ARCHIVE: Thread Theft (docrob and Knight)

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight asked "Was Nineveh destroyed?" No it wasn't, but (once again, and again, and again) this overlooks the conditional nature of the prophesy, which both he and Mr Enyart and others accept, when convenient. So I really don't accept the relevance of Knight's question. But to answer more completely.

LOL docrob, you are a trip! Let me help you out here...

Us OV'ers accept conditional prohecy! And conditional futures!

Don't act as though we only accept conditional prophecies when convient because that simply is a misrepresentation of the argumnet.

Conditional futures and prophecies are one of open theisms best evidences.

Conversely conditional prophecies and a conditional future is the death nail for the settled view. Logically the future can not hinge upon a yet-to-be-determined event (conditional) and also be settled at the same time.

Let me know if you have anything further you would like to discuss in this thread.

 

[Delmar]

LOL docrob, you are a trip! Let me help you out here...

Us OV'ers accept conditional prohecy! And conditional futures!

Don't act as though we only accept conditional prophecies when convient because that simply is a misrepresentation of the argumnet.

Conditional futures and prophecies are one of open theisms best evidences.

Conversely conditional prophecies and a conditional future is the death nail for the settled view. Logically the future can not hinge upon a yet-to-be-determined event (conditional) and also be settled at the same time.

Let me know if you have anything further you would like to discuss in this thread.

Thing is I do think that Doc really believes that the future is actually open...
...and still believes God knows it ahead of time!

 

[docrob57]

Thing is I do think that Doc really believes that the future is actually open...
...and still believes God knows it ahead of time!

YES!!! Thank you DD for that clarification. The only stipulation I would make is that I am not sure about the true nature of time, but I am looking into it.

 

[Delmar]

YES!!! Thank you DD for that clarification. The only stipulation I would make is that I am not sure about the true nature of time, but I am looking into it.

That is to say you are not sure if God perceives things in chronological order?

 

[docrob57]

That is to say you are not sure if God perceives things in chronological order?

No, I am aware of theories in physics suggesting that everything happens simulaneously, so that the future does in fact exist now. This seems counterintuitive, but I am interested in looking into it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Thing is I do think that Doc really believes that the future is actually open...
...and still believes God knows it ahead of time!

All I am trying to show him is a "settled viewer" cannot appeal to a conditional future and remain logically consistant to a settled future.

Which is what he has been trying to in this thread.

 

[docrob57]

All I am trying to show him is a "settled viewer" cannot appeal to a conditional future and remain logically consistant to a settled future.

Which is what he has been trying to in this thread.

Not really, what I was really trying to get to was the foreknowledge thing.

 

[Delmar]

YES!!! Thank you DD for that clarification. The only stipulation I would make is that I am not sure about the true nature of time, but I am looking into it.

I think part of the reason that we ( the OVers ) and you are butting heads is that we are not able to accept each others termonolgy and it therefore gets confusing as to exactly where the dissagrement lyes.

The core of my disagreement with you, as I see it, is this.

I believe That since the future is truly open it must mean that God does not know all of the future.

You believe that since the future is truly open and since God must know the future, that it must be possible for both to be true.

Is that about right ?

 

[docrob57]

I think part of the reason that we ( the OVers ) and you are butting heads is that we are not able to accept each others termonolgy and it therefore gets confusing as to exactly where the dissagrement lyes.

The core of my disagreement with you, as I see it, is this.

I believe That since the future is truly open it must mean that God does not know all of the future.

You believe that since the future is truly open and since God must know the future, that it must be possible for both to be true.

Is that about right ?

Well, as I have said before, I have no strong opinion on the open v. settled thing.

However, I do contend that the future can be completely open, and God would still know exactly what would happen.

On another matter, I think Calvin gets trashed too much around here. I have not read him, but just skimming the institutes, very little of it deals with election or predestination. I think most of us would agree with most of what Calvin had to say.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Not really, what I was really trying to get to was the foreknowledge thing.

That is the same thing.

