Calvinism's response to open theism

[Metal Minister]

I liked the saying, "Time was created to keep everything from happening at once". If man removes everything happening, then it all goes back to God. If God is going to create time, He has to know what to make time with. When God makes a slice of time, man responds afterward. So that means God first, man second. This makes 5 points of Calvinism ring true. Open theistism is a waste of my time.

I like that saying, and I think that's a good way to put it about time, God and man!

 

[tulipbee]

At least with armininians, I know they're truly Christian. I cannot say that about open theists. Some of their more hard core members make me feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, or worse and pull string doll. No matter how often something is refuted or answered, they seem to simply go back to it over and over again, ad nauseum, ad infinitum....

How do you know arminians are truly Christians? Would you say Calvinists are truly Christians as well?

 

[Metal Minister]

How do you know arminians are truly Christians? Would you say Calvinists are truly Christians as well?

Let me rephrase, in terms of the discussion, I can be comfortable in calling them Christian, where there is little if anything Christian in the open theist position.

 

[HammerOfHeaven]

How do you know Arminians are truly Christians? Would you say Calvinists are truly Christians as well?

Of course none of us can ever know with 100% certainty whether another believer is truly regenerated/born again/saved, since we cannot look on the heart as the Lord does... but, there are evidences both internal and external which can give us some basis for discerning whether they are or not. The external we can see for ourselves, the internal we have to discern by comparing each individual's words with his walk.

I'm not speaking of "judging" other believers. "To his own master he stands or falls" (Romans 14:4). But there should be evidence of "the fruit of the Spirit" in the life, words and deeds of anyone claiming to be a Christian. And as J. Vernon McGee once said, "I'm not to judge... but I AM a FRUIT INSPECTOR!" Jesus Himself said "by their fruits you shall know them" (Matthew 7:20, KJ2000). So if someone claims to be a follower of Jesus, we can inspect his life to see what kind of fruit it bears, and that will give us some basis on which to discern the truthfulness of his claim.

Another line of evidence is the acceptance of certain basic core doctrines that all normative Christians hold in common, no matter what denomination. This would include at a minimum the virgin birth, sinless life, atoning death and bodily resurrection of Jesus, along with His deity as the second Person of the Trinity and His eternal co-existence in union with the Father and the Holy Spirit. If a person rejects any of these then he simply rejects the authority of Scripture and the God presented to us in Scripture. He may sincerely believe in some sort of "God", but it wouldn't be the God of the Bible. (Although in the case of a brand new believer, I would maintain he could be genuinely saved but genuinely confused, and if so, the Holy Spirit will lead him to the truth over time.)

This is where we as Reformed/Covenantal/Calvinists have an edge over Arminians and others. We know that it is God who grants repentance (2 Timothy 2:5) and God who gives the gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8), and He gives it to those who have done nothing to deserve it, so that "no man may boast" (Ephesians 2:9). To use the theological term, He gives repentance and faith "monergistically", as an act on His part alone. It is not "synergistic", a combination of our actions combined with His.

It is not that He comes 99% of the way toward us but we must take that single step toward Him. He does not throw a life-preserver to us as we drown, so that if we choose to we may reach out in faith and take hold of the ring. We are already dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1). How can a dead man reach out and take hold of anything??? So since we are already dead, God must first revive us or bring us back to life, i.e. regenerate us, and then He must give us repentance with which to repent and give us saving faith with which to believe. If you have genuine repentance and saving faith, it is not because you generated it within yourself. If you have it, it's because God gave it to you as a gift.

If you generated saving faith within yourself, you would certainly have something to boast about! And if you reached out to take hold of a life preserver, you would have something to boast about indeed! You could stand before God and boast that you had enough intelligence/good sense/righteousness or plain dumb luck to reach out and take what He offered. And if you think you're going to get up to Heaven and stand before God and boast about any of those things, good luck with that.

What God gives as a free gift is "saving faith" or in theological terms "fiducia", which must be distinguished from mere head knowledge of the facts (or "notitia") and mere mental assent to the facts (or "assensus"). Lots of people know the facts about Jesus but simply knowing facts won't save them. Lots of people give mental assent to those facts but merely agreeing with the facts won't save them either. The demons believe and tremble (James 2:19)! The only thing that saves is the kind of "saving faith" that God gives, as a free gift to those whom He has chosen.

Jesus says that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws him (John 6:44). It is not the case that some people want to come to Him but cannot because they are blocked, it is not that some people genuinely repent and believe but are denied from coming to Jesus. It is simply the case that "there is no one who seeks God" (Romans 3:11)! And of those whom the Father draws, Jesus has not and will not lose a single one (John 10:27-29, John 18:9).

So how do we know Arminians are truly Christians? If an Arminian has been given "fiducia" or saving faith by God the Father then he is truly a Christian. He may be genuinely confused, but he will still be genuinely saved. He will be eternally saved and eternally secure, unable to lose his salvation even though he fears he could. If an Arminian has been granted saving faith, his life will show evidence of the fruit of the Spirit, and he will embrace the most essential core doctrines on the life and death and deity of Christ. (And I know many Arminians who appear to be genuinely saved, and every honest Calvinist will admit he knows some too.)

