The Epistomological Impact of an Omnitemporal Eternity on Theological Paradigms. Posted on 08/07/2002 9:26:57 AM PDT by P-Marlowe
The Epistomological Impact of an Omnitemporal Eternity on Theological Paradigms.
© 2000, J.W. Carter. All rights reserved
"From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God." (Psalm 90:2)
Abstract. There have been long-held views concerning the eternity of God that have played a major part in understanding who God is, creating paradigms that lay the groundwork for Christian (and non-Christian) doctrines. The following is an argument that God, who exhibits the attribute of eternity, exists outside of created time and space as we experience it, and yet interacts with it (an attribute herein described as, omnitemporality). God created time when he created the universal Euclidean space that is measured by it. God’s omniscience and omnipresence enables Him to observe and interact with all of His creation for all time from the point of its origin to the prophesied end of the age. In such an existence man’s free will is not abrogated by God’s knowledge, leaving man responsible for his decisions. Yet, God knows the results of our decisions, not through absolute prediction but rather because He can already observe those results. This apologetic begins with an observation of eternity as demonstrated in His creation (Romans 1:19-20). We will then look at the theological, Christological, soteriological and escatological impact of such a thesis.
"How completely satisfying to turn from our limitations to a God who has none. Eternal years lie in his heart. For him time does not pass, it remains; and those who are in Christ share with him all the riches of limitless time and endless years." A. W. Tozer (1897–1963)
The date was July 16, 1969. America was engaged in an international race for dominance in space exploration. Physicists and theologians alike were stimulated by the potential discoveries and opportunities that the experiences of the age would provide to their respective theological, sociological, and ideological assumptions. Following the tides of debate that preceded their historic mission, Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Mike Collins departed for the moon.
The mid twentieth century saw an awakening among physicists who were uncovering some of the basic physical properties of the materials that make up the universe. The most prominent among these physicists was Albert Einstein. The most provocative of his many theories, and the one for which he will always be best known is his Theory of Relativity. Many of the components of this set of theoretical physical paradigms has since been successfully disproved, such as the existence of photons. (My condolences to all of you Star Trek fans.) However, one important component of his theory has been successfully defended and demonstrated, and can have a profound societal, philosophical, and theological impact when considered in the context of the creation of the universe by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal God. Einstein’s principle herein presented is profound in its implication, yet simple to explain: the rate at which one experiences the passing of time is a function of the rate of acceleration at which one is travelling. The relative differences in the rate of the passing of time by those who experience acceleration at different rates can be derived from the now famous equation:
E = MC2
This expression describes a functional relationship between a change in physical mass as it relates to expended energy and time. If this component of Einstein’s theory can be proven, some long-held philosophical and theological positions would be seriously challenged. To those who have held to a long-believed paradigm that separates time as we experience it from eternity, their thesis would be vindicated.
Four days after the Apollo 11 astronauts departed terra firma they arrived at and landed on the moon where Neil Armstrong would make history as the first man ever to set foot on it. He did so, stating from script, "This is one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind." He was unaware of one of some of those leaps in understanding that were about to be made. While traveling, the scientists had difficulty synchronizing the earth-based computers with those on the space ship. Upon the arrival of the astronauts back on earth, it was verified that the computer clocks and the chronometers that they carried were running a few milliseconds "slow." Actually, their computer and watches were not running slow. Their timing devices were quite accurate, and were responding to one of the defensible principles of the theory of relativity: the astronauts, their space ship, and everything on it experienced a longer period of passing time than those of us who remained on the earth. They aged a few milliseconds more than we because they had experienced periods of acceleration that were at different rates than we had during the same period of time.
This report was little more than a sidebar in news coverage, but caught my attention as an inquisitive teenager who was trying to resolve conflicts between my understanding of the truths of God’s word, and the physical laws presented in my chosen interest fields of physics and astronomy. This empirical proof of the relative experience of the passing of time had already been demonstrated in many other experiments, but it was this event that put the proof in prime-time media coverage, and through what can only be described as a theophany, answered for me in the passing of a single moment what had been a large set of heavily-debated theological questions. There is undeniable evidence of a clear and simple relationship between changes in physical mass, physical energy and the passing of time. For the physicist this concept is now a non-issue, long-proven and well-understood. It has led to explanations of many of the astronomical phenomena we discovered in the last several years as we have witnessed, for example, the warping of time by the extreme gravitation of immense stars that referred to as black holes. For the theologian, this concept is equally profound and can shake the very foundations of many time-held presuppositions: time as we know it, understand it, and experience it is a created physical property.
