ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Evoken]

While saying he cannot tell us what time is, Augustine, nevertheless, gives us two aspects of time; time as past, present, and future, and time as duration.

I am already aware of your website and by posting the quotes that you did, you are simply repeating the same claim I responded to in my previous post.

I just quoted him where he says that “time is nothing else than distention”. I also provided you additional quotes that show what his view of time is and it is different from the one(s) you are claiming he gave.

Here is another one: "Time then is the result of three activities of the mind (Confessions XI, 28). Time is the measuring by the soul of its expectation, its attention and its memory." (Time as a Psalm in St. Augustine)

The first part of your quote “For what is time? Who can easily and briefly explain it?, etc” is taken from Chapter 14. The other part “And I confess to thee, O Lord, etc” is taken from Chapter 25, which I quoted in my previous post.

You are ignoring the progression of the book and the conclusions St. Augustine reaches from chapter to chapter (you also do this on your website, by omitting much of what he says about time). St. Augustine was a rhetorical writer and you miss the point of those quotes in trying to use them against him. They are not dead ends but appeals to God as inner teacher that he makes before moving on to the solution of the difficulty in question which we see in the chapters that follow. That is why he says "You shall light my candle; Thou, O Lord my God, wilt enlighten my darkness." (Chapter 25).


Evo

 

[Lon]

▲Dave, this has to do with my PM also▲

 

[Lon]

Read more carefully.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

Logic and the Laws of Thought
Fundamental to necessary knowledge are three laws of thought enumerated by Aristotle.

--Dave

Yes, but one of your beefs with Augustine is his platonic/aristotlian influence. Apparently you are influenced too?

My point is that influence isn't as terrible as OV makes it out to be. The assumption, I think, is that Augustine was 'negatively' affected. Evoken is addressing this really well, so I'll leave it to him.

 

[Lon]

I would hope most of us would admit this since we are finite and God is infinite.

This does not mean we should believe incoherent things about God or assume we can know little about God. He gives revelation for understanding and intimacy. So, just because OVT attempts to understand God's attributes, character, and ways from Scripture free from traditional trappings that are unduly philosophical, does not mean we are humanizing God or trying to understand mysteries that are not revealed. I believe we can have a biblical or unbiblical understanding of sovereignty and omniscience since God reveals truths about these things. I believe we can say God is triune without being able to fully understand or explain it (He is unique and we have no temporal frame of comparison for this).

In some things, there is more philosophical speculation needed. We can take the biblical evidence, but must also think through how time and eternity relate for an eternal being. Those who rely on theoretical physics (Einstein) should not be any more dogmatic than those who assume 'eternal now' timelessness without strong biblical or logical support.

This is why the existence of God, monotheism, Deity of Christ, etc. are essential, core truth, while timelessness vs endless time, models of providence/sovereignty, determinism vs free will, etc. are not salvific, but debatable.

I appreciate your good mind and heart and trust iron will sharpen iron. It is frustrating when our arguments are not persuasive, but I believe the evidence ultimately will stand for OVT vs Calvinism/classical theism in general.

This is also why I hope you will see our stance on DF as Biblically derived. I honestly believe prophecy and other passages that have been repeatedly given (like Psalm 139 and Peter's denial) are glossed over or eradicated from OV theology.

 

[godrulz]

This is also why I hope you will see our stance on DF as Biblically derived. I honestly believe prophecy and other passages that have been repeatedly given (like Psalm 139 and Peter's denial) are glossed over or eradicated from OV theology.

I think OVT is trying to respond to the prophecy issue, but maybe not to your satisfaction. Peter's denial was a proximal issue, not remote from eternity past nor conclusive proof of EDF.

Sanders (Perspectives on the Doctrine of God, ed. Ware) suggest that predictions can fall into several categories:

1. God may utter predictions based on his determination to unilaterally bring an event about. In this case, the issue is whether God has the power to do it, not whether He has foreknowledge. For e.g., God promises to bring about the eschaton.

