ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[DFT_Dave]

For the third time, I will ask you the same question that you keep dodging:

After salvation, does a believer have eternal life, or everlasting life?

C. S. Lewis wrote to a friend

"I certainly believe that to be

God is to enjoy an infinite present where nothing has

passed away and nothing is still to come. Does it follow that

we can say the same of saints and angels?

To make the life of the blessed

dead strictly timeless is inconsistent with the

resurrection of the body."

--Dave​

 

[tetelestai]

Originally Posted by tetelestai
For the third time, I will ask you the same question that you keep dodging:

After salvation, does a believer have eternal life, or everlasting life?

C. S. Lewis wrote to a friend

Good for C. S. Lewis, but what is DFT_Dave's answer?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Well, as Islam didn't originate until nearly two centuries after Augustine that's more than a bit of an anachronism.

But in regards to Judaism, both timelessness and exhaustive foreknowledge represented the normative belief within Judaism at the time of Christ and are well attested to in the centuries prior to his birth. In fact, so far as I am aware, there was no sect within second temple Judaism that believed otherwise. This then forces one to ask, if either of these beliefs was the grievous error that Open Theists contend, then why did neither Jesus himself nor any of his Apostles ever seek to correct them?

That isn't to say that a belief in an eternal duration of time is original to Open Theism. It has a long history as well. It just that it's one which, until the rise of Open theism, was confined to Pagan religions as well as some eastern religions such as Hinduism and the Vedic religion which preceded it.

I'm sorry, I mixed up Augustine with Aquinas, Plato with Aristotle. Islamic scholars where developing a theology based on Aristotle's "unmoved mover" before Aquinas.

The eternal of pantheism is "timelessness", not an eternal duration of time. O.V. is against eternal "timelessness".

Jesus corrected the false notions of God very clearly. Jesus equated himself with God making God a plurality and not a singularity. Jesus also is in "time and space", which is the opposite of the "timeless and spaceless" God. If he is the "Word that has become flesh", then the "immutable" God would have had undertaken a "change" in form.

Paul warned the church, Colossians 2"8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

--Dave

 

[godrulz]

For the third time, I will ask you the same question that you keep dodging:

After salvation, does a believer have eternal life, or everlasting life?

I Jn. 5:11-13 Eternal life is in the Son. If we are in the Son, we have eternal life. That does not mean we do not have a beginning, unlike Deity.

Ps. 90:2 God is from everlasting to everlasting (endless duration of time vs timelessness...before....Rev. 1:4 tensed expressions about God).

Like Kingdom of God/heaven, these phrases can be used interchangeably. God alone is eternal in the sense of no beginning and no end. We are everlasting in the sense that we have a beginning with no end.

Quantity? Quality? Semantics?

Context and word studies will clarify your pointless point. The words can be used interchangeably, about God, about man, about both, about salvation, about existence, etc. They can be used more specifically, depending on the context.

If you are assuming an English definition while not recognizing the semantical range of meanings in the Greek, you are creating more heat than light.

What is your point? Unless you have looked at all the uses of the Hebrew and Gk. words in context, you should not jump to conclusions.

Start with an expository dictionary of NT words like Vine's (not the best) or Mounce's (much better).

 

[Lon]

That is a math gimmick. If I shoot an arrow at a target it passes through an infinite amount of points, but it still reaches the target!

No no, your proof is dealing within the framework of a specified duration/distance.

The problem again: An eternity past really is eternal (never began, never ends).

Your proof is a measurable distance. Eternal has no measurable duration, length, distance, or what-have-you.

 

[Lon]

"When we think of God and what it means to be “infinite”, we mean that God is “unlimited” in all aspects of his being, he is also eternal and uncreated, free and uncoersed. There is nothing behind, before, nor other than God that is responsible for his existence or that forces him to do what ever he does.

We have been taught that God is omnipotent—all powerful, omnipresent—everywhere present, and omniscient—all knowing. But, we haven’t been taught that these aspects of God’s being must be understood in terms of God’s freedom. A God who does everything all at once is no more free than a God who does nothing at all. If God is not free then he is a machine and so are we.

God did not have to create the world, it does not complete him nor define his existence. Even though God is unlimited in whatever he can do, he does not have to do everything all at once. Even though God is unlimited in where he can be, he does not have to be everywhere all at once. And even though God knows everything he is capable of doing, he does not have to know all that he will do, or will not do, in his infinite future. God could have created a world in which he had ordain and knew every future event in it; instead, he created a world in which he has not ordained and does not know every future event."

--Dave

Yes but the opposite you are aiming for is equally true against freedom because He'd be subject to 'outside(?)' forces

You haven't even scratched the surface of concern yet.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I think the scriptures trouble you, my commentary only sums up the verses I quoted.

http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/Gospel.html

--Dave

They don't trouble me at all. I believe they mean exactly what they say in their context. Do you keep the commandments?

 

[DFT_Dave]

They don't trouble me at all. I believe they mean exactly what they say in their context. Do you keep the commandments?

It is my intention to do so. Before I became a Christian my intention was not to do so.