The Omnitemporality of God
"For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night" (Ps. 90:4.) "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (1 Peter 3:8.)
What are the implications of this thesis for the Christian theologian? If time is a physical property, then God created time when he created the rest of the physical universe. God is not limited by the physical properties of this creation and is as a logical consequence, neither subject to or limited by created time as we experience and know it. Having created it, He can "stand" outside of it, and interact within it whenever and wherever He chooses. "He is before time (pretemporal), He is above time (supertemporal), and He is after time (postemporal).1 Let us also add that God works in and through created time. Because of this latter argument God is not "timeless" as some argue, and He is not dead as some "theothanatologists" would argue.2 "It is difficult to attain any conception of the mode of existence which is thus ascribed to Him. It is so different from our own. Yet, a brief consideration of what is involved in the nature of God must convince us that the idea which we express by these statements is just and true." In order to identify this quality of eternity as "just and true,"3 let us continue to develop and refer to this resulting, eternal, attribute of God as His omnitemporality. God is omnitemporal. Just as our omniscient God sees and knows all things that take place in the universe He has created, He also sees and knows all things that transpire in that creation from its revealed beginning to its prophesied end. It is as if all of the events of all time simply lay in the palm of his hand. "God has no beginning, end, or succession of moments in his own being, and he sees all time equally vividly, yet God sees events in time and acts in time."4 This argument impacts our very understanding of who God is, and how he relates to us in many areas of the Christian life.
"God is an invisible, personal, and living Spirit, distinguished from all other spirits by several kinds of attributes: metaphysically God is self-existent, eternal, and unchanging."5 What does it mean for God to exhibit the attribute of eternity, and what impact does his transcendence of physical time have on our understanding of God’s knowledge?
First, it should be noted that a distinction between a linear created physical time and a separate property of eternity is not a new or radical concept. Charles Hodge ascribed to an omnitemporal God when he stated, "With Him there is no distinction between the present, past, and future; but all things are equally and always present to Him."6 Paul Enns states, "The eternity of God is usually understood as related to time. By definition it means that God is not limited or bound by time; with God there is no succession of events; He is above all temporal limitations.7 Charles Ryrie: "He recognizes successiveness of events, but all past, present, and future events are equally vivid to Him."8 These theologians base their theses, not by scientific observation of the properties of the universe as I did in my early years, but by a far more reliable resource: God’s word as revealed in scriptures.
When one looks at the positions of respected theologians, we find that this theme of the eternity of God as separate and "outside the rhelm" of created time is quite common. Even Saint Augustine understood this concept when he stated,
"Thou precedest all things past, by the sublimity of an ever-present eternity; and surpassest all future because they are future, and when they come, they shall be past; but Thou art the Same, and Thy years fail not. Thy years neither come nor go; whereas ours both come and go, that they all may come. Thy years stand together, because they do stand; nor are departing thrust out by coming years, for they pass not away; but ours shall all be, when they shall no more be." 9
God is above the limitations of created time just as he is above the limitations of created matter and space. However, this does not mean that God is separate from it. "With the beginning of time, God did not retire from the scene and become simply an on-looker, God watching history unfold like a spectator at a theater. God is in the play as the main character."10 This omnipresent God also has the ability to interact in our time to affect His purposes for us. "The unconditioned eternity of God brings into harmony with itself the limitations and conditions of the temporal. For time is purely relative, which eternity is not."11 Certainly, when we try to compare time to this omnitemporal eternity we look through a glass darkly. We have no substantially defined paradigm or model with which to describe the properties of eternity. Though several people have been given a glimpse of that eternal state, (e.g. Daniel, Ezekial, John,) even they were limited by the vocabulary of their day and had no succinct way to describe what it was that they were seeing. Consequently, no effort to create a definition of the properties of eternity will be attempted here.
