ARCHIVE: Thread Theft (docrob and Knight)

[logos_x]

Did ya ever wonder why the open view is such a minority viewpoint?

Lots of truths are.

Amen!

 

[Delmar]

I felt compelled to respond to the following post in a current 1 on 1, and since I am not a participant, I will do it on this here thread. As to the open view and prophecy, Knight says -



I was interested in point 1. This is a possibility, however, in order to act in this manner, it would seem to entail a considerable violation of free will. It would also entail the ability of God to correctly foresee the results of "bringing events to pass."

Armed with the right information, people can predict future events with a high degree of accuracy as well. There is no reason to think that God is so limited.

The examples given of "unfulfilled prophecies" are invalid. I know I'm wasting keystrokes here, as I have explained this many times, but for the new folks, I will proceed. The prophecies that are always set forth as examples are implicitly conditional in nature, taking the form "You are doing X, therefore I will do Y." Implicit is the statement "If you stop doing X, I will not do Y." Open view advocates even point to passages in Jeremiah which explain the conditional nature of this type of statement, apprently oblivious to the fact that the passage destroys their argument.

Jonah appears to be the favorite example. God said he would destroy Nineveh, Nineveh repented, and God did not destroy it. It is claimed that the prophesy was not fulfilled since Nineveh was not destroyed. The truth is that the only way the prophesy would go unfulfilled is if Nineveh had not repented and it was not destroyed.

So the Prophesy of Jonah was...
If you don't repent in 40 days you will be destroyed.
but if you do repent, in 40 days you will not be destroyed.

So if I understand correctly you are saying that Jonah predicted one of those two things was going to happen (depending how the people responded) and one of those two things did happen! This confirms the settled view how?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

So if I understand correctly you are saying that Jonah predicted one of those two things was going to happen (depending how the people responded) and one of those two things did happen! This confirms the settled view how?

I don't think docrob ever pondered the theological consequences of accepting a "conditional" future . . . until now.

 

[docrob57]

Lots of truths are.

As are lots of untruths

 

[docrob57]

Let me help you then....

If anything in the future is conditional then by definition the future cannot be settled.

That is why Jer 18 is utterly devestating to the settled view.

You do believe in a settled future.... do you not?

Not necessarily. My only contention is that God must have "perfect exhaustive foreknowledge" if He is God. Which I think we would both beleive that He is. I do not beleive that God changes His mind, though I do know the Bible speaks as if He does at times. I believe that the Bible puts things that way for purposes of human understanding, not because God actually changes His mind.

Jer 18 in no way suggests that God changes His mind. I beleive the open view contention that some prophecies are false seriously undermines God. Not intentionally, of course, but it seems to be an attempt to "bring God down to our level."

As to the settled nature of the future I am unclear. If not settled, the extent to which it is open must be bounded because I do believe that Christ will return, and I assume you beleive this as well.

 

[docrob57]

So the Prophesy of Jonah was...
If you don't repent in 40 days you will be destroyed.
but if you do repent, in 40 days you will not be destroyed.

So if I understand correctly you are saying that Jonah predicted one of those two things was going to happen (depending how the people responded) and one of those two things did happen! This confirms the settled view how?

It doesn't confirm the settled view. You guys are hung up on the open/settled thing, I really don't care about that. I do care about God being made to look indecisive and overly subject to human limitations which I believe that the open view does.

Also, it bothers me that it appears the goal becomes more to win believers to the open view than to win the lost for Christ. Hopefully this isn.t true, but it begins to look that way.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

docrob,

did you see my post?

 

[docrob57]

docrob,

did you see my post?

Yes I did. No offense, but it just seemed to be quibbling.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Yes I did. No offense, but it just seemed to be quibbling.

I don't take offense that you disagree. But can you refute it?

 

[Lucky]

As are lots of untruths

Which is why arguing "X is true because the majority says" or that "Y is true because the majority disagree and the majority is wrong" is usually a bad idea.

 

[docrob57]

Which is why arguing "X is true because the majority says" or that "Y is true because the majority disagree and the majority is wrong" is usually a bad idea.

True, however, arguing an obscure theological position that I have never heard anyone but the participants of this forum support is a little different. Plus, there are certain aspects of the idea whichto me make no sense and which I have never seen credible arguments to support.

 

[docrob57]

I don't take offense that you disagree. But can you refute it?

There is nothing to refute really. If we have to ignore the whole content of the statement, including the implied content, then I guess you are right, You you have demonstrated to your own satisfaction that God either made a false statement or that he was unable to carry out His threat.

I don't see what you gain by that.

 

[seekinganswers]

1. God predicts future events and then brings those events to pass.

2. God knows everything knowable (including human intention) and therefore can predict future events with a high degree of accuracy.{/QUOTE]

The first statement is false, because God does not predict the future, for the future is wrapped up in God. The god of Knight is a god who is found in time and space, not the God who encompasses time and space and brings them into being. Knight's understanding of Creation is that it is an entity that has a distinct reality appart from God, so that if God ceased to exist than the Creation could continue as if nothing happened. God, however, is not an entity that we exist appart from, but is rather the one "in whom we live and move and have our being". God is not the cause of existance but is the source. We do not live separate from God, but in God (and we are darkened in our understanding if we think otherwise).

