 |
 | 
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/21/2004 11:30 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/21/2004 11:52 AM (GMT -6) | | CARM ministries has posted what they call a "Logical Refutation of Open Theism" (www.carm.org/open/logical_refutation.htm).
The organization and style of the argument are that of a philosophical amateur. The gist of their argument can be distilled down to:
1) God is essentially atemporal.
2) If God is atemporal, then the future is fully present to God.
3) Therefore, the future is fully present to God.
This is logical, but hardly a refutation of open theism. Both premises are questionable, and the CARM people don't provide any systematic justification for them. Their argument for (1) fails to appreciate the distinction between something's being essentially atemporal, essentially temporal, and contingently temporal/atemporal. For a good refutation of (1), see William Lane Craig's "Time and Eternity". As for (2), it is far from clear that the future's being fully present to God is consistent with free will. On the classical view, God is atemporal and the future is fully present to him because he ultimately fully determines its character. But that begs the question against open theism.
So the prayer aside, it doesn't seem to me that the CARM folks have sufficiently grappled with the issues surrounding diving foreknowledge, providence, and human freedom.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bernie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 1/29/2004 12:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello,
I'm new here, in fact this is the first thread I read...and am disappointed to see that the original question -- are we failing to clearly state open theism? -- has not been answered.
I'll be forthright. I know only a little about open theism, have discussed it a little with one other fellow on another board, and have read a few posts on a couple others. Frankly, I appear to have come quite independently to conclusions similar to those of Matt Slick (for whose opinions I have average respect)as I understand his views from the link provided. Some months ago when I first ran across the concept of open theism, it seemed to me that there's something about the idea of placing God in an unknowing or "becoming" state that strikes me as wrong. Logically, how Perfection could want or need to "become" anything doesn't make sense. My main agreement with Slick's "letter" (and what I thought when I first heard the concept of open theism) is that this idea HAS to have been produced by an Arminian. [I am a sovereign grace Christian, but not a Calvinist.]
I'm not here to argue -- my interest in debate lies in other areas -- but I'd be interested to know specifically where Mr. Slick's thinking does not properly represent open theism, or where he is wrong in his remarks. Thanks.
God bless you in your walk.
The Esoteric Fundamentalist | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/29/2004 2:54 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Bernie
Some months ago when I first ran across the concept of open theism, it seemed to me that there's something about the idea of placing God in an unknowing or "becoming" state that strikes me as wrong. Logically, how Perfection could want or need to "become" anything doesn't make sense.... I'd be interested to know specifically where Mr. Slick's thinking does not properly represent open theism, or where he is wrong in his remarks.
Hi Bernie,
I'd like to make a couple clarifications based on your remarks, and then consider Mr. Slick's characterization of open theism.
You describe open theism as "placing God in an unknowing or 'becoming' state." There are a couple problems with this. First, open theists don't seeing themselves as "placing" God in any kind of state. Insofar as God is in an unknowing or becoming state that is only because God has placed himself in such a state. Second, open theists do not view God as being in an "unknowing" state, rather they affirm divine omniscience in that they hold that God knows ALL truths. Where open theists disagree with classical theists is not in the fact of God's omniscience, but in the content of God's omniscience. Specifically, we don't think that propositions declaring that "S will freely choose to do A" are true, where S is a creaturely agent, A is an action, the choice is free in a libertarian sense, and "will" connotes that S's choosing A is a settled fact about the future. Some open theists, such as Greg Boyd and myself, argue that all such statements are false; other open theists argue that they are neither true nor false. Either way, God is no less omniscient than he is on the classical view. In fact, if open theists are right about the truth value of propositions affirming that future free choices are now settled, then the classical view is incoherent, for it affirms that God knows as true something that is not true. In other words, if open theists are right, then it is the proponents of the classical view who undermine the doctrine of divine omniscience.
You also say, "How Perfection could want or need to "become" anything doesn't make sense." It doesn't make sense only if you suppose that change must always either make something better or worse. If that were the case, then it would follow that God, as a supremely perfect being, cannot change. But open theists reject that assumption. Why can't some changes be neutral with respect to becoming better or worse? Why can't there be several states of being in which God would be equally perfect? If so, then it is possible that he could change from one of these states to another without compromising his status as a supremely perfect being.
