Proof from the Bible that God is In Time

[steko]

GOD's revelation of Himself through His creation is 'general/natural' revelation. It is something that GOD does.
Man's study of how GOD reveals himself generally through His creation is something that man does. Thus it is called Natural Theology.

Theology is man's study of GOD, whether it be through General or Special revelation.

 

[sky.]

GOD's revelation of Himself through His creation is 'general/natural' revelation. It is something that GOD does.
Man's study of how GOD reveals himself generally through His creation is something that man does. Thus it is called Natural Theology.

Theology is man's study of GOD, whether it be through General or Special revelation.

I think this is very right and more of how I look at the use of the terms.

 

[sky.]

GOD's revelation of Himself through His creation is 'general/natural' revelation. It is something that GOD does.
Man's study of how GOD reveals himself generally through His creation is something that man does. Thus it is called Natural Theology.

Theology is man's study of GOD, whether it be through General or Special revelation.

But Steko do you think that general revelation in creation is something that can be reasoned with our mind because we have all been given general revelation as a kind of free gift so it isn't something that God does it is something that God has done?

 

[steko]

But Steko do you think that general revelation in creation is something that can be reasoned with our mind because we have all been given general revelation as a kind of free gift so it isn't something that God does it is something that God has done?

Yes....something that GOD 'has done' in creation, but something that GOD is also 'presently doing' through the moral law in the conscience.

The word 'conscience' comes from Latin: con=with, scientia=knowledge. We all have a 'with-knowledge' concerning a moral law and that law is a reflection of GOD's immutable character.

Paul says that the truth of GOD's existence is revealed so plainly, that we are without excuse. If GOD has given such 'shining/phaneros/manifest' evidence in creation, then it seems reasonable that one could get some inkling that GOD is there through reason, though Paul says we suppress that fact. I don't think that one actually comes to terms with that fact without the enablement of the Holy Spirit.

 

[DFT_Dave]

That's exactly what I said. Too bad I didn't need to know what wiki and Plato said to figure it out. It's Biblical. We are born with an ability to see natural theology.

Romans 1:20

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse

Philosophic conclusion of natural theology
God did not create the world and cannot enter it

Plato's God is not the creator of the world, he has only moved it from a disordered state to an orderly one. He said, "God wishing that all things should be good, and so far as possible nothing be imperfect, and finding the visible universe (water, fire, earth, and air) in a state not of rest but of inharmonious and disorderly motion, reduced it to order from disorder."14

For Aristotle, the world, orderly movement, change, and time are eternal. He argues, "It is impossible for movement either to come into being or to perish, since it has always existed. Nor can time do either of these things, since there could not be anything "prior" (before) or "posterior" (after) if there were no time; and movement is as continues as time, since time is either the same thing as movement or is an affection of it. There is something that is always being moved...(by) something that moves things without being moved."15

For both philosophers, movement, change, and time are imperfections. God is perfect and always will be. The world is imperfect and always will be. That's why their God cannot enter the world and act in human history. It is clearly impossible for a perfectly changeless, immovable, and timeless deity to enter an imperfect world of change, movement, and time. That's why Plato says that God is "imperceptible to sight or the other senses (hearing for example) the object of thought (only)."16

For Aristotle, a perfect being cannot think imperfect thoughts; therefore, God cannot think about an imperfect world; he can only think about his perfect self. His thoughts cannot even change. This is what He says about the "divine mine." "Plainly it thinks of what is most divine and most valuable, and plainly it does not change; for change would be for the worse, and already be a movement...The mind then, must think of itself if it is the best of things."17​

According to natural theology, only nature can tell us about God because if he could communicate with us, reveal himself, he would not be perfect, because that would require movement, and would not be God.

Paul in Romans 1:20 is not supporting natural theology.

Colossians 2:8 RSV See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition (natural theology).

--Dave

 

[sky.]