The properties of created time and the omnitemporal eternity of God are disparate and distinct entities. However, there is a form of connection made between them; a bridge that God has been able to cross in order to interact with His creation. "No distinctions of before and after are admissible in the eternity conception, hence, we have no right to speak of time as a portion of eternity. Thus, while we maintain the essential difference between eternity and time, we at the same time affirm what may perhaps be called the affinity between them."12 As that affinity includes the ability of God to step into our time and interact over periods of our time, there appears to be a similar construct in eternity itself, though one that must be radically different from anything we can imagine. The entities that can pass over this "bridge" include the persons of the Trinity and God’s messengers: those angels (or demons) that also interact with God’s creation. One consistent characteristic of those that pass across this bridge is that all of these entities are supernatural, and lack temporal substance that we can clearly identify with our physical senses, leaving us a difficult task in identifying them. On many occasions God has made his angels visible by presenting them in physical form.
Christology
If we can remove the limitation of created time from God’s attributes, we can understand how God can enter into any point in time He chooses. Furthermore, there are several Old Testament references to the Lord appearing bodily to the patriarchs, (Gideon, Jacob), and many theologians interpret these encounters as taking place between those patriarchs and Christ. If we see all of eternity as a line from infinity past to infinity future, with God walking this line along with us, such a doctrine seems preposterous. However, the scriptures describe Christ as eternal, and the agent of creation (John 1:1ff), not a product of it. As an eternal person of the Godhead, it is certainly reasonable for the Messiah to have entered into our time in His resurrected body at a point that is actually prior to the incarnation.
Still, God’s purpose included a relationship with mankind that included his stepping into our time. "The Incarnation means that God took upon himself, in Christ, a human nature, which included time, space and matter. This presupposes that the divine nature is different from human nature. Part of that difference has traditionally been seen as God’s not being limited by time, space and matter. Only if a bird doesn’t swim in the ocean but flies in the air can it enter the ocean from above; only because God is not temporal, can he become temporal." 13
As a human, how could Jesus predict his death? For some who place God on a time-line with us, this is a perplexing question. One theologian who ascribes to this limitation of God, Benjamin Warfield was so concerned with this argument that he places the subject of predestination and the foresight of Jesus first in his text on biblical doctrines, and in his conclusion renders the resolution of the question as hopeless.14 However, if we believe that Jesus is the eternal Christ, he shares God’s omnitemporal knowledge. Just as He is able to step into history, Jesus is cognizant of the future that, as the Christ, He also has already seen. This, of course leaves us with the paradox of Jesus testimony of ignorance concerning the day and hour of his returning (Matt. 24:35.) Somehow, only God the Father knows the moment of the end of the age.
Predestination and Free-Will
Another set of doctrines that is dramatically effected by interpretation of time, space, and eternity is that of predestination. Although the term, "predestination" is usually tied to the issue of salvation, it can refer to the broader issue of God’s plan for all of history.15 If we limit God to our time experience, God’s knowledge of the future can only be seen as omniscient prediction or total sovereign control. This issue divided the church early in the reformation when John Calvin taught a theology that all events that take place in creation are providentially planned. God’s forordination of the events of history is so absolute that those whom He has planned for election cannot resist the gospel. Shortly after Calvin’s death, Jacobus Arminius countered Calvin’s deterministic position with the teaching that every person is free to accept or reject God’s grace. This position created so much conflict in the early church that it is thought to have contributed to his declined health. 16
When taken to the extreme, Calvin’s position has been used to argue against the responsibility of Christians to share the gospel. Their belief is that if God has preordained a soul’s salvation, there is no need for a missionary effort. This also implies that if a person is ordained to be lost, no amount of evangelism can make a difference. It is interesting that people could place their doctrine under such a veil when the documented New Testament experience is almost entirely missionary-based. Such a position is inspired by a misunderstanding of God’s eternity, and is damaging to the propagation of the gospel by discouraging evangelism, the very essence and commission of God’s purpose for the temporal Christian experience.
When taken to a greater extreme, a fatalistic viewpoint arises that absolves mankind of all responsibility for their actions. "If all that transpires in this world is God’s will, and I kill you, then Praise God, it was His will that you die. I am only God’s obedient hand." This argument has been used to justify tyranny, terrorism, and violence.
Soteriology
"That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day" (2 Timothy 1:12.)
