I didn't notice the question. What post was it in?
Common views of God and time.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
I didn't notice the question. What post was it in?
I would suggest it is the same book.
Character is volitional (morals), not substance (metaphysics). Review your Christian and secular philosophy 101. Faithfulness, loving, mercy, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self-control, etc. are attributed to God and man (Gal. 5:22-23). They are not based on the eternal spirit nature of God nor the flesh and blood nature of man. They relate to the mind and will. We can be like God in these ways, though imperfectly, because of the I.D. As we chose, a nature is formed.
God's ontology is another matter: eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. He does not choose these things, but is essentially these things.
This has implications for sanctification, impeccability of Christ, etc.
I think your essence assumptions are more in line with Aquinas and speculative philosophy than explicit Scripture and common sense.
I think I have biblical and philosophical support for the gist of this. I think you have some tradition and philosophy and speculation for your support.
You have more formal training in philosophy, so I thought you would be conversant with various theories and the distinction between being/essence/ontology/substance and character/morals, etc.
Clete has probably tried to make similar points more succinctly, so I guess we see things differently. Surprise?
The Lamb was not slain before He incarnated in the first century, so interpretation is needed.
From the beginning, names were successively added over the centuries as people existed and died in faith. The text does not say the Book was fully written in eternity past before people exist or make choices (you are reading your ideas back into the text=eisegesis).
I like Graphite's post. Mine was dumb.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I have been posting on TOL since 2005. This does not mean my posts pre-existed me. Since the beginning of the world, names have been added successively. They were not there at the beginning of creation because the future did not exist nor did I and my choices. If contingencies are real and we are not in a Matrix illusion, I could have not existed, could have died as a baby, could have rejected Christ instead of receiving Him. Modal logic correctly distinguishes possibilities, probabilities, contingencies, necessities, uncertainties, certainties, actualities, etc. You seem to blur these distinctions to retain a flawed view.
After the Fall, which was proximal to creation, the potential plan of redemption that God formulated was implemented and became certain. It became actual centuries later. Jesus did not die before He was incarnated. The phrase refers to the implementation of the plan, not a wooden literalism actuality in a space-time 4th dimension Star Trek warp.:drum:
More question begging/circular reasoning, cmon.
What you state as fact is actually a theory. The literal payment/commercial transaction theory is not the best way to explain redemption. In fact, it logically leads to universalism.
The Moral Government Theory is a stronger position.
Anyway, the cross was objective provision, a substitute for the penalty of sin. It is not subjectively appropriated and applied until we need and receive it. The status of our non-existent future sins is not the issue. The issue is His historical once-for-all death.
You are assuming a wrong view of redemption and beating your chest as proof against OVT. Your wrong assumption leads to wrong conclusions. Slow down and don't jump to conclusions. There are responses for your misconceptions.
Yes, but I think the warning in Rev. shows that one's name can be blotted out in the case of apostasy. I think it is a small argument against OSAS. Our names are written in during our lives and remain as we remain in Him. If one dies rejecting the truth, their name can be blotted out. They will not be blotted out if they do not deny Him in the end (Heb. 6:4-6; I Jn. 5:11-13). If one never believed or had a fake conversion, they would not be added during their lives at all.
The assumption that the names must be there from eternity past is not defensible biblically or logically. There is a plausible alternate explanation that is not based on retaining preconceived ideas at all costs.
Apostasy/falling away. Thx for using one of my arguments against OSAS/unconditional eternal security (I am OVT, remember).
How many pages? I have ADD.
Do we have a semantics issue? Is he Christian? Follows Edwards, Aquinas, Anselm, who?
Do you get commission for his book?
Recommended reading: Bible:readthis:
Lon
Well-known member
These aren't 'binds' however, they are consistencies within His being of which all else emanates. This is important for our divergence in assessing correctly. All things (time included) emanate from Him and is a significant divergence or clarification between us. Logically, time is no constraint. What we still contemplate between us is the properties of it as it applies to God.
Here is a bit of philosophizing that I think is important though a bit vague in concept on my part. John Lennon wrote "Imagine" to see a world where things that guide us are removed. Imagine no durative counting or emphasis. "It's easy if you try..."
What we have rather than a 'progression' in emphasis, is rather 'accomplishments.' It doesn't matter 'how long' it takes to get there, but the distance becomes the exponential. This is a quality vs quantity type of consideration. I'm not sure 'quality' is exactly what I am aiming for here, but I think that time is no real consideration in eternity. It is rather that duration is heightened due to the curse. We must necessarily use what time we have wisely because sin comes with expirations. There were no expirations prior, therefore, the ticking of time is insignificant and meaningless in an eternal economy.
To say that this durative limitation upon us, caused by sin is in any way shape or form a constraint on God is to put God under the same curse. He is relational to our dilemma and even subjected through Christ, but it is a voluntary action of love, not a constraint that helps us measure His character, limitation, or ability.
Because God is relational to us, it is no lie nor miscommunication for Him to express truths to us with time given parameters but it is a mistake to apply the durative limitation sin has caused us, to Him.
Did you honestly just say that?
Take out the section that says, "or since," and you have a point. And you would be correct. If anyone's name was written in that book before the foundation of the world, then God would have to be outside of time.
But if people's names are being written, and therefore have been written in, since [not have always been there since] this has God abiding with time.
And the verses give no indication that this is not the case. Especially after the points Graphite made.
Also, you will find no verses, whatsoever, that specifically state or even imply or infer that God is outside of time. None.
What of it? It was a shadow of what was to come. And what was to come was Christ becoming sin for us, and sin dying on the cross. Not our individual sins, but sin as a whole.
No duh, Dick Tracy. And with what I said there is no paradox. My specific sins were not borne by Christ, and neither were yours. Do try to pay attention.
For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
-2 Corinthians 5:21
*checks calendar. realizes it is not yet Jan. 1st*
Idiot.
Same book. Relevance?
Now that you have brought this up, it has been brought to my attention that the Book of Life is specific to Israel and has no relation to the Body of Christ. So my name is not written within.
Whatever it is your rambling on about I just want to make sure you know that I was explaining tetelestai's question to Stripe.