Yes....something that GOD 'has done' in creation, but something that GOD is also 'presently doing' through the moral law in the conscience.

The word 'conscience' comes from Latin: con=with, scientia=knowledge. We all have a 'with-knowledge' concerning a moral law and that law is a reflection of GOD's immutable character.

Paul says that the truth of GOD's existence is revealed so plainly, that we are without excuse. If GOD has given such 'shining/phaneros/manifest' evidence in creation, then it seems reasonable that one could get some inkling that GOD is there through reason, though Paul says we suppress that fact. I don't think that one actually comes to terms with that fact without the enablement of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks Steko. That does make sense it leads me to believe that general revelation in or of creation is the first step in progressive revelation. Not all people supress the first step so they are open to the Holy Spirit and Divine revelation about the truth of Scripture and the gospel can be brought in.

 

[freelight]

in sights.....

in sights.....

Philosophic conclusion of natural theology
God did not create the world and cannot enter it

Plato's God is not the creator of the world, he has only moved it from a disordered state to an orderly one. He said, "God wishing that all things should be good, and so far as possible nothing be imperfect, and finding the visible universe (water, fire, earth, and air) in a state not of rest but of inharmonious and disorderly motion, reduced it to order from disorder."14

For Aristotle, the world, orderly movement, change, and time are eternal. He argues, "It is impossible for movement either to come into being or to perish, since it has always existed. Nor can time do either of these things, since there could not be anything "prior" (before) or "posterior" (after) if there were no time; and movement is as continues as time, since time is either the same thing as movement or is an affection of it. There is something that is always being moved...(by) something that moves things without being moved."15

For both philosophers, movement, change, and time are imperfections. God is perfect and always will be. The world is imperfect and always will be. That's why their God cannot enter the world and act in human history. It is clearly impossible for a perfectly changeless, immovable, and timeless deity to enter an imperfect world of change, movement, and time. That's why Plato says that God is "imperceptible to sight or the other senses (hearing for example) the object of thought (only)."16

For Aristotle, a perfect being cannot think imperfect thoughts; therefore, God cannot think about an imperfect world; he can only think about his perfect self. His thoughts cannot even change. This is what He says about the "divine mine." "Plainly it thinks of what is most divine and most valuable, and plainly it does not change; for change would be for the worse, and already be a movement...The mind then, must think of itself if it is the best of things."17​

According to natural theology, only nature can tell us about God because if he could communicate with us, reveal himself, he would not be perfect, because that would require movement, and would not be God.

Paul in Romans 1:20 is not supporting natural theology.

--Dave

The tensions between 'unchanging' Deity and the continuum of change within creation are resolved via certain dynamics and processes, since in essence God's nature is unchanging, eternal and infinite. The movements of God in space and time naturally are referenced via 'relativity', and so in that context are space-time related, involving/evolving.

That however which is before matterial creation, and transcends the finite dimensions of existence....we could say is prior to 'space' and before 'time'. Recognizing this does not discount that aspect of God that is involved in time (since all that exists is arising in God, the sole source and context of all existence, with form or without), but acknowledges that aspect of divine Being that is truly indefinite, indivisible, immutable, undimensional, absolute, infinite.

Space and time become 'defined' as 'God' ventures in Self-exploration, expansion, creative experimentation, desiring expression to unfold the inherent potentials within the tension-flux of his own Being. It is as God 'questing' the immeasurable resources of his omnipresence as a creative play of inter-relating, expanding the potentials and actuals of reality. - the vast creation is 'God' in manifold play, the unfolding canvas of infinite Mind indulging every arena and form of experience.

To engage this subject further we consider the very metaphysics of existence, the place that energy, matter, space and time have within the Consciousness of 'God', and how such relates to our 'experience' of such. There is that which is indefinite(infinite), and what 'appears' as 'definite(finite). There is what is unrelatable, as Being(eternity), and that which is relatable as Be-coming in the realm of space-time.

