We don't agree, certainly.
I'm with Clete on this one. You should have stopped here.
a series of posturing, then counter posturing.
Then allow me to move all the posturing you do in your very own post to here, so I don't have to deal with it later:
Its pure assertion. There is no 'flippant' in the observation. He made an audacious claim, you 'back him up.' These are facts.
While I realize you like Clete, there is no sense that I can enjoin meaningless posturing over
this issue. He just brings the calibur of conversation down to basal lowbrow levels. I really cannot do theology, the things I lvo
He is Open Theism's worst spokesman. All you are telling me is that he articulates what you like to hear. So what?
Realize this: Some TOLer's are ONLY nice to their own. Matthew 5:46 Luke 6:32-38.
AND THIS, is why I don't do Clete. He completely lacks grace or integrity in conversation. You certainly can entertain and love every word from his mouth. Many do. Problem: It shows either a lack of discernment, or a complete disregard for poor behavior. He's TOL oldschool and cannot change. "SMACK" is the moniker in his name. This is NOT listening to or espousing Knight's call to higher communication. "We" meant you and I and anybody who'se concern it is, to please God in his/her conversation. Not you? Frankly, I'm shocked. You are hanging out with this man way too much if this is the fruit. Don't do it. Be better. Do better. All of us.
A lot of us have him on ignore. I've no desire to discuss things with a man that degenerates very important conversations about God to basal flaming out. They aren't bold claims, its just history at this point.
This thread is serving just fine. Bring up points and I'll address them.
Your above assertion points that direction. As I've said, I don't think any of you intentionally mean this, but read your 'blasphemy' statement.
I cannot be accused of 'assertion' simply because of ignorance. I've been very careful with a couple of terms and the do indeed mean something. There is a learning curve and in my purview, you need to know them.
I normally love conversations with you, you sort of morphed hanging around him too long
A bit too strong but I do want you to realize how less than stellar his posts have been on TOL.
With links? Proofs? To date, its never happened. I've posted substantially in the summit clock and summit
clock two. What are you looking for, for proof? What level of math did you complete in school? Let's talk about it.
He's on ignore. I hope he does do his devotions and prays for those he disagrees, and blesses, not curses them. Most especially toward fellow believers whether they agree with him or not. When I said "it shows" it certainly does. Sorry. Grace comes by spending time with the Savior, daily. How are
yours doing? Me, I'm praying more afterwards, including for those on TOL who disagree.
To you? Agree. He loves his own. Matthew 5:46 Luke 6:32-38
He has a decidedly 'ill' effect on you, for instance:
It doesn't matter. We don't need to talk about him. I'm glad you love him and stick up for him. I've found I cannot do any meaningful discussion with him and mostly because he flames out and is ultimately immature. There is a pattern that I've seen over the years that just isn't worth time. Flaming out is usually the one who has lost the argument. I don't really want this to become the 'me and Clete' thread.
Long history, he ends up incapable and flaming out...every time. He cannot do it without namecalling, getting angry, doing nothing but assertion and re-assertion (I've actually posted links and verses). His recent discussion on a thread with WonderfulLordJesus, hasn't given me any inkling his character or level of debate abilty has changed an iota. Again, I'm glad you like him, and in this, he indeed has become a bit of 'guru-ish' in your esteem. I simply don't find him capable.
Agree. He is nearly always kind to fellow OT's.
Looks like you engage below, I can certainly rise to that occassion. I rather, was commenting on your attaboy post and his assertion about 'this man.' He talks behind my back. That's enough. At present, my ignore list is quirky anyway. I once tried to remove Clete to see what fires he'd started, but it doesn't work so for now, this part of the conversation doesn't have to be carried.
Hence my concern for his daily devotions, despite disagreeing that he won. Its a loss at that point, sight unseen.
You too, cannot assert your way through this. Some ideas/concepts are hard but to call it a non-answer? Judge, you have a good head on your shoulders, but this isn't what I'd expect.
You've been hanging around Clete too much. This is an undeliverable assertion. It is much too optimistic and overconfident.
Your thinking is thin here.
