Does Open Theism make us view eschatology differently?

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Isaiah's writing frequently jump from one prophecy to another. As in Isa 65:17-19, the time period is after the Millennium. after the White Throne Judgement. The old world of today is no more for a new earth has been created with no sea. Also, a new heavens have also been made.....rem,the 1st heaven -- we are living in...

In Verse 20, Isaiah is speaking of the millennium. A golden period as you have said, there is no doubt. yet, there will be death during this time unlike the time spoken of in v17-19. The death I speak of is only caused by sin itself...The Remnant of Israel have been given the promised "New Covenant" by the Lord. It is evident from Jeremiah 31-35, that while the remnant of Israel are mortal and can have children, none from their group shall see death. Therefore, the only death during the millennium will be of the gentiles. That is what I wanted you to get out of it.
Incomprehensible stupidity!

My first version of this post was decidedly blistering. It's rare to find something so stunningly idiotic that you have to check yourself to see if you actually read it correctly. What follows is an edited version of my original post that is quite a lot less hostile....

Isaiah's writing frequently jump from one prophecy to another. As in Isa 65:17-19, the time period is after the Millennium. after the White Throne Judgement. The old world of today is no more for a new earth has been created with no sea...

So the passage leaps into the eternal state in verse 17, then apparently snaps back into the Millennium in verse 20? On what basis? It’s one thing to say prophetic literature can contain telescoped visions, but here, we're not dealing with overlapping layers of prophecy so much as a self-serving game of prophetic hopscotch. The passage itself gives no indication of supporting this idea at all.


In Verse 20, Isaiah is speaking of the millennium... yet there will be death during this time unlike the time spoken of in v17-19...

Which only makes the previous claim more puzzling. The argument now is that Isaiah suddenly rewinds his prophetic lens, openly contradicts the tone of the previous verses, and introduces a new period with different ground rules. All without any textual marker, narrative shift, or prophetic reintroduction. It's just a hard pivot that we're expected to accept because Bladerunner makes the claim.


The death I speak of is only caused by sin itself...The Remnant of Israel have been given the promised "New Covenant"... none from their group shall see death... the only death during the millennium will be of the gentiles.

This part takes the cake. I mean WOW!!!

“The death I speak of is only caused by sin... therefore only Gentiles die.”

So only Gentiles sin? Is that really what Bladerunner believes? He talks of the bible in such lofty terms but ignores some of its most important passages in order to build an eschatology that ONLY HE believes!

I have a news flash for you Bladerunner! All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God - Jew and Gentile alike (Romans 3:23). If sin causes death, and people still die in the Millennium, then the death is the result of sin, not ethnicity. The attempt to draw this clean line where Israel gets an automatic exemption from death because of the New Covenant is pure fiction.

You've created a class of immortal Jews living among mortal, dying Gentiles, not because the text says so, but because...well, there is no "because"...it just seems to be made up out of whole clothe! Isaiah doesn’t say any of this. Jeremiah doesn’t say it. The New Covenant certainly doesn’t say it. But apparently, the best way to interpret a passage is to throw in entirely new theological categories on the fly and pretend it’s all self-evident because you showed up to tell us about it!

That is what I wanted you to get out of it.

Well, what I actually got out of it was a reminder of just how far someone can drift from the text when they start building doctrine from implications of implications of assumptions. There’s nothing wrong with noticing thematic shifts or layered prophecy, but if you have to rewrite the plain reading, add whole classes of people that the passage never introduces, and contradict your own timeframe within three sentences, maybe it’s time to let the text speak for itself.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
But apparently, the best way to interpret a passage is to throw in entirely new theological categories on the fly and pretend it’s all self-evident because you showed up to tell us about it!

This is something I've been working on for a long time. It's easy to just say something and expect other people to take what you say as truth. It's quite another thing entirely to actually support your claim with good argumentation and evidence.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
This is something I've been working on for a long time. It's easy to just say something and expect other people to take what you say as truth. It's quite another thing entirely to actually support your claim with good argumentation and evidence.
You and me both! How many years have we practically begged people to make an actual argument instead of just showing up to state personal opinions.

It truly is one of the very strongest aspects of Acts 9 Dispensational Open Theism. It seems like everyone who believes it is eager to make the arguments that support their doctrine. Everyone else is either openly irrational or seem to be embarrassed by the flimsy nature of the arguments that they can make. The rare exception are almost always instantly offended by anyone who isn't instantly convinced by their arguments and immediately start calling us names and telling everyone how horrible we are as people and why we should be silenced.
 