The opposite of love is selfishness.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes but the opposite you are aiming for is equally true against freedom because He'd be subject to 'outside(?)' forces

You haven't even scratched the surface of concern yet.

You mean God might have to answer our prayers?

Forgive my shallowness. Help me comprehend your "incomprehensible timeless" deity.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Albert Einstein said, "If we assume that all matter would disappear from the world, then before relativity, one believed that space and time would continue existing in an empty world. But according to the theory of relativity, if matter and its motion disappeared, there would no longer be any space or time."

Einstein points out a very important fact, space—pure space—is nothingness. Time, in itself, is also nothing. Aristotle understood this, “time is either the same thing as movement or is an affection of it.” It has been taught that God created time and space when he created the world, but before the creation of the world there was the Trinity and nothing else but empty space. Time did not exist as we know it because there was nothing outside of God to measure the duration nor the extent of God’s activity that we can relate to.

Time is an attribute of God and a characteristic of the world he created. There is not a single statement in scripture that says God created time. Genesis tells us that there is only a new way of measuring time in the creation.

--Dave

 

[nicholsmom]

Most Christians agree that we need the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

Well, this is certainly what I expected of you gr.

There are atheists who can read God's communication and understand the message since it is given in a grammatical-historical-literal fashion. If it was allegorical with a subjective, spiritual meaning under the surface, we would not be able to read and understand it.

Considering we all claim to rely on the Spirit for understanding, it is interesting that equally capable, godly believers (TM) come to such divergent views on theology (Calvinism, Arminianism, Open Theism, baptism views, eschatology, spiritual gifts, ecclesiology, etc.). This shows that we cannot underestimate the noetic effects of sin that can cloud our understanding, bias, exegetical fallacies, lack of hermeneutical discipline or study, etc.

:up:

This means to me that we must cultivate our relationship with Almighty God (hear His voice as clearly as possible) and do all we can to overcome these biases by yielding to His guidance, using good hermeneutical principles, and setting aside our own biases insofar as we are aware of them (so listening to critics a bit) - in other, perhaps better, words: "tabula rasa."

One cannot underestimate the need for the Holy Spirit for understanding spiritual things which must be discerned spiritually. That we hear imperfectly does not mean that we give up nor that we do not need Him. I think this is a point upon which we agree. I still hope to hear from some other OV proponents. I know your stand & Clete's (opposite), and I'd like to get a sense of the general consensus or even if there is one.

Thanks!

 

[bybee]

concensus?

concensus?

Well, this is certainly what I expected of you gr.

:up:

This means to me that we must cultivate our relationship with Almighty God (hear His voice as clearly as possible) and do all we can to overcome these biases by yielding to His guidance, using good hermeneutical principles, and setting aside our own biases insofar as we are aware of them (so listening to critics a bit) - in other, perhaps better, words: "tabula rasa."

One cannot underestimate the need for the Holy Spirit for understanding spiritual things which must be discerned spiritually. That we hear imperfectly does not mean that we give up nor that we do not need Him. I think this is a point upon which we agree. I still hope to hear from some other OV proponents. I know your stand & Clete's (opposite), and I'd like to get a sense of the general consensus or even if there is one.

Thanks!

Concensus, may be necessary when a group is engaged in problem solving or attaining a specific goal. The voice of the Holy Spirit speaks to individuals, One to one, individually. We may share our Inspirations and insights or not. I read most posts on TOL very carefully to see if I may learn something and often I am enriched and changed. But, concensus often means compromise and that is difficult for me. However I pray to stay open-minded so that I can receive that which helps me to grow spiritually. Thanks to those of you who share in a loving way. blessings bybee

 

[tetelestai]

Hi Dave:

After five attempts, you still refuse to answer my question. So far three ignores, and two dodges.

I think we all know why you won’t answer it, but I’ll give you more time.

In the meantime, this is from your website:

The Bible does not teach that the future is absolutely predetermined nor completely knowable. God has predetermined some things but not everything. God has predetermined to give the kingdoms of this world to his Son and everlasting life to those who believe in him. God has also predetermined to destroy Satan and those who will not believe in his Son. But God does not predetermine, and does not have foreknowledge of who those persons will be that will believe nor those who will not.

Some will ask how it is that God can tell us what will happen in the future if he can not see it. The answer is, God is all powerful and therefore can cause any event he wants to take place. Again, one may ask, isn't God also all knowing, which should include knowledge of all future events. The answer is that God made the world finite and the future does not exist as something that can be known as an actuality. In Biblical prophecy, God has told us about the future events he will cause to happen and the effects they will have when he judges the world.

(Rev 4:1) After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this."

How is it, according to you, that God cannot “see” the future, but somehow God is able to let John “see” the future?

 

[Lon]

You mean God might have to answer our prayers?

Forgive my shallowness. Help me comprehend your "incomprehensible timeless" deity.

--Dave

I'm sorry too for making it sound that way. I do not at all mean to imply such a thing. Again, I'm frustrated that something some of us see so clearly is so hard to convey but I don't mean it to convey at all you are shallow and so forgive any posts that slighted you, please.

Responsive is not a constraint or 'have to.'


