 |
| 
Josh Nadal
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 10/14/2003 7:08 AM (GMT -6) |   | I read Boyd's book God of the Possible last year, and have recently embarked on an in depth discussion of it with some Calvinist and Arminian friends on another board. While I feel I have been very successful in my propagation of the open view position in general, there is one argument that I have not been able to fully satisfy even myself on. Namely, there are significant verses in the Bible that seem to imply and even require that God exist above time and sequence. I say this fully aware of and in agreement with the various general and specific arguments against God being static and timeless. But Boyd never discussed the particular verses in question.
To see the thread on the open view I referred to go here: homeschooldebate.com/phorum/viewtopic.php?t=3506. The arguments concerning God being timeless don't really begin until about halfway down the second page.
The specific verses I am having difficulty with are John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14. In John 8:58, Jesus says, "before Abraham was, I am." One of my opponents argued, "He is declaring that he exists at once before Abraham existed and in front of the Jews. He is affirming the eternity of his existence. At the same time, refer back to God's original declaration." By this he is referencing Exodus 3:14 in which God says to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." After doing a little research into the meaning of God's name, I found that it contains all forms of the verb "to be"--i.e. "I was," "I am," and "I will be", all at the same time. I definately believe in the validity of the open view, but that doesn't negate the fact this presents a serious problem for the open view. If you would like to read my attempt at a response, just use the find tool and search for "greatest" on the second page of the thread.
I would be greatly interested in other people's take on these verses, particularly Dr. Boyd's, if that isn't too presumptuous. Thanks! | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 10/14/2003 7:46 AM (GMT -6) | | If God is "timeless" (a worthless concept), then "eternal", "eternity", "everlasting" are meaningless and it's incoherent that scripture would use these words about Him.
Jesus existed before Abraham, that's all it means.
quote:
"I was," "I am," and "I will be", all at the same time.
I suspect you got that from an extra-biblical source, neh?
I was is tense language.
I am is tense language.
I will be is tense language.
They mean the same to Him as they do to us. We're made in His image, right? In a way He can communicate with us, right? Is there any compelling reason to NOT take Him at His word when He uses tense language? Some pagan greek thought they're trying to shoe-horn into scripture?
If I was alone without creation exists at the same moment as I am experiencing creation which exists at the same moment as I will destroy creation, then He's contradicted Himself.
You can't have God and NO creation simultaneous with God and a creation, that's a logical contradiction.
A AND !A
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Josh Nadal
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 10/14/2003 8:07 AM (GMT -6) | | I suspect you got that from an extra-biblical source, neh? - Laika
Of course. But that does not automatically discredit it. What does the tetragrammaton YHWH mean? I have considered the idea that due to our lack of any solid knowledge on the subject we should reject the above meaning, but that seems like a cop-out. I believe there is an explanation that brings it into harmony with the open view, I am just not sure what that is.
You said that all it means is that "Jesus existed before Abraham". However, if that was the case Jesus should have used the past tense and said, "before Abraham was, I was." But he didn't. He used the present tense: "before Abraham was, I am." (emphasis added) My initial reaction to the argument was to write it off, much like you did, by saying he was just claiming to be God. After further consideration though, that just doesn't seem to be sufficient. You must admit that a straightforward reading of the text supports the idea that Jesus existed simultaneously in front of the Jews and before Abraham.
As for your various other points, I agree completely. Revelation 1:8 in particular lends considerable credence to God experiencing sequence. But such arguments, while they can help us believe an explanation exists, do not directly reconcile these verses with the open view. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Ochuk
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 102
| Posted 10/14/2003 8:44 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/14/2003 9:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Forgive the small-case "shouting," please.
I think that examining God with the term "timeless" - whether in accepting it or in rejecting it -- is about as useful as describing a motorcycle by comparing it to a porch swing!
We don't know God in his essence directly, because we are not by nature part of the Trinity. Yet we do know God's essence directly in his essential energies (that are not intermediary creations, but are his personal energies of his essence.) by which what we know of God's essence is true. This means that God is both so much higher than we can begin to fathom, yet God is also closer to us than we are to our own heart.