The entire discussion revolves around God's foreknowledge. Is His foreknowledge complete i.e., settled? Or is His foreknowledge not complete i.e., conditional upon yet to be determined events (unsettled)?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

However, I do contend that the future can be completely open, and God would still know exactly what would happen.

:hammer:

 

[Delmar]

Well, as I have said before, I have no strong opinion on the open v. settled thing.

However, I do contend that the future can be completely open, and God would still know exactly what would happen.

I'm going to have to agree with Knight that your view is not logically consistant, but I'm sure you are not shocked by that

On another matter, I think Calvin gets trashed too much around here. I have not read him, but just skimming the institutes, very little of it deals with election or predestination. I think most of us would agree with most of what Calvin had to say.

If you are saying that Calvanism is not consistant with Calvan I won't yell at you too loud for that!

 

[docrob57]

I'm going to have to agree with Knight that your view is not logically consistant, but I'm sure you are not shocked by that If you are saying that Calvanism is not consistant with Calvan I won't yell at you too loud for that!

It is logically consistent, however, as yet I have been able to effectively communicate that. If I think of some new way to do it, I will try.

As to Calvin, I am saying that he wrote a whole bunch of theology that has nothing to do with predestination. I also don't think he ever contended that all matters are predestined, only that there is an elect who God foreknows.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It is logically consistent, however, as yet I have been able to effectively communicate that. If I think of some new way to do it, I will try.

Attempting to explain that it is logical to draw four sided triangles is futile.

Essentially, that is your dilemma.

The future cannot be BOTH settled and also conditional (reliant upon future yet to be determined events) at the same time. Those two descriptions of the future are logically contradictory to one another.

A conditional future is un-set, a conditional future cannot be set until certain "conditions" are met. If the outcome of these conditions are met then they are no longer conditions at all. When the outcome of conditions are known the "conditions" become reality and the event becomes determined (settled).

A settled future contains no "conditions" since a settled future is reliant upon NO yet to be determined events. A settled future is just that . . . settled.

 

[docrob57]

Attempting to explain that it is logical to draw four sided triangles is futile.

Essentially, that is your dilemma.

The future cannot be BOTH settled and also conditional (reliant upon future yet to be determined events) at the same time. Those two descriptions of the future are logically contradictory to one another.

A conditional future is un-set, a conditional future cannot be set until certain "conditions" are met. If the outcome of these conditions are met then they are no longer conditions at all. When the outcome of conditions are known the "conditions" become reality and the event becomes determined (settled).

A settled future contains no "conditions" since a settled future is reliant upon NO yet to be determined events. A settled future is just that . . . settled.

Your dilemma is apparently that you have no idea what I am talking about, since you keep raising irrelevant considerations. Would you like to discuss, or merely go on with this ping pong match thing.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Your dilemma is apparently that you have no idea what I am talking about, since you keep raising irrelevant considerations. Would you like to discuss, or merely go on with this ping pong match thing.

doc we have all been waiting since the start of this thread for you explain how the future can be BOTH conditional AND settled.

The ball is in your court and has been for weeks now.

 

[docrob57]

doc we have all been waiting since the start of this thread for you explain how the future can be BOTH conditional AND settled.

The ball is in your court and has been for weeks now.

And I have said for weeks that I don't care. My point in the thread was that God has perfect exhaustive foreknowledge regardless of whether the future is settled or not.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

And I have said for weeks that I don't care. My point in the thread was that God has perfect exhaustive foreknowledge regardless of whether the future is settled or not.

Dude.... :nono:

I think I have learned a valuable lesson in this thread. :think:

 

[docrob57]

Dude.... :nono:

I think I have learned a valuable lesson in this thread. :think:

. . .which is?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

. . .which is?

Ok... I answer only because you asked.

Doc, I learned that there is no reason for me to invest any time discussing stuff with you because when push comes to shove you tell me you really don't care. Personally I think that is a bit rude and not to mention odd since it was you who started this thread in the first place.

If I challenged you in a thread (like this) and asked you to invest your time responding to me, I would never blow you off like you have me.