Common views of God and time.

[Delmar]

The changes spoken of in these verses are not in God, but in the circumstances which regulate God’s dealings

If I didn't know any better I would say that this sentence shows that you really understand this stuff. I do however, know better.

 

[tetelestai]

The emphasis in the verse (check several versions) is God's ABILITY to bring things to pass that He declares. In Genesis, He declares a plan of redemption after the Fall (that He formulated even before the foundations of the world) and implements it when the potentiality becomes a necessity (Gen. 3, not eternity past in a decretal view). It still does not become actual until the first century. God can declare this in Genesis because He has the ability to unilaterally incarnate apart from our free will opposition. He can also declare the judgments in Revelation in advance, because He can send hail or famine whenever and however He wants (see history in the OT). Nothing can stop this, so His ability, not His prescience, ensure these things.

We do not see God declaring all of the scores of every hockey game from trillions of years ago because this is not a possible object of certain knowledge, assuming we freely play the game and God does not cause/coerce/micromanage the players to ensure outcomes (hence the futility of praying that Johnny Christian's soccer team beats Billy Christian's soccer team or praying to fix the lottery so you can give to missions?!).

Here is where I am confused with the open view.

You guys believe that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge, but can bring things to pass that He has prophesized. How then do you explain the names in the “Book of Life” that were written from the foundation of the world?

Here we see two examples of those who are not written in the Book of life:

(Rev 13:8) And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


(Rev 17:8) The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

How could God have a book of individual names in it before Adam was even created? How did God know that Knight’s name was going to be Eric before the foundation of the world?

Since the open theist believes in libertarian free will, how then does a parent have libertarian free will to name their child whatever they want if God had the specific name written in a book before the foundation of the world?

The only logical answer is that God has exhaustive foreknowledge because He lives outside of time.

Come on open theists, you can’t use the corporate election in lieu of individual election for this one like you do for Eph 1:4.

 

[Nang]

If I didn't know any better I would say that this sentence shows that you really understand this stuff. I do however, know better.

Delmar:

I do hope you mean that you understand that timely (temporal) circumstances do not regulate the will or actions of God.. . right?

AMR:

You do know and teach that the (atemporal) will and intentions of Sovereign God regulate the (temporal) circumstances of all events that occur . . .right?

Nang

 

[Evoken]

YES or NO, could God have predetermined that they repent without the express warning from God?

Asked another way.... did God need to predestine the warning to get the desired result? Or is God powerful enough to merely pre-program them to repent at a given time without the warning? (hypothetically if course)

If you mean, wether God can lead men to repentance by some other means (i.e. by the preaching of a minister)? Then the answer is yes. See for instance Acts 13:48; 16:14.

If you mean, wether God can make it so that without his grace and drawing fallen man may come to genuine repentance and faith? Then the answer is no, for no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him by the Holy Ghost (John 6:44, 66; 1 Corinthians 12:3).

It is like asking wether God could “pre-program” a man to fly tomorrow by simply flapping his arms. Such cannot be done because it is beyond the power of man. To do so he would need the help of something that does not belongs to his nature. Likewise, genuine repentance and faith are beyond the power of fallen man and for it he needs the grace of God.

Thus St. Paul says “faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). Mere hearing is not enough, God must also quicken the fallen man and open his heart by grace so that he repents and embraces the truth (Ephesians 2:4-5; Acts 16:14).

To give an unified reply to the two ways your question may be taken: God could have used any instrumental cause or none at all to lead fallen man into repentance, for he is the efficient cause of the grace by which he repents. But fallen man cannot come to repentance save by God’s grace, whether bestowed directly by him as efficient cause or by means of an instrumental cause.

Sorry that I didn’t give you the yes or no answer you asked for, but the question was a bit loaded for that


Evo

 

[Nang]

If you mean, wether God can lead men to repentance by some other means (i.e. by the preaching of a minister)? Then the answer is yes. See for instance Acts 13:48; 16:14.