And over time as the Arminian studies and becomes more mature, he may even embrace the Doctrines of Grace, as I did. I had only been a believer for 7 years when I finally embraced the doctrines of election. It took R.C. Sproul 4 years of arguing against the doctrines of election, debating with Reformed college professors who patiently explained it to him from Scripture for 4 long years before he finally "got it". And R.C. only had to explain it to me for 4 years before I "got it" too. When R.C. told me it took him 4 years I suddenly didn't feel so bad.

If a Calvinist is truly Christian, it occurs the same way, i.e. because God has regenerated him and given him repentance and saving faith. If God has not given saving faith to the Calvinist, it does not matter how strongly he believes he is one of the elect, and it does not matter how well he can quote the Westminster Standards or the Canons of Dordt. The mere facts and mental assent to the doctrines of election do not save. And since most self-professed Calvinists are well-versed in sound doctrine, the fruit of the Spirit becomes even more important in discerning true believers from false.

And that is how we can know whether Arminians or Calvinists or anyone else are truly Christians or not.

 

[Derf]

Hi MM. I don't know if you're still active, but it seems like you didn't get much from open theists in response. So I thought I'd try it, however belatedly.

I recently had a debate with a pair of open theists on another site. As a quick overview for those who aren't familiar with open theism, it basically boils down to a few points.
1) Time is eternal and not a creation of God's

The concept of "time" I ascribe to is that if there is ever "sequence", then there is something like "time" for those involved. For instance, most of us would admit that God existed before He created the heavens and the earth, right? "Before" is a sequence/time word. If God created time when He created everything, then He couldn't have done anything prior to creating the world. Thus God might exist, but because there is no "before" or "after", "prior" or "post-", God can't actually do anything. If He did, He would then have a "before" He did it and an "after" He did it, which means there is a sequence to what He does, which is a "time" construct.

2) God is stuck in time

Here's a better way to think of this...Can God go back in time and change something, like we see in numerous movies these days? If He did, would He have memory of what happened in the future time before He changed the past? If God has memory of something that didn't happen, because He changed the past (which changed the future), isn't God now "knowing" something that isn't true about either the past or the future? And God can't know something that is incorrect, can He?

But if He can't go back and change the past, then isn't God "stuck in time"?

3) God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge

Right, because He created beings that are able to choose right vs wrong, life vs death, according to the scriptures. But if we, or the Israelites in Joshua's day, can only do the thing that God knows we will do, then we can't choose between right vs wrong, life vs death, so scripture appears to present a choice we don't really have.
[Jos 24:15 KJV] 15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
[Deu 30:19 KJV] 19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

4) Man has full libertarian free will and it can never be violated

I'm not sure what you mean by "it can never be violated". Do you mean that God would never force someone to love Him? Then yes, I agree. If you mean that if I choose not to love God, then I still get to go to heaven, then no, I don't agree.

There are more but you get the idea. Anyway, in regards to the exhaustive foreknowledge point, these open theists pointed to

1 Samuel 13:13-14: Samuel said to Saul, "You have acted foolishly;you have not kept the commandment of the Lordyour God, which He commanded you, for now the Lord would have established your kingdom[a]over Israel forever. But now your kingdom shall not endure. The Lord has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has appointed him as ruler over His people, because you have not kept what theLord commanded you."

Genesis 2:19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the [p]sky, andbrought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

Genesis 22:12 He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for nowI know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

They use these verses to point to the idea that God did not know these things would happen, and therefore could not have exhaustive foreknowledge. There are of course others (mostly taken out of context and which I was easily able to show their meanings and how they did not reinforce open theism) but these ones actually gave me pause. Not that I believe in anyway that open theism is correct, but that I didn't have a suitable response. Any ideas? Any thoughts? I'm loathe to let me ignorance continue on this sort of thing...

Would you like to talk about these? It's good when we read scripture and it gives us pause, I think.

My favorite is Is 46:10-11, because it explains how God knows what He knows about the future.
[Isa 46:10-11 KJV] 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: 11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken [it], I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed [it], I will also do it.

 

[moonbeam]

Greetings Derf... I'm curious
Are you contending for Open Theism as an adherent?
Or are you seeking to refine your thought processes as the devils advocate?

 

[Derf]

Greetings Derf... I'm curious
Are you contending for Open Theism as an adherent?
Or are you seeking to refine your thought processes as the devils advocate?

Hi Moonbeam. I'd call myself an adherent. Why do you ask?

 

[moonbeam]

Hi Moonbeam. I'd call myself an adherent. Why do you ask?

