You would believe it makes sense.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
Nope.
patman
Active member
Thanks! I don't care that he disagreed. He just wouldn't discuss it.
Too Bad, I wanted to know what physics has to do with God's future knowledge when physics didn't always exist (my new question to settled viewers).
Lon
Well-known member
Nice post card, needed a picture though...
When you get back I'll bust for another tub of the buttery.
Philetus
New member
How is this relevant?
Again, how is this relevant?
"...if you're a hypocrite."
This is the most I've ever seen you completely ignore the context of Biblical teachings.
No duh!
Doing what?
I don't think I do get it.
Who are you and what have you done with Philetus?
:rotfl:
I, Philetus was at my wits ends with JB., Hymenaeus is my alter ego; not yet converted and sure not repentant about anything. I’ll make every effort to keep him:shut: :up:
The point I was making (which was lost due to my own cryptic style, no doubt) is that I feel you can be excessively harsh sometimes. In the case of JB and some others …. NOT! Not at all. But, I was hinting at and reminding you that in my own case it was your patience that paid off. I got it. Get it? (OK, maybe I was a bit, no a lot more willing than JB to dialogue.) But, we can all be scumbags at times. Anyway, its past. Lets move on. And before we get into some of the issues of judgmentalism based on our own knowledge of good and evil ..... lets stick with Open Theism on this thread. OK?
___________________
___________________
I still think that Open Theism has a lot more to inform our understanding of eschatology than we are admitting.
So, here is my question especially for Clete, godrulz and patman (others feel free to chime in [I’ll try to go easy on the butter unless someone turns out to be another ‘popcorn’ fart]).
Without arguing about pre, mid, post or any of the particulars, and supposing that one’s (anyone’s in this hypothetical instance) literal interpretation of revelation is totally accurate;
Could God revise, change, revamp His intended/declared plan (as gleaned and understood from a literal reading of Revelation) and move in an entirely different direction with regards to particulars while preserving the essence of divine telos?
Echoes of Nineveh,
Philetus
PS Admittedly, I'm fishing for whales with big worms. Seeking understanding, not a fight.:box: So don't go getting all miffed and start calling me names if I get close to your private gourd vine, Jonah:madmad: .
PSs, I'll be back from vacation tomorrow. Thanks Knight for the decisive action.
Philetus
New member
I told you, have no fear, they always come back.
I love dots!
Got content?
Man, after more than a looooooong year on this thread, sometimes you gotta just space out and have some fun with the rookies and the vets. It can be a freakin (fryken in Kentucky) animal house at times.
Still, we have our good moments.
Are you sure you did not smoke pot before? You are in another dimension with your prosaic prose. You are way too happy. Can I get some happy pills too?
Short answer: Revelation is more general than detailed. It will pan out as written due to God's ability and intentions.
Long, qualified answer:
Do others see Revelation as a detailed chronological blueprint? I find the themes more general, broad, and potentially open to various fulfillments, especially in detail.
OT affirms that God can predestine some of the future. The judgments in Revelation are things God intends to do based on His past and present knowledge of human history.
Rev. 1-3 is historical, so these things stand as accurate and fulfilled.
Rev. 4-5 is a picture of worship in heaven. God knows heavenly reality, so this is an accurate picture that will be fulfilled and is already a reality (God is on the throne with the Lamb being worshipped as we speak).
Rev. 19 ff. is also in God's control. The Second Coming is prophecied and will take place as planned. Likewise, casting Satan and unbelievers into the lake of fire is fixed. The need for righteous judgment will not change despite a partially open future. Note that the exact timing of these things is not revealed. This is where OT informs eschatology, as opposed to a blueprint model that would have the chronology fixed to the second.
Rev. 6 ff. is a picture of future judgments in the Tribulation. God can raise up 144,000 Jewish Christians. God can raise up two witnesses and orchestrate these things. God can send hail now or anytime in the future. Every minute detail about the Trib. and Armageddon is not prophecied, so there is some flexibility within the prophecy/vision to creatively bring things about in a various ways. The exact identity of the Antichrist or false prophet did not have to be fixed anymore than Judas was fatalistically fixed to be the Betrayer (if Judas would have repented, someone else would have fulfilled the role).
