Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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?
How do you know Arminians are truly Christians? Would you say Calvinists are truly Christians as well?
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.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
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?2) God is stuck in time
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.3) God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge
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.4) Man has full libertarian free will and it can never be violated
Would you like to talk about these? It's good when we read scripture and it gives us pause, I think.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...
Hi Moonbeam. I'd call myself an adherent. Why do you ask?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?
I have been a long time away from theological discussions... so more than a little rusty (so to speak)Hi Moonbeam. I'd call myself an adherent. Why do you ask?
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 have been a long time away from theological discussions... so more than a little rusty (so to speak)
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.Knowing your motivations helps me to clarify (in my own mind) what means and methods would be suitable when engaging with you.
Fantastic!I like to do my own thinking
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.... 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.
Standing by in great eagerness...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.
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.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.
Which, I think, makes it NOT a "Venn diagram", right? To be completely within, but not intersecting with?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)
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.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.
Maybe at some point you can elaborate on these "heavy, ...disturbing, trains of thought".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.
It is a conjecture based on a few things.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.
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."My second question is a corollary to the first - Why is a sequence, necessarily defined as - a "time" construct?
Yep. I'm glad you understand.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.
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 1:1In 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.
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.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.
The illustration I've employed is a Venn diagram of a relationship between a Super set and Subset.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.
I certainly could... but they are born of very much pondering.Maybe at some point you can elaborate on these "heavy, ...disturbing, trains of thought".
I agree that conjecture (thought experiments) are useful tools of discovery... and an unavoidable and necessary element in our pondering.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 language is sufficent to communicate all the necessary data and fine nuances which God would have us discover and know.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.
All right.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.
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?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.
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.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).
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.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)
Again, I've offered reasons why I don't think that is so, at least according to the Venn diagram illustration.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.
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?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, 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).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.
Ok, but what does that mean in terms of physical creation?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.
Both of which are intriguing, but neither of which actually defines matter in some way that we can use in our discussion.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
Ok. That's not something I am currently pondering.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.
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 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.
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?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?
I agree wholeheartedly ... with your statement ... which I would describe as being a broad overview ... but lacking in the required precision.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 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.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.
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 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?
It seems to me that we live and move and have our being in Him byHow can we be contemporaneously in "Him" to the extent that we actually live, and move, and have our being (ontologically)?
I've thought about it. Now would you like to explain what you mean by it?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 find that to be a very deft response ... as a combination of related thought ... in particular the portion I have taken liberty to highlight.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?
Good!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.
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.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?
I'm an Arminian, although open theism does intrigue me.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...
Taking note of that (your response) and putting it to one side for a moment (as part of a continuing thought experiment)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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?