I have been a long time away from theological discussions... so more than a little rusty (so to speak)
Knowing your motivations helps me to clarify (in my own mind) what means and methods would be suitable when engaging with you.
I like to do my own thinking... so rather than read up on the subject (I do have some previous familiarity with the subject matter) either in previous posts, or elsewhere, I'd prefer to engage with you by "flying by the seat of my pants"... not unusual for me.
That would be good for me (at least) as it will (I hope) reactivate my mind... Iron sharpens Iron.
So that being said... give me a little time to go over your opening gambit... and I'll proceed with the first parry.

 

[Derf]

I have been a long time away from theological discussions... so more than a little rusty (so to speak)

I enjoy it, but I can't guarantee that I won't offend you. Not that i'm trying to, but sometimes asserting the opposite of someone's dearly held beliefs is offensive.

And I may be getting way too far ahead of where you want the discussion to go in the following, but it is an extension of the thoughts previously posted here. If you want to ignore them for now, you may, but eventually I'll get back to them.

Knowing your motivations helps me to clarify (in my own mind) what means and methods would be suitable when engaging with you.

I can get into motivations regarding how I got to where I am, but in general I don't see any other alternative. The alternatives I've most often encountered are Calvinism and Arminianism, and I think they fill up the gamut of "settled" theism. In other words, if God already knows everything we or anyone will do, then there are two options: 1. He caused everything we will do, and 2. Someone else caused everything we will do.

I like to do my own thinking

Fantastic!

... so rather than read up on the subject (I do have some previous familiarity with the subject matter) either in previous posts, or elsewhere, I'd prefer to engage with you by "flying by the seat of my pants"... not unusual for me.

Sometimes this allows for more honest discussions. But do your best to also back up your assertions with scripture, and be sure and ask me if i don't do the same.

That would be good for me (at least) as it will (I hope) reactivate my mind... Iron sharpens Iron.
So that being said... give me a little time to go over your opening gambit... and I'll proceed with the first parry.

Standing by in great eagerness...

 

[moonbeam]

When I ponder upon such matters as time, sequence, decree (both logical and temporal) ... basically, the roll out, of the purposes, of God... as we experience it (temporal reality). I believe it is essential to consider the implications of the philosophical statements that God has prepared for us... to ponder upon (meditate on) in His word. The primary statement, in my mind, is where Paul is speaking to the philosophical (academic) audience in Athens and says the following.

"For in him we live, and move, and have our being;"

That is a monumentally profound statement... dense in its intellectual implications... and by logical necessity... impacts, heavily, any exploration of the conceptual distinctions, in regard to sequence, decree (logical and temporal), time, and by extension, eternity... But it does not stand alone, in isolation, from the moderating effects of other scripture.

I have in mind here, as a moderating scripture... and by moderating... I don't necessarily imply a curtailment, not at all... but rather an additional nuance which brings clarity, in regards the domain of Paul's philosophical statement (which is also a statement of fact).

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"

The first statement in the word of God, is a statement defining an ontological distinction... an ontological distinction between the Creator and the entire creation in general, and every creature (specifically) whether angelic, human, animal etc... an ontological distinction so profound that it precludes categorically there ever being the possibility of a fusion which negates that ontological distinction.

So... if we ponder upon the necessary logical implications of these two statements, and how they impact our own personal thought processes, and the conclusions we have drawn from them... I think we are left with a mental picture (Venn diagram) which would encompass the entire creation and exhaustively inclusive of every creature (angelic, human, animal) and in addition... contemporaneously... the living God.... that would be the small circle.

That small circle... by an unavoidable logical necessity... which the ontological distinction demands... must be completely separate (fully contained within but not intersecting at any point) within the boundaries of the Larger Circle, wherein the small circle is contained... the Triune God in His true essence and state (Domain)... is the Large Circle.

Of course, these profound philosophical statements from scripture (which are statements of fact) have the effect, the intended effect, of eliciting within our minds, much pondering... very much pondering indeed... as there are some very heavy, and at times disturbing, trains of thought, that are propagated as we explore the full scope of these monumental statements.

Anyways... you have said in your original post that - "The concept of "time" I ascribe to is that if there is ever "sequence", then there is something like "time" for those involved. For instance, most of us would admit that God existed before He created the heavens and the earth, right? "Before" is a sequence/time word. If God created time when He created everything, then He couldn't have done anything prior to creating the world. Thus God might exist, but because there is no "before" or "after", "prior" or "post-", God can't actually do anything. If He did, He would then have a "before" He did it and an "after" He did it, which means there is a sequence to what He does, which is a "time" construct."

My first question is - How could you possibly know, considering the ontological distinction between yourself and your Creator, that - "God can't actually do anything. If He did, He would then have a "before" He did it and an "after" He did it, which means there is a sequence to what He does, which is a "time" construct.

My second question is a corollary to the first - Why is a sequence, necessarily defined as - a "time" construct?

In regard to your comment - I enjoy it, but I can't guarantee that I won't offend you. Not that i'm trying to, but sometimes asserting the opposite of someone's dearly held beliefs is offensive."

I'm old school (the right school) ... If you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen.

