User Tag List

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 122

Thread: Open View and Preterism

  1. #106
    Over 1500 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,741
    Thanks
    403
    Thanked 742 Times in 509 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    212277
    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
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,762
    Thanks
    364
    Thanked 4,967 Times in 2,832 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147754
    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
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,762
    Thanks
    364
    Thanked 4,967 Times in 2,832 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147754
    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
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,762
    Thanks
    364
    Thanked 4,967 Times in 2,832 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147754
    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
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,762
    Thanks
    364
    Thanked 4,967 Times in 2,832 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147754
    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. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    Derf (August 20th, 2017)

  7. #111
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,762
    Thanks
    364
    Thanked 4,967 Times in 2,832 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147754
    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

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    Derf (August 20th, 2017)

  9. #112
    Over 1500 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,741
    Thanks
    403
    Thanked 742 Times in 509 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    212277
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    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....
    I feel like I need to let this one alone, but I also feel like it is integral to our discussion, so I'm not sure I can let it alone.

    We all experience things that we either don't understand or can't conceptualize, at least at first. I just witnessed the solar eclipse last week, and I can imagine seeing it without all of the scientific explanations we have today--just looking up and seeing a beautiful corona where the sun normally is. I would immediately start to conceive of reasons why it is so, but the experience itself precedes the ideas of what it means and how it happens--just like all human experiences--someone has to experience it before it can be related and explained and hypothesized ad infinitum.

    Even Einstein, explaining things about the speed of light and the effects of gravity, "experienced" these things in his calculations, prior to people experiencing them in real-life examples (like satellite clocks, etc.), before he was able to write out the explanations in his theories.

    Imagine for a moment a man born blind trying to describe the color of the sky, or even trying to describe the sky at all. He can't, except to repeat what someone else has told him--the experience precedes the ability to relay the information.

    If concepts are based on experience, or if reason is based on knowledge, then the experiences, the knowledge, is more foundational (more basic) than the conception or the reasoning.

    And if there is anything more foundational/basic than reason, God cannot be adequately described as reason. Sure, He can be metaphorically described as reason, just as He can "light" or "the Door".

    You and I went the same direction on this, I think. At least that's what I'm getting out this next post of yours:


    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    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.


    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
    I had to go back to the start of this conversation to figure out why we got off on this rabbit trail.

    What concerned me was that you said we needed to judge scripture by reason, and I feel pretty strongly that we need to judge reason by scripture. I think the disconnect is that when you say "reason" you mean something far deeper than just "logic"--something that is basic/foundational, and that's why you feel comfortable equating "God" and "Reason".

    But you also equated "Reason" and "Logic", which still bothers me.

    But let me address your other concept--that one can't be "rational" without being "righteous". Let's suppose that someone has sinned and knows that the only possible end for him is death--that in this imaginary universe there is no atonement for sin through the blood of Christ.

    Would it not be "rational" to do whatever one wanted to do and was capable of doing, without concern about that final outcome, since the final outcome is already guaranteed? At this point, for such persons, only the intermediate outcome is of any consequence for making value judgments on behavior. And if the intermediate outcome provides something desirable, even if the final outcome is not desirable, the unrighteous behavior is justifiable, or "rational".

    To bring this home, isn't this the state Satan finds himself in? There is no atonement for him, as far as I know about. His end is written in the bible. In the meantime, what is there to stop him from pursuing his own goals to the best of his ability? The only thing would be the hastening of judgment. So his "righteousness" extends only to the point to keep him from being punished prematurely. I'm getting this idea from the Job story, where God commands Satan where to draw the line in his troubling of Job. It's a command, though I would guess it would also be backed up by sudden and swift action to counter and deflect any attempt to the contrary on Satan's part.

    So Satan, in his own twisted way, is "rational", but he is definitely not "righteous".

  10. #113
    Over 1500 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,741
    Thanks
    403
    Thanked 742 Times in 509 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    212277
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    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.
    I'm looking forward to it.


    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.
    Ok. I think you are saying that "Jacob's trouble" or "the great tribulation" had begun or was shortly about to begin, but it ceased due to Israel's disobedience by rejecting their Messiah. If Israel had been obedient and welcomed their Messiah, then their "trouble" would have continued with the purpose of weeding out those that did NOT accept the Messiah. So, essentially, the Jews were able to stop the great tribulation by rejecting Christ.

