All good for the topic, the point I emboldened crossed my mind for Nang's question of God being unaware of an aspect of creation if He wanted to.
It's a very interesting one to me. Why did God do it that way, sending Angels?
Theology Club: What is Open Theism?
- Thread starter surrender
- Start date
All good for the topic, the point I emboldened crossed my mind for Nang's question of God being unaware of an aspect of creation if He wanted to.
It's a very interesting one to me. Why did God do it that way, sending Angels?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Agreed. God created Adam a willful and morally responsible soul. And all men descend from Adam, remaining just as morally accountable before God as he.
Problem is, Adam corrupted our human natures, including our sentient willfulness, and since, all men have only been inclined to willfully sin.
Agreed, and in these few words, you have summed up what we Reformers teach as the doctrine of "predestination." IOW's God has determined to save many but not all. The doctrine of Election is simply the antithesis to Universalism.
It seems you might be confusing predestination (determinism) with the ungodly philosophy of "fatalism."
Predestination is founded upon God's eternal decrees, that are predetermined to produce holy and just results in time, for eternity, despite God's full knowledge of the (both right and wrong) willful decisions and actions of His creatures.
Divine principle: Genesis 50:20 and Romans 8:28
Apply this notion to your own human life. Is there any part of your conscious existence you do not care about, and desire to properly care for? Should you choose to block out awareness, knowledge,and a normal protective care for your life, would that not be deemed clinically unhealthy and perhaps psychotic?
Actually, no. I believe the spiritual body of Christ was predestined by name. Individual souls, ordained and prepared to inherit glory with Jesus Christ, make up His corporate church. Ephesians 1:3-14
These are those souls specifically named in the Lamb's Book of Life.
Nang
Nang
TOL Subscriber
God knows all, but His creatures only know what God reveals to them.
Examine all these instances without any presumptions, and hopefully you will see God condescending on a human level in order to share His knowledge and determinations with His children.
(And it is theologically accepted that most of the O.T. occurrences of angelic appearances are actual theophanies.)
She won't answer.
I assume logic morality and inductive reasoning as realities based on God's creation of the world, so, I read these passages as they are written. If I am missing something please show me. I do not see them needing to be hand-waved away as condescending. You say you see Him "condescending on a Human level in order to share His knowledge and determinations with His children" but.... If this is clearly seen by you why does He need to do it for everyone else? If it is true that He needed to use this vehicle of communication, who was it for?
I'm up way too late, I'll hit the other one as time allows tomorrow.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Godly condescension is the highest blessing and privilege any mortal can receive, and I certainly do not dismiss these passages in any way.
Please note that in all such instances, only specific saints are singled out for to receive such messages, holy appearances, and intimate interactions with divine powers . . . e.g. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses . . . Those few elect saints to whom the gospel promises of the Messiah had been made, who exhibited faith in God . . . versus the world at large!
Yuck it up, boys.
Show your stuff and what you are made of . . .
As I said, your belief is that God is everywhere, except in time!
This is just one of many obvious contradictions that prove your view of God to be wrong.
--Dave
I fixed that already.I noticed she didn't provide any Scripture to support the ideas she presented: that God created time, defines it, controls or will end it...
I don't like wine either, but I watch a lot of TV and movies about rich people.:ha:
Now that I have your attention: it was either in this thread, or another on the OV, where you quoted Shasta; but because of Shasta's poor formatting it attributed the quote to me. Can you fix that, please?
You both recognize the triune God, but have differing views on free will, providence, etc. You are Christian to Christian, not Christian to Muslim, cultist, etc.
This verse does not support timelessness, but uses tensed expressions about God. God experiencing an everlasting duration of sequence/time. Time is not a created thing, but a concept of succession. Time will not cease just because we enter the eternal state (Revelation talks about time in eternity/heaven several times).
Nang
TOL Subscriber
What I say, too.
Eh? I disagree. Time is manifested and evidenced in all of creation. There would be no intelligent concept of succession, or times, apart from the created, physical, material world.
Where?
The unique measures of time/temporality (clocks, etc.) do make sense of our duration. For God, there was a before and after creation. Every page of Scripture shows God experiencing chronology, not timelessness (Platonic, Augustinian, not biblical). He has a history, His story. The future is anticipatory for God, not real yet. Eternal Now is tradition, not truth. C.S. Lewis was not a theologian and he was wrong on this point.
Ps. 90:2 (from everlasting to everlasting/endless duration, not timeless); Ps. 102:27 (years will never end, not tearless).
Time in heaven/eternity: Rev. 8:1; Rev. 6:10; Rev. 20:10; Rev. 1:8; Rev. 4:8; Rev. 22:1-2 (month).
Ps. 90:2 (from everlasting to everlasting/endless duration, not timeless); Ps. 102:27 (years will never end, not tearless).
Time in heaven/eternity: Rev. 8:1; Rev. 6:10; Rev. 20:10; Rev. 1:8; Rev. 4:8; Rev. 22:1-2 (month).
Oh, okay. Thank you.
Ezekiel 18:1-9 kills the idea of all of us being guilty by original sin, and I've never heard the idea that Adam had free will but he corrupted it for the rest of us, where does that come from?
In the first place that hinges on whether we are all guilty by Adam, which my Ezekiel reference covers, (as always, correct me if I'm wrong) and you need to establish how/why we don't have the ability to willfully believe the gospel to make a scenario where God just picked certain people to be saved. Free will comports with the straight reading of the Bible. Calling on predestination to avoid universalism is a way bigger stretch of logic and inductive reading of the Bible.
