Theology Club: Open View and Preterism

[Desert Reign]

I think you worded that better than I would have.

What is that "great question on our own attitudes towards Jews"?

Thank you.
Our attitude towards Jews is because over the centuries we Christians have done anything but whet their appetite for Jesus. We have treated them like dirt, persecuted, oppressed, segregated and killed them. This is exactly NOT how all Israel will be saved.

 

[Clete]

I agree with your analysis of preterism. However, even though the system of preterism may be defective, this does not mean that everything taught by preterists is of necessity wrong. Given the somewhat enigmatic words of Jesus as recorded, if someone thought that Jesus was speaking to his own generation, warning them to flee when the Romans came and predicting the downfall of Jerusalem, regardless of any considerations of any so-called preterist system of thought, at the most basic historical level, some people listening to Jesus would have been alive at the sacking of the temple: ergo Jesus was right. I don't see how such a view can be criticised. You can disagree with it but surely it is a valid view.

I disagree with it because I think it is an invalid view. Jesus was either talking about the sacking of Israel by Rome or He wasn't. God doesn't get prophesy right by accident and there is just nothing at all to suggest that He was talking about Israel being overthrown by Rome. Preterism is a liberal, fringe view born out of a desire to end the debate over the rapture and other dispensational eschatological positions. It's logical basis is wrong and therefore any conclusions it happens to get right is like a broken clock being right twice a day, its purely accidental. The position should be avoided on the basis of its embarrassing use of Scripture alone. If their hermeneutic is the theological equivalent of the wild west.

Also.
'And so all Israel shall be saved'.
Does not say 'And then all Israel shall be saved'.
Paul is not teaching eschatalogy here. Not at all.
He says 'In this manner, all Israel shall be saved'. He is teaching generalities, not future history.

I agree that it is a generality in that he does not intend to suggest that every man woman and child in Israel will be saved. The word "all" almost never means "every single one without exception".

What does he mean by 'In this manner'? It is simply this: "But if those pruned branches don’t persist in their unbelief, they too will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them back again."
In other words, God has hardened their hearts temporarily to give the gentiles time to flourish in the faith, the purpose of which is to arouse the Jews to jealousy and hence motivate them to believe. This is how all Israel will be saved. It does not mean that all Israel will be suddenly saved at one moment. This would contradict all that Paul has been saying about faith in the entire letter. It means that any Jew who does get saved, will get saved by this method, that he sees how good and pleasant faith in Jesus is because of the witness of faithful gentiles. This eliminates any dispensational interpretation of salvation. It also eliminates any replacement theology interpretation. And inasmuch as it is an ongoing principle, it would probably refute any preterist principle that Israel as a people was abolished in 70 ad.
But what I think it does do is put a great question on our own attitudes towards Jews.

I think it means what it says. I don't care whether its consistent with dispensationalism or not, that's not the way I study the bible. It so happens that the plain reading of this text is completely in keeping with dispensationalism but you'd expect that the plain reading of the text would be consistent with an accurate theological system. In other words, I don't need any special interpretation of the passage, I just simply read it and take it for what it seems to say. Doing this consistently with the entire bible yields Dispensationalism & Open Theism and nothing else (least of all Preterism).

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[themuzicman]

So I think you're saying that because the scriptures is talking about Jews, it isn't a description of How God deals with all people, therefore it does not support Calvinism as claimed by Calvinists, right? I'm ok with that, if that's what you're getting at.

That's one of the tough parts of the gospels. The specific interactions are Jesus and the Jews (generally), and sometimes Jesus and the disciples (specifically, like John 15-17). So, we need to look at all of this in that light before considering whether it has application beyond the Jews.

I think I'm ok with all that, too, although if anyone is blinded to the messiah as individuals, such that they cannot accept Christ by God's choice, and only a select few are drawn out of their blindness to Christ, again by God's choice, I don't see much difference from Calvinism, whether or not it has to do with Gentiles. If God does that to any people, so that they are chosen centuries before to be blinded and not accept Christ, it doesn't seem to allow for Open Theism, at least for that people group.

Not necessarily. God can blind an entire group of people, and reveal to those He chooses as He chooses, rather than from eternity. There isn't any need for an eternal election, here.

I read it. I know Christ cited it. I question whether its a prophecy of the time of Christ, or a statement of the character of the nation that still applied in the time of Christ. In Isaiah's time, it appeared to be an indication that God had decided to bring judgment on the Jews (Babylon's invasion), and there wasn't much that could be done to stop it. That judgment was for the sins of the people up to that time. If those sins apply to the time of Christ, then it seems like God punished them twice for the same offense. If there are new sins that God is judging at the time of Christ, it seems like either the Is 6 prophecy is a contingent one, or that God knew they would sin, which is antithetical to open theism, right?