    I think the reason I'm having trouble tracking on this is that the predictions Jesus was making are in Matt 24, but the rejection of Him by the Jews had already occurred, at the end of Matt 23:

    [Mat 23:36 NKJV]
    "Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

    [Mat 23:37 NKJV]
    "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under [her] wings, but you were not willing!

    [Mat 23:38 NKJV]
    "See! Your house is left to you desolate;

    [Mat 23:39 NKJV]
    "for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, 'Blessed [is] He who comes in the name of the LORD!' "

    To synopsize:
    Jesus affirmed that they had already rejected Him (vs 37), He predicted the loss of their territory (vs 38), He defined WHEN it would happen (vs 36: "this generation"), and explained not how to prevent it, but how to recover from it (vs 39).

    So, when He explains it more thoroughly to His disciples in Matt 24, he reiterates that it is for "this generation", and nothing is lacking in their rejection to keep it from happening. Yet you say that the rejection gets worse, and its getting worse is what prevents the tribulation from occurring.

    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.


    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.


    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.
    Good! So if Jesus applies something to a particular generation, and supposedly for their rejection of Him, and when He says the recovery from such a state or condition is to stop rejecting Him and say, "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord", why does a continuation of the rejection then lead to a revocation of the prophecy rather than a fulfillment of it?


    How does this acknowledgment of biblical authors doing this not negate your objection to it?
    I'm recognizing my inability to detect where a passage applies to future things beyond the immediate context. But I'm also recognizing the difficulties others would have in detecting such, without, perhaps, the Holy Spirit's direction.

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

    Clete

  11. #114
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,762
    Thanks
    364
    Thanked 4,967 Times in 2,832 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147754
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I feel like I need to let this one alone, but I also feel like it is integral to our discussion, so I'm not sure I can let it alone.

    We all experience things that we either don't understand or can't conceptualize, at least at first. I just witnessed the solar eclipse last week, and I can imagine seeing it without all of the scientific explanations we have today--just looking up and seeing a beautiful corona where the sun normally is. I would immediately start to conceive of reasons why it is so, but the experience itself precedes the ideas of what it means and how it happens--just like all human experiences--someone has to experience it before it can be related and explained and hypothesized ad infinitum.
    I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. I already said that the fequencies of light that we call blue existed before anyone called them blue.
    The point is that until someone who has either defined blue or has learned that definition from someone else, the concept of blue does not exist in their mind. It is the cognitive act of reason that creates blueness. It doesn't create the frequency of light, it creates the ideas that distinguishes one hue from another.
    Electromagnetic radiation exists whether we see it or not, whether we discuss it or not, whether we name it or not. But the color blue is an idea that doesn't exist outside a thinking mind.

    [quote]Even Einstein, explaining things about the speed of light and the effects of gravity, "experienced" these things in his calculations, prior to people experiencing them in real-life examples (like satellite clocks, etc.), before he was able to write out the explanations in his theories.

    Imagine for a moment a man born blind trying to describe the color of the sky, or even trying to describe the sky at all. He can't, except to repeat what someone else has told him--the experience precedes the ability to relay the information.
    Of course! Reason is the process of converting data into ideas. What is, is. That's the foundation of all rational thought. The Law of Identity. Reality does not contradict itself. A thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same sense. Therefore, a reasoning process that contradicts itself cannot be consistent with reality.
    We could on from here rethinking Aristotle's thoughts after him if we like but the point is, once again, I don't understand what it is you are disagreeing with.

    If concepts are based on experience, or if reason is based on knowledge, then the experiences, the knowledge, is more foundational (more basic) than the conception or the reasoning.
    Huh?
    You cannot even question the basis of reason without using reason to do the questioning. No idea can touch your mind without the use of reason. There is no tool other than reason to compare an idea to the nature of reality (i.e. to test the truth of an idea) other than reason. Therefore, no knowledge is possible without reason.

    And if there is anything more foundational/basic than reason, God cannot be adequately described as reason. Sure, He can be metaphorically described as reason, just as He can "light" or "the Door".
    What do you mean by "more foundational"? More foundational to what?

    We are rational beings. Your basic mode of survival is a rational process. Every action you take exists first as a thought in your mind. You cannot collect food without a knowledge of what food is and how to collect it. You cannot shelter yourself against the ravages of nature without a knowledge of danger and a way to mitigate it. To the extent that your thoughts are consistent with reality and your continued existence in it (i.e. your life), your thoughts are rational and moral. To the extent that your thoughts contradict reality or undermine your life, your thoughts are irrational and immoral.

