ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Lon]

I AM means that God is eternal, uncreated, self-existent, no beginning, no end. It does NOT have to mean timeless, eternal now, simultaneity, etc. This is sheer eisegesis of a traditional view that is not truth. Eternality is expressed, but duration that is endless is the picture in Scripture, not philosophical timelessness that is incoherent if God is personal and if Jesus is not still on the cross.

He could have said it that way: "Before Abraham was, I was I Am."
He didn't. You will have to take your correction of His grammar skills up with Him. I'll simply take Him at His word and not try and correct Him simply because it tramples my pet perception.

You and Dave are going to have to own your rejection of our Lord's words.
It is no longer a debate with me, but Him. You don't have to respond to me, you have to talk this over with Him. I've got nothing left for this part of the conversation but to point you back to the Author. Do whatever you like with His words, just remember Who you are actually debating with here.

 

[godrulz]

He could have said it that way: "Before Abraham was, I was I Am."
He didn't. You will have to take your correction of His grammar skills up with Him. I'll simply take Him at His word and not try and correct Him simply because it tramples my pet perception.

You and Dave are going to have to own your rejection of our Lord's words.
It is no longer a debate with me, but Him. You don't have to respond to me, you have to talk this over with Him. I've got nothing left for this part of the conversation but to point you back to the Author. Do whatever you like with His words, just remember Who you are actually debating with here.

Huh? The grammar can be used to argue against Arians (JWs), but cannot prove or disprove timelessness vs endless time. The key is that it is Jehovahistic identity, self-existence, Deity, uncreated (cf. usage in LXX about YHWH). Issues of A vs B theory of time are more philosophical than proof texted. I would claim some verses for divine temporality vs eternal now, but every page of Scripture shows God in sequence, not timelessness. Jesus (God-Man) experienced time without negating His Deity.

 

[Lon]

Huh? The grammar can be used to argue against Arians (JWs), but cannot prove or disprove timelessness vs endless time. The key is that it is Jehovahistic identity, self-existence, Deity, uncreated (cf. usage in LXX about YHWH). Issues of A vs B theory of time are more philosophical than proof texted. I would claim some verses for divine temporality vs eternal now, but every page of Scripture shows God in sequence, not timelessness. Jesus (God-Man) experienced time without negating His Deity.

He said it the way He said it. Your beef is not with me.

 

[godrulz]

He said it the way He said it. Your beef is not with me.

One proof text does not complete the picture. The verse is about His claims to Deity, not whether eternal now or endless duration is true. Like the rest of His words and the rest of inspired Scripture, there are interpretative or translational issues. Unlike JWs, you and I do not dispute the translation, but I believe my interpretation is right and yours is wrong. It is not a helpful thing to say I just believe the Bible when we all claim this yet interpret some parts differently. You are begging the question by assuming a paradigm that is not demanded by His words (cf. Calvinism in other places).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It is much easier to jettison the error and embrace a more coherent view.

You are missing Jim's point completely, which is to point out the incoherence of the open view on even epistemological grounds. :AMR:

AMR

 

[godrulz]

You are missing Jim's point completely, which is to point out the incoherence of the open view on even epistemological grounds. :AMR:

AMR

Huh? Can you give me the layman gist of it? The Open view is not incoherent, just not consistent with Calvinism. What aspect of knowledge is he talking about? Do you really understand or agree with what he is saying half the time?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

How does the God of the Open View know that the laws of logic need not be tested in the world? The God of the Settled View knows because He has decreed all things, past, present and future, in every meticulous detail, all according to His own good pleasure and His freely chosen and predetermined purposes.

Since God is timeless and exists in the eternal "now" then there is no past or future with Him. Here is what John Wesley says about that:

"The sum of all is this: the almighty, all-wise God sees and knows, from everlasting to everlasting, all that is, that was, and that is to come, through one eternal now. With him nothing is either past or future, but all things equally present...Not that God has any need of counsel, of purpose, or of planning his work beforehand. Far be it from us to impute these to the Most High; to measure him by ourselves! It is merely in compassion to us that he speaks thus of himself, as foreknowing the things in heaven or earth, and as predestinating or fore-ordaining them. But can we possibly imagine that these expressions are to be taken literally?" (John Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasions, 1771, Second Series, "On Predestination," Sermon #58; Christian Classics Ethereal Library).

