ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Nathon Detroit]

There can be nothing "new" to God. All created effects pre-exist in God’s will. God’s will is in perfect accord with his knowledge. God’s will is the efficient cause of all things, so all created things pre-exist in God’s knowledge. Will is the inclination to put into action what one knows. Therefore, all created effects flow from God’s will.

Given that God knows Himself perfectly, He must know perfectly all the different ways His perfections can be shared by others. Within the essence of God there is all the knowledge of all possible kinds of things God's will could actualize. Hence, God knows all the particular things that could ever be actualized. In other words, God knows all possibilities.

It makes no more sense to say God has to be temporal in order to relate to a temporal world than to say God has to be a creature in order to create.

Endless time is just more of an elongation of time. But eternity differs qualitatively. It differs essentially, not merely accidentally. Eternity is an essential, changeless state of being that transcends moment-by-successive-moment reality.

When time changes, God’s knowledge does not change, since God knew it in advance. God knows change, but not in the way we know change. We know change in successive frames of time. From eternity God knows the whole of before and after equally vividly.

God knows the same things we do, but God does not know them the same way we know them. Our knowledge is discursive, as it moves from premises to conclusions. In human knowledge discursiveness is twofold: One thing is known after another, and one thing is known through another. God does not know things sequentially, since God is timeless and knows all things eternally equally vividly. God does not know things inferentially, for God is a simple being (simpliciter) and knows all things through the oneness of Himself. Hence, God cannot know anything discursively (sequentially, from topic to topic), since discursive knowledge implies a limitation to consider one thing at a time on the part of the knower.

AMR, if we cannot comprehend God (as you assert) why are you so sure God cannot create something new? (as you assert)

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Wow! For all of you watching from the sidelines, read the following exchange VERY closely. Are you considering Calvinism???? You might want to read Nang's responses to my questions first, this is what happens to your brain on Calvinism. :chz4brnz:

I am speaking strictly about God and His perspective.

- Was there ever a time where He created something new? (new to Him?)

No

- Was there ever a time where he designed something? (new to Him?)

No

- Could He design something new if He wanted to now? (new to Him?)

No

- Could He author something new (like a song) if He wanted to? (new to Him?)

No

Does He have the fundamental capability of creating new things? (new to Him)

Not necessary for complete God to add to His completeness.

I didn't ask if it were "necessary" or if God needed to "add to His completeness" whatever that might mean. I simply asked if He could!

The God you describe is utterly impotent. Weaker than His own creation, incapable of the most fundamental abilities.

 

[godrulz]

Novelty is a blessing of a personal being. God is grieved when man Fell, not from eternity past in the blessedness of His tranquil, triune relations. God experiences joy and delights over us with singing when we repent, love, and obey Him.

AMR's view of God seems to undermine His freedom, personality, creativity, responsiveness, etc.

AMR: Did you ever read John Sander's 'The God who risks'? It presents a relational, personal understanding of God that does not negate His great attributes and character.

 

[godrulz]

Wow! For all of you watching from the sidelines, read the following exchange VERY closely. Are you considering Calvinism???? You might want to read Nang's responses to my questions first, this is what happens to your brain on Calvinism. :chz4brnz: I didn't ask if it were "necessary" or if God needed to "add to His completeness" whatever that might mean. I simply asked if He could!

The God you describe is utterly impotent. Weaker than His own creation, incapable of the most fundamental abilities.

Any changes in creation are outside of God's being. Just because God can do things outside of Himself, including new things, does not undermine His essential character and attributes.

