ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[DFT_Dave]

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

We are commanded to "believe" in Christ for our salvation. By obeying that command we are saved.

--Dave

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

We are commanded to "believe" in Christ for our salvation. By obeying that command we are saved.

--Dave

Ok. According to the site, a condition of salvation is keeping the commandments.

 

[Lon]

<--------------------------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.

Numbers go on forever, numerals don't. We have no idea what those numbers are (again, problem with our conception). There are no numbers that would express the eternal meaningfully to us (they don't stop). We understand that there are points of division that keep an arrow mathematically from hitting a target yet it doesn't stop the arrow from hitting it's mark, but we are still looking at an infrastructure that is actually measurable (the arrow hits the target, we are still fracturing the distance. So in this scenario, we are actually behind the time (still counting while the action is over). It doesn't matter if we fraction to infinity and never get to the target, the arrow does. I agree with that. It is rather an unrelated problem to the arrow, we are talking about a infrastructure of duration that is measurable. We don't have to do fractions to come up with a meaningful distance, it is logically measurable. Fracturing the distance isn't meaningful to the arrow reaching the target. There is a different problem with fracturing eternity into segments. The segments are just a larger consideration than points but they still stretch on forever behind what we can meaningfully express or deal with in numerals. Even if we created a computer that could start crunching numbers by the trillions in seconds and ensured the computer could keep going trillions and trillions of years into the future, the computer will continue doing so exponentially yet never be able to get to the end of an eternal past even though it is exponentially crunching numbers. Never. It will crunch away into eternity and never ever get to the numeral of an infinite past. It doesn't exist.

If we consider the entirety of God however, it would be simple to say, like the arrow, that He just did it BUT saying that is also saying that time is meaningless to understanding an eternal God so that we could not see Him constrained to any progression of sequence because the entirety of God also includes the eternal future which OV says He cannot know (hitting the end target). It isn't logically possible any more than trying to fraction an arrow from reaching its target.

 

[Lon]

We are commanded to "believe" in Christ for our salvation. By obeying that command we are saved.

--Dave

Or is it that we obey His commands because we are new creatures (saved)?

This seems to be going toward the classic RC/Arminian/Calvinist debate?

You two are going to be at this awhile.

 

[DFT_Dave]

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?

Your question about "eternity" and "everlasting" seems to me, I could be wrong, a trick question. If you see an important distinction just say so and make your point. Do you understand what Lewis was saying?

The prophetic writers, in their visions, saw exactly what they say they saw. They did not see a modern day helicopter, for example, and try to describe it the best way they could.

--Dave

 

[tetelestai]

Your question about "eternity" and "everlasting" seems to me, I could be wrong, a trick question. If you see an important distinction just say so and make your point. Do you understand what Lewis was saying?

The prophetic writers, in their visions, saw exactly what they say they saw. They did not see a modern day helicopter, for example, and try to describe it the best way they could.

--Dave

I wasn’t intending to try and trick you, but it is a tricky question.

As Godrulz said, they are used interchangeably. Eternal has no beginning and no end. We as believers have a beginning with no end upon salvation. Everlasting would be the logical adjective to describe our life after salvation, yet the Bible describes it as eternal many times. “Door” a TOL member claimed that upon salvation a believer became eternal, and therefore had no beginning because as a believer one is part of Christ who has no beginning. Most agree that an unbeliever has everlasting damnation in lieu of eternal damnation.

The reason I asked you is that whatever answer you would have given; it would have contradicted what is on your website about eternity. You state that something cannot be created out of nothing, yet state that only God is eternal. If you would have said we cannot understand it, then that would validate what lon has said. That was my guess as to why you avoided it. I could be wrong. If I am please forgive me.

 

[tetelestai]

The prophetic writers, in their visions, saw exactly what they say they saw. They did not see a modern day helicopter, for example, and try to describe it the best way they could.

How can a "vision" be a vision without EDF?

 

[DFT_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.

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.

Thank you for your clarification. Now I need to clarify my position.

I am not saying that time for God is something that is outside of him, or along side of him, nor all around him. I am not saying that God moves sequentially from one thought, one emotion, nor one activity to another one. If this were so then, I would agree with you, the problem of "infinite regress" would apply.

I'm saying that God freely thinks, feels, does whatever he wants, as much as he wants, whenever he wants. Its not about numbers, numerals, math, etc. the issue is God either does, thinks, and feels everything possible all at once or he does not. But that does not mean he can only do, think, or feel one thing at a time.