No. It isn't hard to predict that a group of people will continue to act in the way they've acted in the past. Even us humans can do that, albeit imperfectly. There isn't any need for any knowledge of any specific future free will choice for this to be true.

I think this gets into the meat of the matter. If the prophecies of Daniel are planned judgment for planned and future sins (planned by God, since the perpetrators aren't born yet), then it doesn't support Open Theism, unless it's contingent. But Daniel's prophecies are the least likely to be contingent prophecies of any in the bible, imo.

Again, why? God wouldn't have any trouble bringing about circumstances that cause a cultural change without affecting anyone's free will.

You sound Calvinistic again. Of course he can handle it. But what is He handling? If He's planning sins for the Jews to commit rather than looking down the corridor of time to see them (Calvinism), we would say He's the author of sin.

Again, why does there need to be any planning of individual sins? Our nature combined with law pushes us to sin. Our culture defines the ways in which we are likely to sin. Put people of a culture in groups, and they become predictable as a group without having to know who will choose what.

If He's looking down the corridor of time to see that the Jews sin and need judgment (Arminianism), we'd say the future is closed. Open Theism isn't supported in either case. Is that what you are saying?

Again, there isn't any need for God to be looking down the corridor of time.

But all of that is about prophecy and fulfillment that have already taken place, which is a tenet of preterism. So I guess you are agreeing with me on the preterism part, but not necessarily on the open theism part.

Yes, you're making assumptions about what God must know for groups of people to act in a certain way in the future, and that isn't necessary.

 

[Derf]

I disagree with it because I think it is an invalid view. Jesus was either talking about the sacking of Israel by Rome or He wasn't. God doesn't get prophesy right by accident and there is just nothing at all to suggest that He was talking about Israel being overthrown by Rome. Preterism is a liberal, fringe view born out of a desire to end the debate over the rapture and other dispensational eschatological positions. It's logical basis is wrong and therefore any conclusions it happens to get right is like a broken clock being right twice a day, its purely accidental. The position should be avoided on the basis of its embarrassing use of Scripture alone. If their hermeneutic is the theological equivalent of the wild west.


I agree that it is a generality in that he does not intend to suggest that every man woman and child in Israel will be saved. The word "all" almost never means "every single one without exception".


I think it means what it says. I don't care whether its consistent with dispensationalism or not, that's not the way I study the bible. It so happens that the plain reading of this text is completely in keeping with dispensationalism but you'd expect that the plain reading of the text would be consistent with an accurate theological system. In other words, I don't need any special interpretation of the passage, I just simply read it and take it for what it seems to say. Doing this consistently with the entire bible yields Dispensationalism & Open Theism and nothing else (least of all Preterism).

Resting in Him,
Clete

Maybe it's an invalid view (to you) because you disagree with it, rather than the other way around. And that should concern you, I would think--at least enough to be willing to check it out fully.

I'm not sure that Dispensationalism and Preterism are any more in conflict than Open Theism and Dispensationalism. What I mean by that is that the systems don't necessarily lock in the eschatologies. Your statement, "I just simply read it and take it for what it seems to say", is exactly what preterists say--in some cases--just like it is exactly what Dispensationalists say--in some cases.

For instance, when Preterists read

[Mat 24:32 KJV] Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh:
[Mat 24:33 KJV] So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors.
[Mat 24:34 KJV] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.​

they say, "if it says 'this generation', then it must mean exactly what it says and those things must have happened in the generation Jesus was talking to."

When Pre-tribs read those same verses, they say "the fig tree means when Israel is revived, so 'this generation' must mean 'a different generation from this'", and they go to great lengths to try to figure out which generation it will apply to. Which seems to do the same kind of violence to the text that the preterists do claiming that the sun has already been darkened and the moon already did not give her light. (In fact, the sun was darkened within the generation Jesus spoke to--at His crucifixion. But I don't think that's the event Jesus is talking about.)

I'm not claiming to know which is right, but that there is some merit to the idea that at least some of those things happened within the generation that was alive in Jesus' day--and that part at least is read by preterists as "meaning what it says", which you claim to promote.

 

[Clete]

Maybe it's an invalid view (to you) because you disagree with it, rather than the other way around. And that should concern you, I would think--at least enough to be willing to check it out fully.

I've never made any such argument! I've made biblical arguments and rationally sound arguments. You suggesting that I reject it because I disagree with it doesn't constitute even an attempt to refute any one of those arguments. You must remember that the thread and everything I've written in it is all still there for anyone to read.

I'm not sure that Dispensationalism and Preterism are any more in conflict than Open Theism and Dispensationalism. What I mean by that is that the systems don't necessarily lock in the eschatologies.

This makes me wonder whether you even know what Preterism is. Preterism is eschatology! Don't believe me? Look it up! Here, I'll do it for you...