Arminius’ alternate position was not without its theological side effects. He taught that, since we have a free will to accept God’s grace, we also have the opportunity to reject that grace once it has been received. He overlooked the assurance of salvation that is taught by Jesus (e.g. John, chapter 10), the apostle Paul, and many modern theologians such as C.S. Lewis, E.Y. Mullins and Hershel Hobbs. The soteriological positions of these latter theologians are largely based upon Calvinism, though they differ in the area of deterministic predestination because of their understanding of an omnitemporal God. C.S. Lewis wrote, "My free act contributes to the cosmic shape. That contribution is made in eternity or ‘before all worlds’; but my consciousness of contributing reaches me at a particular point in the time series."17 The decisions we make are "made in eternity" by virtue of God’s habitation there. It is simply that "Man is free to choose … but is responsible for his choices. God knows these choices beforehand but does not predetermine them."18 Under this system of belief, we are (1) responsible for our choices, and (2) demonstrate our faithfulness to the gospel by our testimony and witness as we, like Christ, spread the good news to seek and to save the lost. The receipt of salvation by God’s grace is a free choice. Because of God’s eternity we are not puppets who respond to the puppeteer’s strings of irresistible grace, but rather free agents who can accept or reject the gospel.
God’s Immutability
When we see God’s eternity as wholly outside of created time, the doctrine of his immutability, or unchanging nature, also takes on a more distinct meaning. It is not possible for God to change during the period from the beginning of creation to the end of the age, because unlike our linear experience of day-to-day change, God resides outside of that linear limitation. God’s residence outside of the space-time continuum means that He will be the same God today as He is tomorrow, because He did not experience that change in the way we did (1 Peter 3:8.) "What we are dealing with here is the dependability of God. He will be the same tomorrow as He is today. He will act as He has promised. He will fulfill His commitments. The believer can rely upon that."19 Consequently, since God does not change, His plan does not change. God has dealt with mankind in the same manner through the temporal ages, and will continue to do so to the end. What has been changing has been the way that man has interpreted that plan. God has revealed himself through temporal time in a gradual and effectual manner. He introduced himself to Moses as "I AM," a name that has gone a long way in helping us understand his eternity. He did not say, "I was the beginning and will be the end." He said, "I AM" in a manner that transcends both the beginning and the end. Three times in the book of Revelation, God describes himself again using "I AM," and this time with a consistent description: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End" (Rev. 1:8, 21:6, 22:12.)
Eschatology
"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life" (2 Corinthians 5:1-4.)
"What will happen to me when I die?" This question has plagued mankind since creation, and answers have served to form the basis for religions in every culture. The scripture teaches that upon death, the faithful will receive a resurrection body, one which is suited to eternity (Acts 2:31; 1 Cor. 15:42). The presence of a body implies motion, and motion implies time. We can take this speculative venture a step further if we sacrifice a little scholarship. C.S. Lewis illustrated his position on this omnitemporal, independent time structure in his series of children’s stories entitled "The Chronicles of Narnia." In this series four children were given a supernatural opportunity to travel between this present and common world and the wonders of another world named "Narnia." A portal was discovered that allowed the children to literally step between the different worlds. Each visit to the wonderland of Narnia would find them arriving there in a different time context, and the time of their return to earth was not related to the time spent on Narnia. As one reads the text, several entities in the Land of Narnia seem to be allegories of heaven. Lewis hints at this earth/heaven allegory throughout the text until the end of the series when the children die in a tragic accident and are taken quickly, and quite permanently, to Narnia. Lewis saw the passing of time in both environs, with the two being independent of one another.
The scripture also teaches that all of the dead will rise at the final judgment (Rev. 20.) However, Jesus told the thief on the cross, "today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43.) There are variant descriptions of the amount of "time" spent between death and resurrection. Models have been devised that include a waiting place, a purgatory or sheol. The necessity of such models is created by a misunderstanding of eternity. Because of the omnitemporality of eternity, though we may all die at different points along this linear, physical time line, we will all experience the resurrection immediately upon our death and "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:17.)
Conclusion.
"He who has no vision of eternity will never get a true hold of time." (Thomas Carlyle 1795 - 1881).