Unfortunately the Calvinists take the "time element" in verses which speak of God doing things in time "literally" and build their theology upon those verses:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

 

[Lon]

Unfortunately the Calvinists take the "time element" in verses which speak of God doing things in time "literally" and build their theology upon those verses:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

No. In point of fact, it is only the 2 or 3 thousand open theists and a few others that deny God's foreknowledge, but this is expected from a plays-at-theology novice who really has no theological interest or prowess. You use the things of God as a fun-debate-tool rather than taking any of it seriously which is why we ignore you. We just aren't interested in that kind of conversation where these things mean much much more to us. Hilston is not a Calvinist.

 

[Lon]

One proof text does not complete the picture. The verse is about His claims to Deity, not whether eternal now or endless duration is true. Like the rest of His words and the rest of inspired Scripture, there are interpretative or translational issues. Unlike JWs, you and I do not dispute the translation, but I believe my interpretation is right and yours is wrong. It is not a helpful thing to say I just believe the Bible when we all claim this yet interpret some parts differently. You are begging the question by assuming a paradigm that is not demanded by His words (cf. Calvinism in other places).

Yes, it is a demanded paradigm. I already said He could have said it another way clearly but He didn't. Your beef continues to be with our Savior. Either He meant what He said or you can go ahead and correct his Greek for Him.
Dancing around the issue with me does nothing for you. It is still between you and Him.

 

[Lon]

Ps. 90:2; Gen. 1:1 There is a before and after creation. The triune God experienced succession, sequence, duration in the triune relations (time is necessary to think, act, feel for a personal being, including God; it is not a created thing nor a limitation on God). Creation is not co-eternal with God. There was a time before and after the Fall, before and after the cross, etc. Jesus did not cease to be God because He experienced our space-time (which parallels God's time; it is 2011 for God and us).

Double-speak:

The triune God experienced succession....time is necessary to think, act, feel - it is not a created thing nor a limitation on God

You can't have it both ways. It is either a limitation or it doesn't apply.
Your view only makes sense in the finite imaginings of the OVer.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

No. In point of fact, it is only the 2 or 3 thousand open theists and a few others that deny God's foreknowledge, but this is expected from a plays-at-theology novice who really has no theological interest or prowess.

We read the following in Calvinist's Loraine Boettner's book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination:

"Much of the difficulty in regard to the doctrine of Predestination is due to the finite character of our mind, which can grasp only a few details at a time, and which understands only a part of the relations between these. We are creatures of time, and often fail to take into consideration the fact that God is not limited as we are. That which appears to us as 'past,' 'present,' and 'future,' is all 'present' to His mind. It is an eternal 'now'...Just as He sees at one glance a road leading from New York to San Francisco, while we see only a small portion of it as we pass over it, so He sees all events in history, past, present, and future at one glance" (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination [Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1932]).

Since there is no "past" or "future" with God then it is nonsense to speak of Him PREdestinating anything.

With that in mind why do you not participate on a thread which I just started entitled "Before the Foundation of the World"?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

One proof text does not complete the picture. The verse is about His claims to Deity, not whether eternal now or endless duration is true.

godrulz,

Arthur C. Custance wrote that "The subject of the conversation had been the patriarch Abraham. The Lord took Abraham's time as the pivot and spoke of two periods balanced on either side, namely, the ages which preceded Abraham, and all that followed (including the present). He then deliberately picked up the present and put it back before Abraham, but still referred to that distant period in the present tense. Though it was centuries ago, to Christ it was 'now.' Even if He were here today, He would still refer to the time before Abraham as the 'present' time. Why? Because He is God, and to God there is no passage of time, but all is 'present.' The reaction of the Jewish authorities to His statement suggests that in some strange way they had understood what He meant. The mystery of God's name, as revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:13,14--'the One who is existing always in the present'--is unlocked here and undoubtedly determined the Lord's choice of words in speaking to the Jews" (Arthur C. Custance, Time and Eternity, Chapter 4).

 

[Lighthouse]

Again my question is left unanswered.:think:

 

[patman]

Hi Lon,

Sorry for taking time to respond. Been busy

Your answer to there being synchronized time in heaven was "Yes, where they intersect," but I hope we can get a full "yes" answer.

I didn't have the "half hour" verse in mind. Instead I had the story in Daniel 10 in mind:

2 At that time I, Daniel, mourned for three weeks. 3 I ate no choice food; no meat or wine touched my lips; and I used no lotions at all until the three weeks were over.

4 On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river, the Tigris, 5 I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist.
......

12 Then he continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. 13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia.