The first hit you get off Google when you enter "Preterism" says this...
"PRETERISM, PRETERIST THEOLOGY AND THE PRETERIST VIEW OF ESCHATOLOGY IS THE CHRISTIAN BELIEF THAT ALL END TIME PROPHECIES HAVE BEEN FULFILLED."

The second says this...
"Preterism as a Christian eschatological view interprets some (Partial Preterism) or all (Full Preterism) prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened."

The third says this...
"Preterism is a view in Christian eschatology which holds that some or all of the biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days refer to events which took place in the first century after Christ's birth, especially associated with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, meaning past, since this view deems certain biblical prophecies as past, or already fulfilled."

Your statement, "I just simply read it and take it for what it seems to say", is exactly what preterists say--in some cases--just like it is exactly what Dispensationalists say--in some cases.

The difference is that dispensationalists actually do it rather than just say it (some more consistently than others, of course). I've demonstrated clearly that Preterists do not simply read the bible and take it for what it seems to say. They allegorize, spiritualize and symbolize any passage they have to. Which, of course, is not to say that there aren't allegories and otherwise symbolic passages in the bible. There's lots of them. But the point is that the Preterist has no system, no rules for determining what should be taken as shadow and what should be taken as substance. No rules at all, save one - if the passage suggests that Preterism might be false, it's shadow or symbol. If their use of scripture were valid, no theological claim could ever be falsified.

For instance, when Preterists read

[Mat 24:32 KJV] Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh:
[Mat 24:33 KJV] So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors.
[Mat 24:34 KJV] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.​

they say, "if it says 'this generation', then it must mean exactly what it says and those things must have happened in the generation Jesus was talking to."

When Pre-tribs read those same verses, they say "the fig tree means when Israel is revived, so 'this generation' must mean 'a different generation from this'", and they go to great lengths to try to figure out which generation it will apply to. Which seems to do the same kind of violence to the text that the preterists do claiming that the sun has already been darkened and the moon already did not give her light. (In fact, the sun was darkened within the generation Jesus spoke to--at His crucifixion. But I don't think that's the event Jesus is talking about.)

I agree that some Pre-Tribulationist read this passage in this way. This Pre-Tribulationist does not. I'm not at all kidding when I tell you that a passage should be taken for what it seems to say whenever possible. God the Father intended to give Israel their Kingdom during that generation but prophesy is not prewritten history. Israel rejected their King and so God, in keeping with the warning given to Israel in Jeremiah 18, repented of the good which He intended to perform for Israel. He found the clay to be marred in His hand and so He, intending at first to make a vessel of honor, repented and made instead of vessel of dishonor. (See Jeremiah 18 and Romans 9-11)

I'm not claiming to know which is right, but that there is some merit to the idea that at least some of those things happened within the generation that was alive in Jesus' day--and that part at least is read by preterists as "meaning what it says", which you claim to promote.

Well, sure! No one is suggesting that they never take any passage to mean what it says. The point is that they cherry pick which passages they want to take as literal and spiritualize anything they need to in order to keep their a-priori "prophesy has already been fulfilled" assumption intact.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[patrick jane]

I've never made any such argument! I've made biblical arguments and rationally sound arguments. You suggesting that I reject it because I disagree with it doesn't constitute even an attempt to refute any one of those arguments. You must remember that the thread and everything I've written in it is all still there for anyone to read.


This makes me wonder whether you even know what Preterism is. Preterism is eschatology! Don't believe me? Look it up! Here, I'll do it for you...

The first hit you get off Google when you enter "Preterism" says this...
"PRETERISM, PRETERIST THEOLOGY AND THE PRETERIST VIEW OF ESCHATOLOGY IS THE CHRISTIAN BELIEF THAT ALL END TIME PROPHECIES HAVE BEEN FULFILLED."

The second says this...
"Preterism as a Christian eschatological view interprets some (Partial Preterism) or all (Full Preterism) prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened."

The third says this...
"Preterism is a view in Christian eschatology which holds that some or all of the biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days refer to events which took place in the first century after Christ's birth, especially associated with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, meaning past, since this view deems certain biblical prophecies as past, or already fulfilled."



The difference is that dispensationalists actually do it rather than just say it (some more consistently than others, of course). I've demonstrated clearly that Preterists do not simply read the bible and take it for what it seems to say. They allegorize, spiritualize and symbolize any passage they have to. Which, of course, is not to say that there aren't allegories and otherwise symbolic passages in the bible. There's lots of them. But the point is that the Preterist has no system, no rules for determining what should be taken as shadow and what should be taken as substance. No rules at all, save one - if the passage suggests that Preterism might be false, it's shadow or symbol. If their use of scripture were valid, no theological claim could ever be falsified.