You then ask about Mr. Slick's understanding of open theism. Here's what he says just before giving what he takes to be "the prayer of an open theist":
quote:
In Open Theism, God does not exhaustively know the future. He also makes mistakes, learns, and has regrets because of His ignorance of future events. Open theists say that God does not know future free will choices of people because either chooses to not know the future or because the future is unknowable. If this is so, then I cannot help but ask whether or not the God of open theism can be trusted. After all, God doesn't know the future, can make mistakes, and actually changes His mind.
There are several problems with Mr. Slick's construal. First, open theists do think that God exhaustively knows the future. What Mr. Slick fails to understand is that open theists think differently about what the future is. On the classical view, there is and always has been one complete timeline stretching from creation to the end of time. The future is that part of the timeline that begins after the present moment. But even though the future is not yet here, on the classical view it is already settled. Open theists do not think that there is one specific timeline streching from creation to the end of time. Rather, they see the future as a branching tree of possibilities--a choose-your-own-adventure novel in which the God allows us some say in which possibilities are actualized. The future is not already settled, but it is partially open. If that is so, then an omniscient God must know it as such.
Second, Mr. Slick is mistaken when he says that the God of open theism "makes mistakes, learns, and has regrets because of his ignorance of future events." It is true that open theists sometimes talk as if these things are so, but they don't mean them in the anthropomorphic sense that Mr. Slick does. What Mr. Slick overlooks is what Greg Boyd has called the infinite intelligence of God. God, being infinitely intelligent, can anticipate and plan for ALL possible contingencies prior to creation. So God never "learns" in the sense of discovering something new that he hadn't already anticipated.
Nor does the God of open theism make mistakes. That is, it is never the case that at one point he thought something was true that later turned out to be false. Rather, the God of open theism has at all times a perfect knowledge of creation. As creation changes and unsettled possibilities become settled, the content of God's knowledge changes accordingly. If it didn't, then God would cease to be omniscient. Now say that at time t0, God believes that the Israelites will probably repent by time t1. If t1 comes and the improbable happens (as it sometimes does), and the Israelites have not yet repented, does this mean that God's belief at t0 that they would probably repent by t1 was false? No. It is clearly possible to believe that something is improbable before it happens and to believe, after the fact, that it did happen. We see this everytime someone wins the lottery.
Nor does the God of open theism have "regrets" in the anthropomorphic sense. For God has always already anticipated the possibility that some choices he makes may not turn out the way he would prefer them to because of our free choices. So if God "regrets", say, making Saul king, it is only because Saul made some really bad decisions that God would have prefered that he not make (but still allowed him to make), and had it been likely that Saul would make those decisions when God chose him, then God would not have chosen Saul king. In sum, Mr. Slick's understanding of open theism is simply a caricature. The infinitely intelligent God of open theism does not make mistakes period, nor does he learn or regret in the anthropomorphic sense that Mr. Slick supposes.
Sincerely,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/29/2004 3:39 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
1) God is essentially atemporal.
2) If God is atemporal, then the future is fully present to God.
3) Therefore, the future is fully present to God.
Alan: This is logical, but hardly a refutation of open theism.
It would seem to be a valid argument assuming a block view of the universe, no? If that view falls scientifically, then (2) would not be a sound argument and wouldn't prove that the future would be fully present to an atemporal being.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bernie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 1/29/2004 8:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello Albert,
I'm immediately pleased that you find me "dear"....re your salutation.
Thanks for your reply, it certainly provides some food to munch on. A couple comments, if you'll allow....
YOU: "The idea that perfection is incompatible with becoming or change comes straight from ancient Greek philosophy, not the Bible. That in itself doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong, but it certainly implies that it should be carefully scrutinised."
Why should it be scrutinized any more so than the Bible? Truth is truth, whether it was expressed through Aristotle, Wesley or Calvin. To this day I cannot figure out why so many Christians seem not to make this connection.
