Right Divider
Body part
Nobody has claimed that fictional IDEAS and nonfictional IDEAS are identical.
@Clete 's point was simply that they are BOTH IDEAS (concepts) and not found in the physical world.
On the omniscience of God
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
@Clete 's point was simply that they are BOTH IDEAS (concepts) and not found in the physical world.
Lon
Well-known member
Literally 'without finite.' A line is infinite. No beginning, no end. Infinite means all that is 1) created and with finite property, from an infinite God. Mind you, I'm seeing your point and the intimation, but as I read and interact with quantum physics, that which seem not possible is actually possible, in concept, theory, and experiment. It means everything we 'think' we know isn't quite right. It makes sense because we are physical, living in physical but that precept invades all our thinking and ability to fathom what is possible and probable.
It is an intimation to try to help another grasp what such entails. Language doesn't express the major concepts, but there is nothing in 'infinite' that exists outside (physical problematic term, trying to intimate) of what is all there is. God is all there is or ever was. The physical universe, as expansive as it is, is physical, from God.
Wholly agreeAgree! You cannot even count up to it. This too, one idea I was trying to convey.
Problem with the video, he doesn't seem to understand that he is arguing from a finite concept and counting further. You cannot count past infinite nor up to it. His error: he is trying to attach a value to infinite that is finite.
He is wrong. Smart, but wrong. Infinite, is a concept without 'ability' to quantify, which is what he is inaccurately trying to do. He is trying to count 'after' infinite which has no end point.
If I were an Open Theist typical on TOL, I'd mock you, but it just isn't in me. It isn't a good reaction. Rather, you and I both know that we don't know all things. It is a difference between knowing 'finite' all of a topic vs. knowing all things even knowable.
Not what is happening. If one 'proof' fails, we continue. It isn't ignorance of your point, but rather it has been given rebuttal.
It then behooves the other to say it in another way, or give better care to the proof. Too often, people just don't go the extra mile but rather blame the other for the inadequacy. It depends on patience and how deep one wants to go. You've definitely gone the extra mile, so just chalk this up to observation, perhaps for another person, another conversation. I've no beef and appreciate your efforts and hard work.
Or vice versa, so good conversation and the reason we are at it.
Not exactly hyperbole though I'd agree hyperbolic-ish. It is rather that it gives the meaning in context thus "all things" in 1 John would be better understood, if not translated "you know everything about this topic." Sometimes, we have to dig for what a fisherman meant, I'd agree with you.
Not true! I really appreciate you! for instance and I believe it does make a difference. What I was trying to get you to see rather, is that there is a kneejerk against Open Theism out the gates for a lot of us, specifically because of that emotion. It isn't necessarily then 1) Illogical nor fallacy, just that there is more at stake that one has to eschew if they are to even entertain an Open Theist's ideas, because they assault sensibility and 2) that it is appeal to emotion that is fallacy, not emotion itself. 3) That there is an idea about the majesty of God and wonder of God that is indeed assailed by Open precepts. For what it is worth...
Of course.
Not quite. What it does do, however, is goes beyond rational. IOW, it isn't 'just' rational else faith and trust wouldn't be needed, if you follow. Appeals to it, notwithstanding, but worth occasionally mentioning, for the scale/scope of difference, at least I think it worth the few moments.
On the contrary, you are following along and responding. Persuasion is from God, we plant and water and then learn MUCH patience!
I'll buy that a moment: Would you say most Calvinists aren't? (doesn't really need a reply trim as much of this as you'd like, but I think we've had this conversation in the not too distant past).
I asked above, because there are two sets of Calvinists: Ones that think 'ordination,' rather 'allow' than 'made.' Why it is always a messy discussion with determinism: If I 'allow' something, it is intimated rightly that I have power over it, thus my 'but one will.' Allowance gives another the responsibility if not actual power I reserve. Perhaps this example will help us both discuss this out:
My child is going to touch a hot stove (bad example, I'd always intervene, hence decretive by will but I want to talk of prescriptive here).
My will (and power) is that they not get burned. The consequences are too great (possible permanent skin damage, very painful day of injury).
My prescriptive will may be that they touch the stove and learn a valuable lesson on their own. If I had a very willful child, there is every indication that I must either remove the stove and figure out some other way, hoping they will grow out of it, or that I must perchance temper the stove so the harm is less. My desire (will) is that they never touch the stove. So my actual will is 'no touchy' for always. It is the best. The second will, is working with circumstances for the best possible outcome. I've seen so much against prescriptive/decretive will of God, but I don't have any other way to see it that makes this kind of sense. Now certainly, as the parent, I'm responsible for both plans, I have all the power. It is rather what I need to do to either ensure they aren't killed by it: God sent the Lord Jesus Christ; or that I remove the issue altogether. I'm not sure of the brilliance of analogy here, but it seems to coincide with the Tree of knowledge in the Garden on point.
It seems there are more of the double-pred coming up in the ranks lately. They have historically been few and far between and I tend to see them as heretical. I think the analogy of the child and the stove may be of service, but perhaps we are no longer talking about Calvinism on point, except where any 'Calvinist' (misnomer?) holds up Prescriptive/Decretive distinctions. Whatever camp such falls under, it is worth some time to consider because, I believe, there is quite a bit of room left for ideology to gel in conversation for it to be meaningful, either in dismissal or entertained dialogue over the ideas of how God works with sinful people and what He actually desires. I think the 'sour grapes' passage fits within the parameters and becomes a prescriptive discussion. Because discussion of God's will is at an impasse at that venture, it drives frustration discussion and I think the root of the conversation.
I agree!
Not just OT, Amen.
