Yep.
The scripture does not say this. But he will purge the earth of evil and it will be better. John in the Revelation says a new heaven and a new earth.
If I were to become Open Theist...
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Bladerunner
Active member
not sure what scripture you were referring to? I was referring to Isaiah 11:1-10. Out of these verses, one verse explains what I stated. "And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox." (Isa 11:7) Notice that the Lion will be a vegan (lol). In the beginning, all land animals were vegans. they will be again and thus Jesus will have change the earth back to her original state of being at peace with itself.
Revelation, after his return. After his rule for 1000 years with Saints. When the 12 apostles sit in judgment over the 12 tribes. The nations rise up again against him (Ezekiel 38 and Revelation 20). A large portion of the Hebrew prophecy was retold by The Lord Jesus Christ in the "New Testament". And again in Revelation.
Bladerunner
Active member
Agree....try this Nick......take a Bible and find Acts 2 (your case Acts 15 or so)then find the beginning of Rev 4. and place a finger there...The pages between your fingers represent all that is said about the Gentiles. The rest (at least 2/3 or more) is about Israel (The Jewish people, God's chosen people). Rev. is all about bring the Jews 'up against the wall'. Rem, Jesus tells us, He will not return UNTIL they cry out His name. They will not do that until 2/3 of them are dead. Only the (last) remnant seen in Rev 12 will survive to Daniel's 70th week and live as mortal during the Millennium.
Fail.
Bladerunner
Active member
I was trying to agree with Nick and show Him exactly how much they (Israel) are spoken of in the Bible. Yet, you and the others laugh and then in many cases give a one word negative judgements without explanation.WHY? It seems that unless I am on the side that is presented I am an outcast no matter what I present. Yet, I will not give up. May you have a Blessed day JudgeRightly!
Except for Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and all of Revelation. We are spoken about in Revelation, but it is about his rule from Jerusalem starting in chapter 19.
Lon
Well-known member
First Psalms, yes God loves all His creation. Didn't do biology?
Two points:
1) There was a tree, necessary for God to be in the Garden.
2) There was a prohibition to eat of it.
Yeah. It. Is. Haven't studied it enough? Most of Open Theism comes from the O.T.
The New Testament has Jesus as omniscient or incredibly convoluted scrambling by Open Theists.
Are you drawn to flowers? "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to me." Granted "we love because He first loved us" but we are created, drawn to that which is beautiful, right, loving. Did He 'earn' that from you? Did you make Him work for you for it? "What do you have that you have not received, and if you received it, why do you boast as if you did not?" 1 Corinthians 4:7
I don't. I see a sense of 'self' as an individual as relational. It matters not, else 'when we were yet sinners,' Christ wouldn't have died for us'
He didn't 'earn' it so to speak, but is due our response. If He 'earned' it, He did so in spades, but it isn't the better impetus of relationship and is more of a business transaction by the intimation. Was there legal work? Yes, but I don't want to relegate all of my relationship to a demanding contract. He died. I was saved.
To whom? (are you Mid Acts btw?)
LOL, He did MAKE someone who loved Him. Genesis is an important theology book!
You missed it: I don't. I don't make claims about what God 'can' and 'cannot' know, or what 'change' means "within infinite considerations, there is no constraint, no limit but that which is temporal. Temporal and atemporal are mutually exclusive. Do I understand it all? No. Appeal to 'mystery?' To a degree, specifically because my world isn't so small that I understand infinite and how it certainly must play out in my life and logic ability.
Like Peter denying Jesus three times before a rooster crows? In Open Theism, God had to 'make it all happen' (just not part of His regular interaction according to Open Theism). Conversely, it makes most sense when Peter says "Lord you know all things" that Peter was literally remembering and grieved the third time, specifically because Jesus really does know all things: You know that I love You!
Inevitably, Open Theism postulates force the issue: that God is bound by creation. It is literally part of every Open Paradigm: That God doesn't know, therefore is a slave to creation. He isn't present, therefore is contained inside the universe somewhere else, That He isn't omnipotent, therefore is contending with forces outside of His being. It literally has God as slave/servient to us 'for relationship' reasons.
