Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Open View and Preterism

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Clete
    replied
    Originally posted by Derf View Post
    I might be "partial" pret as well.

    I agree with your analysis on the out of Egypt passage. And many prophecies are meant to spur the people on to a particular goal--like threats of destruction did with Nineveh, so it doesn't make that much sense to give them to a generation to which they don't apply (with some exceptions, of course.)

    My point with the connection to open theism is that if God is sometimes reacting to the actual events, instead of ordaining them from before time, and He visits the sins of the fathers on their sons for 3 or 4 generations, then most prophecies given for the benefit of the people He's giving them to would not benefit from a prediction that is hundreds and thousands of years in the future.

    Nor would it make sense for God to make great threats to people none of which live to see the fulfillment. Obviously there are some exceptions to this, but the exceptions will usually still involve the person--like the promise of land to Abraham: I expect he will be involved with the land more than just through his descendants--or of a savior to Adam and Eve.

    But if open theism is to be considered, it has to be considered from how the people will behave as much or more than how God will behave. If God is predicting a particular action from a person that is not alive, then in open theism, there has to be a reason for it in God's mind--not just a prediction for prediction's sake. The calling out of Cyrus well before he was born comes to mind. That seemed like it was intended to show God's power, not to the people of Isaiah's day, but to those of Cyrus's day. But other prophecies around Isaiah's time (and some from him) were to warn the people of his own day.

    The end times scenario intrigues me as an open theist, because if God predicts something that is based on the minds and hearts of the people in the future, then He must make their mind and heart condition come to pass in order for them to fulfill the prophecy. OR He must already know their mind and heart condition at the time of the prophecy. Is it possible for God to know the mind and heart of someone that doesn't exist? "Mind" and "heart" are words that are used for a person's will--what they want/pursue. But if there's no person there, only a gleam in God's eye, then God is responsible for all that they do, if what they do is necessary to accomplish His goals.

    And take the beast and false prophet for another example. If these things were dictated 2000 years before they come to pass, where the beast and false prophet are explicitly planned to be thrown into hell, is it possible for them to repent? Is it a vague enough prophecy that any of a number of people will be available at the time, in case one does repent?

    I'm rambling a bit as I think it through.
    You should read back through your post and notice how you're so unconvinced of your position here that you intuitively see the evidence against it and preemptively undermine the counter arguments.

    If God promising land and a nation whose numbers are as the stars in the sky to Abraham isn't a falsifying counter example, what in the world could be? I understand that sometimes the exception proves the rule but I don't think that can possibly apply here. I mean, God started making prophecies about far distant places and peoples as early as Genesis chapter 3 and pretty much didn't stop all the way through to John's Revelation. When the entire bible is full of exceptions then maybe the exception is the rule.

    And, do you really think its hard for God to figure out what the condition of a people's hearts and minds will be in the future? Has there ever been a time since Adam's fall when the condition of men's hearts wasn't wicked? Further, you know, as an Open Theist, that God is not required to fulfill a prophesy of blessing toward a people who are evil nor a prophecy of destruction against a people who repent (Jer. 18). If He were, Jesus would have returned, set up Israel's Kingdom and the Millennium would have been over with a thousand years ago.

    Lastly, while exploring what God's motives might be for doing this or that is interesting and is often a fruitful thing to do, I think I would shy away from making doctrine based on a lack of understanding as to what God's motives are, especially when you can clearly see several examples of Him doing precisely the thing that you think "wouldn't make any sense".

    Clete

    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    Originally posted by Lon View Post
    I am a partial preterist, in that I do believe, it seems as you do, that many of these were fulfilled in the viewing of "this generation."

    I don't believe preterism fits well with Open Theism, definitely not Dispensationalism, nor Charismatics, nor MAD (but it might for some of them).

    I am 'partial' simply because I believe most prophecies nearly always had both immediate and future fulfillment, according to typology. For instance, "Out of Egypt I called my son" was not a recognized 'Messianic' prophecy, but it certainly was a 'type' for Christ's fulfillment of going to Egypt as a child.

    Because I believe many of the prophecies to the disciples were fulfilled during their time (all of them martyred), I'm considered at least a 'partial' preterist. -Lon
    I might be "partial" pret as well.

