Theology Club: Open View and Preterism
- Thread starter Derf
- Start date
- Status
Derf
Well-known member
I'm not so much "into" Calvinism as "out of" it. I'll accede on your points.
Does God have to be in covenant with a nation before He can judge them or show them mercy? Think of Nineveh--no covenant, yet God sent a prophet to warn them of their impending doom and seemed to apply this part of Jer 18: "[Jer 18:7-8 KJV] 7 [At what] instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy [it]; 8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them".Israel is the only nation in covenant with God. It doesn't have application beyond them.
themuzicman
Well-known member
God can choose to act as he wishes. However, God isn't obligated to act in any particular manner unless he has engaged in covenant.
Derf
Well-known member
And how does one determine which way God is required to act? In the Jer 18 passage, God is saying He could do either (judge or withold judgment) to the people of the covenant, based on whether they turned back to Him or away from Him after formerly turning away from Him or to Him, respectively. So in both circumstances, the people of the covenant have broken covenant, and God could judge in either case. Once a covenant is broken, it can't be unbroken by the breakers of it--it can only be unbroken at the mercy of the covenant keeper.
And does one need a covenant for God to judge? Or to show mercy? The Nineveh case says He doesn't. The Israel case says He isn't required by that covenant toward either end. But He still is merciful, and He still is just.
I think your covenant stipulation is unfounded, at least in the Jer 18 scenario.
Derf
Well-known member
I haven't forgotten about you, Clete. I'm taking some time to look at your C.R. Stam booklet, but haven't had as much time with it as I'd like.
themuzicman
Well-known member
And thus, Paul tells us how God has chosen to deal with Israel as clay in Romans 9.
To judge? No. But if God has not engaged in Covenant, God may act as He pleases. If he wishes to judge, he judges.
I think you're trying to insert things into my argument that aren't there.
Derf
Well-known member
Granted.
I'm having a hard time figuring out where you are on this. First you say:
Then you say:
Can God do what He wishes with Israel (the one He's in covenant with) or not?
In truth, I don't think God ever acts different than He pleases. If He is in covenant, He is pleased to act according to His covenant, as it is not in His nature to break covenant. If He is not in covenant, He is pleased to act according to His nature. For instance, He doesn't lie. So if He predicted that a certain thing come to pass on a nation, whether one He's in covenant with or not, He will bring it to pass, unless that nation changes course.
I'm probably over-belaboring a very minor point, which I'm wont to do.
That's not my intent, but I'm not saying it couldn't happen. Based on your above quotes, I don't have to insert anything extra--you've argued both sides without my help.
Derf
Well-known member
Hi Clete,
I finished reading Stam's "Things That Differ". I feel the need to explain that I don't really read that slow. Suffice it to say that I was on vacation last week and had a little down time, for which I'm thankful.
In general I don't have too much problem with Stam's ideas about the dispensations--I agree with his assertion that "faith" exhibited by Abraham unto salvation did not look like the "faith" exhibited by those Christ preached to, nor like that of those that Paul preached to. I think he went a little too far trying to dig out distinctions between the 12 and Paul (and some other distinctive lists as well). And he repeated stuff a whole lot. I enjoy theological discussions, but I must say he put me to sleep a number of times.
Anyway, now that I've read it, I'll respond below, though I'm not sure I got out of Stam what you hoped I would.
And I didn't read "The Plot". I may try to one of these days.
Now, I agree that we should cast away the idea the the kingdom is only spiritual. God made us physical, and gave us laws during the various dispensations that are physically enacted (like capital punishment for heinous crimes). And when He says He's going to bless Israel or curse Israel, for the most part He's talking about blessings/cursings in the physical realm.
If Jesus said "this generation" will experience these things, then it seems logical to think that they will/did experience them, rather than some other generation. That was my point. You've brought in the idea that while Jesus said those things would happen in "this generation" it is possible for those things NOT to happen, if the contingent condition is not met--which is also a valid point. But you've also given opposing reasons
So, help me think through this. If Jesus was saying those things (mainly concentrating on Matt 24), as I think I'm understanding you to say, to the Jews as an expected result of their faithfulness in accepting the Messiah, then I'm confused as to why He said stuff like: "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you..." and "then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another"
I guess you're saying that it is part of the purging, but there's still an expectation of Israel as a nation still accepting Him? But it would seem that the leaders would be afraid of the people, like they were already with regard to Jesus, if that were the case, and they then wouldn't be able to kill the apostles.
His predictions don't contain any wishy-washy-ness.
He follows them with: [Mat 24:34 KJV] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Then He backs up that statement with an overwhelming oath, calling upon God's physical creation to testify that He really means it (after he just told the Pharisees that if you swear by heaven, you'd better really mean it, as you're swearing by God if you do--Matt 23:22): [Mat 24:35 KJV] Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
If Jesus saw the likelihood (not just a possibility, but a greater than 50% chance, or "likelihood") of His rejection, and His prophecies are for the contingency where He isn't rejected, wouldn't He want to temper the prediction just a little bit?? Throw in some contingency words or something??
But if He's instead predicting their rejection of Him, why didn't all those things come to pass, since they really did reject Him?
Preterists are saying, I think, that they believe Christ understood He was being rejected, and that He was predicting things that should happen if He was rejected, and they further believe that those things DID happen (to a large degree). I don't see faulty logic in that, do you?
I finished reading Stam's "Things That Differ". I feel the need to explain that I don't really read that slow. Suffice it to say that I was on vacation last week and had a little down time, for which I'm thankful.
In general I don't have too much problem with Stam's ideas about the dispensations--I agree with his assertion that "faith" exhibited by Abraham unto salvation did not look like the "faith" exhibited by those Christ preached to, nor like that of those that Paul preached to. I think he went a little too far trying to dig out distinctions between the 12 and Paul (and some other distinctive lists as well). And he repeated stuff a whole lot. I enjoy theological discussions, but I must say he put me to sleep a number of times.
Anyway, now that I've read it, I'll respond below, though I'm not sure I got out of Stam what you hoped I would.
And I didn't read "The Plot". I may try to one of these days.
I don't deny your assertions here. But just because they let some (a lot?) of what they want to believe cloud their judgment doesn't make their positions on prophecy wrong--it just makes some or all of their reasons for holding those positions wrong. The distinction is subtle, but noteworthy, I think. And if it's possible that some of their reasons are good, then we should afford them the same kindness we would want--that they take the things of value from what we say and cast away the dross. Far be it from me to suggest that I have no dross to cast away.
Now, I agree that we should cast away the idea the the kingdom is only spiritual. God made us physical, and gave us laws during the various dispensations that are physically enacted (like capital punishment for heinous crimes). And when He says He's going to bless Israel or curse Israel, for the most part He's talking about blessings/cursings in the physical realm.
The strength of preterism, as with any of our paradigms, is when they actually take the bible for what it says, despite where it might lead. And one place they do that is in the "this generation" passages.
If Jesus said "this generation" will experience these things, then it seems logical to think that they will/did experience them, rather than some other generation. That was my point. You've brought in the idea that while Jesus said those things would happen in "this generation" it is possible for those things NOT to happen, if the contingent condition is not met--which is also a valid point. But you've also given opposing reasons
So, help me think through this. If Jesus was saying those things (mainly concentrating on Matt 24), as I think I'm understanding you to say, to the Jews as an expected result of their faithfulness in accepting the Messiah, then I'm confused as to why He said stuff like: "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you..." and "then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another"
I guess you're saying that it is part of the purging, but there's still an expectation of Israel as a nation still accepting Him? But it would seem that the leaders would be afraid of the people, like they were already with regard to Jesus, if that were the case, and they then wouldn't be able to kill the apostles.
His predictions don't contain any wishy-washy-ness.
He follows them with: [Mat 24:34 KJV] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Then He backs up that statement with an overwhelming oath, calling upon God's physical creation to testify that He really means it (after he just told the Pharisees that if you swear by heaven, you'd better really mean it, as you're swearing by God if you do--Matt 23:22): [Mat 24:35 KJV] Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
No offense, but isn't that what everyone says about their theology with respect to the others--that "I've got logic on my side, and they don't"? I'm glad you feel that way about yours, but it's an empty boast until we figure out who's right, and even then how do we know we've figured out who's right, theologically, except after no-one can come up with a better on for, say hundreds or even thousands of years? That's the argument the traditionalists are using against open theists right now. I don't find it persuasive.
Again, Matt 24 followed Matt 23, where Jesus did the 7-fold "woe" against the Scribes and Pharisees. Does it make sense that Jesus was seeing the likelihood of Israel rejecting him (after the leaders had already done so), but then He would predict with such force the things in Matt 24 as a path to Israel's accepting Him?