The Being of 'God' is pure knowledge. All else in the realm of movements and relationships is 'perception'. Pure knowledge Is. Perception is subject to space-time conditioning.


pj

 

[tudorturtl]

hmmmm this might be an interesting tidbit for discussion

Jos 10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
Jos 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
Jos 10:14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.

 

[DFT_Dave]

The tensions between 'unchanging' Deity and the continuum of change within creation are resolved via certain dynamics and processes, since in essence God's nature is unchanging, eternal and infinite. The movements of God in space and time naturally are referenced via 'relativity', and so in that context are space-time related, involving/evolving.

That however which is before matterial creation, and transcends the finite dimensions of existence....we could say is prior to 'space' and before 'time'. Recognizing this does not discount that aspect of God that is involved in time (since all that exists is arising in God, the sole source and context of all existence, with form or without), but acknowledges that aspect of divine Being that is truly indefinite, indivisible, immutable, undimensional, absolute, infinite.

Space and time become 'defined' as 'God' ventures in Self-exploration, expansion, creative experimentation, desiring expression to unfold the inherent potentials within the tension-flux of his own Being. It is as God 'questing' the immeasurable resources of his omnipresence as a creative play of inter-relating, expanding the potentials and actuals of reality. - the vast creation is 'God' in manifold play, the unfolding canvas of infinite Mind indulging every arena and form of experience.

To engage this subject further we consider the very metaphysics of existence, the place that energy, matter, space and time have within the Consciousness of 'God', and how such relates to our 'experience' of such. There is that which is indefinite(infinite), and what 'appears' as 'definite(finite). There is what is unrelatable, as Being(eternity), and that which is relatable as Be-coming in the realm of space-time.

The Being of 'God' is pure knowledge. All else in the realm of movements and relationships is 'perception'. Pure knowledge Is. Perception is subject to space-time conditioning.


pj

"Space and time become 'defined' as 'God' ventures in Self-exploration, expansion, creative experimentation, desiring expression to unfold the inherent potentials within the tension-flux of his own Being."

Do you mean God both creates and destroys life in self-expression?

--Dave

 

[freelight]

birth, death, rebirth.......

birth, death, rebirth.......

"Space and time become 'defined' as 'God' ventures in Self-exploration, expansion, creative experimentation, desiring expression to unfold the inherent potentials within the tension-flux of his own Being."

Do you mean God both creates and destroys life in self-expression?

--Dave

In the phenomenal realm of Nature, is it not evident that life-forms are born, live and die, undergoing a continual transformation? Such is the nature of the world of impermanence, ...at least in the phenomenal aspect, of that which is subject to growth, evolution, modification, change. In a limited sense, the creation is as the physical habitat of 'God', however finitely circumscribed or imperfect, hence the temporal nature of such. - the universe is non-static.

We see this typified in the Trimurti = Brahma (creator), Vishnu (preserver), Shiva (destroyer/transformer)....depicting a 'trinity' of Deity-expression present in the conditional realm of existence, the material space-time continuum. So, at least in this realm of change(manifest existence), there is birth, death, rebirth...creative movement being 'cyclic'.

We note this is all in the conditional realms of existence, the elemental world of Nature. There is that aspect of Brahman that is unconditional, unborn, undying, unchanging, prior to space, before time, eternally infinite...that is even beyond the relative terms of 'life' or 'death', the Original Reality that just IS, from which and within which all conditions arise, as modifications or transformations of itself, since Brahman is the invisible reality behind all appearances (the only One existing) - there is no other 'presence' from wherein all potentials and actuals originate (space and time is naturally involved in the movement and sequence of such).

We note that in this context of 'conditional' existence....that 'Brahman' manifests as Ishvara', the Lord of creation, who consonant with the Trimurti....oversees the entire continuum of creation, from its emergence, maintenance and de-struction, and in every 're-birth' of creation. Ishvara remains within this context of 'space-time' as the supreme Lord, governing the movements therein as a manifestation of Brahman, however personified.

