User Tag List

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678
Results 106 to 111 of 111

Thread: Open View and Preterism

  1. #106
    Over 1000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,015
    Thanks
    164
    Thanked 287 Times in 213 Posts

    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    92572
    Quote Originally Posted by Nang View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post

    [Eze 18:20-21 KJV] 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. ... 21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
    This scripture is not a futuristic prophechy, but a commission from God to believers to proclaim Truth and Gospel to all the world.
    Great! We are agreed. Shall we start looking at some of the futuristic prophecies?
    How about this one:
    [Luk 17:25 KJV] 25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.

    Is there any sense to the idea that this prophecy, of Jesus' suffering and rejection, is applicable to some other generation than the one Jesus was speaking to?

  2. #107
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,734
    Thanks
    196
    Thanked 2,492 Times in 1,673 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1540562
    Haven't forgotten!
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  3. #108
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,734
    Thanks
    196
    Thanked 2,492 Times in 1,673 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1540562
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    No hurry, Clete. I understand the time pressure.

    Three points (and their times in the video):

    • :26 "Of course, blue existed."
    • 5:39 "Humans have always observed other colors, but just compartmented them in to black white and red..."
    • 8:28 What was "ultramarine" named after??? The already existing blue sea.


    These points show exactly what I was trying to say--that the knowledge of "blue" is different from the ability to convey the information. In all of the examples, the narrator is explaining that it was difficult for the people to convey the information they already had, similar to how dogs can't convey the information to us.

    I did find it odd that the rainbow paintings included blue in the sky and sea, but not in the rainbow, but it is another indication that the concept of "blue" predated the expression of "blue"--as far as we know.

    Why do I say "as far as we know"? Consider that Adam and Eve were created fully functioning and fully able to converse with God. It's quite possible, and I would suggest "likely", that they both recognized and were able to express the concept of "blue", but that somewhere between their time and ours, some of that ability of expression was lost, and regained, and lost, and regained. The video pointed out the Egyptians were able to make "blue", but that when the Roman Empire imploded, the knowledge was lost, along with the Latin word for it: Caeruleum (7:33). Did blueness cease to exist for awhile? Of course not--just the word for that blue material was no longer needed, since the material wasn't available any more.

    Here's a list of the uses of "blue" in the Old Testament, starting, interestingly enough, from the time the Israelites left Egypt:
    Exo 25:4
    Exo 26:1
    Exo 26:4
    Exo 26:31
    Exo 26:36
    Exo 27:16
    Exo 28:5
    Exo 28:6
    Exo 28:8
    Exo 28:15
    Exo 28:28
    Exo 28:31
    Exo 28:33
    Exo 28:37
    Exo 35:6
    Exo 35:23
    Exo 35:25
    Exo 35:35
    Exo 36:8
    Exo 36:11
    Exo 36:35
    Exo 36:37
    Exo 38:18
    Exo 38:23
    Exo 39:1
    Exo 39:2
    Exo 39:3
    Exo 39:5
    Exo 39:8
    Exo 39:21
    Exo 39:22
    Exo 39:24
    Exo 39:29
    Exo 39:31
    Num 4:6
    Num 4:7
    Num 4:9
    Num 4:11
    Num 4:12
    Num 15:38
    2Ch 2:7
    2Ch 2:14
    2Ch 3:14
    Est 1:6
    Est 8:15
    Jer 10:9
    Eze 23:6
    Eze 27:7
    Eze 27:24
    (And please note that I did my search at the Blue Letter Bible site.)

    But does that mean the sky ceased to be blue after the time of Esther? Of course not! Use your reasoning powers, Clete! "Blue" as a word (or other language versions of it) could be coined and forgotten numerous times over the course of human history, without ever disturbing the color of the sky. But it might disturb the ability of people to convey the information.
    This missed entire point.

    Of course, the frequency of light that we call blue existed but blueness did not. That is to say that the concept of blue didn't exist. A rose by any other name is still a rose. A famous quote to be sure, but what is it saying? If I call a particular flower a "flagerium" and you have no idea that I happen to be talking about the flower that you call a "rose" then I am not conveying meaningful information to you because there is nothing in your mind that connects the flower with the name. It's just the same with colors. If you don't know what the word "blue" means, saying "The sky is blue." is gibberish to your hearing. And not only that, if you mind has no name for a particular hue, it is likely that you'd not even be able to distinguish it from other similar hues, just as the video pointed out. The reason you know what blue is, has less to do with you eyes than it has to do with the concepts in your mind, which is the whole point of having brought it up in the first place.