I don't know why this isn't ringing all kinds of logical alarms on your logic meter as it does mine but I keep hoping if I repeat it enough, it'll transcend that blockade by His Spirit, or enlightenment, or that I say it in a different way that finally makes sense to those of you who miss it:
God cannot be co-existent with time because He already escapes it according to our reasoning ability. If you cannot track His progress into the past to comprehend eternal existence, then any connection to the idea of duration, movement, sequence is meaningless for the discussion.

Albert Einstein said, "If we assume that all matter would disappear from the world, then before relativity, one believed that space and time would continue existing in an empty world. But according to the theory of relativity, if matter and its motion disappeared, there would no longer be any space or time."

Einstein points out a very important fact, space—pure space—is nothingness. Time, in itself, is also nothing. Aristotle understood this, “time is either the same thing as movement or is an affection of it.” It has been taught that God created time and space when he created the world, but before the creation of the world there was the Trinity and nothing else but empty space. Time did not exist as we know it because there was nothing outside of God to measure the duration nor the extent of God’s activity that we can relate to.

Time is an attribute of God and a characteristic of the world he created. There is not a single statement in scripture that says God created time. Genesis tells us that there is only a new way of measuring time in the creation.

--Dave

I don't have a problem with your thinking here, but that His time is necessarily different for Him. Whatever our concept happens to be, it cannot be applied to God in any logical sense. This doesn't mean what you understand is illogical, it simply means it cannot be applied to God.

He already escapes our parameter of understanding a non-beginning of eternity. There are no numbers or sequential concepts that can help us understand this concept (therefore it isn't completely comprehensible to us). I know you fellows do not like mysterious but there are aspects of God that will remain such.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

It is my intention to do so. Before I became a Christian my intention was not to do so.

The opposite of love is selfishness.

--Dave

So if obedience, keeping the commandments, is a condition of salvation, how are you doing? Will you eventually get a point where you will be saved?

 

[godrulz]

No no, your proof is dealing within the framework of a specified duration/distance.

The problem again: An eternity past really is eternal (never began, never ends).

Your proof is a measurable distance. Eternal has no measurable duration, length, distance, or what-have-you.

<--------------------------X---------------------->

I see no problem with endless time/duration. Infinity/eternity is hard for finite creatures to grasp, but it is not incoherent. A segment of duration is a subset of endless duration. If you can imagine the interval between 100 B.C. and 100 A.D., why not successive years before and after this ad infinitum? Positive and negative numbers or PI go on forever without jumping to the conclusion that it is not possible because there is no beginning or ending.

A vs B theories of time have back and forth arguments, but I believe the A (dynamic vs static) theory is defendable on all levels (but technical and common sense).

The Bible says that God's years are without end. It does not say He has no years.

 

[godrulz]

Hi Dave:

After five attempts, you still refuse to answer my question. So far three ignores, and two dodges.

I think we all know why you won’t answer it, but I’ll give you more time.

In the meantime, this is from your website:


(Rev 4:1) After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this."

How is it, according to you, that God cannot “see” the future, but somehow God is able to let John “see” the future?

A vision is not the actual film. Only the past and present can be recorded on film. The future could be projected as a general vision, but it would not be like watching a video of a past hockey game.

God gave other visions that were symbolic and pictorial glimpses, not historical records of the future (impossible). The weird symbols and pictures in Revelation show that it is not simply a crystal ball vision of real things in exhaustive detail.

 

[godrulz]

So if obedience, keeping the commandments, is a condition of salvation, how are you doing? Will you eventually get a point where you will be saved?

I think you may be misunderstanding his point.

When we come to Christ, there is a willingness to live for Him instead of our old life for Self. There is not a big list of things to do or not do in order to merit or keep salvation.

There is a difference between our spiritual growth/spiritual disciplines after or because we are saved (includes obedience according to Rom. 6; I Peter 1, etc.) and our new life that is based on grace through faith alone (faith, love, obedience are not divorced in Scripture).

 

[tetelestai]

A vision is not the actual film. Only the past and present can be recorded on film. The future could be projected as a general vision, but it would not be like watching a video of a past hockey game.

God gave other visions that were symbolic and pictorial glimpses, not historical records of the future (impossible). The weird symbols and pictures in Revelation show that it is not simply a crystal ball vision of real things in exhaustive detail.

How do you suppose someone who lived in 96AD would describe an automobile, plane, television, cell phone, skyscraper, computer, tank, rocket, machine gun, etc.? Plus, if John was looking at, say the year 2525, he could be describing stuff that you and I would not be able to describe.

There is no way that you know if God showed him a “video” of the future or not. It’s hard for me to imagine God didn’t show some sort of video/vision, otherwise God would have said “let me tell you about” the future in lieu of “I will show you” the future.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I think you may be misunderstanding his point.

When we come to Christ, there is a willingness to live for Him instead of our old life for Self. There is not a big list of things to do or not do in order to merit or keep salvation.

There is a difference between our spiritual growth/spiritual disciplines after or because we are saved (includes obedience according to Rom. 6; I Peter 1, etc.) and our new life that is based on grace through faith alone (faith, love, obedience are not divorced in Scripture).

He lists obedience as a condition of salvation, not as a result.