Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Theists Discuss the Unmoved Mover.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    Brum. Why is it that if something is X for us, it is for God as well? If thinking is a process of the brain for us, does that mean God has a body and a brain?
    For one you just previously argued that joy was an emotion for God when you posted a response to Littlejoe. Make up your mind already.

    Something like an emotion it can only be meaningfully spoken about if it means the same thing for all it applies to. In this case I only see special pleading as to why it doesn't mean the same thing for God as it does for man. If it's not an emotion for God, then your previous own argument makes no sense at all. Also, it would mean that God having other emotions would have no effect on His joy anyway, so it's a terrible flawed argument all around.

    I also argued against joy being seen as an emotion in human beings, and God as well.

    I'll probably get called "anti-science" for this, but I don't care anymore. I don't think that thinking is "a process of the brain". It's more properly a process of the spirit/soul. The brain just puts thoughts into operation for the body. You're not following Thomastic/Aristotelian thought* very well if you think that the intellect is a "process of the brain".

    "On the contrary, The Philosopher assigns the intellectual faculty as a power of the soul (De Anima ii, 3)."

    Since thinking is not a "process of the brain" in my view, then your argument fails.

    I do think God is doing all things from all time. How could it be otherwise, unless you want to say that God changes, something Scripture repeatedly says He does not do.
    You need to show those passages mean change in the Aristotelian sense. There are also many passages that speak of God relenting, feeling anger, happiness, sadness etc. I think applying the Aristotelian view of change to those passages is anachronistic, and makes countless other passages incomprehensible. You haven't given me any reason to believe otherwise.

    Your view would require that Jesus is still on the cross, that God is still in the act of initial creation. This is contrary to many passages.

    Genesis 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

    Romans 6:9-11 New International Version (NIV)
    9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

    11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

    Hebrews 7:27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

    Hebrews 9:12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption

    I notice you didn't say anything about how impassibility, and the "Pure Act" concept negates the "Unmoved Mover" concept, or how it require a full on deterministic universe.

    *Given you're always putting down ID, and acting as if evolution is just fine I doubt you're following his thoughts on creation much at all.

    Source: Summa Contra Gentiles Book 3, Chapter 99, Paragraph 9

    Divine power can sometimes produce an effect, without prejudice to its providence, apart from the order implanted in natural things by God. In fact, He does this at times to manifest His power. For it can be manifested in no better way, that the whole of nature is subject to the divine will, than by the fact that sometimes He does something outside the order of nature. Indeed, this makes it evident that the order of things has proceeded from Him, not by natural necessity, but by free will.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Edit:I broke the link to Summa Contra Gentiles, but I'm not on my pc right now due to a storm. I'll try to fix it later.

    Edit2: Putting the link down here since the cite tags interfere with the link tags. http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles3b.htm#99
    Last edited by Cerebrum123; 06-26-2018, 05:21 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      Yes. It means that I can change God. How does the finite change the infinite? I don't want a God who feels with me. I want a God who is there with me and who can help me.
      God can and does both, it doesn't have to be one or the other.

      Because if I take Scripture in that sense that is what I see. What of those eternally separated from God? Even if one accepts conditional immortality, will God not be always aware of those who could have been there? I also think emotions mean that something is in motion and if something is in motion, it is subject to change. Yet Scripture says God does not change.
      Why do you think He's not always aware of those who could have been there...your view (CV) doesn't negate that.
      Just because motion is in the word emotion doesn't make it motion. Star is in startle that must mean when someone is startled then a star is born? Arm is in charm, therefore you charm someone by strong arming them?
      Yet, God DID change. We both agree that Jesus was not a man prior to the incarnation. Therefore, the Godhead unwent a change. So, if we have instances of change in God, and the Bible says God does not change, we have to examine both of those verses and reconcile them. Your reconcilliation is to dismiss the sections that disagree with your theology. How is that Biblical exegesis? Sounds more like assuming your conclusion...
      In light of this, the verses that say God does not change must mean that their are aspects of his Divine character and nature...i.e. the way He responds to us that does not change.

      Not all of these are emotions. Love isn't, for instance. Love can produce emotions, but it is not itself an emotion. Joy for us is an emotion. I just think God has a knowledge of what it means to be God and it means that He always has joy, though not in a sense that can be changed or altered. It is not a motion for God.
      Love is both emotion and action, just like Faith is a belief that requires action...they are inseparable IMO. Just as you can sometime continue to act when you have doubt, you can love when not feeling it. In addition, there are kinds of love. The blanket statement that love is not an emotion is short sighted.
      Can you show your view for joy using Scripture or is it just how you see it?

      I actually have a good friend who is a psychopath and a devout Christian. He is a loving person even without feeling love. Note that this is for humans. Humans and God are not on the same level. We are meant to reflect Him. He does not reflect us.
      yes, psychopaths can imitate having feelings of love, but they never really experience them...again, Love is both action and feeling, just like Faith is both belief and action. They are ultimately inseparable.

      That does not follow. That God knows the future does not equate that He caused the future or likes for it to happen that way.
      Do you believe that the Future already exists...at least as far as God is concerned? If so, then yes it does follow. The future is exonerably fixed in God's mind or God's Will. Therefore, you can no more change the future than you can the past.

      Because a suicide cannot overcome the reality of God. God's own being is greater than anything else out there and someone defying that does not alter God one bit.
      The Joy of God was not evident in the suicide victims life, therefore it was defeated, just as it could not have been God's will for them to act as they did. Your theology seems internally inconsistent. How are we able to overcome God's will, but not his Joy in our lives?

      The image is the idol that represents the deity. We represent God in that we were created to rule on His behalf.
      So, we're idols? Maybe you can expound on that?
      I like what Bible Scholar D.J.A. Clines writes about this. He posits in his article "The Image of God in Man" (Tyndale Bulletin 19, 1968) He says that the Hebrew in Genesis favors the translation: "God created man as His image" over the more common translation "...in His image". Cline concludes "Thus we may say that according to Genesis 1, man does not have the image of God, nor is he mad in the image of God, but is himselfthe image of God." Humankind, then, was created to be a "copy" or a "graphic image" of the Creator. A formal, visible, and understandable representation of who God is and what He is really like.

      Nope. God did not suffer. That was known as patripassianism in the early church. Jesus was moved, but Jesus was also human. The humanity of Jesus makes a difference to Him. If God was a man, He would live like Jesus, but Scripture tells us repeatedly that God is not a man.
      Nope, not a modalist. I find it curious you continually dismiss the person of Jesus in the Godhead. Is it your belief that God was no longer present in Christ on the cross? If we know Jesus, do we not know God Himself?

      Nope. I do believe though that God knows all things and does everything right. Everything that happens is allowed by God. If we were Him, we would do the exact same things because He acts from all wisdom and knowledge.

      We all have to accept it. A parent can think God is a monster, but why? Did God do something wrong? Did God owe to do something to stop any sort of evil whatsoever? God could let all of us just keel over and die and it would not be wrong for Him. He owes us nothing. God could have never sent Jesus if He didn't want to. He doesn't owe us Jesus.
      Meanwhile, I don't find comfort in a God who doesn't know the future and doesn't have His hand over it.
      I find your world a much scarier place.

      Which would also mean by your system not that Moses knew a future God didn't, but Moses was able to think of an outcome God wasn't. Exactly how ignorant is the God of open theism that a mere human can outthink Him?
      No it doesn't, stop projecting your own feelings onto the text.

      He didn't. He fulfilled it. The old covenant is the pointer to the new. That was the purpose of it.
      Ok, he fulfilled it, then abandoned it in favor of a new one... There's no doubt that God interacts with mankind differently under the new covenant than he did under the old one...is there?

      Not at all. God was testing Moses. God was not lying to Abraham either when He told Abraham to sacrifice his only son. The language does explain something about God, but why? Because we as finite beings cannot understand God. We can only understand Him in ways that make sense to us. That's what this language does. God is revealed however as just and righteous both.
      Why does Moses or Abraham need testing? God already knows what they're going to do. You need to explain how God is not lying when He says He intends to do something but he never was going to do that as He knew Moses would intercede. If I told you I was going to send you a book you have been wanting, but I knew you would talk me out of it and therefore, I was never really intending to send you the book, am I being dishonest?
      What is really going on is God is going to destroy Israel and start over with Moses. Moses intercedes on their behalf and God relents. Proving that prayer has the power to change God's mind.
      If God knows the future as a sure thing, (commonly referred to exhaustive definitive foreknowledge or EDF) and not as contingencies, then God could not genuinely say he tests people “to know” whether they’ll be faithful or not.

      Then I guess you didn't read what I said about the argument. You are moved insofar as you pursue the good as a final cause. The good is God, which means God's being in the world is what makes you move to some extent. Note also the motion is from potentiality to actuality. God moves things in being their final cause as well.
      Exactly! CV posits fatalism and determinism. God moves you, when and where He wishes.

