ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Spitfire]

Apocrypha?

Deutero-canonical. From the Septuagint.

 

[Clete]

Unfortunately, the debate about what John meant by "logos" in John 1 is ongoing. That's one possibility. But that's not the only one.

Another is that 'logos' is a Greek idiom for a "god-man."

Another is that 'logos' refers to the Jewish concept of Wisdom.

No on really understands it.

Muz

"Wisdom" is yet another word that both logos and logic would entail. "God-man" isn't very helpful here because there is all sorts of possible concepts that such a term could entail including all of the things that I've already mentioned as well as 'wisdom' which you have rightly pointed out as well.

The point I am making, among others, is that logic is not the impersonal set of rules that many people associate with the term. Anything that includes reasoned discourse can be referred to as logic to one degree or another and the same was true of the term logos as well. In fact, any translation of the word logos that discounts the fact that the term covered such concepts as logic, wisdom, thought, discourse, argument, communication, etc. is a faulty translation thus logic would seem to me to be a much more accurate translation that simply the word "word". The intended meaning becomes much clearer as we understand John to be telling that that Jesus is the very incarnation of the intellect and wisdom of God both in word and in deed; Jesus is the very thoughts of God become flesh.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

As you know, the Greek word is simply 'logos'. "Word" is a legit. translation.

Kittel's theological dictionary of Greek words has many pages of small print about the origins and meanings of the word, including secular and NT usage. I have not read it in detail, but this would be a good investment of time (I own it). The Johannine use of the word certainly goes beyond the philosophical use of it.

While logic may be one aspect of the word, it is far more pregnant with other truths about the multi-faceted Son of God.

 

[Clete]

As you know, the Greek word is simply 'logos'. "Word" is a legit. translation.

I don't suggest that it is an illigitimate translation but only that it doesn't do as good as job at communicating the concepts as does the English word Logic.

I mean if you have a word in one language that means virtually the exact same thing as a word in another language and you want to translate from one to the other then why would you choose any other word than the one that is virtually identical in meaning?

Kittel's theological dictionary of Greek words has many pages of small print about the origins and meanings of the word, including secular and NT usage. I have not read it in detail, but this would be a good investment of time (I own it). The Johannine use of the word certainly goes beyond the philosophical use of it.

While logic may be one aspect of the word, it is far more pregnant with other truths about the multi-faceted Son of God.

No more so than the English word 'logic' is pregnant with other truths than simply the rules of necessary inference.

I have a challenge for you. Try to find a meaning or use for the word logos that would not at all fit with the English word logic. I haven't been able to find one yet.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Evoken]

God knows all that is knowable. What is knowable is increasing. The trillions of thoughts, events, actions, etc. in any given day are leading to an ever increasing base of knowledge. God knows these things exhaustively, but not before they become real (many potential things are never actualized...I did not die yesterday, so God would not know that I died if I did not).

So, we can say that God's knowledge is increasing and has been increasing for billions of years as new knowledge in some manner is absorbed by him, right?

Discursive?

Discursive means "passing from one subject to another" or "proceeding from topic to topic". That is, the way God thinks is just like we humans think. His thoughts are successive, one leading to the other.

The manner in which God learns is similar to that of humans. His knowledge is increasing as that which can be known becomes "real", as you say. Just like humans, he learns by succession. Some problems emerge from this:

• God's knowledge is finite: The OV entails that God's knowledge is limited, that it has beginning(whatever base knowledge he had before creating the universe) and end (his knowledge extends only to the present). This is in contradiction with the claim that God is infinite in every perfection (Psalm 146:5, Psalm 144:3, etc). That God's knowledge (as well as any other perfection) has neither beginning nor end and is thus infinite also logically follows from his simplicity and indivisibility.

• God's knowledge in the beginning: If as you say "God knows these things exhaustively, but not before they become real", since the universe was not real before he created it, he could not know it exhaustively, if that is the case, then how could he create it?. Also, where did God's knowledge about the universe he created come from? Did he had some base knowledge in the beginning from which he made the universe? Some base knowledge that has been increasing ever since? Where did this base knowledge come from? What is it?