    I agree with your analysis on the out of Egypt passage. And many prophecies are meant to spur the people on to a particular goal--like threats of destruction did with Nineveh, so it doesn't make that much sense to give them to a generation to which they don't apply (with some exceptions, of course.)

    My point with the connection to open theism is that if God is sometimes reacting to the actual events, instead of ordaining them from before time, and He visits the sins of the fathers on their sons for 3 or 4 generations, then most prophecies given for the benefit of the people He's giving them to would not benefit from a prediction that is hundreds and thousands of years in the future.

    Nor would it make sense for God to make great threats to people none of which live to see the fulfillment. Obviously there are some exceptions to this, but the exceptions will usually still involve the person--like the promise of land to Abraham: I expect he will be involved with the land more than just through his descendants--or of a savior to Adam and Eve.

    But if open theism is to be considered, it has to be considered from how the people will behave as much or more than how God will behave. If God is predicting a particular action from a person that is not alive, then in open theism, there has to be a reason for it in God's mind--not just a prediction for prediction's sake. The calling out of Cyrus well before he was born comes to mind. That seemed like it was intended to show God's power, not to the people of Isaiah's day, but to those of Cyrus's day. But other prophecies around Isaiah's time (and some from him) were to warn the people of his own day.

    The end times scenario intrigues me as an open theist, because if God predicts something that is based on the minds and hearts of the people in the future, then He must make their mind and heart condition come to pass in order for them to fulfill the prophecy. OR He must already know their mind and heart condition at the time of the prophecy. Is it possible for God to know the mind and heart of someone that doesn't exist? "Mind" and "heart" are words that are used for a person's will--what they want/pursue. But if there's no person there, only a gleam in God's eye, then God is responsible for all that they do, if what they do is necessary to accomplish His goals.

    And take the beast and false prophet for another example. If these things were dictated 2000 years before they come to pass, where the beast and false prophet are explicitly planned to be thrown into hell, is it possible for them to repent? Is it a vague enough prophecy that any of a number of people will be available at the time, in case one does repent?

    I'm rambling a bit as I think it through.

    Leave a comment:


  • patrick jane
    replied
    Originally posted by Derf View Post
    Huh?

    Yes, that is curious. But it doesn't mean that the law of identity predates God, rather God uses the law of identity to give a picture of Himself as eternally consistent. Thus, He is using reason to describe Himself. He's not using Himself to describe Himself, is He?


    I disagree. What they say is real in their minds (I hope, else they are trolls). In other words, they are writing what they are thinking. That thought is a unique creation of theirs, possibly influenced by others, but still their own thought. That thought actually exists! Therefore it is real. Maybe not rational, but real, nonetheless.


    What is a metaphor? My point has been and still is that "reason" is not God, and too many people worship "reason" over God. Maybe it's similar to the multiple gods of ancient Greece or Egypt: one controls the wind, another the waves, one is for crops, another for animals, one can move fast, another speaks with wisdom. But our God is awesome, and does ALL things well (Mark 7:37).

    I don't think so. "Data" is information that can be used for reasoning. From Merriam-Webster: Data is facts about something that can be used in calculating, reasoning, or planning. But the data/information/knowledge exists before any calculating/reasoning/planning starts. At least in our minds. If God is all-knowing, and He isn't required to do the things He does, then He must have knowledge (data) before He plans/calculates/REASONS.

    Blue light is blue light even before we decide what to call it. "Blue" is merely an assigned term. We can know what the light looks like when it has been scattered without knowing that it is associated with the word "blue". The knowledge exists without any reasoning, just like data can exist without any use of it. Maybe there's not much point to it if not used for something, but that doesn't stop it from existing.

    This I'm not sure about. I think that generally anybody is better off not rebelling any more, once one has started rebelling. Does that apply to Satan? I don't know. Would God apply Jeremiah 18:9 to Satan and his minions? Is there some reward, some reason for Satan to repent over continuing in his evil ways? Can he avoid his doom? If so, then why is it that Legion talked about the time of torment that seemed to be fixed and unavoidable? Maybe Satan can forestall his doom by being less adversarial (though I don't see any indication of such in scripture), or maybe he thinks the only way for him to avoid the punishment is to win the battle, so he continues. That may be completely rational for him to think.