You asserted. That means 'hesaid/she said' as far as I'm familiar with the term. I'm simply trying to get past preliminaries of posturing. While they may be necessary, I find them of little use. Most of this thread doesn't deal with anything but posturing.
For example, there is a reason I'd not do this conversation with Clete, and for the obviously given reasons.
Not engaging. Nor worth my time either.
Only arrogance in ignorance would allow you to think so. This too is what Clete does. He only cares about 'whooping' my tail when Its plain, even in this post, that you are ignorant of some of the scriptures, argue for no good reason (You really aren't better than the Apostle Paul, and he said 'glass darkly). Worse? It's your 'reward.' There are and ever will be very few Open Theists on the planet. I see it as counter-intuitive, lacking in an understanding of biblical languages where translation becomes the point of debate, and prideful where there is lack.
What is it about Open Theists that they cannot see their own shortcomings in thread? You aren't whooping anybody's tail. Why is that more important than the person or being of the Lord Jesus Christ? I could give a care less about whipping your tail. I care if your walk with Christ is true. That's it. You don't even know a lot of the discussion that has taken place in theological circles regarding Open Theism. The arrogance should be a lot more humble at this point.
...
...
Now that THAT'S taken care of...
==================================================
First off I'd like to retract a claim I made earlier, that time is not a measurement. It is, to some extent, simply because the words we use to describe periods of time define the measurement.
What it is not, however, is a physical measurement, because time does not actually exist except as an idea, a concept that we use to describe duration.
With that out of the way...
Nope. We cannot actuate anything by declaration alone. Nor by consensus.
Then why, in much of your post, do you simply "actuate by declaration alone"?
Hypocrite.
You said he was incapable.
The thread is still here to read, though. So are many of his posts throughout the forum.
Oh, but, I guess if you stop your ears, there is no evidence contrary...
:think: Do you READ links?
I try to. But you clearly don't, and that's assuming you read everything I posted. I quoted a list from kgov.com/time, and... well, I'll address it down below.
I suppose if you stop your ears, there is no evidence contrary?
:think:
Time necessarily is a physical property
Saying it doesn't make it so, Lon.
What link?
No argument there.
With sound reasoning and logic and scripture.
Says more about you than me? AMR has scads of posts on privation. Do you know what the term means?
I do.
"Privation" means a 'lack.' Sin is a warping of all God is and does, a 'privation.'
You said, "everything is contained in God." (post #2)
Question:
Is the sinner contained in God?
Yes, but 'nothing' is also a concept. One doesn't lead to the other becoming a 'thing' if it is a 'nothing.' Rather the concept of the 'no thing' is a thing. Sin is the absence of all that is God, all that is good.
So, you either have God as the product, co-existing with something so it can contain sin, but not God,
God created the universe and everything in it. He didn't create "nothing."
or you have to grasp that Colossians 1:17 is correct.
Of course it's correct. The argument is that your woodenly literal understanding of it is incorrect. (Which is what I was trying to get at earlier.)
It isn't to say God 'created' sin, but that it was created in the Universe which exists in Him. Acts 17:28
Again, your woodenly literal interpretation is incorrect.
Sin wasn't created.
God created beings (man) who had the choice of rebelling against Him. Sin is rebellion against God, and RESULTS in a deprivation of God (from man's perspective. (This ties into the idea that death is separation, where spiritual death is separation of mans' spirit and God.)
Please discuss the scripture with me. I'm not asserting, I'm presenting ideas and proofs found in scripture. Read them and discuss them with me. This isn't an assertion, the two scriptures are proofs.
I'm trying to discuss scripture with you.
It's rather difficult.
I did. I ALSO read the verses surrounding it. You should too.
God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising.Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” - Acts 17:24-31
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV
It means that we were made in His image.
Panentheism takes this a step too far because advocates of it (such as yourself) take the above passage woodenly literally, when it, while true, is only referring to the fact that we are made in His image and His likeness.
Is it more comfortable for a person to believe God is at the mercy of sin and the universe?
Meaning, what, exactly?
God is angered when men sin, because He is good. That doesn't put him "at the mercy of sin."
I will follow scripture wherever it leads, regardless of the damage it does to 'my' sensibilities, theology.
