God requires man to HUMBLE THEMSELVES

TomL said:
um going from no decree to a decree is a change

Going from no creation to a creation another change

Unfortunately for you a timeless God can experience no change in accidental properties or in relations

That his essence and character do not change all; agree
Click to expand...
yes their god was static and incapable of thinking, planning, love, relationship etc..........

how could that god even decree anything before creation ? their concept of god is lacking reality and what the True and living God has declared about Himself. Time has become a stumbling block in their theology. Creation implies sequence so does speaking nothing into existence.

they have placed their god into a tiny box he cannot escape from. like the magic genie in a bottle lol that complies to man.
 
civic said:
yes their god was static and incapable of thinking, planning, love, relationship etc..........

how could that god even decree anything before creation ? their concept of god is lacking reality and what the True and living God has declared about Himself. Time has become a stumbling block in their theology. Creation implies sequence so does speaking nothing into existence.
Click to expand...
Yes living

Living involves action and thought
 
TomL said:
According to classic theism God's knowledge is nondiscursive so he does not think, plan or reason
Click to expand...
And if God is immutable then after creation the same must hold true and there goes the Trinity down the pipe as we see the dialogue with Father/ Son throughout the gospels. It makes a mockery out of the eternal relationship between the Father and Son.
 
civic said:
yes their god was static and incapable of thinking, planning, love, relationship etc..........

how could that god even decree anything before creation ? their concept of god is lacking reality and what the True and living God has declared about Himself. Time has become a stumbling block in their theology. Creation implies sequence so does speaking nothing into existence.

they have placed their god into a tiny box he cannot escape from. like the magic genie in a bottle lol that complies to man.
Click to expand...
speaking would involve sequence

The uttering of one word after another, a before and after
 
TibiasDad said:
While I think it has, the same might be said of your argument; that God is not timeless is even less established.

But this doesn’t negate the fact that an inference is not an assumption.


I haven’t denied this, but affirmed it as my proof that this is the beginning of time.

Is God subject to anything? You are implying that God is subject to time, and thus God cannot do anything outside the constraints of time. He is thus not omnipotent, for time does not bend to his power. God is becoming less and less almighty.

That is a static statement; God always is, always exists!
Omniscience is a static state, because there is no information that has not been known.

Yep, and that event was the beginning of time.


No planning necessary for an omniscient God.

A weak argument has to keep adding hyperbolic rhetoric to create a strawman version of their opponents beliefs. Now your throwing in the accusation of God being simplistic!

No sir, I think God is anything but simplistic! You keep making God more like man by subjecting him to time. That is making God simplistic!


Doug
Click to expand...
More on divine simplicity

The doctrine of divine simplicity teaches that (1) God is identical with his existence and his essence and (2) that each of his attributes is ontologically identical with his existence and with every other one of his attributes. There is nothing in God that is not God. The Reformed theologian Stephen Charnock explains simplicity in terms of God’s supreme existence: “God is the most simple being; for that which is first in nature, having nothing beyond it, cannot by any means be thought to be compounded; for whatsoever is so, depends upon the parts whereof it is compounded, and so is not the first being: now God being infinitely simple, hath nothing in himself which is not himself, and therefore cannot will any change in himself, he being his own essence and existence.”1 In similar fashion, the medieval theologian and philosopher Thomas Aquinas contends that, “every composite is posterior to its com-ponents: since the simpler exists in itself before anything is added to it for the composition of a third. But nothing is prior to the first. Therefore, since God is the first principle, He is not composite.”2 Again, the argument of both Charnock and Aquinas is that God cannot be the ultimate ontological explanation for himself or for anything else if he is composed of parts. The theological value and implications of the doctrine of divine simplicity have been variously explained and applied throughout the history of the church, though in recent decades the classical version of the doctrine has fallen into disrepute. Many seek to banish it from Christian theology altogether while others aim to preserve it by softening its philosophical or theological austerity. It is my contention that God’s absoluteness is diminished to just the extent that one denies or softens the DDS. This argument is developed in various ways throughout the chapters of this book
God without Parts Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God’s Absoluteness JAMES DOLEZAL

It's not me but classic theism that represents God as being simple
 
TomL said:
Not if you go by the bible or the common belief all change involves time




If your inference results from what it itself has not been established it is an assumption


The point the change itself involved duration unless you want to argue the creation is as eternal as God

Also there was the decree before creation more sequence more change thus more time





God is subject only to himself that would include his attributes and properties. If time is a natural property of God then it is no different then saying God is subject to himself




God always exists whether it is throughout all time or timeless.

Timelessness is however established by nothing in the bible but in the bible god clearly has sequence in his actions and relations









Before creation before the decree to create the future was not settled

God was free to create or not create

unless you are going to say God was not free, you are left with an unsettled future.

Do you deny God was free?

Nope duration between non creation and creation existed

also there was the decree to create

A timeless God cannot experience duration between events

All must be simultaneous and unending





The bible says otherwise

Jeremiah 18:11 (KJV 1900) — 11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.

Jeremiah 49:20 (KJV 1900) — 20 Therefore hear the counsel of the LORD, That he hath taken against Edom; And his purposes, that he hath purposed against the inhabitants of Teman: Surely the least of the flock shall draw them out: Surely he shall make their habitations desolate with them.

