Giving Calvinism a ... longer glance

I was merely contrasting it with your “time-less”. Omnipresent means he is present in all places simultaneously. Omnitemporal means he is present in all times simultaneously. He is not constrained to sequential time – he orders it.
 

The implication is, rather, that we cannot understand how he directs providence. Do you have a favorite account of God’s providence? I would like you to explain how God accomplished it.

I simply say God is not time-less. So you are equating omnitemporal with being time-less in some other way?

Like I explained that is incoherent in the light of modern physics. Better to say, omnipresent means He is present at all times in all places. You go overboard when you presume to dictate how God must participate by using the word “simultaneously.” He can do so as He chooses, and not as any of us care to dictate.

Better… But not being constrained to time doesn’t mean He cannot use time (a temporal ordering in His own thoughts and actions).

Sure. God created us and the physical universe for a relationship with us and not simply to grant religion mongers greater the authority to dictate God’s actions in some “providence” they make up. But of course a relationship doesn’t preclude making plans in order to solve problems that arise in that relationship. So as each human being makes a choice that demolishes hope, God makes plans for restoring hope once again.

You have no accounts of God’s providence you can report. Hmm. Do you accept Maggie’s?

The reason I’m interested is because an example will allow us to look at how God relates to us in time and place, timing and placing, and sequences. I mentioned Rich Stearns before. Do you remember seeing his account?

I had to look up the word “providence” because that was a usage I was not familiar with. Clearly it is not how I was using the word.

Either I am not grasping your meaning or it sounds too ambitious for me. I only seek to tackle the general principles.

I could only look up the name to find out who He was.

The “coincidences” in Maggie’s account were examples of God’s providential (and miraculous) interactions in the sequences of her life… the nurse in grocery checkout line, the bank error in her favor, the offer of a place to stay, the busy loan officer and the president of the bank. Someone (who will remain untagged :slightly_smiling_face:) dismisses such events and calls them cognitive bias (or magic), not realizing that God’s ‘technology’ is beyond our grasp.

The Rich Stearns sequence was mentioned in another conversation before, and it also lists miracles of providential timing and placing, but I will include it here again:
 

I don’t think any of this implies absolute foreknowledge. Sinful human beings are very predictable because sin enslaves our free will. One of the most well known Biblical example is when Jesus told Peter, "before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.” Jesus knew very well what Peter was capable of under stress. So when I deny absolute foreknowledge I am not denying prophecy or that God knows a great deal of what will happen. But I think that is a matter of His determination to accomplish things and how predictable we are in our sins. And when I affirm free will I am not saying that our every action is free – most are not, for we are very much creatures of habit. And that brings us to another Biblical story… that of Pharoah. God knew his character and habits very well and would not hesitate to push his button in order to write that story which is such an important part of the founding of Israel. God is a participant in our lives as a shepherd who will at times manipulate His sheep for their own well being. It is not control and we do have free will, but God can still do astounding things – miracles.

the reason for strong omniscience is because the Bible seems to clearly state this

once upon a time theologians thought the clear sense of scripture meant what it said, and tried their best to deconflict cutting edge philosophy from scriptural claims

I suspect this may be a modern myth … that there exists or existed some “plain reading” that functions as some sort of objective baseline or “default”. Even in Jesus’ day, (and from Jesus’ own lips, and Paul’s own pen) we find writings saturated with metaphor, levels of meaning, subtle and complex references - deeper meanings to be explored. Theologians down the ages were more than just people “who happened to be literate enough to read”. They did scholarly work and wrote commentaries … commentaries that shouldn’t have to exist at all if your conjecture were true that scriptures have an obviously plain baseline reading. That isn’t to say that plain-thinking children can never find anything about it accessible; or conversely that other readers never try to hide behind unnecessary sophistry. It is only to say that there never was a time when everything could be settled just with the belief that “scripture meant what it said.”

2 Likes

ancient theologians thought there were multiple levels of interpretation, all built upon the plain, literal reading of scripture

fundamentalist rural baptists have more in common with ancient theologians than modern academic readings of scripture

What you refer to as “the plain literal reading of scripture” is itself an interpretation (and one in need of further clarification, no less). It comes with its own interpretive baggage (especially so today) - but I’m reasonably sure it was always so.

i have been surprised how luterally church fathers read the bible, even more literally than today’s ardent literalists

Which makes it interesting that they did not then reach all the same conclusions about things that some of today’s “literalists” cling to. E.g. Augustine’s “plain reading” did not lead him to insist on 24 hour long creation days … he was fine with them being much shorter moments of time; which flies in the face of today’s literalists who think it important for those days to match the exact workweek given later in Exodus and other places (all references that Augustine himself would have been well aware of as well.)

i looked into augustine’s interpretation recently, and it is a lot more subtle than you portray

my take is he is using a both/and, literal 24 hours and platonic metaphysical

those seeking to use church fathers as support for OEC are not doing a very careful scholarly job of it, FWICT

Wrong. The reason why people push things like this to the extreme is that they ignore everything in the Bible which disagrees with them.

No I am right! nyah :stuck_out_tongue:

 
Like Acts 17:26-27?

He made also of one blood every nation of men, to dwell upon all the face of the earth — having ordained times before appointed, and the bounds of their dwellings –
to seek the Lord, if perhaps they did feel after Him and find, though, indeed, He is not far from each one of us… (YLT)

Which makes it even worse for your thesis that theologians like Augustine just rely on some “plain sense” of scripture for their insights into it. There may well be something that many of us today might agree on as being a sort of a plain sense to us, but even among us contemporaries such “common sense” is little more than shaky ground.

Well, I tried… to bring the conversation back to Calvinism. :grin:

how so? augustine clearly uses 24 hours in confessions, and then goes metaphysical in city of god to reach the platonists