If Jesus saw the likelihood (not just a possibility, but a greater than 50% chance, or "likelihood") of His rejection, and His prophecies are for the contingency where He isn't rejected, wouldn't He want to temper the prediction just a little bit?? Throw in some contingency words or something??
But if He's instead predicting their rejection of Him, why didn't all those things come to pass, since they really did reject Him?
Preterists are saying, I think, that they believe Christ understood He was being rejected, and that He was predicting things that should happen if He was rejected, and they further believe that those things DID happen (to a large degree). I don't see faulty logic in that, do you?
First of all, I need to say that I somehow managed to miss this post of yours for two whole months. I have no idea how that happened but you should know that I didn't simply ignore it. I don't remember having ever seen it before today, although it seems I must have and then just forgot. I really am sorry about that, it really was not intentional.
As for what I hoped you would get from Stam's book, well, of course, I hoped it would totally convince you and that you'd now be a died in the wool dispensationalist but what one hopes and what one expects aren't always the same thing.
I'm just blown away that you were willing to read it! That never happens around here.
And as for Bob Enyart's "The Plot", if you wanted to pick it up, the first four chapters are all that is dedicated to establishing dispensationalism. The rest of the book is about fleshing out the specific doctrines that dispensationalism affects most directly. Things like the rapture, law vs. grace, tithing, etc.
Yes, well if their reasoning is wrong then you can't cling to the doctrine that is based on that reasoning. Why treat theology any differently than any other pursuit of the truth? Why cling to a conclusion when the logic that leads to that conclusion is shown to be faulty? I agree that something a preterist might say could turn out to be true in spite of his faulty thought process but that's no reason to grant them more sanction than they've earned. Broken watches are right twice a day but I bet you wouldn't strap one to your wrist.
I hate to tell you but you just tossed out the primary premise of Preterism. You just chunked the whole system right in the trash bin. Anything a Preterist gets right after this is either accidental or coincidental (i.e.not based on this premise).
And when I say you've thrown the whole system in the bin, I only refer to those things which are distinctive to Preterist. I'm not referring to their status as Christians or to anything else that is not directly related to the idea that all of biblical prophecy was fulfilled long ago.
I'm afraid I don't understand the question.
What is it that couldn't have come to pass? The time of Jacob's trouble (Jeremiah 30) had yet to come to pass and, in fact, there is good reason to believe that that period had actually begun to happen before God cut Israel off. Bob's "The Plot" goes into that exact point in some considerable detail.
All prophecy is contingent. Even when God says that He will do something "without fail", it doesn't mean that it's set in stone. There are many examples throughout the Bible. The principle is most clearly stated in Jeremiah 18, which I think is one of the most important chapters in the whole Bible.
God means everything He says. Every single word. There was no necessity for Him to emphasize a thing, He would have still meant exactly what He said. But as God explains in Jeremiah 18...
Jeremiah 18:7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.
Are you suggesting that such things cannot be known? The way you know is through sound reason. It's the same exact way we know anything at all.
How do you know that the sky is blue?
How do you know that God is good?
The answer to both questions is the same. Reason! There is no other way that your mind can work. It is what separates you from the animals and it is that part of you that is God's image.
John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
14 And Logic became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
14 And Logic became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
And no, not everyone claims to have reason on their side. In fact, a majority Christians openly reject reason at the drop of a hat if it conflicts with a pet doctrine of theirs. The anti-intellectualism in the Christian church is rampant and embarrassing. If you call yourself a Catholic, Calvinist or Arminian, chances are good that you routinely and openly allow "antinomy" (a.k.a. contradictions) to exist in your doctrine and you consider your willingness to do so to be piety.
Jesus was not surprised by the rejection but He also knew what the plan was for Israel and He knew that the plan had not yet been abandoned. The time of Jacob's trouble (i.e. the Tribulation) would have purged out those who rejected God and left a remnant and God could have decided to continue the prophecied plan with those few who remained but He decided otherwise and will return to Israel to complete their prophesied plan, including giving them their Kingdom with Christ reigning here on Earth from Jerusalem. In other words, it is God's perogative to decide when a line has been crossed.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
Just so you know, you put us at #9 on Google search results for "primary premise of preterism".
If you think I've misunderstood the primary premise of preterism, please tell me what you think it is.
[Jer 30:5-8 KJV] 5 For thus saith the LORD; We have heard a voice of trembling, of fear, and not of peace. 6 Ask ye now, and see whether a man doth travail with child? wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness? 7 Alas! for that day [is] great, so that none [is] like it: it [is] even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it. 8 For it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, [that] I will break his yoke from off thy neck, and will burst thy bonds, and strangers shall no more serve themselves of him:
The sense of the passage is most assuredly that evil has occurred, but God will fix it, when "in that day", "I will break his yoke off thy neck, and will burst thy bonds". These are words of fixing the evil condition they found themselves in--captivity in the land of Babylon.
I'm not so dense as to think that the words might not also apply to a future time, but the immediate context of the passage is not predicting a time of future trouble, but a future relief from present trouble.
Such thinking, for better or for worse, is where preterism can help us--to strive to apply prophecies to the immediate context whenever possible. I think it will help bring some sanity to the discussion of eschatology, even if their interpretation of certain passages is askew (that's where we can help them). If, as you say, you are not questioning their status as Christians, then you must admit they have a role to play in the body, perhaps even a role in understanding prophecy.
[Rom 10:14 KJV] 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
I propose that we know the sky is blue because we observe it to be so. And we have scripture that tells us that God is good. Neither is due to reasoning.
Derf
No problem. I'm glad you came back to it. It makes me wonder if I've forgotten to reply to numerous threads I once invested time in.
Lol.As for what I hoped you would get from Stam's book, well, of course, I hoped it would totally convince you and that you'd now be a died in the wool dispensationalist but what one hopes and what one expects aren't always the same thing.
That's because most of us really just want to tell everybody else what our version of truth is, instead of seeking out truth. This topic interests me. I'm not a preterist, but I appreciate some of their points, especially where they are trying to take scripture for what it says. Where they don't, I have the same problem I have with others that add to scripture.
It's kind of expensive...
On the other hand, if someone gets anything wrong (and who doesn't sometimes get something wrong), that means their reasoning is wrong somewhere, either in premise or logic. That doesn't mean that everything they say must be discarded. Even Bob Enyart, bless his soul, is bound to err somewhere, sometime, and then you would have to throw out everything he has ever said, by your line of reasoning, including The Plot.
This is where I searched Google. I'm not sure what the actual "primary premise of preterism" is, but it seems like you think it is that "the kingdom is only spiritual". I differ with you on this, because the primary scriptural evidence the preterists point to is the idea of prophecies taking place within real time constraints as laid out in scripture, such as "within this generation" or "these things will take place soon". Whereas a spiritual time frame is a nebulous one, where real time constraints, such as "within this generation" have to be spread out over multiple generations to make sense of them. That's not to say that the preterist's conclusions are reliable (that still needs to be discussed), but the "primary premise" of the words of Jesus meaning exactly what they say is a solid premise--one that we should all strive to use. (Btw, I think preterists do this well in the Matt 24 passage, but not so well in other sayings of Jesus, where they twist the meanings of words to fit their interpretations.)
If you think I've misunderstood the primary premise of preterism, please tell me what you think it is.
Let me reiterate here that I speak of preterism as seeing MOST biblical prophecy as being fulfilled long ago, and not ALL. This distinction is necessary, and I call the latter (the "ALL fulfilled" view) "hyper-preterism". If that's what you are arguing against, we're not in much disagreement. The "MOST fulfilled" view is called "partial preterism" by some, and "preterism" by others.
This is a bold statement, and I think it reflects your own paradigm, when you say "Jacob's trouble had yet to come to pass". The text in Jeremiah 30 is pretty explicit in its reference to the events of Jeremiah's day. The jews were mostly in Babylon already (Jer 29:1), and the ones that were left in Judea were to expect great persecutions from God (Jer 29:16-18). Chap 30 is the words of peace to the afflicted people, not words of more affliction. So when Jer 30:6 speaks of Jacob's trouble, it speaks of something that is already happening. Read it (my underlining showing the past or present tense verbs):
[Jer 30:5-8 KJV] 5 For thus saith the LORD; We have heard a voice of trembling, of fear, and not of peace. 6 Ask ye now, and see whether a man doth travail with child? wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness? 7 Alas! for that day [is] great, so that none [is] like it: it [is] even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it. 8 For it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, [that] I will break his yoke from off thy neck, and will burst thy bonds, and strangers shall no more serve themselves of him:
The sense of the passage is most assuredly that evil has occurred, but God will fix it, when "in that day", "I will break his yoke off thy neck, and will burst thy bonds". These are words of fixing the evil condition they found themselves in--captivity in the land of Babylon.
