 |
| 
Imhappyru?
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 1
| Posted 2/24/2002 9:19 AM (GMT -6) |   | I have been carefully considering an issue that I think has major implication on Christian theology that seems to be fairly ignored. That is the issue of the eternality of God's plan. I would like to get the opinion of both the open theist and the non open theist (I am not an open theist) on this idea.
There seems to be an issue that, within the Christian Church, is generally either ignored or assumed to be one way. That issue is the eternality of God’s plan. Before examining this issue, an observation must be made: Eternal can mean both “eternity past and forward” and simply “eternity forward.” God is eternal past and forward, hell is eternal forward. My contention, in disagreement with the thought of most reformed thinking, and the thoughts of many not in the reformed tradition, is that God’s plan is not eternal both ways, but was actually created. I will outline some basic theological dangers of holding that God’s plan is eternal (both ways), show how it is incompatible with single predestination, and finally address some basic defenses of this view.
Problems:
If one holds that God’s plan is fully eternal, they must also hold that God’s plan is internal, a part of God in essence. If it agreed that only God is eternal, then that which is eternal must be part of God. If we are part of God’s plan (what we do, etc.), then we are a part of God, since His plan is a part of Him. Now, it will be argued against this that we are only in the thoughts of God for eternity, but that the actual implementation of this happens when God creates us, therefore only the thought of us is part of God’s plan. However, are not thoughts closely related to actions? Did not God say that “if you even so as look at a woman, you have committed adultery?” God cannot think something He will not do—therefore, the two are inseparably linked. God’s attribute is love, but He also will love. If God’s plan is inside of himself, it is an attribute of God, which is inseparably linked to action, and we are part of that action, therefore part of God’s attribute, and therefore part of God. Whether indirectly or directly pantheistic, it is dangerous.
If God’s plan was eternally in His mind, then He must have also eternally known something external, or outside of Himself. This poses theological questions/problems. If God knows it, and He is outside of time, then this external has always been reality. That which is eternal is God, and something cannot exist eternally external from God, which would make it equal with God.
Another issue that this idea raises is that in essence you have an eternal imperfection. If evil is clearly part of God's plan (it happens), then that would mean that evil has always been part of God's plan, and therefore the thought and idea of evil and imperfection has eternally been inside of God.
Another fundamental problem with God’s plan being eternal in His mind (as an attribute) is that it puts God eternally within time. If God’s thoughts about what He was going to do have always been with Him, then it follows that He was always waiting for the time when He would implement His plan, putting God within time, and running dangerously close to open, process theology. God could not then have created time at creation, since He was “waiting” for creation to happen. Also, if God eternally excercised his foreknowledge, then there has always been something to foreknow, and therefore there was always been time, and consequently God could not have created time.
Another danger with God’s plan being eternal is that it limits God’s omnipotence. Here is the reasoning: If God’s plan is internal and eternal, then God must act according to His plan, and no other way, and can therefore consider no contingencies. If His plan is eternal, it is part of His character, and He therefore cannot act any other way. There is a big difference between cannot and will not.
The eternality of God’s plan invariably leads to hyper-Calvinism and complete hard determinism. If God’s plan is eternal, then there is no room for contingency, and His plan cannot be based on His foreknowledge, since if it has always been, then there is nothing to foreknow. God cannot consider anything if He has always determined it. Some theological examples to back this up: First, it must logically follow that God determined that Adam would sin (without considering Adam’s will) then He created him—something Augustine and many reformed theologians disagree with (superlapsarean). Complete double predestination must also follow. One might say, “God predestines the elect, but doesn’t need to predestine the reprobate since they are part of a corrupt clump of clay, therefore, God simply does nothing and passes them by.” However, if one holds plan eternality they cannot logically hold this conclusion. When could God have ever considered that the entire lump would be corrupt if there are no contingencies? Since God cannot work foreknowledge-implementation, but must simply work hard determinism, He would therefore have eternally planned both the corruption and the condemnation of the reprobate, but could not have considered, “this lump is corrupt, therefore, I will not predestine these people to condemnation, but simply pass them over.” There is no “deciding time” He simply eternally plans to implement this plan.
This paper will now move on to address some basic attacks against God’s plan not being eternal past. The first is this: “If God has not always had His plan, the He gained something by making this plan, and God cannot gain anything.” However, there is a major distinction between “gaining” and “needing.” What is wrong with God “gaining” something outside of Himself (isn’t that what creation is?). God is in need of nothing, and certainly doesn’t “gain” something in the sense that He had got something new to help him. Any creation is a “gain” per say, but God doesn’t need it! God doesn’t need us, but He chose to create us, and we are external of God. It in no way detracts from the character of God—He is just as much God before He creates outside of Himself and after.
The final, and most difficult attack against non past eternality is the issue of God’s omniscience. “If God’s plan has not always been in His mind, then there was a time that He didn’t know it which denies God’s omniscience.” However, what is omniscience? It is absolute knowledge of something outside of God. Omniscience is an attribute, but is only exercised when there is something to exercise it on. For example, if I was a nice person (to other people), and I was locked up in a dungeon alone for 10 years, would I not still be a nice person, even though I am not being nice to anyone? So what is wrong with God not exercising His omniscience before He created His plan? As soon as the external existed (the creation of time and God’s plan) God’s absolute omniscience was fully exercised, as He cannot act contrary to the character. In addition, foreknowledge implies the knowledge of something future, and if God was outside of time, there was no future until time had been created.