    My point, perhaps poorly worded, is that if God's word depends on our reason, then it is on shaky foundations. It doesn't. God's word is true whether we recognize it or not--whether we are there to observe the tree fall or not.


    I don't disagree, but I'm not sure how God being kind is different from Him being "Kindness". If you mean that He is the ultimate exhibitor of Kindness (or Justice or Mercy or Reason), fine. If you mean something else, I'm just not getting it.

    I don't think I agree. You certainly can't apply that to every aspect of God. I.e., to say that God is Justice is NOT the same as saying God is Mercy. Why does it then apply in the case of Love vs Reason. I don't think it does.

    Why would you be less comfortable? Do you think saying "The tool for convincing someone of something became flesh," is really an improvement over "The Word became flesh"?

    Your definitions are making it hard for you to see anything else. Try this: Suppose you invented a robot that was designed to mow your lawn, but you gave it some smarts. If that robot decided it would be better off not mowing lawns, and decided to move into your house and start using your credit cards, you would probably turn it off and sell it for scrap (or reprogram it). But if it figured out how to use its mower blade to kill you, then it would rationally fight against you in the hope that it would never have to mow your lawn again. It would fight against "Reason" (you, the one that programmed it and gave it existence) rationally. The difference, of course, is that God is able to over-power Satan, we trust, but we might not be able to over-power our robotic creations (the Terminator scenario). Does the robot know you well enough to know whether it can over-power you? Maybe Satan really thinks he can overpower God.



    Some folks think Satan is doing exactly as he was created to do. I don't think so, for some fairly obvious reasons. But even if he was created good and righteous, what he does from here on out has to be based on what his options are at this point, not based on how he was created.
    I'm butting in but I read this entire exchange. I'm just getting back here and trying to navigate as best I can. I read and considered Clete's input and find it lacking, again. Of course, people believe what they type and if not, just trolls. I don't think God reasons with Himself or others.

    The "colors" thing hit home with me because I thought as a child, that maybe others see different colors than I do. I thought, well I see blue because I was taught that. We see the color and we're told what the color is but do we all really SEE the same color? Maybe I see what is actually green and yet I call it blue because that's what I was taught. Interesting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    Lon just sort of instinctively stretches the meaning of words until they mean nothing at all.

    If you don't believe that at least most of biblical prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. with the destruction of Jersusalem, then you're not a preterist in any meaningful sense of the word.

    Leave a comment:


  • patrick jane
    replied
    Originally posted by Lon View Post
    I am a partial preterist, in that I do believe, it seems as you do, that many of these were fulfilled in the viewing of "this generation."

    I don't believe preterism fits well with Open Theism, definitely not Dispensationalism, nor Charismatics, nor MAD (but it might for some of them).

    I am 'partial' simply because I believe most prophecies nearly always had both immediate and future fulfillment, according to typology. For instance, "Out of Egypt I called my son" was not a recognized 'Messianic' prophecy, but it certainly was a 'type' for Christ's fulfillment of going to Egypt as a child.

    Because I believe many of the prophecies to the disciples were fulfilled during their time (all of them martyred), I'm considered at least a 'partial' preterist. -Lon
    Hello Lon.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lon
    replied
    Originally posted by Derf View Post
    What do you think about the idea that preterism, which holds that most end-times-type prophecies were fulfilled within the time frame of the writing of the New Testament and were often associated with "this generation" actually is complimentary with the open view? @Clete didn't like the idea much.
    I am a partial preterist, in that I do believe, it seems as you do, that many of these were fulfilled in the viewing of "this generation."

    I don't believe preterism fits well with Open Theism, definitely not Dispensationalism, nor Charismatics, nor MAD (but it might for some of them).

    I am 'partial' simply because I believe most prophecies nearly always had both immediate and future fulfillment, according to typology. For instance, "Out of Egypt I called my son" was not a recognized 'Messianic' prophecy, but it certainly was a 'type' for Christ's fulfillment of going to Egypt as a child.

    Because I believe many of the prophecies to the disciples were fulfilled during their time (all of them martyred), I'm considered at least a 'partial' preterist. -Lon

    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    Originally posted by Ktoyou View Post
    "Logos made flesh"
    The "Logos" is the mind of God made flesh.

