ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Lon]

I'm afraid I don't recall the details of that previous discussion. I lose track of this thread often because many of the people on it are a complete waste of gray matter and I just can't stand to read their posts. Unless I am actively engaged in a specific discussion, like this one for example, I only rarely read the occasional post and so if this discussion was with Philetus then I totally missed it.

Perhaps you could ask me a specific question. If it requires going over already covered ground then perhaps that's for the best.

I will say, for the sake of clarity, that if an open theist says that God cannot know the future, he only means that in the common sense of the phrase. In other words, when people generally speak about the future, they speak of it as though it actually exists but this is only a figure of speech, albeit an unconscious one. The future will exist but it does not yet exist and thus it is not a object of God's knowledge as such. What God knows of the future are those events which He has decided by His own will to bring to pass by the working of His own power, which is invincible. God, for example, has predestined that the Body of Christ will be glorified and so it will be just that. No one has any ability whatsoever to keep that from happening, nor is it contingent on anyone's action or inaction in relation to God's commands or wishes thus God foreknows that the Body of Christ will be glorified, as do we because of His revelation to us through Scripture.

Another example of what is yet future and that is foreknown by God is the fact that there will be a Day of Judgment when the enemies of God will be utterly and finally vanquished; the Earth will be purged with fire and will burn with a fervent heat and that God will create a new Earth and a new Heaven; and to him who overcomes God will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.

And there are many more such things that God has said He will do which are in no way contingent on anything or anyone other than God's own word. All such things are both predestined and foreknown. But it is important to point out that God does not know these things because He went to the future and took a sneak peak at it. He knows it because He is the ultimate power of all that exists and no one can keep Him from doing that which He has decided that He will do.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Thanks for the address of this. I think you answered fairly specifically something I can latch onto.

Here is the question after that which is still perplexing to me. I've understood it was a vision and some of the discussion concerning John's revelation, but what still troubles my perception from OV is that he interacted with individuals in that future time frame. It is troubling because whether in mind or physically, he was transported and interacted in a future time. While God certainly has the power as you say, to make future reality, it is troubling in the sense that it seems to me, that God is able to traipse through time ahead of us, and bring John their. John was in the throne room one way or the other and He saw God, Jesus, elders, events, happenings etc. While I get a tiny grasp of Philetus and some of the other ideas concerning this vision in trying to explain it as something else than how I see it, the problem is still perplexing. I haven't comprehended a cogent view if one was purported. The explanations I've heard so far, don't make sense. You might remember in a previous post, I said the explanation fell flat. One accused me of "Star Trek" nerdology, but it is a perception from the text, not a television show. While it was a bit of a retort to some good 'ol SV bashing, it was sincere. I still cannot fathom the OV's answer to such a dilemma. Perhaps it can be explained in a different way.


In Christ
Lon

 

[Clete]

Thanks for the address of this. I think you answered fairly specifically something I can latch onto.

Here is the question after that which is still perplexing to me. I've understood it was a vision and some of the discussion concerning John's revelation, but what still troubles my perception from OV is that he interacted with individuals in that future time frame. It is troubling because whether in mind or physically, he was transported and interacted in a future time. While God certainly has the power as you say, to make future reality, it is troubling in the sense that it seems to me, that God is able to traipse through time ahead of us, and bring John their. John was in the throne room one way or the other and He saw God, Jesus, elders, events, happenings etc. While I get a tiny grasp of Philetus and some of the other ideas concerning this vision in trying to explain it as something else than how I see it, the problem is still perplexing. I haven't comprehended a cogent view if one was purported. The explanations I've heard so far, don't make sense. You might remember in a previous post, I said the explanation fell flat. One accused me of "Star Trek" nerdology, but it is a perception from the text, not a television show. While it was a bit of a retort to some good 'ol SV bashing, it was sincere. I still cannot fathom the OV's answer to such a dilemma. Perhaps it can be explained in a different way.


In Christ
Lon

It was a vision Lonster, not a time warp teleportation to the future.