If God does not do, think, or feel everything all at once then time for him is "internal"; this thought, feeling or act, before that, thought, feeling, or act, or better, these thoughts, feelings, or acts, before those thoughts, feelings, or acts.

Now I hope that you would tell me, if you agree with this or not. Do you believe that God does everything all at once or not?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I wasn’t intending to try and trick you, but it is a tricky question.

As Godrulz said, they are used interchangeably. Eternal has no beginning and no end. We as believers have a beginning with no end upon salvation. Everlasting would be the logical adjective to describe our life after salvation, yet the Bible describes it as eternal many times. “Door” a TOL member claimed that upon salvation a believer became eternal, and therefore had no beginning because as a believer one is part of Christ who has no beginning. Most agree that an unbeliever has everlasting damnation in lieu of eternal damnation.

The reason I asked you is that whatever answer you would have given; it would have contradicted what is on your website about eternity. You state that something cannot be created out of nothing, yet state that only God is eternal. If you would have said we cannot understand it, then that would validate what lon has said. That was my guess as to why you avoided it. I could be wrong. If I am please forgive me.

It was a very good question, and it wise of me to avoid it. :thumb:

But you will find me to be consistent, even if I am wrong, I will be consistently wrong.

I'm not sure yet if you fully understand what I am saying about eternity and time so I cannot answer you. Say what you think I am saying in your own words where you think I may be contradicting myself, you may be right, I don't know at this point.

--Dave

 

[tetelestai]

It was a very good question, and it wise of me to avoid it. :thumb:

But you will find me to be consistent, even if I am wrong, I will be consistently wrong.

I'm not sure yet if you fully understand what I am saying about eternity and time so I cannot answer you. Say what you think I am saying in your own words where you think I may be contradicting myself, you may be right, I don't know at this point.

--Dave

Thanks Dave. Thanks for the honesty.

Something is eternal and has no beginning. Something has always existed because it’s impossible for anything to come into existence from absolutely nothing.

Agree. This explains God.

Whatever is eternal is the cause for the existence of what is not eternal and has a beginning.

Agree. This explains God creating earth, angels, and humans.

(Matt 25:46) And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

So, can God create something that is eternal, or can He create something that can become eternal?

Is eternal and everlasting interchangeable, and just samantics as Godrulz claims, or is there really a difference as in Matt 25:46?

 

[Lighthouse]

Godrulz is an open theist, and this is what you said about him:


Is Godrulz part of your "we"?

Jesse Morrell is an open theist, is he part of your "we"?

In regard to OVers, yes. So what?

Is it just me, or is Super Dave and Lighthouse in a “Most Arrogant Open Theist” contest?






????????

Must be an open theist thing.

I'm only going on what others have told me. Including people in the business.

As you rightly say, it isn't that much of a thing to be overtly concerned about. Forgive me for the overemphasis, I just wanted you to stop and think about your name-calling. It seems to have no effect so I'll drop it.

Of course it has no effect.

I've no doubts here and would like to see some. You can see some of mine over here (ignore the photos, maps, and charts, those aren't my work).

It wasn't very easy to tell what was your work.

Drawings

Poems

This is absolutely not true. If you can explain to me how a past goes on forever 'without stopping' in durative terms, I'll acquiesce and relent.

I beleive Delmar covered that quite nicely.

Hmmm, the idiot comment again.....

I was overambitious, the proof was that with God having perfect foreknowledge, He'd also consequently have perfect present knowledge.
It was a two birds with one stone kinda thing.

Is there a point?

Really? Explain it to me? As we look at our past, it is finite. We can think of the time we were born. We can think of a time God created everything.
I personally have a hard time with a past that has no reference point.
If you could explain that, you'd be my hero (this can be rhetorical if you wish).

As I said, Delmar covered this.

Not sure what your criteria is for negotiating the two. What is your criteria for it?

Anthropomorphism is physical. Anthropopathism is mental/emotional.

Take the old classic children's movie The Brave Little Toaster for instance. In that movie all manner of appliances have eyes and mouths. Those are anthropomorphisms. Yet to call the toaster 'brave' is an anthropopathism.

"Time." We were talking about time. This isn't the same topic.

Don't even.

I've addressed this concern again in the post above. If you explain the simple answers to these questions and those above in a way that takes care of all of my questions and concerns, I'll acquiesce that time consideration is as simple as you assert.

