Re: Open View/Closed Future

[Scholastic]

Ah hah. If God was static vs dynamic in eternity, He was not personal. Thinking, feeling, relating, acting, loving, communicating, etc. happened within God's eternal, triune essence. Change is not a dirty word. It makes God a Living God instead of a stone idol. Your philosophical assumptions are not credible. "Let us make man in our image." This alone is pregnant with a non-static view of God.

St. Thomas Aquinas shoots down all of that. Personal, thinking, feeling, etc? Nonexistent as far as we know it. God the father cannot feel emotion as you think of it. God the father is utterly changeless. He is eternal.

http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP009.html#FPQ9A1THEP1

On the contrary, It is written, "I am the Lord, and I change not" (Malachi 3:6).

Ie, the necessity of Jesus the son.

 

[godrulz]

St. Thomas Aquinas shoots down all of that. Personal, thinking, feeling, etc? Nonexistent as far as we know it. God the father cannot feel emotion as you think of it. God the father is utterly changeless. He is eternal.

http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP009.html#FPQ9A1THEP1



Ie, the necessity of Jesus the son.

Strong immutability and impassibility are being refuted, even by traditional and classical theologians.

Malachi merely affirms that in specific cases, God will not change, not that He cannot change. He does not change in a fickle or capricious manner, yet He must change in some aspects to be personal.

Either you misunderstand your mentor or he is blatantly wrong.

 

[eccl3_6]

God the father cannot feel emotion as you think of it.

So your God is no longer omniscient then.

 

[Scholastic]

Strong immutability and impassibility are being refuted, even by traditional and classical theologians.

God must be absolutely immutable and impassible, because if he had the potential the change, than that means that something else would have to change him, meaning that he could be caused by something else. However, because he is eternal, then that means that nothing created him. He is without beginning nor end, ie Eternal, and therefore IMMUTABLE.

Malachi merely affirms that in specific cases, God will not change, not that He cannot change. He does not change in a fickle or capricious manner, yet He must change in some aspects to be personal.

Malachai didn't state "i don't change for specific cases" Malachai said "I am the LORD, and i change NOT!"

Either you misunderstand your mentor or he is blatantly wrong.

or door number three: Your logic is flawed.

 

[Scholastic]

i do apologize for the completely and utter messed up last post. i'll repost:

Strong immutability and impassibility are being refuted, even by traditional and classical theologians.

God must be absolutely immutable and impassible, because if he had the potential the change, than that means that something else would have to change him, meaning that he could be caused by something else. However, because he is eternal, then that means that nothing created him. He is without beginning nor end, ie Eternal, and therefore IMMUTABLE.

Malachi merely affirms that in specific cases, God will not change, not that He cannot change. He does not change in a fickle or capricious manner, yet He must change in some aspects to be personal.

Malachai didn't state "i don't change for specific cases" Malachai said "I am the LORD, and i change NOT!"

Either you misunderstand your mentor or he is blatantly wrong.

or door number three: Your logic is flawed.

 

[Scholastic]

So your God is no longer omniscient then.

As i said: The necessity of Christ.A static being cannot feel emotion. Christ can.

 

[eccl3_6]

As i said: The necessity of Christ.A static being cannot feel emotion. Christ can.

But God couldn't if it werent for Christ? Question still stands

 

[eccl3_6]

But God couldn't if it werent for Christ? Question still stands

Are suggesting that God is evolving and that the Abrahamic God wasn't a patch on the Christian God?
Can you define God like that?






And if so have you told Him?

 

[Scholastic]

Are suggesting that God is evolving and that the Abrahamic God wasn't a patch on the Christian God?
Can you define God like that?

And if so have you told Him?

Oh heavens no, that is not at all what i meant. Allow me to explain it like this: God the father is that point A, that alpha and omega eternal point. Now, as i stated earlier, everything is predetermined from this eternal point A. Now, as time unfolded, certain things occur as according to the will of point A. Namely, the big point as Christ, which was the intermingling of godly nature and manly nature. Ie, it was the mixture of temporal and eternal. Thus why it was so special. While yes, there was a divine will, there was also manly compassion, love, etc etc. See?

 

[eccl3_6]

Oh heavens no, that is not at all what i meant. Allow me to explain it like this: God the father is that point A, that alpha and omega eternal point. Now, as i stated earlier, everything is predetermined from this eternal point A. Now, as time unfolded, certain things occur as according to the will of point A. Namely, the big point as Christ, which was the intermingling of godly nature and manly nature. Ie, it was the mixture of temporal and eternal. Thus why it was so special. While yes, there was a divine will, there was also manly compassion, love, etc etc. See?

I see where you're coming from but doesn't that still leave us with a God that didn't understand our emotion prior to Christ if you believe in sequential events?

 

[Scholastic]

I see where you're coming from but doesn't that still leave us with a God that didn't understand our emotion prior to Christ if you believe in sequential events?

And that is the awesome thing about Christ being the God man. It really doesn't matter when Christ came into play during time, because Christ is co eternal.

 

[godrulz]

So your God is no longer omniscient then.

God the Father does not experientially know what it is like to die on the cross. The Word/Son does experientially know this. The Father can empathize, but it is not part of His experience. He can identify and know, but not experientially. Impassibility/passibility (does God have emotions/feelings...He does if He is personal vs impersonal...He loves, can be grieved, heart breaks, delights/joy, etc.) is not directly related to omniscience.