That does not address the point that the plain reading of the bible suggests we have free will, and also, isn't fatalism just a description of determinism? Whatever will be will be.... whatever is determined will be....
If I tried to keep track of every piece of information available to me I'd very quickly be deemed mentally unhealthy and maybe psychotic. I didn't say God couldn't do that, I posited that He wouldn't.
I don't necessarily have an issue with the book of life of the lamb slain containing all saved people, but at any rate, it was not completed since "the foundation of the world". The phrase "from the foundation of the world" refers to names being entered, or not, since the foundation of the world. The NASB translates it best.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Not anymore than issuing the Ten Commandments ruled out the sinfulness of men. Both the hypothetical "ifs" in Ezekiel 18 and the "shoulds" in the Decalogue, are presented by God to men to reveal how far short all men fall from the moral standards of God.
Adam corrupted his human nature . . . body, soul, and will. The teaching that his original sin corrupted all mankind, comes from the doctrine termed "Federal Headship" which is learned in principle from the passages of Romans 5:12-21 and I Corinthians 15:42-49, where the Apostle Paul contrasts the two "Adams;" the first earthly Adam represented all mankind and the last Adam, Jesus Christ represented all His spiritual offspring (church) in His incarnation.
I disagree. I do not find "free" will taught anywhere in the bible, except as attributed to God Himself.
Well, however you define predestination, I would hope you agree that Romans Chapter 9 precludes any notions of universalism at all.
The plain reading of the bible reveals all men are willful creatures who have been created and given moral agency with responsibility to live according to God's laws and commands.
Fatalism does not include any human responsibility towards Holy God, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.
Fatalism is humanistic philosophy; not biblical truth nor a spiritual authority at all.
Discussion of such would take us much closer to my understanding of predestination, for it would necessitate we look at the reality of eternal decrees made by God before creation.
Don't know if you would want to go there or not . . .
You can do a Google search of Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism views, to get a preview of the underlying truths that are part and parcel of the definition of predestination/election held by Reformers.
Nang
Shasta
Well-known member
No accolades yet Dave. The fact that God participates in the experience of temporal creatures has never been an issue with me. It is just not the whole story. God is transcendant we well as immanent. The dynamic tension between these two produces a paradox which is not meant to be resolved. It is like those glasses they give you to produce a 3D effect. One lens is red and the other, blue. Separately the colors do not agree but when the glasses are put on the images take on depth and dimension. What you have presented to me is a false dichotomy based on the assumption that because I can see through the blue lens that I deny the red lens and have joined the “blue” camp.
I can make arguments for either position. There are conditional promises, options that have real outcomes and decisions that have a real effect. These express the immance of God in our temporal experience. Saying He is ONLY temporal strips Him of many of His divine attributes among them, infinitude and pure actuality. It also gives rise to irresolvable conundrums on matters as basic as the creation of the universe. Also despite OT attempts to alter the definition of foreknowledge as it has always been understood, the concept resists redefinition. For every example of God “changing His mind” there are other examples of God foreknowing absolutely what supposedly unknowable actions of freeagents will be.
It might be “enough” for me as an individual to see the past and my present role in the plan of God; however, since men’s choices cannot truly be known and the future does not exist I cannot be sure if that final end of the plan will ever be reached. Perhaps it will fail like God’s first plan for Adam failed and be replaced by one of God’s alternate plans.
Shasta
Well-known member
I have yet to see you solve the problem of infinite regression or how God Himself could be on a cause-effect chain of events before creation.
Animate creation is cause-effect, not moral creation, not free moral agent God.
God experienced duration/succession/sequence in His triune relations before creation. Thinking, acting, feeling presumes duration/time. God is personal/dynamic, not impersonal/static.
Your view is more philosophical/Platonic/Augustinian than truth/biblical/logical.
Infinite regression has been dealt with. Forget time/eternity for now. The fact is that God is uncreated Creator, no beginning, no end. So, God Himself has existed from everlasting to everlasting (which does not have to mean timeless, whatever that would mean for a personal being; numbers/mathematics are atemporal, not personal beings!).
If we can imagine a before and after creation, before 1 AD and after 1 AD, endless negative and positive numbers, you should be able to imagine an endless duration of existence.
Using your logic, God and time should not exist because of a supposed regress problem. Like it or not, God has always existed, so why cannot an endless measure of His existence exist. Numbers go forever in both directions. One should also not confuse instants and intervals. Zeno's paradox may make stupid philosophers argue that the arrow will never reach the target, but it does (infinitely smaller intervals, so never hit....whatever...parallels your supposed problem with time/regress).
Time is not space nor is it a created thing. If you have wrong conceptions about it, you will not be able to see beyond your nose. These issues are very technical and greater minds than me have demonstrated resolutions to your hang ups. Philosophers disagree on things, so some are more right, while others may be dead wrong despite fancy arguments. Just because you are unaware of resolutions or because I do not have the academic background to demonstrate things to your satisfaction does not mean the answers are not out there.
Atheists also throw out specious arguments against the existence of God, creationism, etc., but they are wrong and can be refuted (e.g. they think an event only has to happen once or that enough time will make the impossible possible....).
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Not.
The fall of Adam was predetermined, and more importantly, rectified and remedied by God, before the world was created.
Nang
Should the open view be considered dangerous to the Body of Christ since it seems to contradict the Omniscience of God?