• God falls into an infinite regress: It is impossible to pass an infinite series of events. This charge is often raised against an eternal universe, and because of this, we arrive at the need of a first mover that is unmoved by anything else and which is devoid of any contingency. The OV God, since his knowledge is discursive and since he learns and thinks by succession falls into the same infinite regress problem as the eternal universe. Just like an infinite series of events cannot be passed, likewise and infinite series of thoughts cannot be passed. Passing an infinite series of events to get to the present is an impossibility, likewise, the OV God would not be able to pass an infinite series of thoughts to get to the thought of creating the universe. Ergo, he could never create the universe.

Saying that God had some base knowledge at the beginning or that his manner of thinking was not discursive at the beginning would be an act of special pleading. That being the case, the OV God cannot be the first mover and like the eternal universe he is a logical impossibility.

jg0j eyhg5 jnr hjnphj ndjpjnpjp,pjn,r ;;b c/.vs[';nnnnnnns,tm5y40440y0

Will the exhaustive definite foreknowledge people give a clear explanation on how God knew I would do this at this moment from eternity past?

There is a crucial difference between the OV and the CV as far as this particular issue is concerned. OV asserts, as you have said above, that God knows things as they become knowable or real. So, that being the case, the OV God could not know the random typing you did, because he can only know what is actual.

On the other hand, the CV says that God's knowledge is the cause of all things. So the random typing that you did, could occur only because God knew it.

The CV is consistent with the claim that God gives being to all that exist and that all that exist is dependent upon him for it's existence.

The OV contains a contradiction, as it appears to assert that God gives being to everything that exists, yet he can only know things as they come into existence. So, how can God give being to something he does not knows?


Evo

 

[godrulz]

I think you are misunderstanding the OV. God knows all that is knowable. Somethings, like where Alice in Wonderland is, are not possible objects of knowledge and not a deficiency in omniscience. To not know a nothing is not a problem for God's glorious attributes.

 

[Nang]

Based on how you and your husband post I can see why that might happen.

Do onto others.... (know what I mean?)

I know exactly what you mean.

One reaps what they sow.

Clete personally reaped from my husband, what he has been personally sowing against me for weeks.

Hatred and threat. Ugly stuff. Unpleasant for the recipient.

Of course, we are both adult enough to know that it easier to dish it out, than take it.

I have a question for you Nang....

Do you believe I (and others like me) should be Calvinist?

I believe others like you (OVT'ers) should prayerfully and humbly reconsider your theological position.

As for being a "Calvinist," I will tell you I do not call myself a "Calvinist." Other people refer to me as a "Calvinist," so I sometimes use the term as a "short-hand" response to identify myself with their (usually, narrow) mindset.

However, I am truly a spiritual child of the Reformed faith; a Protestant Christian woman who holds to the Scriptural teachings of the faithful fathers, who were raised up by God to rescue regenerated believers from the errors and false teaching of the RCC and eastern religions.

From what I know, we are not too far apart regarding aversion to RCC and eastern abuses against Godly truths . . .???

Nang

 

[Clete]

I know exactly what you mean.

One reaps what they sow.

Clete personally reaped from my husband, what he has been personally sowing against me for weeks.

Hatred and threat. Ugly stuff. Unpleasant for the recipient.

Of course, we are both adult enough to know that it easier to dish it out, than take it.

Threat?

When have I ever threatened you?

I believe others like you (OVT'ers) should prayerfully and humbly reconsider your theological position.

Which you also believe to be impossible unless God Himself causes us to do so.

As for being a "Calvinist," I will tell you I do not call myself a "Calvinist."

You lie to everyone else, why not yourself.

Other people refer to me as a "Calvinist," so I sometimes use the term as a "short-hand" response to identify myself with their (usually, narrow) mindset.

You're so stupid. You believe everything that every Calvinist on the planet believes including all five points of the TULIP, the WCF and every other declaration of what the entire theological world understands to be Calvinism. If you deny being a Calvinist in every meaningful sense of the word, you're just stupid. It would not be surprising however; Calvinist are all the time redefining virtually every word in the English language to suit themselves and their theology, why not redefine the word 'Calvinist' also?!