This is why I was ever a hold-out. I was very honest with AMR that Limited Atonement was retrospect for me: I don't believe in universal salvation, hence see 'limited' but not the way Calvinist's state that limitation. I see 10 plagues as building Israel's faith, but also as mercy and opportunities for Pharaoh and his court to repent. God knew that Pharaoh would not and told Moses so (another passage that keeps me from Open Theism ideology). It is my estimation from scripture, that God causes the rain to fall on the just and unjust, specifically because of grace and opportunity. We grow how we decide, He gives the implements to do so in grace.
He can. The problem with language, is conveyance of all factors. Dialogue, with one another, is one way we can get to more exactly language and for sure, consider another's take on what it means. It is always a good thing, because it is in faithful adherence to seeking out the things of God that He blesses us and corrects us. "All He can save" is prescriptive. He could (ability) have removed the Tree of Knowledge, for example.
I agree with you, it is in the nature of our creation to be strong willed that He has to come up with scenarios to ensure that we aren't doing ourselves in. A child can only run into the street so many times, if determined, before that child dies. Likewise, God has gone to reasonable extremes to ensure none are lost to sin. That there are stubborn children who will touch the stove or run in the street 'no matter what?' Yes.
For this portion, maybe be heartened, we as Non OV and OV alike, are on the same page. It happens.
It isn't that He cannot. In fact, He did. The Cross is available to all, just as the rain is available to all. I get "you are an Open Theist" often enough. If I am, I'm a different kind because I believe God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, from my scripture reading.
Supra, of course
Not a Calvinist or fatalist if you will. Compatibilism, is likely not Calvinism classic, but it is what most Calvinists today believe.
Not on this particular, is what I am/was saying. It makes no difference what one calls themselves, it is rather what God 'does' than what God 'knows' that is paramount to most conversations and dialogue about the God we love and serve.
Jesus said if one lusts, he/she has committed adultery, so I'm not fully opposed to ideas having consequences, but I'd intimate/argue it is an idea entertained, that forms the mind, that thus leads to actions, which are the thing that actually has consequences. I don't see any consequence for "I'd like to give him a piece of my mind!" if the following idea "but God has this" is another idea, such that consequences aren't a direct result of ideas we have, but rather, what we act upon.
How do you 'act' upon the thought that He either knows and or doesn't know all things? What in your daily life is the action upon that information?
That God is always good (immutable in a way even Open Theists agree with), always just, always loving, etc. does indeed inform our behavior, but again, it is the action upon that knowledge, is it not?
Needs a discussion on prescriptive and decretive as well as what 'predetermined' means. To be honest, I don't know how these particular Calvinists live, but it is again the actions or lack that have the consequence in particular. One Calvinist told me: I preach like I'm a universalist, because I don't know, only God does. IOW, the exact (or nearly) gospel preaching that the consequential action is the same. After that, please inform what might be missing and ty.
How? What? Do you do your devotions every day, as I do? Do you pray for others as I do? Do you desire a closer walk with Him today?
What is specifically different between you and I? You might say 'your expectation' but I don't think that is true. It was either you or another that said "when you pray, you are an Open Theist." It is rather the same destination, different road in prayer. I expect God to answer prayer. You expect God to answer prayer. Difference: You believe because God doesn't know. I believe because He does. Same end, different conclusion on 'how we got to the destination.' Perhaps one preferring motorcycles and the other a plane, by analogy: God ordained you ride a motorcycle! God allowed and didn't know I'd take the plane! We'll argue of course over the language, but the consequences are somewhat negligible: both brought us to the same destination regardless of what we believe God loves more, motorcycles or planes. Do know, I know this is roughshod analogy and doesn't quite equate, but I do think it roughly the difference.
For 25 years, but realize this is directional instruction: The believer to an unbeliever. TOL Open Theists, at times, don't parse well.Now support that claim.
Otherwise it's just an opinion that I will ignore.
But don't be deceived: That opinion has consequences. (no, I'm not talking about banning you for having an opinion or any sort of retribution. I'm talking about real effects of that belief.
All the more reason to make sure we're not attributing to God attributes that He does not have!
How about this reason?:
And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are blessed. “And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled.” But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.
Bible Gateway passage: 1 Peter 3:13-17 - New King James Version
Suffering for Right and Wrong - And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are blessed. “And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled.” But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready...www.biblegateway.com
That's quite literally what apologetics is!
It comes from "apologia," a Greek word that means "defense"!
Defend your faith! Practice apologetics!
Do you believe you've paraphrased well? (work on it?)
ONLY because Open Theists don't entertain the rebuttal. Look to the child/stove analogy again: 1) I do argue from a Calvinist standpoint at times, but in the past I've been more Amyraldian (not Catholic). Today? I don't think you could label me, because I cannot quite label myself, certainly not on page enough with any particular to call myself anything.
It isn't. My belief doesn't logically mandate the latter. God can know every detail of all future. It doesn't make Him the Author. Let's go to the child/burn analogy: I know on such and such a day, let's say next Tuesday, my son is going to touch that hot stove. I've placed sufficient barriers and prohibitions (or have I?). Whatever is going to happen is partly my responsibility: I didn't remove the stove. Rather, the need for me, is to have heat in our house so we don't freeze. The woodstove is necessary. So Tuesday, I know ahead of time, my son is going to crawl over the child-fence and touch the stove. He cannot help himself, or is unwilling to do so. He's three, he has a limited knowledge and little understanding of what the stove will do. You can certainly call me the author of his burn, but that, imho, is negligent an jumping to hasty conclusions (in a very real sense, what I believe Open Theism does). I intimate that it matters not a whit if I knew implicitly or vaguely that he was going to touch the stove on Tuesday. It rather matters 'why' I allowed it and Open Theism is not at all needed to answer that question and implications regarding that happening. It doesn't matter if I had it written down a month prior or two weeks prior or if I knew the moment before it happened, the accusation is the same and no Almanac from the future with the even that says "it happened" make me the author of the event (per say, I did write it down by analogy so am the author, but not the one who 'made it happen.' Even by your own logical standards, you can see, readily, I didn't make this event happen. Does having the stove make me the author (maker) of burns and this event? In an unrealistic sense, yes, but by no implication am I guilty of his burn, other than the need for the stove far outweighed that burn he received and thus I 'foreordained it, not for it, but for something that was more important than the burn that day. What another chooses to do with that information will have me in court. When I throw away a McDonald's bag out my window, I get the ticket, not McDonalds. Does McDonalds know that a certain number, statistically foreknown will end up on the street? Of course it does. They can come up with more biodegradable materials, put your burger in your hands without paper, etc. etc. It isn't really their responsibility and prosecutors would be superfluous and sue-happy for pursuing McDonalds. In the same manner, EDF accusation is, to me, superfluous, sue-happy, and wrong-headed in near exactly the same manner. It is looking for guilt where none lies.