      I have not found the Greek thought to be wrong and as for Hebrew thought, I don't know of any Hebrews who held to any concept of open theism. It's a very latecomer to the show.
      You keep saying that as if it were true. I guess you're not up on the scholarship (which is understandable given your beliefs). OVT has been around quite a while albeit as a very minority position. Jewish theologians that affirm and open view include Ibn Ezra (12th century) and Levi Ben Gerson in the 14th...as did many Jewish thinkers in the medival period, it was widely held and much discussed. The earliest Christian proponent (found so far) is Calcidius, (late fourth century) who wrote several books against fatalism and it's cousin determinism. In it he says that since God knows reality as it is he knows necessary truths necessarily and contingent truths contingently.
      there's also, Peter Auriol (13th century) and Peter de Rivo (fifteenth century). In the 1700's Samuel Fancourt published several works defending an Open View, for instance, Liberty, Grace and Prescience. and in 1730 published What Will Be Must Be arguing the issue is not about God's knowledge but about the nature of reality. i.e. are contingencies real or not? Andrew Ramsay in 1748 posits a variant to OVT position that though the future is knowable, God has chosen not to exercise thsi ability in order to preserve human freedom. I think many modern OVT's was not agree with that conclusion, nevertheless, it's a OVT position. In 1785 John Wesley reprinted Ramsay's material in his Arminian Magazine. Adam Clarke the well known Bible commentator defended it in 1831 as did the well know circuit preacher Billy Hibbard in 1843 (who says he learned of the view from an article in the Methodist magazine).
      As you can see, it's not all that new, certainly no more new than Protestantism...
      If any one of the arguments for classical theism works, then open theism is really in trouble, and I have multiple such arguments. Meanwhile, I find open theism to be lacking theologically, Scripturally, and philosophically. Whatever is causing the change in the deity of open theism, that's the deity I would want to get to.
      I'm interested in your arguments, let's see one.
      Again, you assume that change is necessarily bad. You have not proven that change entails moving from a better state to a worse state or from a worse state to a better state. That is necessary for change to be an issue.

      Like wise, I contend that if OVT can show even one instance that God changes then CV is in trouble...and Scripture does that brilliantly. (Moses and Abraham among many others).
      Last edited by Littlejoe; 06-26-2018, 05:28 PM.
      "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

      "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
        Perhaps I'm a bit closer to Open Theism than I realized. I've been thinking something along the parts I underlined might be possible.

        One thing that makes me wonder about a fixed future is that at times I've had dreams that were fulfilled point by point. It was like reliving parts of my life twice.
        Well, I don't know how my personal belief lines up with other OVT proponents, but I believe that dreams can be a revelation of God's will in action. I believe the Bible, and in that Bible, Joseph had dreams and interpreted Pharaohs dreams. These dreams were God's plans for the future. I think there are things that God is going to do. But, those are special events at special times. They're akin to miracles, they happen, but not as a normal course of God's will or our natural lives. God's plans for the future though, don't have to necessarily entail knowledge of the future, just what God's planning on doing in said future.

        God knows all variables of all the possibilities because God is infinitely wise. I've read where philosophers and theologians have defined "divine omniscience" as “God’s knowledge of the truth value of all meaningful propositions.” I completely agree with that definition. Unfortunately, they typically assumed that propositions about what “will” and “will not” occur encompass the whole range of meaningful propositions about the future. They thus concluded that God eternal knows all that will and will not take place and that there is nothing else for God to know.

        I believe that's where they make a mistake. That's because there's more propositional values to consider. "might" and "might not" are as valid as "will" or "will not". If those are valid options, then God has to know those truth values as well. Ironically, the opposite of "might" is "will not" and the opposite of "might not" is "will". Therefore, if a proposition of "might and might not" is true, then "will or will not" both become false. Let me demonstrate:

        If it's certainly true that LJ might or might not buy a hamburger for today's lunch, then it's false to say that LJ will for sure buy a hamburger for today's lunch, and it's also false to say that LJ will for sure not buy a hamburger for today's lunch. Now, if it becomes true that LJ will for certain buy a hamburger for today's lunch, or becomes true that LJ will certainly not buy a hamburger for lunch, then it's false that LJ "might or might not" buy a hamburger for today's lunch. Now, using this reasoning, since God knows the truth value of ALL propositions, God certainly knows precisely when it's true that I might or might not buy a hamburger for today's lunch, and also when it becomes true that I will or will not buy a hamburger for today's lunch.
        Ironically, OVT's are constantly accused of limiting God's knowledge, but, if the above is true, the CV is the one limiting God's knowledge by ignoring a whole set of truth values.

        Of course, God could have created the world such that everything was predetermined and thus all “might and might not” propositions were rendered false. (Which is the logical result to Calvinist teaching) My conviction, however, is that God decided to create a much more interesting and exciting world that was populated by world with free will. And since I believe God has given free will to us, his knowledge of what our future activities will be can only be expressed in propositions about what “might and might not” come to pass.
        Last edited by Littlejoe; 06-26-2018, 06:04 PM.
        "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

        "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
          Well, I don't know how my personal belief lines up with other OVT proponents, but I believe that dreams can be a revelation of God's will in action. I believe the Bible, and in that Bible, Joseph had dreams and interpreted Pharaohs dreams. These dreams were God's plans for the future. I think there are things that God is going to do. But, those are special events at special times. They're akin to miracles, they happen, but not as a normal course of God's will or our natural lives. God's plans for the future though, don't have to necessarily entail knowledge of the future, just what God's planning on doing in said future.
          None of these dreams were about anything important. They were also accurate down to the clothing people were wearing. Those, along with deja vu tend to get me thinking. The latter also come with a sense of dread.

          God knows all variables of all the possibilities because God is infinitely wise. I've read where philosophers and theologians have defined "divine omniscience" as “God’s knowledge of the truth value of all meaningful propositions.” I completely agree with that definition. Unfortunately, they typically assumed that propositions about what “will” and “will not” occur encompass the whole range of meaningful propositions about the future. They thus concluded that God eternal knows all that will and will not take place and that there is nothing else for God to know.

          I believe that's where they make a mistake. That's because there's more propositional values to consider. "might" and "might not" are as valid as "will" or "will not". If those are valid options, then God has to know those truth values as well. Ironically, the opposite of "might" is "will not" and the opposite of "might not" is "will". Therefore, if a proposition of "might and might not" is true, then "will or will not" both become false. Let me demonstrate:

          If it's certainly true that LJ might or might not buy a hamburger for today's lunch, then it's false to say that LJ will for sure buy a hamburger for today's lunch, and it's also false to say that LJ will for sure not buy a hamburger for today's lunch. Now, if it becomes true that LJ will for certain buy a hamburger for today's lunch, or becomes true that LJ will certainly not buy a hamburger for lunch, then it's false that LJ "might or might not" buy a hamburger for today's lunch. Now, using this reasoning, since God knows the truth value of ALL propositions, God certainly knows precisely when it's true that I might or might not buy a hamburger for today's lunch, and also when it becomes true that I will or will not buy a hamburger for today's lunch.
          Ironically, OVT's are constantly accused of limiting God's knowledge, but, if the above is true, the CV is the one limiting God's knowledge by ignoring a whole set of truth values.

          Of course, God could have created the world such that everything was predetermined and thus all “might and might not” propositions were rendered false. (Which is the logical result to Calvinist teaching) My conviction, however, is that God decided to create a much more interesting and exciting world that was populated by world with free will. And since I believe God has given free will to us, his knowledge of what our future activities will be can only be expressed in propositions about what “might and might not” come to pass.
          At times I've thought to myself that maybe it's like some of the earlier episodes I've seen of Doctor Who. There are certain "fixed points in time", but considerable latitude on what happens between them. Let's call it the "D-theory" of time.

          Definitely some stuff for me to think about, and the more we talk, the more I realize how close our views are.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
            For one you just previously argued that joy was an emotion for God when you posted a response to Littlejoe. Make up your mind already.
            I don't believe I did. I said it was something God has but not in the way of an emotion. Emotion implies motion.

            Something like an emotion it can only be meaningfully spoken about if it means the same thing for all it applies to. In this case I only see special pleading as to why it doesn't mean the same thing for God as it does for man. If it's not an emotion for God, then your previous own argument makes no sense at all. Also, it would mean that God having other emotions would have no effect on His joy anyway, so it's a terrible flawed argument all around.
            This assumes that we are just like God in that sense. The medievals didn't think that. It's more of an offshoot of theistic personalism. We speak analogically of God. God is vastly different from us, but we try to explain Him in ways we can relate to.

            I also argued against joy being seen as an emotion in human beings, and God as well.

            I'll probably get called "anti-science" for this, but I don't care anymore. I don't think that thinking is "a process of the brain". It's more properly a process of the spirit/soul. The brain just puts thoughts into operation for the body. You're not following Thomastic/Aristotelian thought* very well if you think that the intellect is a "process of the brain".

            "On the contrary, The Philosopher assigns the intellectual faculty as a power of the soul (De Anima ii, 3)."

            Since thinking is not a "process of the brain" in my view, then your argument fails.
            No. It just moves to a different spot. Does God have a soul? If so, does He have a body also? Is God made up of parts?



            You need to show those passages mean change in the Aristotelian sense. There are also many passages that speak of God relenting, feeling anger, happiness, sadness etc. I think applying the Aristotelian view of change to those passages is anachronistic, and makes countless other passages incomprehensible. You haven't given me any reason to believe otherwise.
            Then what would change mean? How could God change? If He improves in some way, then that seems pretty weak for God. God is growing in goodness or what? If He decreases, so much for the worse. As for these passages, I have an easy way. They're anthropomorphisms. I do the exact same thing when I see the Bible talking about the body of God. If you don't believe Go literally has a body, then you are interpreting emotions literally and physical descriptions non-literally. Why the switch? My hermeneutic is consistent. I interpret both as anthropormophisms.