I agree that some Pre-Tribulationist read this passage in this way. This Pre-Tribulationist does not. I'm not at all kidding when I tell you that a passage should be taken for what it seems to say whenever possible. God the Father intended to give Israel their Kingdom during that generation but prophesy is not prewritten history. Israel rejected their King and so God, in keeping with the warning given to Israel in Jeremiah 18, repented of the good which He intended to perform for Israel. He found the clay to be marred in His hand and so He, intending at first to make a vessel of honor, repented and made instead of vessel of dishonor. (See Jeremiah 18 and Romans 9-11)


Well, sure! No one is suggesting that they never take any passage to mean what it says. The point is that they cherry pick which passages they want to take as literal and spiritualize anything they need to in order to keep their a-priori "prophesy has already been fulfilled" assumption intact.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Thanks Clete, that is the best refutation of preterism I've seen since being here. Tet needs to read your posts !!

 

[Derf]

That's one of the tough parts of the gospels. The specific interactions are Jesus and the Jews (generally), and sometimes Jesus and the disciples (specifically, like John 15-17). So, we need to look at all of this in that light before considering whether it has application beyond the Jews.

I agree. I think that's one of the things preterism maintains as well--that often the application is of limited scope rather than worldwide. I'm not sure I can agree with that in every case, but it makes sense in terms of the destruction of Jerusalem for the express judgment on the Jews for rejecting their messiah. And then one has to deal with the accompanying signs.

Not necessarily. God can blind an entire group of people, and reveal to those He chooses as He chooses, rather than from eternity. There isn't any need for an eternal election, here.

No, but if God is trying to get His people to repent (which seems obvious from both John's and Jesus's messages to them), the timescale doesn't really matter as to when the blinding was decided. If it were decided centuries before that the Jews wouldn't repent, and there's no way that's going to be set aside to allow them to repent, even though God's Son is telling them to repent, you've got Calvinism--watered down, perhaps, but Calvinism nonetheless. Maybe if one can be a partial preterist, you can be a partial Calvinist

No. It isn't hard to predict that a group of people will continue to act in the way they've acted in the past. Even us humans can do that, albeit imperfectly. There isn't any need for any knowledge of any specific future free will choice for this to be true.

I don't have a problem with the prediction, nor with the accuracy thereof, but, as I stated above, the accuracy of such in the face of a message that says to repent. Open Theism seems to allow God to be open to the repentance, but you're saying He's not--at least as a group. Why are these people more locked in to their blindness than the Ninevites in Jonah's day?

Again, why? God wouldn't have any trouble bringing about circumstances that cause a cultural change without affecting anyone's free will.

Because if God really wants people to repent, then He purposely brings about a cultural change whereby they don't/can't repent, God is two-faced. I think this is the opposite of what you said in the above paragraph about a group of people continuing to act as they did before.

Again, why does there need to be any planning of individual sins? Our nature combined with law pushes us to sin. Our culture defines the ways in which we are likely to sin. Put people of a culture in groups, and they become predictable as a group without having to know who will choose what.

All that may be so, but if God wants His people to repent, but then wants them to continue in their sin, He's two-faced. If He sees that they are currently on a path to destruction and He really loves them, won't He provide for an escape rather than purposely blinding them to the escape path?

Again, there isn't any need for God to be looking down the corridor of time.

I agree, but I question whether you do. My statement was pointing out that a blinding of people reasonably far in the future, in the face of messages to repent, requires either Calvinism or Arminianism, or a capricious God. I guess my point here is moot if you've picked the Calvinist route up above.

Yes, you're making assumptions about what God must know for groups of people to act in a certain way in the future, and that isn't necessary.

Yes, I am. Especially if/because He's trying to get them to act differently, or calling them to repent.

 

[themuzicman]

No, but if God is trying to get His people to repent (which seems obvious from both John's and Jesus's messages to them), the timescale doesn't really matter as to when the blinding was decided. If it were decided centuries before that the Jews wouldn't repent, and there's no way that's going to be set aside to allow them to repent, even though God's Son is telling them to repent, you've got Calvinism--watered down, perhaps, but Calvinism nonetheless. Maybe if one can be a partial preterist, you can be a partial Calvinist

There's no such thing as a "partial Calvinist." If you don't accept the whole thing, it just falls apart.

And saying that God in time decided to blind the Jews from their Messiah violates Calvinism directly, as in Calvinism, all things are decreed before creation.

I don't have a problem with the prediction, nor with the accuracy thereof, but, as I stated above, the accuracy of such in the face of a message that says to repent. Open Theism seems to allow God to be open to the repentance, but you're saying He's not--at least as a group. Why are these people more locked in to their blindness than the Ninevites in Jonah's day?

That's what God wanted. It wasn't just that the Jews happened to be blind, but rather that they were intentionally blinded so that the Messiah would be fulfill propitiating sins.

See Jeremiah 18. God may do as He wishes with Israel.

Because if God really wants people to repent, then He purposely brings about a cultural change whereby they don't/can't repent, God is two-faced. I think this is the opposite of what you said in the above paragraph about a group of people continuing to act as they did before.