From the story above, you can see the angel was sent to Daniel the moment he prayed, yet was held back for 21 days until the angel Michael came to help.

If time in heaven can come and go in and out of sync, why not just come to earth at a time before this Persian prince was making trouble? You see, even the angels can have great power by being in a world that has the advantage of being outside of earth's time.

The passage above shows linear events. He was sent, he was held back for 21 days, Michael came to help at the end of the 21 days, he was free, now he comes to speak.

So with this example, I hope it is more clear that heavenly events synch with earthly events. Another example would be the saints in Revelation who were killed, asking God "how long" He will take to avenge them. Why ask that if time isn't the same in heaven?

Yes, I agree, but it doesn't follow, other than in extrapolation here, that Saul was the plan. I Samuel 8:18 seems to point away from the idea.


It seems precarious to me, to build a doctrine upon a whim. That is, I understand why you read this as God not knowing, but it does damage to other passages like Revelation.

Again, this is building doctrine upon a whim. Yes, I can see how you come to this conclusion, but it is too vague for a doctrine to stand or fall upon when we provide others that point in a different and orthodox position with substance from scriptures and sound thinking.

I protest the word "whim," there Lon I was a settled theist for about 10 years and it took considerable thought to get me to change.

I think this passage out of 1 Sam helps my case in a big way. You can see God working this new kingdom system into his plan. The thing is, God was always their king. But when he setup this system and he worked Jesus into being an heir of the kingdom as the story progresses.

God could have made Jesus' earthly lineage trace back to Saul. The passage I quoted last time really shows that God considered doing it until Saul sinned. Then after David replaced Saul God made the promise to David.

Regardless of the kingdom system, Saul, David, and the millions of other freewill agents on earth, heaven, and hell, God was able to bring plan A into fruition. The idea that along the way he worked people in and out of that plan is amazing and exciting, as it shows the willingness of God to share his blessings with mere men. What amazing love and grace!

This has been discussed as above at length with scriptural support. I used to try strongly, in vain, to get OV to realize that such doctrine is built off of story (narrative) rather than pedantic 'teaching' texts that are more explicit. It is my estimation (guide/rule) that the narrative supports pendantic texts and what one brings from them must adhere to scriptures clear teaching.

Lon, I think we all could do better at discussing this. I am trying to do better myself. I say the "teaching" and the "story" go together, and they both give clarity to each other. With patience we can understand each other's views on these passages, and I pray we can come to unity.

You seem to downplay the story in favor of the teaching. In the story from Daniel 10 we learn that angelic intervention can be postponed. In a book that doesn't really think of time like we do today(as a dimension), so that doesn't mention it, we must rely on what we have.

So to wrap up:

The spirit world, heaven, hell, wherever there are spirits, has synchronized time with earth. I hope you will agree based on scripture this is true.

God's plan for salvation was always assured. The path from Genesis to Calvary show a God who interacts and plans but never loses sight of the goal.

I'd like to tackle the synchronization of Gods time with creations time next, but this will be a little easier to do if we can agree that time is the same time for all of creation. I believe Scripture backs this up.

 

[DFT_Dave]

godrulz,

Arthur C. Custance wrote that "The subject of the conversation had been the patriarch Abraham. The Lord took Abraham's time as the pivot and spoke of two periods balanced on either side, namely, the ages which preceded Abraham, and all that followed (including the present). He then deliberately picked up the present and put it back before Abraham, but still referred to that distant period in the present tense. Though it was centuries ago, to Christ it was 'now.' Even if He were here today, He would still refer to the time before Abraham as the 'present' time. Why? Because He is God, and to God there is no passage of time, but all is 'present.' The reaction of the Jewish authorities to His statement suggests that in some strange way they had understood what He meant. The mystery of God's name, as revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:13,14--'the One who is existing always in the present'--is unlocked here and undoubtedly determined the Lord's choice of words in speaking to the Jews" (Arthur C. Custance, Time and Eternity, Chapter 4).

Jesus could not grammatically say he "was" before Abraham and make his point that he also, with the Father, "is" -- not was but no longer is -- the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This statement is in no way saying I am a "timeless and spaceless" God, who does not experience time and space, when here he was in time and occupying space.

--Dave

 

[Hilston]

To DFT_Dave:

Hi Dave,

I'm very interested in understanding the Open View's position on these matters:

Everything possible in a relationship with another is experienced between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In your words plus mine, all possible extrinsic applications are already applied intrinsically.