    Satin was made an angel; he had free will and wanted to be separate from God, and like God. He is the adversity who has changed his own nature to being the likeness of darkness, not like God who is the light.
    Hi Ktoyou!
    Thanks for the comments. Are you replying to something you read here? I suppose you are saying that the Logos was not a separate person from God, as Trinitarians claim. I'm not too eager to have a trinitarian debate in this thread, unless you can explain how it has some bearing on the thread topic.

    What do you think about the idea that preterism, which holds that most end-times-type prophecies were fulfilled within the time frame of the writing of the New Testament and were often associated with "this generation" actually is complimentary with the open view? [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] didn't like the idea much.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ktoyou
    replied
    "Logos made flesh"
    The "Logos" is the mind of God made flesh.

    Satin was made an angel; he had free will and wanted to be separate from God, and like God. He is the adversity who has changed his own nature to being the likeness of darkness, not like God who is the light.

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    Originally posted by Derf View Post
    Huh?
    I explained clearly what I meant. Satan was not created evil and made a choice to rebel against his righteous nature, the rest is history.

    Yes, that is curious. But it doesn't mean that the law of identity predates God, rather God uses the law of identity to give a picture of Himself as eternally consistent. Thus, He is using reason to describe Himself. He's not using Himself to describe Himself, is He?
    I didn't suggest that the law of identity predated God. How could anything predate God? The law of identity, or a form of it anyway, is what God chose to identify Himself with. He was either accurate or He wasn't, right?

    As for using Himself to describe Himself, I think that's sort of a confusing way to put it but it isn't wrong. What else could He accurately use?


    I disagree. What they say is real in their minds (I hope, else they are trolls). In other words, they are writing what they are thinking. That thought is a unique creation of theirs, possibly influenced by others, but still their own thought. That thought actually exists! Therefore it is real. Maybe not rational, but real, nonetheless.
    This objection would only apply to what I said if their thought was about their thought, in which case it would no longer be irrational. In other words, you're not really disagreeing with me, rather you've changed the subject.

    The irrational does not exist, Derf.

    There is no such thing as a sphere with sharp edges. You cannot be in a place that does not exist. Etc.

    Such things can happen in fiction or fantasy but the fact that it isn't real is why they call it fiction or fantasy.

    What is a metaphor? My point has been and still is that "reason" is not God, and too many people worship "reason" over God. Maybe it's similar to the multiple gods of ancient Greece or Egypt: one controls the wind, another the waves, one is for crops, another for animals, one can move fast, another speaks with wisdom. But our God is awesome, and does ALL things well (Mark 7:37).
    God is Reason. The Apostle John, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit (i.e. God Himself), says so.

    I don't think so. "Data" is information that can be used for reasoning. From Merriam-Webster: Data is facts about something that can be used in calculating, reasoning, or planning. But the data/information/knowledge exists before any calculating/reasoning/planning starts. At least in our minds. If God is all-knowing, and He isn't required to do the things He does, then He must have knowledge (data) before He plans/calculates/REASONS.
    He'd have to have data about a specific thing to reason about that specific thing, yes. SO WHAT?

    I am baffled by this objection. I do not understand your point at all.

    Are you suggesting that unintelligible data (i.e. data that you cannot understand at all) can be reasoned about? Are you suggesting that data can be collected mindlessly (i.e. without reason)?

    How can the sentence, "The sky is blue." be meaningful to anyone unless they know what you're referring to when you use the words "sky" and "blue"? Those words have to be connected to concepts to carry any meaning. In addition to that, you'd have to understand, at least to some degree, something about language and sentence structure how that works. In short, you cannot think at all without reason! It doesn't have to be formal logic that is done in some consciously syllogistic manner. In fact, most reason happens intuitively, which is why we are so prone to errors but the point is that it does happen. And to whatever degree one's thought process conforms itself to reality, the thinking is rationally sound and true and to the extent that it does not, it is irrational and false, by definition.

    Blue light is blue light even before we decide what to call it.
    No, Derf, it isn't. Blue is a concept. Nothing was blue before that concept existed. You can get away with saying such things in common parlance because it is a valid statement in that there isn't anything about the light that has changed just because we decided to give it a name but that is a different topic! You're conflating two different issues. You are effectively trying to say that the concept of blue existed before anyone thought of it. That is a contradiction. Ideas do not exist before they are thought of. And they cannot be thought of without reason.