If you mean, wether God can make it so that without his grace and drawing fallen man may come to genuine repentance and faith? Then the answer is no, for no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him by the Holy Ghost (John 6:44, 66; 1 Corinthians 12:3).

It is like asking wether God could “pre-program” a man to fly tomorrow by simply flapping his arms. Such cannot be done because it is beyond the power of man. To do so he would need the help of something that does not belongs to his nature. Likewise, genuine repentance and faith are beyond the power of fallen man and for it he needs the grace of God.

Thus St. Paul says “faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). Mere hearing is not enough, God must also quicken the fallen man and open his heart by grace so that he repents and embraces the truth (Ephesians 2:4-5; Acts 16:14).

To give an unified reply to the two ways your question may be taken: God could have used any instrumental cause or none at all to lead fallen man into repentance, for he is the efficient cause of the grace by which he repents. But fallen man cannot come to repentance save by God’s grace, whether bestowed directly by him as efficient cause or by means of an instrumental cause.

Sorry that I didn’t give you the yes or no answer you asked for, but the question was a bit loaded for that


Evo

Nang falls in line and agrees with Knight's logic on the subject of repentance.

For the Calvinist to be consistent, the Calvinist must admit that God "grants" repentance (which is the fruit of grace and divine pardon) to sinners (II Tim. 2:25), solely according to His sovereign will and intents, and apart from any works, decisions, or actions of the guilty.

Of course, this logic leads to the doctrine of double predestination, which all humans, by nature abhor, for it totally denies any participation of human free will in the matters of salvation.

But such is what I believe is taught in Romans 9, and such is biblical truth, no matter how unpallatible it is for us mortals to swallow and accept.

Nang

 

[Nick M]

Because the conditions for our promise of salvation have already been fulfilled.

That is what I was going to say.

:thumb:

 

[Nick M]

According to open theists, God doesn’t know the future, but somehow prophesized to us this battle will take place anyway.

You are a liar or stupid. I will give you the chance to change that answer. Open theism is the acknowledgement that God is free, and he hasn't settled every minute detail. He won't make you love you.

1. God has to coerce millions of human beings and events for this battle to take place. This violates human free will.

He knows you and everybody else better than ourselves. He knows all that is knowable. I can sit here right now and gurantee that radical Islam will invade the rest of Jerusalem and Israel. It abosulutey will happen.

2. God guessed this battle will take place. It may or it may not.

Your blasphemous language against him is incredible. May you be sealed before it is too late.

I appreciate the easy one. Jesus said some of them (his apostes) would not taste death before those events unfolded. So that leaves few choices.

1. The Bible and God are false
2. People didn't do what God thought they would do. (and instead he dispensed grace)

Because open theism is a paradox

If you go back in time, and kill your father in his youth, will you cease to exist? That is the paradox of your satanic nonsense.

From Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: 1heed
Pronunciation: \ˈhēd\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hēdan; akin to Old High German huota guard, Old English hōd hood
Date: before 12th century
intransitive verb
: to pay attention
transitive verb
: to give consideration or attention to : mind <heed what he says> <heed the call>

So we should mind our manners? Gotcha. :loser:

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm no great open theist theologian - but I'm definitely leaning that direction. Open theists believe that God's actions can change without his nature changing.

A very imperfect example. I strive to be a good parent to my children (my nature so to speak). I promise to take them to McDonalds (their favorite restaurant) because they have been very good. Before dinner time arrives we get an all expense trip to Disney and we have to leave immediately. I do not fulfill my promise to take them to McDonalds.

The reverse situation could also occur. My oldest daughter could fight with her sister (unfortunately all too common) and part of their punishment is no dinner out.

Or even a 3rd scenario - the whole family comes down with stomach flu and we cancel dinner out.

Has my nature changed? Has there been sin on my part? No, my actions have changed based on changing circumstances.