Yet you constantly interpret scripture to fit your beliefs. Stop that.
You don't seem to grasp the difference between panentheism and pantheism.
I grasp it just fine, thank you very much.
You say something below that suggests the same.
You're reading that into what I said, then.
Similar to your statement here.
That's not a citation.
When he argued with Lamerson, he argued on the side of pantheism. For this, it'd be better to understand where we differ: Pantheism says God is everywhere (except where He doesn't want to be).
No, you seem to be confused: Pantheism is the belief that everything is God.
I thought you knew that. Now I know you do.
From Merriam-Webster:
Pantheism - a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
Open Theism is NOT and DOES NOT TEACH pantheism.
You said, and I quote:
Enyart often argues for a physical God, not spirit.
I asked you to cite two examples of Pastor Enyart doing so.
You then said (as shown above) that he did so, but didn't actually link to where in the debate with Lamerson (I'm assuming Samuel Lamerson, yes?) he did.
That's not citing, and even if it were, it would only be ONE example. I asked for two.
Would you care to try again?
Panentheism is an idea from Scriptures,
No, it's not, actually. You should know better what it is that you preach:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
The term panentheism was coined by a German philosopher who was trying to reconcile monotheism with pantheism, and the idea can be found in both Ancient Greek philosophy (there's those silly Greek philosophers again, creeping into Christianity), and even earlier, in Hindu philosophy.
Now you know.
like the one given above, that says 'nothing exists, that exists, without Him.'
The phrase simply refers to the fact that God created everything except Himself.
Remember too, that I've said sin isn't a thing, so your statement of 'blasphemy' isn't correct. You simply didn't listen to the one and the other for definitions. When one
is understood, the other is too. Sin isn't a 'thing' to be contained in God.
Again, I ask:
Are sinners contained in God?
This isn't the part where you should say "See? He doesn't respond!" Rather, I can do so,
Then why don't you?
BUT it wasn't an accusation. It was an observation.
... framed as an accusation against him.
Substantiate your claims, observation or otherwise.
If I need to travel down this road, I can, BUT I've lost my links from old TOL to new TOL and this would be a lot of work. Needful? Let me know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology.
Thank you.
For the sake of the discussion, would you please reiterate your argument regarding it?
"It is as true to say that God is permanent and the World fluent, as that the World is permanent and God is fluent"
I have no idea what the context is of that statement.
:up: Yes it is.
Read outside of your own theology circles. These are not novel statements and I'm not the one making the assertion. I'm the one reporting the assertion.
You're the one making the argument, thus the onus is on you to substantiate it, regardless of whom the assertion originally comes from.
See here, he's fair and very clear and sourced in his presentation. It isn't biased or assertion.
https://bible.org/article/examination-open-theism
Like I'm pulling it out of my hat? See here. I'm not making stuff up.
https://reknew.org/2019/03/process-t...he-difference/ This one is a little short. If you read the wiki
article above on Process Theology, there are a number of shared statements, meaning the proximatey is there, substantiated. Sanders has been in discussion with both Mormons and Process theologians, as an Open Theology representative, etc.
You said I know you.
I said no, I don't.
What are you confused about?
I know that there is a user on TOL named Lon, and I know how he posts and to some extent what he believes, but I don't know the user himself.
Absolutely. I wasn't lamenting such. I was simply saying that a disagreement on this thread is hardly noticeable. Shoot ▲ I didn't realize I was even this invisible ▲ to you!
The only thing really worth talking about, is whether time is an absolute or a product of creation. The rest will not stand the 'test of time.' It's just aside notes toward that discussion. A lot of this is lost in detail.
Without 1 scripture? Pure assertions.
Here is the portion I was referring to near the beginning of this post.
Did you even bother to read through the entire list? You certainly didn't read the whole thing, because, right there at the very end of the list there is a parenthetical, with the words "references here", and the word "here" is a link to a page that contains ALL OF THE VERSES that are used to support open theism, and specifically it links to the section titled "God exists in time" with all of the supporting verses below it, and in fact sections 2 (the one linked to), 3, 4, 7, and for the most part the entire list of the 33 categories of scriptures on that page describe a God that is NOT outside of time.