Would you at least concede that there is nothing in the text that demands that we accept the idea that John was literally translated to a future time where he witnessed that actual event? Isn't just as easy to read the book of Revelation and understand that the things spoken of in the book are visions of the future? You objection about the fact that John interacted with people in the vision doesn't really hold a lot of water. I have had dreams that we in no way miraculous and yet I've had whole conversations with people in my dream and interacted in all sorts of ways with individuals who never actually existed at all except in my dream. Why doesn't it make sense to say that the same sort of thing was happening with John and that his interactions with the people in the vision was nothing more than part of the vision itself?

And, as I suspected, this really does come down to a paradigm issue because if we were debating the meaning of some specific text in the book of Revelation you could object to what I've said and ask me to support that assertion that it was all just a vision with the text itself, which I believe could be done but I don't think it is necessary to do it. We can know that John did not actually go to the future because you cannot go to a place that does not exist and there is a whole line of reasoning that touches on a whole series of underlying issues that leads us to that conclusion among others. In other words, we know intuitively that Revelation is simply a vision and not time travel because the reverse would have ramifications in nearly every area of the Christian faith, including things like free will, justice, atonement, grace, antinomy, and even our theology proper (theology of God).

Indeed, most theological disputes come down to ones theology proper. Just what sort of God is it that the Bible teaches us about and what are the logical ramifications of the answer to that question. That's really what we are talking about here.

I have a lot more to say but I have no more time. This will have to be enough for now.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

It was a vision Lonster, not a time warp teleportation to the future.

Would you at least concede that there is nothing in the text that demands that we accept the idea that John was literally translated to a future time where he witnessed that actual event? Isn't just as easy to read the book of Revelation and understand that the things spoken of in the book are visions of the future? You objection about the fact that John interacted with people in the vision doesn't really hold a lot of water.

I have had dreams that we in no way miraculous and yet I've had whole conversations with people in my dream and interacted in all sorts of ways with individuals who never actually existed at all except in my dream. Why doesn't it make sense to say that the same sort of thing was happening with John and that his interactions with the people in the vision was nothing more than part of the vision itself?

And, as I suspected, this really does come down to a paradigm issue because if we were debating the meaning of some specific text in the book of Revelation you could object to what I've said and ask me to support that assertion that it was all just a vision with the text itself, which I believe could be done but I don't think it is necessary to do it. We can know that John did not actually go to the future because you cannot go to a place that does not exist and there is a whole line of reasoning that touches on a whole series of underlying issues that leads us to that conclusion among others. In other words, we know intuitively that Revelation is simply a vision and not time travel because the reverse would have ramifications in nearly every area of the Christian faith, including things like free will, justice, atonement, grace, antinomy, and even our theology proper (theology of God).

Indeed, most theological disputes come down to ones theology proper. Just what sort of God is it that the Bible teaches us about and what are the logical ramifications of the answer to that question. That's really what we are talking about here.

I have a lot more to say but I have no more time. This will have to be enough for now.

Resting in Him,
Clete

My concern is that John's vision is not like a dream. It is given by God so is not equivalent to dreams. It is future, God is present, and John interacts. It would be difficult to concede another interpretation of this. John was there somehow and it was divinely inspired so that he'd write it down for us.

I totally agree that the ramifications are far reaching.

 

[Lighthouse]

God can make a decision.

 

[Clete]

My concern is that John's vision is not like a dream. It is given by God so is not equivalent to dreams. It is future, God is present, and John interacts. It would be difficult to concede another interpretation of this. John was there somehow and it was divinely inspired so that he'd write it down for us.

I totally agree that the ramifications are far reaching.

What in the text demands that we take John's Revelation as anything other than a vision?

I understand that it was not a dream in the same sense that one has dreams each night while we sleep. That was only an analogy. It is no more difficult to imagine how John could interact with the people in his miraculous vision than it is difficult to understand the concept of interacting with the people in one's own dreams. In other words, just because John interacted with the people in the vision doesn't mean it wasn't a vision. The interaction itself was part of the vision.

Again, is there anything in the text the demands that we must presume that John traveled through time rather than that he simply was given a vision of the future?

I say that the answer to that question is a resounding, "NO! There isn't!". If you think otherwise, I would say that the burden of proof is on you because such a reason doesn't seem to be apparent by a simple reading of the text itself and because there is a whole pile of both theological and rational problems which come along with saying otherwise. I don't know how valid Occam's Razor is as a hermanutical tool, but if it is valid it seems to be cutting deeply into your theological neck at the moment.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

What in the text demands that we take John's Revelation as anything other than a vision?