Really? How about hatred for evil? Was that extrinsic application already applied intrinsically?

God in OV does not have to say to us what Tom Cruise said in his film Jerry Maguire, "You complete me."

Unfortunately the God of SV and panentheism cannot say the same.

How so? Please explain how that applies to the Settled View.

Thank you for considering my questions.

Hilston

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jesus could not grammatically say he "was" before Abraham and make his point that he also, with the Father, "is" -- not was but no longer is -- the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This statement is in no way saying I am a "timeless and spaceless" God, who does not experience time and space, when here he was in time and occupying space.

First of all, your last statement ignores the fact that the Lord Jesus was not speaking of the "present" time when He was indeed "in time" but instead he spoke about "before Abraham" when He was not "in time."

Secondly, He could have said "before Abraham I existed" and made the point which you say He was trying to make but since He said, "Before Abraham I AM" He was making another point.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I'd like to tackle the synchronization of Gods time with creations time next, but this will be a little easier to do if we can agree that time is the same time for all of creation. I believe Scripture backs this up.

It is impossible that God is bound by time and in the eternal state there is a synchronization of Gods time with creations time with the following verse in view:

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet.3:8).

Here we see a speeding up of time at the same time we see a slowing down of time. That proves that God is not bound by time.

Martin Loyd-Jones writes, "God Himself, being eternal, is right outside it. To Him a thousand years are but as one day and one day as a thousand years. In other words, He does not live at all in the realm, or in terms of, the time process" (Martin Loyd-Jones, God and Time).

The mistake that the Open Theists make is their assumption that placing God outside of time supports a "settled view" but nothing could be further from the truth. That is because the "time element" in the following verse cannot be taken literally:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

The "time element" in any verse which speaks of God doing something "before" another thing cannot be taken literally since with Him all things are simultaneous and with Him there is no before or after. The Calvinists make a fatal error when they take the "time element" in verses like Ephesians 1:4 literally and then build their doctrine upon that which should not be interpreted literally.

 

[Lon]

Hi Lon,

Sorry for taking time to respond. Been busy

Your answer to there being synchronized time in heaven was "Yes, where they intersect," but I hope we can get a full "yes" answer.

I didn't have the "half hour" verse in mind. Instead I had the story in Daniel 10 in mind:


From the story above, you can see the angel was sent to Daniel the moment he prayed, yet was held back for 21 days until the angel Michael came to help.

If time in heaven can come and go in and out of sync, why not just come to earth at a time before this Persian prince was making trouble? You see, even the angels can have great power by being in a world that has the advantage of being outside of earth's time.

The passage above shows linear events. He was sent, he was held back for 21 days, Michael came to help at the end of the 21 days, he was free, now he comes to speak.

So with this example, I hope it is more clear that heavenly events synch with earthly events. Another example would be the saints in Revelation who were killed, asking God "how long" He will take to avenge them. Why ask that if time isn't the same in heaven?

That'd be relational to time. This passage is difficult for either, any of us. There are a lot of 'huh?' moments in here we have to guess at. In Job, Satan cannot do what he wishes to Job w/o God's permission. Could a messenger from God be held up? Regardless, he was held up in our time, right? In Revelation, I understand the time question but in repeat, if you take one truth, you have to take the other: This is the future John is seeing, so it is already out of sync with our time, right? Read between the lines, that's why I said 'whim.' It isn't really dealing with the entire text forthright.

I protest the word "whim," there Lon I was a settled theist for about 10 years and it took considerable thought to get me to change.

Okay, but you still don't seem to be dealing with whole contexts of the texts imho. I will come up with another term but it does seem you are zeroing in on particulars and missing the forest for the trees.

I think this passage out of 1 Sam helps my case in a big way. You can see God working this new kingdom system into his plan. The thing is, God was always their king. But when he setup this system and he worked Jesus into being an heir of the kingdom as the story progresses.

As I said to Dave, I appreciate that the OV works hard at pointing away from humanizing God as the process camp and other cults do. However, I believe in His foreknowledge and this passage doesn't negate that at all.

God could have made Jesus' earthly lineage trace back to Saul. The passage I quoted last time really shows that God considered doing it until Saul sinned. Then after David replaced Saul God made the promise to David.

Why didn't God make this covenant with Saul, then?