You're using "people" generically. There is a specific group of people whom God had been in covenant with for thousands of years who repeatedly violated covenant, killed prophets, and generally thumbed their noses at God.

Their blindness, then, is a judgment against them.

All that may be so, but if God wants His people to repent, but then wants them to continue in their sin, He's two-faced. If He sees that they are currently on a path to destruction and He really loves them, won't He provide for an escape rather than purposely blinding them to the escape path?

Keep in mind that some of the Jews repented.

I agree, but I question whether you do. My statement was pointing out that a blinding of people reasonably far in the future, in the face of messages to repent, requires either Calvinism or Arminianism, or a capricious God. I guess my point here is moot if you've picked the Calvinist route up above.

I think you're being a bit hasty in this "two-faced" thing. Are you saying that God can't bring about judgment on those who break covenent however He wishes?

Yes, I am. Especially if/because He's trying to get them to act differently, or calling them to repent.

There are some who repented, and they were reached. Some were blinded and they were not.

See Romans 9:21.

 

[Danoh]

Forgive my denseness, but I don't see how Jn 12:40, at least, says any such thing. In it God is the one that blinds eyes and hardens hearts, and while it may not require exhaustive foreknowledge to do that, it is the same language used by Calvinists to say that we need God to change our minds before we can believe, and if He's doing the changing anyway (before we believe), and if He knows what He's planning to do (a tenet of both Calvinism and Open Theism), and if He always is able to accomplish what He decides to do (also a tenet of both), then how can you say it is NOT Calvinism, at least based on Jn 12:40?

I'll admit to some serious misgivings about whether I can understand exactly what Rom 9 is saying, but Clete's description above seems reasonable, if incomplete. But if Clete is correct, then Rom 9 doesn't really address exhaustive, definite foreknowledge at all--it just allows for God to do one thing or another depending on what a nation does.

Those two ideas, that God causes the blindness and hardheartedness on the one hand and deals with nations according to their autonomous actions on the other, are antithetical to each other on the surface in terms of what "exhaustive, definite foreknowledge" means ("God knows the future because He does the action" or "God knows the future because He sees the action"). Only the former is Calvinistic. The latter is Arminian. The solution to the obviously false dichotomy is likely Open Theism, from what I understand of it--that God deals with people/nations according to what they do, but He still is able to fulfill any plans He decides don't depend on anyone else's actions.

And I believe that God CAN and DOES harden people's hearts, though He uses means to do so which cause the effect through the people's own wills. Pharaoh's case in point, God hardened Pharaoh's heart and he hardened his own heart, and I think I can see in a little way how God did that. For one thing, He gave Moses miracles (sounds better than magic tricks, but possibly the same effect) that were easy to replicate for Pharaoh's magicians. Until the lice. And by then, Pharaoh was accustomed to hardening his heart because of the magician's duplicative tricks, and this was just one small step beyond that (Ex 8:19).

But I'm getting a little off topic. To bring it back home:

I think God does harden people's hearts, but I question whether He plans long centuries before-hand which ones He's going to harden. Thus a preterist view shrinks the timescale of the intentions to harden or bring other judgment to either the generation God is dealing with ([Mat 24:34 KJV] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.), or at most 3 or 4 generations, at least in the large majority of cases.

[Num 14:18 KJV] The LORD [is] longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing [the guilty], visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation]. [Exo 20:5 KJV] Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;

And God does turn the hearts of kings like rivers ([Pro 21:1 KJV] The king's heart [is] in the hand of the LORD, [as] the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.), but there are some interesting things to note about that. 1. that rivers don't (usually) turn on a dime, and 2. the effect is most often felt just downstream a little. If you've ever tried to block a small stream, you can see that it is possible to do so, but the effort is not trivial--you put up dams and dig channels to make it go where you want, and the faster the change, the more effort (and materials) required. To make the turn occur at the proper point, you have to start the dams and channels upstream a bit, but only a bit. And eventually the stream rejoins its previous course. (Think of turning the Mississippi river and trying to make it dump into the Pacific Ocean).

In terms of time, if God wanted to do something to somebody that had not yet been born, nor had his parents or grand or great-grand parents (etc.) been born, and thus nobody had done anything to deserve that thing (good or bad), prophecies concerning that somebody would mostly be unappreciated by the people that received them.

One problem I find in your assertions is that they appear to be based on conclusions absent of a much more exhaustive searching out of these issues in the Scripture itself.

The result being that your above assertions appear to be based more on your own reasoning about these issues in contrast to reasoning on them through the Scriptures.

For example, the calamity that Jeremiah had prophesied would befall Israel: both their Babylonian Captivity and Scattering that Daniel prays about many many decades later, had been based on Moses' words GENERATIONS earlier - to HIS generation.

The basic principle behind "what does this have to with me now" being that it was taught to every Israelite child, as per Deuteronomy 6's Sheva.