However, I am truly a spiritual child of the Reformed faith; a Protestant Christian woman who holds to the Scriptural teachings of the faithful fathers, who were raised up by God to rescue regenerated believers from the errors and false teaching of the RCC and eastern religions.

In short, you're a Calvinist. :doh:

From what I know, we are not too far apart regarding aversion to RCC and eastern abuses against Godly truths . . .???

Indeed! The only difference on that point between you and any open theist is that we are willing to take the same line of reasoning that corrected those errors and apply it to the rest of what might be called "traditional" or "orthodox" theology and you are not. The quote from Sanders in my signature line could easily have been said by Luther concerning his 95 theses (And in fact he did, in so many words during his defense at Worms). We are merely taking the next step beyond ridding the church of the Roman error and applying the same standard against the Greek error as well; a step you are unwilling to take for want to preserve your beloved traditions of men.

Resting Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

Threat?

When have I ever threatened you?


Which you also believe to be impossible unless God Himself causes us to do so.


You lie to everyone else, why not yourself.


You're so stupid. You believe everything that every Calvinist on the planet believes including all five points of the TULIP, the WCF and every other declaration of what the entire theological world understands to be Calvinism. If you deny being a Calvinist in every meaningful sense of the word, you're just stupid. It would not be surprising however; Calvinist are all the time redefining virtually every word in the English language to suit themselves and their theology, why not redefine the word 'Calvinist' also?!


In short, you're a Calvinist. :doh:


Indeed! The only difference on that point between you and any open theist is that we are willing to take the same line of reasoning that corrected those errors and apply it to the rest of what might be called "traditional" or "orthodox" theology and you are not. The quote from Sanders in my signature line could easily have been said by Luther concerning his 95 theses (And in fact he did, in so many words during his defense at Worms). We are merely taking the next step beyond ridding the church of the Roman error and applying the same standard against the Greek error as well; a step you are unwilling to take for want to preserve your beloved traditions of men.

Resting Him,
Clete

Thank you for sharing your views, Clete, but may I please dialog with Knight without more of your hateful interference?

Nang

 

[Philetus]

The CV is consistent with the claim that God gives being to all that exist and that all that exist is dependent upon him for it's existence.

The OV contains a contradiction, as it appears to assert that God gives being to everything that exists, yet he can only know things as they come into existence. So, how can God give being to something he does not knows?


Evo

It’s called creating significant others and giving them life and everything they need to sustain that life.

The OV acknowledges that God certainly could have created only what He knew from start to finish but did not, while, the SV says that God could not create and give life apart from meticulous controls and exhaustive foreknowledge. Now which really limits God? Could God not create a seed with the potential for producing an infinite number of blossoms and just enjoy watching them grow? Could he not create an environment which could produce an infinite number of snowflakes, not two of which are exactly the same, and simply be content to enjoy the ones that did in fact appear? I think when we stop to consider it we would agree that only a finite number have fallen out of infinite possibilities. Does knowing exactly which ones would and which would not actually be produced and fall, somehow increase God’s ability to create? Perhaps the greater wonder of God lies in His not knowing. Or does not knowing and simply seeing it all unfold in creation somehow limit God? Not in the least. God is greater than the settled view would allow.

God created an environment that sustains life. That environment will sustain life (at least for a time) whether individuals acknowledge God’s sovereignty or not. And to mankind He gave the freedom and ability to live and think and do in concert with His intentions or not. All that exists owes its existence to God who created and acknowledgment of that truth is the ticket to more life; denial is self destruction and final death. God grants us the freedom and ability and the help of His Spirit to choose. Until that choice is made, our decision cannot be known or it is not our decision. That is the water shed issue. How God overcame His own exclusive existence, whether in time or outside of it, is really beside the point and it isn’t any easier to buy into one than the other. The question is: Does God grant others freedom to choose for themselves? If God in fact does, then He must exercise patience and hope. If not then we are mere game pieces God has made for his own amusement.

2Pe 1:3 - His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.​

Philetus

 

[Nang]

Until that choice is made, our decision cannot be known or it is not our decision. That is the water shed issue.

Indeed. The "water-shed issue" is the choice of man to disobey and repulse the life God gave to mankind.

