ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[eveningsky339]

God rejects human logic that does not rest on the Lord of God. The Greek philosophers, those who wrote the Vedas, and anyone else who does not base his or her reasoning on the Word of God are the ones that God is speaking about in the verses you quoted.

We are to be logical and Biblical, not illogical and Biblical. When anyone is illogical with the Bible they are misinterpreting it. When anyone is logical with the Bible, as we are in OV, they are interpreting it correctly.

--Dave

By basing my reasoning on the Word, I (and the early church) have come to the conclusion that God has settled the future. A belief in an "open" future is a very pagan one.

Have you read any stories of Greek mythology? Virtually all are written under the assumption that a) the gods are just like us in many ways and b) because of this, the gods don't know the future. So I'm afraid your Greek philosophy argument doesn't hold much weight in light of the ingrained religious beliefs of Greek culture.

 

[DFT_Dave]

By basing my reasoning on the Word, I (and the early church) have come to the conclusion that God has settled the future. A belief in an "open" future is a very pagan one.

Have you read any stories of Greek mythology? Virtually all are written under the assumption that a) the gods are just like us in many ways and b) because of this, the gods don't know the future. So I'm afraid your Greek philosophy argument doesn't hold much weight in light of the ingrained religious beliefs of Greek culture.

Plato wrote in Timaeus : “For there were no days and nights and months and years before the heaven was created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them also. They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time, which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal essence; for we say that he 'was,' he 'is,' he 'will be,' but the truth is that 'is' alone is properly attributed to him, and that 'was' and 'will be' only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is immovably the same, 'is eternal'."

God is a "timeless being" according to Plato which what you believe and not what OVer's believe.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html

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

--Dave

 

[Lon]

God rejects human logic that does not rest on the Lord of God. The Greek philosophers, those who wrote the Vedas, and anyone else who does not base his or her reasoning on the Word of God are the ones that God is speaking about in the verses you quoted.

We are to be logical and Biblical, not illogical and Biblical. When anyone is illogical with the Bible they are misinterpreting it. When anyone is logical with the Bible, as we are in OV, they are interpreting it correctly.

--Dave

Again, as if you really cannot fathom this:

Are you 100% logical? Have you ever made a mistake? Have you ever been wrong about something? This seems really pedantic to me, but when are you going to get on the same page with me here? How can you say you are logical when you live with antimony within OV doctrine?

Let's go back and I'll say again what I believe is logical.

1) God has no beginning and all things that are in existence are from Him.
What does this mean? It means, that motion as we know it, issues from Him. He cannot be constrained by His own nature. It is just who He is, but if you see Him as only existing duratively, there is no point at which we can come to a 'now,' ever. It is impossible. God can do the impossible, but you guys assert this in antimony against another impossibility: EDF. Sorry, but what I've shown you is that you are just as illogical as I am. Go figure.

2) EDF and the loss of freewill: Rubbish. Why? Because, obviously God is unconstrained by time, reveals our future to us and is even able to record the number of days of our lives before even one exists (or maybe it was just David-OV will have to make a special case of him to deny what is clear in scripture). So, regardless of your logical constraint, God has EDF and yet we have a sense of freewill and are culpable.
The next OV refrain is: "That is illogical!" Wrong, both are apparent from the Word of God. Just because you choose to eliminate one thing that is rather obvious in scripture, does not mean anything to me. It isn't at all logical to do so in my mind. What does that mean? It means, even if I were in the dark on a particular, it still makes better logical sense than the OV offering where scriptures are explained away. You are culpable, God knows the future. My admittance of being illogical has nothing to do with my perceived logic, it is rather an acquiescence to you. I know you don't see my logic but it is logical to me. That what I've been trying to convey to you and I trust God with questions I may not be able to answer.

When anyone is illogical with the Bible they are misinterpreting it. When anyone is logical with the Bible, as we are in OV, they are interpreting it correctly.
--Dave

I don't disagree with this, what I disagree with is the OV part. I do not actually believe you are being logical when in the wake you are leaving antimonious waves.