A question for OVers individually: do you think we need the guiding of the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture?

I'm still waiting on proof of Einstein's theory.

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!

Amen!

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'd ask you to explain the difference, but I don't think you are capable.

 

[Nang]

We are commanded to "believe" in Christ for our salvation. By obeying that command we are saved.

--Dave

Yes, under the Law all men are commanded to believe in God in order to live, but no man can obey that command, for no man is capable or willing to obey that command, due to the original sin of Adam. (Romans 3:10-19)

And even if man could obey that command, you would be preaching a salvation by works, versus grace.

By your remarks, you reveal you hold to the Pelagian heresy.

Jesus Christ is the ONLY Man that succeeded in pleasing God the Father through obedience to commands. And it is His righteousness, according to His sole performance under Law, that is imputed to those God wills to save . . .by grace.

You say, "By obeying that command we are saved."

That is a contradiction of Holy Scripture, for the Bible teaches:

". . By the deeds of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight . . ." Romans 3:20

Nang

 

[nicholsmom]

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!

Does the "target" in this illustration represent a beginning point? an ending point? It's certainly some stopping place. Does God have a beginning?

 

[godrulz]

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

I think he would say we are saved when we receive Christ (Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16; Rom. 10:9-10). Like the thief on the cross, at this point, there is no obedience. If we are shot as soon as we confess Christ, we go into His presence without even opportunity to obey. He would not deny this. Don't confuse loving obedience after salvation with legalistic works to try to merit salvation.

Dave...clarify lest you compromise justification by grace through faith.

 

[godrulz]

We are commanded to "believe" in Christ for our salvation. By obeying that command we are saved.

--Dave

If we disobey the command to be born again or to receive Christ or trust in Him, we are persisting in unbelief, the antithesis of saving faith? LH thinks you have a list of things to do before salvation is 'earned'. I am sure this is not what you mean.

 

[godrulz]

How can a "vision" be a vision without EDF?

Peter had a symbolic vision about Gentiles. Ezekiel had weird pizza dreams also. They were not literal peeks at the future, but visionary symbolism to convey truths about the not yet future that God can bring to pass or that He could predict.

 

[godrulz]

Thanks Dave. Thanks for the honesty.




Agree. This explains God.



Agree. This explains God creating earth, angels, and humans.

(Matt 25:46) And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

So, can God create something that is eternal, or can He create something that can become eternal?

Is eternal and everlasting interchangeable, and just samantics as Godrulz claims, or is there really a difference as in Matt 25:46?

Can eternal be used as a quantity or quality? I Jn. 5:11-13 We have eternal life that is in the Son, but that does not make us eternal like the uncreated Creator. Our existence has a beginning, but no end. Our quality of life is more than temporal. So, we need to qualify the sentence more than play word games.

As I suspected, the same Greek word is used twice in Mt. 25:46 (check other versions also). It supports the idea that punishment and life have no end (vs annihilationism). When you look under 'everlasting' in Mounce's expository dictionary (gold standard for word studies), he refers you to 'eternal'. Your proof text took an interpretative license to translate the same word differently.

Mounce gives 3 common uses of eternal in relation to God, His kingdom, and salvation (words have a semantical range of meaning depending on context).

Some basic Greek detective work will defuse your beef.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes, under the Law all men are commanded to believe in God in order to live, but no man can obey that command, for no man is capable or willing to obey that command, due to the original sin of Adam. (Romans 3:10-19)

And even if man could obey that command, you would be preaching a salvation by works, versus grace.

By your remarks, you reveal you hold to the Pelagian heresy.

Jesus Christ is the ONLY Man that succeeded in pleasing God the Father through obedience to commands. And it is His righteousness, according to His sole performance under Law, that is imputed to those God wills to save . . .by grace.

You say, "By obeying that command we are saved."

That is a contradiction of Holy Scripture, for the Bible teaches:

". . By the deeds of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight . . ." Romans 3:20

Nang

Romans 1:5-6 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, 6 including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ;

Romans 16:25-26 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages 26 but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith.

Romans 2:7-8 To those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

Hebrews 5:8-9 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; ad being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one who says to me, "Lord, Lord" shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

"Obedience to Christ and the Gospel" is not the same thing as "obedience to the Law". The first rule of rationality is identity, don't confuse two different things.