 

[Derf]

Hi Moonbeam. That's a great response. I look forward to parsing through it here, but I have a request. If you wouldn't mind either replying to my post directly, or tagging me with the "@" followed by "username" format (no spaces), then I will be more likely to see it.

When I ponder upon such matters as time, sequence, decree (both logical and temporal) ... basically, the roll out, of the purposes, of God... as we experience it (temporal reality). I believe it is essential to consider the implications of the philosophical statements that God has prepared for us... to ponder upon (meditate on) in His word. The primary statement, in my mind, is where Paul is speaking to the philosophical (academic) audience in Athens and says the following.

"For in him we live, and move, and have our being;"

That is a monumentally profound statement... dense in its intellectual implications... and by logical necessity... impacts, heavily, any exploration of the conceptual distinctions, in regard to sequence, decree (logical and temporal), time, and by extension, eternity... But it does not stand alone, in isolation, from the moderating effects of other scripture.

I have in mind here, as a moderating scripture... and by moderating... I don't necessarily imply a curtailment, not at all... but rather an additional nuance which brings clarity, in regards the domain of Paul's philosophical statement (which is also a statement of fact).

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"

The first statement in the word of God, is a statement defining an ontological distinction... an ontological distinction between the Creator and the entire creation in general, and every creature (specifically) whether angelic, human, animal etc... an ontological distinction so profound that it precludes categorically there ever being the possibility of a fusion which negates that ontological distinction.

Hmmm...ok. I'll think about this. At first blush, it seems like it rejects the humanity of Christ, which I think could be described as a fusion between God and man.

So... if we ponder upon the necessary logical implications of these two statements, and how they impact our own personal thought processes, and the conclusions we have drawn from them... I think we are left with a mental picture (Venn diagram) which would encompass the entire creation and exhaustively inclusive of every creature (angelic, human, animal) and in addition... contemporaneously... the living God.... that would be the small circle.

That small circle... by an unavoidable logical necessity... which the ontological distinction demands... must be completely separate (fully contained within but not intersecting at any point)

Which, I think, makes it NOT a "Venn diagram", right? To be completely within, but not intersecting with?

within the boundaries of the Larger Circle, wherein the small circle is contained... the Triune God in His true essence and state (Domain)... is the Large Circle.

In Venn diagram terminology, I think that would make the inner circle, all creation, a component part (subset) of the larger circle. Is that what you are meaning to convey? If not, then we should revisit those verses above to see if we can agree on their meaning. I'm not sure I agree with my attempt to understand your meaning, because I don't know that God created us using some of His parts to make our physical selves, along with all animals, plants, dirt, water, etc.

Of course, these profound philosophical statements from scripture (which are statements of fact) have the effect, the intended effect, of eliciting within our minds, much pondering... very much pondering indeed... as there are some very heavy, and at times disturbing, trains of thought, that are propagated as we explore the full scope of these monumental statements.

Maybe at some point you can elaborate on these "heavy, ...disturbing, trains of thought".

Anyways... you have said in your original post that - "The concept of "time" I ascribe to is that if there is ever "sequence", then there is something like "time" for those involved. For instance, most of us would admit that God existed before He created the heavens and the earth, right? "Before" is a sequence/time word. If God created time when He created everything, then He couldn't have done anything prior to creating the world. Thus God might exist, but because there is no "before" or "after", "prior" or "post-", God can't actually do anything. If He did, He would then have a "before" He did it and an "after" He did it, which means there is a sequence to what He does, which is a "time" construct."

My first question is - How could you possibly know, considering the ontological distinction between yourself and your Creator, that - "God can't actually do anything. If He did, He would then have a "before" He did it and an "after" He did it, which means there is a sequence to what He does, which is a "time" construct.

It is a conjecture based on a few things.
1. That God is orderly
2. That God's works are described as orderly (Day 1, Day 2, etc.)
3. That God is able to communicate effectively to us through His word.
4. That God, through His inspiration of the scriptures, uses words like "before" when describing His actions prior to creation.
5. That God, logicially, cannot violate the sequence model. For instance, God can't destroy a city before it is built. Christ can't NOT be a man once He becomes a man, without destroying some part of Himself.

My second question is a corollary to the first - Why is a sequence, necessarily defined as - a "time" construct?

Some of this may be answered in the above list, but the idea is that "time" is a way to describe what came first and what came second. "Last year, I took a trip to California, and last month I took a trip to Alaska." You can tell which came first and which came second by comparing the time words. But you can convey the same thing (at least the order) by just saying, "First, I visited California, and then I visited Alaska," or, more succinctly, "I visited California before I visited Alaska."

So, the "time words" I used there are "last", "year", "month", "first", "then", and "before". There are some more subtle time/sequence indicators as well, like verb tenses, "took" and "visited", which convey actions done in the past with respect to the writing of my sentences above. These are the ways languages allow us to express things, which God instilled in us from the beginning (Adam was able to communicate with God right away). Languages have changed over time, but those components of language still exist. And God didn't seem to work very hard to convey a different way of expressing things that somehow allows for His actions to be done in a different sequence than expressed. We can trust that Day 5 came after Day 4 in creation week.