I think that one of the most shaking terms applied to God is "LIVING." God who's love does not fail still is Personal in communion, and extending by grace by His Son and Spirit the possibility of participation in the Trinitiarian Life.
Time just describes US. That's what it is good for. Time is God's gift to us. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/14/2003 9:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Josh: IVP has an excellant book that covers several major views of God in time called "God In Time: Four Views." One of the points all four authors make is that God seems to be depicted in scripture both ways. I believe your verses are discussed in the book.
POW: whether or not you believe it is useless to discuss time and God isn't the point: they are. I would suggest you give some helpful suggestions to the question asked rather than injecting your own opinion. What you believe may have its merits but the simple fact is great scholars have the discussed the issue and it is important to many Christians and effects how they view God.
And in your appeal to "the Mystery of God," you are sneaking in your own opinion that God is timeless, which you yourself state you cannot know. Just a little on the deceptive side if you ask me.
For someone who appeals to the mystery of God, you seem to know a lot about what God isn't. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/14/2003 11:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Time just describes US.
That's what it is good for.
Time is God's gift to us. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 10/14/2003 11:57 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Josh Nadal
After further consideration though, that just doesn't seem to be sufficient. You must admit that a straightforward reading of the text supports the idea that Jesus existed simultaneously in front of the Jews and before Abraham.
No I don't accept that. I've never heard that kind of interpretation before, it sounds really wacky. When Moses asked, "who should I tell them sent me?" God said "YHWH". That's the same word Jesus used, God's name. Jesus was equating Himself with God. That's why they were going to stone Him. If He just said, "hey I'm standing before Abraham right now", they would have just thought Him crazy. Crazy people weren't stoned, people who equated themselves with God were stoned.
John 8:
57 So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"
58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."
59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.
Rephrase verse 58. "before Abraham was born, I exist simultaneously". It's a wacky reading. Why say before? Why stone Him for saying He, Jesus of Nazareth, is currently existing before Abraham. They would just think Him crazy.
"before Abraham was born, YHWH". Now He's saying He was YHWH. Stoning time.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/14/2003 12:29 PM (GMT -6) | | | POW: you are assuming that time just describes us. I could make the same asesertion about God. Time describes God's actions...each is equally when asserted. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Josh Nadal
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 10/14/2003 2:11 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
No I don't accept that. I've never heard that kind of interpretation before, it sounds really wacky. When Moses asked, "who should I tell them sent me?" God said "YHWH". That's the same word Jesus used, God's name. Jesus was equating Himself with God. That's why they were going to stone Him. If He just said, "hey I'm standing before Abraham right now", they would have just thought Him crazy. Crazy people weren't stoned, people who equated themselves with God were stoned. - Laika
"Really wacky"? As open theists, we have absolutely no justification in dismissing an interpretation simply because we have never heard it and it sounds wacky. The open view is one that few people have heard of and it sounds really wacky to a lot of people. Further, Jesus in fact did not use "YHWH." The New Testament is written in Greek. "YHWH" is Hebrew.
I certainly agree that his primary purpose was equating himself with God, but that hardly precludes the more literal, face-value meaning. There were plenty of easier ways for Jesus to equate himself with God without saying he existed before Abraham was born and then simultaneously. The open view requires hermeneutical principles that entail literal readings of many scriptures that have traditionally been considered anthropomorphic. For us to then reject the literal meaning of a passage because it doesn't line up with our position would be hypocritical at best. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 10/14/2003 3:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Welcome to the discussion board, Josh!
You raise a good question. What is the significance of "I am" as the name of God in Ex. 3:14 and of Jesus' appropriation of it in John 8:58, and what bearing does this have on the eternality of God and on open theism?