How could God require that His prophets foretell the future or be rejected if He does not know the future Himself?

How could David's days be written before he'd even lived one of them?

How could Jesus tell Peter that He'd deny Him 3 times?

How could John be transported to a future where he interacts with an elder if it may or may not take place? Was the elder a fabrication? Did he really not exist?

If God had no beginning, how is it even possible that He could escape succession of endless past duration to ever get to a 'now.' If it goes on forever into our past, it is impossible.

I've got many more scriptures in mind that stop making sense when I consider an OV mindset. In other words, I'll take the tough questions addressed to the traditional stance compared to these ones. They are gaping! Which is really the more logical position? Again, I acquiesce that you view mine as illogical but if my stance is illogical, yours is exponential.

Again, I'd rather be in what 'you' deem the dark. It makes much more sense on my side of the spectrum but I'd never say I'm right about everthing. God is right about everything. I'm trying to follow Him. Only stop feeding me the line that OV is the most logical thing out there since sliced bread and that you are more so than I. I think I'm a very logical person but I have no qualms whatsoever with somebody challenging me about that simply because as logical as I am, I'm not perfect and have no trouble agreeing about that. If you cannot, I see some brainwashing going on. Recommendation? Learn to live with a little dirt, your logical is spotty, just like the rest of us. I see intellect as subject to the fall and our only hope is being united to Him. It is when we see Him (1 John 3) that we'll be like Him, not before. Should we be trying? Yes, but not to the point where we think we've finally arrived on this earth. Learn to be honest with yourself, your logic is just as flawed as mine. I readily admit that there are times in my life I'm illogical. You'd be wise to do the same.

 

[eveningsky339]

Plato wrote in Timaeus : “For there were no days and nights and months and years before the heaven was created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them also. They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time, which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal essence; for we say that he 'was,' he 'is,' he 'will be,' but the truth is that 'is' alone is properly attributed to him, and that 'was' and 'will be' only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is immovably the same, 'is eternal'."

God is a "timeless being" according to Plato which what you believe and not what OVer's believe.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html

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

--Dave

The Greek philosophers were of a different caste than the rest of Greek society. Whereas most of the populace believed in the gods and their lack of foreknowlege, the philosophers were generally atheistic (though this was not always the case).

As WandererinFog pointed out earlier, the "open future" concept was not a part of Judaism/early Christianity, but rather a product of pagan religion. This is historically sound.

May I also point out that I do not base my opinions regarding God's foreknowledge on Plato, but on the Bible.

 

[DFT_Dave]

One thing is fore sure Lon, we endure you as God does. Not only are you irrational, you don't read what we write. How many times do we have to explain the same things over and over before you actually understand it? We have some common ground, I thought. When will you stop asking 20 questions and making 20 points at one time? I can answer them all, but wouldn't it be better to deal with a few at a time???

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

The Greek philosophers were of a different caste than the rest of Greek society. Whereas most of the populace believed in the gods and their lack of foreknowlege, the philosophers were generally atheistic (though this was not always the case).

As WandererinFog pointed out earlier, the "open future" concept was not a part of Judaism/early Christianity, but rather a product of pagan religion. This is historically sound.

May I also point out that I do not base my opinions regarding God's foreknowledge on Plato, but on the Bible.

Wandererinfog, who ever he is, has his opinions as to what was, or was not believed, in earlier history. He is not here to debate anyway.

I quoted you Plato and that should be enough to prove my point.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

The future of this world does not exist for God to see.

We have been looking at the nature of God, I would like to look at the nature of the created world in relationship to what we have been debating.

C. S. Lewis in his book Mere Cristianity writes: “Our life comes to us moment by moment. One moment disappears before the next comes along: and there is room for very little in each. That is what Time is like. And of course you and I tend to take it for granted that this Time series—this arrangement of past, present, and future—is not simply the way life comes to us but the way all things really exist. We tend to assume that the whole universe and God Himself are always moving on from past to future just as we do.”

“God, I believe, does not live in a Time-series at all. His life is not dribbled out moment by moment like ours: with Him it is still 1920 and already 1960.”