In regard to your comment - I enjoy it, but I can't guarantee that I won't offend you. Not that i'm trying to, but sometimes asserting the opposite of someone's dearly held beliefs is offensive."

I'm old school (the right school) ... If you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen.

Yep. I'm glad you understand.


Getting back to the way to reply, I find it helpful to hit the "reply" button found at the bottom of the post I want to address, which quotes the whole post in the reply window. Then, when I want to address a certain portion, I set the cursor after that portion and hit "return" on my keyboard, which puts the proper forum tags on the previous and following parts of your post. That way I don't have to copy and paste or retype your comments, but they are visible and visibly marked different from my text. Maybe you know all that, but that's how I usually do it.

 

[moonbeam]

In Venn diagram terminology, I think that would make the inner circle, all creation, a component part (subset) of the larger circle. Is that what you are meaning to convey? If not, then we should revisit those verses above to see if we can agree on their meaning. I'm not sure I agree with my attempt to understand your meaning, because I don't know that God created us using some of His parts to make our physical selves, along with all animals, plants, dirt, water, etc.

As you suggest in this portion of your comments... I think it would be helpful if you would expound to some degree on your understanding of the two scriptures I have used - Acts 17:28 and Gen 1:1

That would give you the opportunity to clarify what thoughts are generated in your mind regards the issue of ontological distinctions and related spheres of influence (application) as they pertain to the creation in general and the creatures therein.... I will reply to your comments mentioned in the quote box, and other comments you have made in your post #31 after reflecting on your forthcoming thoughts on those two scriptures.

 

[moonbeam]

Hmmm...ok. I'll think about this. At first blush, it seems like it rejects the humanity of Christ, which I think could be described as a fusion between God and man.

I agree that there is a fusion (hypostatic union) between the divine nature and the human nature in regard to the man, Jesus of Nazareth... who is God in the flesh.
That hyperstatic union is a feature, the center piece, or component, of the created order (Creation) within which we live, and move, and have our being, and within which are the heavenlies (scripture mentions that there are seven heavens) ... that is all contained within the domain of the Creation... the small circle in my illustration.

That hypostatic union does not extend, beyond, the specific domain of the created order (Creation)... because of the ontological distinction between God (self-existent) and the creature (not self-existent).
The attributes of God... specifically the incommunicable attributes of God... are the sole possession, exclusively, of the One God, the Triune God... who's domain is the Large Circle in my illustration... within which is the small circle (Creation)

I believe this illustration (Venn diagram) captures that fundamental distinction, without any diminishment or dilution of the twin natures of the one (singular) person who is The LORD God Almighty Jesus Christ.

One way that this ontological distinction (in accordance with my illustration) can be intellectually accessible, in terms of valid consideration, is to take note of what is said in the first statement of scripture where it says - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"... it doesn't say "in the beginning the God - man created the heavens and the earth" .... just saying.

In Venn diagram terminology, I think that would make the inner circle, all creation, a component part (subset) of the larger circle. Is that what you are meaning to convey? If not, then we should revisit those verses above to see if we can agree on their meaning. I'm not sure I agree with my attempt to understand your meaning, because I don't know that God created us using some of His parts to make our physical selves, along with all animals, plants, dirt, water, etc.

The illustration I've employed is a Venn diagram of a relationship between a Super set and Subset.
The Super set (Large Circle) comprises the exclusive domain of the three persons that comprise the One God, the Triune God... (no God/man)
The Subset (small circle) comprises the three persons that comprise the One God, the Triune God, and the Creation exhaustively... including the God/man.

In regard to the issue (apparent dilemma) of physical matter being present in the Subset (small circle) and not present in the Super set (Large Circle) ... which the logical constraints of the Super set - Subset relationship demand... I would answer that objection in the following manner.

What is matter?

I content that matter is the tangible manifestation of the intangible thought of God.
That intangible thought (in the domain of the Super set) is transposed into tangible thought (in the domain of the Subset)

The scripture reference I would use to support this understanding are "Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD" - Jeremiah 23:24
And in addition, "Upholding all things by the word of his power" - Hebrews 1:3

Maybe at some point you can elaborate on these "heavy, ...disturbing, trains of thought".

I certainly could... but they are born of very much pondering.
I think one way that you can discover them for yourself... is by very much pondering.
You will know you have done enough pondering... when they begin to disturb your mind.

It is a conjecture based on a few things.
1. That God is orderly
2. That God's works are described as orderly (Day 1, Day 2, etc.)
3. That God is able to communicate effectively to us through His word.
4. That God, through His inspiration of the scriptures, uses words like "before" when describing His actions prior to creation.
5. That God, logicially, cannot violate the sequence model. For instance, God can't destroy a city before it is built. Christ can't NOT be a man once He becomes a man, without destroying some part of Himself.