Yes, but literal too! No?
Will continue later. HUGE dialogue here. I greatly appreciate your time and effort and pray you see that I am endeavoring to honor your time and sacrifice. Appreciatively -Lon
By whose standard? If one, in good faith, is trying to discuss something from their belief system, mocking isn't the proper response. It is one reason TOL has shrunk. While I do appreciate where you are coming from, I don't readily do this because I'm at this for quite different reasons. It isn't just to vocalize, but to serve both God and the one whom He loves. Granted feel-good mush, but ever my endeavor to be mushy on several fronts where He and His own are concerned. In Him
Derf
Well-known member
It's because you're either not dividing rightly, or you're not judging rightly.
Lon
Well-known member
It is either "Poor poor Clete..."
or
"You're drunk!"
or (better)
"What is your point? Is it simply to discredit, compensate for something? Did you pray before posting it? Run out of God-given patience thus exasperation due to lack of time?"
I'll simply say work on it. You've done MUCH better.
Thank you.
So? Did you understand the point that was being made?
Can you articulate it?
I wasn't talking about the "conjecture" claim, which isn't an appeal to incredulity anyways. It wasn't even conjecture, either, not that there's anything wrong with conjecture! I was an "if - then" argument.
I was talking about "I don't see..." claim, which includes the "conjecture" statement.
You said, quote: "It is wholly Open conjecture that I don't see supported by the scripture."
The problem is that I'm literally talking about the narrative presented by scripture!
And at the end of that "If" statement, I'm pointing out that ripping a few verses out of context to support the idea that God is omniscient is not supported by the context of those 9 chapters! NINE!
You're looking at four verses and claiming "it means God is omniscient" when I'm looking at the nine chapters those four verses are a part of and telling you "no, it's not about omniscience at all, it's about Israel being a rebellious nation, and how God is unable to change their hearts in spite of His capability!" Have you heard of missing the forest for the trees, Lon? You're missing the narrative for a few verses! Rather, you're IGNORING the narrative, for those verses!
Flattery isn't going to win you this argument.
WRONG.
It has nothing to do with men!!!
This is why I'm talking about the context of Isaiah 40-48!
Isaiah 41:21-29 IS NOT TALKING ABOUT MEN!
It's talking about IDOLS!
This is why I told you to go watch those two videos again, why I said that I'm starting to wonder if you're deliberately ignoring the context!
Here they are again.
WATCH THEM. TWICE MORE, if you have to! Watch them until you understand the context of the narrative that Isaiah is presenting!
Better yet!
Just go read Isaiah 40-48! Don't take my word or Chris's word for it. Take God's word for it!
Read. Try to get the big picture!
That doesn't mean it isn't a relational book, Lon. In other words, this was another argument from incredulity!
Saying it doesn't make it so, Lon!
God gave us His word SO THAT WE WOULD TALK TO HIM DIRECTLY!
Again, Isaiah 41:21-29 is God comparing Himself to false idols.
It's rhetorical because THEY DON'T EXIST!
NO! It was a trick question!
There would be absolutely NO reason to ask the question in the first place because false gods (such as idols) don't ontologically exist! They can't do the things God is asking because they don't exist to begin with!
God, on the other hand, does exist, and CAN see what happened in the past (because He was THERE!) and can tell the reason things happened the way they did, and He can see what's going on currently, and make predictions about the future! He can do that, BECAUSE HE EXISTS AND IS ALIVE AND INTERACTS WITH HIS CREATION!
Category error.
Knowing what someone is like is not the same as knowing a thought that has not been had yet, Lon.
Again, GOD CANNOT KNOW SOMETHING IF IT DOES NOT EXIST!
Peter existed, therefore God can know him, and HAD GOTTEN TO KNOW HIM AS A HUMAN BEING during His earthly ministry, just like He got to know Abraham from before He called him out of his father's house until He died!
In other words, PRESENT KNOWLEDGE!
That's an entirely different category than a thought that doesn't exist.
Neither can God!
I'll let Scripture speak for itself here:
“When you come to appear before Me,Who has required this from your hand,To trample My courts? Bring no more futile sacrifices;Incense is an abomination to Me.The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies—I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting. Your New Moons and your appointed feastsMy soul hates;They are a trouble to Me,I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands,I will hide My eyes from you;Even though you make many prayers,I will not hear.Your hands are full of blood.
Bible Gateway passage: Isaiah 1:12-15 - New King James Version
“When you come to appear before Me, Who has required this from your hand, To trample My courts? Bring no more futile sacrifices; Incense is an abomination to Me. The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies— I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting. Your New Moons and your...www.biblegateway.com
Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened,That it cannot save;Nor His ear heavy,That it cannot hear. But your iniquities have separated you from your God;And your sins have hidden His face from you,So that He will not hear. For your hands are defiled with blood,And your fingers with iniquity;Your lips have spoken lies,Your tongue has muttered perversity.