I can and have given many verses. Genesis 1:5 "first" day. Greek? :nono:
Are you asserting that time began in verse five? Even if you aren't, God created the universe BEFORE the end of the first day, and DURING His existence. That's sequence, not timelessness.
God had never created before. Then He had a new idea, to create something new, because He could. Then He planned the creation. Then He started creating, and He began by creating the heavens and the earth.
That's sequence. Not an "eternal now."
It was more of a nod to Clete at that point, lost in details. Let's move on.
That's like saying "an 'inch' isn't a measurement, rulers or tape measures are." The instrument simply gives further meaning to the contrivance.
Behind the eightball on what's going on outside of one's own fellowship, these are given in physics classes and I assume a good many open theists just don't take these higher math classes with these kinds of assertions?
One doesn't need to take a physics class to understand that time is not physical and cannot be physical if God created the universe.
I linked this: Time is a measurement of physical properties.
Did you intend for that to be a link? Because it's not a link...
It is/was not. It was trying to get you to think and grasp something.
You said:
As if that were along the lines of the argument I was making.
I'll say again: time is a physical measurement.
HItchens's razor applies here:
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
You cannot rewrite textbooks on this subject.
I'm not trying to rewrite the textbooks. That would be like trying to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I'm saying (so is Clete, Bob, Mullins, and others) that the textbooks are WRONG and need to be discarded, and new ones written.
Time is a physical property.
Repeatedly asserting your position does not magically make it so.
Regarding my comment:
Allow me to crush your entire argument then:
I had meant to come back and change "argument" to "premise."
Your statement was:
If God moved, something is 'bigger' than Him and He is no longer God, but the product of another eternal.
Your premise is that God cannot move, and the above is your reasoning.
I then quoted only the second verse in the Bible to destroy that premise, which shows him moving.
It is not Greek that influences my understanding,
Perhaps not, but it certainly influenced the source of your understanding, such as your education and who taught you, what you learned from.
Usually when people say they got their understanding from God Himself, it's because they are trying to establish themselves as having the correct understanding where everyone else is wrong by default.
That won't work here, especially not with me.
Has nothing to do with what you're saying.
See above.
The 'movement' you are seeing is within Himself AND not physical.
Well, no, it IS physical.
He was literally above the waters, moving over them.
As was stated REPEATEDLY throughout the flat earth threads from a while back, movement has no meaning except in relation to something else.
Did He 'hover' in some form over the waters?
That's literally what the verse says.
I, for one, am not going to disagree with it.
How thin or profound is your thinking here? Whatever the scriptures mean, the do NOT mean that God was somehow eternally part of the universe,
Straw man.
I never claimed that He was. In fact, quite the opposite.
it means that the universe and all that is therein, are found in the being of God.
Now you've gone off topic.
Try to stay focused:
We're talking about God moving over the waters of the earth, the face of the deep.
Your 'philosophy' here may be inspired by the bible, but it is also a part of Eastern Mysticism called 'pantheism.'
No, Lon, that's false, and a straw man.
Again, Pantheism is the belief that EVERYTHING is equivalent to God.
That is NOT what Open Theism asserts, nor is it what I believe.
When you asked above whether Bob Enyart has ever said anything, asking for examples, this is one of them.
Supra.
Fair enough. What 'unseen' then is what the universe was made of? God, who is Spirit? :think:
No, out of nothing.
Nothing means just that. No thing.
You answered your own question earlier: ex nihilo.
John 4:24 Colossians 1:17 I probably sustain your objection, but to what point?
No, we really have to get this: As far back as you can think or imagine, "God's past is still going." There is no end to it.
I'm not in disagreement. I'm saying that "present" fits better in regards to the argument you made.
You're the one who says God doesn't have a past (by saying He is outside of time, is timeless, is in an eternal now), remember?
Eternal, by definition, is already beyond the grasp of time.
Uh, no it's not, Lon.
Eternal by definition means ENDLESS time.
See? Not beyond the grasp of time.
In other words, it can be some property of God, as is beauty, but time certainly, by inference, logic, mathematics and physics, as well as by scriptural givens; is not a sufficient or adequate descriptor when applied to God.