Being able to change in some ways (relations, thoughts, feelings, actions, etc.) is part of being perfect and great. Being static in all ways to retain Platonic concepts of perfection is not worthy of the Living God.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

"Was there a "time..." The question from a time frame is the object of our disagreement. It is the whole point. "New" is the object of our disagreement. We are talking about the time issue here. You can't ask these questions because they have no meaning in my context for this discussion. The foundational problem is that I see God outside of our time constraints. Like I said, all our words are colored by our perception. God already supercedes our time considerations in omnipresence, power, communications, time frame (1 day as a thousand years), eternal both past and future (definition of infinite). We speak from our context of finite temporality. So when we say time, new, now, yesterday, tomorrow, all these concepts are from finite understandings. Infinite is already a timeless consideration on its own. God is relational to us in our understanding and perception of time, but He is not constrained to it already, just by the small things I've said. He already escapes our sequential reality. I know this is troubling to logic parameters you've set up, but it is the truth.

You say.... " I know this is troubling to logic parameters you've set up, but it is the truth."

Where do you get this "truth" from? The Bible? If so, can you point me to the place in the Bible where we learn that God cannot create something new? Can you point me to the place in the Bible where it says God created time? (seems silly asking you that knowing you believe God cannot create). Can you point me to the place in the Bible where it says God is impassible? Can you point me to the part of the Bible that says God does not experience one event after another?

If what you say is true you should be able to give a defense for such a notion.

Shouldn't you? :idunno:

 

[themuzicman]

There can be nothing "new" to God. All created effects pre-exist in God’s will. God’s will is in perfect accord with his knowledge. God’s will is the efficient cause of all things, so all created things pre-exist in God’s knowledge. Will is the inclination to put into action what one knows. Therefore, all created effects flow from God’s will.

Given that God knows Himself perfectly, He must know perfectly all the different ways His perfections can be shared by others. Within the essence of God there is all the knowledge of all possible kinds of things God's will could actualize. Hence, God knows all the particular things that could ever be actualized. In other words, God knows all possibilities.

It makes no more sense to say God has to be temporal in order to relate to a temporal world than to say God has to be a creature in order to create.

Endless time is just more of an elongation of time. But eternity differs qualitatively. It differs essentially, not merely accidentally. Eternity is an essential, changeless state of being that transcends moment-by-successive-moment reality.

When time changes, God’s knowledge does not change, since God knew it in advance. God knows change, but not in the way we know change. We know change in successive frames of time. From eternity God knows the whole of before and after equally vividly.

God knows the same things we do, but God does not know them the same way we know them. Our knowledge is discursive, as it moves from premises to conclusions. In human knowledge discursiveness is twofold: One thing is known after another, and one thing is known through another. God does not know things sequentially, since God is timeless and knows all things eternally equally vividly. God does not know things inferentially, for God is a simple being (simpliciter) and knows all things through the oneness of Himself. Hence, God cannot know anything discursively (sequentially, from topic to topic), since discursive knowledge implies a limitation to consider one thing at a time on the part of the knower.

Was the physical existence of creation new to God when He created it?

Muz

 

[Nang]

I didn't ask if it were "necessary" or if God needed to "add to His completeness" whatever that might mean. I simply asked if He could!

And I answer, "no."

For to contemplate adding something "new" to something already complete, one is confronted with two implications:

1. The "complete" entity was not really completed if something new needed to be added.

or

2. The "new" addition to the complete entity is extraneous to the completed entity.

Which means, if God is continually changing and adding new things to Himself then God cannot ever be considered perfect and complete.

Or, if God is continually creating new things, but He is already complete, then those "new" things would unnecessarily exist outside His completed and Perfect Being.

Both implications are impossibilities.

We see this truth reflected in the Holy Scriptures, for like God, His Word is also perfect and complete. That is why men are warned not to add to His Word, nor are they free to take away from His Word. (Deut. 12:32, Rev. 22:18&19)

Nang

 

[Nathon Detroit]

And I answer, "no."

For to contemplate adding something "new" to something already complete, one is confronted with two implications:

1. The "complete" entity was not really completed if something new needed to be added.

or

2. The "new" addition to the complete entity is extraneous to the completed entity.

Which means, if God is continually changing and adding new things to Himself then God cannot ever be considered perfect and complete.

Or, if God is continually creating new things, but He is already complete, then those "new" things would unnecessarily exist outside His completed and Perfect Being.

Both implications are impossibilities.