Bible Gateway passage: Isaiah 59:1-3 - New King James Version
Separated from God - Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, That it cannot save; Nor His ear heavy, That it cannot hear. But your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you, So that He will not hear. For your hands are defiled with blood, And your...www.biblegateway.com
“Then the Babylonians came to her, into the bed of love,And they defiled her with their immorality;So she was defiled by them, and alienated herself from them. She revealed her harlotry and uncovered her nakedness.Then I alienated Myself from her,As I had alienated Myself from her sister.
Bible Gateway passage: Ezekiel 23:17-18 - New King James Version
“Then the Babylonians came to her, into the bed of love, And they defiled her with their immorality; So she was defiled by them, and alienated herself from them. She revealed her harlotry and uncovered her nakedness. Then I alienated Myself from her, As I had alienated Myself from her sister.www.biblegateway.com
God is disgusted by sin!
If sacrifices can become wearisome to God, so much that He hides His eyes from those that perform them, and so much that he refuses to hear the calling of assemblies, how much more so will He turn away from the harm brought upon a child by an abuser?
Then you clearly don't know the God of the Bible!
You're actually defending the position that God actively watches child rape? Not only that He does so, but is REQUIRED to do so?!
CEASE YOUR BLASPHEMY!
What do you think I've been doing, Lon!
How much clearer do I have to get!?
Saying it doesn't make it so!
He's comparing Himself to idols!
JUST READ THE PASSAGE!
This shows you haven't read the chapters.
No, Lon, it is not.
Yes, God is describing how great He is. But that's not the point of what He's saying!
Again, he's not having a contest of attributes!
JUST READ THE PASSAGE! Get out your Bible, open it to Isaiah 40, and read to the end of chapter 48!
He's talking about how Israel has rebelled against Him, in spite of how great He is, because they can't get it through their thick skulls that the things that are happening are happening because He is bringing them about! It's about how wicked they have become, and so He will respond in judgement!
No, it simply is not, Lon. If you had read the passage, you would know it!
AMEN!
But this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
But you can't help but think it is, because of your paradigm that asserts "God is omni-____".
[ URL='https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians 1%3A16-20&version=NIV' ]
Well there's you're problem. You're using the NIV.
Stop using that terrible translation, and the problem goes away, whatever it might be.
Who is the "you" in that passage?
Hint: It's not "man."
No, God is not somehow controlling our breathing.
The point being made is that without God, we wouldn't exist TO breathe, let alone live.
None of this has anything to do with Isaiah 40-48.
Go back and watch them. Again, if you have to.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Yes, it is, Lon!
You wanna know how I know?
BECAUSE I READ THE CHAPTERS!
It has nothing to do with "omniscience"!
Repeating your claim doesn't magically make it come true, and scripture disagrees with your claim anyways.
You have completely ripped the passage out of scripture and thrown the rest away just to defend your position.
Once again, you have completely missed the point Jesus was making, by ripping a verse out of its context, just so you can support your paradigm of beliefs.
John 8:58 is not about God being outside of time. That's not what He's saying.
He's intentionally angering the Jews, by claiming to have existed SINCE BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS!
That's DURATION! NOT TIMELESSNESS!
He was claiming to be God, not timeless!
And not only that, your claim completely ignores the context of the rest of scripture!
Now you're just lying.
There are exactly, and I mean EXACTLY ZERO verses that say God is infinite.
Lon, when you present a verse that you think shows your position, and I refute the claim that it shows your position, and then you jump to a different verse that you think shows your position, and I refute that claim, and we go back and forth on this until you've exhausted all your verses, and then you point back to the first verse that you think upholds your position, as though we didn't just show all those verses to be saying something else, don't you think that's intellectually dishonest?
Because that's what you're doing here, Lon.
You're jumping around to different verses, trying to claim that they support your position, when in reality they have nothing to do with your position, and I'm showing you that they do not!
Might I suggest that you just have an incorrect definition of infinite?
How does the saying go?
"If everyone else is always the problem, maybe the problem isn't everyone else." - Hugo Bradford
Because I understand just fine what "infinite" means. You, however, do not.
Not if it's inherently wrong/false.
This is why I say you don't understand what infinite means.
Infinitely creative doesn't mean "no creative ability."
Creation implies something is brought into existence that did not previously exist.
Being infinitely creative means a being or Being can always bring new things into existence that have never existed before.
In other words, the exact opposite of "no new song."
Again, you don't understand what "infinite" means.
Supra.
Ping @Lon
Yes.
Irrelevant.
Santa Claus is not more real because millions of children believe that he's real.
Irrelevant.
The utility of an idea does not make it less of an idea and more of a material thing.
Irrelevant.
There is no such ontological thing as "free will". Free will is a concept not some sort of substance that God sprinkles on your head. The term "free will" refers to an ability. Specifically, the ability to choose between two or more alternatives.
Only if you had the option of not doing those things.
Regardless, "will" is a concept. There is no substance out there called "will" like in the Green Lantern comic books.
All of which is irrelevant. All you're saying here is that there are different kinds of ideas. They are all still ideas and as such they only exist within a thinking mind.
I meant what I said, Lon. You seem to grasp at whatever idea pops into your head first and twist it in inexplicable ways in order to make it work for your side of whatever point you happen to be making. There's no logic to it, there's no consistency in it whatsoever except that you are never moved an inch off of whatever theological line in the sand you've drawn for yourself.
There is simply no rational mind that could read Bob Enyart's argument about the Atomic Clock Experiment and come away from that as if it is somehow proof (or even evidence) for the notion that time is a real thing. And that isn't hyperbole, Lon! I spent well over a year debating people about the issues raised in Bob's thought experiment and so I have more than a passing understanding of the argument and I'm telling you that if you think that a physical experiment lends some sort of ontological reality to the concept of time then it just means that you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. The point being that you make yourself look like an idiot when you say such things.
