ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Lon
Well-known member
Do you want the pre-paid plan of evil or the one where it is pay as you go?
Either way, God allows. Either way we have to answer 'why.' Ask an agnostic here. It'll not make any difference to them. OV took away the pre-paid card but it is still pay-as-you-go theology where God sees attrocity as it happens. Why do you insist on bringing this up again and again and again and again and again and.....
Pinnock, yes, but also Sanders visa AMR's link.
Again, I see a relative problem between the time theories in that it cannot examine what is beyond its scope without constraining the subject to time considerations which God already escapes in many considerations.
From my website in black:
Augustine confesses he cannot define time
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.
See, I say here that Augustine does tell us what time is.
Augustine "For what is time? Who can easily and briefly explain it? Who can even comprehend it in thought or put the answer into words? Yet is it not true that in conversation we refer to nothing more familiarly or knowingly than time? And surely we understand it when we speak of it; we understand it also when we hear another speak of it. What, then, is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks me, I do not know. Yet I say with confidence that I know that if nothing passed away, there would be no past time; and if nothing were still coming, there would be no future time; and if there were nothing at all, there would be no present time.
See, here I quote Augustine saying he knows what time is.
Time is a characteristic of anything that exists and is active. Any kind of movement is a change of some type and incorporates time in three ways: 1. before and after; 2. past, present, and future; 3. duration. Time does not exist in itself as something material or as an invisible form of energy.
Here I do not say that Augustine said this.
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.
Here I have deleted the word "something" from my site. It doesn't change the point I am making and I agree with you that it alters what Augustine said. But I do think many believe that time is "something" that constricts or limits God if he experiences it, as if time were an "it".
I know that Augustine and I agree as to what time is; the difference is, as you know, in OV we believe that time applies to God as well as us. Augustine believes time does not apply to God and in order to distract his readers from the irrationality of his proposition he fogs their minds with pages of nonsense about time.
--Dave
http://www.existence-of-god.com/ravi-zacharias-addresses-lds.html
This is a solid Christian apologist who was able to proclaim the true gospel without compromise. What an opportunity! If a JW convention wanted me to speak on Open Theism's view of omniscience because it has some similarity to their view, I would see it as a divine appointment to proclaim truth. Just because Christians and JWs have kingdom concepts, or Mormons and Open Theists might have some non-essential views in common is no response to suppose compromise or condoning of false views.
Other Christian academics have interacted with Mormon apologetics without compromise. What is their motive? What are the pros and cons?
Pinnock and Sanders affirm historical Christianity and would not see Mormonism as a Christian denomination.
If AMR had an opportunity to present Calvinism to an LDS academic forum, I would hope he would preach the gospel and leave no doubt that Mormons need this gospel.
This only shows that Mormons are right about a few non-essential things, but wrong about many essential truths.
It is illogical to think because Christians and Mormons believe in 'God' that Christians are Mormons. Just because one idea of Open Theism resonates with their understanding does not negate the essential truths and doctrines of Mormonism that have no agreement with OVT or evangelicalism (OVT's essential statement of faith is the same as Calvinists and Arminians...Christology, etc.).
It is as indefensible for Calvinists to link OVTs with Mormonism as their lame accusation that Arminians are Pelagianists (I suppose Catholics are Satanists?!).
Lon
Well-known member
Lon
Well-known member
Thanks Dave, it is a step in the right direction but Evoken has made some of this more clear than you are representing as yet.
Thank you also for not taking offense as to the direction of a lie. I did not mean to malign but warn.
Evoken
New member
Well then, if you say that he knows and tells us what time is and also, as you say below, that you both agree as to what time is, why then do you shorten a quote from him to make it say: "What is time? I do not know"? And later say that…
“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.”
From the quotes I have posted previously we know that he did know what time is and you admit that he did and even agree with him on this point.
So, instead of doing this, why not frame the article on your page along the lines of: “While Augustine is right about what time is, and I agree with him, he is incorrect in saying that it doesn’t applies to God”? I would say that if you did this, the point you try to make on your page will be much clearer and your credibility, by giving an accurare representation of your "opponents", would get a boost.
Fair enough, it was not entirely clear if you were, but whatever the case, I wanted to show that he doesn’t believes that.
I don’t think that his reflections about time have the intention to distract his readers from the “irrationality” of his proposition. That amounts to saying that he was being intentionally deceptive.
I think you would do a better job on your page if you gave the saint a fairer and gentler treatment than you are doing now. As I said previously, it is alright if you disagree with him, but try to give an accurate representation of his views.
