[2COR12:9]

Enjoyable perspectives in these interviews.

Is God Temporal or Timeless? (Part 1 of 2)

Is God Temporal or Timeless? (Part 2 of 2)

How Could God Know the Future? (Part 1 of 2)

How Could God Know the Future? (Part 2 of 2)

[OMEGA]

God is Temporal

= limited by time: a temporal dimension;
temporal and spatial boundaries, relating to the material

Rev 4:3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone:

and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.

NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE SAYS THAT YOU CANNOT TOUCH GOD.

----------------------------

GOD KNOWS THE FUTURE BECAUSE HUMANS ARE SO PREDICTABLE.

ALSO, GOD BRINGS FUTURE EVENTS TO PASS.

Psa_37:5 Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him;
and he shall bring it to pass.

Jer_49:39 But it shall come to pass in the latter days,
that I will bring again the captivity of Elam, saith the LORD.

Isa_28:21 For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act.

[Shasta]

Originally Posted by OMEGA

God is Temporal

= limited by time: a temporal dimension;
temporal and spatial boundaries, relating to the material

Rev 4:3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone:

and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.

NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE SAYS THAT YOU CANNOT TOUCH GOD.



----------------------------

GOD KNOWS THE FUTURE BECAUSE HUMANS ARE SO PREDICTABLE.

ALSO, GOD BRINGS FUTURE EVENTS TO PASS.

Psa_37:5 Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him;
and he shall bring it to pass.

Jer_49:39 But it shall come to pass in the latter days,
that I will bring again the captivity of Elam, saith the LORD.

Isa_28:21 For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act.

You seriously believe God the Father is a local spatial being with arms, legs, a face composed of some kind of material? If God's form has limits it might be possible to say as did Kenneth Copeland that God is about 6ft tall? Also if the manifestations of God in a human-like form are to be taken literally should all the scriptures about the Father having hands, feet, a face, (etc.) be taken literally also? That presents some comical pictures in my imagination when I read in Psalm 91 that God has wings and feathers.

Presenting God the Father in such a way makes Him more like one of the gods of mythology, a sort of Zeus on a grand scale. Before creation I can imagine this local palpable God sitting sometimes on a chair called His throne or promenading through the garden of His celestial palace (since He is material and local He has to be in a place), taking counsel with the Spirit and the Logos who presumably did not have bodies. This is not the way the Hebrew people have understood the ineffable transcendent God since He revealed Himself to them.

The idea that God knows future by making them happen them happen is Calvinistic. They too believe that God knows the future because He decrees it.

The idea that God knows what people will because they are utterly predictable is a denial of freewill.

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by 2COR12:9

[center]

Enjoyable perspectives in these interviews.

First, an unknowable future event is not open to be a "true" or "not true" proposition as Craig says. If the future event is knowable or certain to occur then "freedom" to do otherwise is not possible. All Craig does is argue away free will.

Criag does not present open view accurately. To say God determines somethings but not everything is not a contradiction. Why domost theologians forget to mention that Satan enters Judas, " Luke 22:3 Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve; 4 he went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers how he might betray him to them." Satan is the betrayer behind Judas and Peter. Matthew 16:23 RSV, But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men."

--Dave

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by Shasta

You seriously believe God the Father is a local spatial being with arms, legs, a face composed of some kind of material? If God's form has limits it might be possible to say as did Kenneth Copeland that God is about 6ft tall? Also if the manifestations of God in a human-like form are to be taken literally should all the scriptures about the Father having hands, feet, a face, (etc.) be taken literally also? That presents some comical pictures in my imagination when I read in Psalm 91 that God has wings and feathers.

Presenting God the Father in such a way makes Him more like one of the gods of mythology, a sort of Zeus on a grand scale. Before creation I can imagine this local palpable God sitting sometimes on a chair called His throne or promenading through the garden of His celestial palace (since He is material and local He has to be in a place), taking counsel with the Spirit and the Logos who presumably did not have bodies. This is not the way the Hebrew people have understood the ineffable transcendent God since He revealed Himself to them.

The idea that God knows future by making them happen them happen is Calvinistic. They too believe that God knows the future because He decrees it.

The idea that God knows what people will because they are utterly predictable is a denial of freewill.

Is God "no place", "some place", or every place in the universe?

--Dave

[2COR12:9]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

First, an unknowable future event is not open to be a "true" or "not true" proposition as Craig says. If the future event is knowable or certain to occur then "freedom" to do otherwise is not possible. All Craig does is argue away free will.

Criag does not present open view accurately. To say God determines somethings but not everything is not a contradiction. Why domost theologians forget to mention that Satan enters Judas, " Luke 22:3 Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve; 4 he went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers how he might betray him to them." Satan is the betrayer behind Judas and Peter. Matthew 16:23 RSV, But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men."

