ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
The writers of the N.T. , as we all know, wrote in the common Greek "koine" language. The O.T. had already been translated into "koine" and was called the "Septuagint". The writers of the N.T. quoted the Septuagint for their references of the O.T., not the Hebrew. Since reliable copies have been made and handed down to us we have the Word of God in the same form that the early church had in Greek. We can use them to check the translations made in English to see if the translations we use today are accurate.
http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/NTdocuments.html
--Dave
physic?
physic?
I thought that a "physic" was something given to someone who was constipated. No doubt someone who has taken a physic can, with some accuracy, predict the future? Is this another joke to lighten the atmosphere? I wonder where this is all going.....bybee
physic?
I thought that a "physic" was something given to someone who was constipated. No doubt someone who has taken a physic can, with some accuracy, predict the future? Is this another joke to lighten the atmosphere? I wonder where this is all going.....bybee
Pam Baldwin
New member
Perhaps, but in this case it seemed to me that your facetiousness is thinly veiling how you feel towards these who disagree with you.
To catergorize all Calvinsits and all Open Theist as those who do not take the Word of God seriously is simply a falcity with no proof whatsoever.......the basis of your assumption, is it because you consider that they are extreme and very flawed?
Then, you seem to be patronizing with the comment that you consider these "brothers and sisters in Christ".
Pam Baldwin
New member
........so, we don't need to study ?
To answer STP, the original writings are preserved (by God) in their essence enough that we will be able to ascertain what the Word means....through checking out various aids that are available to us- including the Greek and Hebrew lexicons and doing some work. So that is one was translted incorrectly in a few words, we should be able to do some study and figure it out.
And yes, I actually do agree with Lighthouse , the Word is in our hearts....but only from study and learning.
It was Muz who said it, not me.
I was being facetious to Muz. I was letting HIM know that there are people who “could” believe that HE is not taking the word of God seriously due to HIS subscribing to the open view.
It is a ridicules statement to say that those who do not agree with you are not taking the word of God serious. I truly don’t believe that those who have a different walk with God are not taking God serious. Again, it was an attempt to make MUZ realize that the pot should not call the kettle black.
Other than STP, I think I am the only other one in this thread who is not a Calvinist or open theist. Therefore, I don’t expect much agreement with my walk with God, but I still stand by my statement re: essentials.
We know that God is uncreated. He has no beginning and end. We cannot comprehend a self-existent being like this with our finite minds, so we stand in awe, wonder, and worship Him without exhaustive understanding.
J.R. Lucas in 'A Treatise on Time and Space' gives detailed philosophical, logical, and scientific explanations about time and space. He rightly concludes that timelessness is incoherent for a personal being, including God. He supports the idea of endless time. The chapter on intervals and instants is part of the answer to how God can be eternal and have infinite regressions (there are also infinite positive and negative numbers with intervals/duration, etc., so what is your problem?).
God has not beginning and no ending. He is uncreated and eternal. This statement is true in both of our views: endless time (duration, sequence, succession) or timelessness or eternal now simultaneity.
The discussions around this are very technical and difficult. I could not understand Lucas' complicated formulas, but I could understand the basic defense and principles of endless time vs timelessness.
You may notice discussions about the A vs B theory of time. I hold to the former, you to the latter. There are arguments and counterarguments on each side of this that you probably are not aware of or do not fully understand.
If you can imagine God's existence before and after creation, why can't you understand His existence trillions of years before or after creation?
Rev. 1:4; Ps. 90:2; Ps. 102:27; Ps. 93:2; Rev. 8:1; Rev. 6:10; Rev. 4:8; Rev. 22:1-2 (time in eternity) do use temporal terms to describe eternity or God's existence. They do not have to be my words to convince you. Take Scripture at face value without always assuming it cannot mean what it says because it contradicts your preconceived notions about God and theology (Calvinism is prone to this...instead of world, they say elect; instead of all men, they say all kinds of men, instead of Savior of all men, it is Savior of elect only or some from each kind of group of men?!).
If Lucas is over your head (like it is mine), then here is an appetizer that should make you less dogmatic on this subject:
http://www.amazon.com/God-Time-Gregory-E-Ganssle/dp/0830815511
(look inside for contents)
You agree with Helm's divine timeless eternity?
I resonate with Wolterstorff's unqualified divine temporality.
If we were on a desert island and had to compromise, we may be able to compromise with William Lane Craig's timelessness and omnitemporality (timeless before creation; temporal experience after creation).
Each author presents their case and others respond by way of commonality or critique, a good way to test one's views.
For those who want a quick intro to my view:
http://revivaltheology.gharvest.com/9_openness/eternity.html
Bottom line that few dispute: the original autographs are no longer extant; they alone are infallible. We have a wealth of MSS evidence and the science of textual criticism to ensure many translations are extremely accurate, especially on core issues. Minor variants do not affect anything significant.
