ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[elected4ever]

The things that God determines (first and second coming of Christ, future judgments, etc.) will come to pass by His ability (Is. 46; 48). The mistake is to extrapolate this to mean that He determines everything. By his sovereign choice, he decided to not settle everything and give us genuine freedom so that love and relationships would be possible. Idi Amin killing 300,000 Ugandans was not God's predestined plan for a higher purpose. It was the evil of a man, energized by Satan, in a war against God and His creation. He was judged in the end. Just because God did not intervene immediately does not mean He intended or desired this. It grieved God and was contrary to His will.

Still don't get it do you pe brain. The Ugandans suffered the vanity of their own mind and not the will of God. The mind of man is opposed to God.

 

[Philetus]

Various comments:

1) Calvinists would definitely not like Open Theism

2) But not all Arminians like it either, I for one am fully in the Arminian camp. But where I differ with OT is the limits of God's knowledge. IMHO I believe He is not restricted by time and therefore knows how all things play out. God gives us the choices and we exercise our free-will, but the final outcome is still known by God. You have pointed out some very good scripture that indicates or leaves the impression that God changed His mind, I still believe that He knew what the outcomes were going to be but the actions still needed to be taken. But of course this is just an opinion, we will not find out in this lifetime unless we are fortunate enough to be around for the 2nd coming.

3) I noticed that you mentioned you believed in the "pre-trib" rapture. Typically that would put you in the camp of the "Dispensational Premillennialism". I am not an expert on Dispensationalism but is there any conflicts with Open Theism from the Dispensational camp?

Bodger

What ever gave you the impression that Calvinists would definitely not like Open Theism?

Admitting that the future doesn't yet exist isn't limiting the knowledge of God in the least. (There is no future now in existence to know.) Open Theists maintain that God is Omniscient. But, does God know the winning numbers of the lottery three years from today? Not without predetermining it. The OV recognizes that God limits His knowledge where the freedom granted creatures is concerned. That freedom isn't unlimited. God does in fact predetermine SOME things. The second coming is an example.

Very astute Bodger. I grew up Arminian. The Realized Kingdom (Present reality of God’s reign through Christ/The Spirit) is a center most component in my theology. One of the few things that hasn’t changed in my developing theology. I think you are correct that views like dispensationalism, premillennialism and this whole ‘rapture’ thing frustrates the Open View of the future to no end. (Pun intended.)

In our quest for truth and understanding we must never underestimate the influence of previously held and/or preconceived systems. It concerns me that Open Theists have a hard time with this, just like everybody else. I don’t have all the answers but I think it solves a lot of problems when we don’t try to force the issues of the future Kingdom into our present experience. We have the total assurance that God is able to accomplish His goal without videos of the not yet future.

Taken as apocalyptic the book of Revelation can be understood as explaining what is and the consequences of what is already. Promise and warning, not future telling.

Praying Thy Kingdom come and Thy will be done on earth as in Heaven are not mutually exclusive things or even necessarily exclusive places. God now dwells (Christ in you, the hope of Glory) among His people. The prayers for the coming of the Kingdom and God's will being done on earth express the dynamic interaction of God and humanity. The Kingdom has come! Christ’s reign is being resisted, but His victory is assured. One thing that remains to be seen (even by God) is who will and who will not willingly embrace His reign.

 

[godrulz]

Still don't get it do you pe brain. The Ugandans suffered the vanity of their own mind and not the will of God. The mind of man is opposed to God.

Pea brain, for the record. The point is that God is not omnicausal. The Ugandan suffering was related to a madman, not the will of God. It was contrary to the will of God. We agree that this evil was not the will of God. Some Calvinists would say that it is the will of God (blueprint vs warfare model of reality).

What is your point? We agree.

 

[godrulz]

Philetus: I am Open Theist and pre-trib/pre-mill. Various eschatological views would be compatible with Open Theism. Open Theism is not systematic in all doctrinal areas and is not primarily about eschatology.

Are you familiar with Ladd or Ridderbos and their kingdom 'now, but not yet' themes? There is a sense the rulership of Christ is now in our hearts as well as a future eschaton in a millennial kingdom.

 

[elected4ever]

Pea brain, for the record. The point is that God is not omnicausal. The Ugandan suffering was related to a madman, not the will of God. It was contrary to the will of God. We agree that this evil was not the will of God. Some Calvinists would say that it is the will of God (blueprint vs warfare model of reality).

What is your point? We agree.

Nothing like having your stuff repeted dack to you as true and then be call a Calvinist for saying it.:bang:

 

[godrulz]

Nothing like having your stuff repeted dack to you as true and then be call a Calvinist for saying it.:bang:

Misunderstanding. I was taking your side against hyper-Calvinism and putting in a footnote by way of explanation to contrast their extreme view with our view.

