Open Theism Stirs Controversy on College Campuses
- Thread starter Christine
- Start date
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is no future in God, so who is begging the question?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is no future in God, so who is begging the question?
I would assert that God indeed has control over His own faculties. Is that what you are asking?
You continue...
And in relation to us.... God can begin an "age" or end and "age" which is what the Alpha and Omega verses speak to.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is no future in God, so who is begging the question?
I am really not sure what that means.
I would assert that God indeed has control over His own faculties. Is that what you are asking?
You continue...
Time exists because God exists.
And in relation to us.... God can begin an "age" or end and "age" which is what the Alpha and Omega verses speak to.
God_Is_Truth
New member
no, that's a logical fallacy i believe.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is no future in God, so who is begging the question?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is no future in God, so who is begging the question?
Alpha and Omega is a phrase that implies no beginning and no end. It encompasses the fact that God alone has no beginning (uncreated) and no end. It is a title used of Deity. He alone is from everlasting to everlasting (Ps. 90:2).
Relationships involve love, communication, fellowship, thought, actions, emotions. These things all require sequence and duration/succession. The Father and Son communicating did not happen all at once. Creation preceded the incarnation which preceded the prayer in Gethsamane which is before the Second Coming (not happened yet). We cannot divorce God from time experience. He is not in some 4th dimension that is timeless (whatever that means).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is no future in God, so who is begging the question?
Alpha and Omega is a phrase that implies no beginning and no end. It encompasses the fact that God alone has no beginning (uncreated) and no end. It is a title used of Deity. He alone is from everlasting to everlasting (Ps. 90:2).
Relationships involve love, communication, fellowship, thought, actions, emotions. These things all require sequence and duration/succession. The Father and Son communicating did not happen all at once. Creation preceded the incarnation which preceded the prayer in Gethsamane which is before the Second Coming (not happened yet). We cannot divorce God from time experience. He is not in some 4th dimension that is timeless (whatever that means).
AiryStottel
New member
Dear Clete:
It seems as though you are talking about apples when I am talking about oranges. When you say
”That depends on how you define eternity”, you introduce a term I never used. I used the term “eternal”, which has to do with one of God’s attributes, all of which are immutable. Ergo, nothing regarding the person of God changes. There is no other being who can claim to be eternal, there is no other being who can claim to be innascent. Your discussion about time is just that, a discussion about time, but has nothing to do with God’s attribute of being eternal. So I repeat my question, “since God is eternal, how could God exist in the past OR the future?”
When you say that time is “simply that which happens between to (sic) events”, you now add an attribute (incorrectly) that there is discursiveness in God. God is simultaneously whole, for if there were discursiveness in God, God would not be God because of God’s immutability.
Try to configure a being who is eternal, while at the same time, exists in time and therefore, becomes mutable. With all due respect, it is absurd to postulate such an argument. I hope I have explained the question more thoroughly.
It seems as though you are talking about apples when I am talking about oranges. When you say
”That depends on how you define eternity”, you introduce a term I never used. I used the term “eternal”, which has to do with one of God’s attributes, all of which are immutable. Ergo, nothing regarding the person of God changes. There is no other being who can claim to be eternal, there is no other being who can claim to be innascent. Your discussion about time is just that, a discussion about time, but has nothing to do with God’s attribute of being eternal. So I repeat my question, “since God is eternal, how could God exist in the past OR the future?”
When you say that time is “simply that which happens between to (sic) events”, you now add an attribute (incorrectly) that there is discursiveness in God. God is simultaneously whole, for if there were discursiveness in God, God would not be God because of God’s immutability.
Try to configure a being who is eternal, while at the same time, exists in time and therefore, becomes mutable. With all due respect, it is absurd to postulate such an argument. I hope I have explained the question more thoroughly.
I like your big words. The eternality of God is typically postulated to be a timeless 'eternal now'. Recent discussions recognize roots in Greek philosophy adopted by Augustine. The simple Hebraic view in revelation is that God's eternality is that He alone has no beginning and no ending (uncreated). It does not exclude the possibility of God experiencing an endless duration of sequence/succession = 'time'.