Some prophecy is conditional, some unconditional, some declarative, some predictive. I see no reason why aspects of predictive prophecy in Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelation (we need more than one passage to speculate on end time chronology) will not be fulfilled literally. Given the bent of human history, I do not see the possibility of every man repenting and ending the need for future judgments on nations and dealings with national Israel. Revelation is vague enough that there may be some wiggle room as to how things pan out (God could change the agenda without undermining a literal reading of prophecy).
John wrote in a cyclical style (Paul was linear), so he revisits themes that may not be chronological. It is a challenge, even for those who have a normative, literal hermeneutic, to speculate on chronology.
In all my OT reading, eschatology is rarely mentioned. It is not germane to the issue (OT supports predictive prophecy as accurate since many things will come about based on God's predestined plans by His ability, not foreknowledge). We can hold a variety of end-time views and claim to be an OT.
Can you give specific examples (use your imagination) from Revelation where you could foresee contingencies changing to the point that the Word would not pan out as written? I suspect we will conclude that Revelation will unfold as planned (cf. Is. 46 and 48 where God declares end from beginning in some vs all things and brings it to pass by His will and ABILITY....not by simple foreknowledge exhaustively as our closed friends proof text the passage).
My 'pot' is fatigue. If I need to clarify the ramblings, please do so.
I suspect my Enyart friends may allow for more theoretical possibility of God not having to have Revelation pan out as written. God's ability to change His mind must be balanced by the equal truth of Him being faithful to His Word. In avoiding determinism, we should not swing the pendulum too far the other way to make all things chaotic and hyper-flexible. Since God knows the past and present perfectly, it informs predictive prophecy (though possible becomes probable even though not certain until it becomes actual...the potential future becomes the fixed past through the present).
Philetus
New member
Ah, if I told you I would have to … ahh, aahhh, uh, er, uh … lie.
Mine too actually. I just finished three 14 hour night shifts in a row. That esspaines some of it. NO?
I'm going to bed in a few and sleep until my vacation is over tomorrow.
Thank you for the long answer. I’m almost convinced. Not being schooled in the literal view, and operating on theory that is a little foreign to my up-bring, I didn’t want to assume that I was getting it. (You and I are so close on this it should scare the bahebejibies out of you.) But, sometimes discussing these things with my friend who is a HARD core Calvinists, we just talk past each other. (Not unlike what happens here a lot.)
One area that I find difficult to swallow is the almost gleeful delight that some adherents to this more open view of Revelation exhibit at the judgments, warring, suffering, death, destruction and damnation of lost human beings. The way it is portrayed seems to suggest that God almost does a flip/flop in his nature or at least they can't wait for God to be less relational and loving so they can say to earth and anybody that hasn't yet 'believed' good by and I told you so. It is a real bone of contention in my neighborhood. Any thoughts?
P
:thumb::rotfl:
I, Philetus was at my wits ends with JB., Hymenaeus is my alter ego; not yet converted and sure not repentant about anything. I’ll make every effort to keep him:shut: :up:
The point I was making (which was lost due to my own cryptic style, no doubt) is that I feel you can be excessively harsh sometimes. In the case of JB and some others …. NOT! Not at all. But, I was hinting at and reminding you that in my own case it was your patience that paid off. I got it. Get it? (OK, maybe I was a bit, no a lot more willing than JB to dialogue.) But, we can all be scumbags at times. Anyway, its past. Lets move on. And before we get into some of the issues of judgmentalism based on our own knowledge of good and evil ..... lets stick with Open Theism on this thread. OK?