We see this truth reflected in the Holy Scriptures, for like God, His Word is also perfect and complete. That is why men are warned not to add to His Word, nor are they free to take away from His Word. (Deut. 12:32, Rev. 22:18&19)

Nang

Yet men DO have the ability to add to His word (hence the warning not to). Therefore you affirm once again that man has more ability than your god which of course is utter blasphemy.

God is not impotent. (as you assert) Instead He is OMNIPOTENT. The god you portray is a weakling god that is not even sovereign over his own faculties, unable to do the most simple and fundamental tasks.

 

[Nang]

Yet men DO have the ability to add to His word (hence the warning not to).

Man is not "free" to add to God's word. Man is not "free" to disobey God. Man is not "free" to reinvent their Maker. Man's choices and actions are restricted by the Word (Law) of God. Man's "ability" to rebel against God only brings death.

God is not impotent. (as you assert) Instead He is OMNIPOTENT. The god you portray is a weakling god that is not even sovereign over his own faculties, unable to do the most simple and fundamental tasks.

God is omnipotent because God is perfect and complete. It is not weakness that God does not need to create new things, or change with the times. It is His perfections that make such hypotheticals unnecessary.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

God is omnipotent because God is perfect and complete. It is not weakness that God does not need to create new things, or change with the times. It is His perfections that make such hypotheticals unnecessary.

If your god cannot even do something so simple as write a new song he is hardly omnipotent.

The God of the Bible is NOT impotent, yet instead omnipotent.

 

[Nang]

If your god cannot even do something so simple as write a new song he is hardly omnipotent.

The God of the Bible is NOT impotent, yet instead omnipotent.

Knight,

All the songs that will ever exist have already been written; just because you have not heard all of them, does not mean God does not know them.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight,

All the songs that will ever exist have already been written; just because you have not heard all of them, does not mean God does not know them.

Would you consider God to be a creative God? YES or NO?

 

[Nang]

Would you consider God to be a creative God? YES or NO?

I believe God is Creator of all things.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I believe God is Creator of all things.

Do you have a hard time answering questions?

You answered a question I didn't ask.

What I did ask was....

Would you consider God to be a creative God? YES or NO?

 

[Nang]

Do you have a hard time answering questions?

You answered a question I didn't ask.

That's because I did not like your question.

What I did ask was....

Would you consider God to be a creative God? YES or NO?

God is the Creator of all things.

If that does not answer your question, the way you hoped, then you are not really interested in my beliefs, but were attempting to manipulate me to confess your beliefs.

You will find I am not easily manipulated. :noway:

Nang

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That's because I did not like your question.

God is the Creator of all things.

If that does not answer your question, the way you hoped, then you are not really interested in my beliefs, but were attempting to manipulate me to confess your beliefs.

You will find I am not easily manipulated. :noway:

Nang

If I ever get to the point in my life where I cannot answer a simple question such as "Would you consider God to be a creative God?" somebody please shoot me!!! :Grizzly:

Nang, your theology has turned you into a blithering idiot.

 

[Delmar]

Knight,

All the songs that will ever exist have already been written; just because you have not heard all of them, does not mean God does not know them.

When were they written?

 

[Nang]

When were they written?

When did God start thinking?

 

[Delmar]

That's because I did not like your question.


God is the Creator of all things.

If that does not answer your question, the way you hoped, then you are not really interested in my beliefs, but were attempting to manipulate me to confess your beliefs.

You will find I am not easily manipulated. :noway:

Nang

If I ever get to the point in my life where I cannot answer a simple question such as "Would you consider God to be a creative God?" somebody please shoot me!!! :Grizzly:

Nang, your theology has turned you into a blithering idiot.

Knight
You are simply not trying to understand. God is the Creator of all things, but,for God, It is always now, but God can not create anything new because it has been now for eternity! Don't you see? Every song that was ever written was written before time began which is to say , every song that was ever written, is being written right now!:hammer:

Now do you get it?

 

[Delmar]

When did God start thinking?

Apparently right now!