2. God may predict a future event based on inferences from His exhaustive knowledge of past and present. In this type of prediction, God states what He believes is the most probable state of affairs to materialize. e.g. the prediction of the destruction of Tyre by Nebuchad. (did not happen; failed prediction...divine intentions that are conditional where God decides to not act unilaterally).

3. God may declare what He wants to happen. It may look unconditional, but is is conditional in nature. God declares that some event will happen but does not state that is will not occur if or unless certain other events come to pass. e.g prediction that Nineveh would be destroyed (it was not since they repented; Hezekiah).

 

[DFT_Dave]

I am already aware of your website and by posting the quotes that you did, you are simply repeating the same claim I responded to in my previous post.

I just quoted him where he says that “time is nothing else than distention”. I also provided you additional quotes that show what his view of time is and it is different from the one(s) you are claiming he gave.

Here is another one: "Time then is the result of three activities of the mind (Confessions XI, 28). Time is the measuring by the soul of its expectation, its attention and its memory." (Time as a Psalm in St. Augustine)

The first part of your quote “For what is time? Who can easily and briefly explain it?, etc” is taken from Chapter 14. The other part “And I confess to thee, O Lord, etc” is taken from Chapter 25, which I quoted in my previous post.

You are ignoring the progression of the book and the conclusions St. Augustine reaches from chapter to chapter (you also do this on your website, by omitting much of what he says about time). St. Augustine was a rhetorical writer and you miss the point of those quotes in trying to use them against him. They are not dead ends but appeals to God as inner teacher that he makes before moving on to the solution of the difficulty in question which we see in the chapters that follow. That is why he says "You shall light my candle; Thou, O Lord my God, wilt enlighten my darkness." (Chapter 25).


Evo

From my website

Augustine believes time is "something" created by God.

Nothing could be more ironic than this revered theologian saying that he doesn't know what time is on earth but he knows what eternity is in heaven. He creates this problem because he misinterprets and misrepresents scripture when he states that time is "something" created by God.

Augustine "Thou madest all time and before all times thou art."

The reason Augustine believes that time is created is because he is a theologian and a philosopher, a Christian and a Platonist. His understanding of God is a mixture of Biblical revelation and Greek philosophy.

Plato “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'."

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.

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

I'm not going to put everything that's on my website about Augustine and time here, your concern has nothing to do with the point I make and nothing to do with Augustine's point about God's timelessness.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes, but one of your beefs with Augustine is his platonic/aristotlian influence. Apparently you are influenced too?

These laws of reason were not created by Aristotle. These laws are not in dispute as being correct or incorrect; they are correct because they come from God. When God created us in his image he gave us a mind like his own so that he could communicate to us and we would understand him, and know him as he truly is. We are not like "dogs" to him, as you put it.

--Dave

 

[Lon]

These laws of reason were not created by Aristotle. These laws are not in dispute as being correct or incorrect; they are correct because they come from God. When God created us in his image he gave us a mind like his own so that he could communicate to us and we would understand him, and know him as he truly is. We are not like "dogs" to him, as you put it.

--Dave

I do agree with you to a point. We are not dogs and my analogy wasn't to go too far that direction, just exponentials as I see them. God is elevated exponentially beyond us. Where my dog can be 'dog-logical' he/she still does not possess my ability nor will comprehend my logic. Some things will not make sense to him. He'll know it is okay to 'go' outside but not in the house but I doubt he'd be able to internalize the logic of it. It is totally logical but he/she may think I'm a bit irrational. It isn't true, it is just his/her perception. When you say God doesn't have EDF and that it is contra-culpability/free-choice, I believe this is also a misperception. You are using your own rationalization so I compare it to the dog so that you may grasp how far we are from being logically able to answer hows and whys from God. As I'm also 'dog-like' from the analogy, I see 'why' you believe what you believe, but think it is 'dog-like.' I'm in the same boat, but I can understand the difference because I somewhat understand my dog and think that God gave us them for such examples of truth. I believe God's logic beyond our ken. I don't have a problem with Aristotle and these laws of logic, I have a problem with our finiteness in being able to see things as clearly as they really are. God is well beyond my ken. My dog doesn't need to understand 'why' not to 'go' in the house. He just needs to know my demand and obey. I believe God to have EDF and that we aren't to be too caught up in that but obey. If we don't, He'll rub our nose in it.