I understand that it was not a dream in the same sense that one has dreams each night while we sleep. That was only an analogy. It is no more difficult to imagine how John could interact with the people in his miraculous vision than it is difficult to understand the concept of interacting with the people in one's own dreams. In other words, just because John interacted with the people in the vision doesn't mean it wasn't a vision. The interaction itself was part of the vision.

Again, is there anything in the text the demands that we must presume that John traveled through time rather than that he simply was given a vision of the future?

I say that the answer to that question is a resounding, "NO! There isn't!". If you think otherwise, I would say that the burden of proof is on you because such a reason doesn't seem to be apparent by a simple reading of the text itself and because there is a whole pile of both theological and rational problems which come along with saying otherwise. I don't know how valid Occam's Razor is as a hermanutical tool, but if it is valid it seems to be cutting deeply into your theological neck at the moment.

Resting in Him,
Clete

What are you saying exactly? Was the vision elder a fabrication by God or John's imagination? I'm not quite catching your meaning. Even in a dream state, I've travelled to the future, but there are two problems with it. One is is an imaginative fabrication, not a reality given by God, and it also doesn't contain real people in it from a real future. I'm still not quite catching the point. This was a reality God wanted communicated to man. How do you see this differently?

 

[Philetus]

Sanctified imaginations are a gift from God. The reality they communicate is a present reality in light of all that God PLANS/PROMISES to do in the future. In John's case the reality WAS that of the saints suffering for their faith and the HOPE guaranteed the faithful. The language was encrypted. The book is a discipleship manual for Christians who like John were going through a 'great' time of tribulation. The only application it has to any future generation is to encourage faithfulness and patience.

NIV 1:9 I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

RSV 1:9 I John, your brother, who share with you in Jesus the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

KJV 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Prophecy is not always future telling. It is promise and warning.

 

[Clete]

What are you saying exactly? Was the vision elder a fabrication by God or John's imagination? I'm not quite catching your meaning. Even in a dream state, I've travelled to the future, but there are two problems with it. One is is an imaginative fabrication, not a reality given by God, and it also doesn't contain real people in it from a real future. I'm still not quite catching the point. This was a reality God wanted communicated to man. How do you see this differently?

It had nothing to do with John's imagination; John saw and heard and said precisely what God wanted him to see, hear and say but that doesn't mean it was real.

Right now, I am watching a show called "Dirty Jobs" on the Discovery Channel. I am watching Mike (the host) toss lobster traps into the water - but I'm not really watching him throw those traps in the water, am I? I'm watching an image of him doing so, right? Now, we humans create such images in various ways which are by no means miraculous, but if we were somehow able to accurately predict the future, we could create a "vision" of that future and present it on a T.V. screen. And no matter how accurate that vision of the future happened to be, the vision would not be the real thing, it would be a vision.

God is able to cause us to experience whatever He wants for us to experience to whatever degree of realism He deems necessary and best but however accurate and however real it seems to the person receiving the vision, its still just a vision. John never physically left the Island of Patmos, what he saw, he saw in a vision, not live and in person.

Does that clarify what I mean?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

It had nothing to do with John's imagination; John saw and heard and said precisely what God wanted him to see, hear and say but that doesn't mean it was real.

Right now, I am watching a show called "Dirty Jobs" on the Discovery Channel. I am watching Mike (the host) toss lobster traps into the water - but I'm not really watching him throw those traps in the water, am I? I'm watching an image of him doing so, right? Now, we humans create such images in various ways which are by no means miraculous, but if we were somehow able to accurately predict the future, we could create a "vision" of that future and present it on a T.V. screen. And no matter how accurate that vision of the future happened to be, the vision would not be the real thing, it would be a vision.

God is able to cause us to experience whatever He wants for us to experience to whatever degree of realism He deems necessary and best but however accurate and however real it seems to the person receiving the vision, its still just a vision. John never physically left the Island of Patmos, what he saw, he saw in a vision, not live and in person.

Does that clarify what I mean?