YOU: "Only a temporal being who changes can act"
How do you know? We have no idea what it must be like to be perfect. I don't understand the logic to this staement, frankly. If I undersand Aquinas, he taught that God is pure act. The only thing we humans know how to do is act imperfectly. I admit, I don't understand the need to drag God down to our level.
YOU: "the highest moral qualities (love, compassion, mercy and so forth) can only be expressed in action. They are not static but dynamic."
Agreed. I see experience made up of both particular and universal realities, with universal reality subdivided into the descriptive (species/attributes that pertain to particular reality (sense experience) and the universals of prescriptive reality (God, spirit, demons, angels). Yes, I'm an essentialist. The fabric of all reality is information/idea/meaning, and it is either true or false. Aquinas' view of God as pure act is quite logical: act in perfection, pure Being. I part from orthodox Christianity in that I reject on Biblical, experiential and logical grounds the idea that the human spirit is wholly and instantly made clean and regenerated in a single act. It is a process...the process of sanctification is literally being regenerated to truth. The essential qualities you mention--love, compassion, etc. -- are contaminated with the pathology of evil. Impure act, false meaning/information perverts true information, and regeneration is no more or less than this process.
It seems to me that in saying God contains imperfection, it is denying His substance -- absolute Truth. I think this is where I don't understand (and mistrust) what purpose open theism serves, as it seems to me to violate these principles.
YOU: "I am not convinced that most of the opponents of open theism have made a serious attempt to understand the position."
You're probably right. On the other hand, perhaps not many open theists have, either.
YOU: "I am a functionalist, and regard perfection as being expressed by moral choices of the will or actions, not by possession of any intrinsic nature."
Then here we'll have to agree to disagree, brother.
God bless you in your walk.
The Esoteric Fundamentalist | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bernie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 1/30/2004 5:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Precious Albert, the Very Apple of My (and God's) Eye,
Thanks for your response. I have to admit, I'm getting a much better understanding of this view of Open Theism from your and Alan's comments. [Alan, I'm not ignoring your comments, I have only limited online time these last few days and by the time I respond to Albert, I have to run...)
Firstly, I did not accuse YOU of dragging God down to man's level, but meant that the theological view you contend for appears to me to do so.
I don't see how you arrive at the conclusion that the will of an atemporal being "could never move or change states"...??? I see it this way....
The quality of contingency exists in human choice because we have only the admixture of infected (false) and pure (true)information with which to work and upon which to base our choice. You assume (incorrectly, I believe) that God's essence assumes contingency if He chooses AT ALL, but this quality--which we can only see from our marred and imperfect perspective--need not apply to God because He, being Perfect Truth, chooses (and changes) in relation to His perfection. You seem to be trying to include in His essence false information as a necessity of contingency, and I see no logical need for this. This is why I say OT [open theism, NOT old testament] seems to drag God down to our level.
We respond to and from corrupt information with a high degree of (to us) unpredicibility because the intellectual process consists in a large degree of spiritual pathology [a nice term for evil]. We thus respond imperfectly and in general darkness (Jn 3:19), and in this realm, your arguments for contingency seem valid. God responds-- yes, I believe He responds--in perfection, according to His sovereign will. He responded to the fall of man outside of time, in perfection of vision and will with a plan of salvation which will eventually eradicate the evil our will has brought into creation (1Cor 15:28). I can see no logical reason why the change you see as "absolutely fundamental" to choice must include the element of 'not knowing'. Change can occur in God without applying this defect to Him. Essentialism is perfectly Biblical in that God is using the very defect you call "change" [which, again, I don't see "unknowableness" as change itself but an attribute of the imperfection of our human mode of change] to effect the changing of defect back into perfection...where perfect beings may respond to one another, choosing and changing in the perfection which consists in pure absolute Truth [true information and meaning]. Choice AS NECESSITY is only fundamental to choice which lacks perfect information in the act of the person choosing, and then only because it exists in fundamental conflict with absolute truth.
Everything in this life changes relative to a point of reference. I think Matt Slick's emotionalistic use of "letter" in the link you provided is unfortunate, but he still hits the nail squarely (if in a roundabout way) in identifying that the point of reference for all moral action is the perfection of God, including the attributes attributed to Him by orthodoxy. I think this is what Mr. Slick meant to express in his "letter", and I have to agree with this view.