 

[Lon]

I think OVT is trying to respond to the prophecy issue, but maybe not to your satisfaction. Peter's denial was a proximal issue, not remote from eternity past nor conclusive proof of EDF.

Sanders (Perspectives on the Doctrine of God, ed. Ware) suggest that predictions can fall into several categories:

1. God may utter predictions based on his determination to unilaterally bring an event about. In this case, the issue is whether God has the power to do it, not whether He has foreknowledge. For e.g., God promises to bring about the eschaton.

2. God may predict a future event based on inferences from His exhaustive knowledge of past and present. In this type of prediction, God states what He believes is the most probable state of affairs to materialize. e.g. the prediction of the destruction of Tyre by Nebuchad. (did not happen; failed prediction...divine intentions that are conditional where God decides to not act unilaterally).

3. God may declare what He wants to happen. It may look unconditional, but is is conditional in nature. God declares that some event will happen but does not state that is will not occur if or unless certain other events come to pass. e.g prediction that Nineveh would be destroyed (it was not since they repented; Hezekiah).

Speculative or hard? It makes a difference in how to approach this.

If it is a comprehensive list in stone, I've got problems. If it is a work in progress with room for God to do things however He wills, I've less of a problem with it. How does an OVer approach the list? Is there any meeting on EDF concerns?

 

[Lon]

From my website

Augustine believes time is "something" created by God.

Nothing could be more ironic than this revered theologian saying that he doesn't know what time is on earth but he knows what eternity is in heaven. He creates this problem because he misinterprets and misrepresents scripture when he states that time is "something" created by God.

Augustine "Thou madest all time and before all times thou art."

The reason Augustine believes that time is created is because he is a theologian and a philosopher, a Christian and a Platonist. His understanding of God is a mixture of Biblical revelation and Greek philosophy.

Plato “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'."

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.

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

I'm not going to put everything that's on my website about Augustine and time here, your concern has nothing to do with the point I make and nothing to do with Augustine's point about God's timelessness.

--Dave

I believe time is something created by God. Wow, Augustine agrees with me!

Okay, done with teasing, look at it from this perspective:
1) We are created in God's image but because I have opposable thumbs, God doesn't. There is something 'thumbliness' in God or I'd not have them but it is wrong to overextrapolate that God must have thumbs.
2) I experience time so there is something 'timely' in God but it is just as completely wrong to assume God must have 'time' as we do. It is very evident from scripture He does not. I take a thousand years as a day and a day as a thousand years as something important in conveyance. It isn't just a idiom, I don't believe God just does idioms. There are truths underlying all truths in foundation for all His conveyance to us, but I'm a mystery-sort-a-guy. God is exponentially more complex than I am to my dog.
Back to the thumb: God is Spirit, physical laws cannot apply to Him. He has no thumbs, He has no time restraints.

 

[Evoken]

I'm not going to put everything that's on my website about Augustine and time here, your concern has nothing to do with the point I make and nothing to do with Augustine's point about God's timelessness.

I actually don't see why you are copy/pasting bits from your website. There is no need for it. You do not address there what is being discussed here. Nothing you posted in the previous post has anything to do with my "concern", which has everything to do with the claim you made:

Augustine said he could not define time but he knew that God could not experience it. I don't know how anyone could say anything about God and time if they "confessed" they didn't know what it was they were talking about.