I think that Lewis is correct about our existence, we live moment by moment. We are created finite and so we are limited in that we cannot go back to the past nor jump ahead into the future.

Before I make some points here, does anyone want to disagree with this, add to this, or change it in anyway?

Lon: It will be easy fo me to deal with your objections if you will answer this earlier post, if you can.

--Dave

 

[tetelestai]

God is a "timeless being" according to Plato which what you believe and not what OVer's believe.

It was Aristotle who believed that a supreme being cannot know the future. The idea was originated by Aristotle in his book on interpretation. Aristotle asked the question "Will there be a sea-fight tomorrow? One navy is going to attack another navy and which fleet will win?” Aristotle says there is no way for any being to know that because no proposition about the future can be true. Therefore if the proposition "The Greek navy will win the battle tomorrow" is offered by someone and it's a proposition about the future, that proposition cannot be true, that proposition cannot be false until tomorrow. Therefore no one can know it.

The funny thing about open view theism is that it blames Orthodox teaching's influence of philosophy as the need for OVT to exist, but the irony is that OVT is really philosophy.

 

[Lon]

One thing is fore sure Lon, we endure you as God does. Not only are you irrational, you don't read what we write. How many times do we have to explain the same things over and over before you actually understand it? We have some common ground, I thought. When will you stop asking 20 questions and making 20 points at one time? I can answer them all, but wouldn't it be better to deal with a few at a time???

--Dave

I'm irrational? Pot/Kettle. Boo! Hiss! These cheap shots get you nowhere. All that I've said is 1) Yes, my logic isn't the same as yours so that you and I both see each other as illogical. I have no problem saying that I see how you see me. 2) Yes, I make mistakes from time to time. 3) I have a few mysteries left in my theology and am sorry for you that there is nothing new and exciting for you to discover in God (sorry, that's an exaggeration, but I don't know what else to compare your jabs to in order for you to see how you are coming across).

No, you don't have to answer every one as they were rhetorical for the problem I have with OV. No, I don't want you addressing each and every concern, I want you to see that OV creates a wake of illogical mess.
It carries it's own apparent absurdities.

You endure me? OV is the usurper here and until you guys plug these holes, it won't wash.

I dunno. I'd think being the new kid on the block, the burden of proof and logic would be in your court perhaps?
I know this is an OV website, but still.

I'll address your concerns:

The future of this world does not exist for God to see.

I 'think' what you mean is that "God cannot know the future actions of men." That's fairly specific compared to the former. This blanket statement is begging to be crushed or dismissed without another thought.

We have been looking at the nature of God, I would like to look at the nature of the created world in relationship to what we have been debating.

Why not just address the problem of infinite regress? I'll play along for now.

C. S. Lewis in his book Mere Cristianity writes: “Our life comes to us moment by moment. One moment disappears before the next comes along: and there is room for very little in each. That is what Time is like. And of course you and I tend to take it for granted that this Time series—this arrangement of past, present, and future—is not simply the way life comes to us but the way all things really exist. We tend to assume that the whole universe and God Himself are always moving on from past to future just as we do.”

This has to do with something that is inescapable: Everything that ever was, has issued from God. There is duration and sequence in Him (or we wouldn't be experiencing it as His expression) but this does not mean He's constrained by it any more than He is constrained by our being created "In His image." He isn't constrained to a physical body of clay just because He created us that way.

“God, I believe, does not live in a Time-series at all. His life is not dribbled out moment by moment like ours: with Him it is still 1920 and already 1960.”

I think that Lewis is correct about our existence, we live moment by moment. We are created finite and so we are limited in that we cannot go back to the past nor jump ahead into the future.

Before I make some points here, does anyone want to disagree with this, add to this, or change it in anyway?

--Dave

Again, for specifics, we cannot jump ahead under our own power. God seems to be able to do this with John, for instance. Our disagreement, I'm sure, has to do with whether or not John actually interacted with a future. I believe the text demands it and no OVer has ever dealt with the textual concerns to say otherwise to my logical satisfaction. It is cheap and shoddy exegesis in my initial and continuing estimation.