If we remove the restrictions of temporal time from our view of God, a profound series of theological models are affected. For many, some of the nagging questions concerning predestination, free-will, eschatology and other subjects can be presented with rational and sensible answers that are consistent with what God’s word describes and with what God also reveals through Creation. God is truth, and the truth of his word, and the truth concerning the creation of the cosmos are not two separate truths, but one profound expression of God’s grace. Whether the time-line of this creation has already transpired for billions of years as scientists contend, or for only a few thousand as some theologians content, God created that time-line for His purpose and pleasure. He resides in eternity, outside the limitations of created time and space, yet has ordained a bridge between them across which He and his angels can pass so that his purposes in that creation can be revealed. "Perhaps the greatest illusion of all is time, and our foolish notion that what really counts is what happens to us today or tomorrow. Soon time itself will be set aside. We will step into eternity, and then at last we will grasp what is truly real." 20
"To the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen" (Jude 1:24-25.)
Bibliography
1
Roark, Dallas M. (1983). The Christian Faith. Waco, TX: Word Books. p. 29.2
Montgomery, John W. (1996). The Suicide of Christian Theology. Newburgh, IN: Trinity Press. p. 76.3
Boyce, James P. (1887). Abstract of Systematic Theology. Hanford, CA: den Dulk Christian Foundation. p. 69.4
Grudem, E. (1994) Systematic Theology. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press., p. 1685
Lewis, Gordon R. (1984) God, Attributes of, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter A. Elwell, ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, p. 451.6
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, 3 Vols. London: Clark, 1960. Vol. 1:385)7
Enns, Paul P. (1989) Relative Attributes, The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press. Ch. 19.8
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell (1995) The Ryrie Study Bible. Chicago: Moody Press.9
Augustine of Hippo (0401) The Confessions of Saint Augustine. Chapter 13.10
Guthrie, Shirley C. Jr. (1968). Christian Doctrine. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press. p. 122.11
Lindsay, James, (1998) Eternity, International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Cedar Rapids, IA (CD-ROM): Parsons Technology, Inc.12
Ibid.13
Kreeft, Peter and Tacelli, Ronald K.(1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Ch. 4.14
Warfield, Benjamin B. (1929). Biblical Doctrines. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 97.15
Erickson, Millard J. (1985). Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. p. 346.16
McWilliams, Warren (Summer 1991) Predestination: Time and Space. Biblical Illustrator. 17(4). p. 64.17
Lewis, C.S. (1960). Miracles: A Preliminary Study. New York, NY: McMillan and Company. p. 180.18
Hobbs, Herschel H. (1988). The Baptist Faith and Message. Nashville, TN: Convention Press. p. 36.19
Ibid, Erickson. p. 279.20
Richards, Lawrence O. (1994) The Victor Bible Background Commentary, Wheaton IL: Victor Books. Exposition on Luke 16.
John W. (Jack) Carter (BSET, MS, Oklahoma State University) is a Doctoral Student in Biblical Studies at the Trinity Theological Seminary in Newburgh, IN.
What you miss is this: God certainly knew what level of miracles would have bought about repentance in Tyre and Sidon. The fact that they did not repent shows that God did not perform that level of miracles. The fact that they did not repent shows that God withheld from them that which He knew would bring about repentance. The fact that they did not repent shows that God did not utilize any other means, as you suggested, of reaching them with the truth.
In your scheme, God hopelessly reaches out to these men, and fails to persuade them. Your God is too small.
Who in the world are you to tell me what I'm "overdoing?" Also, can't Hank speak in his own defense? Why are you acting as a proxy? What he said was his own words. If he didn't mean it to be misconstrued, then maybe the lesson here is that words mean things. If this was his so-called "point," there were a plethora of ways to get that point across without the open wishing for others' children to die.
If that ain't "overdoing" it, I don't know what is. Yet you haven't said that to him. Oh, no! You want to jump me for pointing this out. This was totally unacceptable, yet who are you taking to task? That says a lot.
The context is what counts...
Now YOU are overcooking my grits. If this statement of yours were true (used to apply directly to you and everyone else), then your arguing against those of us who are called Calvinists would have been long over and you would have admitted that you were, and are, wrong. It has been proven to you day in and day out about the "context" of verses of Scripture, yet it means nothing to you because you must hold fast to Arminianism. From Rome and back there again...