KJV has flaws as to translation relating to grammar, weaker MSS, etc. It is very good, but not perfect. My main objection is the extra interpretation step for us to go from archaic English to modern English. It is bad enough having to go from original Greek to English without adding hithers and thithers.
Claiming to know or see the future does not mean they actually can. The Open view proves that false fortune tellers cannot know the future, but make guesses. If God does not know the future exhaustively, then certainly the devil does not!
They may be right sometimes because of predictability or Satan manipulating things to make them come to pass (limited). Psychics and fortune tellers are notoriously wrong and inaccurate. The warning is to stay away from occult practices, not a confirmation that they actually do what they claim. Satan could counterfeit God's miracles to a point, but only so far.
God's prophecies are a different dynamic, but still not proof of EDF.
The Ezekiel verse does not say Satan knows the past and present in total. It talks about wisdom, not knowledge. It originally referred to an earthly king, but possibly applied to Satan.
There is a vast difference between Satan's limited abilities, through occultists or otherwise, and what God does, even through His saints. Satan counterfeited the Egyptian plagues to a point, but eventually got left in the dust.
It is a straw man and classic misrepresentation/misunderstanding to think OVT humanizes God or reduces His glory and attributes. In fact, we differ about the nature of creation (settled, unsettled, partially settled/unsettled), not whether God is omniscient, sovereign, eternal, omnipotent, etc. (He is in both views!).
Honestly, you are making a straw man because you do not understand Open View Theism.
Ironically, Calvinism humanizes God because He must be a micromanaging control freak to get His way. He is omnicausal more than omnicompetent. His style would be bad parenting in anyone's books.
The LXX is a translation, not infallible. The fact that Jesus probably used it shows that we can also trust good translations. STP goes too far thinking we must elevate KJV beyond defensible reality.
Last edited:
You agree that it's rich with hilarity and fallacious reasoning?
My sig is a quote from the character in my avatar. You really should read more.
Is that what I said? No! We study, but we also trust in Him and do not lean on our own understanding. He is the one who leads us to the truth, and instills it in our hearts.
Are you a free will theist? Arminian? You are probably Calvinistic in some ways, but live as though you are an Open Theist practically (most do).
It's not even a well constructed straw man. And, like the most famous straw man of all, L. Frank Baum's Scarecrow, it has no brain.
When Samuel’s prophecies were cut off to Saul, Saul went to see a witch. Saul attempted to get from the witch what he used to be able to get from God.
I do not believe Satan, demons, witches, wizards, sorcerers, etc are able to know the future, but I do believe God is able to. Satan perverts everything. Biblical astronomy is perverted by astrology. Sex in marriage is perverted by porn, homosexuality, fornication, etc. Therefore God’s prophecy and EDF is perverted by Satan with fortune telling, omens, etc.
Now, here is where it gets really tricky. We know that currently Satan resides in the second and third Heavens. If time is a concept for earth only, or if the time in the Heavens is different than the time here, or if there is no time in Heaven, then does Satan actually know the future too? If Satan is where there is no time, and we have time, then I think it would be safe to say Satan would know all of human history, and therefore he would be able to show someone the future via a witch, crystal ball, etc. This could be why God says not to be “an observer of times”. However, if Satan knows the future, then obviously God knows the future. I like to believe that Satan does not know the future, but God does. You do not believe that Satan or God knows the future.
Thoughts?
Sci fi speculation.
You beg the question by assuming God has EDF. This is highly debatable. EDF is possible if determinism is true, but determinism is not true. God knows some of the future. Weather men and insurance guys also predict future things fairly accurately. Satan can predict things and be right. None of this supports EDF. The point OVT is making is that there are biblical and logical arguments against EDF. I can agree with the proof texts that show God knows some of the future. You wrongly extrapolate these as proof that He knows all the future. I also can accept the unsettled verses or ones that would show the future is not fixed/foreknown, but you must ignore them or rationalize them away as figurative because they do not fit a preconceived theology.
Are you Arminian? Do you believe simple foreknowledge? Do you reject determinism? Is free will compatibilitistic (desires) or incompatibilistic (not compatible with determinism/EDF)?
You beg the question by assuming God has EDF. This is highly debatable. EDF is possible if determinism is true, but determinism is not true. God knows some of the future. Weather men and insurance guys also predict future things fairly accurately. Satan can predict things and be right. None of this supports EDF. The point OVT is making is that there are biblical and logical arguments against EDF. I can agree with the proof texts that show God knows some of the future. You wrongly extrapolate these as proof that He knows all the future. I also can accept the unsettled verses or ones that would show the future is not fixed/foreknown, but you must ignore them or rationalize them away as figurative because they do not fit a preconceived theology.
Are you Arminian? Do you believe simple foreknowledge? Do you reject determinism? Is free will compatibilitistic (desires) or incompatibilistic (not compatible with determinism/EDF)?
From Wikipedia:
Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent (people who hold this belief are known as compatibilists).