I agree that conjecture (thought experiments) are useful tools of discovery... and an unavoidable and necessary element in our pondering.

Some of this may be answered in the above list, but the idea is that "time" is a way to describe what came first and what came second. "Last year, I took a trip to California, and last month I took a trip to Alaska." You can tell which came first and which came second by comparing the time words. But you can convey the same thing (at least the order) by just saying, "First, I visited California, and then I visited Alaska," or, more succinctly, "I visited California before I visited Alaska."

So, the "time words" I used there are "last", "year", "month", "first", "then", and "before". There are some more subtle time/sequence indicators as well, like verb tenses, "took" and "visited", which convey actions done in the past with respect to the writing of my sentences above. These are the ways languages allow us to express things, which God instilled in us from the beginning (Adam was able to communicate with God right away). Languages have changed over time, but those components of language still exist. And God didn't seem to work very hard to convey a different way of expressing things that somehow allows for His actions to be done in a different sequence than expressed. We can trust that Day 5 came after Day 4 in creation week.

I agree that language is sufficent to communicate all the necessary data and fine nuances which God would have us discover and know.
In your earlier comments where you mentioned that you have become an adherent of Open Theism, described both Arminianism and Calvinism as fulfilling the gamut of settled theology.
I presume than that you have some familiarity with the theological term "decree" and its varied usage, both logical and temporal.

Would you agree that there is some equivalence between the term decree, and your preferred terms of sequence/time?

 

[Derf]

As you suggest in this portion of your comments... I think it would be helpful if you would expound to some degree on your understanding of the two scriptures I have used - Acts 17:28 and Gen 1:1

That would give you the opportunity to clarify what thoughts are generated in your mind regards the issue of ontological distinctions and related spheres of influence (application) as they pertain to the creation in general and the creatures therein.... I will reply to your comments mentioned in the quote box, and other comments you have made in your post #31 after reflecting on your forthcoming thoughts on those two scriptures.

All right.
Acts 17:28 KJV - For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
This verse tells us that apart from God, we can't exist. He supplies the life-force we need to function. We come from Him. We can compare this latter half, "we are His offspring", to this:
Luke 3:38 KJV - Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.
In some way, Adam was the "son" of God, just as Seth was the son of Adam, and all of us are descended from Adam, making us all "sons"/offspring of God. Because we are offspring of God like we are offspring of our fathers, we can say a few things about being offspring:
1. It doesn't require that we be made of the same stuff (we are offspring of God, who is not physical)
2. It results in us being in the image of the person we are offspring of...like begets like.
3. It certainly doesn't require that we remain an integral part of the person we are offsprung from.

It helps to consider the following verse in Acts to see if it holds further gems of information for us:
Acts 17:29 KJV - Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
In other words, God is not like those things He made that are unthinking and unfeeling and unobserving...those things which are essentially "timeless", in that they don't relate to the people and creatures around them.

Genesis 1:1 KJV - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
This tells us that the earth and heavens had a beginning, and it was caused by God. Perhaps one could surmise a little more from it, but those are surmises, rather than information provided by the words.

Again, we should consider following verses to see if they hold relevant information for our discussion.
Genesis 1:26 KJV - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
God made all the world, then put man over all the world and everything on the earth.

Now, you seem to think those verses such more than that, so would you like to explain
1. What else you think they say,
2. Why you think that extra information is there, when I must not be seeing it,
3. Why do you think such extra information bears on our conversation.

Regarding that 3rd one, I'm hoping that you will explain why "in Him we live and move and have our being" is germane to our discussion. That may seem obvious to you, but it isn't to me, at least not so far.

I agree that there is a fusion (hypostatic union) between the divine nature and the human nature in regard to the man, Jesus of Nazareth... who is God in the flesh.
That hyperstatic union is a feature, the center piece, or component, of the created order (Creation) within which we live, and move, and have our being, and within which are the heavenlies (scripture mentions that there are seven heavens) ... that is all contained within the domain of the Creation... the small circle in my illustration.

But that small circle, if I understood you correctly, doesn't intersect with the outer circle. So how could it both intersect (hypostatic union) and NOT intersect? And if we are merely made with components that are part of God, why isn't there already an intersection, even if we ignore the hypostatic union?

That hypostatic union does not extend, beyond, the specific domain of the created order (Creation)... because of the ontological distinction between God (self-existent) and the creature (not self-existent).

It does, if the material God made us all out of is really part of God, and remains part of God (Venn diagram), then the ontological distinction is somewhat blurry.

The attributes of God... specifically the incommunicable attributes of God... are the sole possession, exclusively, of the One God, the Triune God... who's domain is the Large Circle in my illustration... within which is the small circle (Creation)

Right, the small circle is within the large circle. So if the large circle includes everything that has those attributes of God, then the small circle also has those attributes.

I believe this illustration (Venn diagram) captures that fundamental distinction, without any diminishment or dilution of the twin natures of the one (singular) person who is The LORD God Almighty Jesus Christ.

