Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 98

Thread: Open Theism: Part X

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    I think the most fundamental objection is that God's existence doesn't depend on the existence of anything else and he isn't predated by anything else. He is ontologically prior to anything and everything else. He's the bottom line of everything.

    With Open Theism God's existence depends on time since he is confined within its flow and basically has to wait for it to pass to be sure about what will happen in the future. Time becomes ontologically prior to God. In my mind that makes Time as an entity a bigger and more fundamental god than God, which makes no sense. Time doesn't do much except go through its motion but it becomes the main "boss" that everyone else has to obey.
    That whole discussion on the TIME aspects of God is difficult for me to wade through - still trying though :)
    I still scratch my head on what is meant by oft-heard "God is outside of time."

    This is JDs speculation (so don't call me a heretic :) - what if God follows a moment-by-moment protocol in time. That is, he sets things in motion (even knows the possibilities). But he let's them happen in Real Time. As things develop not to his hope, he then has a way to make his purposes accomplished.

    For example, God chose Saul to be King, but he blew it. THEN God chose David, who did follow through effectively. If "God was operating as we would if we were God", we would likely say, "Well I see that Saul is not going to work out, so I won't even waste the time to make him king, but will cut directly to David."

  2. #12
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan david View Post
    I remember as a young Christian the "required" reading was Knowing God, by JI Packer (The title should have more accurately been Knowing About God). But the point was he described the multitude of God's "Omni's". It made sense, it was simple, it had supporting scriptures, and thereby most saw it as the complete truth.

    Then you start to read the Bible on your own and you start to notice that the JI Packer model doesn't quite jive with a lot of what you are reading, and there is more to the story. The "conventional wisdom" doesn't appear to cover, or that seems to provides inadequate answers for. Call it a more complex and nuanced level of understanding, that you are realizing can be a valid alternative or modified understanding of God and how he works.

    We see cases where God changes his mind, regrets things he has done, or allows himself to be bargained with. The Classical Theology response of these things being"anthropomorphisms" just doesn't cut it as the right biblical answer. OT presents some possibilities with some biblical support, that other ways of seeing God's purpose and operation are reasonably possible and not necessarily heretical.
    Your post seems to pit Open Theism against Calvinism just like the article at the link does. Arminian theology doesn't see the mentioned things as anthropomorphisms, rather it sees it as God choosing to interact with man whom he gave free will, within the flow of time. He could have decided to affect everything from outside time until the final result (history throughout time) became as he wished or as close to what he wished as possible. That would have made him a manipulator rather than an interacter and he would have had no communion with us. The gospel starts with the fact that God decided to interact fully with us in the form of the man Jesus confined within the flow of time. That does not imply that God cannot do anything else, just that he does that too.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan david View Post
    That whole discussion on the TIME aspects of God is difficult for me to wade through - still trying though :)
    I still scratch my head on what is meant by oft-heard "God is outside of time."

    This is JDs speculation (so don't call me a heretic :) - what if God follows a moment-by-moment protocol in time. That is, he sets things in motion (even knows the possibilities). But he let's them happen in Real Time. As things develop not to his hope, he then has a way to make his purposes accomplished.

    For example, God chose Saul to be King, but he blew it. THEN God chose David, who did follow through effectively. If "God was operating as we would if we were God", we would likely say, "Well I see that Saul is not going to work out, so I won't even waste the time to make him king, but will cut directly to David."
    Which depends on which ? Does God exist within and depending on time or does time exist within and depending on God ? Science sees and is able to demonstrate that time is simply an aspect of the Universe just like the three axises of space are, why should we go with the idea that time is more fundamental than space, meaning that God created space but not time ? Because it's easier for our minds to grasp ? Does perceived ease give us the right to demand that God should be confined to a simpler model ?

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    Which depends on which ? Does God exist within and depending on time or does time exist within and depending on God ? Science sees and is able to demonstrate that time is simply an aspect of the Universe just like the three axises of space are, why should we go with the idea that time is more fundamental than space, meaning that God created space but not time ? Because it's easier for our minds to grasp ? Does perceived ease give us the right to demand that God should be confined to a simpler model ?
    Like I said before, we all are looking for the "best fit" biblically sound model, explaining God and his purposes and operatives. We draw on alot of areas to formulate this (even science can be helpful). But it is God himself who we need to "know" although our understanding may fall short.

    What are your answers to the questions above?

  5. #15
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    God who is not a man became a man so that he could fully interact with us and thereby save us. He is both, per the incarnation. Since he showed himself able to become and function fully as a man, he also showed himself able to relate to us in a humanlike way already in the Old Testament. It was not make believe, it was real already then. He isn't only a man however so the question then is how far he extends away from what fits a man and within the mind of a man. How un-humanlike is it possible to render him ? Acts 17 gives us an answer to that in that it says that in Him we all live and move and have our being. How un-humanlike is that ? Are we all situated somewhere in God's belly ? I think not. He is simply very different to us in many ways even though he is very like us in many ways. He created us in his own image but that doesn't mean that we are exactly like him nor that he is exactly like us.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    I'll answer my own questions then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    Which depends on which ? Does God exist within and depending on time or does time exist within and depending on God ?
    Of course it is the latter. How did time manage to exist all by itself before God was then placed fully within it ? If time exists all by itself then why not the entire Universe ? This "time exists independently of God" thinking actually gives atheists a reason to dismiss belief in God entirely. It soothes the mind of the atheist and the Open Theist alike but that doesn't mean that it amounts to the truth.