I think you are correct in pointing out that "I am" includes the various tenses of past, present, and future. Similarly, the angels describe the Lord in Revelations as "He who was, and is, and is to come"; and Hebrews 13:8 says that Jesus Christ is "the same yesterday, today, and forever." I think it is correct to conclude from such verses that God, in a very real sense, transcends time. However, these verses do not preclude God's being in some other sense in time. Look at Jesus for a moment. John 1:14 says that the eternal Word who already was when the beginning began (vs. 1) "became" flesh. Thus we have a change in the Word as he becomes incarnate where he was not before. But note also that this is emphatically not a change in the divine nature of the Word (the Word doesn't become less divine) but the establishment of a special relationship between the divine Word and humanity--we have one person who is at once fully divine and fully human. In other words, the change is real, but extrinsic to the essential nature of the Word. What this leads us to is a distinction between essential and nonessential attributes in God. We can say that God in his essential nature is eternal and transcends time. After all, God as such cannot be other than omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly loving, perfect just, etc. Since he cannot change in those respects, in that sense he is above time and "the same yesterday, today, and forever." But God can change in his nonessential attributes. Thus he can become incarnate, or he can become a Creator through the act of creation, or (in accordance with open theism) he can come to know that so-and-so has made a certain choice whereas before he knew only that they would probably make that choice.
In sum, I would account for "I am" statements and other scriptural statements pointing to the unchangeableness of God as references to his essential nature, to those respects in which God, as God, cannot change. But this is wholly compatible with open theism if we recognize that there are other respects, ones not essential to God qua God, in which he can change.
Hope that helps.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/14/2003 3:46 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm in total agreement with Alan. God has unchanging aspects (his character, essential attributes) and changing aspects. Plato's mistake (and the mistake of the whole hellenistic tradition that followed him) was in thinking in all-or-nothing terms about divine perfect. He surmised that a perfect being must be unchanging in every respect, for he believed (wrongly) that something can only change for the better or the worse. He didn't see that one can change because one IS unchanging in one's virtuous character -- as a person with a good character will alter their demeanor or course of action IN RESPONSE to the dispositions of others.
Once one sees the error of this line of reasoning, one is free to say that God is unchanging in every sense in which its perfect to be unchanging, and changing in every sense in which its perfect to be changing. And now, we can account for all passages of Scripture -- some of which depict God as unchanging, others which depict God as very flexible.
Regarding the particular verses you site, it may be significant that the majority of Hebraic scholars hold that tExod. 3:14 means something like "I will be what I will be." (IN context, God telling Moses, "don't try to pin me down with a name.") The Septuagint translated it "I am that I am" for reasons that are not clear. The NT, including Jesus, followed the Septuagint translation.. Hence the Johannine Jesus quotes it "I am that I am." But this is simply conventional, and I don't think we should read to much metaphysics into it -- certainly not hellenistic metaphysics!
I have, however, read several grammaticians who argue that even Jesus statement "I am" can have the connotation "I have always been" -- hence not denoting timeless.
But EVEN IF we go with "I am" and insist on reading metaphysics into it, it need not imply "I am" IN EVERY RESPECT, as Alan effectively argued.
The LAST thing that sound hermenuetics would lead us to do is overturn all the temporal verbs applied to God in the Bible on the basis of one [implausible] interpretation of this one, somewhat dubious, verse.
Nice having you on the board Josh!
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/14/2003 4:18 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by honorman
POW: you are assuming that time just describes us. I could make the same asesertion about God. Time describes God's actions...each is equally when asserted.
God's acts in creation are, of course, in time.
But the begetting of the Son by the Father and the Procession of the Spirit are not measured by what we call time.
If you aregue with that, then we have nothing more to say. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/14/2003 6:13 PM (GMT -6) | | POW: prove it. You appeal to God's "mystery" to say we cannot know if God is in time. Then you state God is not in time. Prove it. Don't just assert it. Give proof. But then, of course, you would be defeating your own opinion that it isn't a subject worth discussing. But until you discuss your opinion hold little weight.