The second statement is false because, once again, knight has distinguished knowledge and God, so that knowledge (or truth, I suppose you could say) is an abstract principle that resides alongside God. God is not the great knower (like the god of Whitehead who is the ultimate being, a great monad with a window to see and influence and be influenced by other monads) who relates to lesser knowers in the Creation (i.e. the God who simply knows more about knowledge than we do). God is knowledge (God is truth). To set knowledge appart from God is to make the mistake of process theology (who set God and the Creation with a distinct realm known as relationship).

The god of Knight is not the Christian God, for the god of Knight is not the God in whom "we live and move and have our being."

Peace,
Michael

 

[seekinganswers]

Was the following prophesy fullfilled? (YES or NO)

“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”

YES!!!!!

Tell me, at the end of the story, where do we find the King of Nineveh?

Peace,
Michael

 

[seekinganswers]

YES!!!!!

Tell me, at the end of the story, where do we find the King of Nineveh?

Peace,
Michael

In fact, where do we find all of the inhabitants of Nineveh?

 

[seekinganswers]

In fact, where do we find all of the inhabitants of Nineveh?

Peace,
Michael

 

[Delmar]

YES!!!!!

Tell me, at the end of the story, where do we find the King of Nineveh?

Peace,
Michael

Nineveh was distroyed but not after 40 days, It was later. Why was that?

 

[Delmar]

Not necessarily. My only contention is that God must have "perfect exhaustive foreknowledge" if He is God...

Why do you limit God to your view of what God must be?

 

[seekinganswers]

Nineveh was distroyed but not after 40 days, It was later. Why was that?

The text does not say that Nineveh will be destroyed (not even out of the words of Jonah). It uses a word that can mean destroy, but in fact means turned or overturned. The ending I was speaking about comes in the text itself (I was not asking about the ultimate end of Nineveh many decades later). The king dethrones himself, and the people (and the animals) dress up in sack cloth and ashes and pray to God for mercy. This is called repentance, and so the people were turned and Nineveh was overturned. Prophesy is not about telling the future. It is about the present actions of a people, and tells you what will come about if there is no repentance, however, the purpose of the prophesy if to incite people to repent. The people of Nineveh repent of their sins, and thus Nineveh is overthrown (not through fire and brimstone as many seem to think must be involved in prophesy and judgment). Neither prophecy nor judgment are exclusively tied to fire and brimstone. Judgment is simply the entrance of truth (the entrance of God) into the Creation so as to make quite clear what the natural order of things is.

Now if we look to Jonah in this, we find that Jonah was not free at all, but was a stubborn fool who ran from God, and wanted to think that he knew what was best for the city of Nineveh. He isn't free, but is a slave to his own pride, and to the pride of a people who have fogotten where they come from. He says at the very end that he knew God was merciful and would not be harsh with the Ninevites, and that is why he ran in the first place. The truly free people are the ones who when confronted with God they acknowledge God and obey (i.e. the sailors on the boat to Tarshish, and the Ninevites).

Peace,
Michael

 

[Delmar]

1. God predicts future events and then brings those events to pass.

2. God knows everything knowable (including human intention) and therefore can predict future events with a high degree of accuracy.

The first statement is false, because God does not predict the future, for the future is wrapped up in God.

I'm not sure what that means

The god of Knight is a god who is found in time and space

In time yes, In space no!

not the God who encompasses time and space and brings them into being.

God did, in fact, bring space into being! Time, on the other hand, is merely a sequence of events. God actually does things and he does them in order! He created the Heavens and Earth before he created man. He kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden before Noah's flood. To experience events in order is not some sort of prison, even for God! It is simply reality!

Knight's understanding of Creation is that it is an entity that has a distinct reality apart from God, so that if God ceased to exist than the Creation could continue as if nothing happened.

This statement is just weird and not true!

God, however, is not an entity that we exist apart from, but is rather the one "in whom we live and move and have our being". God is not the cause of existence but is the source. We do not live separate from God, but in God (and we are darkened in our understanding if we think otherwise).

What does that mean?

The second statement is false because, once again, knight has distinguished knowledge and God, so that knowledge (or truth, I suppose you could say) is an abstract principle that resides alongside God. God is not the great knower (like the god of Whitehead who is the ultimate being, a great monad with a window to see and influence and be influenced by other monads) who relates to lesser knowers in the Creation (i.e. the God who simply knows more about knowledge than we do). God is knowledge (God is truth). To set knowledge apart from God is to make the mistake of process theology (who set God and the Creation with a distinct realm known as relationship).

My brain is beginning to hurt!

The god of Knight is not the Christian God, for the god of Knight is not the God in whom "we live and move and have our being."

Peace,
Michael