And that choice of man, was made by the first man to experience life from the hand of the Creator God . . .the first man, Adam, who possessed all the human race, as federal head and representative of the human race, in his person and in his loins.

When Adam chose to rebel and disobey God, all mankind fell under the consequence of his action.

That is the "water-shed" issue and the reason for the necessity of a Savior from God, who would act as federal head and representative of an elect humanity saved by grace.

The question is: Does God grant others freedom to choose for themselves?

Nope. Adam chose for all his descendents, and they must live with his wrong and sinful choice.

Ugly, isn't it?

The only remedy will be God freely choosing to rescue some of Adam's descendents despite Adam's wrong and wicked choice.

Free-will exists only in God. Human will is corrupted by sin and held in bondage to serving only sin, death, and the devil.

If "free-will" is the means to the salvation of sinners, then it is only by the execution of the "free-will" decision, will, and choice of God, who is gracious.

Nang

 

[Philetus]

Your nuts, Nang. You have nothing to say that I want to hear. Talk to Knight as you asked if he will and show the same courtesy you demand.

 

[Nang]

Your nuts, Nang. You have nothing to say that I want to hear. Talk to Knight as you asked if he will and show the same courtesy you demand.

Thank you for sharing Philetus, and also for butting out . . .

 

[Philetus]

Some of the best evangelistic preaching I have heard was by Calvinists. Yet at every juncture and turn they contradicted themselves. They preach as if eternity hangs in the balance when their theology says otherwise. They preach as if the decisions sinners make will have eternal consequences when their theology says otherwise. In short, they preach evangelistic sermons as if their theology didn't exist. In fact, when it comes to evangelism they preach like Arminians and Open Theists, because otherwise, they would have to shut down their churches, schools and publishing houses and look for honest work.

 

[Nang]

Some of the best evangelistic preaching I have heard was by Calvinists. Yet at every juncture and turn they contradicted themselves. They preach as if eternity hangs in the balance when their theology says otherwise. They preach as if the decisions sinners make will have eternal consequences when their theology says otherwise. In short, they preach evangelistic sermons as if their theology didn't exist. In fact, when it comes to evangelism they preach like Arminians and Open Theists, because otherwise, they would have to shut down their churches, schools and publishing houses and look for honest work.

I thought you had left this conversation! :chuckle:

"Calvinists" evangelize with their whole hearts, proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ, because they have no idea and are not privy to whom God wills to save. So "Calvinists" feel burdened to preach the gospel indiscrimately to all men, and leave the saving results of grace to God.

The Gospel message is the same as it was in the garden:

"Believe in God and you will live; disobey God and you will surely die."

 

[Philetus]

You're nuts, Nang. You are not having a conversation. I think it was you who butted into my response to Evo. I addressed you only to say 'butt out' ... in a polite way.

 

[Nang]

You're nuts, Nang. You are not having a conversation. I think it was you who butted into my response to Evo. I addressed you only to say 'butt out' ... in a polite way.

Let's me start again, if I may . . .

Originally Posted by Knight

I have a question for you Nang....

Do you believe I (and others like me) should be Calvinist?

I believe others like you (OVT'ers) should prayerfully and humbly reconsider your theological position.

As for being a "Calvinist," I will tell you I do not call myself a "Calvinist." Other people refer to me as a "Calvinist," so I sometimes use the term as a "short-hand" response to identify myself with their (usually, narrow) mindset.

However, I am truly a spiritual child of the Reformed faith; a Protestant Christian woman who holds to the Scriptural teachings of the faithful fathers, who were raised up by God to rescue regenerated believers from the errors and false teaching of the RCC and eastern religions.

From what I know, we are not too far apart regarding aversion to RCC and eastern abuses against Godly truths . . .???

Nang

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Evoken's TULIP Response to AMR - Part 1

Evoken's TULIP Response to AMR - Part 1

(On Total Depravity)

We are in agreement when you say that "the will of man is free to choose according to the dictates of his nature" but disagree with the consequences you attribute to the Fall, that is, that man is totally depraved and incapable of doing any good whatsoever.

