Is OSAS true

[godrulz]

Open Theism/free will theism/Arminianism tends to reject OSAS because of libertarian free will and the stern warnings in Scripture about the possibility of falling away/apostasy. We also fully affirm the security of believer passages, but they have a conditional element in the larger context.

Time is not a created thing. The unique measure of time (sun, moon, stars) was created with the universe, but this should not be confused with time itself (sequence, succession, duration), even experienced by the triune God before creation. Timelessness is not the best understanding of eternity. Endless time (Rev. 1:4; Ps. 90:2; Ps. 102:27) is more coherent and biblical without placing limitations on God (He is omnipotent and omnipresent, unlike us).

Anything that can be experienced is a created thing. Time is experienced, therefore it is a created thing. Regardless of a view which states that time was the natural result of creation, it is a thing created.

You are defining things your way and then begging the question. God experiences love in His triune eternal relations. Does this mean love is a created thing that is not eternal in the experience of God? Is intellect and emotions a created thing because they are experienced (God experiences personal attributes eternally)?

Time is not a thing. It cannot be seen under a microscope. It is simply the concept of duration, sequence, succession. It is more fundamental than space and an aspect of the eternal God's experience (it is not limiting God for Him to think sequentially vs simultaneously, to experience grief at the Fall and joy at the salvation of sinners...in succession).

Eternal now is a philosophical concept that is not biblical nor coherent (a symphony is cacophony if not durative). Strong immutability is also Platonic and may be one reason you are trying to cling to timelessness rather than Scripture that shows God's experience as sequential, not one divine simultaneity.

Truth, not tradition...can you discuss the issues between the A vs B theory of time (presentism vs eternalism)? If not, you may not be able to defend your view beyond a beginning Sunday School class (the academic debate is more complex than you realize...godly believers can hold either view).

http://www.amazon.com/God-Time-Gregory-E-G...e/dp/0830815511

Wolterstorff's view is strongest in my mind. Publisher Intervarsity Press.

[godrulz]

Time is not a created thing. The unique measure of time (sun, moon, stars) was created with the universe, but this should not be confused with time itself (sequence, succession, duration), even experienced by the triune God before creation. Timelessness is not the best understanding of eternity. Endless time (Rev. 1:4; Ps. 90:2; Ps. 102:27) is more coherent and biblical without placing limitations on God (He is omnipotent and omnipresent, unlike us).

How did the triune God before creation experience "time". Did Jesus come after "God" in this timeline?

If God dwells within "time" then he would subject to its restraints, but I think we both would agree that he is not.

The verses you gave suggest a God outside of our time, not one within it.

Endless time does not cover God, as Endless time suggest a begining to time but not an end. God has not begining or end, He is.

Negative and positive numbers extend into infinity in both directions. Endless time means duration exists with no beginning or end. Perhaps you are thinking of our everlasting life with a beginning but no end.

The incarnate Christ did come after creation. It was not a simultaneous event in reality in the experience of God. In your veiw, I could accuse you of making creation eternal or Jesus still being on the cross. God's reality is not contrary to our reality. It is 2010 in eternity and in temporality.

The verses I gave use tensed expressions about God so do not suggest timelessness (eisegesis). As well, several verses use time expressions about heaven/eternity (hour, day, etc.).

The past is memory. God has a history. The future is not yet. Only the present is real. Jesus is not on the cross and ruling in the millennium at the same time. In your view, He is in God's mind. This is not coherent nor biblical. There is time separation in these events. God knows reality as it is. Your view is philosophical speculation, not the face value reading of Scripture nor common sense.

[Ovedya]

Open Theism/free will theism/Arminianism tends to reject OSAS because of libertarian free will and the stern warnings in Scripture about the possibility of falling away/apostasy. We also fully affirm the security of believer passages, but they have a conditional element in the larger context.

Time is not a created thing. The unique measure of time (sun, moon, stars) was created with the universe, but this should not be confused with time itself (sequence, succession, duration), even experienced by the triune God before creation. Timelessness is not the best understanding of eternity. Endless time (Rev. 1:4; Ps. 90:2; Ps. 102:27) is more coherent and biblical without placing limitations on God (He is omnipotent and omnipresent, unlike us).