This is what I responded to. Not to any point you try to make on your website. Your statement is incorrect.


Evo

 

[bybee]

God is...

God is...

I actually don't see why you are copy/pasting bits from your website. There is no need for it. You do not address there what is being discussed here. Nothing you posted in the previous post has anything to do with my "concern", which has everything to do with the claim you made:



This is what I responded to. Not to any point you try to make on your website. Your statement is incorrect.


Evo

Who are you God? God responds "I Am that I Am". God is beyond our total comprehension but we are capable of some comprehension. We sense the noble attributes of God. We experience the noble attributes of God within us and through our sisters and brothers. We are free to be as we are called to be. One of the beginnings of wisdom is to respect the freedom to be which dwells in all people. That does include the response to "I Am that I Am". The man of peace is a magnet to suffering souls. bybee

 

[Lon]

Who are you God? God responds "I Am that I Am". God is beyond our total comprehension but we are capable of some comprehension. We sense the noble attributes of God. We experience the noble attributes of God within us and through our sisters and brothers. We are free to be as we are called to be. One of the beginnings of wisdom is to respect the freedom to be which dwells in all people. That does include the response to "I Am that I Am". The man of peace is a magnet to suffering souls. bybee

Sorry Byb, I am making no connection to Evoken's post and this redress.

A little help please, it isn't making any sense to me.

Is it rather to Dave?

 

[bybee]

errant responses...

errant responses...

Sorry Byb, I am making no connection to Evoken's post and this redress.

A little help please, it isn't making any sense to me.

Is it rather to Dave?

Yes, this response was not actually directed to you but since you received it, I'll clarify. Whether God experiences time in a way comprehensible to us, is immaterial to our faith journey. When God, the Lord, said "I Am that I Am", I take it to mean, in part, I am beyond total comprehension but I am sharing myself with my creation. I respect the intellectual pursuits which seek clarity in our understanding of God and our relationship with him and with each other. Your posts have been knowledgable and legible. Thanks for your sharing. peace bybee

 

[Lon]

Yes, this response was not actually directed to you but since you received it, I'll clarify. Whether God experiences time in a way comprehensible to us, is immaterial to our faith journey. When God, the Lord, said "I Am that I Am", I take it to mean, in part, I am beyond total comprehension but I am sharing myself with my creation. I respect the intellectual pursuits which seek clarity in our understanding of God and our relationship with him and with each other. Your posts have been knowledgable and legible. Thanks for your sharing. peace bybee

Thank you for clarification and I expected as much.

Lon

 

[DFT_Dave]

I do agree with you to a point. We are not dogs and my analogy wasn't to go too far that direction, just exponentials as I see them. God is elevated exponentially beyond us. Where my dog can be 'dog-logical' he/she still does not possess my ability nor will comprehend my logic. Some things will not make sense to him. He'll know it is okay to 'go' outside but not in the house but I doubt he'd be able to internalize the logic of it. It is totally logical but he/she may think I'm a bit irrational. It isn't true, it is just his/her perception. When you say God doesn't have EDF and that it is contra-culpability/free-choice, I believe this is also a misperception. You are using your own rationalization so I compare it to the dog so that you may grasp how far we are from being logically able to answer hows and whys from God. As I'm also 'dog-like' from the analogy, I see 'why' you believe what you believe, but think it is 'dog-like.' I'm in the same boat, but I can understand the difference because I somewhat understand my dog and think that God gave us them for such examples of truth. I believe God's logic beyond our ken. I don't have a problem with Aristotle and these laws of logic, I have a problem with our finiteness in being able to see things as clearly as they really are. God is well beyond my ken. My dog doesn't need to understand 'why' not to 'go' in the house. He just needs to know my demand and obey. I believe God to have EDF and that we aren't to be too caught up in that but obey. If we don't, He'll rub our nose in it.

"You are using your own rationalization", what I am doing is using scripture with my rationality, not scripture with Greek philosophy in a synthesis of contradictions.