We have nothing more to say because you are unwilling to properly debate the issue...besides, how do you know Jesus was begat in some sort of duration? You have already stated that we cannot know God in his essense. Therefore, you cannot state with any sort of certainty what you have just stated. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/14/2003 7:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear honorman,
I did not consider the following to be anything that, say TGB would find a problem with. Id be surprised if he did. So I just have to wonder whether you are picking a bone just to do so. And if so, then I'm not interested. Here it is again:
quote:
We don't know God in his essence directly, because we are not by nature part of the Trinity. Yet we do know God's essence directly in his essential energies (that are not intermediary creations, but are his personal energies of his essence.) by which what we know of God's essence is true. This means that God is both so much higher than we can begin to fathom, yet God is also closer to us than we are to our own heart.
I think that one of the most shaking terms applied to God is "LIVING." God who's love does not fail still is Personal in communion, and extending by grace by His Son and Spirit the possibility of participation in the Trinitiarian Life.
Several things in that I know first hand, personally. First, I do not know/experience God directly in his essence: e.g., I have never been a member of the Holy Trinity. Second, I do know his essence through direct experience of his energies, and have true rather than intermediary knowledge of his essence/Love. Third, I am personally convinced that God is I much higher than we can begin to fathom. And yet, fourth, I have begunto understand what many saints before us have expressed that God is "closer to us than we are to our own heart."
Finally, have a second look at this sentence I made up: God who's love does not fail still is Personal in communion, and extending by grace by His Son and Spirit the possibility of participation in the Trinitiarian Life. It has two parts. One is the immutability of God's love. I have confidence in that. The other is the living, personal actions of God. I believe that these are BOTH true.
I really do think that you agree with me in ALL of this.
Bye.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/15/2003 5:37 AM (GMT -6) | | I am simply saying, POW that you are, at the same time, saying we cannot know that God is in time because he is higher than us and taking a position that God is not in time. And I feel that is contradictory and a position without merit, given your previous assertions about God being higher than us.
But I would also say that I agree with the rest of what you say | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/16/2003 1:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by honorman
I am simply saying, POW that you are, at the same time, saying we cannot know that God is in time because he is higher than us and taking a position that God is not in time. And I feel that is contradictory and a position without merit, given your previous assertions about God being higher than us.
But I would also say that I agree with the rest of what you say
honorman: "...you are, at the same time, saying we cannot know that God is in time because he is higher than us and taking a position that God is not in time."
PoW: That's not what I said. There is a problem tryint to converse with someone who has a false idea of what one is saying.
1. I ONLY know God through time.
1b. No one knows God outside of time, except the Son and Spirit. (honorman doesn't.)
2. We DO know God in mystery, even though many things about, God, grace, the sacraments, salvation are "mysteries."
The grace of God in communion is, at the same time, both palpable (Wow! Is it ever!) and mysterious (I have nothing else to compare it to, nor natural categories to think about it with).
3. Mystery does not mean unreal, or unexperienced.
So, get your definitions right if you are going to read this!
And Don't say that I'm saying what I'm not saying.
FURTHER, Don't presume that I'm making the arguement that you assume that I am. I just intended to post something that TGB would say "Amen! to.
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/16/2003 4:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Josh-
I understand Jo. 8.58 differently. I don’t think it has ANY implications whatsoever for the question of God’s relationship to time. The point in context seems to me to be only that Jesus is claiming to BE the “I am” of Israel. Jesus isn’t claiming to be timeless. He’s claiming to be pre-existent, that's all.
Now, the verse that describes God as the God who “was, is, and is to come” does indeed seem to speak about God’s relationship to time. But I don’t see, with Alan, how this suggests God transcends time. I mean, I think there’s plenty of biblical evidence to show God transcends the effects of time, but I don’t see how that fact that God “was, is, and is to come” reveals this. It seems to show rather that God is very much in the flow of time. God was. God is. And God will be. This seems to me to equal “God is temporal," that’s all. There doesn't seem to be anyting about a being’s having been, being now, and being in the future which in itself suggests that being "transcends" time, certainly not that such a being is timeless.