            Your view would require that Jesus is still on the cross, that God is still in the act of initial creation. This is contrary to many passages.
            Jesus doesn't have to be on the cross because that is referring to Jesus as a human being. The humanity of Jesus is not eternal. Is God still at the creation and creating? Yep. If not, then you have a God who is just moving along the timeline and you have a God who is then bound by time.

            Genesis 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
            Do you think God literally rested? He was literally tired? God got exhausted from creation?

            Romans 6:9-11 New International Version (NIV)
            9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

            11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

            Hebrews 7:27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

            Hebrews 9:12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption
            I don't see how this is a problem. You are confusing Jesus in His humanity with the deity. The humanity is not deity.

            I notice you didn't say anything about how impassibility, and the "Pure Act" concept negates the "Unmoved Mover" concept, or how it require a full on deterministic universe.
            I did. I said I deny that it requires determinism. God knowing the future does not mean God causes the future.

            *Given you're always putting down ID, and acting as if evolution is just fine I doubt you're following his thoughts on creation much at all.

            Source: Summa Contra Gentiles Book 3, Chapter 99, Paragraph 9

            Divine power can sometimes produce an effect, without prejudice to its providence, apart from the order implanted in natural things by God. In fact, He does this at times to manifest His power. For it can be manifested in no better way, that the whole of nature is subject to the divine will, than by the fact that sometimes He does something outside the order of nature. Indeed, this makes it evident that the order of things has proceeded from Him, not by natural necessity, but by free will.

            © Copyright Original Source

            I have no idea the relevance to this or what this has to do with ID or evolution.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
              God can and does both, it doesn't have to be one or the other.
              The main problem I have is that I can still change God. So the experience of the Trinity can be overcome by sin?

              Why do you think He's not always aware of those who could have been there...your view (CV) doesn't negate that.
              Just because motion is in the word emotion doesn't make it motion. Star is in startle that must mean when someone is startled then a star is born? Arm is in charm, therefore you charm someone by strong arming them?
              Yet, God DID change. We both agree that Jesus was not a man prior to the incarnation. Therefore, the Godhead unwent a change. So, if we have instances of change in God, and the Bible says God does not change, we have to examine both of those verses and reconcile them. Your reconcilliation is to dismiss the sections that disagree with your theology. How is that Biblical exegesis? Sounds more like assuming your conclusion...
              In light of this, the verses that say God does not change must mean that their are aspects of his Divine character and nature...i.e. the way He responds to us that does not change.
              Emotion is a word that was always taken to refer to something that was undergoing motion of some sort in the psyche. Emotions change. That is what motion is. Change. As for God undergoing change because of the Trinity, good grief no. The Godhead didn't become flesh. THe text says the Word was with God and the Word was God. John says it in a specific way to show that the Word has the nature of God, but He does not say that the Word is the totality of God in the sense that the Word is the Father, Son, and Spirit. Not at all! The Word became flesh. The second person of the Trinity took on a human nature, but His divine nature and the divine nature of the Godhead did not change one iota.

              Love is both emotion and action, just like Faith is a belief that requires action...they are inseparable IMO. Just as you can sometime continue to act when you have doubt, you can love when not feeling it. In addition, there are kinds of love. The blanket statement that love is not an emotion is short sighted.
              Then you will have to conclude that the sociopath who has no emotion is incapable of love. Love producing emotions does not mean that it is an emotion.

              Can you show your view for joy using Scripture or is it just how you see it?
              I do not think Scripture is meant to address that specifically. I don't think it would focus on the internal emotions as much. That's what we tend to do.

              yes, psychopaths can imitate having feelings of love, but they never really experience them...again, Love is both action and feeling, just like Faith is both belief and action. They are ultimately inseparable.
              It is often such for us, but that is a far cry from saying that that is the way it is for God. If we want to know what God is like, we do not start with us. A father could say, "I'm a Dad and God's something like that." No. God is Father and we're something like that. Theology starts with God. Not with us.

              Do you believe that the Future already exists...at least as far as God is concerned? If so, then yes it does follow. The future is exonerably fixed in God's mind or God's Will. Therefore, you can no more change the future than you can the past.
              Again, the future being what it is does not mean that God is the direct cause of it being the way it is. I just see two things in Scripture. God is sovereign and man has free will.

              The Joy of God was not evident in the suicide victims life, therefore it was defeated, just as it could not have been God's will for them to act as they did. Your theology seems internally inconsistent. How are we able to overcome God's will, but not his Joy in our lives?
              It depends on what will you have in mind. For instance, it was God's will that Jesus would die on the cross. That would not change. Some prophecies are conditional, but not all. I prefer the idea Lewis gave of a play and we are getting to ad lib certain scenes, but God knows when to call the curtain on it all. The bodily return of Jesus will happen one day and nothing we do will change that.

              So, we're idols? Maybe you can expound on that?
              I like what Bible Scholar D.J.A. Clines writes about this. He posits in his article "The Image of God in Man" (Tyndale Bulletin 19, 1968) He says that the Hebrew in Genesis favors the translation: "God created man as His image" over the more common translation "...in His image". Cline concludes "Thus we may say that according to Genesis 1, man does not have the image of God, nor is he mad in the image of God, but is himselfthe image of God." Humankind, then, was created to be a "copy" or a "graphic image" of the Creator. A formal, visible, and understandable representation of who God is and what He is really like.
              Precisely. That is what an idol was in the ancient world. It was a representation of the deity in the Temple. The Jews had no such representations because we were that representation. It is not in a physical sense however since man and woman are both equally in the image, unless you want to say God is a hermaphrodite.

              Nope, not a modalist. I find it curious you continually dismiss the person of Jesus in the Godhead. Is it your belief that God was no longer present in Christ on the cross? If we know Jesus, do we not know God Himself?
              If you consistently equate Jesus with the Godhead, then that's getting into modalism. Jesus was always fully God and fully man. Jesus is fully God. God is not fully Jesus. To know Jesus is to know God, but that does not mean that Jesus is the full Godhead. Jesus said to see Him is to see the Father. That does not mean Jesus is the Father, which is modalism.

              I find your world a much scarier place.
              Which is also ultimately irrelevant. We don't pick our theology based on how we feel about it of course.

              No it doesn't, stop projecting your own feelings onto the text.
              Okay. So you mean God did already know what Moses said? Then why did Moses need to say it on your view?

              Ok, he fulfilled it, then abandoned it in favor of a new one... There's no doubt that God interacts with mankind differently under the new covenant than he did under the old one...is there?
              Yes He does, but does that mean that His nature changed? I act differently as a husband than I did as a bachelor. I'm still fully human.

              Why does Moses or Abraham need testing? God already knows what they're going to do.
              Because they don't know and they are meant to be examples for us.

              You need to explain how God is not lying when He says He intends to do something but he never was going to do that as He knew Moses would intercede. If I told you I was going to send you a book you have been wanting, but I knew you would talk me out of it and therefore, I was never really intending to send you the book, am I being dishonest?
              He's not. He's bargaining. I believe if Moses had not interceded, God would have, but God knew Moses would intercede.

              What is really going on is God is going to destroy Israel and start over with Moses. Moses intercedes on their behalf and God relents. Proving that prayer has the power to change God's mind.
              But if God's mind is changed, then that means there had to be something God was ignorant of. A mind is changed when it gets new information. This new information came from Moses. What did Moses know that God didn't?

              If God knows the future as a sure thing, (commonly referred to exhaustive definitive foreknowledge or EDF) and not as contingencies, then God could not genuinely say he tests people “to know” whether they’ll be faithful or not.
              It is again not literal language. It is a way of the people revealing themselves and showing themselves publicly worthy of the blessing of God or His judgment.

              Exactly! CV posits fatalism and determinism. God moves you, when and where He wishes.
              No. The good is that which we move towards although we miss the mark of what is the good. When we sin, it is because we choose a lesser good over a greater good, but we cannot avoid choosing something we think is a good. No one chooses something they really think is an evil. They want something they think is good out of it.

              You keep saying that as if it were true. I guess you're not up on the scholarship (which is understandable given your beliefs). OVT has been around quite a while albeit as a very minority position. Jewish theologians that affirm and open view include Ibn Ezra (12th century) and Levi Ben Gerson in the 14th...as did many Jewish thinkers in the medival period, it was widely held and much discussed. The earliest Christian proponent (found so far) is Calcidius, (late fourth century) who wrote several books against fatalism and it's cousin determinism. In it he says that since God knows reality as it is he knows necessary truths necessarily and contingent truths contingently.
              there's also, Peter Auriol (13th century) and Peter de Rivo (fifteenth century). In the 1700's Samuel Fancourt published several works defending an Open View, for instance, Liberty, Grace and Prescience. and in 1730 published What Will Be Must Be arguing the issue is not about God's knowledge but about the nature of reality. i.e. are contingencies real or not? Andrew Ramsay in 1748 posits a variant to OVT position that though the future is knowable, God has chosen not to exercise thsi ability in order to preserve human freedom. I think many modern OVT's was not agree with that conclusion, nevertheless, it's a OVT position. In 1785 John Wesley reprinted Ramsay's material in his Arminian Magazine. Adam Clarke the well known Bible commentator defended it in 1831 as did the well know circuit preacher Billy Hibbard in 1843 (who says he learned of the view from an article in the Methodist magazine).
              As you can see, it's not all that new, certainly no more new than Protestantism...
              Feel free to show any quotations and where they are found.

              I'm interested in your arguments, let's see one.
              The unmoved mover is one.