Jeremiah 50:45 (KJV 1900) — 45 Therefore hear ye the counsel of the LORD, That he hath taken against Babylon; And his purposes, that he hath purposed against the land of the Chaldeans: Surely the least of the flock shall draw them out: Surely he shall make their habitation desolate with them.







Really do you not know that is an established attribute of God according to classic theism


Simplicity

Berkhof, Louis
When we speak of the simplicity of God, we use the term to describe the state or quality of being simple, the condition of being free from division into parts, and therefore from compositeness. It means that God is not composite and is not susceptible of division in any sense of the word.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology (p. 50). . Kindle Edition.
Bavinck, Herman
It is this conviction that lies behind the teaching of Christian theology that God is “simple,” that is, free from composition. God is identical with each of his attributes; he is what he possesses. In God “to be” is the same as to be wise, to be good, or to be powerful. All God’s attributes are identical with his essence. In all his attributes he is pure being, absolute reality. We cannot refrain from speaking of God’s being, and in the description of God’s essence Christian theology places his aseity in the foreground as the primary attribute traditionally associated with the name YHWH. God is the One who exists of and through himself, the perfect being who is absolute in wisdom and goodness, righteousness and holiness, power and blessedness.
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics : Volume 2: God and Creation (p. 70). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Dolezal, James
It should be readily confessed that the exact function of free will in God who is himself pure act is beyond the scope of human knowledge. Just as we cannot comprehend God as ipsum esse subsistens, we cannot comprehend the identity between God as eternal, immutable, pure act and his will for the world as free and uncoerced. Though we discover strong reasons for confessing both simplicity and freedom in God, we cannot form an isomorphically adequate notion of how this is the case. In fact, this confession of ignorance is precisely what one finds in the Thomist and Reformed traditions.
Dolezal, James E.. God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God’s Absoluteness (pp. 210-211). Pickwick Publications, An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
Frame, John
To say that God is simple, in scholastic philosophy, is to say that there is no compositism in his being. Specifically, there is no composition of physical parts, form and matter, actual and potential, genus and differentia, substance and accident, God and his essence, essence and attributes, attributes and one another, or essence and esse. God is not, then, in any sense made up of parts.
John Frame, The Doctrine of God
God’s simplicity is his indivisibility, his perfect lack of composition. This means that each of and all his perfections are his essence.
MacArthur, John; Mayhue, Richard. Biblical Doctrine (Kindle Locations 4378-4379). Crossway. Kindle Edition



Well then you deny classic theism.

And it was classic theism not me that argues for the simplicity of God
Click to expand...
This is not what I meant by simplistic! Why would this theological meaning be a problem for me or anyone else?

Your use of the word was accusatory, as if I were in error to think like that! You said:
TomL said:
The fact is god created and experienced a change in his accidential properties and relations as well as having a before when he had not created. He also worked sequentially in creation and planned.

Things which are contrary to a timeless, simplistic static God
Click to expand...

In other words, you are denying that a “timeless, simplistic static God”, which you yourself have affirmed to be classical theism, is the proper view.

This means your interpretation is outside of classical theism.

Doug
 
TomL said:
According to classic theism God's knowledge is nondiscursive so he does not think, plan or reason
Click to expand...
And if he didn't plan and reason that means the plan came from somewhere. If it just appeared in front of him that would mean there would be a God above God himself. Someone came up with the plan. I think the thing is theologian types came up with the timeless thing when it came to God.

Once it became a mantra it became engrained into people's minds and then thought of as bedrock truth. When one really steps in and gives it some thought though you come to the place where real genuine questions begin to be asked. Is that really the case or is it rather just something we've said.
 
Rockson said:
And if he didn't plan and reason that means the plan came from somewhere. If it just appeared in front of him that would mean there would be a God above God himself. Someone came up with the plan. I think the thing is theologian types came up with the timeless thing when it came to God.

Once it became a mantra it became engrained into people's minds and then thought of as bedrock truth. When one really steps in and gives it some thought though you come to the place where real genuine questions begin to be asked. Is that really the case or is it rather just something we've said.
Click to expand...
Yes and how does Gods mind operate and are we really created in His image.
 
TomL said:
um going from no decree to a decree is a change

Going from no creation to a creation another change

Unfortunately for you a timeless God can experience no change in accidental properties or in relations

That his essence and character do not change all; agree
Click to expand...
Nope. Not in God's character or essence.

We agree? Good.
 
TomL said:
You failed to deal with the point

Assuming fatalistic determination is not evidence

Sorry if God had yet to decree to create the future was indeed open

i.e. unsettled

Hello
Click to expand...
I did not assume anything. Just pointing out your inconsistencies.

And he persists on His error. The future can not noth be open and known for certain.

You fail to deal with your glaring inconsistency
 

Similar threads

Rockson
Humility And Calvinism?
18 19 20
Replies
395
Views
5K
civic
civic
Richard
Humility Is Knowing What You Don't Know
Replies
2
Views
194
Horatius
Horatius
Dizerner
The humility of God—Jesus' application for God
Replies
5
Views
327
APAK
APAK
P
Knowing God through humility
2
Replies
23
Views
87
praise_yeshua
P
Behold
Calvinism + TULIP : Will get you Killed... (Vol 2)
Replies
8
Views
126
Pancho Frijoles
Pancho Frijoles
Back
Top Bottom