--Dave

Craig's a molonist, those counterfactuals within middle knowledge, are debatable as to there being no truth value to them, God knowing them infallibly makes them as actual as if they were contingent truths. I don't agree with theological fatalism though. I don't see foreknowledge eradicating freewill, I can't combine knowing what one will choose freely as a proponent of manipulation upon the person that freely chooses, even if that choice cannot be broken. With middle knowledge knowing all counterfactuals in every possible world does not control anyone, especially when they do not exist, so in the world that the actual contingent truth is manifest, is not anymore manipulated then with every other counterfactual. Though I think molonism borders determinism when God uses middle knowledge to influence His plans for creation to best suit His will.

Regardless, I only presented the videos to share different perspectives. I'm an open theist and see foreknowledge as useless if it is not partnered with determinism. I don't think God knows what will actually happen until it happens, not to say that like a form of middle knowledge, His infinite wisdom is not lacking in foresight, and preparing for such, and as you said He knows what He has determined to carry out, but these constraints are no more a hindrance on man's free will then that we have no choice where and when we will be born, what are genetics will be, cultural influences etc..

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by 2COR12:9

Craig's a molonist, those counterfactuals within middle knowledge, are debatable as to there being no truth value to them, God knowing them infallibly makes them as actual as if they were contingent truths. I don't agree with theological fatalism though. I don't see foreknowledge eradicating freewill, I can't combine knowing what one will choose freely as a proponent of manipulation upon the person that freely chooses, even if that choice cannot be broken. With middle knowledge knowing all counterfactuals in every possible world does not control anyone, especially when they do not exist, so in the world that the actual contingent truth is manifest, is not anymore manipulated then with every other counterfactual. Though I think molonism borders determinism when God uses middle knowledge to influence His plans for creation to best suit His will.

Regardless, I only presented the videos to share different perspectives. I'm an open theist and see foreknowledge as useless if it is not partnered with determinism. I don't think God knows what will actually happen until it happens, not to say that like a form of middle knowledge, His infinite wisdom is not lacking in foresight, and preparing for such, and as you said He knows what He has determined to carry out, but these constraints are no more a hindrance on man's free will then that we have no choice where and when we will be born, what are genetics will be, cultural influences etc..

Potentiality vs actuality is what the debate is really about. Does God know actually what will happen or does he know potentially what will happen in all of human history, it doesn't matter if he knows it from perception or innately.

The real deception is saying God created time and space, the "box", and not explain that time for many, not open theists, means human history. By the way, no where in scripture does it say he created either time or space. If time and human history are the same thing then God knows what will happen because he created every event. We believe that God created the place where events happen but did or does not create all the events, but is free to do so if and when he wants--DFT.

God had determined that you should present the videos so that I would explain why they are wrong--just kidding.

--Dave

[Shasta]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

Potentiality vs actuality is what the debate is really about. Does God know actually what will happen or does he know potentially what will happen in all of human history, it doesn't matter if he knows it from perception or innately.

The real deception is saying God created time and space, the "box", and not explain that time for many, not open theists, means human history. By the way, no where in scripture does it say he created either time or space. If time and human history are the same thing then God knows what will happen because he created every event. We believe that God created the place where events happen but did or does not create all the events, but is free to do so if and when he wants--DFT.

God had determined that you should present the videos so that I would explain why they are wrong--just kidding.

--Dave

Your assertion that "nowhere in the Bible does it say explicitly that "God created space and time" is not an argument. Most of the arguments for the Open Theism position are not on explicit proof texts such as "God IS in time."

Your other remark that space and time were not created, are refuted by design of the universe that God DID create, which according to modern physics consists of an interweaving of space, time and matter. This has been verified over and over for the last 50 years. I have been amazed at the willingness on the part of many to redefine physics to suit the doctrinal system Open Theism.

I am sure you have a particular reason for equating "time" with "human history" I will leave that for you to explain but it is not always about human history. When the reference point is "the foundation of the earth" or even more BEFORE the foundation of the earth the event precedes human history.


"Foreknowledge"was the doctrine taught by the Apostolic fathers of the first and second century (i.e., before Augustine) Open Theism on the other hand is novel doctrine based on 21th century philosophical ruminations of such men as Clark Pinnock who changed the term into mere prognostication (at least when it came to predicting the acts of men). He went as far as to say that God could not have predicted salvation through the cross since Christ may or may not have been crucified at the hands of wicked men. Apparently his overt rejection of Biblical in inerrancy enabled him to have an "open" view of the scriptures.

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by Shasta

Your assertion that "nowhere in the Bible does it say explicitly that "God created space and time" is not an argument. Most of the arguments for the Open Theism position are not on explicit proof texts such as "God IS in time."

Your other remark that space and time were not created, are refuted by design of the universe that God DID create, which according to modern physics consists of an interweaving of space, time and matter. This has been verified over and over for the last 50 years. I have been amazed at the willingness on the part of many to redefine physics to suit the doctrinal system Open Theism.