Unquestionably (presuming I understand the question) - YES! God can do what He wants and is not a slave to His words. He is righteous and just and will act in the wisest manner given the circumstances and if that means telling Israel to forget it, then that's precisely what He'll do. (Jeremiah 18; Jonah (the whole book), Romans 11, etc)
elected4ever
New member
God will act according to His will and purpose regardless of circumstance or the opinion of the created. No child of god can maintain an open view. If you wont things your way then stay away from Christianity.
elected4ever
New member
God is a God of His word and you have just told me that God is not God at all.
Open Theism affirms the same essentials of the faith as Calvinism or Arminianism. Whether the future is closed, open, or partially open does not affect our relationship with Christ. Discussing the exact nature of God's creation is not a denial of God or salvation in Christ.
elected4ever
New member
Then there had better be some modification to the open view as presented here. The view that is presented here is not Christian but a poorly disguised attempt to distort the truth. I would not even call this open theism.
Interesting that on the same day I get falsely accused of calling Calvinists unsaved pagans, you come right out and say that open theists are unsaved.
I don't see how any of you can tolerate this ding bat.
patman
Active member
Yup! You knew that. What's going on lately Philetus? There are some future events God knows, others he doesn't. But he is the creator, he can do whatever he wants with the future. He is loving enough to leave some of it up to us.
elected4ever
New member
I am sorry you took it that way. Being unsaved is one thing and being deceived is another. I have no doubt that you believe what you say.
God has no theology. To God it is not theory but we do form theology. and I think that you fail at times to see the implications of what you say. This is a common failing among men of which you and I are not excluded.
My chief complaint is the idea that God is not a God of His word. If we cannot trust God, then who can we trust? Jesus is the word of God made flesh and the implication is that we cannot trust Jesus. This i do not believe was your intent but it is the implication of your statement.
Philetus
New member
I know and agree with what you are saying.
Loving enough? There is issue that I'm grappling with right now.
First, let me say that I am 100% Open Theist. Pinnock , Boyd, Sanders, godrulz and clete are my heroes. :chuckle:
The future is not settled!
So, I am wrestling with the portrayal of God in the end times presented by the whole “Left Behind” crowd.
I’m willing to concede that there just in fact might be a literal 1000 year reign, give or take a few days. And even that the 999 years 11 months and 359 days,11 hours, 43 min, and 16 seconds, (not taking into account leap year, of course) will most likely be preceded by great tribulation (we can expect it). But, if God finds only 143,999, will he coerce one? Now, don’t go getting all bent out of shape on the numbers. The question is just HOW LITERAL?
I’m having a hard time reconciling the image of a commercial plane full of people, suddenly finding themselves without a pilot, crashing into the ground from 3,547 feet and 8 inches, as a scenario that depicts God as loving enough. (So much for going the second mile.) As a peace loving converted Muslims, now a Christian pastor recently said, “Most Christians are jihadist, you just expect the messiah to come back and wage war on your enemies for you, or at least the ones that Bush doesn’t get.” He said it partly in jest. But, does he have a point? He asked me to consider how a terrorist cell might view the movies, Left Behind, and that the series might be all they know about Christianity. Does a hyper literal interpretation of Revelation so color every thing ‘Christian’ that the images we present of the second coming drown out our message that God is ‘loving enough’?
I agree with godrulz that Open Theism is companionable with many existing views. But, I’m also convinced it is far more foundational than that. Open Theism address the nature and attributes of God as much as it does the function and destiny of creation. I’m not willing to just take the Open View and fold it into my already comfortable interpretations of scripture and let it tweak a few scriptures here and there. I want answers that I don’t yet have and I’m willing to give up any lesser view that portrays God as only loving enough. God is love. God is relational. Everything else is up for grabs.
So all I’m doing is inviting exploration. Maybe this isn’t the place for that. Maybe you can’t bare a knuckle head like me. Maybe you won’t or can’t go where I’m exploring. That’s fine. Can’t blame an idiot for trying.
“There is so much to be done – may the Spirit make us thirsty to see that it is done.” Clark H. Pinnock “Evangelical Theologians Facing the Future: Ancient and Future Paradigms,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 33, no.2 (fall 1998): 11.
- Status