I'm not so dense as to think that the words might not also apply to a future time, but the immediate context of the passage is not predicting a time of future trouble, but a future relief from present trouble.
Such thinking, for better or for worse, is where preterism can help us--to strive to apply prophecies to the immediate context whenever possible. I think it will help bring some sanity to the discussion of eschatology, even if their interpretation of certain passages is askew (that's where we can help them). If, as you say, you are not questioning their status as Christians, then you must admit they have a role to play in the body, perhaps even a role in understanding prophecy.
I question your use of the word "all". Are you truly saying that God never, ever made a statement that He won't/can't change His mind on? Recall 1 Sam 15:26.
Yes, but if the nation He speaks against continues in its evil, then there is no cause for the Lord to relent of the evil He thought to do to it, is there? In Israel's case, Jesus was telling the disciples what would happen to Israel, and perhaps they might avoid it if they repented, but they did not. So Jer 18:7 doesn't apply.
Really? You can reason yourself into an understanding of the gospel? Let's say for just a minute that the bible did not exist, and that God had not provided such information about Jesus' sacrifice that we have in the bible, and there were no preachers to share the message of the gospel with us. Would you be able to come to a knowledge of the saving grace of God through reason?
[Rom 10:14 KJV] 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Do none of the animals know the sky is blue? You have made a rather outlandish statement--that reason separates man from animals, and we only know the sky is blue through reason. Therefore you, by your superior reasoning capability, have asserted that NO animals--NONE--can tell that the sky is blue.
I propose that we know the sky is blue because we observe it to be so. And we have scripture that tells us that God is good. Neither is due to reasoning.
It bothers me a bit that you have used a word, "Logic", that isn't used by any translators of John 1. And "logic" does not convey the same idea as "Logos" or "Word". Coupled with your use of "reason", above, it makes it seem like you are ascribing godlike properties to humans. If you didn't mean to do that, please explain.
Yes, but they all use some kind of logic or reasoning to defend their position. Everybody claims to have reason on their side, just not your brand of reasoning. That brings up the question: is your brand of reasoning the right one? Is there a right one? If the heart is deceitful and wicked (Jer 17:9), can you trust YOUR reasoning? I think you've hit on the solution in your appeal to John 1--reason must be judged by scripture, though we use reason to decide which scripture to apply. A single person could easily be fooled by his own deceitful heart, so we should not immediately discount any group that claims scripture as their authority. They, like we, might be wrong in one point or another of interpretation, but their basis, their foundation, is solid, just like ours is when we judge against God's standard. Our individual blindnesses ("biases") will hamper us reaching a full knowledge of the truth, and therefore we need the whole body of Christ.
Your definition of "antinomy" is incomplete. It means contradictory laws, and it is the very heart of the human condition, ever since Adam and Eve decided they didn't need to obey God, but could decide for themselves what is right and wrong, or "good and evil". It exists in everybody's doctrine, to some degree or other, including every MADist I've encountered on this forum (not trying to slight MADists, just speaking truth).
This is where discussion is sorely needed--to determine what the prophesied plan was, and to determine whether it was accomplished or replaced with a different plan or put on hold.
The dialog is much appreciated.
Derf
Bob is not trying to get rich selling books. Call him and tell him you're interested in reading The Plot but that you can't see your way to spending so much money on it. He'll get it to you, in one form or another, for whatever you can afford.
What? No!
You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater! This is precisely why I stated that I was only referring to those things which are distinctive to Preterism. If someone has made an error, you only throw into question those ideas related to the error, not the whole of every idea the person has ever had.
In the case of Preterism, you just cannot get there unless you accept as a fundamental premise that everything related to Israel's promised kingdom was and is spiritual and not related to a physical, on the ground, political kingdom. If you discard that single premise then you drop Preterism. You don't drop Christianity just the Preterist version of it. Your doctrine will come out looking much more like some other flavor of Christianity than anything that even smells like Preterism.
It may or may not be THE primary premise but it certainly is A primary premise. Preterism cannot survive without that premise serving as a primary means to interpret vast portions of scripture.
It could well be that this is even a more fundamental premise for the system but the result is identical. In other words, if you defeat this premise you defeat the other. If everything related to Israel's kingdom must be spiritual BECAUSE "prophecies take place within real the time constraints as laid out in scripture, such as "within this generation" or "these things will take place soon" then if it is shown that not only is that not so, but that prophesies don't have to ever come to pass at all, then you're left with the same result. One way or another, the Preterist's foundation is shown to be built on sand.
Well, as I said before. Jesus meant what He said. He meant every word and He meant exactly what it seems like He meant. The intent was for Him to return soon and give Israel it's kingdom as promised. In fact, such was the specific topic of Peter's sermon in Acts 3 and had Israel repented and accepted Jesus as their Messiah, that is precisely what would have happened. Instead, they chose to stone Stephen who, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit used "irresistible wisdom" in his address to the Synagogue of the Freedmen (Acts 6).
Things as complex as doctrinal systems rarely have only one primary premise. You shouldn't take my use of the phrase to mean that is an irreducible primary but rather that it is a premise without which the system falls apart.
As with any doctrinal system, there are those who take their logic to extremes and there are those who are more mild. Typically, at least in my experience, the latter are folks who just aren't always willing to go as far as their premises would otherwise logically take them. In this case, it really doesn't matter because there is no Preterist alive who doesn't think that Israel's kingdom is a spiritual one and not a physical one. Regardless of what else one might accept or reject as fulfilled prophecy, all Preterists that I've ever come across, agree on this point. And if that point can be shown as wrong, then the system would be forced to morph into something that is no longer Preterism.
Of course what I say is coming from within my own paradigm.
There is no way - I say again for emphasis - there is NO way to think or speak or act outside of some paradigm. The paradigm from within which I speak could be called Acts 9 Dispensational Free Will Theism. Not that giving it a name means anything in the context of our discussion. The point is simply that everything I say is coming from within that paradigm just as everything you say is coming from within your own paradigm. That is not a problem in and of itself. The only problem comes when/if either one of us "begs the question".
My comments were in response to what I believe was your suggestion that, unless the Preterist premise was accepted, then there was some aspect of biblical prophecy that could not have come to pass. This is not the case. There is nothing in the book of Matthew that conflicts in any way with my doctrine and I am not forced to accept (either tacitly or explicitly) any premise upon which Preterism is based. Or, put another way, your question seemed to suggest that there was some sort of conflict between my premise (i.e. my paradigm) and something Jesus stated in Matthew 24. Since your question had to do with my paradigm, why wouldn't I have answered it in that context?
As for my understanding/use of "Jacob's Trouble", it is indeed consistent with my Acts 9 Dispensational paradigm but I don't detect anything you said that would negate my use of it. As you said, the words can have an immediate application as well as refer to some future time. There are many examples of passages in scripture that are not explicit prophecies but that are almost universally accepted as being prophetic. (Psalms 118:22 just to give one single example - there are dozens).
It was hyperbole, I suppose. It is generally true though. The exceptions being those prophesies that have only to do with God Himself. God will glorify the Body of Christ, for example. There is no contingency that could alter God's intent in the case of the Body of Christ because it all has to do with Christ and what He has already accomplished. God cannot forsake Himself. (2 Cor. 1:20-22 & 2 Tim. 2:13)
What? This is backward.
Acts 3:17 “Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18 But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.
The whole prophesied program for Israel was in place and on schedule as of Acts 3. The rebellion that caused Israel to be cut off occurred later and was headed up by Saul of Tarsis in Acts 6.
I doubt it but that isn't what I said nor did I suggest it. You misunderstood my point.
What is, is. This is the basis of all knowledge. It makes no difference where you get the truth from, one truth will not ever contradict another truth. If someone comes to you claiming that spheres have sharp corners then you can know that he is a liar. Likewise, if the gospel message contained some inherent contradiction then we could rightly reject it as false. This does not imply that we would be able to deduce the gospel without input from God via the Scripture but simply that the gospel, as well as all other aspects of our doctrine and anything else we hold as true, must be consistent with itself and with the rest of reality. As such we know the truth of scripture by the same means by which we know everything else we know. Reason!
Both plants and animals and indeed all living things use a form of reason but not in the sense that we do.
“A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions. ‘Value’ is that which one acts to gain and keep, ‘virtue’ is the action by which one gains and keeps it. ‘Value’ presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? ‘Value’ presupposes a standard, a purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative. Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible.
“There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not; it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and-self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.