That said, I appreciate your receptiveness on this issue.
Evo
Last edited:
Synthesis
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
We are living in a time when the theory of evolution is the cultural explanation for the existence of everything. There are some who advocate theistic evolution, which is an attempt to create a synthesis, or a mixture, of the Biblical creation story with natural selection. We understand that evolution is not literally what is written in Genesis, but there are some who would like us to believe that a verse here and there lends itself to an evolutionary interpretation. If we lived in Augustine's time up to Aquinas, we would be seeing an attempt to mix Biblical Revelation with natural theology as proposed by Plato and Aristotle. Natural theology was the cultural norm for that age in the non Christian world just as evolution through natural selection is the norm for us today.
Dr. Colin Brown in his book, Philosophy and the Christian Faith, explains the difference between the two approaches, he writes, "In the Middle Ages two basic types of theology began to crystallize. On the one hand, there was natural theology according to which a genuine knowledge of God and his relationship with the world could be attained by rational reflection on the nature of things without having to appeal to Christian teaching. On the other hand, there was revealed theology which was concerned with what was disclosed to man by God through the revelation recorded in the scriptures... Revealed theology goes back to Biblical revelation, and Natural theology back to classical Greek philosophy of Plato and
Aristotle."1
The concept of God as "timeless" was part of natural theology and was understood not to be what the Bible literally says about God. It would be absurd to the Greek philosophers that God would talk to man or incarnate into the world, since to do so God would have to enter time which was not possible for him to do. Augustine struggles to have this "timeless" God to be the same God of time and incarnation, who talks to man and becomes man in Christ.
--Dave
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
We are living in a time when the theory of evolution is the cultural explanation for the existence of everything. There are some who advocate theistic evolution, which is an attempt to create a synthesis, or a mixture, of the Biblical creation story with natural selection. We understand that evolution is not literally what is written in Genesis, but there are some who would like us to believe that a verse here and there lends itself to an evolutionary interpretation. If we lived in Augustine's time up to Aquinas, we would be seeing an attempt to mix Biblical Revelation with natural theology as proposed by Plato and Aristotle. Natural theology was the cultural norm for that age in the non Christian world just as evolution through natural selection is the norm for us today.
Dr. Colin Brown in his book, Philosophy and the Christian Faith, explains the difference between the two approaches, he writes, "In the Middle Ages two basic types of theology began to crystallize. On the one hand, there was natural theology according to which a genuine knowledge of God and his relationship with the world could be attained by rational reflection on the nature of things without having to appeal to Christian teaching. On the other hand, there was revealed theology which was concerned with what was disclosed to man by God through the revelation recorded in the scriptures... Revealed theology goes back to Biblical revelation, and Natural theology back to classical Greek philosophy of Plato and
Aristotle."1
The concept of God as "timeless" was part of natural theology and was understood not to be what the Bible literally says about God. It would be absurd to the Greek philosophers that God would talk to man or incarnate into the world, since to do so God would have to enter time which was not possible for him to do. Augustine struggles to have this "timeless" God to be the same God of time and incarnation, who talks to man and becomes man in Christ.
--Dave
Lon
Well-known member
...........2+2=4...........
.............or...............
All Truth is God's Truth
Synthesis or subpoint? I still haven't gotten the link. I strongly suggest linking all website posts so that one can study on their own whether a thing said is propoganda or truth. I always provide links, I've nothing to hide. No links suggests indoctrination which, is really just propaganda, which, is really just half-truths and cannot be taken seriously by those who study. I study so cannot accept anything written just because there is a quote. Without context, there is no way to discern whether a quote is treated fairly. I'm not even addressing your point per say other than the title, I just want links links links.
eveningsky339
New member
One thing needs to be clarified: was Aristotle trying to purposefully force a synthesis between Christian theology and Platonic philosophy or was he interpreting the Bible in light of the culture in which he was raised?
The nature of creation has been debated since the earliest days of the church. The Hebrew word for day, YOM, actually has three different meanings, and the structure of the Genesis account seems to indicate some sort of literary framework as opposed to literal recounting. Augustine argued for an instantaneous creation.
By studying the world around us, as God commanded, we have finally clarified the nature of creation: it was a lengthy process taking billions of years.
So theistic evolution is not a synthesis, it is the result of years of debate and study.
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
Psalm 19:1-2
On the contrary, Augustine shows no indication of struggling to do this. It is absurd to think that a God who created time cannot even enter it.