So you're saying God is not eternal?
Or does "it" refer to time? or, if not, what does "it" refer to?
Another indication that you didn't actually read what I excerpted from kgov.com/time.
Here it is again:
| is - and was - and is to come - whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting - forever and ever - the Ancient of Days - from before the ages of the ages - from ancient times - the everlasting God - He continues forever - from of old - remains forever - eternal - immortal - the Lord shall endure forever - Who lives forever - yesterday, today, and forever - God's years are without number - manifest in His own time - everlasting Father - alive forevermore - always lives - forever - continually - the eternal God - God’s years never end - from everlasting to everlasting - from that time forward, even forever - and of His kingdom there will be no end. (references here) |
I truly appreciate this. I disagree that time applies to spirit, but if the rest of what he says is true, in what sense could a clock be accurate? I'm not understanding the Clock Summit experiment, if time is solvent as the above suggests.
Emphasis. It is an acceptable usage, but I realize few use it. Also, I'm still learning the new TOL format. It isn't that it is hard, just that old habits I've grown used to over years on TOL die hard. Thanks for a bit of grace.
One is an assumption of the other so this isn't a proof. Rather, if 'time' is created, logically there is no need to understand it
Again, in order to assert that time was created, you have to throw logic out the window, which you seem to have already done, because...:
| Time is a Prerequisite of Creation: Many have been told that time was created by God, and that it is not an aspect of His existence. Please consider though that time cannot be created. Why not? Because creation means going from non-existence to existence, which itself is a sequence, a before and after. And any before and after sequence requires time. Time therefore is a precondition of creating. Thus time itself cannot be created. Scripture describes God's creation of matter and space, light and life, but not of time. And even the secular BBC begins their Before the Big Bang program acknowledging that the notion of time coming into existence, "may be a logical contradiction." The scientific fad, with its ubiquitous acceptance, of claiming that time came into existence with the big bang, could effortlessly disappear if not needed by the next fad, the multiverse. For although the statement that "time came into existence" launched a million words in its defense, men have no way of even thinking about the notion. Why not? Because it is meaningless. (Similarly, men have no way of even thinking about the evolutionary notion of how a merely physical system could give rise to a biological information system, let alone, achieve consciousness. So in the alleged materialist evolution of information, and of consciousness, and in the claim that time came into existence, meaninglessness reveals itself through this inability even to think about such things.) If God indeed were atemporal and could experience no sequence and hence, no change, He could never decide to create time, nor could He ever move from a decision to the actual act of creating time. If such an irrationality were plausible, God would have had to always have created time, and all of creation, from eternity past. Yet this is all gibberish. Further, because time does exist, even if that time had been created, an atemporal deity who experiences no succession and no change in His knowledge could therefore only know Himself as co-existing with time. Thus for theologians to say that God exists apart from time would be positing something of Him that He Himself could not know. Instead, the simple truth is that a timeless deity could not create time and does not exist. |
other than as it pertains to created things. It is rather an Open paradigm, that in order to hold an "Open" God, God must be 'temporal.' Think about that. It is counter intuitive to the proof.
No, Lon, it's not.
Time doesn't exist except as a convention of language used to convey information about the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. As Clete pointed out (which obviously you will never see), time cannot be created any more than numbers and the concepts of length, distance, and volume.
It shows that time is difficult to pin down,
Uh, no, it's not.
Time is the convention of language used to convey information about the duration and sequence of events relative to other events.
See? Easy.
but generally, time means 'duration' thus change is necessary for it to be observed. "A watched pot never boils," It does, but what the author was saying is that time begins to have no meaning when compared to something where progression is needed. Time 'seems' to slow down and not be much help during the process. Time is simply the observation of movement/change,
Supra.
especially when reading Enyart's quote above.
Which is... what?
It is not absolute, it is tied to our physical understanding of things.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Yes, but think with me for a second (pun?), it is 'before' and thus adds to my idea of time 'beginning.'
| . . . creation means going from non-existence to existence, which itself is a sequence, a before and after. And any before and after sequence requires time. Time therefore is a precondition of creating. Thus time itself cannot be created. |
As far as I understand time, it cannot apply to God.