In conclusion, this paper has outlined some basic theological problems with holding the forward/backward eternality of God’s plan. My hope is that this brings careful consideration and constructive, God honoring discussion.
"When one is tired, can he really think rationally?" | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Ronald A. Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 3/5/2002 5:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Neo: What plan are you speaking of? I hear lots about a plan from many people but have never read about one in the Word of God. We develop this huge complex discussion of a plan that is not found in his word. I agree he plans things. This is what prophesy is, God telling us what his plan is some time in the future, but this eternal plan is a myth.
Now, let me snip a few things from below and comment:
quote:
is that God’s plan is not eternal both ways, but was actually created.
This begs the question of whether there is a plan or not.
quote:
Problems:
If one holds that God’s plan is fully eternal, they must also hold that God’s plan is internal, a part of God in essence. If it agreed that only God is eternal, then that which is eternal must be part of God.
What? Eternity is a unit of time. The unit includes all time, but it is a unit of time. I will agree that one can discuss it looking forward or backwards from the current moment, but it is a unit, or set of time. You misuse the word as if it is a thing of some sort. It is not a created thing but a necessary dimension. The way you are looking at things seems to indicate a type of eastern mystical view of God actually being whatever is eternal, like Krisha dreaming while reclining on his bed. For a being to be, certain other things must also be, and those are dimensions. No thing can exist without dimensions. This does not mean that they existed before God, nothing does, but it does nean they are necessarily existing otherwise nothing would exist at all.
quote:
Now, it will be argued against this that we are only in the thoughts of God for eternity, but that the actual implementation of this happens when God creates us, therefore only the thought of us is part of God’s plan. However, are not thoughts closely related to actions? Did not God say that “if you even so as look at a woman, you have committed adultery?”
Back to mysticism. Thought are not actions or God would be in the thought police business and that has been left to the liberals in Congress and the schools. (Sorry, it's election night:-) The section of scripture you quote indicates not a looking at a woman and lusting after her, but looking at her for the purpose of seduction attempting to seduce her. If a look is the same as adultery, then I, who have committed no adultery will be juedged the same as my father who committed adultery frequently? I don't think so.
quote:
God cannot think something He will not do—therefore, the two are inseparably linked.
BZZZZZZZZT! Wrong.
Ex. 32:10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
quote:
That which is eternal is God, and something cannot exist eternally external from God, which would make it equal with God.
Back to mysticism. This is poor reasoning. When did eternity=God and God=eternity?
You again beg the question and assume that if something co-ecists with God for eternity, then it is God. This also assumes that nothing at all can exist for eternity past without being God. Very Plato.
quote:
Another fundamental problem with God’s plan being eternal in His mind (as an attribute) is that it puts God eternally within time.
OK, you don't believe God is in time, then how did he sequence events? You may answer, well, he wasn't in time, then he entered time to create in sequence, but that IS a sequence, and cannot happen without time. It can't be both ways.
quote:
If God’s thoughts about what He was going to do have always been with Him, then it follows that He was always waiting for the time when He would implement His plan, putting God within time, and running dangerously close to open, process theology. God could not then have created time at creation, since He was “waiting” for creation to happen. Also, if God eternally excercised his foreknowledge, then there has always been something to foreknow, and therefore there was always been time, and consequently God could not have created time.
God didn't create time. Save your breath. The assumption that he did is deeply ingrained in many theologies, but there is virtually no scriptural basis for it. Gen 1:1 states that he created the universe, not time. These are not equal.
quote:
"When one is tired, can he really think rationally?"
That's a good point, I am going to bed now. The other problems in your text all dealt with some of the absurdities of various and sundry Calvinistic doctrines.
Por ti volare'
Neuk'em | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/10/2002 2:01 PM (GMT -6) | | If you replace Newcomb's "time" with "sequence," his response is more plausible. Time is the measurement of motion, and (presumably) there is no standard to measure motion against against before the world. But there IS sequence. Indeed, Imhappy, your position presupposes sequence. (Hence Newcomb is right, I think, to point out that your view that time is created seems to go against the position your defending).
For my part, I have just one question:
The problem your driving at is a good one. If the facticity of the world (viz. it being one way rather than another) is eternal, it functions as an attribute of God. It is co-eternal with God. AGREED. But how does saying that God chooses NOT TO KNOW this facticity help your problem. Whether God knows it or not, the facticity is ETERNAL (past and future), so the problem remains. The issue is ontological, not epistemological.
The only way to avoid the problem you're trying to solve, so far as I can see, is to deny a) the eternal facticity/ definiteness of the potentially future world; and b) to therefore deny that God eternally kows the an eternal facticity.
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Ronald A. Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 3/11/2002 3:33 AM (GMT -6) | | I hate to disagree with Doc, however, time is not motion or its measurement. Time is the sequencing itself. Time is the continuum that is the dimension that sequencing requires to work. Time is the interval that one uses to designate the sequencing. Months ago we had a discussion with a physicist here and to avoid semantics I adapted to his, but this was just so we didn't argue semantics, however, time is the correct term. Time is a requisite to sequencing, not vice versa. But time is requisite to everything, because it is the forth dimension. This includes eternity which you cannot have without time because the definition.
Often people break out words and misuse them as if they are magic dust that makes other things correct by the word’s misapplication. Eternity and sovereignty are the two Calvinists do this to continuously. Simple clarification us useful.
Neuk'em
Neuk'em | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:57 PM (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 |
|
|