That is exactly my contention: That He is involved with and not constrained by anything in all creation. He is sovereign over all of it.
It isn't 'performing' but Object of the performing. Do you love your wife just because she 'does something for you?' What about in old age when she is paraplegic for example? Love is a commitment, it is executed in actions, but those actions aren't the thing. The being behind the actions is the thing. What about my step-father with dementia? He didn't reciprocate, was he loved to the end? Yes he was. In my estimation, this rips apart the postulation that love must be two-way. 1 John 4:10 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
1 Corinthians 4:7
I require nothing. He requires of Himself, being the loving One, lest "I saved my own self and turned to Jesus."
You missed it: There is 'infinite' new things you and I can learn. Open Theism has God 'learning' as a fellow student rather than the Master and source of all things.
See, this is my problem with Open Theism: They think God must be 'like them.' They cannot conceive of a God who doesn't learn, nor are they able to see the difference between something 'new' to them, vs "nothing new under the sun" to God.
You 'intimate' that God is learning. Searching isn't 'learning new things.' It is rather interaction you are seeing in Psalm 139:1 - that 'we' have to see how God sees us. Do you agree with most theologians: "God knows you better than you know yourself"?
He was acquiescing but then immediately discussing why it was 'wrong.'
And conditions. God 'could' have said: "I would have driven out all nations before you, but your ancestors aren't going to do their part."
Teachable moments are not about just giving information, but giving it in a way that makes people learn.
Yes! I see it plainly! I've said this before: The vast difference between Open Theism and the rest of Christendom isn't that we don't see anthropomorphism in the Bible, but rather which passages we are willing to see as anthropomorphic. In Open Theism, "Adam where art thout?" is literal, not anthropomorphic, while Jesus telling Peter that he would deny three times, is seen as a good guess as well as "Lord you know all things" as the response, being anthropomorphic. The difference? Who and what we are willing to say "Didn't mean that literally."
"Adam where art thou?" and "Bad grapes? I didn't expect that!" do way less scriptural damage understood anthropomorphically than questioning Jesus and Peter, imho.
My first place is to go to the word 'repent.' It is an English word and while consistent with translation, isn't the only meaning by any necessity for translating. The word means 'to sigh.' That doesn't mean repent, nor changed His mind, at all. IOW, not only do Open Theists reverse what we see as anthropomorphic in scriptures, they also take English words and compound theology off of English approximations of clearer Hebrew and Greek words.
Now certainly I've heard professors in line with Ware, and even seen that God was going to set up a king that would rule the people who 'they' wanted as opposed to what God wanted. He told Samuel: "They aren't rejecting you (as prophet against having any king but God), as much as they are rejecting me. In that sense, I don't have a particular problem with what Dr. Bruce Ware is saying.
Not if you can look it up. If I tell you, for example: the word means 'to sigh" and not 'repent' you can easily look that up.
Right, but without giving them the tools. Rather, if one is better studied than you, you'd do well to listen. In my case, I'm not huge on end times prophecy. I do read it, much of it is still settling, however. I don't have any expertise in this particular.
Rather 'when' did He know is what I was getting at. I was looking not at Attah, but Naw.
See just above
In a sense, yep. You can get the main gist, but when you are scrutinizing the text, you'd be handicapped if you do not use a concordance. Afterall, this is exactly the problem between Open Theists and the rest of Theism, right?
See above: You were a little rash and missed the point. So you are correct, it does show one of us is paying better attention and will likely do better on the test, no?
Just ensure you understand that there are two words in Hebrew "Now" (naw) and "know" (attah). I was saying rather look at 'now' for understanding rather than "attah." My point: simply "I know" rather than "NOW I know! I didn't before, but "NOW" I do! Yes I do!" That is how Open Theists read it. It goes back to Ware's video: He said God certainly knew Abraham's heart from the very beginning of God choosing Him as well as telling Him from the very beginning that God was going to make Him into a great nation. It was all about Abraham's faith in what God said. That is the huge thrust of all things "Abraham."