    I had to go back to the start of this conversation to figure out why we got off on this rabbit trail.

    What concerned me was that you said we needed to judge scripture by reason, and I feel pretty strongly that we need to judge reason by scripture.
    You cannot even read the scripture without reason! How would you propose to judge anything without using reason to do it? You ARE contradicting yourself here. Scripture could not exist apart from reason and the test for any truth claim, scriptural or otherwise, is whether it conforms to reality. Conforming one's mind to reality is all being rational is. If scripture is true (i.e. consistent with reality) then it is rational, by definition. The question then is this.

    Which came first, reality or the scripture which it describes?

    I think the disconnect is that when you say "reason" you mean something far deeper than just "logic"--something that is basic/foundational, and that's why you feel comfortable equating "God" and "Reason".
    I feel comfortable with it because the Apostle John, and by extension, the Holy Spirit of God, felt comfortable with it.
    The distinction between reason and logic is primarily one of semantics. It's the same basic concept just used in a different manner. Logic, in the English use of the term, refers most often to the formal rules of sound reason but in common use is often used as a synonym of reason. But don't be confused. I mean exactly what it sounds like I mean. God is Reason. When you use sound reason, you are being godly, whether you believe in His existence or not. And the results of one's use of reason are independent of their relationship with Him who is Reason because reality is what it is and God is not in the common practice of circumventing His creation in order to frustrate those who hate Him but happen to live in accordance with its principles. Rain replenishes the crops of both the good and the evil. This is because of the nature of rain and of crops, not because the bible says so or because God is arbitrarily causing it to be so as the Calvinists believe.

    But you also equated "Reason" and "Logic", which still bothers me.
    Why?

    But let me address your other concept--that one can't be "rational" without being "righteous". Let's suppose that someone has sinned and knows that the only possible end for him is death--that in this imaginary universe there is no atonement for sin through the blood of Christ.

    Would it not be "rational" to do whatever one wanted to do and was capable of doing, without concern about that final outcome, since the final outcome is already guaranteed? At this point, for such persons, only the intermediate outcome is of any consequence for making value judgments on behavior. And if the intermediate outcome provides something desirable, even if the final outcome is not desirable, the unrighteous behavior is justifiable, or "rational".
    The longer one's view, the greater the mind.
    What you are asking me is whether the final consequence is a valid point to consider in any decision one might make. The answer is, of course it is! If the final consequence changes then so might the decision. That makes sense, right?
    But denying reality, or any part of it, is not rational. Thus, if the bible is true, then to disregard the judgment would be irrational. In other words, you, if I understand you correctly, are attempting to judge one worldview from within another. This is classic question begging and is not valid. God either exists or He does not. There is either going to be a judgment day or there is not. If judgment day is coming then to make decisions as though it is not, is irrational, by definition.

    To bring this home, isn't this the state Satan finds himself in? There is no atonement for him, as far as I know about. His end is written in the bible. In the meantime, what is there to stop him from pursuing his own goals to the best of his ability? The only thing would be the hastening of judgment. So his "righteousness" extends only to the point to keep him from being punished prematurely. I'm getting this idea from the Job story, where God commands Satan where to draw the line in his troubling of Job. It's a command, though I would guess it would also be backed up by sudden and swift action to counter and deflect any attempt to the contrary on Satan's part.

    So Satan, in his own twisted way, is "rational", but he is definitely not "righteous".
    No. You cannot act rationally in opposition to Reason (capital R).
    Satan acts in a manner consistent with his own nature but his very nature is anti-reason (i.e. since Christ is Reason, one might say that Satan is Anti-Christ - see how nicely that works!).
    In short any action or thought that is based on a false premise is irrational no matter how consistently one holds to that false premise.
    Thus to be rational, one must be consistent not only with one's self but also with reality.

    Clete

    P.S. This converstion is just awesome - by the way!

    "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

  12. #115
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,762
    Thanks
    364
    Thanked 4,967 Times in 2,832 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147754
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I'm looking forward to it.
    See my next post!