Theologian R.C. Sproul states, "It is often said of Augustine that as Aquinas achieved a synthesis between Christian theology and Aristotelian philosophy, so Augustine achieved a synthesis between Christian theology and Platonic philosophy."18

"I somewhat understand my dog and think that God gave us them for such examples of truth." I'd rather look to the Bible for examples of truth.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I believe time is something created by God. Wow, Augustine agrees with me!

Okay, done with teasing, look at it from this perspective:
1) We are created in God's image but because I have opposable thumbs, God doesn't. There is something 'thumbliness' in God or I'd not have them but it is wrong to overextrapolate that God must have thumbs.
2) I experience time so there is something 'timely' in God but it is just as completely wrong to assume God must have 'time' as we do. It is very evident from scripture He does not. I take a thousand years as a day and a day as a thousand years as something important in conveyance. It isn't just a idiom, I don't believe God just does idioms. There are truths underlying all truths in foundation for all His conveyance to us, but I'm a mystery-sort-a-guy. God is exponentially more complex than I am to my dog.
Back to the thumb: God is Spirit, physical laws cannot apply to Him. He has no thumbs, He has no time restraints.

Psalms 90:1-4, "Before the mountains were born, or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God... For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night."

Because God has no beginning and no end, a thousand years is a very short amount of time for him, it is like a day is for us. A thousand years passes for God as a day passes for us.

Isaiah 46:9-11 “I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’... I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and will do it.”

Isaiah 48:3 “The former things I declared of old, they went forth from my mouth and I made them known; then suddenly I did them and they came to pass.”

In these passages God clearly states he has a past of things he has done and a future of things yet to do. There are theologians who say these verses explain that God is timeless, but these verses only say that God, as infinite being, experiences time differently than we do as finite beings, but he clearly has a past and a future just as we do.

Time in God means he does not have to do everything all at once. Time in God means he existed before he created the world. Is this to complex to understand?

--Dave

 

[Nathon Detroit]

In these passages God clearly states he has a past of things he has done and a future of things yet to do. There are theologians who say these verses explain that God is timeless, but these verses only say that God, as infinite being, experiences time differently than we do as finite beings, but he clearly has a past and a future just as we do.

Well said. :up:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave
Augustine said he could not define time but he knew that God could not experience it. I don't know how anyone could say anything about God and time if they "confessed" they didn't know what it was they were talking about.

This is what I responded to. Not to any point you try to make on your website. Your statement is incorrect.

Evo

I see your point. This is a statement of my opinion, sarcasm. But, I do understand your concern that it is not entirely correct as you have said and I stand corrected.

--Dave

 

[Lon]

"You are using your own rationalization", what I am doing is using scripture with my rationality, not scripture with Greek philosophy in a synthesis of contradictions.

Theologian R.C. Sproul states, "It is often said of Augustine that as Aquinas achieved a synthesis between Christian theology and Aristotelian philosophy, so Augustine achieved a synthesis between Christian theology and Platonic philosophy."18

"I somewhat understand my dog and think that God gave us them for such examples of truth." I'd rather look to the Bible for examples of truth.

--Dave

Evoken has been telling and retelling you very plainly that you cherry-pick quotes and actually misquote often in doing so. That is, you do proof-texting. An honest approach is to represent fairly what someone actually believes, which you do not. Evoken has repeatedly shown you do not really wish to understand Augustine's view of time. You are more interested in defamitory. If Augustine doesn't really believe what your quote is saying but progressed to something else (ie quotes given by Evoken), you may be guilty of lying by stopping at the sentence of contention and purposefully not going futher to see if this is really all the man believed. So, your quote here, from Spoul, in context, may be what you state or it may be something out of context and until I go read the Sproul quote with context, I won't know but will hold suspect your rendition.

Hmmm, the "Bible" you say?

Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.

"Go fish."