              Again, you assume that change is necessarily bad. You have not proven that change entails moving from a better state to a worse state or from a worse state to a better state. That is necessary for change to be an issue.
              I have not said change is bad. I have said change implies that something else is in motion and thus I see as just part of the creation.

              Like wise, I contend that if OVT can show even one instance that God changes then CV is in trouble...and Scripture does that brilliantly. (Moses and Abraham among many others).
              And I can say then that Scripture shows brilliantly that God has a body since it speaks so often of His body.

              But then, that makes God a material being. Quite a problematic position.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                I don't believe I did. I said it was something God has but not in the way of an emotion. Emotion implies motion.
                Yeah you did, I'll grab the quote.

                Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                There are plenty of references to the body of God in the Old Testament, but few of us take those literally, yet somehow when we come to God's emotions, we do. I find that to be a sad God in many ways. I am supposed to have joy that comes from God and God alone and that is the greatest joy of all, but finite humans have the power to overcome the infinite joy of God? Doesn't make sense to me.
                Your argument here entails that for man and God joy is an emotion, and if God has other emotions it could "overcome the infinite joy of God".

                You've bought into the false assumption that any and all change must be either good or bad. There is such a thing as neutral change. For example painting a house a different color "changes" the house, but is a neutral change. Now, some people might prefer certain colors, but there is no such thing as the "best color", or "worst color".

                "Now, some people might prefer certain colors, but there is no such thing as the "best colour", or "worst colour"

                I copied and changed my last sentence in that paragraph. Is it better or worse?

                This assumes that we are just like God in that sense. The medievals didn't think that. It's more of an offshoot of theistic personalism. We speak analogically of God. God is vastly different from us, but we try to explain Him in ways we can relate to.
                The analogy has to mean something, and that meaning has to be clear otherwise it's meaningless. When we say someone is "strong like an ox", it only has meaning because oxen are actually strong. You dismiss all accounts of God having emotions as "anthropomorphisms", but you give no understanding to what that could even mean. I've not even seen you attempt to explain what any of them mean.

                The medievals aren't the ones who wrote the Biblical documents either. They were written by various groups who existed long before them. Let's try to get closer to the source, shall we?

                No. It just moves to a different spot. Does God have a soul? If so, does He have a body also? Is God made up of parts?
                The Bible says God is a spirit. We have God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. They are three distinct persons, and not some homogeneous blob. Jesus has both a divine and human nature.

                Then what would change mean? How could God change? If He improves in some way, then that seems pretty weak for God. God is growing in goodness or what? If He decreases, so much for the worse. As for these passages, I have an easy way. They're anthropomorphisms. I do the exact same thing when I see the Bible talking about the body of God. If you don't believe Go literally has a body, then you are interpreting emotions literally and physical descriptions non-literally. Why the switch? My hermeneutic is consistent. I interpret both as anthropormophisms.
                Assumes all change must be either positive or negative. You also ignore the simple answer of context. Just dismissing passages as "anthropormorphisms" because they don't fit your bad philosophy, without any explanation as to what they mean is simply bad exegesis. It's consistent with your philosophy, but not with what the text was trying to convey.

                The Bible doesn't say that God doesn't change in any way at all. The verse that say He doesn't change has to do with His promises, His words, and compares Him to people who don't keep theirs.

                Numbers 23:19 God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

                1 Samuel 15:29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.”

                James 1:16-18 New International Version (NIV)
                16 Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers and sisters. 17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. 18 He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.

                Which is comparable to this passage in Psalms.

                Psalm 15:3-5 New International Version (NIV)
                3 whose tongue utters no slander,
                who does no wrong to a neighbor,
                and casts no slur on others;
                4 who despises a vile person
                but honors those who fear the Lord;
                who keeps an oath even when it hurts,
                and does not change their mind;
                5 who lends money to the poor without interest;
                who does not accept a bribe against the innocent.

                Whoever does these things
                will never be shaken.

                If we take your hermeneutic consistently it must mean that whoever follows that passage will never experience change of any kind. For that to happen under your system they would need to become "pure act", which means they would be like God.

                The other time it is mentioned in Psalms 55 is in the context of David talking about a friend of his who has betrayed him and is deceitful. Which is contrasted by God who is trustworthy, and keeps His promises.

                Now that I think about it, your hermeneutic isn't consistent. You take the passages that God doesn't change to mean no change whatsoever of any kind. Which is actually a hyper literal way of taking the passages, especially when they emphasize things like God keeping His word and promises, but then you take other passages that speak about Him having emotions as "anthropomorphisms". Which is some kind of metaphorical way that you can't even begin to explain.

                Jesus doesn't have to be on the cross because that is referring to Jesus as a human being. The humanity of Jesus is not eternal. Is God still at the creation and creating? Yep. If not, then you have a God who is just moving along the timeline and you have a God who is then bound by time.
                But you've already stated that the past, present, and future all eternally exist. This requires that all things God ever did and will do, all things we ever did and will do, are all eternally happening, and eternally existing. This would include all things that God did that were within the bounds of time. If that weren't the case, then the past and present would be eternally in flux. God may not be bound by "time" in your view, but He is bound by "pure act" which requires that He is always doing the same things the same way eternally. The actual effects are basically the same.

                Do you think God literally rested? He was literally tired? God got exhausted from creation?
                I believe He literally ceased His creative activity, which is separate from His act of upholding it. I also believe He did this to lead by example.

                I don't see how this is a problem. You are confusing Jesus in His humanity with the deity. The humanity is not deity.
                No, I'm not confusing the two. Your view of time requires that God would have to do such things over and over again. When He reaches to us in time the effects are temporal, and would have to be for Him as well. It's logically impossible for it to be any other way under such a system. You've also again passed up one of the major objections I've had. The part that such a block universe means change is merely an illusion, and everything is purely actual throughout eternity. This means the potency/act distinction is meaningless since it is merely an illusion forced upon us that are inside of time.

                I did. I said I deny that it requires determinism. God knowing the future does not mean God causes the future.
                You said that to Littlejoe in a different post, but you didn't say how that is actually consistent with the philosophical system you are trying to adhere to. If the future already exists, then all of our actions are already set in stone. Under such a system determinism necessarily follows. Under a deterministic system the concept of potentiality and act are meaningless illusions. Aristotelian-Thomism refutes itself.

                I have no idea the relevance to this or what this has to do with ID or evolution.
                Never mind. Just forget I said anything.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Hmm . . . . God's Logos, that is, His Son, is the sole source of cause (John 1:3).
                  . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                  . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by TheWall View Post
                    I am happy Gods nature doesnt change. I mean could you imagine the impossible idea of him not being omnibenevolent?
                    I'd suggest reading Paul L. Gavrilyuk, The Suffering of the Impassible God: The Dialectics of Patristic Thought (check it out of the library via ILL - it's not cheap). It's a good read.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      I'd suggest reading Paul L. Gavrilyuk, The Suffering of the Impassible God: The Dialectics of Patristic Thought (check it out of the library via ILL - it's not cheap). It's a good read.
                      Sounds interesting.
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Didn't have time to get to this yesterday.

                        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                        Yeah you did, I'll grab the quote.



                        Your argument here entails that for man and God joy is an emotion, and if God has other emotions it could "overcome the infinite joy of God".
                        No. For us, joy can give us an emotional reaction, but it's also a state of mind. It's realizing things. One can feel sad and still have joy. Consider when a loved one dies. One can be mourning and in great agony, but aware they are in the presence of Jesus. It is not an emotion for God because He does not have a body.

                        You've bought into the false assumption that any and all change must be either good or bad. There is such a thing as neutral change. For example painting a house a different color "changes" the house, but is a neutral change. Now, some people might prefer certain colors, but there is no such thing as the "best color", or "worst color".

                        "Now, some people might prefer certain colors, but there is no such thing as the "best colour", or "worst colour"
                        Sure, but you would have to show what change you think is taking place in God. Also, God just outright says He changes not. It doesn't matter if the changes are neutral changes or not.

                        I copied and changed my last sentence in that paragraph. Is it better or worse?
                        I looked back at our last few posts and I have no idea what this is about.



                        The analogy has to mean something, and that meaning has to be clear otherwise it's meaningless. When we say someone is "strong like an ox", it only has meaning because oxen are actually strong. You dismiss all accounts of God having emotions as "anthropomorphisms", but you give no understanding to what that could even mean. I've not even seen you attempt to explain what any of them mean.
                        I do, the same way that I say about God having a body. When I see God described as angry, it means we have done behavior that displeases God and He reacts we way we think an angry person would. That does not mean that God is an angry person. That's a kind of theistic personalism that just has God as a great big version of us.

                        The medievals aren't the ones who wrote the Biblical documents either. They were written by various groups who existed long before them. Let's try to get closer to the source, shall we?
                        Sure. When we get closer to the source, such as the Fathers, we find them interpreting things the same way because other descriptions are not fitting for the glory of God. See for instance, Language for God in the Patristic Tradition by Mark Sheridan.

                        The Bible says God is a spirit. We have God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. They are three distinct persons, and not some homogeneous blob. Jesus has both a divine and human nature.
                        Okay.

                        So does God in His essence have parts? It's easy for some people to think that. I have seen good apologists refer to Jesus as part of God for instance, as if Jesus is 33.3% of the Trinity.



                        Assumes all change must be either positive or negative. You also ignore the simple answer of context. Just dismissing passages as "anthropormorphisms" because they don't fit your bad philosophy, without any explanation as to what they mean is simply bad exegesis. It's consistent with your philosophy, but not with what the text was trying to convey.
                        I have said above what they convey. You assume that the text is trying to convey this. Do you think the text is trying to convey that God has a body? If you want to say you want to take the references to God's emotions at face value, why not do the same with the bodily references?