Do yourself and the rest of us a favor and when you detect that you're kind of flying by the seat of your pants, just stop and delete whatever it is you've said or, at the very least, don't cling to whatever it is you've said and be open to someone correcting you.
I'll give you a hint in regards to this issue about time being something more than merely a concept. The only reason ANYONE thinks that time is something other than an idea is because of Einstein. Now, if you think you have the expertise to debate General Relativity then you might be able to conjure up an argument that might be a challenge for me and the others here on this thread to refute. Aside from that, its hopeless because aside from that, you have to presuppose our side of the debate to even make an argument and I'm going to detect it every time.
Bladerunner
Active member
"To know all things", infinite, is a contradiction to: "not knowing the future"
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
So is LOGIC ontologically real? Also to @Clete
This is not a gotcha, I just need to know, in order to converse intelligibly with the two of you. How is logic different from free will or unicorns or justice and right and wrong or mathematics or the Hulk. Tell me!
Right Divider
Body part
Perhaps ontology is the wrong way to describe some of these things.
All ideas are "real" but they are not all the same or equally valid.
LOGIC is a real as it gets. Without it, you cannot understand anything.
I assume that you're talking about mythological unicorns and not the ones that live in Africa.
It appears that you do not know what "logic" is... do you?
It would depend on how you are using the word but generally no. It too is a concept.
God Himself is Logic (Reason) and so the degree to which that is true it may be accurate to say that it is ontological but we aren't given sufficient information to say with certainty about that. In fact, I only bring it up because you capitalized the word LOGIC and so wanted to cover that base. Otherwise, it is only real in the sense that language and meaningful discourse is real. There is no substance out there that IS "logic".
Was that sarcasm?
The point being made here is not complicated or at all difficult to understand.
It is a different sort of idea but that doesn't mean that it's fantasy or make believe. The distinction here is not about importance or impact or effect. Its purely about metaphysical ontology.
It's the difference between the concrete vs. the abstract. Concrete entities exist in and of themselves, independent of someone's thought or recognition. Abstract entities exist as constructs of the mind.
The created order and He who created it exist whether we ever give it any thought or are even aware of it or not. God, you and me, material objects, energy, light, angels, Heaven, etc all have their own independent existence. Other things exist as concepts and do not material things that have their own independent existence outside a thinking mind.
That is the full width and breadth of the point here. It has nothing to do with how important, how useful, or how pervasive these concepts are or even to what degree they correspond to something that is a material thing. We are not making a value judgement here at all, but mere making the distinction between objects vs. concepts.
There is no such animal, in Africa or anywhere else. Any example you've been shown is a malformation of something like an Oryx or something like that.
Right Divider
Body part
I was joking. Sorry....
I was hoping that was the case!
Lon
Well-known member
Keeping this so we both can reference it for exactly what infinite means. Realize 'infinite space' is conjecture. God made it. Can He make an infinite universe? Possible, but the question is did He and we take liberty. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Theology 101.
Much of my dialogue isn't opposed to your statements here, but I do have a need for dialogue to follow your thoughts and take some at least to conclusions if possible. You posture a bit (as likely I do) but it really isn't what I'm doing in response. There are a lot of deep questions and assumptions that have to be thought through for both of us, all of us.
"You have an over-developed sense of [Open View 'justice].' It is going to get you into trouble some day."
One of, if not the most stark differences between theologians, Calvinists many, and Open Theism is the difference between "Can" and "May."
If one says "May" then they don't see God as restrained from saving (Calvinistic). If 'Can' the God has, according to Open Theists, 'Risked" and chaos, evolution, and God's hands-off are intimated and God cannot even tell, day in and day out, whether His grapes are going to turn out or not, all based on whether God can or cannot save, may or may not. The child/stove analogy: I do not desire my son to touch the stove. Am I powerless, at the mercies I've set up for heat in the house, to having him burned? What if I have everything in the house to take care of the burn? If I can/may save him, regardless of the burn, there is a blur between can and may. If one of the children I have will die, the stove becomes a real difficult scenario. The Open Premise indicates "God didn't know!" Yes. He. Did. "Do not eat of this tree, for the day you do, you shall surely die." Choice isn't a gift, rather obedience is.
and He is everywhere before I get there, already in place to wherever I go. Psalm 139 All of these 'omni' considerations and intimation. Ezekiel saw the omni's of God:
God's omnipresence, moving immutability expressed: Ezekiel 1:15 As I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the ground beside each creature with its four faces. 16 This was the appearance and structure of the wheels: They sparkled like topaz, and all four looked alike. Each appeared to be made like a wheel intersecting a wheel. 17 As they moved, they would go in any one of the four directions the creatures faced; the wheels did not change direction as the creatures went. 18 Their rims were high and awesome, and all four rims were full of eyes all around.
James 1:14 But each one is tempted by his lusts, being drawn away and seduced by them.
James 1:15 Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin. And sin, when it is fully formed, brings forth death.
You are talking about ideas entertained, and fruition. Ideas are simply what goes through our brains. Satan cannot tempt us without them going into thoughts. Jesus didn't entertain the thoughts, ideas. Rather scripture did.
Most that bring this up aren't saying God isn't rational, they are saying "your rational doesn't look right, and I believe God supersedes your's" most times. The challenge is "then prove it!" Whereas the answer may well be "He supersedes mine too!" Such isn't an irrational conversation, just an admission, I think, to how smart one thinks he is and how smart he thinks his debater opponent.
On top of that, you've expressed this same idea just above and I know for a fact you aren't new age. It is odd because you are agreeing with me, whether you knew it or not.