Jay Wesley Edwards "The Untamed God" revisits philosophical issues relating to the traditional views of divine perfection, simplicity, and immutability. The Platonic assumption that any change in God would be for the better or worse and thus impossible in light of His perfection is flawed. Clocks are perfect because they DO change. Edwards distinguishes strong immutability (absolutely changeless) from a weaker immutability where God is changeless in His essential attributes and character, but dynamic in His thoughts, experiences, acts, emotions (vs impassibility), and relations. God does change without being imperfect. He is a personal being, not the static Unmoved Mover of Greek pagan philosophy. God is responsive and dynamic, not absolutely changeless.
Even the classical theologians are modifying their views of strong immutability and impassibility (God does not have feelings) to a more biblical perspective recognizing that God is personal and dynamic vs static and impersonal.
So, your assumptions about the nature of God's immutability preclude you considering the possibility that time may be an aspect of a personal God's experience. The proof texts for immutability merely show that God is not fickle or capricious and is unchanging in His faithful character and in His absolutes of wonder (eternal, omnipotent, omniscienct, omnipresent). It does not mean that He does not change in His relations and experiences. This is self-evident in Scripture unless you anthropomorphism everything into meaningless 'revelation'.
Only the present exists! The past did exsist! The future will exsist!
So that God being eternal....currently does exsist ...always did exsist...always will exsist! This could only be thought of as a change in the word games of philosophers and theologians!
Rev. 1:8 God was, is, and is to come. This does not mean that the past, present, and future are all identical to God in a timeless 'eternal now'. The past, present, and future are sequentially experienced by all personal beings, including God. The past is fixed and no more. The present is now. The future is not yet. God experiences reality as it is. The potential future becomes the fixed past through the actual present.
:thumb:
Which reminds me of the title of one of my favorite CD's....
"The ever passing moment" - by MxPx
My daughter has this CD...cool.
I might add that time is unidirectional and that time is not a place or created thing. Therefore, time travel is an absurdity.
I used to try to stretch my brain to figure out all the Hollywood time travel movies (Back to the Future, etc.). I could never make sense of it. Then I tried to figure it out with the classic 'eternal now' view that Augustine, C.S. Lewis, and most believers hold to. It still did not make sense, but I accepted it by faith. Then I found that there was an alternate view that was more philosophically cogent and in sync with the simple revelation of the God of history in Scripture. The lights went on and now it makes sense. It is not easy to shift from a traditional view, but once it is apparent that the classical view was tainted with Greek philosophy and is not necessarily based on exegesis of revelation...and there are other implications...it helps resolve the predestination vs free will controversy also. Some of the future is settled, while some of the future is open. How awesome that God and man are on an adventure that will see Him ultimately rule and reign in triumph. The journey is not without meaning. Prayer changes things. We walk with the living God and experience His Story (history) together. Our lives are significant. We are not part of the fatalistic world of Muslims (or Calvinists?).
This is what is known as obfuscation.
SEE! I can use big words too! :idea:
eter·nal
Pronunciation: i-'t&r-n&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Late Latin aeternalis, from Latin aeternus eternal, from aevum age, eternity -- more at AYE
1 a : having infinite duration : EVERLASTING b : of or relating to eternity c : characterized by abiding fellowship with God <good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life? -- Mark 10:17 (Revised Standard Version)>
2 a : continued without intermission : PERPETUAL
eter·ni·ty
Pronunciation: i-'t&r-n&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English eternite, from Middle French eternité, from Latin aeternitat-, aeternitas, from aeternus
1 : the quality or state of being eternal
2 : infinite time
It seems Webster links the two words as well! :think:
God is not immutable.
I agree completely!
(For those of you who might not know and don't have the time to look in 12 theological dictionaries to find it, the word ‘innascent’ means, "without a beginning".)
This is a self contradictory statement. See definitions above.
Sorry! You don't get to decide what the words of the English language mean in order to prop up your Aristotelian version of God.
He doesn't! He exists now!
He did exist when what is now past was the present, and He will still exist at all points that are yet future.
