before the creation of the world there was "movement" within the Trinity. Love and communication are forms of movement. God endures forever, time for God is unlimited, he had no beginning and he will have no end.

Speculating on how God experiences His own being should give anyone pause. It is so easy for us to base our conclusions on our own phenomenal experiences. The Bible has little to say, directly at least, about How God experiences Himself. What little it does say does not support a temporal model of the kind you are describing. Our interactions as humans are clearly temporal. Our ideas are communicated in a sequential manner line upon line to someone else who adds their own ideas so that the dialogue develops. We have to interact that way because we are separate beings. However, though God is three “personae” He is One being. All three members of the Trinity share the same essence. All members of the Trinity are able to apprehend the mind of all instantaneously, completely without any need for sequential deliberations. God’s “communicates” within Himself by virtue of a common sharing of being. “In the Beginning the word “was being” with God and God “was being” the word,” What need is there for all countless interactions when He can see it all, enjoy it all, experience all that He is at once? Jesus, describing the splendor of this state of being called it the "Glory" I do not want to put out an entire study on it but glory has to do with some "shining" characteristic of what makes an object what it is. The being of God is based on His union not on His “doing”

 

[Clete]

Yes this is true. Before God made matter there was no space or time. That has been my argument

Please explain how God could do anything BEFORE time.

Or, you could just go ahead and concede that your argument is not a rational one.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes this is true. Before God made matter there was no space or time. That has been my argument

Time is the process whereby one state changes into another. All the properties of time you have mentioned can be explained in that one concept. This process necessarily follows from the design of the universe and arises from the properties of matter among other things. You cannot divorce time in the universe from matter. If you care to pursue a discussion on the evidence for this please say so.

The WORDS "before" and after" ordinarily do express a succession of temporal events. They are so often used that way that the words themselves are often offered as proof that time always existed but let’s use different words. Let’s say there are two states. State 1 is non-existence of the universe and State 2 is the existence of the universe. Now it IS true that State 2 had a beginning and because it did it is temporal. However, there is a disconnect between State 1 and State 2 since unlike all temporal events State 2 did not arise as a result of of necessary causes in State 1. Also since State 1 had no beginning it could not be temporal. All temporal states have beginnings. The first pages of a book are blank. The story begins on the following page. Now, while you could say the first chapter was AFTER the blank page, the blank page itself has nothing to do with the chronology of the story. It does not even have a page number. This analogy is not meant to prove anything only to illustrate the use of "before and after" in a non-temporal sense.

In traditional theology God is active in the world. His immutability is not compromised by this as you elsewhere suggest when you equate unchangeability with immobility. Immutability has to do with His essential being. God actions affect changes extrinsic to His being. This is what makes it possible for God to make something so unlike Himself as the material temporal universe without becoming a part of it or enmeshed in its processes.

In Open Theism when God acts extrinsically, (interacting with His creations) He changes intrinsically. In fact, interacting with free agents is the primary means by which He changes Himself in His quest to realize His potential.

In that sense we could say that God and mankind are co-dependent. We need Him to grow. He needs us to grow. It also raises questions in my mind about the God’s love, for if He has something to gain from working with us how can it be considered as “disinterested” totally unselfish love?

Speculating on how God experiences His own being should give anyone pause. It is so easy for us to base our conclusions on our own phenomenal experiences. The Bible has little to say, directly at least, about How God experiences Himself. What little it does say does not support a temporal model of the kind you are describing. Our interactions as humans are clearly temporal. Our ideas are communicated in a sequential manner line upon line to someone else who adds their own ideas so that the dialogue develops. We have to interact that way because we are separate beings. However, though God is three “personae” He is One being. All three members of the Trinity share the same essence. All members of the Trinity are able to apprehend the mind of all instantaneously, completely without any need for sequential deliberations. God’s “communicates” within Himself by virtue of a common sharing of being. “In the Beginning the word “was being” with God and God “was being” the word,” What need is there for all countless interactions when He can see it all, enjoy it all, experience all that He is at once? Jesus, describing the splendor of this state of being called it the "Glory" I do not want to put out an entire study on it but glory has to do with some "shining" characteristic of what makes an object what it is. The being of God is based on His union not on His “doing”

"Time is the process whereby one state changes into another."

Things are not moved or changed by time. Time is an aspect of what moves or is moved, changes or is changed.

Time for God is intrinsic exactly for the reason you give, "State 2 did not arise as a result of of necessary causes in State 1."

If God did not create the universe out of "necessity", then he created it "freely".

And if the universe is not eternal then there is a time "intrisically" within God when he freely chose to act.

How could love be "dis-interest"? Love would be deep interest.

Each person of the Trinity would be thinking their own thoughts or they would not be distinct, one would think.

The "all at once God", is just not the Biblical God, if we take the Word of God literally. So I guess you don't.

--Dave

 

[Dialogos]

And if the universe is not eternal then there is a time "intrisically" within God when he freely chose to act.