Genuinely, I know this was quite a bit of work for you. You took my 5 paragraphs and made them into about 35! I'm not just saying this: I appreciate that effort and that you wrestled through a lot of this. I will say I have a bit of "Oh No! He's doing it again!" when I think of how I have to work at answering them! Regardless of our disagreements, I appreciate brothers in Christ. Have a day filled with His presence. In Him -Lon
God IS all there is! Before Abraham was "I AM." Don't just settle because 'Open' Theists did before you. "Without Him, nothing came into existence that exists." This really shouldn't be an Open Theist contention, but it is.
Much of my dialogue isn't opposed to your statements here, but I do have a need for dialogue to follow your thoughts and take some at least to conclusions if possible. You posture a bit (as likely I do) but it really isn't what I'm doing in response. There are a lot of deep questions and assumptions that have to be thought through for both of us, all of us.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
"You have an over-developed sense of [Open View 'justice].' It is going to get you into trouble some day."
Supra, last post. Wheat/tares Child/stove.
I don't know this at all! I know of no such thing. We get to foundational difference between Open Theism and most of the rest of us here and I find it heretical in presupposition! Colossians 1:16-20 RD, you are an evolutionist if you believe this! The wheat/tares analogy has Him as gardener. Even the favorite Isaiah good grapes/bad grapes has Him not allowing chance. There is no such thing as chance. John 1:3 Matthew 4:4 "Man does not live on bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." --granted bread, but not by chaos/chance. Sin is the cause of chaos, a breaking of that which God made.
The child/stove analogy and discussion should suffice.
Then 'free' is of no considerable consequence in discussion. Free is too broad for most theological discussion, except where scripture emphatic. "He whom the Son has set free, is free indeed," but rarely is it helpful. We are 'free to follow Christ" and we are "free from sin" and any other considerations from the text. Free is always in context, so I don't disagree with you.
Think instead, that I'm disagreeing with "Open View" restriction/parameters. God is 'free' to discuss whatever He actually has as constraints, all other conjecture is exactly that: 1) Conjecture intimated by 'story' rather than what is pedantic in scripture and 2) usually, from the Open Theist, based on something as mundane as sour grapes. Imagine anybody coming up with a doctrine opposing everybody else based solely on sour grapes! Thus, perhaps clearer now: I disagree with Open Theism and what it believes restricts God.
All this either because you didn't read or I didn't spell it out well enough. We agree on constraints and that is what 'whatever that means' in your response. When it comes to God: Is He 'bound' to us because of relationship? Or is He free to love us thereof? Boundaries and freedoms is essentially different between what an Open Theist believes and what any other theologian believes. We need to examine of those parameters are artificial or reflect in reality what our relationship to God is. When I believe every atom, today is sustained by Christ (Colossians 1:16-20) then it is significantly different from what someone who doesn't believe that has in mind.
No, your words. I said "Who He can." You intimate the opposite here. "Can" God save those unsavable? Or rather 'may' He not? It is good to question your own Open intimations as I contemplate mine. Conversation is good for pointing out weakness and holes in another's.
Okay, then replace, "God will save all those He 'may' save." "Can" was a statement of ability, but 'cannot' wasn't my intimation as the converse. "May" may take care of the problem.
One of, if not the most stark differences between theologians, Calvinists many, and Open Theism is the difference between "Can" and "May."
If one says "May" then they don't see God as restrained from saving (Calvinistic). If 'Can' the God has, according to Open Theists, 'Risked" and chaos, evolution, and God's hands-off are intimated and God cannot even tell, day in and day out, whether His grapes are going to turn out or not, all based on whether God can or cannot save, may or may not. The child/stove analogy: I do not desire my son to touch the stove. Am I powerless, at the mercies I've set up for heat in the house, to having him burned? What if I have everything in the house to take care of the burn? If I can/may save him, regardless of the burn, there is a blur between can and may. If one of the children I have will die, the stove becomes a real difficult scenario. The Open Premise indicates "God didn't know!" Yes. He. Did. "Do not eat of this tree, for the day you do, you shall surely die." Choice isn't a gift, rather obedience is.
The question is 'did He?' Open Theism takes away Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence to an illogical end. They deny even common knowledge of God.
See? We disagree on what God actually is free to do. We both agree He is free and that such comes with parameters. It is the parameters that we adamantly disagree upon. In Open Theism, God isn't given intelligence to know WAY ahead of time that grapes aren't growing right, until harvest day. God predicted, way ahead of time that Jerusalem would have Asherah poles (300 years before they were in Jerusalem) and that Josiah, by name, would tear them down and restore God's Words from the archives. He wasn't 'surprised' nor 'expected' the sour grapes to suddenly become good. It needed Christ to make a people 'not my people' His people. God is much more intelligent than Open Theists think He is, or at least intimate He is not by all these discussions. The Open Theist is more concerned with what God 'cannot' than what He 'can.'
It doesn't have to be either/or. You don't have to become an Open Theist to wrestle properly with the tension in ideals. You don't have to jump from one extreme to another.
It is more about His nature, than 'what it means for man' that is the point of contention. The two extremes are emphasis on God's character vs. what is fair to man. For a long time, I pushed toward the former: Uphold God at all costs. In between there, is a compatibilist tension that is good for consideration, no matter where one's theological loyalties lie. It forces an arena where all things are to be considered about our relationship to God and His to us, in a way that brings dignity to man and glory and honor to our God without compromising to get there.
Sure it does, if one has the where-with-all to prove it. "The God Who Risks" -Sanders He is one foundational member of Open Theism. Of course he is concerned with God's choosing weakness. I'm not altogether against that, "God's weakness is foolishness to man" but if theology is based on His weaknesses, it can and does intimate God doesn't know when bad grapes are going to turn up and rather focuses, specifically because of contrast, on God's weakness and lack. Why would 'poor grapes' "unexpected" play into Open Theism but to show God's lack? Of course I'm right. Of course it saying it makes it so.