                        The Bible doesn't say that God doesn't change in any way at all. The verse that say He doesn't change has to do with His promises, His words, and compares Him to people who don't keep theirs.

                        Numbers 23:19 God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

                        1 Samuel 15:29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.”
                        It's something fascinating to see the difference. In 1 Samuel 15, God says He is sorry He made Saul king, but the same text says He does not change His mind. You see both side by side very often. But what about you? Do you think God did not know what Saul would do? If He didn't, why did He make promises about the true king of the Jews coming from Judah, which was not Saul's tribe?

                        James 1:16-18 New International Version (NIV)
                        16 Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers and sisters. 17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. 18 He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.

                        Which is comparable to this passage in Psalms.

                        Psalm 15:3-5 New International Version (NIV)
                        3 whose tongue utters no slander,
                        who does no wrong to a neighbor,
                        and casts no slur on others;
                        4 who despises a vile person
                        but honors those who fear the Lord;
                        who keeps an oath even when it hurts,
                        and does not change their mind;
                        5 who lends money to the poor without interest;
                        who does not accept a bribe against the innocent.

                        Whoever does these things
                        will never be shaken.

                        If we take your hermeneutic consistently it must mean that whoever follows that passage will never experience change of any kind. For that to happen under your system they would need to become "pure act", which means they would be like God.
                        Not at all. For one thing, we have hard evidence that we have bodies and emotions. For another thing, to say we will never be shaken is true and it doesn't necessitate that we don't change. It means our covenant position with YHWH is the same regardless of what happens to us.

                        The other time it is mentioned in Psalms 55 is in the context of David talking about a friend of his who has betrayed him and is deceitful. Which is contrasted by God who is trustworthy, and keeps His promises.

                        Now that I think about it, your hermeneutic isn't consistent. You take the passages that God doesn't change to mean no change whatsoever of any kind. Which is actually a hyper literal way of taking the passages, especially when they emphasize things like God keeping His word and promises, but then you take other passages that speak about Him having emotions as "anthropomorphisms". Which is some kind of metaphorical way that you can't even begin to explain.
                        Nope. Still consistent. My hermeneutic is about God's covenant faithfulness which is grounded in His not changing. Malachi 3:6 says that. Because He changes not, Israel is not destroyed. God will honor His covenant. Of course, if God changes, then who knows? Maybe one day we'll stand before Him and He'll decide He wants to let all the atheists in to His kingdom and cast the rest of us to Hell.



                        But you've already stated that the past, present, and future all eternally exist. This requires that all things God ever did and will do, all things we ever did and will do, are all eternally happening, and eternally existing. This would include all things that God did that were within the bounds of time. If that weren't the case, then the past and present would be eternally in flux. God may not be bound by "time" in your view, but He is bound by "pure act" which requires that He is always doing the same things the same way eternally. The actual effects are basically the same.
                        God's nature doesn't change. Nothing can hold God bound including time. If God is not eternally at these points of time, then God is just moving along the timeline. God is in essence a part of His creation. It doesn't mean that what we do is eternally happening though since we are not eternal. God is just at the moments always where we are doing what we are doing.





                        I believe He literally ceased His creative activity, which is separate from His act of upholding it. I also believe He did this to lead by example.
                        But you don't take it that God got tired. Why? Because God doesn't change like that.



                        No, I'm not confusing the two. Your view of time requires that God would have to do such things over and over again. When He reaches to us in time the effects are temporal, and would have to be for Him as well. It's logically impossible for it to be any other way under such a system. You've also again passed up one of the major objections I've had. The part that such a block universe means change is merely an illusion, and everything is purely actual throughout eternity. This means the potency/act distinction is meaningless since it is merely an illusion forced upon us that are inside of time.
                        Not at all an illusion. Things really happen. Change takes place, but not in God. God sees it all happening at once and is there at all times at once. God also does not have to do things over and over again. He is at every point of time in eternity acting. To say He repeats is putting God on the timeline.



                        You said that to Littlejoe in a different post, but you didn't say how that is actually consistent with the philosophical system you are trying to adhere to. If the future already exists, then all of our actions are already set in stone. Under such a system determinism necessarily follows. Under a deterministic system the concept of potentiality and act are meaningless illusions. Aristotelian-Thomism refutes itself.
                        Ben. YOu have two choices. Either the future does not exist, which would mean open theism and it would mean God is not omniscient, or you can say that God knows the end from the beginning, as I am convinced Scripture says. This does not mean that God determines the future. Again, go with C.S. Lewis. God is the director of the play and He allows ad-libbing.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                          The main problem I have is that I can still change God. So the experience of the Trinity can be overcome by sin? Emotion is a word that was always taken to refer to something that was undergoing motion of some sort in the psyche. Emotions change. That is what motion is. Change. As for God undergoing change because of the Trinity, good grief no. The Godhead didn't become flesh. THe text says the Word was with God and the Word was God. John says it in a specific way to show that the Word has the nature of God, but He does not say that the Word is the totality of God in the sense that the Word is the Father, Son, and Spirit. Not at all! The Word became flesh. The second person of the Trinity took on a human nature, but His divine nature and the divine nature of the Godhead did not change one iota.
                          So, if I have a 3 legged stool and I add a foot to one of the legs, the stool has not changed? Tough sell there Nick. If one piece of the Godhead underwent change, then I just don't see how you can maintain the Godhead was unchanged. It's self-evident.

                          Then you will have to conclude that the sociopath who has no emotion is incapable of love. Love producing emotions does not mean that it is an emotion.
                          Actually, I think the jury's still out on sociopaths. IIRC, they can feel love, but lack the ability to empathize with others...just like the God of CV!

                          I do not think Scripture is meant to address that specifically. I don't think it would focus on the internal emotions as much. That's what we tend to do.
                          So, just your opinion....Got it!

                          It is often such for us, but that is a far cry from saying that that is the way it is for God. If we want to know what God is like, we do not start with us. A father could say, "I'm a Dad and God's something like that." No. God is Father and we're something like that. Theology starts with God. Not with us.
                          And if God is a sociopath as your view seems to entail, then we are somewhat sociopaths...or at least ascribing to be?

                          Again, the future being what it is does not mean that God is the direct cause of it being the way it is. I just see two things in Scripture. God is sovereign and man has free will.
                          I see the same thing as well...and yet, you have not adequately answered ...(or at all AFAICT) how if God knows the future as settled facts, that destiny does not reign supreme. How man who has free will can none the less, only do exactly as God see's it.

                          It depends on what will you have in mind. For instance, it was God's will that Jesus would die on the cross. That would not change. Some prophecies are conditional, but not all. I prefer the idea Lewis gave of a play and we are getting to ad lib certain scenes, but God knows when to call the curtain on it all. The bodily return of Jesus will happen one day and nothing we do will change that.
                          Really? Strawmen are so beneath someone of your stature AP. God's sovereign will is not on trial here. OVT's don't deny it at all. Although, I guess it might depend on your definition of God's Sovereignty...Calvinist would say that Sovereignty entails complete and total control of all future events (predestination) Lewis also said:
                          “The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they’ve got to be free. Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently, He thought it worth the risk.… If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will – that is, for making a real world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings, then we may take it it is worth paying.”(C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity).

                          Precisely. That is what an idol was in the ancient world. It was a representation of the deity in the Temple. The Jews had no such representations because we were that representation. It is not in a physical sense however since man and woman are both equally in the image, unless you want to say God is a hermaphrodite.
                          right, not necessarily physically, but emotionally and spiritually, yes!

                          If you consistently equate Jesus with the Godhead, then that's getting into modalism. Jesus was always fully God and fully man. Jesus is fully God. God is not fully Jesus. To know Jesus is to know God, but that does not mean that Jesus is the full Godhead. Jesus said to see Him is to see the Father. That does not mean Jesus is the Father, which is modalism.
                          I'm well aware of what modalism is AP. You though, seem to have trouble following my point to the logical conclusion. Jesus is fully God, but no, he doesn't make up the complete Godhead. However, you continue to argue God from the Father God viewpoint. So, if I'm being modalistic, then so are you. You acknowledge the texts where Jesus says, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." But wait! There's more! Jesus also identified himself in John 8:24 and 8:58 as "I Am", also in Revelation as "the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, Who is and who was and is to Come, the Almighty." Paul said: Colossians 2:9 - "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily", in Titus he says: "looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." I point out these scriptures that you already know because the point is this. Scripture PLAINLY tells us that if we want to know what God is like, Jesus is our blueprint, our model, "the exact image of God", our example of Godly behavior. Hebrews then sums up nicely what we should take away from all these scriptures that demonstrate "the fullness of God bodily".
                          Hebrews 2:17-18 - “Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.”
                          Hebrews 4:15-16 - “For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”
                          So, are you saying that God the Father is so detached from his Son that when the Son feels empathy to our weaknesses, and is merciful and gracious that God the Father, or the whole Godhead, does not feel these things?

                          Which is also ultimately irrelevant. We don't pick our theology based on how we feel about it of course.
                          agreed.

                          Okay. So you mean God did already know what Moses said? Then why did Moses need to say it on your view?
                          Ok, you totally lost me. I have no idea how this fits in with the conversation about Moses. I never said anything about what God knew or did not know about what Moses said or was going to say. Maybe you can clarify your thought.