2Sa 7:14 I will become his father and he will become my son. When he sins, I will correct him with the rod of men and with wounds inflicted by human beings.
2Sa 7:15 But my loyal love will not be removed from him as I removed it from Saul, whom I removed from before you.
2Sa 7:16 Your house and your kingdom will stand before me permanently; your dynasty will be permanent.' "

Regardless of the kingdom system, Saul, David, and the millions of other freewill agents on earth, heaven, and hell, God was able to bring plan A into fruition. The idea that along the way he worked people in and out of that plan is amazing and exciting, as it shows the willingness of God to share his blessings with mere men. What amazing love and grace!

I agree, but foreknowledge doesn't diminish this one bit.

Lon, I think we all could do better at discussing this. I am trying to do better myself. I say the "teaching" and the "story" go together, and they both give clarity to each other. With patience we can understand each other's views on these passages, and I pray we can come to unity.

As I, have always appreciated you. We don't see eye-to-eye from our perspectives. I do appreciate devotion to our God and Savior and our agreements on particular essentials of Christ's deity, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and other pertinent doctrines.

You seem to downplay the story in favor of the teaching. In the story from Daniel 10 we learn that angelic intervention can be postponed. In a book that doesn't really think of time like we do today(as a dimension), so that doesn't mention it, we must rely on what we have.

Yes, to an extent. There are pedantic teachings in narrative, of course there are, but, what is not implicitly taught, we must be careful in assuming. My point is, whatever we take away from the narrative must agree with doctrine (pedantic teaching passages of scripture). Many people come away from narrative with wrong ideas. For example the word 'expect' in Isaiah is a translation word. The actual word means 'to gather together/collect.' If folks would take a little time and enroll in a Hebrew and Greek class, a lot of discussion on this board wouldn't need to take place. It is just that clear in the original languages.
There is a reason we don't see many language scholars in debate forums, it is just that clear.

So to wrap up:

The spirit world, heaven, hell, wherever there are spirits, has synchronized time with earth. I hope you will agree based on scripture this is true.

Yes, my point was that it isn't constant. By reminder, I point again to time succession in Revelation that was occuring in the future. It is a foregone conclusion, I'd have to think even by you, that it is out of synch as well.

God's plan for salvation was always assured. The path from Genesis to Calvary show a God who interacts and plans but never loses sight of the goal.

We of course disagree. It isn't just the movement of an incredible chess-player, it is intricately planned from before the beginning of creation.

I'd like to tackle the synchronization of Gods time with creations time next, but this will be a little easier to do if we can agree that time is the same time for all of creation. I believe Scripture backs this up.

How? It is like you are ignoring my previous comments that John's Revelation was of future events.
-Lon

 

[patman]

It is impossible that God is bound by time and in the eternal state there is a synchronization of Gods time with creations time with the following verse in view:

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet.3:8).

Here we see a speeding up of time at the same time we see a slowing down of time. That proves that God is not bound by time.

Martin Loyd-Jones writes, "God Himself, being eternal, is right outside it. To Him a thousand years are but as one day and one day as a thousand years. In other words, He does not live at all in the realm, or in terms of, the time process" (Martin Loyd-Jones, God and Time).

The mistake that the Open Theists make is their assumption that placing God outside of time supports a "settled view" but nothing could be further from the truth. That is because the "time element" in the following verse cannot be taken literally:

Hi Jerry,

Obviously I disagree with Martin Loyd-Jones interpretation of the verse. It is about patience, not physics, space-time, and God's relationship to it. Moreover, if God were outside of "time" the adjective patient would no longer apply.

Jerry, I think teaching others that God is outside of time inevitably leads to the settled view.

Here one reason: time is comprised of events. God created time he also created the events that makeup the time.

Another reason: When you explore this concept, you introduce the possibility of "time travel." With his mind God could visit the future and report it to the past at any time of his choosing. As I told Lon in another post, this opens the door for God to change the past and set an entirely new course of events that could make the crucifixion no longer necessary.

Instead, Open Theism says time isn't a created realm, but like God's goodness is simply another aspect of God. We define time as sequential events.

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

The "time element" in any verse which speaks of God doing something "before" another thing cannot be taken literally since with Him all things are simultaneous and with Him there is no before or after. The Calvinists make a fatal error when they take the "time element" in verses like Ephesians 1:4 literally and then build their doctrine upon that which should not be interpreted literally.

I think this reasoning requires a pre-assumed position. You claim "with Him all things are simultaneous" in order to say "God doing something "before" another thing cannot be taken literally." Neither statements are evidence to the claim and only serve to support each other. Why do you think all things are simultaneous with God?