YOU: "...essentialism leads to a concept of God as a hidden God, whereas functionalism leads to a concept of God as a revealed God"
Hello? Tell me, if functionalism has revealed God, where is He? Why does conflict and disunity exists not only among all world religions, but within Christianity itself which purports to be [and I am in agreement with this] the highest expression of truth on earth? What are His dimensions, what does He smell like, where is His hiding place? My point, of course, is that functionalism no more reveals God or His attributes than any other branch of theology...come now,dearest Albert!
In fact, the essentialist view is superior because it explains why God must remain a hidden God: His pure, absolute righteousness is flame and fire to the tinder of our pathological evil. This theme is liberally splattered throughout both Testaments and cannot be sidestepped by any honest person.
Finally, you stated, "As for the universals and particulars, I think you're getting into big difficulties. God is a particular, not a universal. Anyway, as those who remember my previous posts would be aware, I'm a nominalist, and don't believe that universals have any reality. But that's another story."
God, you, I and all creation is composed of both particulars AND universals. I'm not surprised that you are a nominalist...this view and open theism seem to have some things in common. Since all reality is comprised of particulars and universals, it's only logical that truth be expressed in a model of reality which includes both realms and is able to tie them together into a coherent whole.
Thanks for your input, Albert. I'm enjoying our exchange. Though it's proving beneficial, am not sure how long I can continue to contribute.
God bless you in your walk.
The Esoteric Fundamentalist | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/30/2004 10:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Albert,
I appreciate your thoughtful and respectful interaction.
Albert: You seem to be taking an essentialist position of God's perfection, but one that allows God to change by asserting that such change does not affect God's perfectness: it doesn't make him any better or worse. That implies that all God's actions in history are unrelated to his perfection.
Alan: I don't see the implication here. What my "essentialist" position, as you term it, implies is that all of God's actions are consistent with his perfection. This is not the same as being "unrelated" to his perfections.
Albert: But surely, when God saw that humans chose to sin, and decided to send his son to redeem them, that "counts" in terms of his perfection? If you are an open theist, then you can't argue that God foresaw that humans would sin. So we are not talking about anything God necessarily decided to do from eternity past, if such a possibility were coherent. I would want to say that God's deciding to send his son is the thing above all else that makes him perfect. I don't think you can logically maintain that. What do you think?
Alan: I don't think that God's deciding to send his son makes him perfect or more perfect. Rather, I think that God's sending his son is a reflection of the perfections that he always already has.
Albert: Alan, you will probably tell me that God's good actions such as sending his son are the expression of the perfection which he possesses in his nature. My response to that is to ask you, does his perfect nature determine his actions, or are his actions contra-causally free? If you argue that his nature determines God's actions, then you save yourself on the perfection front, but only at the cost of denying that God is free, and therefore ultimately denying that he is a person. On the other hand, if you admit that God's actions are not determined by his nature, and are truly free, then you can't attribute God's great actions in history just to some perfect nature which he possesses.
Alan: As I see it, some of God's decisions follow inexorably from his nature, and some don't. An example of the latter would be his deciding to create. When those decisions do not follow inexorably from his nature, then God is free in a libertarian sense to choose from among all those possibilities consistent with his nature. Now you say that I cannot, therefore, "attribute God's great actions in history just to some perfect nature which he possesses". True, but I haven't claimed that, e.g., God's saving work is to be attributed JUST to his perfect nature. On the assumption that his decision to undertake the salvific plan that he has does not follow inexorably from his nature, then the decision is to be attributed to God's sovereign agency as constrained by his perfect nature. His perfect nature plays a role in delimiting what choices are open for God, and God makes a libertarianly free decision among the remaining options.
God bless,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/30/2004 10:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Albert,
One more comment on something you said to Bernie.
quote:
Originally posted by albert
Essentialism leads to a concept of God as a hidden God, whereas functionalism leads to a concept of God as a revealed God. After all, if all God's actions, and all his words in the Bible, are just outworkings of a fundamental nature, then that nature stands behind all his revelation in the person of Christ and in the Bible. You end up with an unrevealed deity. On the other hand, according to functionalism, God is truly revealed in Christ, because Christ's actions are themselves constitutive of God's goodness and his perfection. What you see is what you get. There is no hidden essence from which all this visible action springs.