You have stated you are not a Calvinist, so I accept that (even though some of your statements remind me of their thinking). Arminians and Calvinists believe in God and the Bible. It is a descriptive term, not a pejorative (contempt) one necessarily.

 

[Philetus]

Pea brain, for the record. The point is that God is not omnicausal. The Ugandan suffering was related to a madman, not the will of God. It was contrary to the will of God. We agree that this evil was not the will of God. Some Calvinists would say that it is the will of God (blueprint vs warfare model of reality).

What is your point? We agree.

Pea!:jump:
The $64,000.00 question:
What is his point?
:rotfl:

 

[Philetus]

Philetus: I am Open Theist and pre-trib/pre-mill. Various eschatological views would be compatible with Open Theism. Open Theism is not systematic in all doctrinal areas and is not primarily about eschatology.

Are you familiar with Ladd or Ridderbos and their kingdom 'now, but not yet' themes? There is a sense the rulership of Christ is now in our hearts as well as a future eschaton in a millennial kingdom.

I know you are. I'm not. One of those things that keeps me out of your will.

Yes. The point I'm making is that the kingdom 'now' and the kingdom 'not yet' are not two separate kingdoms. The kingdom Christ Jesus inaugurated at his first coming (incarnation) is the same kingdom he will consummate at his second coming. Dispensationalism and even to a degree millennialism, have a strong tendency to over state the future aspects while minimizing the present reality of God’s rule in Christ. Something that I think Open Theism should address.

 

[godrulz]

It is both/and, not either/or. You do not have to compromise a rightful emphasis on His present rule in order to accept God's future plans for culminating history. Perhaps you blur the distinction between Israel and the Church and His respective purposes for each?

 

[Philetus]

It is both/and, not either/or. You do not have to compromise a rightful emphasis on His present rule in order to accept God's future plans for culminating history. Perhaps you blur the distinction between Israel and the Church and His respective purposes for each?

both/and, same/and. Israel hasn't anything to do with the hunt for future kingdom details.
I agree you don't have to compromise, but sometimes our futurizing much of the book of Revelation eclipses the applications to the present.

Perhaps you fail to place proper emphasis on Paul's teaching that those who were far off and those who were near have been made one.

 

[Philetus]

What purpose did Israel have other than to prepare a vessel for the Word to become flesh and to preserve the narrative of His doing so, and the preservation of the law to show us how desperately we need a savior, until the savior was provided/received?

The whole dispensation thing seems to suggest that God has two agendas; one for the Jews and one for everybody else.

The Temple has been destroyed and rebuilt/replaced and it only took three days. The way to the Father for both Jews and Gentiles is one and the same ... grace through Jesus Christ.

 

[godrulz]

both/and, same/and. Israel hasn't anything to do with the hunt for future kingdom details.
I agree you don't have to compromise, but sometimes our futurizing much of the book of Revelation eclipses the applications to the present.

Perhaps you fail to place proper emphasis on Paul's teaching that those who were far off and those who were near have been made one.

A normative, literal, grammatical, contextual approach to Revelation would be a futurist interpretation. It would require fanciful, subjective, allegorical approaches to think Rev. 6-22 is already fulfilled. The commentators or cults that use an allegorical approach come up with the oddest ideas about this part of Revelation. I do see Rev. 1-3 as historical, but 4 ff. is yet future immediately preceding the visible return of Christ.

Do you believe in a literal Second Coming of Christ? Is it future or has it happened (JWs invisible 1914, for e.g.).

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

What purpose did Israel have other than to prepare a vessel for the Word to become flesh and to preserve the narrative of His doing so, and the preservation of the law to show us how desperately we need a savior, until the savior was provided/received?

The whole dispensation thing seems to suggest that God has two agendas; one for the Jews and one for everybody else.

The Temple has been destroyed and rebuilt/replaced and it only took three days. The way to the Father for both Jews and Gentiles is one and the same ... grace through Jesus Christ.

Hey Philetus,

Today, there is only one agenda. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile.
In time past, this was not the case (Israel was not yet fallen). In time future, this won't be the case (Israel will rise again). In between, you have the mystery, the dispensation of Grace where there is no difference.

Luk 2:34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;

There are many many references that could be given to show the prophecies of
Israel's fall, their scattering, and finally their regathering and subsequent rise.

have a good day

 

[Philetus]

A normative, literal, grammatical, contextual approach to Revelation would be a futurist interpretation. It would require fanciful, subjective, allegorical approaches to think Rev. 6-22 is already fulfilled. The commentators or cults that use an allegorical approach come up with the oddest ideas about this part of Revelation. I do see Rev. 1-3 as historical, but 4 ff. is yet future immediately preceding the visible return of Christ.