Time is not a created thing. Can you see it in a museum? If God responds in real space-time, our choices did not exist yet to be seen or known in eternity past. I could never wrap my head around 'eternal now' ideas, but accepted them as tradition and truth. Now that I understand a more biblical, coherent view, the theological and practical ramifications are thrilling. Rather than shrug shoulders and accept tradition as mystery or beyond or comprehension, why not embrace a view that is logically, philosophically, biblically sound (even if it does not always support speculative, theoretical, modern physics)?
Thank you, I don't mind when someone will take the time to critique my site. I will continue to make adjustments and corrections when they are pointed out to me. On a website I try to say what I need to say in the shortest possible way, but as you saw, that can lead to misconceptions.
In my first quote of Augustine I simply wanted to shorten it. The term "ironic" is not derogatory, and I do quote exactly what Augustine said. There are actually two ironies that I see in his comments on time; the other one is that he says he cannot define time but then goes on to define it. My site is not about all that Augustine says about time, it's about his synthesis with Plato, which needs to be understood.
As to the issue of Augustine's motives, I believe he was willingly deceived into thinking he was doing God's work when he was not.
--Dave
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
If you knew who Sproul is you would know that he is not an OVer, but he is a scholar and simply acknowledges what is historically true.
Here is the only link I know that deals with this subject accurately.
http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/
--Dave
eveningsky339
New member
Quantum physics has proven that this universe is four-dimensional-- the fourth being time.
I can't wrap my head around them either... But does that mean they are wrong? I can't wrap my head around God's unwavering love and grace, but it is very much a part of a personal relationship with him.
Well then, let's cut to the heart of the matter! I would like to see a few passages that support OT. Most of the ones I've seen on TOL seem to support the... eh... interseting version of God as preached a few... choice members...
I'm afraid modern physics is far from speculative. One look through a powerful telescope will reveal evidence of relativity (red shift). Or, you could simply ask the folks over at NASA about those mysterious things called black holes.
eveningsky339
New member
Hmm, at my current level of intelligence that will be rocky, but here we go.
The first dimension is simple: a line. That's all.
The second dimension is a bit more complex. In order to reach the second dimension the line is squared, and thus a flat box is rendered.
The third dimension is where you square that box, and a cube is rendered. This is the state of being that most people tend to agree in which we exist.
Einstein came along and, with his various equations, showed that there is another component to our universe: time.
So, to put it simply, if you square the 3-d box, you have the fourth dimension. That is where we are right now.
As for all the other dimensions, most scientists believe that there are twelve at minimum, which means several other time dimensions located within the sub-atomic particles of atoms. But I do not bother with dimensions that do not pertain to me...
eveningsky339:
One thing needs to be clarified: was Aristotle (I think you mean Augustine) trying to purposefully force a synthesis between Christian theology and Platonic philosophy or was he interpreting the Bible in light of the culture in which he was raised?
What is the difference, and what is your point?
The nature of creation has been debated since the earliest days of the church. The Hebrew word for day, YOM, actually has three different meanings, and the structure of the Genesis account seems to indicate some sort of literary framework as opposed to literal recounting. Augustine argued for an instantaneous creation.
By studying the world around us, as God commanded, we have finally clarified the nature of creation: it was a lengthy process taking billions of years.
So theistic evolution is not a synthesis, it is the result of years of debate and study.
The Bible does not say the world evolved through natural selection it says God created it, which is why it is a synthesis.
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
Psalm 19:1-2
It is absurd to think that a God who created time cannot even enter it.
A God who is timeless cannot enter time because he would no longer be timeless. If God created time their would be a time in God before he created time.
--Dave
One thing needs to be clarified: was Aristotle (I think you mean Augustine) trying to purposefully force a synthesis between Christian theology and Platonic philosophy or was he interpreting the Bible in light of the culture in which he was raised?
What is the difference, and what is your point?
The nature of creation has been debated since the earliest days of the church. The Hebrew word for day, YOM, actually has three different meanings, and the structure of the Genesis account seems to indicate some sort of literary framework as opposed to literal recounting. Augustine argued for an instantaneous creation.
By studying the world around us, as God commanded, we have finally clarified the nature of creation: it was a lengthy process taking billions of years.
So theistic evolution is not a synthesis, it is the result of years of debate and study.
The Bible does not say the world evolved through natural selection it says God created it, which is why it is a synthesis.
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
Psalm 19:1-2
It is absurd to think that a God who created time cannot even enter it.
A God who is timeless cannot enter time because he would no longer be timeless. If God created time their would be a time in God before he created time.
--Dave
Thank you for a definition, now how about an explanation of how Quantum physics proves time is a dimension.
--Dave