The Israelite Prophet: Daniel, would disagree with you on your assertion.

Daniel 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem. 9:3 And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes: 9:4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments; 9:5 We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments: 9:6 Neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spake in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land. 9:7 O LORD, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee.

9:10 Neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets. 9:11 Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him. 9:12 And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil: for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem. 9:13 As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the LORD our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth. 9:14 Therefore hath the LORD watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us: for the LORD our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth: for we obeyed not his voice. 9:15 And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten thee renown, as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly.

 

[Danoh]

I've yet to find one passage in Scripture asserting that God blinds anyone other than by their own hand against His will.

This is actually the same old issue of "a person convinced against his will; is of the same opinion still."

Reminds me of a hilarious moment I once came across, while flipping through tv channels.

This hugely grotesque woman was being laughed at by members of an audience on one of those screwed up tv shows that are all the rage even now.

The woman clearly believed what she asserted just then, against the obvious: that "you're just jealous because you ain't got all this!"

Such individuals: the more evidence you throw at them to the contrary; the harder in heart they become against it.

That is the exact same dynamic described by Scripture.

Hebrews 2:1 Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. 2:2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; 2:4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Hebrews 3:7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, 3:8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: 3:9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. 3:10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. 3:11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.) 3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. 3:13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; 3:15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. 3:16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. 3:17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? 3:18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? 3:19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

Hebrews 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; 5:10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

When we are wrong about a thing, but refuse to acknowledge a truth against our error, that is due to an agenda on our part, of one kind or another.

Our own focus on said agenda by which we blind ourselves against said truth by our having given ourselves over to the deceitfulness of sin.

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Ephesians 4:17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 4:19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. 4:20 But ye have not so learned Christ; 4:21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 1:6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren. 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

While I'm at it; only one willfully blind would continue to assert despite the above, that we who more or less hold to an Acts 9 Dispensationalism (aka A9D or M.A.D.), do not hold ALL Scripture in the same high reverence that we hold Romans thru Philemon in.

 

[Derf]

There's no such thing as a "partial Calvinist."...

One problem I find in your assertions is that they appear to be based on conclusions absent of a much more exhaustive searching out of these issues in the Scripture itself....

I've never made any such argument! I've made biblical arguments and rationally sound arguments. ...

These are all excellent posts, and I want to reply to them appropriately, but I can't tell when I will get to them. Thanks for your patience!

Derf

 

[Derf]

I've never made any such argument! I've made biblical arguments and rationally sound arguments. You suggesting that I reject it because I disagree with it doesn't constitute even an attempt to refute any one of those arguments. You must remember that the thread and everything I've written in it is all still there for anyone to read.

I'm not trying to be insulting, though I can see how it could be read that way. But your posts have had an edge to them showing a decided bias against the tenets of preterism. I have felt they way, too, and still do to some degree, but my bias was from a perspective that what they said was ridiculous, and it was based on my reading their ideas from my own bias. So even if I brought forward biblical arguments against the ideas of preterism, it was from a preconceived notion of what those passages were really saying. I'm trying to get beyond that, and I'm not sure how successful I am.

This makes me wonder whether you even know what Preterism is. Preterism is eschatology! Don't believe me? Look it up! Here, I'll do it for you...

Thanks. Those all seem in line with what I thought preterism is, as long as the "partial" part is allowed. And "partial" is soooo subjective. Surely everyone believes that some prophecies have been fulfilled. I think preterists would say that almost all have been fulfilled, including the first 18 chapters of Revelation, perhaps? I'm not ready to go that far.

The difference is that dispensationalists actually do it rather than just say it (some more consistently than others, of course). I've demonstrated clearly that Preterists do not simply read the bible and take it for what it seems to say. They allegorize, spiritualize and symbolize any passage they have to. Which, of course, is not to say that there aren't allegories and otherwise symbolic passages in the bible. There's lots of them. But the point is that the Preterist has no system, no rules for determining what should be taken as shadow and what should be taken as substance. No rules at all, save one - if the passage suggests that Preterism might be false, it's shadow or symbol. If their use of scripture were valid, no theological claim could ever be falsified.

This shows that bias I was mentioning above. I don't believe, and I say this from listening to a preterist that I poo-pooed before, that their whole hermeneutic is to reinterpret everything to fit into the idea that all prophecy has been fulfilled, at least not the partial preterists. The "partial" is the saving grace, so to speak, as it allows that not everything has to fit into the mold of "everything already has happened".

I agree that some Pre-Tribulationist read this passage in this way. This Pre-Tribulationist does not. I'm not at all kidding when I tell you that a passage should be taken for what it seems to say whenever possible. God the Father intended to give Israel their Kingdom during that generation but prophesy is not prewritten history. Israel rejected their King and so God, in keeping with the warning given to Israel in Jeremiah 18, repented of the good which He intended to perform for Israel. He found the clay to be marred in His hand and so He, intending at first to make a vessel of honor, repented and made instead of vessel of dishonor. (See Jeremiah 18 and Romans 9-11)

"Whenever possible" is the key, isn't it. We all define "whenever possible" in different ways.