                          Yes He does, but does that mean that His nature changed? I act differently as a husband than I did as a bachelor. I'm still fully human.
                          Again with the strawman defense? OVT's concur that God's nature doesn't change...NEVER said otherwise. But, you DO admit that the way God interacts with mankind did change. Just like you act different as a husband. You've changed! Admitting God does not change, yet God changes, seems like a paradox, but it's pretty simple.

                          Because they don't know and they are meant to be examples for us. He's not. He's bargaining. I believe if Moses had not interceded, God would have, but God knew Moses would intercede.
                          So again, God DID lie to him then. He already knew his decision so at the very least it was an empty threat. There's no avoiding that AP. And, what's he bargaining for? He's God...he doesn't have to bargain...remember, you're the one who said that God doesn't owe us anything.


                          But if God's mind is changed, then that means there had to be something God was ignorant of. A mind is changed when it gets new information. This new information came from Moses. What did Moses know that God didn't?
                          Change doesn't have to result from new information...it can but it's not necessary. What's demonstrated AGAIN is the power of prayer to allow God to move on our behalf. No new information was required. The Bible has multiple instances of the Lord telling us in the plainest terms possible that he was felt empathy for his children, was moved to compassion, and intended one thing and then changed his mind and did something else.

                          Here are a few more some examples (this is by no means an exhaustive list):

                          1 Chron 21:15—God said that he would destroy Jerusalem, but then he relented.
                          2 Kings 10:1-6—King Hezekiah was told through an inspired prophet that he would not recover from sickness. But after Hezekiah pleaded with God, the Lord told him “I will add fifteen years to your life.”
                          Ex 33:1-3, 14—In the light of Moses’ pleading, the Lord reversed his plan not to go with the Israelites into the promised land.
                          Deut 9:13-29—The Lord “intended to destroy” the Israelites, and was even ready to destroy Aaron. Moses’ 40-day intercession altered God’s intention.
                          1 Kings 21:21-29—The Lord says that he will bring disaster because of Ahab’s sins. But when Ahab repents, he says that he will not bring disaster.
                          2 Chron 12:5-8—The Lord was going to allow the Israelites to be conquered because of King Reheboam’s rebellion. The king and his officers repent, so the Lord changes his plan.
                          Jer 26:2-3—The Lord tells Jeremiah to prophesy to Israel that they should repent, saying, “I may change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on [Israel] because of their evil doings.”
                          Ez 4:9-15—God tells Ezekiel to act out a prophesy with human dung, but Ezekiel objects. God then allows Ezekiel to act it out with cow dung.
                          Amos 7:1-6—The Lord revealed two judgments and two times Amos intercedes. Twice the Scriptures say, “The Lord relented concerning this …”
                          Jonah 3:10—God “changed his mind” about the destruction he planned to carry out on Nineveh.

                          It is again not literal language. It is a way of the people revealing themselves and showing themselves publicly worthy of the blessing of God or His judgment.
                          But, then, why do you not think that the verses that say God does not change are literal? Hey! I just realized, I can do that too! The verses that say God does not change are not literal, they're a simply a symbol of God's stability and good character. Maybe, God does not change is meant to be taken hyperbolicly!

                          I submit, that both are to be taken literally...and that therefore they must be reconciled.

                          No. The good is that which we move towards although we miss the mark of what is the good. When we sin, it is because we choose a lesser good over a greater good, but we cannot avoid choosing something we think is a good. No one chooses something they really think is an evil. They want something they think is good out of it.
                          Did you mean no one? Or no Christian? Because, I believe evil men and evil spirits deliberately choose evil all the time. It's a key component in the cosmic spiritual war going on in the world since Satan's rebellion.

                          Feel free to show any quotations and where they are found.
                          Here's a few I could find:


                          Calcidius (4th century) - "...since God knows reality as it is he knows necessary truths necessarily and future contingent truths contingently." See J. den Boeft, Calcidius - Calcidius on Fate, pp. 52-6
                          Ibn Ezra (~1089-1167) - "Some say we need to read with different spelling: (Hebrew words that did not copy) ‘Uplifted’ instead of ‘Test’. And I say, the content of the Parashah (the story) proves that (Hebrew words that did not copy) is a ‘Test’. And experts explain that (Hebrew words that did not copy) (Test) means - to know what exists in the present. And the Gaon (a Babylonian Jewish leader) explained that the purpose of the test was to show His righteousness to the people. But the Gaon surely knew that when Avraham bound his son, no one else was there. And others say “go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the heights” meant to be “make a sacrifice upon the mountain.” And not him for sacrifice. And Abraham did not know the secret of the prophecy, and he hurried to slaughter him, and God said to him, “I did not ask for this.” All these wise leaders needed their interpretations because they couldn't believe that God would command a Mitzvah and then change it. But all those leaders did not notice that there is a precedent for a change like that." Commentary on Genesis 22:1
                          Gersonides (1300's) - I can't find the exact quote but this article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gersonides/ in section 4, on the Stanford Univ. website on Gersonides it spells out his position as thus: "Whereas Maimonides claimed that God's knowledge does not render the objects of his knowledge necessary, Gersonides maintains that divine knowledge precludes contingency. To retain the domain of contingency, he adopts the one option open to him: namely, that God does not have prior knowledge of future contingents. According to Gersonides, God knows that certain states of affairs may or may not be actualized. But insofar as they are contingent states, he does not know which of the alternatives will be the case. For if God did know future contingents prior to their actualization, there could be no contingency in the world."
                          For more on Medieval theologians see: Ed. Tamar Rudavsky. Divine Omniscience and Omnipotence in Medieval Philosophy: Islamic, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. See also, Richard Purtill, “Foreknowledge and Fatalism” Religious Studies 10 (1974)
                          Peter Auriol - This Stanford article https://plato.stanford.edu/ntries/auriol/ on Peter Auriol in section 2.3 Future Contingents and Divine Foreknowledge states: " First, he maintains that immutability and necessity are mutually implicative, and thus, since God is immutable, if he were to know the future, the future would be necessary....These two principles lead Auriol to theorize that God does know the future, but not as future; rather God knows the future indistantly, as abstracted from all time; it is therefore this special way of knowing the future that preserves human freedom and avoids divine necessitarianism.."
                          Peter de Rivo (1400's) - "Since then such a proposition can in no instant be changed from truth to falsity, it is necessary that it be immutably true, if it is true. But it is not immutably true, otherwise it would not be contingent with regard to the future. Therefore by no reasoning can it come about that a singular proposition about the future, whether contained in holy or profane literature, is true." - The Quarrel over Future Contingents (Louvain 1465–1475)
                          Adam Clarke (1831) - Therefore it does not follow that, because God can do all things, therefore he must do all things. God is omniscient, and can know all things; but does it follow from this that he must know all things? Is he not as free in the volitions of his wisdom, as he is in the volitions of his power? The contingent as absolute, or the absolute as contingent? God has ordained some things as absolutely certain; these he knows as absolutely certain. He has ordained other things as contingent; these he knows as contingent. It would be absurd to say that he foreknows a thing as only contingent which he has made absolutely certain. And it would be as absurd to say that he foreknows a thing to be absolutely certain which in his own eternal counsel he has made contingent. If there be no such things as contingencies in the world, then every thing is fixed and determined by an unalterable decree and purpose of God; and not only all free agency is destroyed, but all agency of every kind, except that of the Creator himself; for on this ground God is the only operator, either in time or eternity: all created beings are only instruments, and do nothing but as impelled and acted upon by this almighty and sole Agent. (The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments ...: With a commentary ... Page 710 - Adam Clarke)

                          The unmoved mover is one.
                          Yes...a bad one. It essentially reduces the Glory of God to an impersonable, unempathetic thing like "The Force" in the Star Wars movies.

                          I have not said change is bad. I have said change implies that something else is in motion and thus I see as just part of the creation.
                          The bible says God does not change, it never says God is static, immobile, motionless. Besides, that's not literal language right?

                          And I can say then that Scripture shows brilliantly that God has a body since it speaks so often of His body. But then, that makes God a material being. Quite a problematic position.
                          No, the Bible clearly states that God is a Spirit...it never says that God does not have emotions, and/or experiences them....it clearly shows that he does. That's problematic for you, not me.
                          Last edited by Littlejoe; 06-29-2018, 03:11 PM.
                          "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                          "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                            So, if I have a 3 legged stool and I add a foot to one of the legs, the stool has not changed? Tough sell there Nick. If one piece of the Godhead underwent change, then I just don't see how you can maintain the Godhead was unchanged. It's self-evident.
                            You have to ask what is essential to a stool and what is necessary to a stool. Did any essential attribute of deity change? Not at all. One person (Not one piece at all!) took on a human nature in addition to the divine.

                            How does that change the divine nature? The Athanasian Creed talks about the Trinity not blending the essences together. The nature of deity did not partake of humanity. A person with the nature of deity took on the nature of humanity. Big difference.


                            Actually, I think the jury's still out on sociopaths. IIRC, they can feel love, but lack the ability to empathize with others...just like the God of CV!
                            Perhaps so with sociopaths. I just know from who we've talked to. As for empathize, I think that's where Jesus comes in as Jesus empathizes. THe Father cares for us, but He is not moved by us. We do not change Him. His love is constant and cannot increase or decrease.

                            So, just your opinion....Got it!
                            And that shows it's wrong because?....