That was commonly said to politicians toward the end of the Viet era, AND was an appropriate sentiment AT THAT TIME when the gov't had revealed it had no intention of winning the war.
C'mon, now. I'm only 30, yet I know that the above statement is a gross oversimplification of history. That war WAS won until the Left cut the knees off the effort with their "America Come Home" campaign. So, it's not that politicians didn't want to win this war per se, but, which politicians fought against the effort.
It's similar to saying, "let bush and bin laden fight it out in an open arena, if they're so consumed with war."
So, 2,800 dead Americans in New York doesn't mean anything, right?
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
Now is the time to kill or be killed.
It's similar to saying, "let bush and bin laden fight it out in an open arena, if they're so consumed with war."
Whew. Anyway...
I spent 20 years in the military....I believe I've EARNED the right to talk about war. I've been there. It isn't pretty.
So have I (HHC 82d Soldier Support, 82d Airborne Division HOOAH!, 29E10V81P, Desert Shield/Desert Storm). War is hell. Stevie Wonder can see that. And your point was...?
If I were as thin-skinned as most Calvinists, I suppose I would be all agitated that someone had accused me of blasphemy, which is what such a thought would be. I know your are only drawing what you believe to be a logical conclusion from what I said.
But actually, what you said is very close to what I said. You said, "Joseph's brothers meant it for evil, but God had orchestrated the entire scenario, actively working out His will," which is fine with me. I prefer Moses description and words, but I can live with your description if you will allow me to include, that one of the instruments God uses in his orchestra, is the volition of men. He doesn't have to wait to find out what they are going to choose to use it, as what you said implies, but knows from all eternity what all men will choose, is never surprised by it, can always be certain all choices are exactly what He wants them to be without compulsion. How? You'll have to wait to ask the only one who knows.
Hank
Defense of what? I don't feel threatened by your twadle.
I think you think you have accused me of something. If you did, whatever it is, I admit it, however bad you think it is, I'll confess, it is worse. I'm guilty, I'm wrong, every evil thing you think, say, or could say about me is true.
Feel better?!
xzins, dont defend me. Of course, if you're only defending ideas, which is what I suspect, you are pobably going to end up guilty by association.
Hank
The above is your post that got this started. Who am I to take you to task? Well, I'm the guy who recognizes a clear ad hominem attack when I see one.
Hank's talking theology, and you attack him over a comment on another thread about his sentiments against any war with Iraq. The only purpose that could have would be to cast Hank's theological views into doubt because of his out-of-step views on any war on Iraq.
2800 dead means a lot to me. It means to me that we've been attacked and should destroy the attackers. My sentiments on this point are all over FR if you feel like taking the time to look them up.
But your wild-eyed assertion that you've somehow shown a context that proves salvation isn't for everyone is just that, and silly to boot. It's this kind of inability to deal with the facts of scripture that led you to a personal attack against Hank instead of a refutation of his ideas. You couldn't do that; so you attacked him instead.
I respect your service for the nation. But you know better about integrity than to resort to such tactics.
Mat. 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Hank
Twadle? Whatever. Anyway, why should you feel threatened? Am I threatening you?
I think you think you have accused me of something.
I didn't accuse you of anything. I pointed out a fact using your own words.
Twadle. Thanx! I needed that laugh.
That wasn't the point. The point was opposition to an ad hominem attack. He couldn't argue your theological point, so he attacked you personally. And he used a political statement made on an entirely different thread. It was childish on his part, so I called him on it.
I know.
But, you can only use reason where both parties are being rational. Reason does not work against an agenda, as you ought to know.
Thanks!
Hank
In what way are they not "trinitarian"?
It appears that you don't know the definition of ad hominem. Pointing out the words of someone is not an "attack." I didn't make this up out of whole cloth. His accusation of "arrogance" is appalling in light of the fact that he openly wished for the death of others' children who support our war effort. You've yet to denounce this, but you don't have any problem calling me out even though I've not engaged in such unChristian behavior.
Interesting.
Hank's talking theology, and you attack him over a comment on another thread about his sentiments against any war with Iraq.
"You attack him..." Bill Clinton, is that you?