Nick M

Reconciled by the Cross
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Everyone else is either openly irrational or seem to be embarrassed by the flimsy nature of the arguments
The late Bob Enyart said on his TV show "Why don't Christians pray over a flat tire?". Because they don't want to admit they are wrong on everything else. This is the basis for rejecting what the Bible teaches. They just insist they are part of the upper room. And he wasn't even discussing theology, in fact he rarely did.
 
Last edited:

Bladerunner

Active member
Incomprehensible stupidity!

My first version of this post was decidedly blistering. It's rare to find something so stunningly idiotic that you have to check yourself to see if you actually read it correctly. What follows is an edited version of my original post that is quite a lot less hostile....



So the passage leaps into the eternal state in verse 17, then apparently snaps back into the Millennium in verse 20? On what basis? It’s one thing to say prophetic literature can contain telescoped visions, but here, we're not dealing with overlapping layers of prophecy so much as a self-serving game of prophetic hopscotch. The passage itself gives no indication of supporting this idea at all.




Which only makes the previous claim more puzzling. The argument now is that Isaiah suddenly rewinds his prophetic lens, openly contradicts the tone of the previous verses, and introduces a new period with different ground rules. All without any textual marker, narrative shift, or prophetic reintroduction. It's just a hard pivot that we're expected to accept because Bladerunner makes the claim.




This part takes the cake. I mean WOW!!!

“The death I speak of is only caused by sin... therefore only Gentiles die.”

So only Gentiles sin? Is that really what Bladerunner believes? He talks of the bible in such lofty terms but ignores some of its most important passages in order to build an eschatology that ONLY HE believes!

I have a news flash for you Bladerunner! All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God - Jew and Gentile alike (Romans 3:23). If sin causes death, and people still die in the Millennium, then the death is the result of sin, not ethnicity. The attempt to draw this clean line where Israel gets an automatic exemption from death because of the New Covenant is pure fiction.

You've created a class of immortal Jews living among mortal, dying Gentiles, not because the text says so, but because...well, there is no "because"...it just seems to be made up out of whole clothe! Isaiah doesn’t say any of this. Jeremiah doesn’t say it. The New Covenant certainly doesn’t say it. But apparently, the best way to interpret a passage is to throw in entirely new theological categories on the fly and pretend it’s all self-evident because you showed up to tell us about it!



Well, what I actually got out of it was a reminder of just how far someone can drift from the text when they start building doctrine from implications of implications of assumptions. There’s nothing wrong with noticing thematic shifts or layered prophecy, but if you have to rewrite the plain reading, add whole classes of people that the passage never introduces, and contradict your own timeframe within three sentences, maybe it’s time to let the text speak for itself.
Well, now are you not glad you got that out of your system?
 

Derf

Well-known member
The rare exception are almost always instantly offended by anyone who isn't instantly convinced by their arguments and immediately start calling us names and telling everyone how horrible we are as people and why we should be silenced.
This is exactly what MADists do, though not as a rare exception, as a rule, as far as I've seen.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
This is exactly what MADists do, though not as a rare exception, as a rule, as far as I've seen.
Someone always makes this claim! In most cases, it's just pure projection. At best, you need to get your eyes checked!

Not that we don't get emotional! Of course we do, but there's a big difference between being frustrated because someone is being evasive, unresponsive, or outright stupid, vs. using emotion as your argument. What most Christians do (Calvinists in particular) is the adult version of a toddler's temper tantrum. They crank up the emotional intensity to a level they don’t think their opponent is willing to endure, and when that opponent finally walks away or disengages, victory is declared. It’s not debate, it’s manipulation. It’s a performance and really, it’s just a lie. The saddest part is that they're lying to themselves as much as to their audience.

But if I get angry, OH! Katie bar the door!!! If I show even the slightest irritation after someone has repeatedly ignored, dodged, or twisted what I’ve actually said, then suddenly I’m a judgmental jerk with “anger issues.” If it weren't so diabolical, it would be laughable! The truth is, people like me get called out not because we’re wrong, but because we’re not playing by the unspoken rules that protect bad ideas from scrutiny.