Again, God is not immutable.
In what way is what I've said logically absurd? Can you demonstrate the logical fallacy?
As I have said already, God is not immutable. Who God is does not change, that is to say, His righteous character, His personality, His holiness, etc. does not change or waver in any respect but God is shown in Scripture to change in vital and dramatic ways that simply cannot be denied by anyone who wants to continue calling themselves a Christian. The most important aspects of the Christian faith require belief in a God who can change in dramatic and permanent ways.
- God became a man. God was not always a man but became one and is one to this day.
- God learned obedience, something He had not previously had any experience with.
- God became sin for us.
- God DIED! He really was actually dead.
- God rose from the dead never to die AGAIN with a NEW body (a physical one) which He is still in procession of to this day and will be forever more.
And I could go on from there listing dozens of changes that God endured without injury to His divinity, transcendent glory, power, or righteous character.
Now, if you want to give me "all due respect" as I am trying to give you, then stop pointing out spelling errors and redefining the English language and respond to the points being made. This site is about debating theology, not making dogmatic assertions and preaching. If you want to debate, then you've definitely found the right place. If, on the other hand, you would rather critique missed key strokes and make pious sounding statements that cannot be supported by either Scripture or by sound reason then that's fine too, but don't expect to get away without someone calling you on it. I for one will hold your feet to the fire until it hurts if need be.
Resting in Him,
:Clete:
Right on, Clete. The incarnation is the classic change in God's being while retaining perfection.
Webster was a believer. His original dictionary was rich with theological significance. This has been watered down in modern versions.
Everlasting duration with no beginning and end is more defensible that a timeless view of eternity.
Those who hold to an eternal now view have difficulty reconciling how a supposed timeless God can interact with creatures 'in' time.
Webster was a believer. His original dictionary was rich with theological significance. This has been watered down in modern versions.
Everlasting duration with no beginning and end is more defensible that a timeless view of eternity.
Those who hold to an eternal now view have difficulty reconciling how a supposed timeless God can interact with creatures 'in' time.
:Clete: :thumb:
I am all ears.
(not literally). :noid:
AiryStottel
New member
You can change the definition of immutability, but God remains immutable
You can change the definition of immutability, but God remains immutable
YOU WROTE:
I like your big words. The eternality of God is typically postulated to be a timeless 'eternal now'. Recent discussions recognize roots in Greek philosophy adopted by Augustine. The simple Hebraic view in revelation is that God's eternality is that He alone has no beginning and no ending (uncreated). It does not exclude the possibility of God experiencing an endless duration of sequence/succession = 'time'.
MY RESPONSE
Some people utter statements that are truly blasphemous, but do so unknowingly. To not exclude the possibility of God “experiencing” an endless duration of sequence/succession=’time’, implies you would include that possibility. Because God is All-Knowing, what is God “experiencing” that God does not already know? By not excluding that possibility, you deny that God is All-knowing.
I don’t think you mean that, but that is what you are saying.
YOU WROTE:
So, your assumptions about the nature of God's immutability preclude you considering the possibility that time may be an aspect of a personal God's experience.
MY RESPONSE:
See above
You can change the definition of immutability, but God remains immutable
YOU WROTE:
I like your big words. The eternality of God is typically postulated to be a timeless 'eternal now'. Recent discussions recognize roots in Greek philosophy adopted by Augustine. The simple Hebraic view in revelation is that God's eternality is that He alone has no beginning and no ending (uncreated). It does not exclude the possibility of God experiencing an endless duration of sequence/succession = 'time'.
MY RESPONSE
Some people utter statements that are truly blasphemous, but do so unknowingly. To not exclude the possibility of God “experiencing” an endless duration of sequence/succession=’time’, implies you would include that possibility. Because God is All-Knowing, what is God “experiencing” that God does not already know? By not excluding that possibility, you deny that God is All-knowing.
I don’t think you mean that, but that is what you are saying.
YOU WROTE:
So, your assumptions about the nature of God's immutability preclude you considering the possibility that time may be an aspect of a personal God's experience.
MY RESPONSE:
See above