                            And if God is a sociopath as your view seems to entail, then we are somewhat sociopaths...or at least ascribing to be?
                            No. You were saying a person who does not feel cannot love. I said there are people who do not feel that are capable of loving. I stand by that. In fact, that is I think a higher form of love. Anyone can be loving when they feel like it. It is when they don't feel like it that it's most loving. I'm sitting here at night typing to you. If Allie needs something and interrupts me, I may not feel abundantly loving at that point, but I will do what I can anyway out of love.

                            I see the same thing as well...and yet, you have not adequately answered ...(or at all AFAICT) how if God knows the future as settled facts, that destiny does not reign supreme. How man who has free will can none the less, only do exactly as God see's it.
                            Let's consider a universe that exists where there is no God. I have free will and I choose to do X.

                            Now we have a universe where God exists and knows that I will do X and I still freely do it.

                            How does God knowing what I will freely do cause it? How does God knowing what I will freely do equal to Him causing me to do it?

                            Really? Strawmen are so beneath someone of your stature AP. God's sovereign will is not on trial here. OVT's don't deny it at all. Although, I guess it might depend on your definition of God's Sovereignty...Calvinist would say that Sovereignty entails complete and total control of all future events (predestination) Lewis also said:
                            How is explaining the different wills a straw man? I would say the same thing to a non-open theist. If someone asked me if I could go against the will of God, I would say it depends on what will and say the same thing. That's not a straw man.

                            “The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they’ve got to be free. Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently, He thought it worth the risk.… If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will – that is, for making a real world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings, then we may take it it is worth paying.”(C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity).
                            Right, and yet I don't think C.S. Lewis was an open theist. I think risk is not the best word to use, but if we say he denied divine foreknowledge because of that, then we're misrepresenting his view.

                            right, not necessarily physically, but emotionally and spiritually, yes!
                            That does not follow. God gave us emotions to use, but He also gave us physical bodies. Why does it then mean that if we have emotions, then God must as well? That would entail then that God has to have a physical body, which again would get me back to asking if God is a hermaphrodite since men and women are both made in His image.

                            I'm well aware of what modalism is AP. You though, seem to have trouble following my point to the logical conclusion. Jesus is fully God, but no, he doesn't make up the complete Godhead. However, you continue to argue God from the Father God viewpoint. So, if I'm being modalistic, then so are you. You acknowledge the texts where Jesus says, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." But wait! There's more! Jesus also identified himself in John 8:24 and 8:58 as "I Am", also in Revelation as "the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, Who is and who was and is to Come, the Almighty." Paul said: Colossians 2:9 - "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily", in Titus he says: "looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." I point out these scriptures that you already know because the point is this. Scripture PLAINLY tells us that if we want to know what God is like, Jesus is our blueprint, our model, "the exact image of God", our example of Godly behavior. Hebrews then sums up nicely what we should take away from all these scriptures that demonstrate "the fullness of God bodily".
                            Hebrews 2:17-18 - “Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.”
                            Hebrews 4:15-16 - “For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”
                            So, are you saying that God the Father is so detached from his Son that when the Son feels empathy to our weaknesses, and is merciful and gracious that God the Father, or the whole Godhead, does not feel these things?
                            God does not feel these things because Jesus would not feel them insofar as He is deity, but insofar as He is humanity and the humanity does not alter the deity.

                            Ok, you totally lost me. I have no idea how this fits in with the conversation about Moses. I never said anything about what God knew or did not know about what Moses said or was going to say. Maybe you can clarify your thought.
                            Sure. On open theism God does not know the future, yet this was not a case of the future per se. Moses is reminding God of something He should have known right then. He should have known then that if Israel died in the wilderness that Egypt and the other pagan nations would see it this way. Moses could see that. Why couldn't God?

                            God then is not just ignorant of the future, but of the present. Moses knew something God didn't know.

                            Again with the strawman defense? OVT's concur that God's nature doesn't change...NEVER said otherwise. But, you DO admit that the way God interacts with mankind did change. Just like you act different as a husband. You've changed! Admitting God does not change, yet God changes, seems like a paradox, but it's pretty simple.
                            It is simple. My position has changed and my relationship to a person has changed. I myself have not, at least not directly in my humanity. I as a human have of course undergone many changes since then, but changing my human nature is not one of them. That's been constant.

                            So again, God DID lie to him then. He already knew his decision so at the very least it was an empty threat. There's no avoiding that AP. And, what's he bargaining for? He's God...he doesn't have to bargain...remember, you're the one who said that God doesn't owe us anything.
                            I have also said the only thing God owes us is if He makes a promise. I don't think God lied any more than when He makes any other conditional statement. He allowed Moses to rise up to the conditions. It wouldn't be much of a demonstration of Moses if God had said, "Hey Moses. Here's what you have to say to get this to not happen. Now do it right."


                            Change doesn't have to result from new information...it can but it's not necessary. What's demonstrated AGAIN is the power of prayer to allow God to move on our behalf. No new information was required. The Bible has multiple instances of the Lord telling us in the plainest terms possible that he was felt empathy for his children, was moved to compassion, and intended one thing and then changed his mind and did something else.
                            Change of mind does result from new information of some sort, whether it be new information about future events becoming present reality or learning of new knowledge.

                            Here are a few more some examples (this is by no means an exhaustive list):

                            1 Chron 21:15—God said that he would destroy Jerusalem, but then he relented.
                            2 Kings 10:1-6—King Hezekiah was told through an inspired prophet that he would not recover from sickness. But after Hezekiah pleaded with God, the Lord told him “I will add fifteen years to your life.”
                            Ex 33:1-3, 14—In the light of Moses’ pleading, the Lord reversed his plan not to go with the Israelites into the promised land.
                            Deut 9:13-29—The Lord “intended to destroy” the Israelites, and was even ready to destroy Aaron. Moses’ 40-day intercession altered God’s intention.
                            1 Kings 21:21-29—The Lord says that he will bring disaster because of Ahab’s sins. But when Ahab repents, he says that he will not bring disaster.
                            2 Chron 12:5-8—The Lord was going to allow the Israelites to be conquered because of King Reheboam’s rebellion. The king and his officers repent, so the Lord changes his plan.
                            Jer 26:2-3—The Lord tells Jeremiah to prophesy to Israel that they should repent, saying, “I may change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on [Israel] because of their evil doings.”
                            Ez 4:9-15—God tells Ezekiel to act out a prophesy with human dung, but Ezekiel objects. God then allows Ezekiel to act it out with cow dung.
                            Amos 7:1-6—The Lord revealed two judgments and two times Amos intercedes. Twice the Scriptures say, “The Lord relented concerning this …”
                            Jonah 3:10—God “changed his mind” about the destruction he planned to carry out on Nineveh.
                            And I can show you many many verses that describe the body of God.

                            Do you believe that God has a physical body then and take those literally?

                            But, then, why do you not think that the verses that say God does not change are literal? Hey! I just realized, I can do that too! The verses that say God does not change are not literal, they're a simply a symbol of God's stability and good character. Maybe, God does not change is meant to be taken hyperbolicly!

                            I submit, that both are to be taken literally...and that therefore they must be reconciled.
                            Because I think God does stay the same throughout Scripture and He cannot be improved on in any way and that a change to His nature would mean an improvement or a regression in His nature.

                            Did you mean no one? Or no Christian? Because, I believe evil men and evil spirits deliberately choose evil all the time. It's a key component in the cosmic spiritual war going on in the world since Satan's rebellion.
                            I meant no one. It has been said by I think Augustine or Lewis, one of them, that the tragedy of the devil was that he looked out at the glory of heaven and thought only of his own glory. Of course, that was wrong, but notice what he thought of if that is accurate. His own glory. Something he perceived to be good. True pure evil cannot exist. It is a negation of reality. The devil has things about him that are good, such as being, intellect, and will. He misuses them for evil however.


                            Here's a few I could find:


                            Calcidius (4th century) - "...since God knows reality as it is he knows necessary truths necessarily and future contingent truths contingently." See J. den Boeft, Calcidius - Calcidius on Fate, pp. 52-6
                            In a search I could not find much on this, but I did find that there's nothing definitive that Calcidus was a Christian. If he was not, I consider that of great importance.

                            Ibn Ezra (~1089-1167) - "Some say we need to read with different spelling: (Hebrew words that did not copy) ‘Uplifted’ instead of ‘Test’. And I say, the content of the Parashah (the story) proves that (Hebrew words that did not copy) is a ‘Test’. And experts explain that (Hebrew words that did not copy) (Test) means - to know what exists in the present. And the Gaon (a Babylonian Jewish leader) explained that the purpose of the test was to show His righteousness to the people. But the Gaon surely knew that when Avraham bound his son, no one else was there. And others say “go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the heights” meant to be “make a sacrifice upon the mountain.” And not him for sacrifice. And Abraham did not know the secret of the prophecy, and he hurried to slaughter him, and God said to him, “I did not ask for this.” All these wise leaders needed their interpretations because they couldn't believe that God would command a Mitzvah and then change it. But all those leaders did not notice that there is a precedent for a change like that." Commentary on Genesis 22:1
                            I recommend reading the rest of it.

                            https://www.sefaria.org/Ibn_Ezra_on_...h=all&lang2=en

                            The idea is not that God changed His mind but that the commandment changed. Ibn Ezra says that the commandment did not change. God did this so He could give Abraham a way to do this to demonstrate His righteousness. If the passage is ambiguous, we would have to look elsewhere to see what else Ibn Ezra said on this.

