Common views of God and time.

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If we can change our mind, why can't God
Because we are fickle and capricious, finite in our knowledge. Your rationale that if it is what man would do, therefore God should do, too, is very telling.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Because we are fickle and capricious, finite in our knowledge. Your rationale that if it is what man would do, therefore God should do, too, is very telling.
No, the reasoning is that we can do it because God can do it. It is our fickleness that leads us to do it irrationally, or impulsively sometimes. Which is not something God does.
 

The Graphite

New member
Because we are fickle and capricious, finite in our knowledge. Your rationale that if it is what man would do, therefore God should do, too, is very telling.
Your mischaracterization of the OV is dishonest. We have already flatly stated here that unlike human beings, God is NOT capricious or fickle. If you can't refute our view without lying about us, please find another thread to play in.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
It's not that He always does everything He said He would do. The truth He teaches us is that He is able to do whatever He purposes to do.

(Rev 17:8) The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.

How does God know these people will be astonished. Don't they have free volition as to be astonished or not?

Also, since open theism dismisses Eph 1:4 as corporate in lieu of individual, how does open theism explain "names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world "? This sounds pretty individual to me.
 

nicholsmom

New member
Sure. :up:
Thanks :)
The Bible is filled with evidence that God experiences time sequentially just like we do. What is lacking from the Bible is any evidence whatsoever that God created time or is not experiencing one event after another event and so on. The burden is on folks like you to demonstrate where in the Bible it portrays God as being in some sort of eternal "now".
I propose to you that this sort of evidence is one that is highly influenced by the preconceptions of the reader. To me, the passages that are always given as proof texts for the Open View are obvious evidence of how God "stoops" to interact with us or examples of metaphor, parallelism, poetry, or such like. Also to me, words like "In the beginning" are loaded with the implication that time was a part of the creation; and prophesy (another part of this thread which I may join later) is - again to me - obviously used on multiple occations merely to demonstrate the uniqueness of God's ability to transcend time.

So when you say that there is no evidence, you begin to sound like an evolutionist arguing against creationism. The message of the evidence is in the ear of the listener, so to speak.
You are making the common mistake of confusing the concept of time (i.e., one event follows another event and so on) with the measurement of time (i.e., e=mc2)
I don't think so. The way I understand it, astronomers presume that prior to the beginning, there was something completely different than the universe in which we reside, but since I'm no physicist nor astronomer, I'll let it go.
In the beginning wasn't the beginning of everything right?? Clearly you don't think God, love, mercy, judgment and a dozen other things were created "in the beginning" do you?? Likewise, time wasn't created "in the beginning".
Clearly God wasn't created in the beginning - the fourth word, after all is "God," so we have only God in the beginning (which includes all His attributes - love, mercy, judgment, thought, etc). But if we go from the very true notion that God and His attributes existed before the beginning to the notion that 'Likewise, time wasn't created "in the beginning"', we've stretched the point beyond reason. We could just as easily assert that dirt pre-existed the beginning - you know, since love did.

The creation account is rather clear and nowhere in the creation account does God mention creating time (which of course would be irrational). So... tell me... on what day did God create time? :idunno:
At the very moment upon which He created it on day one: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" is all about God creating the entire universe, time included. That God is seen creating sequentially at this point is not surprising. Since He'd created time for our universe, why should He not then be able to act within it as well as beyond it (whatever that means in His greater-than-my-ways way of doing/seeing things, my lower-than-His-thoughts mind can't grasp)?

God created us in His image. From beginning to end the Bible is filled with evidence that God experiences one event after another event and so on, He created, then He rested, He came in the flesh, and later said "it is finished". If God is stuck in the "eternal now" He could never had the change to be creative, to think, to design, to "bring to pass". If God is stuck in the eternal now He is nothing more than a static being that is less capable than we are.
I don't think that this idea of "eternal now" is a very clear picture of how God experiences anything - so on that we agree. I must tell you, I don't know how God transcends time, I just know that He does, partly because prophesy is given by Jesus Himself as a unique attribute of God, partly because the Scriptures as a whole describe for me (that is from my perspective) a God who knows all things for all times and all places. A God who can transcend time is a bigger God to me than one who cannot.

I never asserted that God can't see more than we can see and hear more than we can hear (please don't put words in my mouth).
Sorry. Didn't mean to do that at all.

God can see everything that is happening right now and has seen everything that has ever happened in the past. But that doesn't mean He doesn't see things in a rational order. He is after all, the living God.

That God can see the present doesn't negate His seeing the future and the past. Our limited perspective on "rationality" cannot possibly give us a clear picture of Almighty God. His thoughts are higher than ours, His ways greater than ours, why should this not include the ability to transcend time - even if we don't really understand what that is, but only what it looks like from our temporal world (like seeing the future that hasn't yet happened), and what it means for us: that He knows the outcome of all, that we are in the hand of the One who can "look ahead" in order to guide us in the way we are to go? I am much comforted by the time-transcendant God never being caught off-guard, never being surprised, while still being delighted in us, calling us the apple of His eye.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Many of God's promises are contingent upon the actions and decisions of men.