    Okay, enough of that. Let's see if I can respond to some of this other stuff....
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  4. #109
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,734
    Thanks
    196
    Thanked 2,492 Times in 1,673 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1540562
    Quote Originally Posted by Nang View Post
    I, Nang, never said God believed for me. I believe that God raised me from death to life, and through the power and guidance of His Holy Spirit, enabled me, by changing my heart, mind, and will, to believe in the righteousness of Jesus Christ unto everlasting life.
    Enabled you to do something that your god predestined you to do and that you could not have refused. It is called "irresistible grace" for a reason. Your idiotic doctrine teaches you to believe that the decision to believe was made for you before you existed. Your entire life, every moment you're alive, is one contradiction to your doctrine after another.
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  5. #110
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,734
    Thanks
    196
    Thanked 2,492 Times in 1,673 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1540562
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I can respond wholly, rather than piecemeal, but sometimes the points need to be addressed individually. For instance, despite your whole post here, you have not yet addressed the idea that I tried to convey (I'm sure because my reasoning powers are faulty) that the fact of the sky being blue is not dependent on the transmission of the information to anyone. It is just a fact. God is also a fact. His existence doesn't depend on the ability of anyone to convey the concept of "God" or "existence"--God just is. "Reason" exists, too, but it does depend on someone's use of it. God uses reason, and He is the best and foremost user of reason, and He could never lose a debate. In that way, one could say, "God is reason", perhaps, but "reason" is not a comprehensive description of God, and "God" is way more than a description of "reason". Thus, the two are not fundamentally equivalent. I can make the same case for the statements "God is love" and "God is light". And you can readily see that "Light" is not "God"--we are not to worship the creation rather than the creator. Perhaps you didn't mean to do it, or perhaps I only thought you were doing it, but you made several statements that set up "reason" as equal to "God". We should not worship the thing that emanates from God as we do God Himself, though we can certainly (and should certainly) praise Him for reason.
    When the bible states that God is light, it doesn't mean the eletromagnetic radiation that we see, it means epistimological "light". It means the "light" of understanding. God did not create reason. Just as God did not create love or truth or justice or righteousness or kindness or mercy. He did not create reaso, He is Reason. That's not my teaching, it's John's (i.e. the Apostle). John chapter one states it explicitly. Our English translations obscure it but that is what the text states and anyone reading it during the first century would have understood the point intuitively. That is, there wouldn't have been any question about the point being made nor would it have sounded weird to their hearing. It was a common religous idea at the time.

    I think such statements, if intended, are dangerous. Reason is more than a creation of God, I'll admit--it is a attribute of God--but it falls short of being God, and while we might lift up an attribute of God in high praise to His name, if those who do violence to His name and honor also have access to and use that attribute, it cannot and should not be praised in the same way, as its use by those who disbelieve God is both a glory and a blasphemy of Him--a glory in that we can see how great God is to have bestowed the ability to reason on mankind, and a blasphemy that it is used to denigrate the bestower.

    I'm not meaning to try your patience, but I think the distinction is warranted.

    now back to our regularly scheduled program...
    Derf
    No one has suggested that we should worship thought processes nor that we should reduce God to such a thing. Likewise, no one rightly suggests that we should worship the affection we have for our family that we call love nor that we should reduce God to a state of mind. But how many Christians would object to the idea that they worship Love? NONE! This is because they understand intuitively that it is a sort of figure of speech and that you aren't talking about the affection but that you are referring to God. Likewise, when I, along with the Apostle John, state that God is Reason, I mean it is precisely the same manner that you would mean it if you were to say that God is Righteousness. Indeed, righteousness is nothing at all but living your life rationally. When you say that God is righteous, you say that God is rational. You cannot be one and not the other. But the act of doing rightly is not what we worship. We worship the One who's person defines the act as righteousness.

    I hope that makes you feel better!

    Clete
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  6. #111
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,734
    Thanks
    196
    Thanked 2,492 Times in 1,673 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1540562
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I'd appreciate a reference for this assertion.
    When time allows I'll see if I can type up a brief argument that supports the notion that the time of Jacob's trouble had already begun in the early Acts period.