This aspect of 'Brahman' is 'God' engaged with creation as creation is born and maintained by 'God' as no other source or maintainer exists. So 'life' and 'death' are only relative features of the cosmic-continuum. Whatever is 'eternal life' or 'immortality' is the nature of 'God' itself, which is incorruptible, and so that life-essence and consciousness is what is eternal, however it continues in whatever form.


pj

 

[Lon]

Addendum: We human beings have great difficulty thinking even about the more simplistic aspects of time. Consider these corrections to two other popular misconceptions.

Misconception 1: Measurement of time equals time itself. Simply pointing out this nearly ubiquitous error should suffice to correct it. Secular folks and believers alike frequently assume this non sequitur with Christians suggesting that there could be no time prior to the Earth's orbit or it's rotation, with their confusion resulting from an assumption that if man possessed no scale then there could be no mass, or no ruler then there could be no length, or no speedometer then there could be no velocity, or no clock then there could be no time. The measurement of something does not equate to the thing itself, and neither does the ability or lack of ability to measure something equate to that thing.

Misconception 2: Time flows from the past into the future. It is often claimed that "Time's arrow points from the past into the future and the current of time flows forward." Yes of course this is a metaphor, yet the widespread metaphor is unintentionally exactly backward when compared to reality. The truth is the reverse, for in whatever way we may speak of time flowing, then time flows backwards. The current of time brings the future into the present and then to the past. Tomorrow's date, suspended perfectly in the flow of time, will eventually arrive at the present, and recede into the past. Incorrectly men assume that, "the current of time sweeps us from birth to death." But more accurately, the current of time sweeps our entire earthly lives into the past. Time does not carry our birth forward into the future, nor (as it might if time flowed forward) does it forever postpone our death nudging it later and later. Rather, "I" am like a floating buoy anchored to the river bed bobbing and resisting the flow of time. Contrariwise, the "events" that I experience are not similarly anchored and so being vulnerable to the flow of time, as sediment suspended in a river current, they are whisked into the past.

Knight, I think that these two misconceptions together illustrate sloppiness of the popular thoughts about time by Christians.

So, the only relationship these misconceptions have to this matter of Time is to show how easily we confuse ourselves.

-Bob

#1 - though I agree with you, an inch is an inch, regardless if it is the object measured or the ruler. Both represent the 'measurement.' It isn't quite correct to say 'a carrot isn't an inch' after I've measured it to be so. Semantics won't help here.

#2 - like measuring the carrot, it matters not at all which end I start from to get at what I'm looking for. In addition, I may want to know more than its length, which reveals to us that measurement is rather unconstrained to unidirectional thinking. Let me tackle your real objection against God's timelessness: If I am able to do anything in the universe (God) and nobody can stop me, I have a handle on the future that cannot be thwarted, such that what I deem will happen is the same as being there. The future then, as a concept is as if it were past. It is a done deal. You are jumping between two concepts for an OV proof - one that a future happening is unknowable because it doesn't exist, and forgetting that omnipotence makes the decided future a done and given. It is actual because of God's power and determination. I'd bank on God's determination infinitely more than the sun coming up tomorrow. What God has decide[d] is already a done deal. Whatever that future is, already exists and even currently still exists in the past. God transcendeds incremental constraints and parameters. There is no philosophical/logical way to come up with anything but acquiescence.

 

[Lon]

How so?

Nang

For me, I make no true distinction between natural and special revelation other than the intent of God with each. "Natural" theology is how things were 'supposed to' progress. Sin and consequences against what was to be 'natural,' needed 'special' or 'directive' revelation to help us see the difference between what was to be, what is, and how to proceed from there. AMR is correct that we start with the way things are and build understanding with the further revelation given. "Naturally" faith comes by 'hearing' (natural) and that by the Word of God (special).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

How so?

Nang

Sorry I missed this one.