His return is NOT contingent upon the actions and decisions of many man.

The timing of His return, on the other hand...
A non-answer. Again, what is the guarantee that the eschaton will occur, especially since it is dependent upon the choices of libertarian agents?

If it is probability 1.0, then we are talking certainties, an impossible construct of probabilistic libertarian free will. If it is a certainty then it can only be possible by overruling libertarian free will. Then you will need to construct many more strained interpretations from Scripture showing that while God on the one hand respects man's free will, He has given up some sovereignty to man to make free decisions, yet on the other He will yank it back just to keep things moving along the right path to the eschaton.

You cannot have it both ways. Either God makes it happen at the expense of libertarian free will or libertarian free will is a notion of convenience, to be cast aside to make preconceptions fit Scripture's clear teachings to the contrary.


While we are at it, in our glorified state we will possess this notion of libertarian free will, hence, in our perfection libertarian free will will be non-existent. Must be an imperfect thing God has somehow "respected" in His creatures before they come to glory.
 

nicholsmom

New member
If we can change our mind, why can't God

There are lots of things that we can do that God can't - most of them are sins or signs of sins. Changing our minds means that we made a mistake before that we now intend to correct, or out of a fickle heart we want a new choice. So we have error or caprice causing us to change our mind. When does God err? When is He capricious? Maybe I missed a reason for a change of mind... I'm sure you'll let me know if I did.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Your mischaracterization of the OV is dishonest. We have already flatly stated here that unlike human beings, God is NOT capricious or fickle. If you can't refute our view without lying about us, please find another thread to play in.
Had my post been in direct response to you, then you would have something to be indignant about. It wasn't and you have merely injected yourself into a conversation to bluster a bit. My post stands against the person whose careless use of words warranted the response. Your issue is elsewhere.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The open theist arbitrarily picks and chooses which prophesies are guaranteed, and which are not.
Indeed. As has been demonstrated time and again, it is impossible for any part of the future to be known if one is a bona fide open theist.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Indeed. As has been demonstrated time and again, it is impossible for any part of the future to be known if one is a bona fide open theist.
This simply is not true, and I think pretty much every open theist on this thread has directly responded to this exact same clap-trap from you and from others. Apparently you either ignore our responses, can't comprehend our responses or are simply being a "pooper".

God is righteous and just, and because of that we can trust Him. When God gives us a guarantee and seals us with the Holy Spirit we can trust that God will uphold His word.

Is God so untrustworthy that only His inability to do otherwise your only comfort? :idunno:

I trust my wife, and my wife trusts me. We trust each other based on our character and commitment to each other. If my wife could only trust me if I had no ability to betray her that would be a tragic commentary on our relationship.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
At the very moment upon which He created it on day one: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" is all about God creating the entire universe, time included.
There was a "moment" when God created time???

Hmmm.... possibly poor choice of words?

Well, I appreciate your comments but you are simply making assumptions that support your presuppositions. I would rather stick with what is actually described and outlined in God's word. Not to mention the fact that I prefer to stick with idea's and theologies that are logical and rational.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
A non-answer. Again, what is the guarantee that the eschaton will occur, especially since it is dependent upon the choices of libertarian agents?

God's word is the guarantee.

Do you believe God will do as He has said?

Yes? Good, so do we.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
This simply is not true, and I think pretty much every open theist on this thread has directly responded to this exact same clap-trap from you and from others. Apparently you either ignore our responses, can't comprehend our responses or are simply being a "pooper".

God is righteous and just, and because of that we can trust Him. When God gives us a guarantee and seals us with the Holy Spirit we can trust that God will uphold His word.

Is God so untrustworthy that only His inability to do otherwise your only comfort? :idunno:

I trust my wife, and my wife trusts me. We trust each other based on our character and commitment to each other. If my wife could only trust me if I had no ability to betray her that would be a tragic commentary on our relationship.

You are talking trust and hope and I am talking about knowledge. God cannot know anything with a certainty about the future so long as His creatures possess libertarian free will.

I
f God is not wholly sovereign (as normally understood by classical theism), He has no certain plan, for nothing God plans is a knowable factuality. God cannot guarantee any plan with autonomous creatures in the mix, whose acts He cannot know in advance. In fact, God cannot even know when to plan. We’ve talked a great deal about ordaining, but there is one more aspect of this that needs mentioning.

The act of ordaining by itself does not entail that future things will happen. What is needed in order to secure that future things will happen is some further property of God. This is true of any Christian belief system.