“A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its life is the standard of value directing its actions. But a plant has no choice of action; there are alternatives in the conditions it encounters, but there is no alternative in its function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction.
“An animal is equipped for sustaining its life; its senses provide it with an automatic code of action, an automatic knowledge of what is good for it or evil. It has no power to extend its knowledge or to evade it. In conditions where its knowledge proves inadequate, it dies. But so long as it lives, it acts on its knowledge, with automatic safety and no power of choice, it is unable to ignore its own good, unable to decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer.
“There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not; it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and-self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.
“A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its life is the standard of value directing its actions. But a plant has no choice of action; there are alternatives in the conditions it encounters, but there is no alternative in its function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction.
“An animal is equipped for sustaining its life; its senses provide it with an automatic code of action, an automatic knowledge of what is good for it or evil. It has no power to extend its knowledge or to evade it. In conditions where its knowledge proves inadequate, it dies. But so long as it lives, it acts on its knowledge, with automatic safety and no power of choice, it is unable to ignore its own good, unable to decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer.
That is a quote from an atheist and so I don't endorse every syllable of that. The point made about an animal having "no power to extend its knowledge" is debatable, for example. The point of my quoting it is merely to say that what plants and animals do has more to do with automatic biological processes and instinct than it has to do with actual abstract reasoning. And whatever reasoning there is, is not on a level that would allow their actions to be considered morally right or wrong.
And, no, I don't believe that a dog would know that the sky is blue. Dog's are quite color blind for one thing but even if they weren't, the perception of a wavelength of light through the eyes is not same thing as understanding what "blueness" is.
How would you propose to know what the sky is, much less observe it, without reason?
How would you propose to read the bible (or another book) without the use of reason?
I don't attribute any God like attributes the humans that the Bible itself does not attribute to humans. We were, after all, created in God's image and likeness. On what basis would you propose to support the notion that we share no common attributes? Are not both alive? Are we not both able to think and to reason? Are we not both able to know right from wrong? Are we not both personal, relational, spiritual beings?
And as for the use of the word, logic as a proper translation for logos, it is vastly more accurate, not to mention meaningful, than the use of "word". The Greek word "logos" means "reason" or "rational discourse". The English word "logic" can refer either to "reason" or more specifically to the rules that govern sound reason but since the word logic is derived from logos it is a near perfect translation. The suffix "ology" is directly derived from the Greek word "logos". Take the word "Theology" for example. Theology is the logos of the theos - the logic of God. Things that pertain to theology are said to be "theological". It's just two forms of the same word. Logos is logic and Jesus is the incarnation of The Logic and He is that which gives epistemological light to the world. And anyone reading John's gospel during the first century would have understood intuitively that this is the point John was making. The only reason it sounds foreign to your mind is because of the way the King James Bible was translated. All other English translations simply followed the King James' lead.
No. Sorry, but they don't. I hate to tell you that there is a gigantic contingent of the Christian world that is very decidedly anti-intellectual and anti-reason in particular. There's a whole group of them right here on TOL!
There are a great many who are not inti-intellectual who disagree with my doctrine and they do indeed, not only attempt to use sound reason but actively claim to have reason on their side. And for those people, your point is well taken and totally valid. having said that, however, the use of reason by the honest mind is not to be feared, even if two people of good intention come to different conclusions. In such cases, reality itself is the final arbiter. Either I am right or they are or perhaps we are both wrong. Regardless, so long as both parties are intellectually honest, they'll both receive the truth with gladness - eventually.
But ten errors of reason are safer to trust than any single claim accepted by means of blind belief because the later divorces you from the only mechanism, the only tool we have by which to correct any error. And people who accept religious doctrine on blind belief are the most dangerous of all. Those, usually religious, people in the Bible who hated God and witnessed undeniable physical miracles did not respond with faith, which would have been to accept the testimony of their thinking mind and the undeniable evidence presented to it through their senses. Instead, they responded, in almost every case, by hating God all the more! Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and what did the religious leaders who witnessed it do? Did they repent and fall on their knees worshiping Jesus as they should have? NO! They resolved to kill Jesus!
There are no "brands of reason". The only right one is the only one that actually exists.
A premise is either true or it is false. A line of reasoning is either valid or it isn't. A conclusion either follows or it does not.
The law of identity: Existence exists. A is A.
The law of excluded middle: A truth claim is either true or it is false in a particular context.
The law of contradiction: Two truth claims that contradict each other cannot both be true in the same context.
This is the triune cornerstone of all thought, reasoning and knowledge. You cannot reject or even try to undermine any of these laws without using them in the attempt.
You just asked the question...
Your feelings are deceitful and wicked, can you trust your mind?
Even if that wasn't your intent, which I'm sure it wasn't, then your question still defeats itself...
"Your mind is deceitfully wicked, can you trust your mind?" If that was the intent of your question then my response is that there isn't anything else for me to trust with. I am my mind. I do not trust with anything else other than my mind. I cannot think at all without my mind. I cannot learn, I cannot apply wisdom, I cannot discern right from wrong, I cannot accept the truth of the Bible nor accept the existence of the God who wrote it by any means other than my own mind.
Romans 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 14:5b Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.
Ephesians 4:22 that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, 23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.
Colossians 3:2
Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth.
2 Timothy 1:7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.
Acts 26:25 But he said, “I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak the words of truth and reason.
Romans 14:5b Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.
Ephesians 4:22 that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, 23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.
Colossians 3:2
Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth.
2 Timothy 1:7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.
Acts 26:25 But he said, “I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak the words of truth and reason.
There is no way to judge reason by scripture. You can judge a premise or a conclusion by scripture but judging something against a standard is itself an act of reason. You cannot call into question the veracity of that which you're using to question it. In other words, you cannot judge reason itself without using reason to do it and thereby tacitly accepting the veracity of that which are attempting to judge the veracity of. Just a bit circular, wouldn't you say?
Scripture is not our irreducible primary, Reason is (capital R - as in Logos)!
Now, before that makes you freak out too badly, I am not diminishing the importance of Scripture, especially in the context of doctrine. All Christian doctrine must not only be self-consistent (i.e. rational) but it must also be consistent with God's word, which is really to repeat myself. There would be no Christianity at all if not for God's word (i.e. the Bible). Any Christian doctrine that conflicts with the bible conflicts with Christianity itself and is therefore not self-consistent. Martin Luther's words conveyed it rightly when he declared that "unless I am convinced by Scripture and sound reason, I will not recant!"
I do not accept antinomy - period. Try me.
And you're wrong. The term antinomy is only ever applied to doctrines which do not make sense. To say that X and Y are true but do not actually contradict is not to employ the concept of antinomy. Antinomy applies only to those concepts which the pious claim is "beyond human reasoning". Antinomies are not mere mysteries where we've not been presented with sufficient data to explain something. On the contrary, they refer to things that are somehow "transcendent". "What do they transcend?", one might ask. Whatever form the answer to that question takes, the meaning of it is "It transcends the mind!". Those who want you to accept antinomy are asking you to accept a claim that they cannot prove or even make a rational argument in favor of. Indeed, they'd be offended by the idea of making such an attempt. They are asking you to believe it blindly. This is what they call "faith". There are NO exceptions that anyone has ever presented to me.
And no, the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT an antinomy. Some Christian's version of the doctrine is but what the bible teaches about the Triune nature of our God is not.
I agree completely! But the discussion must be reined in by sound reason. And this is really where impasses usually occur because most Christians don't agree with the idea that their doctrine has to make rational sense. They just simply do not agree with that at all. It nearly always comes down to someone proclaiming that "I believe because the Bible says it." and they refuse to think through the fact that virtually every person who has ever called themselves a Christian has made the exact same proclamation. Everyone from Benny Hinn to David Koresh claims to have gotten their doctrine from the bible. What the difference between what they do with the bible and what you and I do? We at least try to use sound reason in our endeavors to understand and interpret the Bible. I submit to you that the more consistently you do so, the closer you will come to Acts 9 Dispensational Free will Theism.
Free will because nothing else is consistent with the concepts of morality and justice.
Dispensational because, as a general rule (i.e. while acknowledging the use of figurative language, symbolism, and idiomatic expressions), the bible means what it says.
Acts 9 because it permits you to take virtually all of the New Testament to mean what it says.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
Thanks for the tip. I'll think about it.