This is a common misunderstanding by virtue of the unfortunate use of the word “total”. A better description would be “Total Inability”. Total depravity does not mean “utter depravity”, that is, completely unable to do some good. But, the context of the depravity used here is the good in Godly things, or spirituality. When we say the unregenerate is totally depraved, we mean that the unregenerate will never seek spiritual things. They will never seek God on their own accord for they are unable to do so given their sinful nature. Paul tells us, "The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be. So they that are in the flesh cannot please God:" (Romans 8:7). Similarly, "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned," (1 Corinthians 2:14). The plain reading of these verses clearly shows the extent of fallen man. Thus we see that man in his natural state cannot even see the kingdom of God, much less can he get into it.

This is not to say that the unregenerate cannot do morally good things, such as feeding the poor, being good citizens, or helping the sick, yet none of these acts are motivated by a desire to glorify God. God has poured out His common grace on the entire world. This is the grace from God’s sustaining presence (Acts 17:25) and His patience extended to all people (2 Pet. 3:9). The bible is full of examples of God’s showing His blessings on all persons, and indicates that these are the expression of a favorable disposition in God, which falls short, however, of the positive volition to pardon their sin, to lift the sentence, and to grant them all salvation. See examples of God’s favorable disposition in Prov. 1:24; Is. 1:18; Ezek. 18:23; Ez. 18:32; Ez. 33:11; Mt. 5:43-45; Mt. 23:37; Mark 10:21; Luke 6:35; Rom. 2:4, 1 Tim. 2:4.

Common grace is the grace that restrains sin in a fallen world, preventing mankind from ultimately committing moral suicide. Yet, this is not the saving grace of God’s mercy (Rom. 5:1-2), God’s sustaining mercy (Rom. 8:28-39), that has been extended to the elect (Rom. 9:15-16).

In a similar manner, fallen man can still do good without grace and he can also stop sinning, but he cannot rise from sin, nor can he do anything out of supernatural love, such as salutary acts (actions related to the supernatural end of man) without the help of grace.

No, as we see from the discussion above, the unregenerate are spiritually dead in their sin, imputed to them from the fall of Adam. They cannot even recognize or know spiritual things. Just as Lazarus could not rise from the dead until called, the unregenerate cannot do anything to help themselves get saved until called. The regenerating grace of God is a free gift to His elect. The unregenerate cannot lay claim to it, nor can they somehow “help” God give it to them. Furthermore, to claim that the unregenerate can somehow cooperate in their own salvation is to dilute the atonement of Christ.

Arminians (and other Arminian derivatives, such as open theism) hold that Christ died for all men alike, while Calvinists hold that in the intention and secret plan of God, Christ died for the elect only, and that Christ’s death had only an incidental reference to others in so far as they are partakers of common grace. The meaning might be brought more clearly amplified if we used the phrase “Limited Redemption” rather than Limited Atonement. Both Calvinists and Arminians believe the Atonement is strictly an infinite transaction. But for Calvinists, the limitation emerges, theologically, in the application of the benefits of the atonement, that is, in redemption.

No limits can be set on the value or power of the atonement which Christ made, since it depends upon and is measured by the one making it—Christ—and the value of His suffering was infinite. Therefore, the atonement was infinitely meritorious and might have saved every member of the human race had that been God's plan. The atonement was limited only in the sense that it was intended for, and is applied to, particular persons; namely for those who are actually saved.

Universal atonement destroys its inherent value. When applied to everyone, while we know some will be lost, universal atonement makes salvation objectively possible for all but it does not actually save anyone. To Arminians the theory of atonement makes it possible for persons to cooperate with God’s divine grace and therefore save themselves—if they will.

If atonement makes salvation possible, it applies to all persons. If atonement effectively secures salvation, it has reference only the elect. The choice is an atonement of high value or an atonement of wide extension. The Arminian limits the power of the atonement, saying that the atonement itself does not actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits the atonement quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively.

(On Unconditional Election)

Since Scripture says that many are called but that few are chosen (Matthew 22:14) and since God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), then it follows that God gives everyone the grace necessary for salvation. But, since man has free will, he can reject God's grace and refuse to cooperate with him (Acts 7:51).

…
It must be noted that divine providence does not imposes necessity on all things, as God wills some things to occur by necessity and others by contingency. Predestination (which is not predetermination, but infallible foreknowledge of the future) includes the free will of man and the contingency that this entails. God's sovereignty thus does not frustrates free will but includes it as part of the divine plan.