    Ok. I think you are saying that "Jacob's trouble" or "the great tribulation" had begun or was shortly about to begin, but it ceased due to Israel's disobedience by rejecting their Messiah. If Israel had been obedient and welcomed their Messiah, then their "trouble" would have continued with the purpose of weeding out those that did NOT accept the Messiah. So, essentially, the Jews were able to stop the great tribulation by rejecting Christ.

    I think the reason I'm having trouble tracking on this is that the predictions Jesus was making are in Matt 24, but the rejection of Him by the Jews had already occurred, at the end of Matt 23:

    [Mat 23:36 NKJV]
    "Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

    [Mat 23:37 NKJV]
    "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under [her] wings, but you were not willing!

    [Mat 23:38 NKJV]
    "See! Your house is left to you desolate;

    [Mat 23:39 NKJV]
    "for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, 'Blessed [is] He who comes in the name of the LORD!' "

    To synopsize:
    Jesus affirmed that they had already rejected Him (vs 37), He predicted the loss of their territory (vs 38), He defined WHEN it would happen (vs 36: "this generation"), and explained not how to prevent it, but how to recover from it (vs 39).

    So, when He explains it more thoroughly to His disciples in Matt 24, he reiterates that it is for "this generation", and nothing is lacking in their rejection to keep it from happening. Yet you say that the rejection gets worse, and its getting worse is what prevents the tribulation from occurring.

    Good! So if Jesus applies something to a particular generation, and supposedly for their rejection of Him, and when He says the recovery from such a state or condition is to stop rejecting Him and say, "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord", why does a continuation of the rejection then lead to a revocation of the prophecy rather than a fulfillment of it?


    I'm recognizing my inability to detect where a passage applies to future things beyond the immediate context. But I'm also recognizing the difficulties others would have in detecting such, without, perhaps, the Holy Spirit's direction.

    I'm sorry but I just don't understand what the objection is here. I really think it must be a matter of paradigm.
    I don't think that Jerusalem's rejection "got worse". I think that God, in accordance with Jeremiah 18 repented of the blessing He intended to give Israel in the form of a Kingdom. If God isn't giving you the Kingdom, the purging process is no longer necessary and was thus halted.

    (Incidentally, the correct word is 'repented', not 'relented'. Our English bibles use "relent" whenever the Hebrew word for 'repent' is used in reference to God in spite of the fact that it doesn't mean 'relent' it means 'repent'. The Calvinists who translated our English bibles just couldn't bring themselves to use the word repent in reference to God.)

    In fact, if it weren't explained to us by Paul in Romans 9, Israel's being cut off would have falsified everything Jesus claimed to be. Matthew 23 and 24 would be the least of our concerns. Further, if it weren't explained to us by Paul in Romans 11, we might think that Israel's special relationship with God was over permanently, which, by the way, would have been God's prerogative.

    Resting in Him,
    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

  13. #116
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,762
    Thanks
    364
    Thanked 4,967 Times in 2,832 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147754
    The following post is a brief synopsis of information that Bob Enyart spends a whole chapter establishing in his book, The Plot, which I strongly urge all believing Christians to read repeatedly. If you have not read The Plot, you don't understand the Bible. Yes, that's hyperbole but I cannot overstate the importance of Bob's work. It is simply a must read. I'll make no attempt to establish all of this beyond what is stated here. My intent here is to prod the reader to read the book, not to reproduce it here on the internet...

    Twelve signs and conditions of the Tribulation that are evident in early Acts....

    1. Outpouring of the Holy Spirit

    Prophesied: Joel 2:28-29; Zechariah 12:9-10; Ezekiel 39:21-22,29

    Evidenced in Acts 2:4, 17-18, 33, 38; 4:31; 5:32; 6:3-5, 10; 7:55; 8:15-17

    2. Signs and Wonders

    Prophesied: Joel 2:30; Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:22

    Evidenced in Acts 5:12; 8:6-7, 13; 2:2-3, 6; 4:30

    3. Earthquakes

    Prophesied: Isaiah 29:6; Matthew 24:7; Mark 13:8; Luke 21:11

    Evidenced in Acts 4:31

    4. Beaten by Counsils

    Prophesied: Mark 13:9

    Evidenced in Acts 5:27, 40

    5. Laying on of hands to imprison

    Prophesied: Luke 21:12

    Evidenced in Acts 4:3; 5:17-18, 21-23; 8:3

    6. Arrests lead to great witness
    Prophesied: Luke 21:13

    Evidenced in Acts 4:4, 8-24; 5:19-20, 24-25

    7. Martyrdom

    Prophesied: Matthew 24:9; Luke 21:16

    Evidenced in Acts 5:33; 7:57-60; 8:1; 26:10

    8. Tribulation would be short

    Prophesied: Matthew 10:17-23; 16:28; 24: 22, 33-34 Mark 9:1; 13:20; Luke 9:27; 21:28, 31; Daniel 9:27