It does. "From everlasting (no end, limitation) to everlasting (infinite) You are God." Note with me, despite others calling it everything their minds cannot conceive (not you, you are an Open Theist able to think beyond his nose), "I am the Alpha and Omega," Not am the cause of the beginning and end 'is' the beginning and end. All of this, the vast universe, this planet, these people, for Him. Colossians 1:16-20. Often the Open View over-emphasizes man for 'fairness.' Granted His Righteousness, Justice, Love and Faithfulness are the establishment of His throne, thus He is fair, just, and right, but... Remember my story. As a child, very young, I wanted out. God didn't 'seem' to be there. He wouldn't deliver me. It didn't seem fair, just, right, loving, or faithful. Simply, I was wrong. Sanders is wrong. We are shortsighted, just because we don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't so. When God speaks, it is so. Saying it does, at least can, make it so. From God, it is bankable. We don't have to reason it all out on our own and anything we take away from God is problematic. The God Who Risks claims God makes mistakes. This is unacceptable to theology proper. It is no place to begin a theology model that can work well. I think the saving grace for Open Theism is any embrace of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. They live as if God knows their needs implicitly without guessing, they live as if God is powerful to answer their prayer, they live as if He is close to them, as close as indwelling each and every one of us. The problematic, in my mind, is wrong, but doesn't keep you from God, or relying on Him. Conversely, I draw incredible confidence in God that He is all-knowing of what I need, even before I need it Matthew 6:8. He is able to do exceeding abundantly more than I can think/reason or ask. Ephesians 3:20-21
and He is everywhere before I get there, already in place to wherever I go. Psalm 139 All of these 'omni' considerations and intimation. Ezekiel saw the omni's of God:
God's omnipresence, moving immutability expressed: Ezekiel 1:15 As I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the ground beside each creature with its four faces. 16 This was the appearance and structure of the wheels: They sparkled like topaz, and all four looked alike. Each appeared to be made like a wheel intersecting a wheel. 17 As they moved, they would go in any one of the four directions the creatures faced; the wheels did not change direction as the creatures went. 18 Their rims were high and awesome, and all four rims were full of eyes all around.
No. John 3:16. While God caused the flood, His love for mankind caused Noah and His family to live. Jesus' work in redemption was the plan from the very beginning. His love, rather, doesn't reach the unreachable. It isn't that He could not create a planet of lovers, but that man, using his/her will to disobey, caused a rift in which love cannot reach. Let me make sure, however, of what you are asking: Are you saying God can choose whom not to love? No. Are you asking if His love doesn't reach where love cannot go? Yes.
Not according to scripture: Jeremiah 31:3 Everlasting, unfailing.
John was called the beloved of Jesus our Lord. Does it mean He didn't love the other 10? Even the 11?
Not arguing, giving more for thought as we delve into His unchanging nature: As with Ezekiel, when we see Him unmoving, with wheels within wheels that have Him in one place, yet able to go in every direction, it is vision of His moving but constancy. Not only that, Open Theists agree He is unchanging in aspect. God even says He doesn't change. We can intimate what is and is not immutable with God, but entertain a sense of 'within' from His creation. I'm playing a game ESO on occasion. It is so vast that the story line lasts 10 years. While I can traverse a path no other of hundreds of thousands haven't gone, none of it a place the authors didn't make. While it 'seems' that I may do something within the game, there is nothing there that another doesn't know about. They created everything. Is the game immutable? Yes. Is it vast? Yes.
Back to the game: Does it change? No. Is the terrain different? Characters different, from place to place, yes. The game is immutable, it is what it is, by design. Developers can interact, there was a car that hit the server in December. Rather, we need to think of what immutable means and what it doesn't. Because God is the author of everything that exists, we need to understand that this world we live in is vast, and He interacts. In order for anything to hold together (Colossians 1:16-20) there has to be dependability, rules of engagement, and the have to be constant. We also need constancy in God that doesn't change that give us reason for doing what we do. If the rules changed, we'd be in a mess and chaos (it did, but God is yet the constancy).
Jesus became man, but man came from Him. Whatever we believe, what actual change happened when God became man? He already knew what it was like, for man was made in His own image. Isn't it rather from Philippians 2, that He 'emptied' to become man? Again, food for thought, not necessarily that I'm arguing much in this post with you, just trying to expand points to ponder, and let a bigger picture inform our thoughts and what we believe.
Supra.
Okay, but even Open Theism believes He is immutable, they just narrow how much of Him is immutable. All we are asking is "Has Open Theism gone too far? Can we reel them back a bit with question? Such is this conversation.
It isn't wholesale. Even Open Theists don't believe He ever stops loving, ever stops being just and righteous, etc.
Revisit significant. In all important ways, God is immutable. Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. By His own mouth, is some specific way, He is immutable.
John 1:3 "Without Him was nothing made, that is made." How can scripture be heresy? God made dirt, then fashioned man, then breathed His own life into him. We are 'from' God. How can that be heresy?
I generally agree with you, but why man, then? Why do we exist if there wasn't a need? God isn't superfluous.
Realize 'emptying' isn't 'adding' with me. He became what He already breathed into and made. It all 'from' Him in the first place. I'd want to be very careful any time I'd say "God can change." Why? Because all of our relationship with Him depends on Him not changing lest we be consumed, yes? Even an Open Theist must bank on some form of immutability.
Yet the concept does indeed rely on a stopwatch concept. Do any of us even have stopwatches? I'd reckon just coaches. Duration has to have a start, usually a stop. A parent of a lost child never goes into the child's room. In a way, it doesn't endure. Time stopped. Duration stopped. Granted we can measure against it after 10 years, but for all intent and purpose, the room has stopped without durative meaning. Immutability is such a conversation. We'd say the room has not changed. We might argue 'endured' (duration), but that too is immutable.