Two comments. First, God's actions can be expressions of his nature without being JUST that--unless one supposes, as I do not, that God's nature determines all his actions. Second, I don't see how you get from essentialism to a hidden God. If God's actions are expressions of his nature, then they communicate to us who God is. They reveal God to us. Thus essentialism doesn't lead to a hidden God. On the other hand, if you reject essentialism then it follows then God's actions tell us nothing about God's nature or character because they don't reflect his nature or character because he doesn't have a nature or character. In other words, on a functionalist account God's being and willing is completely arbitrary--it's just however he happens to decide to act at the moment. So God's expressing love in sending Christ doesn't show that God is love (1 John 4:8). All it shows is that God has decided, for the time being at least, to love sinners.
On the whole, the functionalist account seems to me to be extremely implausible. At any rate, I do not think the debate over open theism turns on this issue as you do.
Sincerely,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/30/2004 4:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Albert: But imagine someone just like Adolf Hitler, but with more power. Would such a being be more perfect? Would a being like Adolf Hitler, but with more knowledge, be more perfect?
Tom: No he wouldn't be. But would a being like God, but with less knowledge, be AS perfect? I think "perfection" needs context too. There are different kinds of perfection (moral, cognitive, physical [for physical beings], spiritual and relational, etc.).
I'm jumping in without having read everything. Sorry if I'm missing the point.
Hey Alan, heads up bro! The "article" is on its way.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/30/2004 4:55 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by A_Theist
from CRAM[sic].org
And that prayer really urked me.
The author opens with "In Open Theism, God does not exhaustively know the future." If he can't get it right here, I'm not interested in reading any further.
But let's offer the "Prayer of a Theological Determinist"
"O Lord, I come to you (as you determined me to) with a request for help with a situation you determined. My daughter has become mixed up in drugs and fornication with her boyfriend whom you've determined not to be a Christian right now, which is what you determined her to do. You've determined me to witness to them both, but you've also determined them both to be uninterested. I am so concerned about your having determined this for my daughter, and so I ask you Lord to let it be the case that you've determined to deliver her from her sinfulness and cause her heart to repent.
O Lord, I know that you gave us free will but that you've unconditionally determined every choice we ever make and that there's no interfering with your decrees. You know for sure what will happen, Lord, but please, I'm praying because I don't know what you've determined.
...there is a pause in his prayer....
O Lord, I am confused. I want my daughter to change her ways, and I come to you for help. But I also know that you've unconditionally decreed everything anyhow. How then can my prayers or lack of prayers make a difference if you've decreed whether or not I pray as well as whether or not she doens't believe in you?
What will I think Lord if it turns out that my daughter is not one of the elect? What if she goes to hell? I'll be so heartbroken, Lord. Won't you be? Wait a minute. You've already unconditionally determined the vast majority of human beings for hell. Changes are my daughter is determined for hell too. And if you've already determined her to not believe in you now, to sleep around and take drugs, then my asking you to save her from this could actually be praying against what you've decreed for your own glory.
Lord, I sincerely hope that you love and care for my daughter as much as I do, that you want her saved as much as I do. Gee I hope you've decreed her for heaven. I would if I were you. I mean, I am after all praying for her salvation.
...another pause....
Lord are my prayers able to make a difference in her life?"
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/30/2004 5:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Ooops. I see that Ross already beat me to it!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/30/2004 7:19 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 1/30/2004 7:58 PM (GMT -6) | | About functionalism vs. essentialism, we had a protracted discussion several months back about whether or not God's nature was love, or God's ultimate choice and character was love (i.e., that God freely chooses to love, not that he is somehow "forced" to love by some inexorable "nature." This ties directly into Dr. Boyd's TWT point that "Love must be chosen." Interestingly, Doc seemed to say this definition of his didn't apply to God, but only to contingent beings. Would like to hear what Albert and Alan comment on that, if they would.