Take a look at your calendar or to do list. How much are you able to accomplish as a finite human with no foreknowledge? How much happens that you intend to do? If you planned to get 50 people together in one place at a certain time - could you do it? How much more so can our Mighty God do? (even without foreknowledge).

Dawn

:thumb:

 

[Lighthouse]

I do not serve a stationary, static god of stone. I serve the Living, Dynamic, God!

 

[Nick M]

This is completely without foundation, and actually contradicts every finding of science, interpretation of evidence notwithstanding. Time is an intrinsic part of the space-time continuum - without one, you don't have the other. Perhaps you hold to the theory that the space in which all this matter floats in the Universe also "merely is," but that is also contrary to all scientific knowledge - it is irrational. Both time and space (as we now experience them) had their beginning simultaneously at that point described in Genesis 1: 1 "In the beginning, God ..."

That doesn't exist. Time had to exist before he created our natural world. Newton is right, Einstein is wrong. The speed of light isn't constant, but time is.

On its long journey, the light from those quasars has passed through gas clouds full of metals. The photons in the light - little packets of energy that make up the light itself - interact with the electrons in the gas clouds, charged particles that orbit the nuclei of the metal atoms. This leaves a fingerprint on the light as it arrives on Earth, called the fine structure constant, Murphy explains.

When they measured the fine structure constant of this 12 billion-year-old light, Webb and Murphy found it was slightly smaller than it would be today. Mathematically, there were two possible reasons for this - either the electric charge of the electrons had increased, or the speed of light had fallen.

Using Stephen Hawking's formula for black hole thermodynamics, Davies, Davis and Lineweaver ruled out the electric charge possibility. By adapting Hawking's formula, they determined that an increase in electric charge would break the second law of thermodynamics, which says energy can only flow from hot spots to cold spots.

"That's illegal. It would be like a cup of coffee sitting on your desk getting hotter," Lineweaver says.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You are a liar or stupid. I will give you the chance to change that answer. Open theism is the acknowledgement that God is free, and he hasn't settled every minute detail. He won't make you love you.

He knows you and everybody else better than ourselves. He knows all that is knowable. I can sit here right now and gurantee that radical Islam will invade the rest of Jerusalem and Israel. It abosulutey will happen.

Your blasphemous language against him is incredible. May you be sealed before it is too late.

I appreciate the easy one. Jesus said some of them (his apostes) would not taste death before those events unfolded. So that leaves few choices.

1. The Bible and God are false
2. People didn't do what God thought they would do. (and instead he dispensed grace)

If you go back in time, and kill your father in his youth, will you cease to exist? That is the paradox of your satanic nonsense.

So we should mind our manners? Gotcha. :loser:

Come on Nick... I disagree with tetelestai just as much as you do but this is all a bit over the line. tetelestai is a Christian brother who is here to discuss the issues. I think you can be firm with him without this type of "over the top" hyperbole.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God has character by choice, not by substance.

I am just going to keep pointing out your tendency to string together words without regard to their meaning. Your sentence and the argument you make based upon it is meaningless. As if character and essence can be divorced in God. Please show how that is possible.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR:

You do know and teach that the (atemporal) will and intentions of Sovereign God regulate the (temporal) circumstances of all events that occur . . .right?

Nang

Indeed I do.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

YES or NO, could God have predetermined that they repent without the express warning from God?

Asked another way.... did God need to predestine the warning to get the desired result? Or is God powerful enough to merely pre-program them to repent at a given time without the warning? (hypothetically if course)

Evoken has given the answer, yes, of course God could do so. God may ordain the means and the end to be the direct result of His own act versus the acts of His agents or contingent acts of others. Why does He not do this more often? For the very reason He created us, that His own glory be realized. We would not know His mercy without His justice, nor His love without His wrath, etc. In addition to loving God, we should fear the lord, a fear that drives us to reverence for His holiness. That fear comes from His warnings and demonstrations of His actions against those that refuse to fear Him. Too many want to pal up with God, making Him into someone just like ourselves, only way better, versus a Being that is transcendently different than we could ever hope to be.