Then your understanding is extremely limited.
Time means temporal, and temporal means specifically "pertaining to the physical world."
Your premise is wrong, and thus your conclusion is wrong.
Time DOES NOT EXIST as an ontological thing. It is simply the convention of language used to convey information about the duration and sequence of events relative to other events.
Such as...
Before the foundation of the earth.
Before the world was.
If the term means something different, given above, then the disagreement becomes more of definitions.
No it means 'exist' in the text. Existed (γενέσθαι) vs. (εἰμί) 'am.'
So the verse says:
"before the world exist"?
"before the world am"?
Because I have two different renderings, one of them says "existed," and the other says "was."
and
And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. - John 17:5
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...5&version=NKJV
"Einai" is the word used, a form of "eimi" (sorry for the romanized greek, I'm too lazy to switch to my greek keyboard on my phone).
In the context, I'm pretty sure that the intended message is that Christ existed BEFORE the world was created.
Don't miss the forest for the trees, Lon.
The Lord Jesus made a timeless statement
No, that's you reading your beliefs into the text.
Jesus is, quite literally, saying that prior to creating the world, He existed.
but we likely don't agree on the definition of time, so meaning is going to be rough between us.
Time is the convention of language used to convey information about the duration and sequence of events relative to other events.
That's the definition I'm using.
True, but I gave you Merriam Webster's definition and it says so.
No, Lon, you didn't.
I provided a link prior and it says so.
Even if you did, an argument from definition is only as valid as the definition.
The definition is WRONG and therefore the argument is wrong.
Because I've shown so. The thread is still here for all to read, Lon.
Hebrews 11:3 specifically says that the world came from a nonphysical origin.
So what?
Time, as I've provided in definition, says that temporal things (where time applies) are physical things.
Again: An argument from definition is only as valid as the definition. The definition is wrong, therefore so is the argument.
There is no way to talk about a 'before' with a God who has none.
Question begging.
God has a past:
https://opentheism.org/verses#time
As you rightly said, 'before' is also a temporal term about time. So, how does God explain a time 'before' time?
That's the entire argument we've been making, Lon!
THERE CANNOT BE A "BEFORE TIME" BECAUSE IT IS IRRATIONAL!
I believe with 'before.' It doesn't mean He was caught in time, but in time very different than we grasp the concept.
You should have stopped with "I believe."
Your beliefs do not define reality, Lon, nor do they mirror them.
Reality is that God has always (a time word) existed, and then at some point during (another time word) His existence, He decided to do something new (a sequence, but definitely not the first), to create a universe. And then He planned out His creation, and then once He was finished with that, He started creating, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
For the most part, the term is attached to this physical universe
This is question begging.
and always was, in dictionaries, encyclopedias, physics, and however expressed in the Bible.
This is an appeal to tradition.
This is completely from your own context somewhere from left field. "Again?" "Figure of speech?" I see neither true from me OR the text. Where did either come from? What is driving you to even remotely think this was a 'figure of speech?' :idunno:
Allow me to rephrase what I said, as I mentioned before:
The verses you use to support your position, you are taking them woodenly literally. Yes, they are literally true. But you take that too far.
15 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.
Yowch. We both have to stand before Him upon what He says. Obviously I'm seeing literal here.
You're seeing literal and taking it woodenly literally.
Psalm 139:7Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
10 even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.
11 If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me
and the light become night around me,”
12 even the darkness will not be dark to you;
the night will shine like the day,
for darkness is as light to you.
Which does not at all say that God MUST ALWAYS be in those places.
If anything, all it says is that God is with those who trust in him...
Figurative? At LEAST you can see it isn't Greek pagan. It's an strawman, always has been. God knows the number of hairs on your head.
He didn't know how many there were before I existed.
It doesn't logically stand to reason, against an Open Theology assertion, that He has to count them.
The explanation is that God can instantly know anything and everything about what He is interested in knowing.
Or is that another scripture I'm not supposed to take literally? How many of these are there going to be in Open Theism?
Supra.