Related to this, it seems to me that when the Scripture says "God is love," it cannot be saying that God is somehow made up of a substance called "love." In addition, when the Bible speaks of us having "perfect love [that] casts out all fear," it cannot mean a love that is a static "thing," but rather a "state of the heart," so to speak, a life in the Spirit and love of God that casts out all fear.
But again, I would really love to hear Alan and Albert's thoughts on this as it relates to functionalism vs. essentialism. I would of course love to hear from Tom and others too, but it seems that Alan and Albert are "in the groove" on this issue. Thanks.
P.S.: I almost forgot, one more addition to the determinist's prayer would have to be: "...and Lord, I thank you for the promise of the perseverance of the saints, for I know that I will persevere if I really am a saint."
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bernie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 1/31/2004 4:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Alan,
Thanks for your response. I'd like clarification of the OT view on a couple points, if you're willing.
You state: "Where open theists disagree with classical theists is not in the fact of God's omniscience, but in the content of God's omniscience."
Statements like this remind me of some of the problems of ambiguity I've run into in the past with OT. The definition of omniscience identifies and affirms the content. To accept the fact leads one logically and automatically to the content...ALL. To say that content is NOT all is to deny the fact, as I see it.
Also, you state, "God has always already anticipated the possibility that some choices he makes may not turn out the way he would prefer them to because of our free choices."
In Acts 26:16-18, Jesus told Saul/Paul, "..arise, and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; delivering you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me."
According to open theism, if after two or three months after the Damasus experience Paul would have decided that the going was too rough, exercised his will and told God, "No thanks, God, this is not what I had in mind for a career.", would God, who appointed him a witness to the Gentiles to turn them from darkness to light--having told Paul rather emphatically and clearly what path he was going to take--have told Paul false information and been a liar?
Albert,
You wrote: "Contingency is not a quality or attribute that exists, and it has nothing to do with information and such."
I disagree. Contingency in the the sense we are using it here is very much a quality or attribute. I suspect your nominalism may be getting in the way, yes?
I probably didn't explain things far enough along for you to see that in fact it has everything to do with "information and such". All experience and existence ties together, and all existence is data, idea and meaning. I mentioned when I jumped in here that open theism is not my bag for discussion...intellectual consciousness is more my interest, and the things I post are very relevant to the topic but would likely take us too far off the OT path to pursue it.
YOU: "Bernie, you have now seem to be saying that God changes. That is the end of the atemporal, unchanging God. Good to see that you're coming around!"
?????
I have never stated that God does not change, young man! In fact, in my last post I thought I argued that it was not His changing that I find offensive, it is the insertion of imperfection in the form (in this instance) of uncertainty and unkowingness in the act of change. Maybe I didn't make myself clear.
God bless you in your walk.
The Esoteric Fundamentalist | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bernie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 1/31/2004 7:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey John,
I know you didn't ask my opinion, so just ignore me if you'd like and no hard feelings....but an opening statement you made in one of your posts caught my eye:
YOU: "About functionalism vs. essentialism, we had a protracted discussion several months back about whether or not God's nature was love, or God's ultimate choice and character was love (i.e., that God freely chooses to love, not that he is somehow "forced" to love by some inexorable "nature." This ties directly into Dr. Boyd's TWT point that "Love must be chosen." Interestingly, Doc seemed to say this definition of his didn't apply to God, but only to contingent beings."
This caught my eye because I think Dr. Boyd is exactly right in saying that love must be chosen by contingent [human] beings and not by God. Love is a spiritual and universal property that humans must choose from among prescriptive universal contraries (hate, contempt, anger, etc.). This would not apply to God in whom, as perfect act, all goodness, truth and love exist as the same essence. I think this is relevant to the discussion because to me it underscores the wrongness of the notion of God as having to choose.
Some OTers will say He doesn't HAVE to but chooses to choose, but this seems to me little more than intellectual gymnastics: if He places Himself in position to choose when choice is not necessary [due to His perfect possession of information/knowledge], He has forced the necessity upon Himself and still MUST choose. Our choosing to love is due to spiritual defect. His decision to choose is to choose to participate in that defect of "unknowing" or uncertainty, which denies His perfection. I don't see how we can have it both ways. I don't know if this is as Dr. Boyd sees it: I don't know who he is or what he believes beyond what you posted.