Anything that can be experienced is a created thing. Time is experienced, therefore it is a created thing. Regardless of a view which states that time was the natural result of creation, it is a thing created.

You are defining things your way and then begging the question. God experiences love in His triune eternal relations. Does this mean love is a created thing that is not eternal in the experience of God? Is intellect and emotions a created thing because they are experienced (God experiences personal attributes eternally)?

Time is not a thing. It cannot be seen under a microscope. It is simply the concept of duration, sequence, succession. It is more fundamental than space and an aspect of the eternal God's experience (it is not limiting God for Him to think sequentially vs simultaneously, to experience grief at the Fall and joy at the salvation of sinners...in succession).

Eternal now is a philosophical concept that is not biblical nor coherent (a symphony is cacophony if not durative). Strong immutability is also Platonic and may be one reason you are trying to cling to timelessness rather than Scripture that shows God's experience as sequential, not one divine simultaneity.

Truth, not tradition...can you discuss the issues between the A vs B theory of time (presentism vs eternalism)? If not, you may not be able to defend your view beyond a beginning Sunday School class (the academic debate is more complex than you realize...godly believers can hold either view).

http://www.amazon.com/God-Time-Gregory-E-G...e/dp/0830815511

Wolterstorff's view is strongest in my mind. Publisher Intervarsity Press.

Wow.....

In the words of the immortal Groucho Marx, "A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five."

Gravity cannot be seen under a microscope. Yet this is a known measurable force which can be experienced. Time is experienced, measurable, and knowable. God is not limited to time or space. He is not limited, period, by any force or thing that He has created. The truth of my argument is supported Biblically in the verses I have presented. You have given nothing in evidence of your argument than the argument, the concept, itself. You have not proven it Biblically, nor have you shown my evidence from the Bible to be in error.

Ultimately this is all mental gymnastics. Do me a favor next time we discuss the issue of time: In order to not turn me off completely from your argument, you may want to consider not equating my level of intelligence with that of "a beginning Sunday school class."

To quote Woody Allen: "As the poet said, 'Only God can make a tree' -- probably because it's so hard to figure out how to get the bark on."

Cheers.

[EricH]

Negative and positive numbers extend into infinity in both directions. Endless time means duration exists with no beginning or end. Perhaps you are thinking of our everlasting life with a beginning but no end.

The incarnate Christ did come after creation. It was not a simultaneous event in reality in the experience of God. In your veiw, I could accuse you of making creation eternal or Jesus still being on the cross. God's reality is not contrary to our reality. It is 2010 in eternity and in temporality.

The verses I gave use tensed expressions about God so do not suggest timelessness (eisegesis). As well, several verses use time expressions about heaven/eternity (hour, day, etc.).

The past is memory. God has a history. The future is not yet. Only the present is real. Jesus is not on the cross and ruling in the millennium at the same time. In your view, He is in God's mind. This is not coherent nor biblical. There is time separation in these events. God knows reality as it is. Your view is philosophical speculation, not the face value reading of Scripture nor common sense.

We will just have to add this to the list of things we dont agree on.

You have many limiting factor placed on God, factors to me that make Him less than He is.

You limit his knowledge, you limit him by time. What other restrictions are going to place on God?

My view is both coherent and biblical and has history backing it up. Down through the ages God has been seen as outside of time. People like Augustine and CS Lewis and everyone in-between knew that God existed outside of his creation of time. But then perhaps they are just beginning Sunday School teachers to one such as yourself.

This view of placing God inside of time was created along with Open Theism because it was necessary to back up the false teachings of Open Theism.

Open theism is not an orthodox view. You are correct

[godrulz]

Augustine was wrong about many things and admitted that he was trying to synthesize Christianity with pagan philosophy. C.S. Lewis was a radio preacher, not a theologian. He was also wrong to adopt Augustine/Plato on this point.