Again, I've offered reasons why I don't think that is so, at least according to the Venn diagram illustration.

One way that this ontological distinction (in accordance with my illustration) can be intellectually accessible, in terms of valid consideration, is to take note of what is said in the first statement of scripture where it says - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"... it doesn't say "in the beginning the God - man created the heavens and the earth" .... just saying.

Well, yes, I agree. And what can we learn from that? I suggest that one of the things we can learn from that is that at one time God's Son was not "God-man", and then later He was. Do you see how that forces us to consider that God has a sequence/time characteristic?

The illustration I've employed is a Venn diagram of a relationship between a Super set and Subset.
The Super set (Large Circle) comprises the exclusive domain of the three persons that comprise the One God, the Triune God... (no God/man)
The Subset (small circle) comprises the three persons that comprise the One God, the Triune God, and the Creation exhaustively... including the God/man.

In Venn diagram terminology, the small circle would have ALL of the attributes of the larger circle, plus some additional attributes that are lacking, or that set the members apart from the larger circle. For instance one can imagine a Venn diagram that contains in a large circle all of the even numbers, and a smaller circle that contains all of the even numbers that are also prime numbers (consisting only of the number 2).

In regard to the issue (apparent dilemma) of physical matter being present in the Subset (small circle) and not present in the Super set (Large Circle) ... which the logical constraints of the Super set - Subset relationship demand... I would answer that objection in the following manner.

What is matter?

I content that matter is the tangible manifestation of the intangible thought of God.

Ok, but what does that mean in terms of physical creation?

That intangible thought (in the domain of the Super set) is transposed into tangible thought (in the domain of the Subset)

The scripture reference I would use to support this understanding are "Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD" - Jeremiah 23:24
And in addition, "Upholding all things by the word of his power" - Hebrews 1:3

Both of which are intriguing, but neither of which actually defines matter in some way that we can use in our discussion.

I certainly could... but they are born of very much pondering.
I think one way that you can discover them for yourself... is by very much pondering.
You will know you have done enough pondering... when they begin to disturb your mind.

Ok. That's not something I am currently pondering.

I agree that conjecture (thought experiments) are useful tools of discovery... and an unavoidable and necessary element in our pondering.


I agree that language is sufficent to communicate all the necessary data and fine nuances which God would have us discover and know.
In your earlier comments where you mentioned that you have become an adherent of Open Theism, described both Arminianism and Calvinism as fulfilling the gamut of settled theology.

Yes, though I'm open to being corrected. My reasoning is that Calvinism says all things are settled by the decree of God, and Arminianism says all things are settled by the decisions of God and God's creation, but known ahead of time, before the created things existed. If you can think of another entity that helps to settle things, please explain.

I presume than that you have some familiarity with the theological term "decree" and its varied usage, both logical and temporal.

Would you agree that there is some equivalence between the term decree, and your preferred terms of sequence/time?

No, not equivalence. Perhaps "decree" can be seen as evidence for sequence, but I do not see any reason to equate "decree" with "sequence" or "time". Why do you think that might show some equivalence?

 

[moonbeam]

All right.
Acts 17:28 KJV - For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
This verse tells us that apart from God, we can't exist. He supplies the life-force we need to function. We come from Him.

I agree wholeheartedly ... with your statement ... which I would describe as being a broad overview ... but lacking in the required precision.

Especially for and in-depth enquiry into the weighty matters you have raised as an Open Theist concerning sequence/time as it pertains to God and man - and you have done so amongst an audience of Calvinists (Determinists).

You have not addressed the content of this scriptural proposition ... in particular the words "For in him..."

How are we "in him" contemporaneously?

How can we be contemporaneously in "Him" to the extent that we actually live, and move, and have our being (ontologically)?

How can we (the physical material creation) be contemporaneously within the Self - Existent Living God - who is Spirit?

Now, you seem to think those verses such more than that, so would you like to explain
1. What else you think they say,
2. Why you think that extra information is there, when I must not be seeing it,
3. Why do you think such extra information bears on our conversation.

Regarding that 3rd one, I'm hoping that you will explain why "in Him we live and move and have our being" is germane to our discussion. That may seem obvious to you, but it isn't to me, at least not so far.

I think when you have given some indepth thought in regards responding to my queries (above) ... you will know why it is germane to our discussion.

 

[Derf]

I agree wholeheartedly ... with your statement ... which I would describe as being a broad overview ... but lacking in the required precision.

Especially for and in-depth enquiry into the weighty matters you have raised as an Open Theist concerning sequence/time as it pertains to God and man - and you have done so amongst an audience of Calvinists (Determinists).

You have not addressed the content of this scriptural proposition ... in particular the words "For in him..."

How are we "in him" contemporaneously?

What does it mean to be "in" someone? Isn't Christ "in" us? And doesn't Christ "in us" live, move, and have His being here on this earth?

How can we be contemporaneously in "Him" to the extent that we actually live, and move, and have our being (ontologically)?