 

[Lighthouse]

God cannot choose to not know something knowable unless He is not omniscient.

Thank you.

Of course we can stop believing things we know to be true. There are many atheists that used to strongly believe in theism, God, Christ, Christianity, etc. They once believed rightly that those things were true, but then disgressed to believe a lie instead.

No.

They believed these things were true, but did not know they were true.

 

[Nang]

Lon: It will be easy fo me to deal with your objections if you will answer this earlier post, if you can.

--Dave

Dave,

Do you seriously mean to produce, by quoting C.S. Lewis, any level of a bonafide or deep theological treatise?

:crackup:

Lon (and several other readers of these forums) prove to be light-years beyond the biblical knowledge and limited insights of C.S. Lewis regarding things spiritual.

Nang

 

[DFT_Dave]

It was Aristotle who believed that a supreme being cannot know the future. The idea was originated by Aristotle in his book on interpretation. Aristotle asked the question "Will there be a sea-fight tomorrow? One navy is going to attack another navy and which fleet will win?” Aristotle says there is no way for any being to know that because no proposition about the future can be true. Therefore if the proposition "The Greek navy will win the battle tomorrow" is offered by someone and it's a proposition about the future, that proposition cannot be true, that proposition cannot be false until tomorrow. Therefore no one can know it.

The funny thing about open view theism is that it blames Orthodox teaching's influence of philosophy as the need for OVT to exist, but the irony is that OVT is really philosophy.

Augustine was a Platonist

"By having thus read the books of the Platonists, and having been taught by them to search for the incorporeal Truth, I saw how thy invisible things are understood through the things that are made. And, even when I was thrown back, I still sensed what it was that the dullness of my soul would not allow me to contemplate. I was assured that thou wast, and wast infinite, though not diffused in finite space or infinity; that thou truly art, who art ever the same, varying neither in part nor motion; and that all things are from thee, as is proved by this sure cause alone: that they exist...I now believe that it was thy pleasure that I should fall upon these books before I studied thy Scriptures, that it might be impressed on my memory how I was affected by them." --Confessions

Funny thing how Augustine says that he got his ideas about God from Plato.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

The future of this world does not exist for God to see.

Lon: I 'think' what you mean is that "God cannot know the future actions of men." That's fairly specific compared to the former. This blanket statement is begging to be crushed or dismissed without another thought.

Because if you do give it any thought, it will crush your view of foreknowledge.

Lon: This has to do with something that is inescapable: Everything that ever was, has issued from God. There is duration and sequence in Him (or we wouldn't be experiencing it as His expression) but this does not mean He's constrained by it any more than He is constrained by our being created "In His image." He isn't constrained to a physical body of clay just because He created us that way.

Your statement here is the OV position. He is not constrained because he is omnipotent not because he is "timeless", he can do any number of things at any moment, he does not do just one thing at a time, but he is "free" to do what ever he wants, as much as he wants, when he wants. This answers the problem of infinite regress and means that God does not have to do everything all at once.

--Dave

 

[Lon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

The future of this world does not exist for God to see.

Lon: I 'think' what you mean is that "God cannot know the future actions of men." That's fairly specific compared to the former. This blanket statement is begging to be crushed or dismissed without another thought.

Because if you do give it any thought, it will crush your view of foreknowledge.

Lon: This has to do with something that is inescapable: Everything that ever was, has issued from God. There is duration and sequence in Him (or we wouldn't be experiencing it as His expression) but this does not mean He's constrained by it any more than He is constrained by our being created "In His image." He isn't constrained to a physical body of clay just because He created us that way.

Your statement here is the OV position. He is not constrained because he is omnipotent not because he is "timeless", he can do any number of things at any moment, he does not do just one thing at a time, but he is "free" to do what ever he wants, as much as he wants, when he wants. This answers the problem of infinite regress and means that God does not have to do everything all at once.