    Science sees and is able to demonstrate that time is simply an aspect of the Universe just like the three axises of space are, why should we go with the idea that time is more fundamental than space, meaning that God created space but not time ? Because it's easier for our minds to grasp ? Does perceived ease give us the right to demand that God should be confined to a simpler model ?
    If God is all powerful and all knowing then his IQ is also infinite. It doesn't take much humility to admit that one's sub-300 IQ falls way short of God's IQ. So even if my IQ is insufficient to enable me to grasp God and his doings fully it doesn't mean that God cannot figure out himself nor that God cannot be more complicated than what I can understand. There are many things about God that can be grasped by a mind that falls within the normal range of ability, meaning minds that are the way that God intended them to be. Which includes most of us. But surely not all things about God. The Holy Spirit searches all things including the depths of God but he relates them to our hearts foremostly rather than to our minds. We cannot demand that full revelation and understanding of God would fit within our minds as such. We have to rely on heart knowledge anyway or we become people that Paul calls psychicos (soulish) rather than spiritual, in 1 Cor 1-2.
    I don't personally find the concept of God being situated outside time difficult to grasp in my mind and how foreknowledge comes about without predestination is quite graspable too, though difficult and I don't pretend to understand it fully. I have talked to many people who feel the same way. And even if noone was able to grasp how that works to any useful degree it still doesn't mean that God should be confined to what at least one of us can comfortably fit within his mind. God is simply greater than all of us and we will have to live with that fact.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan david View Post
    For example, God chose Saul to be King, but he blew it. THEN God chose David, who did follow through effectively. If "God was operating as we would if we were God", we would likely say, "Well I see that Saul is not going to work out, so I won't even waste the time to make him king, but will cut directly to David."
    The reason why God chose Saul was that he was the kind of king that the Israelites wanted. He was handsome and unusually tall and he was able to rally all the people to himself. God had already told the Israelites through Samuel that the reason why they wanted a king to begin with was that they didn't want God to be king over them as he had been through Moses, Joshua and the various judges up until Samuel. So chosing any king was not God's intention anyway. Did he have to chose a king that he knew would do the best job ? Not necessarily. He did give Saul a chance of being that king, he didn't make that task impossible for him. Saul chose otherwise and that was his own doing. Maybe Saul's failure paved the way for the less impressive David who eventually grew into a king who was both liked by the people and who followed God with all his heart, at least most of the time. How does God reason through all of this ? We don't know and we cannot know because we don't have all the information that he has. We can try to understand him based on his revealed character however. Again, he is not a grand manipulator who only seeks the best possible result regardless, he seeks communion with us and rewards those who do commune with him.

  8. #18
    Administrator fuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    16,271
    Thanked: 14129
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan david View Post
    I remember as a young Christian the "required" reading was Knowing God, by JI Packer (The title should have more accurately been Knowing About God). But the point was he described the multitude of God's "Omni's". It made sense, it was simple, it had supporting scriptures, and thereby most saw it as the complete truth.

    Then you start to read the Bible on your own and you start to notice that the JI Packer model doesn't quite jive with a lot of what you are reading, and there is more to the story. The "conventional wisdom" doesn't appear to cover, or that seems to provides inadequate answers for. You realize that a more complex and nuanced level of understanding is in order, that can be a valid alternative or modified view of God and how he works.

    We see cases where God changes his mind, regrets things he has done, or allows himself to be bargained with. The Classical Theology response of these things being"anthropomorphisms" just doesn't cut it as the right biblical answer. OT presents some possibilities with some biblical support, that other ways of seeing God's purpose and operation are reasonably possible and not necessarily heretical.
    Exactly. Good post.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by fuego View Post
    Exactly. Good post.
    As a non-American from a country where Calvinism practically doesn't exist and hasn't since the early days of the Reformation, it has always amazed me to which degree Calvinism has a place and influence in American Christianity. Not only in terms of how many Calvinists there are in all kinds of camps there but also in terms of how difficult many Americans find it to think outside the lines of "Calvinism or not". Some Americans struggle with Calvinism in ways that I find difficult to understand, at least I did originally, and some end up distancing themselves from Calvinism in ways that I find strange. Open Theism fits the latter scenario very well. In ways it seems like upsidedown Calvinism and in ways it seems like a modified version of Calvinism even though it ends up looking very different. The internal mechanism isn't necessarily that different. To this day I have never in my entire life met or even heard of an ethnic Norwegian Calvinist. There are OSASers here but they freak out if I try to connect their beliefs to Calvinism in any way. 99% of my experiences with Calvinists involves Americans, the remainder would be from traditional Calvinist bastions like Holland or South Africa.

  10. #20
    Administrator fuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    16,271
    Thanked: 14129
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    There are OSASers here but they freak out if I try to connect their beliefs to Calvinism in any way.
    Yep. They don't understand that OSAS comes from Calvinism and the the logical conclusion of it. It's illogical to be OSAS but also 'free will' IMO. The logical conclusion of 'free will' is just the opposite of OSAS.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Has your Subaru Impreza warranty expired? Get a fast online quote from CarWarrantyUS today. Enjoy the open road and leave the repairs to us.