Do you believe in a literal Second Coming of Christ? Is it future or has it happened (JWs invisible 1914, for e.g.).

So, did Rev. 6-22 have anything to say to John’s immediate audience? I think so. How about seeing 6-22 as being fulfilled over the past two thousand years? (same/and) As something that began in the days of conflict between the kingdom of God inaugurated at Christ’s first coming and all of the “BabylonS’ of this world that rise and fall right up to His return? As resistance and conflict that continues and will continue until the day Christ returns?

I'm more with you than against you, however.
I do believe in a literal Second Coming of Christ. It is still future and it will put an immediate end to all resistance. And I didn't say that none of Revelation is future. What I don't share in is the kind of detailing that goes to the extremes of trying to fit all the symbolism into a futuristic reading of headlines in today’s newspapers. What I’m suggesting is given all the ‘contingencies’ of an open future, it is fanciful to try and give future literal meanings to every detail of symbolism in apocalyptic literature.

Just thinking out loud: Maybe the sweep of all history from the first coming to the second is reflected in the seals and bowls (and elsewhere). I just think that Open Theism has much work to do in this area. The question remains open as to whether we will have the courage to rethink all our pet theories in light of this key element.

 

[Philetus]

Hey Philetus,

Today, there is only one agenda. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile.
In time past, this was not the case (Israel was not yet fallen). In time future, this won't be the case (Israel will rise again). In between, you have the mystery, the dispensation of Grace where there is no difference.

Luk 2:34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;

There are many many references that could be given to show the prophecies of
Israel's fall, their scattering, and finally their regathering and subsequent rise.

have a good day

And Israel's future rise affects me in the here and now how? In the shaping of foreign policy?

 

[VanhoozerRocks]

If I might interject briefly. What literary genre would you both view Revelation to be? It seems to me that this is a crucial question in light of your discussion. It of course falls under the greater umbrella of apocalyptic literature of the ancient world: but how would your further identify it beyond that. I will admit the debate between the historical and predictive camps (and simplistic identification with either side) seems a bit reductionistic to me.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

And Israel's future rise affects me in the here and now how? In the shaping of foreign policy?

Israel's future rise shouldn't affect our foreign policy at all today...
When it's time for them to rise again (Daniel's 70th week), God will cause it to happen. We shouldn't be viewing them as any different than anyone else today.

 

[VanhoozerRocks]

Israel's future rise shouldn't affect our foreign policy at all today...
When it's time for them to rise again (Daniel's 70th week), God will cause it to happen. We shouldn't be viewing them as any different than anyone else today.

My misgivings about the literal rising of Israel aside, I would entirely concur with you. Israel is a modern-day nation state. One's view of the eschaton should not allow one to whitewash the attrocities that a government commits.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

My misgivings about the literal rising of Israel aside, I would entirely concur with you. Israel is a modern-day nation state. One's view of the eschaton should not allow one to whitewash the attrocities that a government commits.

In my view, this is the current state of Israel:

Hos 1:9 Then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.

Their rise can be found in Hosea 1:10-11.

 

[Philetus]

If I might interject briefly. What literary genre would you both view Revelation to be? It seems to me that this is a crucial question in light of your discussion. It of course falls under the greater umbrella of apocalyptic literature of the ancient world: but how would your further identify it beyond that. I will admit the debate between the historical and predictive camps (and simplistic identification with either side) seems a bit reductionistic to me.

Excellent point.
Apocalyptic: literature of the oppressed … encrypted back-talk to the oppressing powers that need back-talk. The unique thing about the apocalyptic genre in the bible is that we are talking about the people of God and the powers that oppose God’s reign. That gives it a universal application rather than application to a particular time and place, either past or future.

It isn't applicable merely here and there (both/and), it is applicable in all situations where the reign of God is being challenged and His people are being oppressed (same/and).
So there is a sense in which Revelation addresses all God's people in any and all situations. (We really aren't supposed to be 'at home in the world'.) North Americans tend to loose sight of this given the relative ease in which we live with little or no persecution/oppression.

Revelation seems to have little of anything practical to say to a people who either shop for the Empire (consumerism) or kill for the Empire (militarism). Those people have to relegate its meaning entirely to either the past or the future, lest their own way of being and living in the world is challenged.

Contrast this with the Church in China where the literature of the oppressed helped shape its thinking and where phenomenal growth has taken place (in the absence of American Missionaries since the 1950s I might add), and the potential for such growth in India where opposition/persecution is the hallmark of following Christ.