    So, I think what you're saying here is that if some number of Israelites had come to Jesus either before or after the crucifixion, then Jacob's trouble/the Tribulation would have started, and more of Matt 24 would have occurred? or would NOT have occurred? I'm confused a bit.
    It would have continued and then Jesus would have been sent back and Israel would have been given its kingdom just as had been prophesied.


    I think prophecy is stronger than a warning. For instance, when God said, "In the day you eat of it, you will die", He was not saying death was already planned for Adam. It was NOT a prophecy. The difference is subtle when dealing with contingent prophecies, but I think the difference is important, especially in light of Open Theism's take on prophecy. Once Adam had sinned, the warning became a prophecy--an actual execution of judgment, planned for a time in the future (although the timing is a bit muddled from our point of view):
    [Gen 3:19, 22 KJV] 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return. ... 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
    Spiritual death is separation from God - by definition. Adam died the day he ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, just as God said he would. I agree with you, however, this was not a prophecy but simply a state statement of fact as a warning.

    Nineveh was the same--"Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown." (Jon 3:4). God had already decided that Nineveh should be overthrown, but when they repented (which was His goal), He relented. It would have been subtly different if God's message to them had been, if you don't repent, you will be overthrown. Now, let's say that there repentance, though genuine, was reversed ten days later. Would you say Jonah was a true or false prophet when Nineveh was overthrown in 50 days instead of 40?
    YES! He would have been a false prophet. Look, Open Theists understand that prophecy isn't pre-written history but that doesn't mean that God doesn't mean what He says or that a prophecy can be interpreted in any old haphazard way that one might find necessary. There's God repenting for the disaster He intended to inflict and then there's a prophet getter the timing all wrong. God is not capricious or arbitrary. He doesn't flip flop back and forth over the span of a fortnight. Ninevah was eventually destroyed but not in any manner connected with Jonah's prophecy.

    Further, there are several other examples where God makes prophecies that did not come to pass. God stated, for example, the He would "without fail" drive out all of Israel's enemies (Josh. 3). It didn't happen because Israel was stupid and rebelled against God.

    Traditional theists, both types (Calvinists and Arminians), believe the dates are set in stone--else God wouldn't know them, so they don't have to maintain a distinction between warning and prophecy. Open Theists do, imo.
    No. We simply take the bible to mean what it says and understand that God is a person who is free to change His mind and is not a slave to His own words and has explained very clearly why such a change of mind might occur. Peter didn't have to deny Christ just because Jesus predicted it. Moses talked God out of wiping out the whole of Israel and starting over from scratch with Moses. Israel didn't get their kingdom as promised (but will later), etc. God changes His mind quite often throughout scripture. It's not difficult to see or to understand once you get all the Augustinian nonsense (immutability, et. al.) out of the way.

    And if OTs need to maintain a distinction, then making the statement that a prophecy of doom could apply to whichever generation happens to incur God's wrath, dilutes the import of any prophecy into a warning, and makes it very subjective as to whether God ever has to fulfill prophecy at all, much less within the constraints He provided.
    No one is suggesting such a thing. God is not capricious nor is His word so plastic in its meaning that it can be taken to mean anything at all or to apply to anyone at all at any time at all. That would be to render scripture meaningless.

    I also recognize that the New Testament writers seemed to pull bits and pieces of timed prophecies out of their context for use with untimed (as far as I could tell) events. I question how well we can do that today without making mincemeat of the original intent (both short and long term).
    How does this acknowledgment of biblical authors doing this not negate your objection to it?

    there you go again, talking in circles. You say rightly that "Reason" is "making sense" of what you're "aware of". Thus, for reason to take place "awareness" is a necessary precondition. Let's look at the definition of "awareness":

    awareness [uh-wair-nis]
    noun 1. the state or condition of being aware; having knowledge; consciousness:

    If I follow your logic, you are saying that reason is necessary for having knowledge, and having knowledge is necessary for reasoning. That's pretty circular in my book.
    It's only circular if you conflate the meanings of the words used. Being conscious of a stimulus is not the same as knowing what it is. Having light from above you hit the back of your eye isn't the same thing as knowing that the sky is blue.

    "Reason integrates manís perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising manís knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logicóand logic is the art of non-contradictory identification." - Ayn Rand



    Okay, sorry - out of time! That'll have to do!

    Clete
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us