I appreciate what you're saying about Jeremiah 18, but it seems like the Matt 24 text is saying the opposite--that Jesus told His disciples the bad stuff that was going to happen to that generation unless they repented and acknowledged Him as the Christ (that part doesn't touch on Jer 18), but then when they didn't repent, that generation either did or did not experience the judgment--which is it? If they DID, then it backs up preterism (those things in Matt 24 occurred already), if they DID NOT, then it negates Jer 18, as well as undermine's Christ's veracity.

But let me consider just a minute. I think you're saying that Jesus was predicting that IF the Jews accepted Him as their messiah, then He would bring to pass all the bad stuff--on the non-Jews (Romans, etc.) as He ushered in His kingdom? That makes some sense, except for the ones that will look on Him whom they have pierced, and He mentioned the stones on the temple will not be left one on another. So it seems to be more of a determination of something bad on the Jews for rejecting Him--which makes me go back to my previous paragraph. Maybe I didn't quite catch your drift--explain more as you see fit.

 

[Derf]

There's no such thing as a "partial Calvinist." If you don't accept the whole thing, it just falls apart.

Sure there is. Haven't you ever heard of a 3 or 4-point Calvinist?

And saying that God in time decided to blind the Jews from their Messiah violates Calvinism directly, as in Calvinism, all things are decreed before creation.

I'm probably a bit naive about this, but I don't think of the all-things-decreed-before-creation as the most important and necessary part of Calvinism, though it rides high in the thoughts of most.

That's what God wanted. It wasn't just that the Jews happened to be blind, but rather that they were intentionally blinded so that the Messiah would be fulfill propitiating sins.

I was under the impression that Open Theism allowed for the possibility that both individuals and nations could repent, especially if the Christ, the one who was promised to come, came and preached a message of repentance. So perhaps God wanted them to be blind in order to "trick" them into killing their messiah, or to cause such a sin in them that He could bring severe judgment down on them, but that (the latter), again, is how Calvinists think.

See Jeremiah 18. God may do as He wishes with Israel.

He certainly can. And if He decides to remake them into a vessel of honor because they turned from their wickedness, He could do it--but not if He blinded them with the intention of not letting them turn from their wickedness.

You're using "people" generically. There is a specific group of people whom God had been in covenant with for thousands of years who repeatedly violated covenant, killed prophets, and generally thumbed their noses at God.

Their blindness, then, is a judgment against them.



Keep in mind that some of the Jews repented.



I think you're being a bit hasty in this "two-faced" thing. Are you saying that God can't bring about judgment on those who break covenent however He wishes?

There are some who repented, and they were reached. Some were blinded and they were not.

See Romans 9:21.

God can bring judgment on those who break covenant. And He can do it however He wishes, within the constraints of His character, and His character is that He does not lie. So, if He means what He says when He says, "[Jer 18:7-8 KJV] 7 [At what] instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy [it]; 8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them", then it seems like the nation (not just individuals) has a chance to avoid the punishment--especially His chosen people. But in like manner, if the people whom He has chosen decide to turn from righteousness, can He not then judge them? I can see that's what Jer 18 is saying, and it seems like that could be what Rom 9:21 is saying--that God is not so limited by His covenant that He cannot deal with the covenant breakers.

At this late hour, I may not have thought that all through like I should, so feel free to tear it apart.

I feel somewhat negligent if I don't try to bring the posts back toward the thread topic. I hope you don't get tired of me doing so, as here:
If Jer 18 speaks of nations repenting and thus avoiding destruction, and others turning from righteousness and thus losing their blessing, and both prefaced by "At what instant", doesn't it seem like the rather serious judgments against the Jews and Gentiles in the New Testament are more likely about that timeframe, or close to it, in which the judgments were spoken? Thus the judgments are more to the point--trying to get the people to repent, rather than God just showing how good He is about predicting the future.

 

[Clete]

This shows that bias I was mentioning above. I don't believe, and I say this from listening to a preterist that I poo-pooed before, that their whole hermeneutic is to reinterpret everything to fit into the idea that all prophecy has been fulfilled, at least not the partial preterists. The "partial" is the saving grace, so to speak, as it allows that not everything has to fit into the mold of "everything already has happened".