I am sure you have a particular reason for equating "time" with "human history" I will leave that for you to explain but it is not always about human history. When the reference point is "the foundation of the earth" or even more BEFORE the foundation of the earth the event precedes human history.

"Foreknowledge"was the doctrine taught by the Apostolic fathers of the first and second century (i.e., before Augustine) Open Theism on the other hand is novel doctrine based on 21th century philosophical ruminations of such men as Clark Pinnock who changed the term into mere prognostication (at least when it came to predicting the acts of men). He went as far as to say that God could not have predicted salvation through the cross since Christ may or may not have been crucified at the hands of wicked men. Apparently his overt rejection of Biblical in inerrancy enabled him to have an "open" view of the scriptures.

That the Bible does not say that God created space and time is not an assertion, it's a fact. Your new, I'm not, I'll give you a pass. I've enjoyed reading many of you posts. That there was no time or space before the creation of the world is an assertion. Time is intrinsic to the nature of the Trinity, because time, in itself is not a thing nor is space.

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

Time and space have a relationship to things that exist, move or change in anyway, change is merely a type of movement anyway. God is something, not nothing, in whom movement takes place. The only true transcendence of God is that he transcends matter, he is not material, he is spirit and not space either. God is not space nor matter but he has a presence. Space and time have a relationship to the creation that is not the same to God but he is not spaceless nor intrisically timeless he has a past and a future. The material world is subject to deterioration God is not.

Modernity's physicists ignore that the universe is running down according to the laws of physics, and want us to believe the universe is evolving and eternal at the same time. Quantum thinking is no replacement rational thought.

I have not equated time with human history. How can one say God is above the line of time if they do not mean by that human history?

--Dave

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

That the Bible does not say that God created space and time is not an assertion, it's a fact. Your new, I'm not, I'll give you a pass. I've enjoyed reading many of you posts. That there was no time or space before the creation of the world is an assertion. Time is intrinsic to the nature of the Trinity, because time, in itself is not a thing nor is space.

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

Time and space have a relationship to things that exist, move or change in anyway, change is merely a type of movement anyway. God is something, not nothing, in whom movement takes place. The only true transcendence of God is that he transcends matter, he is not material, he is spirit and not space either. God is not space nor matter but he has a presence. Space and time have a relationship to the creation that is not the same to God but he is not spaceless nor intrisically timeless he has a past and a future. The material world is subject to deterioration God is not.

Modernity's physicists ignore that the universe is running down according to the laws of physics, and want us to believe the universe is evolving and eternal at the same time. Quantum thinking is no replacement rational thought.

I have not equated time with human history. How can one say God is above the line of time if they do not mean by that human history?

--Dave

[Shasta]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

Is God "no place", "some place", or every place in the universe?

--Dave

Well He is not no place
Does He have a single locality - no (except in the person of the Son)

Since He existed before the matter-energy-space-time continuum (the universe) I would say that space is irrelevant to Him. He is at all points in the universe. In the form of the Son He became local. Are you saying God has a local form limited in space (that is not the Son)?

What is your view?

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by Shasta

Well He is not no place
Does He have a single locality - no (except in the person of the Son)

Since He existed before the matter-energy-space-time continuum (the universe) I would say that space is irrelevant to Him. He is at all points in the universe. In the form of the Son He became local. Are you saying God has a local form limited in space (that is not the Son)?

What is your view?

The traditional model of God is built on the concept of "Pure Actuality", which is the construct of Aristotle, actually called the "Unmoved Mover". But rather than explain this to Christendom Augustine and Aquinas picked verses here and there, out of context and syntax, and presented to us a God who, irrationally, both moves and does not move, changes and does not change, is in time and not in time, occupies space and does not occupy space. The revealed word gives us one God and natural theology gives us another which is the opposite. The hook for maintaining natural theology is giving it a different name, the Perfections of God. Who can argue against perfection?

Consequently, the infinitude of God is based on the actuality or completeness of his natural attributes. His thinking and doing are complete, omniscience is thinking every infinite, or every possible thought all at once and always. Omnipotence is God doing every infinite or every possible thing all at once and always. This God is not, logically, free. He cannot choose what to do or think about or not do or not think about. Omnipresence is God being everywhere throughout human history all at once and forever. He is not free to be present where he wants to be when he wants to be.

God from the revealed word is “infinite potentiality”. He is free to choose what to think about and do with an infinite, or unlimited, potential. We have finite, very limited potential. God can choose to do and think any number of things at once, he does not think and do one thing at a time but neither does he think and do everything all at once or timelessly. He is free to be where he wants, when he wants, in the universe he has created.

To God, time is intrisic to his freedom to choose what to do and when.

To God space is the infinite nothingness where he expresses his unlimited creative potential.

God is spirit and that is "something" that is distinct from the nothingness of space and distinct from the matter that that he has created to occupy it with him.

--Dave