Resting in Him,
Clete

"Dirty Jobs" = Past Reality

"Revelation" = Future Reality

All of these equivalence presentations aren't making any connection for me. It is future and if you don't agree it is exactly as it will be, then I'm perplexed. If it is 'exact' then you have a future time, accurately given and experienced.

 

[Lon]

Sanctified imaginations are a gift from God. The reality they communicate is a present reality in light of all that God PLANS/PROMISES to do in the future. In John's case the reality WAS that of the saints suffering for their faith and the HOPE guaranteed the faithful. The language was encrypted. The book is a discipleship manual for Christians who like John were going through a 'great' time of tribulation. The only application it has to any future generation is to encourage faithfulness and patience.

NIV 1:9 I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

RSV 1:9 I John, your brother, who share with you in Jesus the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

KJV 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Prophecy is not always future telling. It is promise and warning.

It seems like a 'grasping' explanation to me. I'm sorry I can't seem to express the perplexity of this (that my brain has latched onto in logic) clearly. If it is 'God-given' it is accurate and it is future. John, in my best understanding of this text, experienced the real future.

 

[godrulz]

The future is not there yet. 2008 has not happened.

Given the general sweep of Revelation (vs minute details), it seems consistent with OT visions that John had a vision, not an actual experiencing of the Battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming. The Second Coming is yet future, even to God (though He could give a vision of Christ and the horse).

 

[Lon]

I did a little pecking around to try and get a handle on our discussion.

First is the OV belief concerning time:

"The statement 'God exists outside of time.' commits the stolen concept because it engages the concept of existence while denying the concept of duration (i.e. time). Thus God cannot exist outside of time because to do so would mean He doesn't exist at all. The statement exhibits an internal contradiction and therefore must be false."

This then would be the same objection concerning God's existence:

"The statement 'God exists outside of space' commits the stolen concept because it engages the concept of existence while denying the concept of location. Thus God cannot exist outside of space because to do so would mean He doesn't exist at all. The statement exhibits an internal contradiction and therefore must be false."

Where would God live?

 

[Philetus]

It seems like a 'grasping' explanation to me. I'm sorry I can't seem to express the perplexity of this (that my brain has latched onto in logic) clearly. If it is 'God-given' it is accurate and it is future. John, in my best understanding of this text, experienced the real future.

The future according to Philetus (being worked out with fear and trembling:noid: :chuckle: )

I understand. I've been there. And I don't claim to be the most articulate proponent of the OV. Godrulz has it right … the future doesn’t exist. The only things that can be considered absolutely settled about the future are the things God has determined HE WILL do without condition. The day of the Lord is an example. It will happen because God will make it happen.

Since God has given a significant ‘say so’ to creatures in determining their own futures (i.e. what we will eat and what we shall put on, and whether we will stop at that next stop sign or not) there are lots of things that haven’t been yet determined … not yet. The future doesn’t exist.

And Clete is right … God reveals HIS PLANNED future not because, but rather only 'as if' it already exists by illustration: visions/dreams, promises/warnings. That doesn’t make God’s future any less ‘real’ because God is both faithful and able. That is how 'the future' continues to inform the present and gives us hope. The promised future informs how we are to be living now, as if the Kingdom were here among us and also as if it were coming.

That God reveals to us HIS plans and preparation for our futures is the difference between being (among other things) treated as servants (without any say-so about our present or future) and friends (included/with a 'say so' in the shaping of things to come).

 

[Clete]

"Dirty Jobs" = Past Reality

"Revelation" = Future Reality

I tried really hard to make clear that I was making an analogy because I knew that you would make this sort of connection. Why did you just ignore the fact that I said "if we were somehow able to predict the future..."?

The whole point of my post was to reiterate that a vision is not reality - its a vision. And no, Dirty Jobs is not past reality, it is an edited presentation (i.e. "vision" if you will) of past reality but it is not the reality itself. Can you understand the difference? The past does not exist any more than the future does. All that exists, exists now and only now. The past is no more and the future is not yet.

All of these equivalence presentations aren't making any connection for me. It is future and if you don't agree it is exactly as it will be, then I'm perplexed. If it is 'exact' then you have a future time, accurately given and experienced.

Why are you perplexed?

Jeremiah 18 1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.” 3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the LORD. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 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 repent 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 repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.
11 “Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.”’”​

The only reason you could be perplexed is because you have a faulty (i.e. unbiblical and/or irrational) understanding of Biblical prophecy.