To better understand the context of these verses one must realize the distinctions between God’s sovereign and efficacious will. You may also have seen these two referred to as God’s decretive and preceptive will, respectively. Or, sometimes called the secret and the revealed will of God. The distinction is based upon Deut. 29:29. The secret will is mentioned in Ps. 115:3; Dan. 4:17, 25, 32, 35; Rom. 9:18-19; Rom. 11:33-34; Eph. 1:5, 9, 11. God’s revealed will is mentioned in Mt., 7:21; Mt. 12:50; John 4:34; John 7:17; Rom. 12:2. God’s revealed (perceptive, efficacious) will is accessible to all and not far us, see Deut. 30:14; Rom. 10:8.

God’s sovereign will is that will of God by which He purposes or decrees whatever shall come to pass, whether He wills to accomplish this effectively (causatively), or to permit it to occur through the unrestrained agency of His creatures. God’s efficacious will are the rules of life which God has laid down for His moral creatures, indicating the duties which He enjoins upon them. God’s sovereign will is always accomplished, while God’s efficacious will is often disobeyed.

Careful reading of Scriptures will show that God’s decretive will includes many things which He forbids in His perceptive will, and excludes many things which He commands in His perceptive will, see Gen. 22; Ex. 4:21-23; II Kings 20:1-7; Acts 2:23. Yet we must maintain both the decretive and preceptive will with the understanding that, while they appear to us as distinct, they are yet fundamentally one in God. The decretive and preceptive will of God do not conflict in the sense that in the former God does, and in the latter He does not, take pleasure in sin; nor in the sense that in the former He does not, and in the latter He does, will the salvation of every individual with a positive volition. Even according to the decretive will God takes no pleasure in sin; and even according to the preceptive will He does not will the salvation of every person with a positive volition.

In Mt. 22:14 the context is temporal with the times in Palestine observed by Christ and His disciples. I hold that while God’s decree of election and predestinating love, is discriminating and particular, it is, nevertheless, very extensive. For reasons I have described elsewhere, I believe that much of the larger portion of the human race has been elected to life. 1 Tim. 2:4 is referring to a particular class of men, the elect, for to assume otherwise is to imply universal salvation, yet we know that not all will be saved. Finally, in Acts 7:51, Stephen is upbraiding the Jews for being covenant breakers, pointing out to them he unworthiness and perpetual rebelliousness of the Jews who, in the long run, exhaust the immense riches of God's mercy. Stephen describes his accusers using pejorative theological nuances. The phrase "stiff-necked" was fixed in the Jews’ memories as God's own characterization of them when they rebelled against Moses and worshiped the golden calf (see Ex. 33:5; Deut. 9:13). The expression "with uncircumcised hearts and ears" reminds them of God's judgment on the apostates among His people as being "uncircumcised in heart" (see Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4; 9:26). And finally, says Stephen, speaking like a prophet of old, God's indictment rests upon you just as it did on your idolatrous and apostate ancestors. In the next verse, the prophet connection is clear as Stephen continues, “Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute?”. Those that reject he who comes, like Stephen, speaking in the prophets, are said to have resisted the Holy Spirit. Nowhere does this imply what you conclude to be the free will of the lost or their ability to cooperate in their salvation.

Do We Have Free Will? If God exercises providential control over all events are we in any sense free? The answer depends on what is meant by the word ‘free’. In some senses of the word 'free', everyone agrees that we are free in our will and in our choices. Thus, when we ask whether we have free will, it is important to be clear as to what is meant by the phrase.

Scripture nowhere says that we are free in the sense of being outside of God’s sovereign control or of being able to make decisions that are not caused by anything. Unfortunately, this is the sense in which many people seem to assume we must be free. Nor does Scripture say anywhere that we are free in the sense of being able to do right on our own apart from God’s power.

But, we are nonetheless free in the greatest sense that any creature of God could be free: we make willing choices, choices that have real effects. We are aware of no restraints on our will from God when we make decisions. We must insist that we have the power of willing choice; otherwise we will fall into the error of fatalism or determinism and thus conclude that our choices do not matter, or that we cannot really make willing choices.