    People sold homes because the End of the Age was due shortly: Acts 2:44-45; 4:34-35; 5:1-11

    9. Irresistible Wisdom

    Prophesied: Luke 21:15; Jeremiah 5:14

    Evidenced in Acts 6:10; 7:2-60

    10. Signs in the sun, moon and stars

    Prophesied: Joel 2:30-31; Isaiah 13:10; Ezekiel 32:7; Matthew 24:29; Mark 13:24-25; Luke 21:25
    Sings in the heavens expected soon in Acts 2:19-20

    11. Christ comes after the Tribulation

    Prophesied: Matthew 24:29-30; Daniel 7:11-13; Revelation 19:11-16

    Christ's return expected soon in Acts 3:19-20; 1:11

    12. Israel's Seven Feasts

    Israel's seven feats prefigured God's program milestones: Leviticus 23:4-44

    Pentecost fulfilled on actual feast date shows plan still on track: Acts 2:1, 4

    Now, once again, this is merely a synopsis of what Bob spends more than 30 pages establishing in The Plot. Clearly, some of the points above pack more punch than others but taken as a whole, it is clear that not only was God's prophesied plan for Israel still on track prior to Acts 9 but the Tribulation period had begun, which stands to reason since the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy would naturally begin when the 69th week ended.

    Lastly, I'm not the fastest typist in the world but I'm no total slouch either and this has taken me quite a while just to type this information out. I can't imagine the man hours that were put into writing The Plot. Please do Bob the honor of buying a copy and reading it! Thanks!

    Resting in Him,
    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

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    Derf (August 28th, 2017)

  15. #117
    Over 1500 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,741
    Thanks
    403
    Thanked 742 Times in 509 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    212277
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Of course! Reason is the process of converting data into ideas. What is, is.
    So, when God tells Moses His name, what does He say? "I am". What is, is. God is the data, not the conversion of the data into ideas.


    That's the foundation of all rational thought. The Law of Identity. Reality does not contradict itself. A thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same sense. Therefore, a reasoning process that contradicts itself cannot be consistent with reality.
    Yes, but you have admitted that some people have "blind faith", which is an irrational reasoning process. Irrationality exists.



    You cannot even question the basis of reason without using reason to do the questioning. No idea can touch your mind without the use of reason. There is no tool other than reason to compare an idea to the nature of reality (i.e. to test the truth of an idea) other than reason. Therefore, no knowledge is possible without reason.
    So you admit that "reason" is a tool, and with your previous statements, it is a tool to convert data into ideas.


    What do you mean by "more foundational"? More foundational to what?
    More foundational, or more basic than reason. Data is necessary for reason. But reason is not necessary for data to exist.
    We are rational beings. Your basic mode of survival is a rational process. Every action you take exists first as a thought in your mind. You cannot collect food without a knowledge of what food is and how to collect it. You cannot shelter yourself against the ravages of nature without a knowledge of danger and a way to mitigate it. To the extent that your thoughts are consistent with reality and your continued existence in it (i.e. your life), your thoughts are rational and moral. To the extent that your thoughts contradict reality or undermine your life, your thoughts are irrational and immoral.
    If the end result is predetermined, such as Satan's, then the "irrational and immoral" thoughts don't contradict reality or undermine his life.


    You cannot even read the scripture without reason! How would you propose to judge anything without using reason to do it? You ARE contradicting yourself here. Scripture could not exist apart from reason and the test for any truth claim, scriptural or otherwise, is whether it conforms to reality. Conforming one's mind to reality is all being rational is. If scripture is true (i.e. consistent with reality) then it is rational, by definition. The question then is this.