It seems to me that we live and move and have our being in Him by
1. Having His breath of life
2. Having a world to live in
3. Not having Him take those things away from us.

How can we (the physical material creation) be contemporaneously within the Self - Existent Living God - who is Spirit?



I think when you have given some indepth thought in regards responding to my queries (above) ... you will know why it is germane to our discussion.

I've thought about it. Now would you like to explain what you mean by it?

 

[moonbeam]

You asked previously in your post number 34 - How Acts 17:28 is germane to our discussion (regards sequence/time)
I contend that that particular scripture lays the foundation for insights into the true nature of our reality (the Creation we inhabit).
Just thought I would mention that... because I would like to drill down, specifically, into the full scope of this monumental statement.

What does it mean to be "in" someone? Isn't Christ "in" us? And doesn't Christ "in us" live, move, and have His being here on this earth?

I find that to be a very deft response ... as a combination of related thought ... in particular the portion I have taken liberty to highlight.

In regard to the scripture - "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;" - to which your response above references.

My question is - Is your comment all inclusive, in that it is equally applicable to Satan and every fallen angel?

 

[Derf]

You asked previously in your post number 34 - How Acts 17:28 is germane to our discussion (regards sequence/time)
I contend that that particular scripture lays the foundation for insights into the true nature of our reality (the Creation we inhabit).
Just thought I would mention that... because I would like to drill down, specifically, into the full scope of this monumental statement.

Good!

I find that to be a very deft response ... as a combination of related thought ... in particular the portion I have taken liberty to highlight.

In regard to the scripture - "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;" - to which your response above references.

My question is - Is your comment all inclusive, in that it is equally applicable to Satan and every fallen angel?

Do you mean to ask whether I think Christ is "in" Satan and every fallen angel? No. Christ is "in" us as believers. I don't think He is "in" everything.
[Rom 8:9-10 NKJV] 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ [is] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin, but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.

But we are His body. In one sense (though not necessarily exclusively), that means that whatever Christ wants to do in this world, He does in the church, His body. So Christ doesn't "live, move or have His being" in this world, except in the church. If that's true, and what you say about the subset of created, sentient beings that is ontologically within the greater set of God, which you claim is evidenced by Acts 17:28, is also true, then Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, is also a subset of us. These are then contradictions, which tell us that something is wrong with how we are representing the facts of scripture in our illustrations. And I propose that the problem is that you have used Acts 17:28 incorrectly--the meaning of "in him we live and move and have our being" is not what you say it is.

 

[intotheforge]

I recently had a debate with a pair of open theists on another site. As a quick overview for those who aren't familiar with open theism, it basically boils down to a few points.
1) Time is eternal and not a creation of God's
2) God is stuck in time
3) God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge
4) Man has full libertarian free will and it can never be violated
There are more but you get the idea. Anyway, in regards to the exhaustive foreknowledge point, these open theists pointed to

1 Samuel 13:13-14: Samuel said to Saul, "You have acted foolishly;you have not kept the commandment of the Lordyour God, which He commanded you, for now the Lord would have established your kingdom[a]over Israel forever. But now your kingdom shall not endure. The Lord has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has appointed him as ruler over His people, because you have not kept what theLord commanded you."

Genesis 2:19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the [p]sky, andbrought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

Genesis 22:12 He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for nowI know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

They use these verses to point to the idea that God did not know these things would happen, and therefore could not have exhaustive foreknowledge. There are of course others (mostly taken out of context and which I was easily able to show their meanings and how they did not reinforce open theism) but these ones actually gave me pause. Not that I believe in anyway that open theism is correct, but that I didn't have a suitable response. Any ideas? Any thoughts? I'm loathe to let me ignorance continue on this sort of thing...

I'm an Arminian, although open theism does intrigue me.

 

[moonbeam]

As mentioned previously, I do want to drill down, specifically, into the full scope of Acts 17:28 ... as the actual nature of the reality we inhabit (Creation in its totality) is fundamental to weighty matters such as sequence, time, decree, and eternity.
I hope the narrow focus of my responses, in regard your broader comments (which are subject related) are not viewed as dismissive of your thought process ... that is not the case. I do intend to revisit them, and I will address the substantive matters they raise.

Do you mean to ask whether I think Christ is "in" Satan and every fallen angel? No. Christ is "in" us as believers. I don't think He is "in" everything.

Taking note of that (your response) and putting it to one side for a moment (as part of a continuing thought experiment)

I will remind you that Paul was speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Christ) - hence we have that public discourse recorded in the scripture. I will also remind you that Paul was addressing an audience of pagan philosophers and academics who worshiped and revered and propagated the knowledge of false gods - false gods diametrically opposed to the true, living, God.

In the apostle's preamble he says - "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an alter with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you."

Following that statement and after a few brief comments...

The Holy Spirit in Paul - inspired these words - "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;"

That statement demands that we view Creation itself, as internal, to Him (the True Living God) - I believe that is an inescapable logical necessity.

My question is - Do you agree? or Do you disagree?