On the other hand, the kind of freedom that is demanded by those who deny God’s providential control of all things, a freedom to be outside of God’s sustaining and controlling activity, would be impossible if Jesus Christ is indeed continually carrying along things by his word of power (Heb. 1:3). If this is true, then to be outside of that providential control would simply be not to exist! An absolute freedom, totally free of God’s control, is simply not possible in a world providentially sustained and directed by God himself.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So, you deny immutability? You already stated that creation has always existed in God's mind. Was God's mind wrong for a while, before He created?

…You fail to explain how God does not experience a succession of events (time), and yet there can be a "before creation" and "after creation" for God. You fail to explain how God can be eternally "now" for every moment in time, and yet take to Himself a human nature in the carnation.

I did read them carefully. A God that cannot change (immutability) and has no emotions (impassibility) cannot begin a relationship, because a timeless, immutable being cannot start anything and cannot engage relationship.

It's logically impossible.

I am beginning to see your problem. You misunderstand God’s transcendent nature, especially regarding time. There are no ‘befores’ and ‘afters’ with eternal God. He exists outside of time. He created time and can/does act within time, yet God’s experiences of what we know as time is vastly qualitatively different than what we understand. You are trying to map God into this time box, applying terms and concepts that we understand about time, but God is beyond all possible knowledge (transcendent) of these concepts. God sees everything that we know as “time” equally vividly and He has done so for eternity. Have you ever re-read a book that you enjoy? As soon as you start to read suddenly your mind is flooded with all the imagery, context, and plot of the entire book. A poor analogy, since “suddenly” is a succession of moments, albeit quantum moments, yet I think you can make the leap to what I mean about God’s experiencing everything equally vividly. To say it is logically impossible is incorrect from what I have described. You assert it, yet you offer nothing substantive to support it.

Ah... you're beginning to moderate... this is good... this is good...

No, I am not. Slow down and read through everything I have written first instead of responding as you are reading.

First God is completely immutable, and now it's only his attributes and character that does not change. With this, I agree.

…
Actually, you're refuting yourself. Immutability cannot have changes in emotion... Unless you're backing off your original claims, of course.

You are applying your preconceptions of Greek concepts to my words. Separate your bias towards Calvinism from what I am writing. In Greek thought immutability of “god” meant not only unchangeability but also the ability to be affected by anything in any way, i.e., the unmoved mover. The Greek word for this primary characteristic of “god” was apatheia, from which we get our word “apathy”. Apathy means indifference, but the Greek term goes far beyond that idea. It means the inability to feel any emotion whatsoever. The Greeks believed “god” possessed this quality because we would otherwise have power over him to the degree that we could move him to anger or joy or grief. He would cease to be absolute and sovereign. Thus the “god” of the philosophers was lonely, isolated, and compassionless. This all makes for good, logical, philosophy, but it is not what God reveals about Himself in the Scriptures and we must reject it. The Scriptures tell us that God is indeed immutable, but that He nevertheless notices and is affected by the obedience, plight or sin of His creatures. Why else, then, would Christ have wept at the tomb of Lazarus?

God is always the same in His eternal being. In other words, God never differs from Himself. For a moral being like ourselves to change means that it is necessary to change in one of two directions- from better to worse, or from worse to better. Clearly God cannot change in these directions. As I noted in a previous post, immutability also applies to God’s attributes, to which you have agreed. I have never stated that God’s emotions change. I stated: God does act and feel emotions, and He acts and feels differently in response to different situations. God’s attitudes towards us is the same as it was in the farthest reaches of eternity past and will be in the farthest reaches of eternity to come. God has feelings—but they are unchanging feelings. God feels good about our being good, bad about our being bad. God does not change when we repent—He always feels the same about the same. When we change, God does not change. We simply move under another unchangeable attribute of God. For example, God feels bad about our badness; when we change, God feels good about our new state of being good. God experiences feelings as I have noted, but not in the way we experience them. God experiences them in accordance with His own nature—in an active, eternal, and unchangeable way.

 

[themuzicman]

Mr. religion: Was there a "time" for God when creation did not exist, and then another "time" when creation did exist?

Muz