When do you realize it isn't a Greek that influenced me,
Most of what you have said so far has roots in Greek philosophy.
but the very scriptures you are talking about? How well do Open Theists actually know these? :think:
Quite well.
Scripture? Or a philosophical (cough...'Greek')reasoning?
I've explained myself. I stated further, we are ALL in the dark to some degree. You say 'no' later. You are wrong. I really do think you've been hanging out with the wrong crowd. Don't let 'Open Theism' become your god. What level of math and physics have you completed?
Incorrect. Sanctity means 'set apart.'
And now you've moved the goalposts.
YOU SAID:
| God as holy, means He is apart from His creation |
So I quoted, verbatim, the definition of holy from Merriam-Webster.
Further? Why would you want to argue this point? Are you arguing just to argue at this point?
:think:
Here's an idea, don't make things up.
You're the one who moved the goalposts to "sanctity."
Oh come, let us sing to the Lord! Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation.Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving;
Let us shout joyfully to Him with psalms.For the Lord is the great God, And the great King above all gods.In His hand are the deep
places of the earth; The heights of the hills are His also.The sea is His, for He made it; And His hands formed the dry land.Oh come,
let us worship and bow down; Let us kneel before the Lord our Maker.For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture, And the
sheep of His hand. Today, if you will hear His voice:“Do not harden your hearts, as in the rebellion, As in the day of trial in the
wilderness,When your fathers tested Me; They tried Me, though they saw My work.For forty years I was grieved with that generation, And
said, ‘It is a people who go astray in their hearts, And they do not know My ways.’So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My
rest.’ ” - Psalm 95:1-11
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...p;version=NKJV
By the way, this is another passage where God clearly describes Himself in time, specifically having to endure through 40 years of Israel's complaints and whinings before they entered Canaan.
Yowch again. What else are we going ot relegate to 'not literal' so we don't have to observe them?
Supra.
Further, how can we possibly discuss things when about all of them, you can CLEARLY see, are NOT in fact Greek, but scriptures. We are just disagreeing on which are figurative. While His 'hands' are figurative, it is yet true, not in fact figurative.
Something being true doesn't necessarily imply that it is literal.
He is the Author of all physical life. To not think so? A God who isn't what scripture says He is. No amount of attempted relegation to Greek philosophy will stand. It cannot. Clearly, without controversy, what I believe is what I take literally in scripture. Literally, you cannot do any one thing without the sustaining power of Christ. COlossians 1:17. It is as clear as day and we radically disagree. It says what it says.
It 'seems' because of an arbitrary relegation of the scriptures to 'figurative.' Rather, taken at face value, these scriptures are clear, I believe and so support what I'm trying to get across. Literal sheep? No. Literally made everything and creation held with 'in?' Yes. You can't wave any Open Theism wand. That is what doesn't work.
It is, for me, a mindless mantra. How could God not be with a child?
Once again, you're missing the point, and shifting the goalposts.
Of course God is with the child. But that doesn't mean He is in everything.
You're the one who said that God is in everything.
I was showing that God is not in everything.
The mindless mantra is, as you have demonstrated, "God is in everything."
Some of the worst times of my life I suffered as a child. Where was God? Right there. Yes. He was right there with me. Your 'sensibilities' (and other's) are getting in the way of proper theology.
Supra.
Rather borderline 'troublesome to my theology.' It doesn't matter if our concepts of God trouble us. I was greatly troubled by 'hate your mother and father or you are not worthy of me.'
That's because it's a Hebrew idiom, not to be taken woodenly literally, as you seem to imply that you learned to take it as.
It simply means that you should love God so much that it's AS IF you hated your mother and father.
Otherwise, why would God say something contradictory to what He Himself wrote on the two tablets of stone?
It was a hard truth. Many people rejected the Lord because what He said was hard. He wasn't trying to repel people, but give truth.
And you missed it entirely.
He confounds the wisdom of men, JR.
And?
The wisdom of men isn't very wise to begin with.
God is wise beyond measure.
That doesn't mean he confuses men, but that he shows how illogical man's reasoning can be.
In other words, this is a similar idiom to love and hate.
God's wisdom is so far greater than man's that it's as if man's wisdom were foolishness.
