On the omniscience of God

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
You will have to explain again why you think God is not the beginning and the end and does not know the end from the beginning. There could not have been hundreds of prophecies in the Bible being fulfilled thousands of years later if God had no ability to see the future.

Why does God have to see the future (the Arminian position) in order for it to happen?

Why can't He, as the Bible says, simply bring it to pass? Do you think that if He can't see the future (or if I were asking a Calvinist, if He didn't predetermine the future) He is not capable?

That's a false dichotomy.

The third option that you're missing is that God is "omnicompetent," He is able to accomplish anything.

A few passages come to mind:

1) But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:8-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Peter3:8-9&version=NKJV

As I said before (perhaps in a different thread), God is patient, in that He can wait a thousand years that a man could only wait a day for, and He can accomplish in a day that which would take a man a thousand years to do.

2) For the Lord of hosts has purposed, And who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, And who will turn it back?” - Isaiah 14:27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah14:27&version=NKJV

And...

“I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You. - Job 42:2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job42:2&version=NKJV

And...

There are many plans in a man’s heart, Nevertheless the Lord’s counsel—that will stand. - Proverbs 19:21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs19:21&version=NKJV

These passages, and more like it, show that God is capable of bringing about His will, despite the actions of men.
 

marke

Well-known member
Why does God have to see the future (the Arminian position) in order for it to happen?

Why can't He, as the Bible says, simply bring it to pass? Do you think that if He can't see the future (or if I were asking a Calvinist, if He didn't predetermine the future) He is not capable?

That's a false dichotomy.

The third option that you're missing is that God is "omnicompetent," He is able to accomplish anything.

A few passages come to mind:

1) But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:8-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Peter3:8-9&version=NKJV

As I said before (perhaps in a different thread), God is patient, in that He can wait a thousand years that a man could only wait a day for, and He can accomplish in a day that which would take a man a thousand years to do.

2) For the Lord of hosts has purposed, And who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, And who will turn it back?” - Isaiah 14:27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah14:27&version=NKJV

And...

“I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You. - Job 42:2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job42:2&version=NKJV

And...

There are many plans in a man’s heart, Nevertheless the Lord’s counsel—that will stand. - Proverbs 19:21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs19:21&version=NKJV

These passages, and more like it, show that God is capable of bringing about His will, despite the actions of men.
I still find no reason to assume God cannot exist in all places at all times at the same time.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Time is measured by days. Before days were invented God dwelt in eternity where no time existed.

In addition to what Clete said, don't confuse the measurement of time with time itself, which is what you have done here.

As you said, a "day" is a measurement of time, but it is not time itself.

"Eternity" literally means "endless/infinite time," not "timelessness."

In other words, infinity != 0.

Humans may think it is easier to comprehend God if God is bound by time,

Time is simply an aspect of God's existence.

It's not an ontological "thing."

God being "in time" is comprehensible, even if not fully able to be understood.
God being "outside of time" is not.

but how then do they explain God's eternal existence before time was created?

Simple, time wasn't created, and as Clete mentioned, there is no record of time being created in the Bible, but only life, light, and matter.

Or, to put it another way, did God exist before the beginning and, if so, what was the beginning?

To answer the primary question here, I must answer the follow-up:

The "beginning" is described in Genesis 1:1, where God made the heavens and the earth. In other words, "the beginning of creation," the point at which "creation" first existed.

Which means that yes, God did exist PRIOR to the beginning of creation.

What the beginning is NOT is "time," as "beginning" is simply a point in time.

Time must first exist for there to be a "before the creation," ergo, time cannot be created, because creation necessitates a before and after, in that there was no creation (before), and then God created, at which point creation thus existed and continues to exist (after).


If God was satisfied communing with Himself for trillions of trillions of years before He created the heaven and the earth, then what caused Him to finally take an interest in fellowshipping with humans?

Simply because He can do new things.

A timeless God cannot do that.

To expand on this point:

God, because He CAN do new things, decided to do something new, to create a universe with living creatures in it.

In other words: God is free to have a new thought, create a new butterfly, write a new song, etc.

According to Jeremiah 18, God is willing to repent of the evil He has thought and promised to do to a nation if that nation repents of their evil and turns to God for mercy.

Which is exactly my point.

That is not failed prophecy,

Saying it doesn't make it so, Mark.

God told Jonah, His prophet to go to Nineveh and preach to them that they would be destroyed. That, by definition, is a prophecy.

“Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before Me.” - Jonah 1:2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah1:2&version=NKJV

God said that He would do something. A prediction (definition of prophecy).

Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. - Jonah 3:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah3:10&version=NKJV

That prophecy never came to pass because Nineveh repented, and because God is merciful, He spared them from the destruction which He said He would bring upon them.

that is reasonable expectation of mercy should God so decide to show it.

Rather, the fact is that circumstances changed, and so God, who is merciful and free, can change His mind when circumstances change.

Jesus is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Revelation 13).

Actually, this is a poor reading of the passage.

"From the foundation of the world" is not a modifier of "the Lamb slain," but rather of "the Book of Life."

This is made explicitly clear when you read Revelation 17:8:

The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. - Revelation 17:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation17:8&version=NKJV

Or else, the book of life contains the names of the elect from the foundation of the world. In any case, we are talking about people who lived thousands of years after Adam who are mentioned by name before Adam was created. Have I understood that right?

No.

"The Book of Life from the Foundation of the World" contains the names of those who have ultimately placed their faith in God, which does not inherently imply, as you have, that the names were written before Adam was created, but simply that the names contained within are written there, at the time they do so.

In other words, you've assumed that God knew those names before the people even existed and that they were written down already, but the text says nor implies such thing by necessity.

I may not agree with you entirely

That's why we're here! :)

because I have some lingering questions as to how that interpretation may address issues not yet discussed. But I certainly believe you are closer to the absolute truth, if not altogether at one with the truth, than are those who misunderstand what the Bible teaches about God's love for sinners and desire that none of them should perish.

:thumb:

I hardly think anyone needs an interpreter or an instructor to demonstrate the fact that it is impossible for humans to comprehend what was going on with God and for 'how long' in eternity past before the beginning of time.

You seem to be conflating two things, or at least blurring the lines between them:

No one can comprehend fully the amount of time that God has existed before He created, simply because we don't have the "frame of reference" for doing so, since we have a beginning, whereas God does not.

However, that does not mean that we can't recognize that He IS beginningless, and that He HAS existed for an infinite amount of time before He created.

In other words: just because we can't understand the extent something is to doesn't mean we can't understand that there IS an extent.

I still find no reason to assume God cannot exist in all places at all times at the same time.

God is not described as omnitemporal in the Bible.

When Reading in the Greek, We See that God:

- is timeless
- in an eternal now
- without sequence or succession
- without moment or duration
- atemporal and outside of time
- not was, nor will be, but only is
- has no past
- has no future.

Of course NOT ONE of these phrases is in the Bible. They're from Plato. And the Platonists.

However, when Reading the Bible, We See that God:

is - and was - and is to come - whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting - forever and ever - the Ancient of Days - from before the ages of the ages - from ancient times - the everlasting God - He continues forever - from of old - remains forever - eternal - immortal - the Lord shall endure forever - Who lives forever - yesterday, today, and forever - God's years are without number - manifest in His own time - everlasting Father - alive forevermore - always lives - forever - continually - the eternal God - God’s years never end - from everlasting to everlasting - from that time forward, even forever - and of His kingdom there will be no end.

Of course ALL THESE are verbatim phrases from Scripture, some being repeated many times. NOT ONE MEANS TIMELESSNESS. Rather, they mean unending duration.


 

ttruscott

Active member
So you can say you saw Satan cast out of heaven because that is what you saw?
I do not remember seeing that in the same way I don't remember my earliest years of human life. But that is what I've been told. I see the possibility that the sinful elect were were flung here to Sheol in the centre of the earth before Satan and the demons but the writings are unclear on such details, probably because they are unnecessary.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
According to Jeremiah 18, God is willing to repent of the evil He has thought and promised to do to a nation if that nation repents of their evil and turns to God for mercy. That is not failed prophecy, that is reasonable expectation of mercy should God so decide to show it.
Hey! That's actually pretty impressive. Most people have no idea that Jeremiah 18 is even in the bible, much less what it teaches. I happen to believe that it is one of the most important chapters of the whole bible.

But how can you not see that you've just blown up your own doctrine?

How can such a thing take place if God is outside of time and "sees the end from the beginning because He is the end from the beginning"?

How are the two in any way rationally compatible?

Did God know that His prophecy against Nineveh would not come to pass? Was God lying to Nineveh in some sort of reverse psychological manipulation? If so, why didn't He explain that to Jonah?

And actually it is, in fact, a failed prophecy. By any definition of the term, Jonah's prophesy FAILED to come to pass. The whole prophesy in the original language is I think four words. There was no caveat nor any conditions stated by the prophet. It was "Yet forty days and Nineveh will be destroyed." and when forty days had expired Nineveh was not only still in existence, it was thriving and in better condition than it had been for a long long time.

The point there being that there is no need to be afraid to admit that the prophecy failed. The prophesy failed but for a good reason. Christians tend to go over board with the test of a prophet. While it is generally the case that a failed prophecy is indicative of a false profit, a prophecy not being fulfilled is not iron clad proof that the prophet is false and neither is a prophecy coming true proof that a prophet is from God. So says the bible itself. (Deuteronomy 13 and Jeremiah 18).
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
(The above is a link to a specific point of the article found at https://kgov.com/time)
A short response:
When Reading in the Greek, We See that God:

Comment on this article at TOL...

- is timeless
- in an eternal now
- without sequence or succession
- without moment or duration
- atemporal and outside of time
- not was, nor will be, but only is
- has no past
- has no future. "Is" the future
- is timeless Hebrews 13:8 And Colossians 1:16,17 and John 1:3
- in an eternal now John 8:58 'before' 'am' (both)
- without sequence or succession Hebrews 13:8
- without moment or duration " " 2 Peter 3:8 Psalm 90:4
- atemporal and outside of time Hebrews 7:3? Without 'beginning of days'?
- not was, nor will be, but only is John 8:58
- has no past Hebrews 7:3
- has no future. "Is" the future Acts 17:28
Of course NOT ONE of these phrases is in the Bible.
It is true, they are written in Koine Greek and easily come to mind from many passages 'in the Bible.'
They're from Plato. And the Platonists.
Not true, as given above. God doesn't give us platitudes. Every word of His is choice and holds great meaning and it is demonstrable, clearly, that these are scriptural givens. Relegating them to platonic philosophy, for most of us, always falls hollow. It always surprises me, when shown scripture, that this 'platonist' and 'greek' mantra never falls to reserve. It is demonstrable.
For the Reformation broke with Rome, but not with Greece. (See this in Post 5B of Bob's debate with D. James Kennedy's Professor of New Testament.) So these philosophical terms are uncritically repeated by the Christian authors of typical systematic theology textbooks, and therefore, taught to young ministers in seminary.
More than critical: the scriptures are given with them. In a nutshell, God is not 'constrained' by His creation. It is a part of Him as per the scriptures given above. Let's discuss them for a moment:

1) Colossians 1:16 and John 1:3 "Nothing" exists apart/outside of Him. Even Heaven. There is nothing 'visible or invisible' that is made, that He did not create. How? Well, if there is eternal building materials, then the scripture given could not be true. IOW, 'suppositions' are what drives disagreement here, not scriptural givens and certainly not Greek philosophy. The implication of 'nothing at all, existing' except for from and in God in Christ, has huge implications and logical demands that supersede the Open Theism objection. Point? "Greek" and "Plato" are not but scapegoats that skip out of theology circles and discussion altogether. Anyone discussing this simply must drop that and ONLY discuss the scriptures.

2) Scriptures already, by themselves, in their very expression discuss problems with time and our understanding of time. Nobody can ever argue that point, it is quite clear: 2 Peter 3:8 Isaiah 38:8 Joshua 10:13

One of God's names is "Almighty" All and Mighty means Omnipotent. This has always been a necessary argument of logic: "If one omni, then all omnis" AND that the omnis are biblical. I can work through why, but this is a standard given and understood in all theology circles and clearly, for us, Biblically given.
2 Timothy 2:9 του σώσαντος ημάς και καλέσαντος κλήσει αγία ου κατά τα έργα ημών αλλά κατ΄ ιδίαν πρόθεσιν και χάριν την δοθείσαν ημίν εν χριστώ Ιησού προ χρόνων αιωνίων

Literally (Biblically) 'before time'

Briefly, these are proof-counterpoints to the above argument. -Lon
 
Last edited:

marke

Well-known member
Hey! That's actually pretty impressive. Most people have no idea that Jeremiah 18 is even in the bible, much less what it teaches. I happen to believe that it is one of the most important chapters of the whole bible.

But how can you not see that you've just blown up your own doctrine?

How can such a thing take place if God is outside of time and "sees the end from the beginning because He is the end from the beginning"?

How are the two in any way rationally compatible?

Did God know that His prophecy against Nineveh would not come to pass? Was God lying to Nineveh in some sort of reverse psychological manipulation? If so, why didn't He explain that to Jonah?

And actually it is, in fact, a failed prophecy. By any definition of the term, Jonah's prophesy FAILED to come to pass. The whole prophesy in the original language is I think four words. There was no caveat nor any conditions stated by the prophet. It was "Yet forty days and Nineveh will be destroyed." and when forty days had expired Nineveh was not only still in existence, it was thriving and in better condition than it had been for a long long time.

The point there being that there is no need to be afraid to admit that the prophecy failed. The prophesy failed but for a good reason. Christians tend to go over board with the test of a prophet. While it is generally the case that a failed prophecy is indicative of a false profit. A prophecy not being fulfilled is not iron clad proof that the prophet is false and neither is a prophecy coming true proof that a prophet is from God. So says the bible itself. (Deuteronomy 13 and Jeremiah 18).
We learn a lot of things in the book of Jonah. Jonah was a racist and yet God used him. Jonah preached God's wrath and judgment but not His mercy, and yet God allowed him to hide that aspect of God. No harm was done. In fact, a lot of good came from Jonah's one-sided judgmental message. The people of Nineveh were motivated to fall on their faces at the message of condemnation preached by Jonah, for they said, "Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger?" (Vs 3:9).

Well, Jonah knew but he did not tell them. He complained to the Lord, saying "for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil." (vs 4:2.)

No, the Ninevites learned that God might repent of the evil He has determined to do if the intended victims of His appointed wrath repent. There was no failed prophecy in the narrative.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
A short response:

- is timeless Hebrews 13:8 And Colossians 1:16,17 and John 1:3
- in an eternal now John 8:58 'before' 'am' (both)
- without sequence or succession Hebrews 13:8
- without moment or duration " " 2 Peter 3:8 Psalm 90:4
- atemporal and outside of time Hebrews 7:3? Without 'beginning of days'?
- not was, nor will be, but only is John 8:58
- has no past Hebrews 7:3
- has no future. "Is" the future Acts 17:28

It is true, they are written in Koine Greek and easily come to mind from many passages 'in the Bible.'

Not true, as given above. God doesn't give us platitudes. Every word of His is choice and holds great meaning and it is demonstrable, clearly, that these are scriptural givens. Relegating them to platonic philosophy, for most of us, always falls hollow. It always surprises me, when shown scripture, that this 'platonist' and 'greek' mantra never falls to reserve. It is demonstrable.

More than critical: the scriptures are given with them. In a nutshell, God is not 'constrained' by His creation. It is a part of Him as per the scriptures given above. Let's discuss them for a moment:

1) Colossians 1:16 and John 1:3 "Nothing" exists apart/outside of Him. Even Heaven. There is nothing 'visible or invisible' that is made, that He did not create. How? Well, if there is eternal building materials, then the scripture given could not be true. IOW, 'suppositions' are what drives disagreement here, not scriptural givens and certainly not Greek philosophy. The implication of 'nothing at all, existing' except for from and in God in Christ, has huge implications and logical demands that supersede the Open Theism objection. Point? "Greek" and "Plato" are not but scapegoats that skip out of theology circles and discussion altogether. Anyone discussing this simply must drop that and ONLY discuss the scriptures.

2) Scriptures already, by themselves, in their very expression discuss problems with time and our understanding of time. Nobody can ever argue that point, it is quite clear: 2 Peter 3:8 Isaiah 38:8 Joshua 10:13

One of God's names is "Almighty" All and Mighty means Omnipotent. This has always been a necessary argument of logic: "If one omni, then all omnis" AND that the omnis are biblical. I can work through why, but this is a standard given and understood in all theology circles and clearly, for us, Biblically given.
2 Timothy 2:9 του σώσαντος ημάς και καλέσαντος κλήσει αγία ου κατά τα έργα ημών αλλά κατ΄ ιδίαν πρόθεσιν και χάριν την δοθείσαν ημίν εν χριστώ Ιησού προ χρόνων αιωνίων

Literally (Biblically) 'before time'

Briefly, these are proof-counterpoints to the above argument. -Lon
Lon, you are a liar!

Just who is it that you're trying to fool here?

The history of the concept of a timeless god is perfectly clear and indisputable. The oldest known philosophy that includes the self-contradictory notion is that of Aristotle and Plato. It was Ambrose of Milan who taught it to Augustine who not only loved loved loved the Classics but once he had been taught how to incorporate them into the bible, he then set about importing their teachings into the Catholic faith. These doctrines survived the reformation because Luther, an Augustinian monk, wasn't trying to break from Greece but from Rome only and then Calvin canonized the reformation doctrines when he wrote "Confessions" and here we are.

Clete
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
We learn a lot of things in the book of Jonah. Jonah was a racist

What gave you that ridiculous idea?

and yet God used him. Jonah preached God's wrath and judgment but not His mercy, and yet God allowed him to hide that aspect of God. No harm was done. In fact, a lot of good came from Jonah's one-sided judgmental message. The people of Nineveh were motivated to fall on their faces at the message of condemnation preached by Jonah, for they said, "Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger?" (Vs 3:9).

Well, Jonah knew but he did not tell them. He complained to the Lord, saying "for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil." (vs 4:2.)

No, the Ninevites learned that God might repent of the evil He has determined to do if the intended victims of His appointed wrath repent.

Which is exactly my (and Clete's) point.

In fact, it's why we KNOW that prophecies fail.

There was no failed prophecy in the narrative.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Mark.

AGAIN: Jonah was a prophet ("a person who makes or claims to be able to make predictions.")

God gave Jonah a prediction that He would destroy Nineveh in forty days, and told him to go preach to them about it.

Forty days later, Nineveh WAS NOT DESTROYED.

That is a textbook example of a failed prophecy.

Why do you say it's not a prophecy when it was a prediction of future events (definition of prophecy) given by God, who was Himself, in this case, someone who made a prediction (definition of prophet). You are arguing against the very definition of a word.
 

marke

Well-known member
What gave you that ridiculous idea?
I admit that is my opinion only, not something the Bible clearly teaches. I believe Jonah did not like the Ninevites and did not want to preach the Gospel unto them, did not want them to hear the Gospel and get saved, did not want God having mercy on them, and was angry when God spared them.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Lon, you are a liar!
Which is why you are on ignore. I'm not in ANY way a liar. You are just full of it and CANNOT argue out of a paper bag, so you resort to name-calling and ignorance, your's. Sorry, fact. It is WHY you are Open Theism's worst proponent. You, in fact, are inept and incapable.

This? This mess shows you are out of your league. Knock it off and grow in grace and Christ. Until then, you are a two year old in a 40 year old body. Honestly, Clete. it is ALWAYS a 'you' show where God gets no glory. You are nothing but an Open View commercial without one iota of love for Him or His truth at that point. Its gross and obscene.
Just who is it that you're trying to fool here?
Which is no redress to what I said at all. Nadda.
The history of the concept of a timeless god is perfectly clear and indisputable. The oldest known philosophy that includes the self-contradictory notion is that of Aristotle and Plato.

No, it is not. Instead of addressing the scriptures posted, you post tired and worn Open Theist meaningless mantras. Who cares, Clete? Another open theist? :nono: That one just repeats the mindless or it doesn't matter to him or her. Any traditional theist (most of us)? No. To us it is simply a far far stretch of an accusation with very little in the way of actually sticking to the wall. Most Christians don't even know what an Open Theist is and never heard of one before.
It was Ambrose of Milan who taught it to Augustine who not only loved loved loved the Classics but once he had been taught how to incorporate them into the bible, he then set about importing their teachings into the Catholic faith. These doctrines survived the reformation because Luther, an Augustinian monk, wasn't trying to break from Greece but from Rome only and then Calvin canonized the reformation doctrines when he wrote "Confessions" and here we are.

Clete
Its ONE theory. Does it stick? Clete, it doesn't matter. You wasted your breath when scriptures, you know, the Words of God, were posted to show they were NOT from Greeks other than as Greeks happen to agree with any scripture. You cannot build a theology off of "Calvinists and Greeks stink!" Such is simply politics, scapegoating, and passing the buck. You cannot follow God with a faith that is simply "At least I'm not a Calvinist or influenced in any way by Greeks." Simply deal with the scriptures, one at a time and explain if they are true. Who cares what Greeks or Calvinists think? Nobody, it is a scapegoat and engagement over things nobody is too interested in, INSTEAD of the scriptures.

Instead? You call most liars when most 1) know Western thought, all of it, is affected by Greek thinking. We are all analytical and our math understanding also forms our syntax. Its actually a good thing. 2) Nearly none of us even read Augustine or Greek. We read the B-i-b-l-e and perhaps a Strong's. I, in particular have read a good deal more, so I'm informed on your post, but none of it really affects my theology but rather I latch onto ideas that agree with what I pull from scripture (much like you and we are opposites). Try to learn to actual talk with people instead of simply being an Open Theist commercial. Unlike Paul, you might only be good for proverbial Open Theist "Jews" in conversations.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
A short response:

- is timeless Hebrews 13:8
- without sequence or succession Hebrews 13:8

Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines. For it is good that the heart be established by grace, not with foods which have not profited those who have been occupied with them. - Hebrews 13:7-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews13:7-9&version=NKJV

(past, present, future, He is the same today, as He was yesterday, and will be tomorrow)

NOT

"timeless"

AND NOT

"without sequence or succession"

And Colossians 1:16,17

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. - Colossians 1:15-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians1:15-17&version=NKJV
("all things were created by Him," meaning there was a point at which they did not exist to God where He brought all things into existence, and "created" indicates a change, and that that occurred in the past; existing "before all things," a succession of events)

NOT

"timeless"

and John 1:3

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.He was in the beginning with God.All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. - John 1:1-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John1:1-5&version=NKJV
(In the beginning "was" the Word; He "was" in the beginning with God; All things "were made")

NOT

"timeless"

- in an eternal now John 8:58 'before' 'am' (both)

Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God.Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word.Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. - John 8:54-59 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John8:54-59&version=NKJV
(Abraham rejoiced, past tense, to see Christ's day; "And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word." Jesus is talking in the present about a theoretical thing, and what the future consequences would be were he to do those things, "I shall be..."; Jesus was "before Abraham was"; Jesus is the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14; Jesus was speaking in the present about His past)

NOT

"in an eternal now"

- without moment or duration " " 2 Peter 3:8

But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:8-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Peter3:8-9&version=NKJV
(verse 9 explains verse 8, "is AS," not "is" x2; verse 8 is talking about how patient and longsuffering and powerful God is, that God can wait a thousand years where a man can only wait a day, and He can accomplish in a day that which would take a man a thousand years to do; "is as" is a simile, which means that what is being said is NOT to be taken literally)

NOT

"without moment or duration"

Psalm 90:4

For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it is past, And like a watch in the night. - Psalm 90:4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm90:4&version=NKJV
(another simile, and not to be taken as a literal statement)

NOT

"without moment or duration"

Continued in next post...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
- atemporal and outside of time Hebrews 7:3
- has no past Hebrews 7:3

For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,”without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually. - Hebrews 7:1-3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews7:1-3&version=NKJV
(first of all, this passage is speaking primarily about Melchizedek, not Christ, (he was made "LIKE" the Son of God" (another simile word) and second, having no beginning means that his past is infinite, and "no end of life" means that he will live forever, and third, if such things DID mean what you claim, then that would put him outside of time, which he clearly was not, what little we know about him; "remains a priest continually" is "unending duration")

NOT

"atemporal and outside of time"

AND NOT

"has no past"

- Without 'beginning of days'

Again, to address this again: this means that he had no beginning, not that he was atemporal or outside of time.

- not was, nor will be, but only is

This is in direct contradiction to a VERBATIM quote FROM SCRIPTURE FROM JESUS HIMSELF!:

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” - Revelation 1:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation1:8&version=NKJV

If you don't believe Jesus on this, then I can't help you. That's an issue with your heart, and you should ask God to help you with it.

- has no future. "Is" the future Acts 17:28

Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious;for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you:God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising.Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” - Acts 17:22-31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts17:22-31&version=NKJV
(God "made" the world and...; He "is" Lord of Heaven and earth; He "has appointed" (past tense event talking about a yet future event); He "will judge" the world)

NOT

"has no future"

AND NOT

"'is' the future"

(neither of those are even possibilities in the passage, let alone verbatim)

Continued in next post...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Lon

Well-known member
Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines. For it is good that the heart be established by grace, not with foods which have not profited those who have been occupied with them. - Hebrews 13:7-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews13:7-9&version=NKJV

(past, present, future, He is the same today, as He was yesterday, and will be tomorrow)

NOT

"timeless"

AND NOT

"without sequence or succession"
See, Clete. I love talking over theology with JudgeRightly because he 'does it rightly.' Just the scriptures. It is an entry point where both of us can simply discuss, in detail, what God says. It isn't a "Calvinist" or "Open Theist" commercial and set of flaccid mantras but actually delving into scripture.

JudgeR, let me start with the definition of time, as it will affect my grasp of this scripture:

time tīm
►​

  • n.
    A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
  • n.
    An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration.

I've given this visual representation prior, but briefly:

<-------------------------------->
.________________________________>

.________________________________.

Time can only be represented by the lower two, a segment (given as part of the second definition above) and an 'irreversible succession' given as the ray.

Because time is ONLY capable of defining the lower two, such cannot be mathematically nor by definition, applied to a line with no measurement. Ephesians 3:18 would apply to all three, but as it relates to 1) ability to discover (the lower two) then 2) superseded by the first 'beyond.'

For Clete, 'if' this is part of your 'Greek' interest, most of our math comes from the Greeks AND they happen to be right. Your accusatory would be like trying to 'accuse Einstein of general relativity.' Now if you tried to somehow tie a mathematician to Einstein's poor conduct, it'd become an odd conversation and out of the purview of meaningful for most people. In this case, the Greeks just happen to be right. As a side note, the Jews believe God is timeless. It is written in their literature predating any Greek philosophy. You simply must stop repeating whatever you hear as if it were true, within Open View circles ESPECIALLY when you've been duped to think it is the rest of Christendom and I, that are the liars. It's reprehensible and I find, because you are stuck in that rut, I cannot talk to you at all meaningfully and definitely cannot give you any pause with reasonable argument and facts. Entertain, for a few moments in your life, I may just know a bit more about theology than you do. I know its hard and your pride gets in the way, especially when I'm as arrogant BUT I do have these degrees. You do not.

JudgeR, The 'same' doesn't mark a 'separation' (segment). While incarnation DOES enter your equation, it is simply the 'durative' sense of the line that represents Christ. Thus, you are correct as far as His segmented durative aspect with man. God's interactions with us are always durative (in time) for we are beings that have a beginning. Often our grasp of theology is anthropomorphic, meaning we often see God as relating to us without actually grasping His existence apart from us. There are, however, scriptures that help us break from purely physical thinking. There are also very few people that enter formal operational stage of thinking (metaphysics). I'm not as caught up with what one cannot grasp. Talking with Open Theists has put me in touch with my humanity and has also given me an appreciation perhaps I had binned with 'that's the flesh.'

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. - Colossians 1:15-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians1:15-17&version=NKJV
("all things were created by Him," meaning there was a point at which they did not exist to God where He brought all things into existence, and "created" indicates a change, and that that occurred in the past; existing "before all things," a succession of events)
Colossians 1:15 can be likened to a contain, though for us, in a physical sense, a ever-expanding container, but God is already 'infinite.' Psalm 147:5 Isaiah 40:28 Duration is 'finite.' It is definite. Colossians 1:15 states that 'nothing exists' neither without nor outside Him. It means He is the source of literally 'every last thing' and John 1:3, that literally nothing (time?) exists that exists without Him. While rationalization suggest God has to 'move' thus is ruled by time as we are, it isn't actual when 'nothing exists' that exists. It is why God is 'the immovable mover': Because "in Him, we live and move and have our being."

Very often, the Open View paradigm has the universe, by argument, as God's habitat. The problem: According to this scripture, the universe is 'in' Him. Does it mean He doesn't move? No, but it'd be all movement 'within' His own being. Such things can have 'time' but only because at that point we are talking about 'parts' and not the whole. The whole is 1) God, and 2) must logically be timeless OR God is subservient to some ruling factor outside of Himself (and that's not possible if I understand this scripture), and it wouldn't be true that He is the creator of everything.
NOT

"timeless"



In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.He was in the beginning with God.All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. - John 1:1-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John1:1-5&version=NKJV
(In the beginning "was" the Word; He "was" in the beginning with God; All things "were made")

NOT

"timeless"
If the illustration above helps you grasp this, it must mean timeless by necessity.
Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God.Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word.Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. - John 8:54-59 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John8:54-59&version=NKJV
(Abraham rejoiced, past tense, to see Christ's day; "And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word." Jesus is talking in the present about a theoretical thing, and what the future consequences would be were he to do those things, "I shall be..."; Jesus was "before Abraham was"; Jesus is the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14; Jesus was speaking in the present about His past)

NOT

"in an eternal now"
"before" (was) "I am?" That isn't at least some sort of traverse of time from then to 'now?' 🤔 The statement itself is saying that 'then' is 'my now.' Do you see that as necessarily true? Thanks.
But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:8-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Peter3:8-9&version=NKJV
(verse 9 explains verse 8, "is AS," not "is" x2; verse 8 is talking about how patient and longsuffering and powerful God is, that God can wait a thousand years where a man can only wait a day, and He can accomplish in a day that which would take a man a thousand years to do; "is as" is a simile, which means that what is being said is NOT to be taken literally)

NOT

"without moment or duration"
Without your and my 'moment and duration' certainly, ESPECIALLY as a thousand years becomes a day because a thousand years, for God, does indeed fit into a 24 hour period. While you might surmise that both are duration, as soon as you compare them, the one necessarily goes backwards 365000 days....from one day. I believe all God's truths are true. Somehow this isn't a simile but a metaphor. If you can show this as 'like a thousand years' I'd have to rethink this verse.
For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it is past, And like a watch in the night. - Psalm 90:4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm90:4&version=NKJV
(another simile, and not to be taken as a literal statement)

NOT

"without moment or duration"

Continued in next post...
Appreciate that, but looking at definitions, at least on paper, it seems they must mean that but I'd appreciate your further thoughts here and thank you AND thank you for the scripture discussion. In Him -Lon
 

Lon

Well-known member
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,”without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually. - Hebrews 7:1-3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews7:1-3&version=NKJV
(first of all, this passage is speaking primarily about Melchizedek, not Christ,

Agree, not to be mistaken. Next then, what does it 'teach' about time? 1) that a certain one (Melchizedek) had 'no' beginning? Or more specifically, 'no beginning of days?' Which does it say? You even said 'without succession or sequence' in your quote!
(he was made "LIKE" the Son of God" (another simile word) and second, having no beginning means that his past is infinite, and "no end of life" means that he will live forever, and third, if such things DID mean what you claim, then that would put him outside of time, which he clearly was not,
Clearly? 🤔 It is difficult to prove a negative, but doesn't 'without beginning of days' mean without beginning of days?
Doesn't it at least teach that Melchizedek, if not Christ, literally, verbally has 'no beginning of days?' If not, what IS it actually teaching if not those exact words?
what little we know about him; "remains a priest continually" is "unending duration")

NOT

"atemporal and outside of time"
What does 'without' even 'beginning' of days? how would/could that be possible?
AND NOT

"has no past"
I'd not say 'no past' but rather 'a past that has absolutely no beginning, forever.' It is an incredibly difficult concept but quite outside of 'duration' as a proponent definition, by necessity, of time. Did I get that from Greek, or is it actually (demonstrably?) from scripture (Asking for Clete's benefit here)?
Again, to address this again: this means that he had no beginning, not that he was atemporal or outside of time.
Appreciate that but for many of us who know the definition of time, this is a necessity, Greek or no. Time IS temporal thus a 'no beginning' has to mean atemporal. It is part of the definition. "Without days" and "without beginning" are atemporal characteristics. The p froassage could be argued to say "Melchizedek, existing apart from most time considerations (atemporal) summing up what he'd just said if we take literally 'no days (without) and no beginning.'
This is in direct contradiction to a VERBATIM quote FROM SCRIPTURE FROM JESUS HIMSELF!:
The
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” - Revelation 1:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation1:8&version=NKJV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation1:8&version=NKJV
If you don't believe Jesus on this, then I can't help you. That's an issue with your heart, and you should ask God to help you with it.
I'd not want to argue every point and concede this one (good call on appeal to Him as well, appreciated). I've not read 'no was, or will be' from classic theology so I'd have to have the quote. All I can say is that you and I agree on this particular (and a couple others). Some make the mistake of removing God from time altogether. That's wrong/incorrect. God is relational to, unrestricted by, time. It means He is 'wet' in time but 'not all wet.' The only way I know of, that He can interact and communicate with us, is in time, so I'd have to join you on this one and say "I disagree."

He isn't exactly 'a'temporal when He is involved with and in Time. It is similar when we see Him involved with us physically and consider the incarnation: PART at least of His experience with us is physical BUT 'physical' comes from Him thus, as best as I can guess from scripture, the physical universe comes from His Spiritual being John 4:24 (The Lord Jesus Christ telling the Samaritan woman that God is Spirit, a good verse to remind Unitarians that the Holy Spirit IS God btw, Our Lord declares it so). If we read Colossians 1:15, then the 'change' Open Theists are talking about are already 'from (literally) Him.' Analogy: Like melting a candy bar, casting it in the shape of an egg (that already exists) and saying "Its new!" "Well....sort of." It isn't that I don't somewhat agree with Open Theists, just that I'm always trying to balance the view with all scriptures and what scripture teaches about the nature of God.

Thank you, btw, for this work, Judge Rightly. I'm on a computer laptop that isn't quite up to par (spilled coffee on my last good one). I really appreciate you looking up scriptures for me (and others) as you are dealing with them. Thank you. In our Lord Jesus Christ -Lon
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
It is true, they are written in Koine Greek and easily come to mind from many passages 'in the Bible.'

Except that none of those phrases (in the greek) ever appear in the Bible.

. . . it is demonstrable, clearly, that these are scriptural givens.

I just got through demonstrating the exact opposite.

Relegating them to platonic philosophy always falls hollow.
Except that that's exactly what such claims are, platonic philosophy

It always surprises me, when shown scripture, that this 'platonist' and 'greek' mantra never falls to reserve. It is demonstrable.

When you rely on extra-biblical sources, and pagan ones at that, to interpret scripture for you, it's all but guaranteed that you will end up with poor, if not outright heretical, doctrines.

Just allow scripture to interpret scripture, and don't rely on pagan philosophy for your doctrine.

More than critical: the scriptures are given with them. In a nutshell, God is not 'constrained' by His creation.

No one here has said he is.

Especially considering that my (and Clete's) position is that time is not created, and therefore if God is "in time," He is not 'constrained' by His creation regardless, because time is not "His 'creation'."

It is a part of Him as per the scriptures given above.

Was it always a part of Him?

According to your position, it would have to be, because "eternal now."

Yet we open theists say that no, the creation was not always a part of God.

Let's discuss them for a moment:

1) Colossians 1:16 and John 1:3 "Nothing" exists apart/outside of Him. Even Heaven.

Stop there.

Colossians 1:16:
For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

John 1:3:
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

There is nothing in EITHER of those verses that indicates that 1) "nothing" is something "made", 2) that "All things" exist as "part" of God, or 3) that "all things" exist "inside" God.

So my question is, where did you get the idea that "Nothing", even Heaven, does not exist apart/outside of Him.

There is nothing 'visible or invisible' that is made, that He did not create.

Duh.

2) Scriptures already . . . discuss problems with time and our understanding of time. Nobody can ever argue that point, it is quite clear:

They do, but they don't allow for the conclusion that God is outside of time.

2 Peter 3:8

Explained in a previous post. Summary: This passage does NOT say God is outside of time.

Isaiah 38:8

Isaiah 38:8:
Behold, I will bring the shadow on the sundial, which has gone down with the sun on the sundial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward.” So the sun returned ten degrees on the dial by which it had gone down.

Easily explainable WITHOUT appealing to the idea that God is manipulating time. Adjusting the rotational position of the earth has nothing at all to do with time, only the way time is measured.

Joshua 10:13

Again, same as above, stopping the earth's rotation has nothing to do with manipulating time itself.

One of God's names is "Almighty" All and Mighty means Omnipotent.

Well, no, it doesn't.

Omnipotent means "having all power" (omni = all, potent = power)

Almighty means "relatively unlimited in power" or "having absolute power over all."

It does not mean "having all power."

This has always been a necessary argument of logic: "If one omni, then all omnis"

So far, you're 0 for 1.

AND that the omnis are biblical.

You have yet to show this.

I can work through why, but this is a standard given and understood in all theology circles and clearly, for us, Biblically given.
2 Timothy 2:9 του σώσαντος ημάς και καλέσαντος κλήσει αγία ου κατά τα έργα ημών αλλά κατ΄ ιδίαν πρόθεσιν και χάριν την δοθείσαν ημίν εν χριστώ Ιησού προ χρόνων αιωνίων

Wrong verse or reference...?

Literally (Biblically) 'before time'

Briefly, these are proof-counterpoints to the above argument. -Lon

Because you say so?
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
Except that none of those phrases (in the greek) ever appear in the Bible.
Didn't we just discuss them 'from' the Bible? 🤔
I just got through demonstrating the exact opposite.
Well, no. You cannot demonstrate such. If someone is showing Bible words, and you are seeing them and more, YOU are even posting them, then it is 'exact(ly the) opposite: you, an Open Theist, posted that someone was without 1) succession AND without 2 sequence. YOU posted that. It isn't 'the exact opposite' JR.
Except that that's exactly what such claims are, platonic philosophy
Its a tired carnard. I realize it is said enough in Open Circles that you think it actually means something, but it really doesn't. Simply read scripture with me and discuss them. It doesn't matter AT ALL if such coincides with 'Plato' or Greek. "If" it does, then the Greeks were right and 'who cares?' If not, then the Greeks were wrong and 'who cares?' Apparently Open Theists. None of the rest of us give a rip. Remember when I corrected Enyart, concerning Augustine whom he thought loved the Colosseum? It wasn't Augustine, it was a student of his. Just because a figurehead in Open Theism makes a statement, they can and have been shown enough times where they are wrong. In this case? Why should I, or you, or anybody care a whit what Greeks think about scripture. I've shown Hebrew scholars predating Greek influence very much maintaining these supposed 'Greek' ideas. It means, clearly, they aren't. They are "Bible" ideas.
When you rely on extra-biblical sources, and pagan ones at that, to interpret scripture for you, it's all but guaranteed that you will end up with poor, if not outright heretical, doctrines.
Who said that? I think there are some odd ideas floated around Open circles that have postulated a LOT of misinformation. As I said, I can and have previously PROVED that HEBREWS came up with these thoughts, FROM THE BIBLE, long before any Greek influence 'could' have been accused. I actually EXPECT your education to have gone much further than this. Simply look up what the ancient Hebrews believed and you'll find, LONG before Greek influence, commentaries that talk of the omnis of God etc. If anything, the Greeks were influenced by Hebrews and Arabs.
Just allow scripture to interpret scripture, and don't rely on pagan philosophy for your doctrine.
I don't, and certainly not poorly researched accusation and repetition either. Sure Augustine influenced Catholics, but if Hebrews did as well (and they did) then whatever they agreed upon is of importance. Where they didn't? We need to pay attention to that as well OR, like YOU said, ignore them, but that isn't what "Open Theism" is doing in conversation, is it??? 🤔 Do you realize that Open Theists are more versed in Greek philosophy (right or wrong)than most Christians?
No one here has said he is.

Especially considering that my (and Clete's) position is that time is not created, and therefore if God is "in time," He is not 'constrained' by His creation regardless, because time is not "His 'creation'."
"Without Him, NOTHING exists that exists." I know your position and it isn't tenable. Time is 'finite' therefore cannot NOT be part of His creation. For the Open Theist, this is the proverbial nail in the coffin: Unless God "didn't" create the properties of time (He did) then there is no such thing as "Open Theism." The only thing I have to prove, not to the rest of the world, they know this, but to the Open Theist is: That time is a finite property. It is a an 'artificial' segmenting of 'eternity.' You are stuck in the your thinking "IN" the physical universe. The universe, indeed nothing, exist(s/ed) outside of God. There is no such thing as "outside" of God. Most if not all Open Thinking comes from this physical plane and confuses it with His. He is 'apart' from His creation. That isn't Plato, that is scripture.

This unemployed guy believes, like you, that most Christians are influence 'incorrectly' by Greeks.
Down the list, a Jew corrects him. He is wrong that God isn't apart from His creation and wrong in his apparent lack of knowledge that it wasn't a 'Greek' but a Jew, both in thread and Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible 🤔
Was it always a part of Him?
Yes, if Colossians 1:15 says it.
According to your position, it would have to be, because "eternal now."

Yet we open theists say that no, the creation was not always a part of God.
Where then did or 'could' it have come from? The problem is you have God as co-existing with the universe AND it wipes out a lot of scriptures in its path such as Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 11:3
Stop there.

Colossians 1:16:
For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

John 1:3:
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

There is nothing in EITHER of those verses that indicates that 1) "nothing" is something "made", 2) that "All things" exist as "part" of God, or 3) that "all things" exist "inside" God.

So my question is, where did you get the idea that "Nothing", even Heaven, does not exist apart/outside of Him.
Genesis 1:1, Colossians 1:16 just above too. "without Him, 'nothing' exists that exists. Acts 17:28 says 'in Him, we live and move and "have our being."
Except it means all properties of time as part of 'everything.' You have to be careful with your 'duh' agreement when you don't mean that particular and likely when Open Theism believes God isn't in our bathrooms or during a human atrocity (not sure the number that believe each, it isn't an indictment, just part of conversations with Open Theists).
They do, but they don't allow for the conclusion that God is outside of time.
Again, 'relation to' is important lest I argue the complete opposite. I don't. God is relational to us too, yet isn't human etc.
Explained in a previous post. Summary: This passage does NOT say God is outside of time.
It does show that it isn't the same for Him, thus at least: outside of 'our' time constraints for sure.
Isaiah 38:8:
Behold, I will bring the shadow on the sundial, which has gone down with the sun on the sundial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward.” So the sun returned ten degrees on the dial by which it had gone down.
Easily explainable WITHOUT appealing to the idea that God is manipulating time. Adjusting the rotational position of the earth has nothing at all to do with time, only the way time is measured.
It actually would have caused 24 hours and about 38 minutes, thus all of time is bumped like a permanent daylight savings. It does go back to definitions. If God authored time as most of us believe, without a lot of help from Greeks or Einstein, then He altered His creation but I see the problem of trying to get an Open Theist on board, thus perhaps not the best scripture point. It at least does, in fact, show God manipulating time measurement and concept.
Again, same as above, stopping the earth's rotation has nothing to do with manipulating time itself.
It does in the sense that a 24 hour day didn't exist. Moving a shadow backwards affects the progression of time AND the mention of a shadow moving backwards carries strong implications regarding time as well.
Well, no, it doesn't.
Well, yes it does. "All and Mighty" literally mean Omni (all) and Potent (mighty).
Omnipotent means "having all power" (omni = all, potent = power)

Almighty means "relatively unlimited in power" or "having absolute power over all."
Er, are we reading the same dictionaries???

al•might•y ôl-mī′tē
►​

  • adj.
    Having absolute power; all-powerful.

Then Dictionary.com:
Omnipotent
How about Merriam's where you got the above ( :Z ):
First line: : having absolute power over all Almighty God (as an adjective, as a noun: "God" as only definition), i

Even 'if' it were obscured, Hebrew doesn't allow it:

El (all) Shaddai (Mighty).



It does not mean "having all power."
I've just proved otherwise.
So far, you're 0 for 1.
Except El Shaddai literally 1) Biblical and 2) 'All Mighty' :noway: It means, by necessity, the spokesmen for Open Theist got this one completely wrong, demonstrably.
You have yet to show this.
Well, perhaps now? What will convince if you cannot grasp one of His names literally means this? Would The spokesmen for OT literally rob God of His name just to turn a blind eye???
Wrong verse or reference...?
No, it says literally 'before "chronos" (time). How can I get any better than what the Bible literally says?
Because you say so?
Hmmm, proofs are meant to be investigated so 'me saying so' isn't the important component. Simply reading the set 1) as I said, as preliminary, sets a series of points for discussion and counterpoints and 2) helps give a framework for items to be addressed. It is one of the things I've always appreciated most about you. I know, fairly beyond reach of doubt, you'll have looked intently into these matters and went to God over them, unsatisfied with anything but the Christ-honoring best. We 'may' change one another, but as we both know, theology is a very slow move. My prayer is to lift it all up to God as we seek to be made and molded in His image in our doctrine and life. In Him -Lon
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
We learn a lot of things in the book of Jonah. Jonah was a racist and yet God used him. Jonah preached God's wrath and judgment but not His mercy, and yet God allowed him to hide that aspect of God. No harm was done. In fact, a lot of good came from Jonah's one-sided judgmental message. The people of Nineveh were motivated to fall on their faces at the message of condemnation preached by Jonah, for they said, "Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger?" (Vs 3:9).

Well, Jonah knew but he did not tell them. He complained to the Lord, saying "for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil." (vs 4:2.)

No, the Ninevites learned that God might repent of the evil He has determined to do if the intended victims of His appointed wrath repent. There was no failed prophecy in the narrative.
What in the world are you talking about?!!!

Jonah was NOT a racist and it was not "Jonah's one-sided judgment message" it was GOD's one sided message! It is quite thoroughly recorded right there in the pages of your own bible. One thing was prophesied and something else happened. God changed His mind! The whole point of the story is that it was God who changed His mind! You can rationalize it away all you like but I'm going to stick with the plain reading of God's word while you can stick with your personal opinions and teachings of the men.

Clete

P.S. DO NOT under any circumstances read Bob Enyart's book! (Not that your were ever going to anyway.) You're not nearly as honest as I had given your credit for and it would be a waste of your time. You're one who believes what he wants and nothing else.
 
Top