Ah, I get what you're saying. Then my premise, as stated in my OP as
Preterism deals intrinsically with a much closer prediction-to-fulfillment time span in most cases, not based on necessity, but based on reading the scripture with a mindset toward the intended audience, and the lack of benefit such would normally receive from a prediction a couple thousand years in the future (practically no benefit at all to them).
can now be considered on the basis you suggest, leaving aside the bathwater of preterism's spiritualization of Israel we can throw out, and keeping the baby of preterism's literal reading of some of those prophecies' timeframes. I think the "intended audience" is also a topic near and dear to some MADists.Perhaps you are mistaking an early conclusion of preterists for a founding principle--an honest mistake on your part, and one that is strengthened by the things most preterists say. I could be wrong here, too--I don't really know the motivations of preterists.
Thanks for the clarification.
You've already said that prophecy is contingent. Contingent on what? the actions of people far in the future, which don't seem to have anything to do with the people hearing the prophecy? I'm not saying there's no room for such, if only to show God's power in being able to tell the future (like in the references to Cyrus before he was born), though there are no doubt other reasons He would have. But the most likely usage for contingent prophecy would be for the people who are given it. Like Jonah's message to Nineveh--"Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.". If that were delayed even once beyond the 40 days, how could anyone take it seriously, unless the delay were well explained to the people there.
Interesting statement. While it may be true, if it is a conclusion from the other premise, rather than a premise itself, then it should be considered. Certainly we know that Paul recognized spiritual descendants of Abraham in Rom 4, and an Israel not after the flesh in 1 Cor 10:18, as well as a coming together of those that were once alien from the commonwealth of Israel to be fellow-citizens of the saints (in Eph 2:19).
But if we can change paradigms, then we have the capability to think outside of our own paradigm, however briefly, before the new one becomes our paradigm.
If "the Preterist premise" is the one you have softened sufficiently on to now call "A primary [Preterist] premise", I wasn't suggesting such. It was the other primary premise I was hoping to focus on--that most prophecies are intended for a local audience from a distinct timeframe, where the prophecy would have the most impact--especially if it is a contingent prophecy, but also if the contingency were already met. Imagine telling a nation that they would be destroyed in 500 years because of their sins today. Yes, God might do such, but with people living less than 100 years, the effect would seem muted in the extreme. On the other hand, if God were to say, "You will be destroyed within 40 years!" the effect would be much more direct, causing some, hopefully, to repent in hopes of avoiding the destruction. On the other hand, if Jesus prophesied that the temple would be destroyed within the living generation's time, with an implied contingency that it could only be avoided by repenting, and the then-living people did not repent but the destruction never came, Jesus loses credibility, wouldn't you say?
I need you to explain this to me. Are you saying that the people did repent (Acts 3), and therefore the prophesied doom was averted? If so, then the prophecy has no more meaning, does it--it has had the desired effect of bringing the people to repentance--unless it is taken to be applicable to ANY future generation that might stray/rebel? Such has its own ramifications.
Understanding "blueness" isn't required, nor is it sufficient, to know that the sky is blue. Such knowledge is obtained through observation. What we do with that knowledge, like having conversations debating the "blueness" of the sky, certainly requires reason, and I don't expect a dog or other animal to have such conversations. But reason is not the source of the knowledge.
And, by the way, dogs are now thought not to be totally color blind, and capable of detecting blueness, though not likely to be able to philosophize about it.
As I said, and still maintain, the observation of the sky doesn't require knowing what the sky is, nor even what blue is, to see THAT it is blue. In fact, the sky may be the definition of "blue" applied to other things for those that didn't get a 64 pack of crayola crayons when they were little. Such application would no doubt involve "reason" to compare 2 things of like color, but the knowledge of the color--whatever it may be called--in the sky--whatever it may be called. is an observable fact, not a reasoned conclusion.
The same thing applies for reading the bible, once the ability to read is assumed--the tool for gaining the knowledge requires reason to accomplish the task, but reason is NOT the source of the information--the information is provided, not reasoned into existence. I point this out to suggest care be taken not to put the revealed word of God into the category of man-made knowledge. Man-made knowledge comfortably rests in reason, and sometimes it is wrongly reasoned. God's word does not and is not--it cannot be derived from observables, except those God uses to deliver it.
Yes, yes, no, and yes. And the "no" is to be caveated. We can know right from wrong, but it is a derived knowledge, derived from what we are told. God's knowledge of right from wrong is self-derived. He has no one to tell Him right from wrong, but we do. And we can reject what He tells us, as Adam and Eve did, and try to self-derive right from wrong, but it doesn't change what is REALLY right/wrong.
Actually, the Geneva Bible and the Bishops Bible, both predecessors to the KJV, used "Word" (in various spellings). The Latin Vulgate used the word "Verbum", which is translated primarily as "Word" or one of the following by Google: verb, saying, language, expression, discourse, talk, phrase, or sentence. You might notice "logic" is not included.
Even the word "logic" doesn't derive directly from the word "logos", but secondarily through "logike", which is "reasoning". However important logic might be in life, it is not a sufficient concept to describe our savior, who threw logic to the wind when He became a man to save a people He didn't need. Love doesn't always follow sound logic.
Every person that is decidedly anti-reason is so because they've reasoned out in their mind to be that way. Their conclusions are no doubt based on false premises and faulty logic, but they used reason and logic of some kind to get where they are. An appeal to reason and logic only gets one so far--the reasoning, the logic and premises, need to be sound for arriving at a proper/true conclusion. And all of us have the potential for a fault in our reasoning. I know you agree with this, but we seem to be talking past each other.
I think I can explain some of that. They had come to that logical conclusion because of the words of the scriptures, some of which said:
[Deu 13:1-2, 5 KJV] 1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; ... 5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn [you] away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
and[Deu 6:4 KJV] 4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:
Jesus did signs and wonders, and He asked the people to follow Him, and received worship from the people. He was clearly calling for them to "go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and...serve them", unless He was Jehovah Himself. This IS the argument for Jesus being of/in the Trinity. So those religious leaders, who were unable to accept the Trinity (or at least the 2nd part of it they were witnessing), were using SOUND logic when they killed Jesus, thinking they were obeying Jehovah's command. If you reject their logic, you also reject our own logic for the Trinity.I agree! But with such trust comes a responsibility to always get everything RIGHT. If you don't always get everything right, that means that your mind is not able to perfectly think, perfectly learn, perfectly apply wisdom, perfectly discern right from wrong, or possibly even perfectly accept the truth of the bible or the existence of the God who wrote it. My point is that if we have even the faintest possibility of faulty thinking/logic/reason, then we need to be ready to converse with those other believers that are also sometimes wrong to work through where we are wrong and come to a fuller understanding of what the gospel is, what the bible is saying to us, and what we are supposed to do about it, always with the bible to guide us, but with other Christians to help.
I see this most assuredly in the Open Theism movement. Open Theism is a shot across the bow of those that think they have everything all figured out, and it pains them to lose the pre-eminence they once had in that area. But I think they needed such a shot. At the same time, Open Theists, freed from the statements of faith and confessions of the past, are journeying much further than the word of God allows in their application. (This is a general statement based on my own observations, and doesn't apply to you or anyone else around TOL specifically.) Assuming Open Theism is true, we still need those non-Open Theists to help to restrain us from varying off the path of truth in other areas.
I understand what you are saying, but if reason is the sole thing that can't be judged by scripture, then reason is now of a higher authority than scripture. The circularity is necessary, similar to the way the three branches of the US government are all supposed to be keeping the other branches in check.
Do you believe Paul told us we are not bound by the law? Do you also believe that Paul told us not to partake in a number of sins (Romans 1:26-31 1 Cor 6:9-10 Gal 5:19-21 Eph 4:25-31 Col 3:5-7 2 Tim 3:1-7)? That's antinomy.
From:http://www.etymonline.com antinomy (n.) Look up antinomy at Dictionary.com
1590s, "contradiction in the laws," from Latin antinomia, from Greek antinomia "ambiguity in the law," from anti "against" (see anti-) + nomos "law" (from PIE root *nem- "assign, allot; take"). From 1802 in the philosophical sense used by Kant, "contradiction between logical conclusions."
I think you are using the newer definition of "antinomy". Kant absconded with the word. Even in 1828 (Webster), the original definition was the only one Webster recognized:1590s, "contradiction in the laws," from Latin antinomia, from Greek antinomia "ambiguity in the law," from anti "against" (see anti-) + nomos "law" (from PIE root *nem- "assign, allot; take"). From 1802 in the philosophical sense used by Kant, "contradiction between logical conclusions."
AN'TINOMY, noun A contradiction between two laws, or between two parts of the same law.
I agree with what you are saying, here. What I have heard is a quick appeal to "mystery" when one can't explain something in his system. But the concept is the same as what you are referring to.