Look it. Did he or did he not come off with the initial accusation of arrogance against Calvinists, and, was my initial response to him in this thread about that accusation?
Yes or no?
Also, was the accusation of his against Calvinists ad hominem?
The only purpose that could have would be to cast Hank's theological views into doubt because of his out-of-step views on any war on Iraq.
Don't even try it. This is not about his views being "out-of-step" on the war effort. It IS about what he SAID about hoping others' children would die. You're now spinning like a CD or a 78 RPM record. No matter how you look at it, this was WRONG. Saying you're against the war is one thing, but openly wishing for others to die is unacceptable. PERIOD. Yet you've still not denounced it.
Interesting.
But your wild-eyed assertion that you've somehow shown a context that proves salvation isn't for everyone is just that, and silly to boot.
You've engaged in nothing but silliness. You won't answer a question straight using the Word. When you've been proven wrong, you then engage in other tactics that skirt the subject.
You, of all people, can't tell me squat. You're not qualified.
Salvation is not for everyone. The Word of God proves this time and time again. It's not my opinion. I state what the Word states in its proper context which is something you are loathe to do. So back up. Your emperor has no clothes.
It's this kind of inability to deal with the facts of scripture that led you to a personal attack against Hank instead of a refutation of his ideas. You couldn't do that; so you attacked him instead.
Pot. Kettle. Black. And now you're a bald-faced liar as well. I haven't "attacked" anyone.
I respect your service for the nation. But you know better about integrity than to resort to such tactics.
I do. Apparently you don't.
They also believe that the saved all will become part of the godhead (they call it the "family of God" ) So in some ways it may be similar (by a stretch ) to exhaulation..
They have other doctrinal distinctives ..like you they believe the gospel will be preached to some after death (the men that never heard it)
Armstong built his doctrine on the 7th day Adventists in some ways .. ( a movement around at about the same time as Joseph Smith..so there is some cross over with them and as I noted a little with you).So they are Sabbath and law keepers ..
The original WWCoG has moved to a trinitarian position ..but Dougs church remains faithful to the original doctrine. I have flagged him so he can correct me if I have misstated it (I too had family in the WWCoG )
I'm puzzled as to why that isn't everyones view. What does eternal mean if it doesn't mean God exists outside of our space/time??
Not exactly. I don't believe that the holy spirit is the connecting force between them...I think the Holy spirit is what we call God's and/or Christ's spiritual interaction, or presence, in our physical space/time. The distinction being that while God and Jesus exist eternally outside of space/time, there is no third eternal person called the Holy Spirit that exists outside of space/time.
They also believe that the saved all will become part of the godhead (they call it the "family of God" ) So in some ways it may be similar (by a stretch ) to exhaulation..
Yah, essentially we become one with God, become his children, become part of the family of God...however you want to describe it.
Actually I'm a member of the United Church of God, a doctrinally similar, but entirely different organization than the World Wide Church of God founded by Armstrong of which United is an offshoot.
Sheesh -- Jack Carter did not realize this logically-obvious impact of Omnitemporal Foreknowledge against any possible synergistic construct?
Yeah, I already told PM that the logical conclusion to this argument is Absolute Predestination.
can't believe I wasted time to even read it. BTW, if you take this argument to its logical conclusion, then you must become an Absolute Predestinarian. ~ CCWoody
Thank you so much for pinging me to this fascinating piece mom...I appreciate it.
CC, what are you talking about?? The article is saying that God knows what's going to happen over time because he's outside of time. He leaves our choices up to us but knows what those choices will be. We are predestined only in God's eyes because he sees past present and future.
Posted by DouglasKC to CCWoody; RnMomof7 On Religion Aug 7 11:13 PM #68 of 137
Douglas, I refer you to OP's excellent arguments. The only thing that is "fascinating" about this article is just how badly the author bumbled both his physics and his theology.
P.S. You may believe that God is merely a cosmic observer, but I happen to believe what the Bible says.
Words of Rdb3 from post #133.
That's the most straight-forward admission of this Calvinist belief that I've ever seen. I appreciate his clarity and will remember this statement.
This is the WHOLE point of the calvinist/arminian debate. The Bible says its freely offered to all; the Institutes of Calvin says it's offered only to the preselected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.