    Which came first, reality or the scripture which it describes?
    I think that's like saying, if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to observe it, then it didn't really fall. Yes, I agree that scripture requires reason to exist. But scripture is not a be all and end all. It is a means to an end. God gave us scripture to communicate something to us. The thing (data, if you will) that He is communicating to us is the more important. That is not to diminish the importance of scripture, nor the importance of the Word, by any means. "The Word", Jesus Christ, is both the data and the means of communication. God communicated His love to us by/through/in Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ is both the bearer and the embodiment of that love. "The Word" is much more than just reason. "Logike" is not sufficient to describe both the data and the means of communication of the data. "Logos", apparently, is.


    I feel comfortable with it because the Apostle John, and by extension, the Holy Spirit of God, felt comfortable with it.
    I think you feel comfortable with it because it is your paradigm. And you interpret the scripture through your paradigm. But as I pointed out before, your paradigm isn't shared by any of the bible translators that I could find. You should consider such a warning about your paradigm.

    The distinction between reason and logic is primarily one of semantics. It's the same basic concept just used in a different manner. Logic, in the English use of the term, refers most often to the formal rules of sound reason but in common use is often used as a synonym of reason. But don't be confused. I mean exactly what it sounds like I mean. God is Reason. When you use sound reason, you are being godly, whether you believe in His existence or not.
    I gave an instance of Satan using sound reason to continue his ungodly ways. Are you saying, now, Satan is being godly when he is doing evil?


    The longer one's view, the greater the mind.
    What you are asking me is whether the final consequence is a valid point to consider in any decision one might make. The answer is, of course it is! If the final consequence changes then so might the decision. That makes sense, right?
    But denying reality, or any part of it, is not rational. Thus, if the bible is true, then to disregard the judgment would be irrational. In other words, you, if I understand you correctly, are attempting to judge one worldview from within another. This is classic question begging and is not valid. God either exists or He does not. There is either going to be a judgment day or there is not. If judgment day is coming then to make decisions as though it is not, is irrational, by definition.
    I think one could accuse Satan of denying reality if he thinks he can outwit God, or overcome his own doom. I don't know if he thinks that. The passage about Legion tells me that at least some of the demons realize their final destiny. Matt 8:29


    No. You cannot act rationally in opposition to Reason (capital R).
    Satan acts in a manner consistent with his own nature but his very nature is anti-reason (i.e. since Christ is Reason, one might say that Satan is Anti-Christ - see how nicely that works!).
    In short any action or thought that is based on a false premise is irrational no matter how consistently one holds to that false premise.
    Thus to be rational, one must be consistent not only with one's self but also with reality.
    Thus my example about Satan. He is consistent with his nature, and consistent with reality.

    Clete

    P.S. This converstion is just awesome - by the way!
    I'm enjoying it, too. It's good to stretch the mind a little every now and then, yes?

  16. #118
    Over 1500 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,741
    Thanks
    403
    Thanked 742 Times in 509 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    212277
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    See my next post!


    I'm sorry but I just don't understand what the objection is here. I really think it must be a matter of paradigm.
    ...
    which, by the way, would have been God's prerogative.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    The following post is a brief synopsis of information that Bob Enyart spends a whole chapter establishing in his book, The Plot...

    Lastly, I'm not the fastest typist in the world but I'm no total slouch either and this has taken me quite a while just to type this information out. I can't imagine the man hours that were put into writing The Plot. Please do Bob the honor of buying a copy and reading it! Thanks!

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    Clete, this is a lot of good stuff here. And I don't want to respond rashly, making mockery of the time you spent on it. Give me some time to go through it.

    Derf

  17. #119
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,762
    Thanks
    364
    Thanked 4,967 Times in 2,832 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147754
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    So, when God tells Moses His name, what does He say? "I am". What is, is. God is the data, not the conversion of the data into ideas.
    You don't find it curious that God declares His own name to be a form of the Law of Identity?

    Yes, but you have admitted that some people have "blind faith", which is an irrational reasoning process. Irrationality exists.
    Sure! Irrational morons reproduce like rabbits on this website alone! But that doesn't mean that what they say is true or that it corresponds to anything that is real (same thing).

    So you admit that "reason" is a tool, and with your previous statements, it is a tool to convert data into ideas.
    Why would I deny it? It's a metaphor of sorts I suppose but it seems an intuitively accurate one. Why would this have jumped out at you?

    More foundational, or more basic than reason. Data is necessary for reason. But reason is not necessary for data to exist.
    You are conflating data with phonomena.
    Data is collected information about phenomena. Phenomena exist without observation but data is that which you have after the phenomena have been observed and the information recorded. Light is scattered in a particular way by our atmosphere whether we are here to see it or not but it isn't "blue" until we see it and decide to call it that. See the difference?