I haven't looked that closely at the Acts 9 or other Mid-Acts Dispy claims. It's something I will be looking into, eventually. I've mostly noticed some rather seedy claims that don't stand up to scrutiny, but I hate to stereotype too soon. That's why I appreciate your reference to some source material (Stam's booklet and "The Plot"). As I mentioned in my OP, I'm new to the Open Theism idea, and need to concentrate on that for a little while.
There's no time for proof reading and editing. Please excuse any spelling and grammar errors. Hopefully, I didn't say anything too crazy!
Derf,
There is a lot here to respond to - too much actually, so for the sake of some kind of brevity, I've intentionally not responded to every single point. If I skip something you want a more specific response too, just let me know and I'll address it.
It seems to me that, throughout this portion of the conversation, we are talking past one another. There seems to be a sufficient disconnect between the way we view biblical prophecy that our converstation is going to be very difficult. I would, however, say that I do not disagree in principle with the idea that prophecies have application to their immediate audience but that such application does not negate or make impossible the idea that the prophecy will be fulfilled by future generations. Prophecies are, after all, written down and a prophecy concerning a nation could remain in effect for as long as the nation exists and can have its intended effect so long as the nation is aware of the prophecy's existences.
As for the prophecies concerning Israel's kingdom and a coming time of trouble, the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the time of trouble was not merely a punishment for rebelion but was intended to purge the nation in preparation for the kingdom God intended to give them. When Israel officially rejected Jesus as their Messiah with the stoning of Stephen, God decided then to cut them off and turn instead to the Gentiles. Prior to that, the plan was for what we call "the Tribulation" to begin (it had in fact begun already) and at the end of that period for God to send Jesus back and usher in a Kingdom in Israel with Christ as the King. This was the topic of Peter's sermon in Acts 3. And that plan was only still in effect because of a conversation Jesus had with His Father (see Luke 13:6-9), otherwise Israel would have been cut off before Jesus was even crucified! (All of this is established in terrific detail in "The Plot" by the way.)
So what's the point?
The point is that prophecy is NOT prewritten history. It is intended, in most cases, as a warning. If the warning is heeded then it may not come to pass at all. There are exception to this, however. The death of Christ in one excellent example. God the Son was going to be put to death for the sins of the world - one way or another. God's goal was to provide a means of reconciliation between Himself and His beloved creation. The death of God the Son was the only way to accomplish that goal and so, short of condemning the entire human race, it would be accomplished. It did not have to happen in the specific way that it did but it did have to happen.
Reason is the ONLY source of knowledge! Talking about knowledge without reason is like talking about color without light. Reason is the foundation of any knowledge or understanding that anyone thinks they have. Reason is the act of consciously making sense of the things you're aware of and of associating effect with their causes and solutions with their problems, etc. The extent to which such connections are made unconsciously is what we call instinct, which, I suppose you could say is a form of knowledge but not in the manner that we are speaking of it. It is not knowledge in the form of understanding.
[
Knowledge is not merely collecting data but itegrating that data and making sense of it. This integration process is called reason. If you have no concept of color you can have no concept of blue. If you have no concept of blue or cannot understand or even state that the sky is blue. And if you were to do so accidentally, you wouldn't understand (you wouldn't know) what you were saying because it is the concepts that give the words meaning and it is reason that connects the concepts to eachother as well as to the words used to express them.
Look, what I don't think you realize is that what you're attempting to do here is to make an argument that undermines the only thing that allows you to make arguments. Every meaningful sound you utter can only be made because of reason. And to whatever extent animals can reason, they have that ability for the same reason we do. Because they were created by the God who is Reason itself.
NOT THAT ANY OF THAT IS RELAVENT TO THE POINT!!!
I really don't care what the KJV used or what the LV used or what anyone used. The word logos is functionally identical to the english word 'reason'. The word 'logic' is derived from 'logos' which can be seen intuitively without even needing any study of ancient Greek. The only reason 'logic' isn't an absolutely perfect English translation is becuase the modern use of the word logic very often refers to the rules of sound reason rather than to reason itself. But 'logic' does not always refer specifically to the rules of reason. It can and very often is used as a synonym of 'reason". As such it is a perfectly valid and, in fact, a far more accurate, not to mention meaningful, translation of the word 'logos'.
This is not a new idea. I am not the one who came up with it. The guy I like to quote most often is a Calvinist and leading figure associated with presuppositional apologetics and was chairman of the Philosophy Department at Butler University for 28 years...
First of all reason is the ONLY thing you have withwhich to describe anything at all.
Secondly, the comment of love not following sound logic is down right blasphemous to my hearing. God DID NOT "throw logic to the wind" when He gave His Son as a ransom for sin. Quite the contrary. He WANTED (not needed) a relationship with His creation (i.e. human beings). God, however, is just and is not willing to overlook sin. The solution, the only rational solution was to provide a sacrifice sufficient to satisify the demands of justice. The death of Christ was, therefore, not only reasonable, but was a logical necessity if mankind was to be saved.
God is true, Derf! God can no more contradict Himself than I can turn the Moon into Blue Cheese. To suggest that God can be irrational is to suggest that God can be inconsistent! That thought must not be permitted to exist in your theology! Please! For the sake of all that is right and good and holy and pure - please - please - run from anyone who tells you that love is irrational! It isn't! God is Love! God is NOT irrational. Therefore Love is not irrational!
Further, any attempt you make to undermine the veracity of reason uses reason in the attempt and defeats itself from the start.
And, as has already been pointed out, reason is not the same thing as data. No one has suggested that all knowledge can be deduced. There are some premises that we must be given, not all of which are fully explained (e.g. the triune nature of God).
Thought process P leads to theological conclusion C.
Personal eyeball witness of undeniable evidence M.
Therefore M is true. (definition of undeniable)
M conctradicts C, therefore C is false. (Law of Contradiction)
Therefore P is faulty.
That is a semi-formal way of stating what should have gone through their minds. And had they been righteous, it would have.
It is with blind belief (what the whole unbelieving world and a great many Christian think of as "faith") is where you'd have to have perfection in order to keep on the right track. Blindly believe one wrong thing and your doomed because with blind belief there is no way to correct the error. But with reason, reality is the final arbitor. I may come to a conclusion with which you diisagee but if we are both honest and allow reality to be the final arbitor then if I am right, you will learn and if I am wrong, I will! No such error correction is possible if one discards reason in favor of faith (blind belief).
In other words, you are drawing a false dichotomy which leads to your circular reasoning. You cannot question the authority of scripture without questioning the authority of the God who wrote it. To question scripture is to question God. Not that scripture is God but that it came from Him. Similarly, you cannot question the authority of reason because first of all you have to use reason to do the questioning but also because God is Reason. Just in the same sense that you are completely comforatable with saying that God is Love you ought to get comfortable with saying that God is Reason.
No!!!!!
Is stealing wrong because the law says "Thou shalt not steal." or does the law say "Thou shalt not steal." because stealing is wrong?
We are not subject to the Law because we are in Christ, not because its okay to be immoral. We don't need the Law because we have Christ. The Law was the alternative to God. Adam and Eve ate that fruit and the result was the Law. (Again, fully establish in terrific detail in "The Plot" - You gotta read it!)
A misunderstanding of right and wrong vs. the Law does not an antinomy make.
Predetination vs man's responsibility. Now that's an antinomy!
The immutable God becoming a man. That's an antinomy!
In my view, the term mystery is rightly used in reference to things like the Trinity doctrine where there is no inherrent contradiction but there is a lack of data with which to understand it fully.
It is the premises and logic that make or break the system and so your desire for resources with more detailed and thorough argumentation than is really possible on a web forum of this nature is to be commended.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Derf,
There is a lot here to respond to - too much actually, so for the sake of some kind of brevity, I've intentionally not responded to every single point. If I skip something you want a more specific response too, just let me know and I'll address it.
It seems to me that, throughout this portion of the conversation, we are talking past one another. There seems to be a sufficient disconnect between the way we view biblical prophecy that our converstation is going to be very difficult. I would, however, say that I do not disagree in principle with the idea that prophecies have application to their immediate audience but that such application does not negate or make impossible the idea that the prophecy will be fulfilled by future generations. Prophecies are, after all, written down and a prophecy concerning a nation could remain in effect for as long as the nation exists and can have its intended effect so long as the nation is aware of the prophecy's existences.
As for the prophecies concerning Israel's kingdom and a coming time of trouble, the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the time of trouble was not merely a punishment for rebelion but was intended to purge the nation in preparation for the kingdom God intended to give them. When Israel officially rejected Jesus as their Messiah with the stoning of Stephen, God decided then to cut them off and turn instead to the Gentiles. Prior to that, the plan was for what we call "the Tribulation" to begin (it had in fact begun already) and at the end of that period for God to send Jesus back and usher in a Kingdom in Israel with Christ as the King. This was the topic of Peter's sermon in Acts 3. And that plan was only still in effect because of a conversation Jesus had with His Father (see Luke 13:6-9), otherwise Israel would have been cut off before Jesus was even crucified! (All of this is established in terrific detail in "The Plot" by the way.)