How do you deal with all the other prophecies in the Bible that didn't come to pass as stated? Why don't they perplex you?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I did a little pecking around to try and get a handle on our discussion.

First is the OV belief concerning time:

This then would be the same objection concerning God's existence:


Where would God live?

Space, as in three dimensional space a.k.a. the heavens is a physical consideration and was created by God. Time on the other hand is an idea, as is location. God does have a location but is not bound by three dimensional physical space.

In other words, the concept of location does not presuppose three dimensional physical space and so there is no concept fallacy involved here at all. Now if you supposed that something existed within three dimensional space while denying location then you would be committing the concept fallacy because space does presuppose location but not the other way around.

Get it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

I tried really hard to make clear that I was making an analogy because I knew that you would make this sort of connection. Why did you just ignore the fact that I said "if we were somehow able to predict the future..."?

The whole point of my post was to reiterate that a vision is not reality - its a vision. And no, Dirty Jobs is not past reality, it is an edited presentation (i.e. "vision" if you will) of past reality but it is not the reality itself. Can you understand the difference? The past does not exist any more than the future does. All that exists, exists now and only now. The past is no more and the future is not yet.

No, I don't think I confused it as analogy, I was just trying to make sure I was following and wanted to point to the main comparison needed.

I understand the logic behind the past not existing, but I'm not sure I follow its premise. I know things from the past and carry my past with me into my current demeaner and decisions.

Why are you perplexed?

Jeremiah 18 1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.” 3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the LORD. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 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 repent 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 repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.
11 “Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.”’”​

The only reason you could be perplexed is because you have a faulty (i.e. unbiblical and/or irrational) understanding of Biblical prophecy.

It is traditional, but as I read Revelation and John's interaction, it is unusual. While I understand the premise that it is a vision and predictive, it doesn't seem to render that way naturally to me. I read it as John interacting in a future which hadn't happened in the 'time' he was in. You say faulty, but I see it as a reality of the text. At face value, it is, an experience into a future event with interaction.

How do you deal with all the other prophecies in the Bible that didn't come to pass as stated? Why don't they perplex you?

Resting in Him,
Clete

I've been pretty upfront on my views of prophecy unfullfilled. I think theological gymnastics is the assessment of my views as I've read them. My understanding of those is that they are either nonprophetic or conditional and at other times both.

 

[Lon]

The future according to Philetus (being worked out with fear and trembling:noid: :chuckle: )

I understand. I've been there. And I don't claim to be the most articulate proponent of the OV. Godrulz has it right … the future doesn’t exist. The only things that can be considered absolutely settled about the future are the things God has determined HE WILL do without condition. The day of the Lord is an example. It will happen because God will make it happen.

Since God has given a significant ‘say so’ to creatures in determining their own futures (i.e. what we will eat and what we shall put on, and whether we will stop at that next stop sign or not) there are lots of things that haven’t been yet determined … not yet. The future doesn’t exist.

And Clete is right … God reveals HIS PLANNED future not because, but rather only 'as if' it already exists by illustration: visions/dreams, promises/warnings. That doesn’t make God’s future any less ‘real’ because God is both faithful and able. That is how 'the future' continues to inform the present and gives us hope. The promised future informs how we are to be living now, as if the Kingdom were here among us and also as if it were coming.

That God reveals to us HIS plans and preparation for our futures is the difference between being (among other things) treated as servants (without any say-so about our present or future) and friends (included/with a 'say so' in the shaping of things to come).

I think this is actually close to the SV/traditional view concerning "All-powerful" and omniscience. The way the two concepts concerning power and knowing all is closely tied together because one supports the other. The problematic discussion concerning this is always about free-will and determinism. It does however show some connectedness of our views on certain perspectives.

 

[Clete]

No, I don't think I confused it as analogy, I was just trying to make sure I was following and wanted to point to the main comparison needed.

I take it then that you followed my line of reasoning. Is there anything specific about it that you find irrational or in some other way problematic?

I understand the logic behind the past not existing, but I'm not sure I follow its premise. I know things from the past and carry my past with me into my current demeaner and decisions.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you remember the past and carry that memory with you into the future?