If, on the other hand, I don't let their emotionalism achieve the goal of causing me to go away, and instead I just keep point out that "Saying it doesn't make it so." (or the equivalent), I get banned from the forum! I get banned! - not the emotional basket case that's been calling me names for weeks, not the fool who makes God out to be an arbitrary tyrant, oh no! I, the one who quotes passage after passage of the bible and tells people to simply read it and take it to mean what it seems to say - the one who make rational arguments based on the simplest of dictionary definitions of super common words like "justice" and "love" and "kindness" and "alive", etc - I'm the "jerk" who can't be tolerated and must be made to go away.

We are guilty of two things....

1. We aren't toeing the correct doctrinal line.
2. We present arguments that sound reasonable (because they are) and that they cannot refute.

And that, they can’t tolerate. That makes us dangerous.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
This is exactly what MADists do, though not as a rare exception, as a rule, as far as I've seen.
There’s another point worth making here…

Far too many Christians today are weak. They're thin-skinned, emotionally fragile, and completely incapable of handling strong opinions, especially when those opinions expose bad thinking or call out nonsense. Tell the average Christian that they’ve said something stupid, and they totally fall to pieces. Speak plainly and with conviction, and, if it isn't a point they already agree with, it will almost certainly be interpreted as “anger.” Not because it is, but because they’re so unfamiliar with anyone who actually talks straight and means what they say.

I can’t even count how many times I’ve been accused of being angry when there wasn’t a cintilla of anger in anything I wrote. Just clarity. Just boldness. Just truth. And that’s all it takes to get labeled “hostile” these days. If you aren't "nice" and don't treat everyone with kit gloves, well then you're just a mean old jerk that needs to be silenced.

P.S. If you read either of these last two posts and think I'm angry, you're one of the thin-skinned ones that I'm talking about!
 
Last edited:

Derf

Well-known member
There’s another point worth making here…

Far too many Christians today are weak. They're thin-skinned, emotionally fragile, and completely incapable of handling strong opinions, especially when those opinions expose bad thinking or call out nonsense. Tell the average Christian that they’ve said something stupid, and they totally fall to pieces. Speak plainly and with conviction, and, if it isn't a point they already agree with, it will almost certainly be interpreted as “anger.” Not because it is, but because they’re so unfamiliar with anyone who actually talks straight and means what they say.

I can’t even count how many times I’ve been accused of being angry when there wasn’t a cintilla of anger in anything I wrote. Just clarity. Just boldness. Just truth. And that’s all it takes to get labeled “hostile” these days. If you aren't "nice" and don't treat everyone with kit gloves, well then you're just a mean old jerk that needs to be silenced.
"Jerk" is different than "anger".
P.S. If you read either of these last two posts and think I'm angry, you're one of the thin-skinned ones that I'm talking about!
No, I don't think you're angry here. But I've seen you get angry, and do exactly what you've complained about. Or, maybe you're not angry and you do exactly what you've complained about. (Which makes the anger talk a red herring, by the way.) My contention is more about hypocrisy than meanness or anger or "boldness" or clarity. When you control your output and focus, as you want others to do, then your posts come across as intelligent and poignant. When you don't, they come across as everything you complained about in others', complete with lack of logical support.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
"Jerk" is different than "anger".
Not in this context it isn't.

No, I don't think you're angry here.
Yes, you do.

But I've seen you get angry,
True.

and do exactly what you've complained about.
False to the point of lying, Derf!

Or, maybe you're not angry and you do exactly what you've complained about.
Show me one single example.

Go ahead. Just one!

(Which makes the anger talk a red herring, by the way.)
That sentence makes no sense.

My contention is more about hypocrisy than meanness or anger or "boldness" or clarity.
Then you agree with me!

When you control your output and focus, as you want others to do, then your posts come across as intelligent and poignant.
As is always what I begin with - always. It is not merely a habit of mine, it seams innate - nigh unto uncontrollable! I don't know how to do what it is that I'm talking about except in reaction to it. If I have the slightest indication at all that someone is even trying to be substantive, I have the patience of Moses - willing to repeat myself 7000 times if need be.

And yes! I absolutely can show you examples of exactly that!

When you don't, they come across as everything you complained about in others', complete with lack of logical support.
I am not talking about perceptions. I am not here to win popularity contexts and couldn't care less about other people's mindless opinions and perceptions. I am talking about the willful, intentional, blatant, not to mention hypocritical abandonment of honest two way discourse about important and often complex issues that aught to be intellectually stimulating, interesting and informative for EVERYONE involved, regardless of which side of an issue one is on. Such dishonesty is something you have NEVER witnessed me doing nor will you.
 
Top