The "spirit" of man is dead because of Adam's sin, not the "soul" of man. The "will" and the "intellect" are part of the soul not the spirit, or else how could we reason or make any decisions at all. The new birth brings life to our "spirit" not our soul. Under the Law men were not commanded to believe in God, they were commanded to obey all the aspects of the law.

--Dave

 

[Lon]

Dave,

Hi, this is a good first post with some really good thinking BUT, I'm going to take it line by line to show any confusion I might have 1) to help me understand 2) to help (hopefully) you to set some of these a bit more firmly in mind and conveyance.

Thank you for your clarification. Now I need to clarify my position.

I was arguing two points at the time. One for Lighthouse( IQ) and another totally separate one about formal operational thinking. I never intended one to carry over, I just wanted Lighthouse to think before "stupid, idiot, moron, retard" but it has no effect whatsoever on him.

I am not saying that time for God is something that is outside of him, or along side of him, nor all around him. I am not saying that God moves sequentially from one thought, one emotion, nor one activity to another one. If this were so then, I would agree with you, the problem of "infinite regress" would apply.

This much is clear, we are in agreement. :thumb:

I'm saying that God freely thinks, feels, does whatever he wants, as much as he wants, whenever he wants. Its not about numbers, numerals, math, etc. the issue is God either does, thinks, and feels everything possible all at once or he does not. But that does not mean he can only do, think, or feel one thing at a time.

This point I'm following as well, but not connecting it well to our discussion where ultimately we are talking about EDF or not. I've always this in mind with our discussion because we together should be able to see our point of departure (where it actually happens). In understanding, I think we can disagree and yet consider one another in the faith. I think (only a guess at this time) that the majority of those labelling OV a cult is mostly over an unwillingness to discuss these issues intelligently, honestly, and without the 'Greek influence' accusation and rhetoric.' It is similar to the RC in dealing with Protestants I think. They took a hard stand and softened it after discussions.

If God does not do, think, or feel everything all at once then time for him is "internal"; this thought, feeling or act, before that, thought, feeling, or act, or better, these thoughts, feelings, or acts, before those thoughts, feelings, or acts.

It is still a bit constrained here to 'succession' on only a linear consideration. With God, especially as He is relational, it is more multi-directional and less durative in my consideration. Even with a certain predictability, there is absolute foreknowing element in even an OV parameter. Again, I think an eternal future is not only a good guess with assurance but is absolute. He is saying He and we with Him will have an eternal (both everlasting durative and quality). To say this, He already contains all the information needed to actualize the statement. I.E. according to OV, even if He did not know every thing we are going to do, in an eternal consideration is more or less a pip than lack of certain forknowledge of what will transpire (through determination of what is to come or some other means such as God's self-contained knowledge of what will come).

Now I hope that you would tell me, if you agree with this or not. Do you believe that God does everything all at once or not?

--Dave

I think it a difficult proposition for assessment. Since all proceeds from Him, even our freewill carries an element of incredibly predictable outcome as we can only express what we are given to do. We have physical, spiritual, and logical constraints that we cannot eshew even under sin. So in that, God knows what we can and cannot do in any given situation though it seem limitless to us at the time of choosing.
It is kind of like watching sports. Pretty much, whatever we see, has all been seen before. In racing, it is the car wreck, the bumps, the engine seizure, and the ultimate winner. In football, it is any number of plays we've seen before either a run or a toss. It is interesting, despite the predictability, that we find them entertaining. They are all locked into a pretty predictable scenario. I'm horrible with movies. I can pretty well guess what is going to happen in them so that my wife sometimes doesn't like to watch them with me but I still enjoy them never-the-less.

I cannot help with this predictability but imagine God with something very near EDF if not exactly that as an exponential of my own understanding. If I find people this predictable, I cannot fathom that it precludes their choices but I'm also not as bothered by Skinnerarian and Pavlovian ideas of philosophy. Some people hate these ideas (man is a machine and reliably predictable). I don't wholeheartedly agree with them, but I also am open to their studies and analysis. Some Calvinists would undoubtedly wholeheartedly agree with these men. I rather see a need of necessity to be a compatiblist as I see truths of our individuality and culpability in opposition.

 

[Lighthouse]

If we disobey the command to be born again or to receive Christ or trust in Him, we are persisting in unbelief, the antithesis of saving faith? LH thinks you have a list of things to do before salvation is 'earned'. I am sure this is not what you mean.

LH who? I know you aren't talking about me. But you might want to make that clear for other people who don't know me well enough to know you aren't referring to me.