Your memories exist in your mind right now. If you think it through carefully you will never find anything that actually exists that doesn't exist right now. Sound pedantic but it is a crucial point.

It is traditional, but as I read Revelation and John's interaction, it is unusual. While I understand the premise that it is a vision and predictive, it doesn't seem to render that way naturally to me. I read it as John interacting in a future which hadn't happened in the 'time' he was in. You say faulty, but I see it as a reality of the text. At face value, it is, an experience into a future event with interaction.

I have to tell you that when I read this it sounds to me like you are effectively saying the following...

"I don't read Revelation that way because I don't like the sound of it."

The reason I say that is because as I have already pointed out, I can't read anything in the Bible without seeing the Open View everywhere, including the book of Revelation. I think it is clear that our disagreement has to do with a difference is paradigms and so discussing what eachother sees as the "face value" reading of the text is somewhat useless at this point. The question needs to be, which of our respective theological paradigms is the most Biblically and rationally sound? When that question is answered, we will know who's surface reading is the correct one.

I've been pretty upfront on my views of prophecy unfullfilled. I think theological gymnastics is the assessment of my views as I've read them. My understanding of those is that they are either nonprophetic or conditional and at other times both.

Okay, so what's the problem? Revelation is very obviously prophecies about several nations and Jeremiah explicitly states that all such prophecies are conditional prophecies. Why then is it so difficult for you, aside from some emotional consideration, to accept the idea that since these prophecies are conditional that they, in accordance with Jeremiah 18, may not come to pass precisely as stated just as several other similar prophecies have not?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

I take it then that you followed my line of reasoning. Is there anything specific about it that you find irrational or in some other way problematic?

I believe you stated it correctly a bit further on, it is a paradigm difference.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you remember the past and carry that memory with you into the future?

Your memories exist in your mind right now. If you think it through carefully you will never find anything that actually exists that doesn't exist right now. Sound pedantic but it is a crucial point.

This has some truth to it, but who I am today is a product of past experience and influence. The past exists inside of me if you will.

I have to tell you that when I read this it sounds to me like you are effectively saying the following...

"I don't read Revelation that way because I don't like the sound of it."

The reason I say that is because as I have already pointed out, I can't read anything in the Bible without seeing the Open View everywhere, including the book of Revelation. I think it is clear that our disagreement has to do with a difference is paradigms and so discussing what eachother sees as the "face value" reading of the text is somewhat useless at this point. The question needs to be, which of our respective theological paradigms is the most Biblically and rationally sound? When that question is answered, we will know who's surface reading is the correct one.

No, not the 'feel' but the interpretation. I believe you called it correctly with the paradigm difference.

Okay, so what's the problem? Revelation is very obviously prophecies about several nations and Jeremiah explicitly states that all such prophecies are conditional prophecies. Why then is it so difficult for you, aside from some emotional consideration, to accept the idea that since these prophecies are conditional that they, in accordance with Jeremiah 18, may not come to pass precisely as stated just as several other similar prophecies have not?

Resting in Him,
Clete

No, not emotional: Logic. I see something in this passage that doesn't fall to my reasoning for acceptance. It is a problem similar to a math problem that doesn't add up. While I may not be able to know exactly where the equation went South, I can discern that it isn't the same answer I came up with. I've re-worked my theology to understand this passage and what I come up with is: A divine revelation from God, a future time seen clearly, interacted in, and recorded as truth for us to read. John witnessed this, he tells us, and he wrote it down as he was commanded to do. Will it happen exactly as he saw it or not?

 

[elected4ever]

Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;


Write the things which thou hast seen,-------These are things that are past.

Write the things which are, -------------------These are things that are present.

Write the things which shall be hereafter;-----These are things that will absolutely come to pass in the future.

[ I might add this is not the revelation of John but the revelation of Jesus Christ. This tells me that the information that was given John to be reveled was absolute knowledge of past, present and future events. Regardless of my understanding or what i believe concerning these events, they have happened, are happening and will happen in the future. I cannot dismiss what will happen without also dismissing the past and the present. Ether it is all true or none of it is. Even in the revelation itself it is reveled that there is man making choices that effect man's future. Those choices that man makes does not effect the future that God has decreed. Man's choices only affect man's relationship with that future.