Immutable. Good thought.
Look to the room analogy above. It is timeless.
Don't guess or intimate. "Am" as a Name, is an immutable concept.
There is no duration to a line. When we say 'timeless' we are talking about something/anything that doesn't change, ever. From Everlasting to Everlasting, Thou art God." He is everlasting and unchanging unchangeable in that, He cannot become 'un-everlasting.'
"We" confuse clocks with time. We all do, because when we conceive of time, it is always with the rotation of the sun or by the clock, especially in the West. We cannot separate the two easily. It invades our thinking of time, even when we endeavor to separate the two. Many ensuing arguments I see on TOL in veritably involves the concept of clocks.
Yet without Him making them, that just isn't/couldn't be possible. Where does any man's energy come from?
Rather, they lead to outcomes. You are talking about being dedicated to an idea.
James 1:14 But each one is tempted by his lusts, being drawn away and seduced by them.
James 1:15 Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin. And sin, when it is fully formed, brings forth death.
You are talking about ideas entertained, and fruition. Ideas are simply what goes through our brains. Satan cannot tempt us without them going into thoughts. Jesus didn't entertain the thoughts, ideas. Rather scripture did.
"Practice" being the key, following James' development of thought to action.
See James: Ideas become action plans. It is only when that happens that consequences begin.
Posturing, no? When we do that for another, it generally means we want them to do something we won't, no? I'll take the first step between us: I'm endeavoring else I'd not be on TOL. I'm not here just to prognosticate. Rather, I believe iron sharpens iron and specifically, because there is stark disagreement, I see something godly in iron sharpening iron, serving and being served. Mayhap we will never knock off all burs, but the endeavor is noble and with reasons for existing else we'd not do it. Granted some get easily frustrated in prognosticating, but that isn't why I'm on TOL. Rather honing and being of service to another doing the same is my reason for this dialogue, in hopes of mutual services. For me, much else would be a waste of TOL breath. If only one-sided at times, my endeavor is to be of faithful service.
Do a search. I've seen it on TOL (provided these made the purge).
Um, you'd get an answer, so why not? You can ask 'what would you like' and probably have to go to the store. You could give me a predetermined choice (what you have actually available barring going to the store), or you could hand me a cone from the one container you have. Not one of these is unloving on your part. It is rather and simply a loving act with however magnanimous your loving expression. "No thank you" might also be a response which isn't a rejection of your loving offer, but of lactose intolerance etc.
If all you have is chocolate? Of course we live like this. I have a choice from whatever you have predetermined to have in your freezer. Rather, we are talking about 'how much determinism." For me? I think 31 flavors. I may be even able to have a pickle flavored one (well, not me, not even a choice and I'll definitely turn it down).
Analogy is analogy is analogy. Paul brought up 'to an unknown god." Your disdain is showing. By analogy, yes it is scripture: No man has seen me and lived. It means blinders on and Moses saw the glory of the Lord only. One blind man said the elephant was a snake. One blind man said an elephant was a brush. Another said an elephant was a tree. The point being, we are finite. God is not. There is no way a finite (blind) man can fathom the entirety of God.
Sure it does. It uses the word. If any one thing about God is infinite, guess what?
Ah, so you do know something of the elephant and four blind men (tease).
"My dad can take your dad!" It may not be true, but don't you love that kid?
No. Rather it is saying 'more than your or my' rational, where 'rational' is held suspect. I'm saying clearly God exceeds our rational ability.
Most that bring this up aren't saying God isn't rational, they are saying "your rational doesn't look right, and I believe God supersedes your's" most times. The challenge is "then prove it!" Whereas the answer may well be "He supersedes mine too!" Such isn't an irrational conversation, just an admission, I think, to how smart one thinks he is and how smart he thinks his debater opponent.
Supra. Clete doesn't get the above either. Perhaps it is polite conversation that keeps one from saying "Yes, but I don't think you particularly are!" But I think that is the fodder for most misunderstanding: keeping conversation polite instead of saying "you are the one who actually seems irrational to me."
Saying it doesn't make it so? Supra the room that sits unchanging. Time/duration is of no applicable value to a room that doesn't change. Duration makes no sense at all connected to the room. Change is essential for time/duration else it is said, righty to be timeless.
Thus is durable, but not duration. Duration is meaningless to that which does not change.
supra
Forget secular. We should not eschew anything if it is true, it is God's truth.
Superimposed 'over' the line. IOW, they interact, are not the same.
How can 'beginning with no end' be the 'opposite of beginning?' Not arguing, trying to follow.
Supra: See how nice I was when you became confusing? Be inviting. I know you have it in you.
On top of that, you've expressed this same idea just above and I know for a fact you aren't new age. It is odd because you are agreeing with me, whether you knew it or not.
Genuinely, I know this was quite a bit of work for you. You took my 5 paragraphs and made them into about 35! I'm not just saying this: I appreciate that effort and that you wrestled through a lot of this. I will say I have a bit of "Oh No! He's doing it again!" when I think of how I have to work at answering them! Regardless of our disagreements, I appreciate brothers in Christ. Have a day filled with His presence. In Him -Lon
Lon
Well-known member
Lon
Well-known member
Is Time ontological? It appears the jury is not in, leaving us posturing. However, to say God is stuck in durative succession is the same as denying time is a mere concept, that it is something that 'binds' God to forward momentum. Such is a discussion about 'what is real' and materialists tend to discount anything they cannot reason or touch or both, as not possible, nonsense, etc. etc. etc. As long as we approach the subject with one dedicated to one and another to reality beyond our limitations, then we will go after this ad nauseum.