--Dave

What makes you so confident that God's "intrinsic" temporal experience is the same temporal experience that constitutes the time in the physical universe? If you had actually read the entirety of the Ganssle article you linked to earlier, you would realize that a number of philosophers posit that "physical" time and "Divine" time are different.

 

[godrulz]

What makes you so confident that God's "intrinsic" temporal experience is the same temporal experience that constitutes the time in the physical universe? If you had actually read the entirety of the Ganssle article you linked to earlier, you would realize that a number of philosophers posit that "physical" time and "Divine" time are different.

It is 2013 for God and for us.

God's sequence, duration, succession (time) is without beginning and without end. Ours has a beginning, but does not end. It is illogical and unbiblical to posit a discordance between divine and temporal reality as to the reality of the present (the past is fixed memory and the future is anticipatory, not yet, for God and us). However, God is not limited by time like we are (He is omnipresent and eternal, while we are finite).

 

[Desert Reign]

It is 2013 for God and for us.

I agree with this much at least. Admittedly 2013 is an arbitrary number - we could after all be in the year 20 of the Maastricht Treaty. Such arbitrariness shows that the dates and timescales are relative to man. However, that said, the year is the same whatever you call it and even if God calls it a different year or even if God counts only by the millisecond or something else, it is still the same moment, the same year or whatever for God. Otherwise God and we would not be in the same reality and if that were so then there would be nothing we could say about God because when we say something about God (or indeed anything) we have to assume that the words we use mean something. From the moment God created the world, he shared reality with that world.

 

[godrulz]

Those who hold to eternal now/timeless simultaneity, should consider the incarnation as well as divine history (His Story) on every page of Scripture.

The bottom line is a debate about presentism/A-theory vs eternalism/B-theory. One should not assume tradition is always truth or that there are not strong, technical arguments for various views on this debate.

 

[Lighthouse]

Time is not a physical, tangible, thing. It is not a dimension, outside of theoretical thought. It is, solely because God is. It is an attribute of His existence. Time exists only because God experiences it.

 

[Dialogos]

It is 2013 for God and for us.

At least, insofar as you assert. And that it all that this statement is, an assertion. It assumes far too much.

It assumes that God experiences years, months, weeks, days and hours the same as we do and is not free to experience them any differently.

God's sequence, duration, succession (time) is without beginning and without end. Ours has a beginning, but does not end. It is illogical and unbiblical to posit a discordance between divine and temporal reality as to the reality of the present (the past is fixed memory and the future is anticipatory, not yet, for God and us). However, God is not limited by time like we are (He is omnipresent and eternal, while we are finite).

Your statement here contains a fundamental contradiction. If God is bound by the same experience of time that we have as created beings, then God is, in fact, limited by time like we are. From the perspective of the open view, God may well have existed in eternity past while we have a point of origination in time, at present, and going forward, God is just as time bound as you and I are.

 

[Dialogos]

Time is not a physical, tangible, thing. It is not a dimension, outside of theoretical thought.

Time is considered a "dimension" theoretically because the observable phenomenology in the universe flesh out the practicality of that theoretical conclusion. It is considered a "dimension" theoretically because the evidence suggests that it is a dimension in reality.

I understand that the Open View has a hard time dealing with the theoretical implications of both general and special relativity, but that's just not a good enough reason to pretend that the implications of relativity don't matter.

It is, solely because God is. It is an attribute of His existence. Time exists only because God experiences it.

Which makes temporarily an attribute of God, a concept that is riddled with logical problems not the least of which is the problem of infinite regression.

 

[Shasta]

Time is the process whereby one state changes into another."

Things are not moved or changed by time. Time is an aspect of what moves or is moved, changes or is changed

I didn't say time moves things. I said time is the name for the process of movement. The term "motion" does not have to mean going from one location to another. It can mean to reconfigure or for something to change from one state to another. Time events are change events. These "state changes" are causal, progressive and durational - which are the qualities you have given to the phenomenon "time"

Time for God is intrinsic exactly for the reason you give, "State 2 did not arise as a result of of necessary causes in State 1."

God can act without changing Himself. Traditional theology holds that God acts. You philosopher does not believe it because he did not believe in the Personal God of the Bible

1. Temporal things (processes, events etc) have beginnings.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. God, however, did not have a beginning
4. God does not possess the primary property of time

God as you describe Him is ever-changing ever-evolving Being in the process of perfecting Himself a process which cannot end and which has been going on forever.

If God did not create the universe out of "necessity", then he created it "freely".

In your model God had to go through an infinite number of temporal change events (state changes) before He made the universe.

Time events are all causally related. This is as much true for interactions within God as things outside of Him. For every temporal state or event there always has to be an antecedent temporal event. If there was ever a causeless event then you would be facing the enigma of non-temporality. The big problem is that there is no antecedent cause for this hypothetical pre-creation time line. Therefore it could not be temporal in nature. It was therefore not related to temporality of any kind. Existence is grounded in God's being.