God’s law was first written upon man’s heart in paradise (called the law of nature) and later written down in the Decalogue, containing the moral law of God, so that we might have a more exact knowledge of his righteous will (e.g., WCF, 19:1).

AMR

 

[DFT_Dave]

For me, I make no true distinction between natural and special revelation other than the intent of God with each. "Natural" theology is how things were 'supposed to' progress. Sin and consequences against what was to be 'natural,' needed 'special' or 'directive' revelation to help us see the difference between what was to be, what is, and how to proceed from there. AMR is correct that we start with the way things are and build understanding with the further revelation given. "Naturally" faith comes by 'hearing' (natural) and that by the Word of God (special).

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

It is really quite simple in that no claim to any moral theology in special revelation can be made without natural theology as the foundation.

Natural theology not only does not support Biblical Revelation, it contradicts it.

According to natural theology, only nature can tell us about God because if he could communicate with us (reveal himself) he would not be perfect. Communication is a type of movement, and movement is an imperfection, part of the world of change and time.

Plato said that God is "imperceptible to sight or the other senses (hearing for example) the object of thought (only).

Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover" not only cannot speak to man, he cannot even think about him, "the divine mind...must think (only) of itself."​

Biblical revelation means just the opposite. God speaks to man and tells us what he is like.

Hebrews 1:1-3, "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He make the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature."

Exodus 33:11 "The Lord used to speak to Moses face to face; as a man speaks to his friend."​

--Dave

 

[sky.]

Why would God even want to be in our time? I hope and pray and know He is beyond it.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Why would God even want to be in our time? I hope and pray and know He is beyond it.

By time do you mean human history?

--Dave

 

[sky.]

By time do you mean human history?

--Dave

Who cares doofy you won't get it.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Who cares doofy you won't get it.

"Why would God even want to be in our time? I hope and pray and know He is beyond it."​

When you say time you mean human history and Christ entered human history to save us and reveal the Father to us. If the Son is not outside of time neither is the Father.

John 14:9 RSV He who has seen me has seen the Father.

Ephesians 1:17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory...according to the working of his great might 20 which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come;

Nothing timeless or spaceless about heavenly places.

--Doofy Dave

 

[godrulz]

Why would God even want to be in our time? I hope and pray and know He is beyond it.

Jesus in incarnation certainly experienced it without ceasing to be God/Man. It is not a matter of wanting to or not, but a matter of His reality/experience. The Bible is clear that creation is before the cross. This sequence/duration/succession is time, not timelessness (sheer incoherent philosophy).

You wrongly assume that experiencing time/duration is a limitation for God like it is for us (nope). It is simply a concept/aspect of any personal being's experience (must think/act/feel in sequence, not simultaneously).

Every page of Scripture affirms endless time before and after creation, not Platonic timelessness (whatever that means).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Natural theology not only does not support Biblical Revelation, it contradicts it.

You are just not getting the historical matter of the topic.

God reveals himself to men through his creation. The way is via "light of nature" or "general revelation". Creation attests that God exists, and he is the God of order, e.g. Psalm 19.

The conscience of man shows him right from wrong, and this "oughtness" points to an absolute source of right and wrong, e.g., Romans 1:19-20, Romans 2:14-15. This general revelation unequivocally demonstrates that man is not autonomous and God is sovereign, hence man is without excuse to deny the existence of God (Romans 2:1). This general revelation is not sufficient to save man since this general revelation does not reveal the depravity of man, man's inability to do anything pleasing to God, or God's provision for sin in Christ. Rather, special revelation was designed by God for this very fact.

Philosophical theology, historically, is synonymous with natural theology. They mean the same thing. There is no contradiction in the light of nature and the special revelation of God. The early Puritans often wrote that God had given us two "books"; the book of nature and the book of revelation. It is in this sense that my answer is given and your misunderstandings arise. It is best that one stops depending upon wikis to formulate arguments and go to the old masters and original sources.

AMR