Time is not a created thing, nor is it a limitation of God.
Properly understood, the Open view of God is as or more glorious than Tozer's great view of God.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Time is not a created thing, nor is it a limitation of God.
Properly understood, the Open view of God is as or more glorious than Tozer's great view of God.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Do you believe the 144,000 in Revelation is a literal number of literal Jews?
If so, how can God know that there will be 12,000 virgins from each tribe remaining when that time comes?
Are Paul people open or closed?
Numbers in the OT were often rounded to even numbers (approximations). This is a convention, not a lack of knowledge of actual numbers by God.
The 144,000 is literal, but it may be more or less a few in the end. God will deal with the Jews until that number is reached. Just as He called Jeremiah, Paul, and others (but not unconditionally; they could have rejected their calling), so He can call out a select group, anoint them, set them apart in a different way than the many more Jews that would likely come to Christ during this period. This does not mean there will not be larger numbers believing from the tribes, just that these ones are raised up for a specific ministry.
Like Is. 46 and 48, the prophecy explicitly bases its fulfillment on God's ABILITY, not supposed exhaustive foreknowledge.
This is a valid question, but one proof text with a possible explanation (as well, many do see it as a more figurative number, even those who hold your omniscience view) does not negate scores of other verses and philosophical/logical discussions that would argue against the compatibility of free will and EDF (i.e. future partially unsettled, so not known as a certainty). Prophecy is a common objection against the Open View, but we do have a detailed response, depending on the specific prophetic passage. I would not get hung up on this especially since you really can't explain a mechanism for how God could know the unsettled future as settled (big logical/biblical issues with this).
Paul people? Non-Catholics? Good Catholics follow Jesus' and Paul's teaching.
Open or closed? To what? A minority of evangelicals believe Open Theism (the future is partially open/unsettled). We are open to all views, but try to accept the ones that are biblical. We are closed to lies, false teaching, God-haters, etc.
Are Pope's people open or closed? (whatever you mean by that)
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
What if there's not even close to 144,000 virgins at that time?
Will God have to alter his plans?
themuzicman
Well-known member
My apologies. I don't get to come here much on the weekends, and my days are getting busier. Hopefully after mid-December, I'll be able to come back more, but the size of the responses has gotten to the point where I cannot sustain replying any longer.
I am (somewhat) familiar with PAP and Frankfurt's objection. I find the idea of arguing whether a brain lesion makes one morally culpable or not a little on the silly side, but somehow philosophers want to make something of it.
Muz
I am (somewhat) familiar with PAP and Frankfurt's objection. I find the idea of arguing whether a brain lesion makes one morally culpable or not a little on the silly side, but somehow philosophers want to make something of it.
Muz
Out of billions of people, I do not see this as being a problem, do you?
God is extremely creative and persistent in bringing about His purposes and fulfilling His Word. If it is figurative, there is no problem. I still lean to literal and think God's ability and statistics make it a reasonable expectation of fulfillment. Some OT's on TOL would suggest God could change His plans, but I think this prophetic word should not be compromised. It is still only a verse or two (abused by JWs), so our interpretation may be off making the fulfillment broader than we may allow for.
The same argument is used against us that how would God know anyone would get saved or serve Him? Probability and God's ability make it a foregone conclusion. God will persist and persuade until His purposes are brought about. Don't underestimate God's power, influence (causation is rare), knowledge, etc. Who can stop the Second Coming of Christ? What are the odds that no one would ever believe after Christ or in the Tribulation? God will intervene as much as and long as necessary to bring about all of His Word (some things are conditional and will not be fulfilled like we expect them to be).
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I don't think there are billions of Jews. Considering the wickedness on the earth at that time, finding 12,000 virgins from each tribe
might be difficult. But, I have no doubt that there will be 12,000 from each tribe.
So, in your free will view, how do you explain the supposedly low odds of this happening? If it can happen in your view with God/man factors, it can happen in my view.
Simple foreknowledge may satisfy you about the number, but we have the same problem as to how only this many are chosen.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Revelation is apocalyptic, and numbers often have a meaning other than their literal value. The number 144,000 is one such case. The fact that 144 is 12x12 is significant, and the fact that 12,000 are from each tribe is significant, as well.
That we can take much at all from Revelation (after chapter 3) apart from the genre (apocalyptic), and the images that John draws from just denies the very tone of the book as a whole.
It is quite possible that God will choose a literal 144,000, and knows how He will protect and produce those 144,000, but given the rest of Revelation, i have my doubts about a literal number.
Muz
That we can take much at all from Revelation (after chapter 3) apart from the genre (apocalyptic), and the images that John draws from just denies the very tone of the book as a whole.
It is quite possible that God will choose a literal 144,000, and knows how He will protect and produce those 144,000, but given the rest of Revelation, i have my doubts about a literal number.
Muz
oftenbuzzard
New member
themuzicman
Well-known member
oftenbuzzard
New member
themuzicman
Well-known member
oftenbuzzard
New member
You prefer "blow it off" ???
themuzicman
Well-known member
I haven't blown it off at all. I've just said that it's not literal, but has to be understood as John wrote it.
Muz
Lon
Well-known member
Duly noted sir, Carry on.
Look Lon, I have no interest in discussing anything with you at all, until such time as you repent of the blatantly intentional dishonest manner in which you deal with these issues. You are a complete waste of time.
That, however, does not preclude me from calling a spade and spade.
I don't give a rip what the context was nor how the line by line conversation went. Under no circumstances nor in any context whatsoever, are you in any way omniscient under the biblically accurate and logically sound Open View definition of that term, nor are you even capable of being so!
There are therefore two and only two options. You either spoke without understanding a thing about the Open View understanding of omniscience, which I very much doubt, or you lied!
Which is it?
Resting in Him,
Clete