So what's the point?
The point is that prophecy is NOT prewritten history. It is intended, in most cases, as a warning. If the warning is heeded then it may not come to pass at all. There are exception to this, however. The death of Christ in one excellent example. God the Son was going to be put to death for the sins of the world - one way or another. God's goal was to provide a means of reconciliation between Himself and His beloved creation. The death of God the Son was the only way to accomplish that goal and so, short of condemning the entire human race, it would be accomplished. It did not have to happen in the specific way that it did but it did have to happen.
Yes it is. The sentence "The sky is blue." is making a comparison between two concepts, the sky and the color blue. If you do not know what one or the other is, there is no way to construct the sentence, never mind understand it or know that it is true.
You are quite entirely wrong on this. You couldn't be more wrong, in fact.
Reason is the ONLY source of knowledge! Talking about knowledge without reason is like talking about color without light. Reason is the foundation of any knowledge or understanding that anyone thinks they have. Reason is the act of consciously making sense of the things you're aware of and of associating effect with their causes and solutions with their problems, etc. The extent to which such connections are made unconsciously is what we call instinct, which, I suppose you could say is a form of knowledge but not in the manner that we are speaking of it. It is not knowledge in the form of understanding.
[
No. If this were true then my computer could know that the sky was blue, which it does not know.
Knowledge is not merely collecting data but itegrating that data and making sense of it. This integration process is called reason. If you have no concept of color you can have no concept of blue. If you have no concept of blue or cannot understand or even state that the sky is blue. And if you were to do so accidentally, you wouldn't understand (you wouldn't know) what you were saying because it is the concepts that give the words meaning and it is reason that connects the concepts to eachother as well as to the words used to express them.
Look, what I don't think you realize is that what you're attempting to do here is to make an argument that undermines the only thing that allows you to make arguments. Every meaningful sound you utter can only be made because of reason. And to whatever extent animals can reason, they have that ability for the same reason we do. Because they were created by the God who is Reason itself.
No one has suggested that reason and data are the same thing. Nor has anyone suggested that reason is possible without data. You cannot reason you way to an accurate conclusion that is disconnected from whatever data you have available to reason from. Thus much of the information we are given in scripture would be beyond our reach if the scripture didn't exist but that does not suggest that we do not use reason to understand scripture, as you've acknowledged, nor does it suggest that we could know nothing of God without the scripture. Indeed, we could not make any judgment at all about whether the scripture was true or false if such were the case. We can know, for example, the God not only exists but that He must necessarily be personal and relational and rational (among other things). (I won't bother establishing that beyong simply stating that the effect cannot be greater than the cause.) And most importantly is the fact that we can know that if the scripture is true then it will be rational because that is what it means for something to be true. Thus reason is foundational to scripture, not the other way around. No truth can trump reason. If it did, it would no longer be truth, by definition.
I disagree with you here. There is a such thing as natural moral law. I'd agree with you if you asserted that man is going to make errors if he attempted to only use natural law to form his moral code. In fact, that is a primary lesson we draw from the period of history after the Adam's fall and before Noah's flood. But that doesn't mean he'd get it completely wrong. I do not need the bible to tell me that it is wrong to steal. I do not need the bible to tell me that it is wrong to assault my neighbor or to murder him. Cane knew he had done wrong when he murdered his brother long before there was any commandment against murder. Likewise, the people of the Earth whose "every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" knew that what they were doing was wrong. That's why they were morally culplable.
I didn't say that the KJV was the first or only bible to translate it that way. I said that the concept of logos meaning reason is foreign to you because of the KJV. Most people have never even heard of the Geneva Bible or the Latin Vulgate and far fewer than that have ever read either of them. The reason modern translation use "word" is because of the KJV.
NOT THAT ANY OF THAT IS RELAVENT TO THE POINT!!!
I really don't care what the KJV used or what the LV used or what anyone used. The word logos is functionally identical to the english word 'reason'. The word 'logic' is derived from 'logos' which can be seen intuitively without even needing any study of ancient Greek. The only reason 'logic' isn't an absolutely perfect English translation is becuase the modern use of the word logic very often refers to the rules of sound reason rather than to reason itself. But 'logic' does not always refer specifically to the rules of reason. It can and very often is used as a synonym of 'reason". As such it is a perfectly valid and, in fact, a far more accurate, not to mention meaningful, translation of the word 'logos'.
This is not a new idea. I am not the one who came up with it. The guy I like to quote most often is a Calvinist and leading figure associated with presuppositional apologetics and was chairman of the Philosophy Department at Butler University for 28 years...
It is to be hoped that these remarks on the relation between God and truth will be seen as pertinent to the discussion of logic. In any case, the subject of logic can be more clearly introduced by one more Scriptural reference. The well-known prologue to John’s Gospel may be paraphrased, “In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God.... In logic was life and the life was the light of men.”
This paraphrase-in fact, this translation-may not only sound strange to devout ears, it may even sound obnoxious and offensive. But the shock only measures the devout person’s distance from the language and thought of the Greek New Testament. Why it is offensive to call Christ Logic, when it does not offend to call him a word, is hard to explain. But such is often the case. Even Augustine, because he insisted that God is truth, has been subjected to the anti-intellectualistic accusation of “reducing” God to a proposition. At any rate, the strong intellectualism of the word Logos is seen in its several possible translations: to wit, computation, (financial) accounts, esteem, proportion and (mathematical) ratio, explanation, theory or argument, principle or law, reason, formula, debate, narrative, speech, deliberation, discussion, oracle, sentence, and wisdom.
Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic. - "God and Logic" Gordon H. Clark
This paraphrase-in fact, this translation-may not only sound strange to devout ears, it may even sound obnoxious and offensive. But the shock only measures the devout person’s distance from the language and thought of the Greek New Testament. Why it is offensive to call Christ Logic, when it does not offend to call him a word, is hard to explain. But such is often the case. Even Augustine, because he insisted that God is truth, has been subjected to the anti-intellectualistic accusation of “reducing” God to a proposition. At any rate, the strong intellectualism of the word Logos is seen in its several possible translations: to wit, computation, (financial) accounts, esteem, proportion and (mathematical) ratio, explanation, theory or argument, principle or law, reason, formula, debate, narrative, speech, deliberation, discussion, oracle, sentence, and wisdom.
Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic. - "God and Logic" Gordon H. Clark
It's two forms of the same word. It's like comparing the word 'biology' with 'biological'. I agree that 'logic' is not a simple transliteration of 'logos' but you're still talk about the same thing, the same concept. If 'logike' is the act of reason, 'logos' is reason itself. It's just the same concept used in different ways and thus the use of a slightly different word.
This is so wrong, I can't even describe it.
First of all reason is the ONLY thing you have withwhich to describe anything at all.
Secondly, the comment of love not following sound logic is down right blasphemous to my hearing. God DID NOT "throw logic to the wind" when He gave His Son as a ransom for sin. Quite the contrary. He WANTED (not needed) a relationship with His creation (i.e. human beings). God, however, is just and is not willing to overlook sin. The solution, the only rational solution was to provide a sacrifice sufficient to satisify the demands of justice. The death of Christ was, therefore, not only reasonable, but was a logical necessity if mankind was to be saved.
God is true, Derf! God can no more contradict Himself than I can turn the Moon into Blue Cheese. To suggest that God can be irrational is to suggest that God can be inconsistent! That thought must not be permitted to exist in your theology! Please! For the sake of all that is right and good and holy and pure - please - please - run from anyone who tells you that love is irrational! It isn't! God is Love! God is NOT irrational. Therefore Love is not irrational!
Any old thought process that someone might use to reach some conlcusion cannot rightly be called "reason". Not at least in the sense we are discussing it and not even in the sense that you attempt to use it here. Your use of it implies that reason is two different things at once. A thought process that includes faulty logic founded on false premises is not sound reason, by definition! Sound reason implies proper logic based on true premises. You cannot undermine sound reason by pointing to unsound reason.
Further, any attempt you make to undermine the veracity of reason uses reason in the attempt and defeats itself from the start.
And, as has already been pointed out, reason is not the same thing as data. No one has suggested that all knowledge can be deduced. There are some premises that we must be given, not all of which are fully explained (e.g. the triune nature of God).