 

[Scholastic]

God the Father does not experientially know what it is like to die on the cross. The Word/Son does experientially know this. The Father can empathize, but it is not part of His experience. He can identify and know, but not experientially. Impassibility/passibility (does God have emotions/feelings...He does if He is personal vs impersonal...He loves, can be grieved, heart breaks, delights/joy, etc.) is not directly related to omniscience.

Thus the reason i said:

A) God is immutable
B) God cannot experience emotion
C) These are some of the reasons Christ must exist.

 

[godrulz]

Strong immutability and impassibility are being refuted, even by traditional and classical theologians.

God must be absolutely immutable and impassible, because if he had the potential the change, than that means that something else would have to change him, meaning that he could be caused by something else. However, because he is eternal, then that means that nothing created him. He is without beginning nor end, ie Eternal, and therefore IMMUTABLE.



Malachai didn't state "i don't change for specific cases" Malachai said "I am the LORD, and i change NOT!"




or door number three: Your logic is flawed.

Malachi: Context is king. Other passages do say and show that God changes His mind, etc.

Change is a sign of perfection. Your logic has been refuted in philosophical circles. You are believing an old theory of a Greek philosopher (? Aristotle or Plato?). A clock is perfect more than 2x/day because it does change. God does not change in His perfect attributes, but His will, intellect, and emotions do change in response to contingencies.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/083082734X/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-8000661-8224818#readerpage

Click next page for contents (difficult book...I would not buy it if you want a simple explanation...he gets the point across that old views of impassibility/immutability are contrary to Scripture due to their pagan roots...see also http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/002-8000661-8224818?v=glance&s=books )

 

[justchristian]

God does not change in His perfect attributes, but His will, intellect, and emotions do change in response to contingencies.

So were there contingencies to respond to before he created anything?

 

[godrulz]

Oh heavens no, that is not at all what i meant. Allow me to explain it like this: God the father is that point A, that alpha and omega eternal point. Now, as i stated earlier, everything is predetermined from this eternal point A. Now, as time unfolded, certain things occur as according to the will of point A. Namely, the big point as Christ, which was the intermingling of godly nature and manly nature. Ie, it was the mixture of temporal and eternal. Thus why it was so special. While yes, there was a divine will, there was also manly compassion, love, etc etc. See?

The Father and Jesus Christ are both called the Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End, First and Last.

 

[Scholastic]

Malachi: Context is king. Other passages do say and show that God changes His mind, etc.

? I doubt Aquinas used KJV

Change is a sign of perfection.

Prove that. Aquinas already showed differently

Your logic has been refuted in philosophical circles. You are believing an old theory of a Greek philosopher (? Aristotle or Plato?). A clock is perfect more than 2x/day because it does change. God does not change in His perfect attributes, but His will, intellect, and emotions do change in response to contingencies.

Nowhere in the bible does God change. Any time "emotion" is portrayed is to be understood as an effect. love-salvation hatred-damnation anger-destruction. Ie, along those lines. The only time in which God truly knows emotion is via Christ. Here, you might speak of the part in which god "repents" and doesn't destroy the city. (i forget which book that is) That merely states that God spared the city. he didn't actually repent or feel sorrow.

Click next page for contents (difficult book...I would not buy it if you want a simple explanation...he gets the point across that old views of impassibility/immutability are contrary to Scripture due to their pagan roots...see also http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images )

A) you cannot state that something is wrong merely because of the source involved
B) Unless you can directly refute the logic (not the author), you must concede.

 

[Scholastic]

The Father and Jesus Christ are both called the Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End, First and Last.

that has absolutely no bearing on my statement. I already stated that Christ and God are co eternal.

 

[godrulz]

So were there contingencies to respond to before he created anything?

No, but God did change moment by moment in His thoughts, experiences, feelings within the fellowship of the triune Godhead. The Father could communicate with the Son sequentially before the physical universe was created just as much as after or while Christ prayed to the Father on earth. They still fellowship sequentially after the resurrection, do they not? Creation is irrelevant to their ongoing internal relations. Creation adds new contingencies and other free moral agents, so God's experience and knowledge is now different than it was before Genesis 1:1.

 

[godrulz]

? I doubt Aquinas used KJV



Prove that. Aquinas already showed differently



Nowhere in the bible does God change. Any time "emotion" is portrayed is to be understood as an effect. love-salvation hatred-damnation anger-destruction. Ie, along those lines. The only time in which God truly knows emotion is via Christ. Here, you might speak of the part in which god "repents" and doesn't destroy the city. (i forget which book that is) That merely states that God spared the city. he didn't actually repent or feel sorrow.




A) you cannot state that something is wrong merely because of the source involved
B) Unless you can directly refute the logic (not the author), you must concede.

Your refutation is out there. Why would I concede because I do not have the time, energy, interest, or expertise to take you and Aquinas on (fully) at the moment?

God said creation was 'very good' as He experienced joy and delight. After the Fall, He was NOW grieved that He made man. This was a change in His inner disposition and feelings. He purposed to wipe them out. Then, He implemented a plan of redemption, etc. The Holy Spirit was quenched and grieved, etc. (feelings).