The subjective measure of time should not be confused with time itself. The Bible shows God experiencing chronology (creation is BEFORE the incarnation which is before the Second Coming). Jesus experienced time. Time is not a limitation on God like it is on us. It is more limiting on God to think He experiences everything as an eternal now (cannot act in history) rather than seeing that He thinks, acts, feels sequentially. When God reveals the Law, it takes seconds to read the law. The fact that He does not blurt it out in one divine eternal now moment is not a limitation on Him. You have a straw man. Time is not a created thing (your wrong assumption since you confuse the measure of time with time itself) nor is the measure of time time itself. Einsteinian issues relate to the measure of time. He was also speculative about space-time issues, 4th dimensions, etc. Gravities affect on the measure of time is related to creation, but does not answer the philosophical issues of God and eternity/time before creation.

Even strident critic of Open Theism, Bruce Ware, agrees with me against eternal now. He just does not follow it through to its logical conclusions because of His Calvinistic dogma. To say that Open Theists invented everlasting time vs eternal now shows ignorance of the debate (non-open theists and secular thinkers also argue for its merits).

[EricH]

Even strident critic of Open Theism, Bruce Ware, agrees with me against eternal now. He just does not follow it through to its logical conclusions because of His Calvinistic dogma. To say that Open Theists invented everlasting time vs eternal now shows ignorance of the debate (non-open theists and secular thinkers also argue for its merits).

1. You are incorrect regarding Bruce Ware's reasons for rejecting Open Theism. I have read God's greater Glory by Ware and he presents a sound biblical critique of Open Theism. It is simply not a Biblically based position. He also has a more lengthy critique in God's Lesser Glory

2. Accusing ones opponents of ignorance is simply a personal attack and does not really defend your position. It is an attempt to weaken the opponents position without presenting any evidence.

3. The fact that you can find people to agree with you does not make your position true

[Ovedya]

C.S. Lewis was a radio preacher, not a theologian.

Among other things C.S. Lewis was a theologian. His essay series "The Screwtape Letters" was at one time featured on English radio. Lewis is one of the most noted, most respected Christian authors of the 20th century. Don't try to diminish the man, or his work, by relegating him to "radio preacher."

[EricH]

C.S. Lewis was a radio preacher, not a theologian.

Among other things C.S. Lewis was a theologian. His essay series "The Screwtape Letters" was at one time featured on English radio. Lewis is one of the most noted, most respected Christian authors of the 20th century. Don't try to diminish the man, or his work, by relegating him to "radio preacher."

He was also a professor at a prestigious English university

[Ovedya]

C.S. Lewis was a radio preacher, not a theologian.

Among other things C.S. Lewis was a theologian. His essay series "The Screwtape Letters" was at one time featured on English radio. Lewis is one of the most noted, most respected Christian authors of the 20th century. Don't try to diminish the man, or his work, by relegating him to "radio preacher."

He was also a professor at a prestigious English university

One of the last centuries' true Renaissance men.

BTW: Did you know that J.R.R. Tolkien had a direct hand in Lewis' conversion to Christianity? He and another friend of Lewis preached the gospel to him.

[godrulz]

Lewis denied being a theologian. He was a professor of mythology, etc., not theology. He had brilliant insights and made issues understandable, but he had not thought through all issues. He also had ideas you would be uncomfortable with as an evangelical. Do you also believe animals go to heaven?! His mention of eternal now in Mere Christianity uses a time line analogy. Time is not a spatial line, so the analogy is flawed.

God's reality is not always different than our reality. He knows reality as it is. It makes no sense to say that Jesus objectively died before He was born only for US. It is God's reality. The Word BECAME flesh. He was not always flesh. God knew that He would incarnate, but this knowledge does not make the reality actual when it was merely possible or in the mind of God.

Ware rejects Open Theism AND rejects 'eternal now'. Eternal now is not the only possible option and I believe it can be demonstrated to be less defensible than everlasting time. Rev. 1:4 is not a timeless, but a tensed, expression about God's reality. He has a past, present, and future. Eternal now is philosophical, not biblical. "I AM" means He is self-existing, uncreated, from everlasting to everlasting. It does not have to mean timelessness.

I would not be dogmatic until you become conversant with the different theories on time/eternity held by equally capable, godly believers.