God bless you in your walk. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 2/1/2004 6:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear Albert,
Elaborate on how there can be Atemporal Change? Or would that be to say, "how can something become different in some particular (or change), which is considered independent of or unaffected by time".
And why should some form of change be more perfect than any other form. This one commits suicide Albert, no other comment.
Nevertheless, you state that "Time is a sequence of changes and is the terms of change, which require the passage of time". So Atemporal Change is like square circles and chairs that are not a chair.
What can time mean, if not a sequence of change?
Just want to make sure I have your terms correct before I go on . . .
And what you might be wondering Albert (let me know?), is if there can be a time that coexist or can mingle with our time, which is free from imperfection, which I will call 'Absolute Time' verses or in some context, which coexist with our 'Relative Time'?
Absolute meaning to me, free and independent of any thing extraneous, existing independent of any other cause, complete within itself and how and if it changes (does time?) is actually irrelevant to me,
Though I believe it must do time of some sort, if change is going to exist in any realm.
Thank you for listening to my gibberish, which is all that it is clearly intended to be,
Tim
Imagination projects unreal images out of the mind and seeks to attach reality to them. Faith creates nothing; it simply reckons upon that which is already there. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bernie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 2/1/2004 6:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Good morning dear Albert,
I only have ten or fifteen minutes, so can only repond to the question I think is most relevant....
YOU: "Can I just ask you, though, to elaborate on how there can be atemporal change? In addition, I don't see why some form of change should be more perfect than any other form."
I don't think the change God undergoes is more perfect per se, only
that the change He performs is not a contingent act when we define contingent as "Dependent on conditions or occurrences not yet established". Being a contingent, imperfect being not in possession of all information is what we humans do. Contingency itself is a flaw, an imperfection--and this is what I don't think we can apply to God and He yet remain God.
I admit, I've not dug very deeply into this issue of change, but my personal view is that God allows change only within the sphere of His sovereignty. When He changes His mind in Scripture, He does so only in material existence, in the realm of particular reality. This is not contingent change, because in the sphere of universal reality, His sovereign decree stands. God's sovereignty ALWAYS wins the day.
Jonah was able to exercise his will and disobey God in material existence, but this was a temporary, temporal thing. God allowed Jonah to run, but because God's decree in universal reality is certain and sovereign: "So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it." (Isa 55:11)
I expect you'll reject this because you limit yourself as a nominalist to only particular reality. As I see it universal reality not only exists, it is the primary reality, the true, absolute substance from which material reality is formed. Material reality is merely death reality; it's where God is directing sin, seen in decay. Here, untrue information expends itself on material reality, and it decomposes (the wages of sin is death), a sort of transitive process like heat flowing from fire to surrounding objects. If all we are willing to see is the decaying world, I don't think we can see the wonder behind it. Have you read Gerald Schroedinger's stuff?
YOU: "Perhaps I can elaborate. For most of us, time by definition is a sequence of changes. In other words, time is defined in terms of change. If you have change, then by definition you have the passage of time. So the concept of "atemporal change" is like a "square circle" or "a chair that is not a chair".
Can you elaborate on what time means, if not sequence of change?"
No, I can't. I can't explain HOW God operates both outside and inside of time; I'm just made of clay, and even though I'm quite attractive, I ain't all that bright.
YOU: "All information and meaning are a product of the subject. If there were no people, there would be no information and meaning."
Pshaw! We are NOT God.
God bless you in your walk, brother.
The Esoteric Fundamentalist | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 2/1/2004 10:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Bernie,
Thank you for your comments. Just quickly (as I am literally headed out the door) I will only say that I don't see a justification for changing the definitions of words describing moral character (such as "righteous, good, holy, steadfast, etc.") when they are applied to God. God tells us "be holy for I am holy," "the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;" (1 John 3:7), "love one another as I have loved you," and "be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." (Luke 6:36)
However, if the definitions of these moral characteristics are somehow changed when applied to God, they seem at least to me to lose any and all true meaning.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
| 46 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:26 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 |
|
|