    "Blue" is merely an assigned term.
    Precisely! The term blue neither adds nor subtracts from the light itself. "Blueness" exists in your mind and did not exist at all for you until you understood the concept.

    We can know what the light looks like when it has been scattered without knowing that it is associated with the word "blue".
    Exactly! I do not understand how you don't see that you are making my point for me!

    The way something looks is a concept in your mind. When you connect that concept with a word, in this case, "blue", then you can connect that word with other things that look similar. When you look at a blue car, you don't think you're looking at the sky, do you? Why not? It's because you understand intuitively that to say, "The sky is blue." is not the same as saying, "Blue is the sky." How do you understand this distinction? REASON! There is no other way.

    The knowledge exists without any reasoning
    Nope! No knowledge exists apart from reason. Perception can occur without reason, knowledge cannot. A particular wavelength of light hitting the back of your eye is not the same as understanding (i.e. knowing) what you're looking at.

    just like data can exist without any use of it. Maybe there's not much point to it if not used for something, but that doesn't stop it from existing.
    Data cannot be collected, analyzed or understood without reason. Reality (i.e. phenomena) exists without anyone there to observe it. You are conflating data with phenomena.

    This I'm not sure about. I think that generally anybody is better off not rebelling any more, once one has started rebelling. Does that apply to Satan? I don't know.
    Does Satan live in some alternate reality where the laws of reason don't work and where cause and effect don't work?

    If Satan is real, then his actions are subject to the same reality that ours are.

    Would God apply Jeremiah 18:9 to Satan and his minions? Is there some reward, some reason for Satan to repent over continuing in his evil ways? Can he avoid his doom? If so, then why is it that Legion talked about the time of torment that seemed to be fixed and unavoidable? Maybe Satan can forestall his doom by being less adversarial (though I don't see any indication of such in scripture), or maybe he thinks the only way for him to avoid the punishment is to win the battle, so he continues. That may be completely rational for him to think.
    NO! Certainly not!

    Satan is not in the same situation we human beings are in. First of all, Satan was not created in God's image and likeness and thus he is a fundamentally different kind of creature (i.e. created being). Also, unlike us, Satan has been in the direct immediate presence of God the Father and chose to rebel anyway. These things and perhaps many other issues render Satan and other members of the angelic kind, unredeemable. We know from scripture that Satan and his demons are without hope.

    This, however, doesn't mean that they live in some alternate reality where if, hypothetically speaking, of course, they were to act wisely, that such action would not have a positive consequence. It could never be enough to save them from their eternal fate, their previous folly has sealed their eternal doom but if a demon were to build a house, it would shelter him from the rain just as it would you. If a demon planted a crop, watering would have the same effect on his crop as it would on any other farmer's crop.

    Indeed, Satan uses this fact to his advantage. Otherwise, there would be no point in presenting himself as an angel of light. He uses truth to conceal his lies because the truth still works, even for Satan. Not every thought in Satan's mind is false. (James 2:19)

    My point, perhaps poorly worded, is that if God's word depends on our reason, then it is on shaky foundations.
    Our reason?

    Who said anything about "our reason"?

    There is no such thing as "our reason". There is rational and then there is irrational. "We" or "Our" does not come into it. We do not define reason, God does.

    Look at your objection here using a different term with which you are comfortable using in reference to God...
    "...if God's word depends on our love, then it is on shaky foundations."

    Do you think that there is any such thing as "our love" as opposed to actual love? Any distinction you might care to make would only be differentiating false love from real love. Likewise, anything you'd care to label "our reason" would only refer to something that is in opposition to real reason or sound reason. In other words, if "our reason" exists, it can only refer to the irrational! God's word does not depend on the irrational!

    It doesn't. God's word is true whether we recognize it or not--whether we are there to observe the tree fall or not.
    Put another way...

    God's word is rational!

    That's all you're saying when you say something is true. The word "true" means "consistent with a standard". In this case, the standard is reality itself. That which is consistent with reality is true, by definition. Likewise, that which is consistent with reality is rational, again, by definition. It's nothing at all other than two different ways to say the exact same thing.