We just won't agree with the prophet who glimpsed the glory of God and recognized his uncleanless in the face of such awesome holiness. God struck men down just for what we would consider innocuous acts such as touching the falling Ark of the Covenant. Was that a cruel act? Hardly. It was the act of a Being so holy that any defilement warranted immediate death. That we are not struck down right now is but for His unfathomable mercy and love. Meditate on this concept of holiness, study it deeply, and when you get that glimpse of God's holiness it will drive you to your knees; then you will understand what I have been saying all along.

 

[Delmar]

Delmar:

I do hope you mean that you understand that timely (temporal) circumstances do not regulate the will or actions of God.. . right?

Truth is I am so convinced that you and I don't speak the same language that I am not even going to pretend to know what your question means.

 

[Delmar]

And I knew that would be your answer.

And it's silly! It's a silly answer! What you are saying is...

God ordains an eternity ago that He warns the people and they repent. (that covers your "both" answer)

Yet any 3rd grader could tell you that really isn't "both". In actuality it's...
B. God's predetermining their repentance for all eternity

In this case... A and B are mutually exclusive.

After all God could have just as easily predetermined they repent without the warning. If "B" is true the warning represents nothing more than "for show" a exercise in fulfilling the predetermined script. The warning wasn't the cause of their repentance, it was the script that was the cause for their repentance.

And thus is the reason I will never be a Calvinist or a settled theist, because I cannot intellectually accept such an obvious illogical theology, philosophy or world view.

AMR, I love you, you are probably a great guy and I hope we can sit down and have a beer together someday real soon but I just don't see how you can buy your own theology. :idunno:

I wonder if it has anything to do with what i just said to Nang?

 

[Delmar]

Are you sure JCWR did not believe in timelessness before? It surprised me that he took the opposite view. He complains about my assertions, as you do, yet that is all he did and caved quickly with less defense than I usually give. I always thought he was more Calvinistic based on his opposition to myself? The conspiracy theory was that he was a plant to make our view look weak and your view persuasive that everyone should adopt without much resistance. Am I paranoid?

I was talking to Yorzhik last night about my theory that JCWR was a plant. I used those exact words.

 

[tetelestai]

Come on Nick... I disagree with tetelestai just as much as you do but this is all a bit over the line. tetelestai is a Christian brother who is here to discuss the issues. I think you can be firm with him without this type of "over the top" hyperbole.

I agree Knight, but this is what Nick does when people don't agree with him. Nick also neg rep'd me (called me a moron in the rep)

Funny thing is that Nick, Lighthouse, and Delmer passed over my question about how the Book of Life with names in it before the foundation of the world fits with open theism.

I'm still waiting for an open theist to explain this.

 

[Evoken]

For the Calvinist to be consistent, the Calvinist must admit that God "grants" repentance (which is the fruit of grace and divine pardon) to sinners (II Tim. 2:25), solely according to His sovereign will and intents, and apart from any works, decisions, or actions of the guilty.

Well, I am not a Calvinist I would agree, however, that God’s grace is not given according to merits.

Of course, this logic leads to the doctrine of double predestination, which all humans, by nature abhor, for it totally denies any participation of human free will in the matters of salvation.

Well, I would disagree with your denial of free will and your claim that double predestination logically follows from what is said in Romans 9. But I’ll try not to derail this thread with this. We discussed this on another thread and I explained my position in contrast to double predestination in another post, so feel free to pick it up there.


Evo

 

[Frank Ernest]

Funny thing is that Nick, Lighthouse, and Delmer passed over my question about how the Book of Life with names in it before the foundation of the world fits with open theism.

I'm still waiting for an open theist to explain this.

"Book of Life with names in it before the foundation of the world" implies there was something going on prior to the accounts of creation in Genesis. IF one believes that the earth was originally created "void and without form", that question is unresolvable and leaves open theism confusing.