And if the universe is not eternal then there is a time "intrisically" within God when he freely chose to act.

You have defined God in such a way that He can only follow a process of temporal succession. He is not "free" to choose any time to create if the number of successions is infinite. Ironically it is your temporal model that has left God immobilized.

When we define God as a temporal Being this means that His consciousness must unfold in a succession. How many temporal successions of thought, states of consciousness, interactions, must He have gone through before He created? Since He had an infinite past we must conclude that there was an infinite number - which is impossible.

How could love be "dis-interest"? Love would be deep interest.

This is a very common phrase. It does not mean indifference. It means doing something for someone just for their sake without self interest.

Each person of the Trinity would be thinking their own thoughts or they would not be distinct, one would think.

Being Three Persons does not make God an aggregate being or consortium. How they are distinct in consciousness is somewhat of a mystery. We know that they operate in separate ways to carry out One will; however God is One is essence. One being. He is not a multiple personality. Because of this there is no a division that would require Him to carry on a sequential, consecutive form of communication. As for duration...how could that possibly be conceptualized? All at once.

The whole idea of consecutive linear interaction is based on a very elementary human communication model. Even our brains do not operate that way. The brain is comprised of numerous subsystems all of which operate at once in parallel. We have a holistic way of viewing things where we grasp or intuit the whole picture at a glance without deliberation. My God is able to see everything all at once.

If I were somehow mentally linked to the mind of someone else so that I had complete access to all their memories, thoughts, perceptions, consciousness, immediate and past (while remaining myself) we would know each other completely. It would be a knowledge born directly out of union not just ceaseless mental activities. Would I need to explain anything to the other person? No I would know experientially just as they do and though the may be different they are as much a part of me as I myself am.

The "all at once God", is just not the Biblical God, if we take the Word of God literally. So I guess you don't.

You show God to be an aggregate being which is not Biblical in the deepest way since it concerns God Himself.

I noticed in another post you included the Early Church Fathers among those who were in error about the nature of God (a view BTW shared by Jewish theologians ancient and modern). I was glad you admitted the lack of historicity of OT to the earliest leaders of the church. Taking the word literally apparently means accepting the doctrines of latter day theologians like Greg Boyd who calls God's word "God-breathed inaccuracies."

 

[Lighthouse]

Time is considered a "dimension" theoretically because the observable phenomenology in the universe flesh out the practicality of that theoretical conclusion. It is considered a "dimension" theoretically because the evidence suggests that it is a dimension in reality.

We can move back and forth through the three dimensions of space; we cannot do so with time.

I understand that the Open View has a hard time dealing with the theoretical implications of both general and special relativity, but that's just not a good enough reason to pretend that the implications of relativity don't matter.

I have absolutely no issues with general relativity; and special relativity is theories whose proofs have other, more probable, explanations. Occam's razor, and all that.

Which makes temporarily an attribute of God, a concept that is riddled with logical problems not the least of which is the problem of infinite regression.

Did you mean temporality? If so, the word is actually temporalness.

Now, explain how that's a problem.

 

[Dialogos]

We can move back and forth through the three dimensions of space; we cannot do so with time.

Actually, your abililty to move back and forth in space is an illusion. You may be able to go from the TV to the refrigerator and back but the TV and the refrigerator aren't in the same place. They are in the same place on the earth, but in the time it took you to go from one place to the other the earth moved, the solar system moved and most astronomers believe the galaxy moved.

Therefore, you really can't move back and forth because the exact location in space that you and the fridge and the TV occupied has been vacated by the natural movement of orbital systems.

I have absolutely no issues with general relativity...

You actually do. The theory of general relativity posits that time is variable and that it is affected by gravitational fields. Open Theism posits that time is common experience for all beings, including God. General relativity posits that time is variable depending on one's location relative to the force of gravity.

General relativity, or the general theory of relativity, is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916[1] and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalises special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.
Some predictions of general relativity differ significantly from those of classical physics, especially concerning the passage of time, the geometry of space, the motion of bodies in free fall, and the propagation of light. Examples of such differences include gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, the gravitational redshift of light, and the gravitational time delay.

You concluded your thought.

...and special relativity is theories whose proofs have other, more probable, explanations. Occam's razor, and all that.

Open Theism is on the wrong end of Occam's razor....and all that.

The predictions of general relativity have been confirmed in all observations and experiments to date. Although general relativity is not the only relativistic theory of gravity, it is the simplest theory that is consistent with experimental data.

Now, explain how that's a problem.

Open Theism, insofar as I have interacted with those who believe it, make a big deal about the claim that God's experience of the passage of time, and our experience of the passage of time, are the same. The problem with infinite regression is that we experience the past as a finite number of experiences that we have traversed to get to the present. God does not have a finite number of past experiences, He has an infinite number of past experiences which presents us with the logically problem of traversing an infinite number of moments in order to get to the present since an infinity of any kind cannot be traversed.


*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity