ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Bob Hill]

God repented of stated harm because of Moses’ prayer
Ex 32:9-14 And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! 10 Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.” 11 Then Moses pleaded with the LORD his God, and said: “LORD, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’” 14 So the LORD repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

If God was outside of time and saw the future actions of men, God could not ever be wrong. If the future actions of men are unknowable because they have not been decided, our all knowing God would not know them. They don’t exist. there is nothing to know.

God always exists in time. So what? Time is no restraint to Him like it is to us. We need to sleep some time. He doesn’t. We grow old. He doesn’t. Most of us have clocks to punch, deadlines to keep and other time oriented responsibilities. He doesn’t. Time is no burden to God. Time is just the distance between 2 events. Since God could control every event, time is no burden to Him at all. He created this whole universe. We haven’t even discovered the end of the universe. How long did He take to create it? It seems like it was instantaneous. Wow, what a God. Don’t worry about time having any effect on Him. God is in control.

Safe in the God of time,
Bob Hill

 

[seekinganswers]

I always want a biblical basis for an alleged biblical answer. Where does the Bible say that God has exhaustive foreknowledge. To phrase it a little differently. Please check me if I’m misrepresenting you, but you believe that God foreknew everything that would happen in the universe before He created anything, right? Where does the Bible say that? When does the Bible show He foreknows everything?

If God foreknew everything that will ever happen at some point in time past, when was that point? Then, if He foreknew everything that will ever happen in time past, all His responses to all of your prayers were also foreknown by Him. Since all of your thoughts, actions, responses, etc. were foreknown, along with His responses, then, God couldn’t change anything that He had foreknown. Then, no matter what you do, it was already foreknown and was locked in, with no possibility of any fluctuation of even one electron being different. Since God predestines what He foreknows, in Rom 8:28-30 we, then, see that we were predestined at the same time we were foreknown: “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”

Therefore, according to this thinking, everything in the future is and was determined before God created the universe. However, this can’t be shown from the Bible when we understand what the word repent really signifies – a God who is able to change His mind. The absolute foreknowledge view would contradict God’s ability to respond to anything, now, because our prayers and actions and His responses were already locked in, sometime in eternity past.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

My concern, Bob, is not simply to have a "biblical basis" as you put it, but to have a sound scriptural foundation. People use the scriptures to support their views all the time. The question is whether they are grounded in the greater pathos of the whole of the scriptures, or whether they are using certain scriptures as a proof-text for their preconceived notions. Please observe that Christian slave-holders used the bible to justify their treatment of black slaves based on race, and even justified abuse of those slaves. We are all in danger of using the scriptures in this way (even I am in danger of it). That is why I looked to the greater context of your "favorite passage" in Exodus, because the way in which you are using it cannot be supported by the immediate context, much less the greater context of the scriptural canon.

As far as the rest of your statements are concerned, this is a straw-man argument. You assume that I define knowledge and future in the same way that you have and that the closed theists have. I do not. Knowledge within the scriptures is not a passive action (i.e. observation and rememberance of that observation). Knowledge in the scriptures (especially when related to God) is active (and most certainly is active in foreknowledge), meaning that one is involved in what one knows; one actually brings about what one knows. In the same way, future for God is not defined in events. That kind of future is held in the fortune-tellers (those who want to see what's coming in order to manipulate their fate for their benefit). God isn't waiting for things to happen to him. God is driving events in this world and bringing them to their proper telos in God (and that action is not primarily in eschaton, a cataclysmic sessation of all things; no, the eschaton is held between the resurrection and the parousia of the exalted Christ, while the telos is brought through the Spirit of God in the church).

Peace,
Michael

 

[seekinganswers]

Further, the Scriptures say that God changes His mind, answers prayer and repents. Many Christians don’t sympathize with Calvinism at all.

Many Calvinists believe that a solution to the problem of God’s repentance in over twenty passages in the Bible is found in what Paul Tillich borrowed from Greek philosophy: “The eternal now, that God is not in time.”

I have been studying this topic for 40 years and have not found one place that says God is outside of time or even alludes to that idea. Instead, the Bible shows God working with us in time.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

I'm not a Calvinist.

Peace,
Michael

 

[seekinganswers]

Dear Calvinists,

The Neo-Platonist, Plotinus (about 205-269), lived about 150 years before Augustine. He was very influential upon Augustine. The concept of God being in the state of Eternal Now (Atemporal), or being outside of time, was received from Plato through Plotinus. I want to examine the parallel thought’s of Plotinus and Augustine. We’ll see Augustine was greatly influenced by the thoughts of Plotinus.

Plotinus
“seeing all this one sees eternity in seeing a life that abides in the same, and always has the all present to it, not now this, and then again that, but all things at once, and not now some things, and then again others, but a partless completion . . . Necessarily there will be no ‘was’ about it, for what is there that was for it and has passed away? Nor any ‘will be,’ for what will be for it? So there remains for it only to be in its being just what it is. That, then, which was not, and will not be, but is only, which has being which is static by not changing to the ‘will be,’ nor ever having changed, this is eternity.” (Plotinus, Ennead, The Loeb Classical Library, p. 305.)

Augustine
“so that of those things which emerge in time, the future indeed, are not yet, and the present are now, and the past no longer are; but all of these are by Him comprehended in His stable and eternal presence . . . but beholds all things with absolute unchangeableness” (The City of God, p. 364). Augustine believed that God exists in an eternal present in which the future and the past are comprehended as existing now. Plotinus said the eternal does not have a “was” (past) or a “will be”(future) but only an “is”(present). Since God exists in an eternal state the past, present and future are viewed as existing in that present state at the same time as the present.

Augustine allowed reason to first dictate his ideas about God’s attributes. Then, the details were to be filled by Scriptures. The most damaging presupposition, which has severely harmed Christianity, was the immutability of God. That He was unchangeable and outside of time. This idea of timelessness and immutability influenced his doctrines of impassibility, predestination and foreknowledge.

Later, these doctrines were absorbed by Calvin. This influence of Augustine over Calvin is attested by Calvinists. For example, Benjamin Warfield wrote, “The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers—for the Reformation was, as from the spiritual point of view a great revival of Augustinianism.” (Warfield, Benjamin. Calvin and Augustine, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1956, p.22)

Even though the Old Testament literally shows a mutable, changeable God, Augustine agreed with the group he was in for a number of years, the Manicheans, that a mutable God was totally unacceptable. In this conflict between the Platonic doctrine of immutability and the literal interpretation of Scriptures what had to change? Augustine’s answer was that the literal interpretation of Scripture had to change. For Augustine the plain narratives of Scripture had to be reinterpreted by spiritual or allegorical methods. The Manicheans knew the Old Testament revealed a God who was mutable or could repent, and they rejected it. Since the Platonists believed that God was immutable this idea of God was a source of ridicule for the Catholic Church. Augustine was so embarrassed by these arguments that he chose to reinterpret Scripture rather than depart from Platonic philosophy.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

If you really wanted to disprove Augustine, would it not be better to read his words and critique them, as opposed to disproving him by association?

Peace,
Michael

 

[godrulz]

Hiltston: What do you mean by the charismata of Israel? Are you Mid-Acts?

The charismata is birthed in Acts by the Holy Spirit. Paul taught the most about it in I Cor. 12-14. Are you against the modern Pentecostal-charismatic movement or its manifestations in other evangelical/mainline churches?

Is speaking in tongues biblical for the Church Age or did they cease in history?

If one speaks in tongues, as I and hundreds of millions of Christians do (consistent with Scripture...your subjective interpretations are not necessarily objective truth), what is the source or explanation (demonic, flesh, psychological, etc.)?

 

[Hilston]

Hiltston: What do you mean by the charismata of Israel? Are you Mid-Acts?

Yes, of course.

The charismata is birthed in Acts by the Holy Spirit.

Yes, but Luke writes about the charismata for true Israel, not the Body of Christ.

Paul taught the most about it in I Cor. 12-14.

Yes, but the charismata for the Body of Christ was temporary, for the sole purpose of confirming the Word of God until the completion of the canon ("that which is perfect"). The charismata ceased after the completion and compilation of Paul's epistles and the rest of scripture.

Are you against the modern Pentecostal-charismatic movement or its manifestations in other evangelical/mainline churches?

Absolutely. It is a perversion of Israel's charismata and a mockery of the Body-of-Christ's charismata.

Is speaking in tongues biblical for the Church Age or did they cease in history?

It ceased when the perfect was established, to wit, the completed canon of scripture.

If one speaks in tongues, as I and hundreds of millions of Christians do (consistent with Scripture...your subjective interpretations are not necessarily objective truth), what is the source or explanation (demonic, flesh, psychological, etc.)?

Perhaps consistent with scripture that no longer applies. But I doubt even that. Your argumentum ad populum is as unconvincing as it is fallacious.

I used to speak in tongues. I did it with passion, with fervor, with deep and profound sincerity. I've also laid my hands on others to receive the "gift." I've seen tears stream down the faces of devout and sincere worshippers as the experience flowed over them and filled them and burgeoned in the rapturous and mellifluous sounds of tongue-speaking. And it was contrived. The emotion may have been real; the sincerity and passion for God may have been genuine; but the tongue-speaking was completely fabricated. It has as much similarity to what Paul did in 1Corinthians as the Siddhartha had with Moses.

It's not demonic. It's too silly to be demonic. I've heard the same five syllables of "tongue-speaking" repeated over and over again. "Ah ma tee ah Ooooo ah ma tee ah Oooooo ah ma tee ah! Ah ma TEE ah! AH MA tee YAAAAH! Ah MAAAAAH tee ah! Oooooo ah ma tee ah!!!!" and listened as the preacher turned those five syllables into a 10-minute long message from God. Talk about data decompression!

What do I think it is? It's just a contrivance, dressed up in spiritual garb, and promulgated as a religious subculture, with all the trappings of peer pressure and societal belonging. And it's inane.

 

[godrulz]

Talking about throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. A fleshly counterfeit (your focus) does not disprove the genuine.

How long in Church history do you think the gifts were manifest. Paul did not teach to the circumcision in your view. Why do you pick and chose Pauline teaching for the Church Age? Your exegesis of I Cor. 13 is Baptistic and dispensational, not biblical. The 'perfect' is not talking about the canon, but points to the end of time at the coming of the Perfect One (unless you think faith, hope, love, knowledge, etc. have also ceased). I Cor. 12-14 is about the use and misuse of spiritual gifts, not there negation. The context of I Cor. 13 is love/edification vs pride in the exercise of the gifts, not their imminent cessation when the Bible was formed?!

Which charismatic church did you identify with? Classical Pentecostalism? Lunatic charismatic fringe?

The gift of tongues was not just among Jewish believers. Corinthians and parts of Acts show it as a Gentile experience also (contrary to your specious Israel charismata views).

We cannot put experience above the Word. It seems your negative experiences have jaded you to the work of the Spirit in the Church Age. Satan still has supernatural wiles. God has not left the Church impotent in its spiritual warfare. Paul spoke in tongues and desired that all would do so for personal edification and public edification if interpreted. There is no hint that they were Jewish, temporary, or not good gifts for the benefit of the Church.

You have swung the pendulum from one extreme to another. One does not have to be Mid-Acts to reject the charismata, but holding the view unfortunately seems to predispose one to do so (despite the Pauline emphasis, ironically).

 

[Lighthouse]

How many of you hold to the Open View of God?

Me!

 

[Hilston]

Talking about throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. A fleshly counterfeit (your focus) does not disprove the genuine.

Of course it doesn't. That's why I explained the meaning of "the perfect." Please try to keep up.

Paul did not teach to the circumcision in your view.

Please don't make assumptions about that which you know nothing. Clearly you have no idea what my view is. The Mid-Acts view does NOT teach that Paul did not teach to the circumcision. Acts is full of examples that show that he did just that. If you continue to prejudge my theology, I will have no choice but to mock and deride you.

Why do you pick and chose Pauline teaching for the Church Age?

I'm not going to let you derail this discussion, Godrulz. If you're interested in having those questions answered, please visit my church's website for all your Mid-Acts needs (www.tgfonline.org).

Your exegesis of I Cor. 13 is Baptistic and dispensational, not biblical.

And Bob's your uncle. So there! How do you like that? By the way, water baptism is forbidden for the Body of Christ (Eph 4:4-6).

The gift of tongues was not just among Jewish believers. Corinthians and parts of Acts show it as a Gentile experience also (contrary to your specious Israel charismata views).

Dude! I did NOT limit the charismata to Israel. What is your problem? Did your medication run out? Get a beverage or something. Calm yourself down. React to what I write, not to the imaginary voice in your head.

We cannot put experience above the Word. It seems your negative experiences have jaded you to the work of the Spirit in the Church Age.

You need to read again what I wrote, Evelyn.

 

[godrulz]

Who is Evelyn? A movie reference?

Eph. 4:4-6 'forbids' water baptism? Sloppy exegesis, Sue. Try some credible commentaries. Just because there is only one God does not mean that He is not triune.

Snide remarks do not help one's understanding of your views or responses. Try some content. atrol:

I suppose we should get back to Open Theism. Time is running out to persuade you to a more biblical view. :greedy:

 

[Delmar]

I always want a biblical basis for an alleged biblical answer. Where does the Bible say that God has exhaustive foreknowledge. To phrase it a little differently. Please check me if I’m misrepresenting you, but you believe that God foreknew everything that would happen in the universe before He created anything, right? Where does the Bible say that? When does the Bible show He foreknows everything?

If God foreknew everything that will ever happen at some point in time past, when was that point? Then, if He foreknew everything that will ever happen in time past, all His responses to all of your prayers were also foreknown by Him. Since all of your thoughts, actions, responses, etc. were foreknown, along with His responses, then, God couldn’t change anything that He had foreknown. Then, no matter what you do, it was already foreknown and was locked in, with no possibility of any fluctuation of even one electron being different. Since God predestines what He foreknows, in Rom 8:28-30 we, then, see that we were predestined at the same time we were foreknown: “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”

Therefore, according to this thinking, everything in the future is and was determined before God created the universe. However, this can’t be shown from the Bible when we understand what the word repent really signifies – a God who is able to change His mind. The absolute foreknowledge view would contradict God’s ability to respond to anything, now, because our prayers and actions and His responses were already locked in, sometime in eternity past.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

...and if God is outside of time how could he have foreknown anything? Since there is no before just a now.

 

[sentientsynth]

Eph. 4:4-6 'forbids' water baptism? Sloppy exegesis, Sue. Try some credible commentaries. Just because there is only one God does not mean that He is not triune.

Hilston's correct, godrulz.

Eph 4:4-6 is a linguistic inversion in which the one baptism is connected with the one Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:13 further witnesses to this truth.

By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body...; and have been made to drink into one Spirit.​

Being ritualistically baptized by a man is anathema for the Body of Christ. It is a perversion of God's established hierarchy within creation.


You really ought check out some of the TGF studies, particularly The Seven Ones. It's dy-no-my-eeeet.


SS

 

[godrulz]

...and if God is outside of time how could he have foreknown anything? Since there is no before just a now.

Simultaneity/eternalism/timelessness/'eternal now' is not cogent compared to presentism/endless time.

 

[Philetus]

Hilston wrote: Please give me one example in which [you] knew beyond any reasonable doubt God was truly involved in something in your life.

That's an answer I would expect from someone who doesn't know the answer.

All those the Father gives to the Son will hear Him.

Acts 19:2 does not refer to receiving the Person of the Holy Spirit, but to the charismatic empowerment of believers. John's disciples were not at Pentecost; they had not received the empowerment that was given there.

What does that have to do with God being involved in something in your life? Please be specific.

What are you talking about? The Bible teaches that God is involved in every detail of everything event that is happening at this very moment. The Open Deist is the one whose conception of an active, living, personal, relational, good and loving God is dubious. Please explain to me how God is active and involved. What is He doing?

Sounds like refrigerator magnet fluff so far. Please be specific.

Please give specific examples of cooperative involvement from God in your life.

Hilston asked: What is God doing right now? How is He involved? Please be specific.

How is He inspiring it? Please be specific.

What is He actively doing to inspire you to pray and to accept? When you say "needs Christ in his life," what are you referring to? Needs Christ for what? What does Christ do in your life? Please be specific.

I understand why some have a hard time grasping the concept that God answers prayer and does things for people who ask. To explain away every detail of God’s involvement in the present by saying God has already determined everything, restricts God to such a small niche in the universe it virtually eliminates God from everyday involvement in one's life. Making God as big as one possibly can imagine only reduces Him to both uninvolved and ineffective in the present. The God of meticulous control is a vain imagination of 'What will be ... aready is.' A God who exists in the future (sees the future as existent reality) is limited to what He can do in the present by what He sees in the future.

The future only exists in the hearts, minds, and imaginations of both God and man. It is only in the present that those projections can become reality. God declares in the present. God is fully and simply present here and now and is more than able to make sure that nothing escapes or derails his plan for the future. God is greater than our hearts and any intention to act contrary to God's ultimate plan. God is unlimited in the present and can choose to allow whatever he chooses to allow, and respond to the actions/prayers of creatures as God wills.

Ask what ever you will.
It only takes a little faith.
Philetus​

 

[Philetus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philetus

Yea, so what’s your point, Michael?

You said that in your judgment, I (Philetus) am a Process Theologian. I am not. I said you (Michael) sound like a deist. I know you are not. See any difference?

Seekinganswers: Where have I ever made such a statement? I spoke of Bob's use of the scriptures mirroring the process theologian's use of them. I spoke of the similarities between the views of process theology and open theism. I even spoke of how open theism is running down a very dangerous slope that is similar to the slope of process theology. Where did I say that you (Philetus) were a Process Theologian?

You are taking my critiques of the Open Theist view and making it much more personal than I ever made it out to be. In fact, the original post that you responded to was never directed at you. If you want to distinguish yourself from Bob and identify a different strain of Open Theism, be my guest. But my major concern in my response to Bob was his poor use of the scriptures (because he only looks at the conversation between God and Moses without showing Moses going down the mount and realizing just how serious the situation was and just how ignorant he was; the first conversation was pointless; Moses had to bring the people to repentance and then ascend the Mount again to make atonement for them; only then was God's wrath avoided).

Peace,
Michael

Seeking answers to Philetus: Yet God is involved in a way in which God experiences the Creation (in other words, God's experience is shaped by Creation). Whether you like it or not, the open view of God cannot avoid a God in process. Now you might limit that process to the highest degree, but the reality is that God is in process with the Open view. If God "knows" the Creation through Gods "senses" (whatever that would mean) than God is in process, for God finds himself within the series of cause and effect. Creation can become a cause that draws out an effect within God (and to a limited degree the Creation manipulates God). Now you can call this the "involved" God, but the reality is that God becomes within this order just another actor on the stage. The stage is driving the events of the Creation, and both God and humanity are along for the ride (though God might have a really good "knowledge" of the stage). You need to realize just how closely Process Theology and Open Theism are related. The proof-texts of the Process Theologians are the same proof texts for the Open Theists.

Seekinganswers to Philetus: The Open Theists do claim that God has ordered the Creation in such a way that it is governed by his laws (and that he himself is restrained by those laws). This is the tenant of the deists.

Seekinganswers,
And the texts you use are the same and so on and so on.
I'm not taking it personal I'm just tired of having filter your experience of Process Theology from your posts.

The point I was trying to make was that just because we all use the same words doesn’t make us all the same. I guess you could find a little similarity between OT and Calvinism. We use the same texts and both talk about Jesus. We might be amused and they might be offended. Oh, well.

Creation is in process and God is actively involved with His creation. God is not a passive observer or just another actor on the stage, as you have accused OT of suggesting. His divine nature does not ‘become’ as time rolls on. He does not ‘learn’ ... In perfect knowledge and wisdom God processes all information (not like humans who process bits of information imperfectly and learn from their mistakes) and acts accordingly by God’s nature, taking into account all the actions and thoughts of free will agents. That is not a God in process; that is the God who processes. And God does so in the present. Creation is not spinning out of control and taking God with it. God is omnicompetent even though there are creatures who appear to be heading for destruction - taking anyone and everything they think they can with them. God is preventing that from happening.

We all agree the world without God would not exist. But, can you describe God without creation, without scripture, without being so nebulous your statements mean nothing or don’t sound like something somebody else has already said? The issue (in this case) is not where we start but where we end up. If OT ended where PT ends, you would have a case. It doesn’t. So drop it. If you ended where Deist ends then your sounding like one on an occasion would make you a Deist. It doesn’t. That was my only point. See the diference?

I simply find your dismissal of OT with everything else that challenges your view by pointing out similarities, more than a little amusing. I tried to say that in a way that was less offensive and less personal. I failed.

Philetus​

 

[seekinganswers]

I understand why some have a hard time grasping the concept that God answers prayer and does things for people who ask. To explain away every detail of God’s involvement in the present by saying God has already determined everything, restricts God to such a small niche in the universe it virtually eliminates God from everyday involvement in one's life. Making God as big as one possibly can imagine only reduces Him to both uninvolved and ineffective in the present. The God of meticulous control is a vain imagination of 'What will be ... aready is.' A God who exists in the future (sees the future as existent reality) is limited to what He can do in the present by what He sees in the future.

The future only exists in the hearts, minds, and imaginations of both God and man. It is only in the present that those projections can become reality. God declares in the present. God is fully and simply present here and now and is more than able to make sure that nothing escapes or derails his plan for the future. God is greater than our hearts and any intention to act contrary to God's ultimate plan. God is unlimited in the present and can choose to allow whatever he chooses to allow, and respond to the actions/prayers of creatures as God wills.

Ask what ever you will.
It only takes a little faith.
Philetus​

Philetus,

If you believe that the future is held in humanity, than you have given in to the lie of the world. You have seen the shroud of evil, and have been made to believe that it is real (that it consists in itself). The future is not in the events that are yet to come; the future is held within the will. And I suppose with that regard there are two futures, and yet they are united in God, for it is only God's will that has power to create, and power to sustain. The first future is held within those who hope in the return of Christ (a return that is as certain within the future as we are certain of it now), who are sustained in his faithfulness, and who live in his love. The second future is really no future at all, for once God has revealed the truth by bringing everything into the light, those who were hostile towards God will be shown for the nothing that they were. The light will cast out darkness, and the darkness will be no more; Evil isn't a present reality; evil is a present blindness that continues to dupe us all into believing that true power is found in the one with the biggest guns. Evil only has power with absence (when the light fades). Thus, evil is contingent upon the good. Its power is parasitic, and its is death.

The future is now with God, not in a God that resides in a future time (for God is not bounded within time, but is the kephale (the head) and the telos (the culmination) of time; In Christ and through the Spirit God continues to shape the Creation to bring it to his rest (and it will be accomplished; it is not in doubt; God does not need to respond to humanity to bring this about; in fact, God has brought humanity to its proper telos by Christ and through the Spirit).

Finally, God is never passive in this world. Your "allowing nature" of God is just sickening to me. God doesn't "allow" things to happen. God is active within all things because God is the "all in all." Christ didn't suffer passively. Christ's suffering was active, an obedience toward God. Christ didn't allow humanity to kill him; Christ obeyed the Father even unto death, and so demonstrated that none had the power to destroy him, for his life consisted in God the Father. God doesn't allow evil, but overcomes evil through the practice of good. God does not come against evil on the terms that is set by those who are corrupt. God confronts the corruption with good, and in this way overcomes. And we too are called to overcome evil through the practice of what is right and good and pleasing to God. The God who allows things to happen is a God who does not act. The God who acts shows that those who act in opposition to him have only accomplished their own defeat; they are dust and will return to dust (a very good lenten sentiment).

The God who allows things is the God who listens to the cries of his people and does nothing. That is not the God revealed to Abraham (for God brings life to a barren womb); that is not the God revealed to Israel in Egypt (for God delivers his people from bondage); it most certainly is not the God of the exhile (who chastizes those whom God loves); and without doubt Christ reveals an active God not an "allowing" God (for God in Christ comes near to us to draw us closer to God). God is not powerless (indifferent) to the evil of our age (waiting for the eschaton to come), nor does God sit back and wait for the faithful to pray for him to come; God acts in drawing up those who are faithful to him and through this people calls the world back to himself. The eschaton is already here; judgment is already being pronounced on this world. And those who are pronouncing this judgment are the ones living faithfully among the ekklesia of God. God doesn't wait for us to pray to him. God is already active before we even thought to pray to him.

Peace,
Michael

 

[sentientsynth]

Mr. Hill,


Hello, sir. I've never had the pleasure of conversing with you. I've replied to one of your thoughts below.

Time is just the distance between 2 events.

Distance is measured in feet and inches.

Time is measured in seconds.

Simultaneous events by definition occur at a distance.

However, non-simultaneous events need not occur at a distance.

Your definition of time, therefore, is still incomplete. We may accept "distance" as a synonym of magnitude, but magnitude is always an attribute of some other thing, such as force, joules, temperature, resistance, weight, mass, etc.

Time, Mr. Hill, is a dimension all of its own. Like mass, weight, resistance, temperature, joules, and force, time is an attribute of creation and it is unique in its own identity.




You say , I came to understand that the whole concept of God outside of time and seeing all things as an eternal now was from Greek philosophy

Though historically speaking, the Greeks were “first,” it isn’t unimaginable that a particularly clever fellow would come to this same conclusion on his own. What the Greeks believed is of no concern. Paul quoted them at will. We are not at war with men.

You continued "…and, in modern times, from the theory of relativity."

Modern physics, though baffling man's preconceived notions of the nature of space-time, does demonstrate that time is relative, second-order, even malleable. And our understanding of this is not only "theoretical." Global satellite positioning systems would not operate without being programmed to account for relativistic affects. Modern physics has only confirmed what reasonable men have affirmed for ages: that God is not bound within the various manifestations of creation.




SS

 

[drbrumley]

SS, you seem to be nitpicking the word distance.

Time is just a decriptive word we as humans use to describe a seperation of events. I use seperation and not distance.

Thru the Scriptures, we know God was not created. Has always been God. Let me illustrate it this way.

In the beginning, God created. Time for sake of a better word, did not start when He created. It has always been there. And I submit, as God was never created or started, neither was time.

 

[sentientsynth]

Hello Dr. Brumley.

SS, you seem to be nitpicking the word distance.

Time is just a decriptive word we as humans use to describe a seperation of events. I use seperation and not distance.

Separation of events occurs both spatially and chronologically. This distinction must be recognized by our language.

Thru the Scriptures, we know God was not created. Has always been God. Let me illustrate it this way.

In the beginning, God created. Time for sake of a better word, did not start when He created. It has always been there. And I submit, as God was never created or started, neither was time.

Time, as concerning creation, has been demonstrated to be a malleable aspect of the fabric of the universe. God is separate from His creation and does not experience it as we do. Ascribing time, or "sequentiality," to the nature of God is just a specious as ascribing distance, mass, or any other category of time-space phenomena to Him.



SS

 

[drbrumley]

Hello Dr. Brumley.



Separation of events occurs both spatially and chronologically. This distinction must be recognized by our language.


Time, as concerning creation, has been demonstrated to be a malleable aspect of the fabric of the universe. God is separate from His creation and does not experience it as we do. Ascribing time, or "sequentiality," to the nature of God is just a specious as ascribing distance, mass, or any other category of time-space phenomena to Him.



SS

For the sake of argument SS, I don't believe time is created.