    If the end result is predetermined, such as Satan's, then the "irrational and immoral" thoughts don't contradict reality or undermine his life.
    Of course they do! Don't you think that Satan would be better off if he stopped fighting God? Lucifer was not created evil. He chose to destroy himself and will go on destroying not only his own life but as many other lives as he can. God is life. To rebel against God is to rebel against life. To rebel against life is both irrational and immoral, by definition.

    I think that's like saying, if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to observe it, then it didn't really fall.
    How so? The tree either fell or it didn't. This is reality. If we make a statement about whether the tree fell that is consistent with reality then the statement is true. If we make a statement that is not consistent with reality then it is false. Reality is the final arbiter of any truth claim.
    If two disagree on an issue but are intellectually honest enough to allow reality to be their judge then when the truth is learned, one is right and the other learns and both profit from living their lives based on reason.

    Yes, I agree that scripture requires reason to exist. But scripture is not a be all and end all. It is a means to an end. God gave us scripture to communicate something to us. The thing (data, if you will) that He is communicating to us is the more important. That is not to diminish the importance of scripture, nor the importance of the Word, by any means. "The Word", Jesus Christ, is both the data and the means of communication. God communicated His love to us by/through/in Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ is both the bearer and the embodiment of that love. "The Word" is much more than just reason. "Logike" is not sufficient to describe both the data and the means of communication of the data. "Logos", apparently, is.
    Wow did you say a big mouth full here! I don't disagree with any of it. I have the feeling that you don't see all of what you just said but whether you do or not, you're on the right track. Stay on it.

    God loves, he is loved and He is Love. We act Godly by loving God, ourselves and others. Likewise, He is both kind and Kindness, He is both just and Justice, He is merciful and Mercy, God is both wise and Wisdom and God is both rational and Reason.

    Here's the key thing...

    These are all different ways to say the same thing. It's just a matter of application and context. To say God is Love is to say that God is Reason.

    I think you feel comfortable with it because it is your paradigm. And you interpret the scripture through your paradigm. But as I pointed out before, your paradigm isn't shared by any of the bible translators that I could find. You should consider such a warning about your paradigm.
    Nope! I am NOT interpreting anything. The word Logos has a very clear meaning. The Calvinist translators be damned.
    Why should I be more comfortable with the entirely meaningless English phrase "The Word became flesh..." as opposed to "Logic became flesh..."?

    I gave an instance of Satan using sound reason to continue his ungodly ways. Are you saying, now, Satan is being godly when he is doing evil?
    I already responded to this.
    You cannot be rational while fighting Reason!

    I think one could accuse Satan of denying reality if he thinks he can outwit God, or overcome his own doom. I don't know if he thinks that. The passage about Legion tells me that at least some of the demons realize their final destiny. Matt 8:29
    They fight God because they hate God. It isn't complicated. As I explained before, simply being consistent with a chosen path, doesn't make you rational if that chosen path is fundamentally irrational. Fighting against the God who is Reason and that gave you your existence is fundamentally irrational.

    Thus my example about Satan. He is consistent with his nature, and consistent with reality.
    He is not consistent with reality or his nature. Lucifer was created an Arch Angel capable of standing in the direct presence of God Himself. He was created good and righteous. He chose to act against, not only that nature but against the God who sustains his very existence. God has seen fit to delay Satan's final judgment but that delay will not continue forever and when God's stay of judgment comes to an end, so will Satan and it will Satan's own fault, a result of his own irrational decisions and actions.

    I'm enjoying it, too. It's good to stretch the mind a little every now and then, yes?
    This thread is an example of what this whole website is supposed to be about.

    Resting in Him,
    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

  18. #120
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,762
    Thanks
    364
    Thanked 4,967 Times in 2,832 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147754
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Clete, this is a lot of good stuff here. And I don't want to respond rashly, making mockery of the time you spent on it. Give me some time to go through it.

    Derf
    Take your time. Don't feel obligated to make a lengthy response here at all. Just go through it and see if it doesn't at least allow you to see what I'm getting at by making the claim that the Tribulation period had begun in early Acts. At the very least it should give you a glimpse at the rigorously biblical nature of the Acts 9 Dispensational paradigm, not to mention the maticulous nature of Bob's doctinal work.

    "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