That is an interesting hypothesis. I'm sure that it does explain their actions to some degree. You would, however, expect that seeing a man who was three days dead walking around fully alive in response to Jesus' command to "Come forth" would have trumped any doctrinal conclusions that anyone had that conflicted with the reality they were witnessing.
Thought process P leads to theological conclusion C.
Personal eyeball witness of undeniable evidence M.
Therefore M is true. (definition of undeniable)
M conctradicts C, therefore C is false. (Law of Contradiction)
Therefore P is faulty.
That is a semi-formal way of stating what should have gone through their minds. And had they been righteous, it would have.
There is not such need for perfection! That's just exactly the whole point!
It is with blind belief (what the whole unbelieving world and a great many Christian think of as "faith") is where you'd have to have perfection in order to keep on the right track. Blindly believe one wrong thing and your doomed because with blind belief there is no way to correct the error. But with reason, reality is the final arbitor. I may come to a conclusion with which you diisagee but if we are both honest and allow reality to be the final arbitor then if I am right, you will learn and if I am wrong, I will! No such error correction is possible if one discards reason in favor of faith (blind belief).
The only thing we need to restain ourselves from varying off the path of truth is God's word and sound reason. I have no proplem the doctrines people have held throughout history. Indeed, there would be no Open Theism had there not been a Reformation, for example. Indeed, I think Open Theism is nothing other than the continuation of the Reformation. That is it picks up where Luther stopped. Luther brilliantly showed that certain Roman doctrines where extra-biblical and that as such are subject to scrutiny and rejection if found to be in contradiction to God's Word. Open Theism does the same, only this time it isn't Roman doctrines that we are concerned with, it is Greek doctrines. The idea that God cannot change at all is Greek not biblical. The idea that God exists outside of time is Greek, not biblical. The idea that God predestines everything that happens is Greek, not biblical. Etc., etc.
Your objection to reason being of higher authority than scripture is the equivalent to an objection to the idea that God is higher in authority than scripture. It isn't that it is higher or lower. Scripture is the authority of God because it is God's Logos! It is reason! He is reason!
In other words, you are drawing a false dichotomy which leads to your circular reasoning. You cannot question the authority of scripture without questioning the authority of the God who wrote it. To question scripture is to question God. Not that scripture is God but that it came from Him. Similarly, you cannot question the authority of reason because first of all you have to use reason to do the questioning but also because God is Reason. Just in the same sense that you are completely comforatable with saying that God is Love you ought to get comfortable with saying that God is Reason.
WHAT?!!!
No!!!!!
Is stealing wrong because the law says "Thou shalt not steal." or does the law say "Thou shalt not steal." because stealing is wrong?
We are not subject to the Law because we are in Christ, not because its okay to be immoral. We don't need the Law because we have Christ. The Law was the alternative to God. Adam and Eve ate that fruit and the result was the Law. (Again, fully establish in terrific detail in "The Plot" - You gotta read it!)
A misunderstanding of right and wrong vs. the Law does not an antinomy make.
Predetination vs man's responsibility. Now that's an antinomy!
The immutable God becoming a man. That's an antinomy!
Dictionary definitions aside. If you ever hear a theologian use the term "antinomy" what he is talking about is a contradiction that he is not willing to allow his mind to touch. That's the functional meaning of the term. I have never once ever been presented with a legitimate exception.
Yes, 'mystery' is the term used when the audience is mostly lay people. Antinimy is used when the audience to more of an ivory tower, serious theologian type crowd. The two words are often used synonymously.
In my view, the term mystery is rightly used in reference to things like the Trinity doctrine where there is no inherrent contradiction but there is a lack of data with which to understand it fully.
It is critical that one not judge a system by its conclusions. That would be to judge the system by one's own system which is classic question begging.
It is the premises and logic that make or break the system and so your desire for resources with more detailed and thorough argumentation than is really possible on a web forum of this nature is to be commended.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Derf
Well-known member
:up:
:up::up:
Great post, Clete! I'm looking forward to going through it in depth, but it may take a few days.
Derf
Derf
Well-known member
Clete,
In the interest of two incompatible goals: 1) staying on topic and 2) my insatiable desire to get the last word in on every item, I'm going to split my reply into two, with the foreground text being the on-topic reply, and the spoiler text being the other thing. Feel free to ignore the spoiler text, if you want (despite it being a tacit admission of defeat on your part). And I might actually pare down the quoted text in some slight nod to a need for brevity.
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?
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.
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.
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).
Clete, if you find anything in the spoiler that needs to be re-hydrated into the main conversation, please do so. And I'm willing to continue discussions in the spoiler, too, but it helps shrink the post to keep it separated this way.
As always, it's a joy to hear your thoughts and be able to discuss them.
Derf
In the interest of two incompatible goals: 1) staying on topic and 2) my insatiable desire to get the last word in on every item, I'm going to split my reply into two, with the foreground text being the on-topic reply, and the spoiler text being the other thing. Feel free to ignore the spoiler text, if you want (despite it being a tacit admission of defeat on your part
). And I might actually pare down the quoted text in some slight nod to a need for brevity.An undated prophecy can certainly remain in effect until it is fulfilled, but most of these are in the "promise" category, like Gen 3:15. A dated prophecy is a prophecy that is false if it doesn't meet the timeline, at least without some indication that the timeline was extended. This is important, because fulfilled prophecy is one of the tests of a prophet, and the timeline, if included in the prophecy, is part of the fulfillment.
I'd appreciate a reference for this assertion.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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).
Spoiler
Clete, if you find anything in the spoiler that needs to be re-hydrated into the main conversation, please do so. And I'm willing to continue discussions in the spoiler, too, but it helps shrink the post to keep it separated this way.
As always, it's a joy to hear your thoughts and be able to discuss them.
Derf
Last edited:
Derf,
You've gotta stop responding to every single sentence as though they stand alone without all the other sentences that surround them. I say something, you dispute that single comment as though I don't say anything else that extends and clarifies what I'm getting at and then later state that you "mostly agree" with something that was little more than a restatement of what you had just disputed!
Not only that but it makes the post insanely long and impossible to respond to. Every sentence a man speaks is not intended to created brand new offshoot conversations. Rather they are part of the whole discussion and should be taken as a whole. If there is something I say that functions as a premise for the rest of my comments then singling it out if warranted but that isn't what you've done. You respond comment by comment as though none of the rest of what I've said exists.
Is there overlap between knowledge and reason, of course, there is. Are the words 'knowledge' and 'reason' synonyms, no clearly not. Does that change the veracity of what I've said? Not a bit.
Thinking happens terms of concepts. "Sky" is a concept. "Blue" is a concept. "The" and "is" are also concepts. Even the period at the end of sentences represents a concept. To integrate and combine those concepts into a coherent thought that we humans would express in the sentence, "The sky is blue." REQUIRES that one UNDERSTAND the concepts involved in making such a statement. Your computer DOES NOT know that the sky is blue. That data can be found by you using your computer but your computer isn't even aware that you are collecting the data, never mind what the data means. To whatever extent you disagree with that statement is the degree to which you are not discussing the same topic that I am discussing.
That little tidbit is all I have time to type up for now. I'll be out of town for a few days, after which I'll respond more thoroughly.
Clete
You've gotta stop responding to every single sentence as though they stand alone without all the other sentences that surround them. I say something, you dispute that single comment as though I don't say anything else that extends and clarifies what I'm getting at and then later state that you "mostly agree" with something that was little more than a restatement of what you had just disputed!
Not only that but it makes the post insanely long and impossible to respond to. Every sentence a man speaks is not intended to created brand new offshoot conversations. Rather they are part of the whole discussion and should be taken as a whole. If there is something I say that functions as a premise for the rest of my comments then singling it out if warranted but that isn't what you've done. You respond comment by comment as though none of the rest of what I've said exists.
Is there overlap between knowledge and reason, of course, there is. Are the words 'knowledge' and 'reason' synonyms, no clearly not. Does that change the veracity of what I've said? Not a bit.
Thinking happens terms of concepts. "Sky" is a concept. "Blue" is a concept. "The" and "is" are also concepts. Even the period at the end of sentences represents a concept. To integrate and combine those concepts into a coherent thought that we humans would express in the sentence, "The sky is blue." REQUIRES that one UNDERSTAND the concepts involved in making such a statement. Your computer DOES NOT know that the sky is blue. That data can be found by you using your computer but your computer isn't even aware that you are collecting the data, never mind what the data means. To whatever extent you disagree with that statement is the degree to which you are not discussing the same topic that I am discussing.
That little tidbit is all I have time to type up for now. I'll be out of town for a few days, after which I'll respond more thoroughly.
Clete
Derf
Well-known member
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.
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
- Status