                            Gersonides (1300's) - I can't find the exact quote but this article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gersonides/ in section 4, on the Stanford Univ. website on Gersonides it spells out his position as thus: "Whereas Maimonides claimed that God's knowledge does not render the objects of his knowledge necessary, Gersonides maintains that divine knowledge precludes contingency. To retain the domain of contingency, he adopts the one option open to him: namely, that God does not have prior knowledge of future contingents. According to Gersonides, God knows that certain states of affairs may or may not be actualized. But insofar as they are contingent states, he does not know which of the alternatives will be the case. For if God did know future contingents prior to their actualization, there could be no contingency in the world."
                            For more on Medieval theologians see: Ed. Tamar Rudavsky. Divine Omniscience and Omnipotence in Medieval Philosophy: Islamic, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. See also, Richard Purtill, “Foreknowledge and Fatalism” Religious Studies 10 (1974)
                            This one looks much more promising, though admittedly the rare exception.

                            Peter Auriol - This Stanford article https://plato.stanford.edu/ntries/auriol/ on Peter Auriol in section 2.3 Future Contingents and Divine Foreknowledge states: " First, he maintains that immutability and necessity are mutually implicative, and thus, since God is immutable, if he were to know the future, the future would be necessary....These two principles lead Auriol to theorize that God does know the future, but not as future; rather God knows the future indistantly, as abstracted from all time; it is therefore this special way of knowing the future that preserves human freedom and avoids divine necessitarianism.."
                            In all honesty, I do not understand what is meant by knowing the future indistantly and as abstracted. I would need clarification on that.

                            Peter de Rivo (1400's) - "Since then such a proposition can in no instant be changed from truth to falsity, it is necessary that it be immutably true, if it is true. But it is not immutably true, otherwise it would not be contingent with regard to the future. Therefore by no reasoning can it come about that a singular proposition about the future, whether contained in holy or profane literature, is true." - The Quarrel over Future Contingents (Louvain 1465–1475)
                            I'm having a hard time finding this quote so I find it wise to reserve comment until I see the context of it.

                            Adam Clarke (1831) - Therefore it does not follow that, because God can do all things, therefore he must do all things. God is omniscient, and can know all things; but does it follow from this that he must know all things? Is he not as free in the volitions of his wisdom, as he is in the volitions of his power? The contingent as absolute, or the absolute as contingent? God has ordained some things as absolutely certain; these he knows as absolutely certain. He has ordained other things as contingent; these he knows as contingent. It would be absurd to say that he foreknows a thing as only contingent which he has made absolutely certain. And it would be as absurd to say that he foreknows a thing to be absolutely certain which in his own eternal counsel he has made contingent. If there be no such things as contingencies in the world, then every thing is fixed and determined by an unalterable decree and purpose of God; and not only all free agency is destroyed, but all agency of every kind, except that of the Creator himself; for on this ground God is the only operator, either in time or eternity: all created beings are only instruments, and do nothing but as impelled and acted upon by this almighty and sole Agent. (The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments ...: With a commentary ... Page 710 - Adam Clarke)
                            This one also seems to be valid.

                            Yes...a bad one. It essentially reduces the Glory of God to an impersonable, unempathetic thing like "The Force" in the Star Wars movies.
                            First off, this does not refute the argument. Saying one thinks it produces The Force, does not show it to be false. If the argument is true, then it is a problem for open theism and keep in mind once Aquinas shows that God exists, he goes on throughout the Prima Pars right after to talk about the nature of the God who exists.

                            The bible says God does not change, it never says God is static, immobile, motionless. Besides, that's not literal language right?
                            Actually, I think God is the most active being in the universe. He is upholding all things by His will and doing activities eternally. Since He is unmoved, that means all things He does are genuine. I cannot coerce God or manipulate Him.

                            No, the Bible clearly states that God is a Spirit...it never says that God does not have emotions, and/or experiences them....it clearly shows that he does. That's problematic for you, not me.
                            Ah. So all the passages about God having a body are not literal because He is a spirit, even though some people, including I think Tertullian, hypothesized a spiritual matter and a spiritual body.

                            It's not a problem for me. I read the texts about Him having emotions the same as Him having a body. You see it as one because you hold that those texts are accurate descriptions of God's nature. I don't. I don't any more than the body texts are descriptions of God's nature.

                            Yet after I get done reading on Catholicism and Orthodoxy for the Princess, perhaps I will look at open theism and do some blogs on it. The Princess's needs come first though.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                              It's a way many people think of the idea of the Unmoved mover, but it depends on what is meant by relation.

                              Do we have the power in ourselves to change God, for instance?
                              No, absolutely not.

                              God is unchangeable. Otherwise Hebrews 13.8, which asserts that “Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever”, would be false.
                              The Unchangeableness of God is required by His Covenant-Faithfulness. And if He is capable of change, He cannot be the God of Hebrews 6.13 ff.:

                              13When God made His promise to Abraham, since He had no one greater to swear by, He swore by Himself, 14saying, “I will surely bless you and multiply your descendants.”c15And so Abraham, after waiting patiently, obtained the promise. 16Men swear by someone greater than themselves, and their oath serves as a confirmation to end all argument. 17So when God wanted to make the unchanging nature of His purpose very clear to the heirs of the promise, He guaranteed it with an oath. 18Thus by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be strongly encouraged. 19We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and steadfast. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20where Jesus our forerunner has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.”

                              A changeable God cannot do that. If His oath and promise are “two unchangeable things”, He cannot be changeable, for those two things have no being or stability apart from Him from Whom, Alone, they come. Therefore, He is unchanging.

                              Change is what creatures do: “the grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of JHWH stands for ever”. And “All flesh is grass”.

                              Ps.102:

                              25In the beginning You laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. 26They will perish, but You remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing You will change them, and they will be passed on. 27But You remain the same, and Your years will never end.…”

                              Isa. 51:

                              ”Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look at the earth below; for the heavens will vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment, and its people will die like gnats. But My salvation will last forever, and My righteousness will never fail.”

                              And there is this:

                              St Matthew 25.34:

                              ”"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.””

                              St John 17.24:

                              ”Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.”

                              Eph.1:

                              3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms. 4For He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in His presence. In love5He predestined us for adoption as His sons through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will,…”

                              1 Peter 1:

                              17Since you call on a Father who judges each man’s work impartially, live your lives in reverent fear during your temporary stay on earth. 18For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your forefathers, 19but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or spot. 20He was known before the foundation of the world, but was revealed in the last times for your sake.”

                              Those passages, and others like them, speak of a God Who does not change, but Who is Faithful, Constant, “...the Father of lights, with Whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” (James 1.17)
                              If we do, then God is moved by us. We could say we pray and God does act, but we don't change God's nature, and God is not on the timeline waiting to see what we will pray and then deciding something. God eternally knows all things and is eternally hearing your prayers and eternally answering. If by real relation one means God changes us and we change God, then no. If you mean by it that God acts on the world and we respond to Him, then fine.
                              Also, the incarnation does not entail any motion in God. God does not change. The Trinity never altered itself. The second person just took on flesh.
                              In short, God is not changed by anything, not even by His acts *ad extra*. Agreed.
                              Finally, the argument either works or it doesn't. If it works and God is not changed, as Scripture itself says, then we have a problem as there must be some other God out there, but He's not the God of Scripture.
                              I have difficulty seeing what that sentence means. It reads like a denial of God’s Changelessness. But that seems to be ruled out by what precedes it.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                                ...In all honesty, I do not understand what is meant by knowing the future indistantly and as abstracted. I would need clarification on that.
                                On “indistant” knowledge in God, try this:

                                ”But it was not simply the great thinkers who took on this issue. As Schabel reminds us, even lesser lights such as Peter Auriol, a Franciscan active at the University of Paris in the second decade of the 14th century, subjected the topic to close scrutiny. Several ingredients go into the making of Peter's position, consciously worked out in opposition to Scotus's perceived determinism while modifying in profound ways Aquinas's proposal. S. devotes a chapter (3-6) to each of the following. First, God does not know the future as future; since God is immutable, and immutability is the same as necessity: if God did know the future as future, the future would happen necessarily. Second, God knows the future as "indistant" to God (99-102), here pursuing, albeit in different terms, a point dear to Thomas. Although Peter has difficulty explaining exactly what is involved in "indistance" (105), he seems to be engaging in a form of negative theology, denying to God what is inappropriate, while ascribing to God the fullness of knowledge. God is not subject to tense or found in the succession of time, and it would be wrong to say that God has an expectative knowledge of what, for us, lies in the future. Thus, as for what is future to us, this is indistant to God, as are the past and our present; God simply grasps such, knowing how God's being can be participated, while abstracting from futurition, presentiality, and preterition. Third, in agreement with Aristotle, Peter insists that singular propositions about the future are neither true nor false. Finally, for Peter it is important to distinguish between God's intrinsic and extrinsic willing. By the former, the will of complacency, God wills toward both sides of the contradiction equally, and is equally pleased by what is actualized. In extrinsic willing, on the other hand, God's will is efficacious of what God wills, as in the very creating of all things. It is the will of complacency, not God's extrinsic willing, that is involved in God's knowledge of contingents.”

                                https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Theol......-a090871734

                                ”Indistant” knowledge seens from the context to be tense-free knowledge of things the occurrence of which requires the use of tenses.
                                Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 06-30-2018, 06:25 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                                14 responses
                                75 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                                6 responses
                                61 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                                1 response
                                23 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                                0 responses
                                22 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                                7 responses
                                63 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Working...
                                X