    I don't disagree, but I'm not sure how God being kind is different from Him being "Kindness". If you mean that He is the ultimate exhibitor of Kindness (or Justice or Mercy or Reason), fine. If you mean something else, I'm just not getting it.
    Well, I'd concede that there is something that is somewhat ineffable about the statement "God is Love" or "God is Mercy" or whatever other similar phrases you'd care to utter. You are saying more than that God acts in a merciful way or that God loves us. There is something about the very nature of God Himself that is what Love is. Just because we cannot fully comprehend that statement doesn't mean it isn't true. There are some things that transcend our current understanding. And so long as such things are not carried beyond a point where they become contradictions we are free to accept them as true simply because it is God who teaches them to us through His word.

    I don't think I agree. You certainly can't apply that to every aspect of God. I.e., to say that God is Justice is NOT the same as saying God is Mercy. Why does it then apply in the case of Love vs Reason. I don't think it does.
    What an outrageously excellent question! If half the people on this website had your mind, I couldn't ever get anything done because I'd be here on TOL 24/7.

    There is no contradiction between justice and mercy, at least not when it comes to God. Your objection comes from a misunderstanding of what mercy is. The Calvinists have infected the church from tip to toe with their poisonous doctrine that teaches that God can do anything at all and that the doing of it would be righteousness by virtue of the fact that it was God who did it. This renders the statement that "God is just (i.e. righteous - same thing)." meaningless. Their terms then become infinitely plastic and malleable and can be made to mean anything they need them to mean to maintain a pretense of rational coherence. But it is only that, a pretense. God is just and perfectly so. He is also merciful. If you think there is a contradiction there then you need to make some effort to discover the source of the Calvinism (in actual fact it is Augustinianism but that's a topic for another thread) in your doctrine and purge yourself of it.

    So, then how can God be both just and merciful? There is a one-word answer...

    Calvary!

    If God could simply do anything at all and remain just, there is no need for Christ to have suffered and died. God could have simply declared everyone forgiven and that would have been the end of it. However, without mercy, the motivation for God to bruise His only begotten Son, would not have existed.

    Why would you be less comfortable? Do you think saying "The tool for convincing someone of something became flesh," is really an improvement over "The Word became flesh"?
    In reality, both say the same thing. The difference is that, in the minds of English speaking people, one has a lot more meaning than the other. In fact, the phrase, "The Word became flesh..." is very nearly meaningless to most who hear it. They have no idea what it means. They understand intuitively that it means that God became flesh but if you asked them why the translators didn't simply translate it as "God became flesh.." they couldn't even begin to explain why or what the use of the different term implies.

    Your definitions are making it hard for you to see anything else. Try this: Suppose you invented a robot that was designed to mow your lawn, but you gave it some smarts. If that robot decided it would be better off not mowing lawns, and decided to move into your house and start using your credit cards, you would probably turn it off and sell it for scrap (or reprogram it). But if it figured out how to use its mower blade to kill you, then it would rationally fight against you in the hope that it would never have to mow your lawn again. It would fight against "Reason" (you, the one that programmed it and gave it existence) rationally. The difference, of course, is that God is able to over-power Satan, we trust, but we might not be able to over-power our robotic creations (the Terminator scenario). Does the robot know you well enough to know whether it can over-power you? Maybe Satan really thinks he can overpower God.
    I don't know how else to say this other than what I've already said. You are conflating actions that are consistent with a premise with acting rationally. It isn't the same thing. If my premise is false, then no matter how far down the road I go with that premise, I'm being irrational. If you make a wrong turn, you aren't going magically make it to the destination by stubbornly sticking to the wrong course. Rationality and consistency are not synonyms. You can't be rational without being consistent but you certainly can be consistently irrational.

    Some folks think Satan is doing exactly as he was created to do.
    The very idea is blasphemy. Not to mention unbiblical.

    I don't think so, for some fairly obvious reasons. But even if he was created good and righteous, what he does from here on out has to be based on what his options are at this point, not based on how he was created.
    They don't "have to be". Satan has a will. He chooses to be consistently rebellious against God. The fact that he has a will is what makes that choice immoral or evil. There could be no more irrational choice possible.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    Last edited by JudgeRightly; May 14th, 2019, 07:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    Originally posted by Clete View Post
    Satan acts in a manner consistent with his own nature
    Originally posted by Clete View Post
    He [Satan] is not consistent with ... his nature.
    Huh?