--Dave

He could also, by omnipotence, recreate any past event.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Logic). Logic that is true is founded in Him, not mental gymnastics. We sin, we are all illogical. We make mistakes, we are illogical. We are learning to craft a more significant theology, we are yet, illogical. When the wake of our theology produces antimony (and OV certainly doesn't escape this) we are illogical.
The question isn't logic vs illogic. The question is which is the more illogical. If or until you can see your own, you are left asserting where none of the rest of us grant you the pure logical truth. We are all illogical.
Where then does it come from (logic)? From trusting in Him. No one who puts his faith and trust in Him will be ashamed.

 

[tetelestai]

Funny thing how Augustine says that he got his ideas about God from Plato.

Augustine did not write the Bible

Just because someone today believes God is omniscient, sovereign, omnipotent, etc, does not mean that particular person was influenced by Augustine.

 

[Lon]

Augustine did not write the Bible

Just because someone today believes God is omniscient, sovereign, omnipotent, etc, does not mean that particular person was influenced by Augustine.

Agreed.
Dave,

Augustine liked some of Aristotle and Plato's stuff. I like 'some' of Aristotle and Plato's stuff and question anybody that tosses all their thoughts out the window (which OV definitely does NOT do).

Influence is not adoption, conversion, or even necessarily synthesis.

Granite is right a lot of the time. We have no problem, truth that is true.

"Your theology is influenced by Greeks!" Meh, so what, if it is true?

Is it wholly derived from Greeks? No00ooo.

It is merely one of many influences upon all of Western society.

"Your theology is influenced by Augustine!"

Again, so what? We haven't even agreed this is so, but even if perchance there are similarities, derivatives, what-have-you, so what? You'd have to prove 1) Connection 2) Augustine's errors (and again, subsequent connection) 3) that we don't merely have coincidence, but actual derivative philosophy (a true connection).

 

[Lon]

Quote:
[God] is "free" to do what ever he wants, as much as he wants, when he wants. This answers the problem of infinite regress and means that God does not have to do everything all at once.

--Dave

Yes, but it also means that sequence is surmountable by God. In order to jump the progression of an eternal past to create a 'now' you are asserting that God is, in a sense or sort, both sequential yet unconstrained by its parameters. In other words, you are caught in the same logical conundrum.
Should I call you the illogical one now? No! Why? Just because something doesn't line up does NOT mean you are illogical. It just means you haven't worked out the problem yet!!! (glass darkly, don't have all the variables yet).

"Your theology is illogical" or "You are illogical" doesn't bother me in the least because it isn't absolutely true, especially as an accusation. If you don't see illogic in yourself, you are brain-washed. You cannot tell me I'm illogical when you are too.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes, but it also means that sequence is surmountable by God. In order to jump the progression of an eternal past to create a 'now' you are asserting that God is, in a sense or sort, both sequential yet unconstrained by its parameters. In other words, you are caught in the same logical conundrum.
Should I call you the illogical one now? No! Why? Just because something doesn't line up does NOT mean you are illogical. It just means you haven't worked out the problem yet!!! (glass darkly, don't have all the variables yet).

"Your theology is illogical" or "You are illogical" doesn't bother me in the least because it isn't absolutely true, especially as an accusation. If you don't see illogic in yourself, you are brain-washed. You cannot tell me I'm illogical when you are too.

Rubbish. To say that God can do more then one thing at a time does not contradict sequence at all. Saying that God is sequential and does everything all at once would be a contradiction. Even you can walk and chew gum at the same time, right? Doesn't mean your timeless if you can.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave,

Do you seriously mean to produce, by quoting C.S. Lewis, any level of a bonafide or deep theological treatise?

:crackup:

Lon (and several other readers of these forums) prove to be light-years beyond the biblical knowledge and limited insights of C.S. Lewis regarding things spiritual.

Nang

Your humility and wisdom leave me speechless. :vomit:

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Augustine did not write the Bible

Just because someone today believes God is omniscient, sovereign, omnipotent, etc, does not mean that particular person was influenced by Augustine.

Your right, it simply means that whoever that person learned it from was. The study of the "perfections of God" comes from "natural theology" not from Biblical revelation. Natural theology comes from Greek philosophy which is why it is so named.

--Dave