I agree that God in his essential nature is unchangeable, not timeless. To say God is unchangingly holy, loving, omnipotent, and omniscient is not to say God is “above time” if by “above time” you means “without time” or “timeless.” All it necessarily need mean is that God does not change in these respects. But not changing is some respect does not require timelessness in that respect. One may be temporally unchanging with respect to love, holiness, power, and knowledge. So, God “transcends time” is fine if one means “God is unaffected by the ravages of time” (he doesn’t grow old, forget his address or phone number, or misplace his dentures). The transcendence of time does not logically imply timelessness. It only implies faithfulness.
I’m not sure I would say “Amen” to PoW’s “But the begetting of the Son by the Father and the procession of the Spirit are not measured by what we call time.” I think I probably would not. First, I don’t have direct access to divine begetting or proceeding, whatever that is, and couldn’t possibly say with PoW’s sense of assurance either that such begetting and proceeding are in fact measured by time or are not measured by time. I certainly have no way of attributing meaning to timeless begetting or timeless proceeding. Why would anybody care at all whether or not divine begetting and proceeding are measured by time? I could care less either way.
My only interests in the question of God’s relationship to time are a) to show that God does not suffer the ravages of time as we do (this seems pretty important), and b) to show that true relations to a temporal world and knowledge of temporal facts entail that God is temporal, period. But the question of what God’s relationship to time prior to or in the absence of creation might have been is in my view a colossal waste of energy and interest. Who friggin cares? If somebody wants to argue that God was as temporal before creation as he now is in relation to creation, fine. I agree. Big deal. If somebody else wants to argue that God was absolutely timeless in the absence of creation, fine. I agree. Big deal. What I will argue against if the latter is the case is the claim that God REMAINS timeless after creation while ALSO relating temporally to us. My experience is that this view is held to because it provides a basis upon which one can smuggle in other beliefs about foreknowledge, prophecy, predestination, etc.
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/16/2003 5:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: amen to your response to POW. That is exactly what I have been trying to relate to him.
Sorry,POW, but I still believe I am correct. How can one say at the same time that you know God in mystery and yet know God is not in time. You knowing God through time does not mean you can say God is not in time. You are being both dogmatic about something you say no one can understand. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/16/2003 6:52 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by honorman
Tom: amen to your response to POW. That is exactly what I have been trying to relate to him.
Sorry,POW, but I still believe I am correct. How can one say at the same time that you know God in mystery and yet know God is not in time. You knowing God through time does not mean you can say God is not in time. You are being both dogmatic about something you say no one can understand.
harold, I give up.
I don't say that God is not in time. I pray to God "who fillest all things and art in all things." That includes time. But God is also bigger than time, as God created it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/16/2003 7:38 PM (GMT -6) | | | Yes, I think we should just agree to disagree. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/16/2003 11:16 PM (GMT -6) | | PoW: I don't say that God is not in time. I pray to God "who fillest all things and art in all things." That includes time. But God is also bigger than time, as God created it.
Tom: I think honorman's point was that you seem to fall into that class which argues God is BOTH temporal and timeless; that God is in time, but God is not ONLY in time. He's also "above" time. THe only thing I can guess "above time" might means is "timeless." And honorman is wondering how, if you claim that divine begetting and proceeding are neither observable by us nor accessible to human reason, you are able to say definitively that these are not measurable by time? Because God created time? How do you know that? Because time is relative to finite observers in the physical unverse? Because time and space are inseparable for us (implying that in the absence of a spatial universe time doesn't exist and that God sans creation is timeless)? I concede this is possible. But we might be wrong on it. I don't think divine perfections, or divine begetting and proceeding, MUST be thought of as unmeasured by time. I wouldn't argue FROM these TO timelessness. If the arguments from physics and logic win the day and it turns out that God is timeless sans creation, fine. And if it turns out that time in some sense of sequence exists sans creation and that God is therefore temporally everlasting, fine. Point is...who cares?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| 30 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:10 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|