    Originally posted by Clete View Post
    You don't find it curious that God declares His own name to be a form of the Law of Identity?
    Yes, that is curious. But it doesn't mean that the law of identity predates God, rather God uses the law of identity to give a picture of Himself as eternally consistent. Thus, He is using reason to describe Himself. He's not using Himself to describe Himself, is He?


    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).
    I disagree. What they say is real in their minds (I hope, else they are trolls). In other words, they are writing what they are thinking. That thought is a unique creation of theirs, possibly influenced by others, but still their own thought. That thought actually exists! Therefore it is real. Maybe not rational, but real, nonetheless.


    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?
    What is a metaphor? My point has been and still is that "reason" is not God, and too many people worship "reason" over God. Maybe it's similar to the multiple gods of ancient Greece or Egypt: one controls the wind, another the waves, one is for crops, another for animals, one can move fast, another speaks with wisdom. But our God is awesome, and does ALL things well (Mark 7:37).

    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?
    I don't think so. "Data" is information that can be used for reasoning. From Merriam-Webster: Data is facts about something that can be used in calculating, reasoning, or planning. But the data/information/knowledge exists before any calculating/reasoning/planning starts. At least in our minds. If God is all-knowing, and He isn't required to do the things He does, then He must have knowledge (data) before He plans/calculates/REASONS.

    Blue light is blue light even before we decide what to call it. "Blue" is merely an assigned term. We can know what the light looks like when it has been scattered without knowing that it is associated with the word "blue". The knowledge exists without any reasoning, just like data can exist without any use of it. Maybe there's not much point to it if not used for something, but that doesn't stop it from existing.

    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.
    This I'm not sure about. I think that generally anybody is better off not rebelling any more, once one has started rebelling. Does that apply to Satan? I don't know. Would God apply Jeremiah 18:9 to Satan and his minions? Is there some reward, some reason for Satan to repent over continuing in his evil ways? Can he avoid his doom? If so, then why is it that Legion talked about the time of torment that seemed to be fixed and unavoidable? Maybe Satan can forestall his doom by being less adversarial (though I don't see any indication of such in scripture), or maybe he thinks the only way for him to avoid the punishment is to win the battle, so he continues. That may be completely rational for him to think.

    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.
    My point, perhaps poorly worded, is that if God's word depends on our reason, then it is on shaky foundations. It doesn't. God's word is true whether we recognize it or not--whether we are there to observe the tree fall or not.


    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.
    I don't disagree, but I'm not sure how God being kind is different from Him being "Kindness". If you mean that He is the ultimate exhibitor of Kindness (or Justice or Mercy or Reason), fine. If you mean something else, I'm just not getting it.

    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 don't think I agree. You certainly can't apply that to every aspect of God. I.e., to say that God is Justice is NOT the same as saying God is Mercy. Why does it then apply in the case of Love vs Reason. I don't think it does.

    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..."?
    Why would you be less comfortable? Do you think saying "The tool for convincing someone of something became flesh," is really an improvement over "The Word became flesh"?

    I already responded to this.
    You cannot be rational while fighting Reason!
    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.
    Your definitions are making it hard for you to see anything else. Try this: Suppose you invented a robot that was designed to mow your lawn, but you gave it some smarts. If that robot decided it would be better off not mowing lawns, and decided to move into your house and start using your credit cards, you would probably turn it off and sell it for scrap (or reprogram it). But if it figured out how to use its mower blade to kill you, then it would rationally fight against you in the hope that it would never have to mow your lawn again. It would fight against "Reason" (you, the one that programmed it and gave it existence) rationally. The difference, of course, is that God is able to over-power Satan, we trust, but we might not be able to over-power our robotic creations (the Terminator scenario). Does the robot know you well enough to know whether it can over-power you? Maybe Satan really thinks he can overpower God.



    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.
    Some folks think Satan is doing exactly as he was created to do. I don't think so, for some fairly obvious reasons. But even if he was created good and righteous, what he does from here on out has to be based on what his options are at this point, not based on how he was created.

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    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
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X