The point was that God is not always going to measure 'up' to what you think is sensible.
The same applies to you.
Theology isn't about sensibilities (Of course God was with me through atrocity), it is about truth and often that truth challenges our own rendition of it.
And?
It has everything to do with it. We have a strong disagreement over our view of God. The point here is that you and I are at HIS mercies for getting this right. At this point, I strongly believe you and a few other Open Theists are getting it wrong.
Good thing that's just your opinion, then.
Incorrect. 1 Corinthians 13:12 "We see through a glass darkly."
Which is a general statement about our understanding as a whole of who God is.
That DOES NOT MEAN, however, that we can't know what He has Himself defined for us in Scripture.
And this is from a better thinker either of us, or the wise men of our respective camps
Then why do you assert yourself as having such a clear understanding about that which is irrational?
(means you are wrong and just arguing now, sorry).
Saying it doesn't make it so, Lon.
I've read it my whole life and we disagree. Interesting, though 1 Corinthians 13:12 I took note of, and you seem to have either overlooked it or relegated it to a 'figure of speech'
Why this posturing?
It's not a figure of speech?
Please explain how Paul is saying there is a literal dim mirror that we see things through with our eyes.
Which, to me, illustrates that you 'do' believe you own it. You should have been very careful after 'but' because it was about to undo what you were going to assert, and it did. Lets read the scriptures: 1 Corinthians 13:12 "glass darkly."
Are you asserting that God cannot be reasoned with?
“Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord, “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool. - Isaiah 1:18
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...8&version=NKJV
Are you asserting that God is not the source of reason?
You do quantum physics then?
I'm a truck driver. What do you think?
:think: Disagreement with Einstein's theories?
Einstein was brilliant, but he wasn't perfect, and he rejected God's existence.
I've not seen any Open Theist to date carry on quantum physics discussions.
A lot of it is over my head. What I do know is that most of the scientific field is off simply because most of the ones doing the research reject God's existence.
Yet, Paul, when touting them,
Fix your formatting, and I'll come back to the part that didn't get quoted in this post.
Some doctrines in error are built off of poor understanding of English translation.
Other errors are due to poor translations.
For example:
Bad Translations: "Before time began" (2 Tim. 1:9 & Titus 1:2) is widely quoted yet in the Greek text of the New Testament there is no verb "began" in the original language. And the singular word "time" does not appear. Instead, Paul wrote, "before the times of the ages," which is very different from the way many of our Bible versions render this phrase, which translations do not flow from the grammar but from the translators' commitment to Greek philosophy.
- "Time shall be no more" (Rev. 10:6; hymns) is corrected even by Calvinist translators in virtually all modern versions as is also made overtly clear from the text and the context, "There will be no more delay!"
- "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" at Revelation 13:8 can be corrected (as at the NIV footnote) by cross-referencing the passage with Revelation 17:8. For the Bible teaches that "only those written in the Lamb's Book of Life" (Rev. 21:27) shall be saved, and that God could save Old Testament believers because He looked forward to the cross, and He can save believers now because He looks backward to the cross. So in the Old Testament God looked forward and in the last two millennia He looks backward to that wonderful and yet terrible time. However, if Christ had been slain previously, before the foundation of the world, then there would have been no need for the righteous dead to wait in Abraham's Bosom "until the death of the one who is high priest in those days" (symbolizing Christ). The parallel passage at Revelation 17:8 shows that the qualifier does not apply to the slaying of Christ but to the wicked, "whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world." This means that these evil men were not believers who had fallen away, but that their names were NEVER written in the book. (See a similar construct in Jeremiah 2:32.) Revelation 13:8 can even be seen as giving the title and sub-title of The Book of Life – Of the Lamb Slain. |
kgov.com/time
He isn't the product of His universe,
I have NEVER made this argument.
it is His. You relegate the scripture to not being literal
No, I don't.
Quotes aren't scriptures,
Where have I ever implied that they were?
I didn't say God was illogical.
Your entire argument implies that He is.
That's for sure.
==================================================
I may come back and finish this, but it's extremely long, so I may just leave it at that. I have other things to do, and other posts to reply to.