For something to be true and knowable there must be something we or God can access that makes the claims in question true. There are two aspects of this claim. First, truth requires a truthmaker. Second, by accessibility, I mean that whatever these truthmakers are, truthmakers must be knowable. Since God is infallible, what He knows He knows infallibly. So if God holds a belief about a certain event that is based upon something else, then the basis itself cannot leave open the possibility of the belief being mistaken, else God would be mistaken, and therefore, not infallible.

For truthmakers to function as knowable truthmakers, and thereby allow the open theist to claim that some parts of the future are known, the features truthmakers possess would have to be something about God or about the world. I would assume that such a claim by open theists would be something about what God ordains about the future. Let’s say that God ordains a certain event in the future will occur and this ordinance itself is a knowable truthmaker for the future truth. There is no problem to propose that God’s possesses the self-knowledge needed for Him to know what He ordains and what He does not ordain. That said, it is not easily defended that such ordinances are in fact truthmakers. Why? For a truthmaker to be a truthmaker, the thing in question must entail the truth in question. For example, if God ordains it will be windy tomorrow, it must logically follow that it will be windy tomorrow. That is, it is impossible for the ordinance of God with respect to a windy tomorrow to presently exist and it not rain tomorrow.

As a classical theist, I have a simple explanation and solid defense why the entailment is indeed present: God’s character is immutable, thus God cannot will one thing to occur at one time and then change His mind to will something else. But open theists see God’s nature changing in response to the indeterministic unfolding of the world He has created. Thus, unlike the classical theist position, the ordinances of God have no such immutable character to the open theist. Consequently, God’s ordinances cannot be functioning as truthmakers, for they do not entail the content of the ordinance. If God’s will is not immutable, God could very well ordain that it will be windy tomorrow and yet tomorrow it does not rain because God changed His mind in the meantime. Restating: the act of ordaining by itself does not entail that future things will happen. What is needed in order to secure that future things will happen is some further property of God. This is true of any Christian belief system. God’s immutability is that further property of God.

From this it should be apparent that from the open theist’s position, no part of the future can be known as true.

Yes, God could be (and is) far more competent, powerful, able, and effective than any human being who does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge. But, if the underlying assumption of your response is to then argue that God could accomplish His purposes by respecting the liberty of indifference (libertarian free will) of His creatures, and thus not being able to know the future, I contend that such an position gives no guarantee of the eschaton to God’s children in Christ.

If God is genuinely responsive to humans and to the course of history, and if God cannot infallibly know the future free decisions of man, it is in principle impossible for God to know infallibly what He will do in the future as well.


In other words, God's knowledge of His own actions in the future is at best probabilistic. Thus, God's statements that He will ultimately triumph over evil is no absolute guarantee. But, you and I agree that God is not a liar, so the assumptions by open theists about God's knowledge must therefore be incorrect. The problem then, lies with open theism’s assumptions of what God knows and God's sovereignty.
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
God cannot know anything with a certainty about the future so long as His creatures possess libertarian free will.

Rubbish. Your entire post is built around an assertion that has no basis.

Of course God can achieve His goals regardless of what people do.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Because we are fickle and capricious, finite in our knowledge. Your rationale that if it is what man would do, therefore God should do, too, is very telling.

Mensa man, read my lips. When I deal with the Malachi immutability proof text (one of a couple), I point out that God does not change His mind in a fickle, capricious way (you stole my words?), but consistent with His character in response to changing contingencies. As a personal being (vs impersonal blob), God will not change His mind in some cases, but this does not mean He cannot in other cases. I am not saying God is like sinful, finite, fallible man, but I am saying He is personal, as are we. God does not sin, but we do sin. God thinks and we think. This does not mean God is only as intelligent as we are or thinks like we do exactly. I Sam. 15 has God changing His mind in one case, but not in another case. I take both verses at face value, but you must make one figurative to fit your preconceptions (without warrant from the context or grammar). When Saul went bad, God responded appropriately. If Saul remained on track, God would not have changed His mind about him (the future is open, not settled, and thus known as such). God responds in real time and does not determine and cause everything in the universe (hyper-sovereignty has to go, buddy).

What is telling is your simplistic straw men attacks.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame

What is the guarantee that it will happen at all?

Is. 46 and 48. God can declare these things and unilaterally bring them to pass by His ability (vs foreknowledge). This cannot be extrapolated to prove omnicausality/determinism nor EDF. God's faithful character and Word and sovereign ability is a Rock. Your straw man view of the Open View concept of God is too small and underestimates Him (thinking He must be immutable, impassible, omnicasual, etc. and cannot have free moral agents acting contrary to His will underestimates Him also; it is more difficult to rule responsively despite rebellion and risk than to tie up the opponent and move their chess pieces in a bad way so you can win).
 
Top