Of course no Preterist would accept the notion that they treat the scripture in the manner I've been suggesting. They'd deny it passionately but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. The reason they'd reject what I've accused them of doing is because I've put it terms that even they can see would make it an terrible practice. The problem for them is that they have no rebuttal. No rationally sound one anyway. I've not debated a lot of Pretersist, they are a rather rare breed, but every time I have it has always, almost immediately, come down to shadow vs substance. What's spiritual and what is real. They want to believe that Israel's Kingdom was never intended to be a real, on the ground, political kingdom, with a government and laws, etc. They want to believe that the Kingdom is in your heart and that everything has worked out precisely the way God intended from the beginning. They believe that prophecy is prewritten history and so interpret everything from the spiritual kingdom paradigm. And I'm not suggesting a conspiracy here, its a paradigm. It happens to them just like it happens to everyone else. The power of paradigm is, by far, the highest and hardest hill to climb when attempting to convince anyone of anything theological or political.

"Whenever possible" is the key, isn't it. We all define "whenever possible" in different ways.

The question is whether your definition is born out of an a-priori assumption as is the case with Preterism or is it born out of an objective set of rules which govern your interpretation and understanding the scripture that leads toward conclusions rather than proceeding from them.

This is the key difference between the Open View/Mid-Acts Dispensationalism which I have held now for going on two decades and every other doctrinal system I have ever been exposed to. It is superior by every objective standard that I've ever heard anyone propose. No one that I know of, whether here or in the several books I've read on the topic, has ever bother to make an argument against its basic premises, except by accident. Every attack is aimed at details and not the foundation upon which those details emerge. In fact, the more logically consistent a theological system is, the closer it approaches either the Open View or Mid-Acts Dispensationalism or both. And conversely, the more ready a theological system is to reject logic as being "human" (i.e. bad) the further they go away from the Open View or any form of dispensationalism and usually both. On the one end of the spectrum you have the Open View an Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and on the other you have Augustinianism/Covenant Theology. The fulcrum between the two is sound reason.

I appreciate what you're saying about Jeremiah 18, but it seems like the Matt 24 text is saying the opposite--that Jesus told His disciples the bad stuff that was going to happen to that generation unless they repented and acknowledged Him as the Christ (that part doesn't touch on Jer 18), but then when they didn't repent, that generation either did or did not experience the judgment--which is it? If they DID, then it backs up preterism (those things in Matt 24 occurred already), if they DID NOT, then it negates Jer 18, as well as undermine's Christ's veracity.

Jesus could see what was happening and understood that Israel was likely to reject their King. Also, there was always going to be a time of hardship prior to Israel taking procession of their promised Kingdom. What we refer to today as the Tribulation was intended to happen in the first century before Christ's return as King but that entire prophetic program was halted (put on hold) because of Israel's official rejection of Christ as the Messiah and the stoning of Stephen.

But let me consider just a minute. I think you're saying that Jesus was predicting that IF the Jews accepted Him as their messiah, then He would bring to pass all the bad stuff--on the non-Jews (Romans, etc.) as He ushered in His kingdom? That makes some sense, except for the ones that will look on Him whom they have pierced, and He mentioned the stones on the temple will not be left one on another. So it seems to be more of a determination of something bad on the Jews for rejecting Him--which makes me go back to my previous paragraph. Maybe I didn't quite catch your drift--explain more as you see fit.

No, it was to be the time of Jacob's trouble, not Rome's (Jeremaih 30). It was to be a time of cleansing, of purging of Israel in preparation for the return of Christ as King of Israel, not of Rome. All prophesy (well, nearly all of it) as to do with Israel and none of it is prewritten history.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. All of this is very well established in a clear, rationally sound and very thorough manner in Bob Enyart's book, "The Plot" as well as C.R. Stam's "Things That Differ". I strongly recommend you read them both.

 

[Danoh]

Note, re: Stam's "Things That Differ..."

Every Preterist (Partial or otherwise) that I have pointed to that pdf has either out right rejected bothering with it, or admitted merely having disdainfully glanced through it.

Why? The frame of reference going in.

And the fact is that Clete is right; MADs frame of reference must first be considered.

Without it, it's assertions remain "a mystery" in that other sense of that word.

Or as singer, Van Morrison put it - "on the outside lookin in..."

 

[Clete]

Note, re: Stam's "Things That Differ..."

Every Preterist (Partial or otherwise) that I have pointed to that pdf has either out right rejected bothering with it, or admitted merely having disdainfully glanced through it.

Why? The frame of reference going in.

And the fact is that Clete is right; MADs frame of reference must first be considered.

Without it, it's assertions remain "a mystery" in that other sense of that word.

Or as singer, Van Morrison put it - "on the outside lookin in..."

There is no question about it, the power of paradigm is without a doubt, the primary obstacle to overcome in any discussion about theology.

It is my personal opinion that not one percent of the work that should be done in the study of paradigm shifts and what permits them to occur in a person's mind has been done. A fuller understanding of why paradigm shifts are so strongly resisted and intuitively rejected and the development of techniques that might help to overcome that resistance would benefit not only the field of theology but the whole of philosophy.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[themuzicman]

Sure there is. Haven't you ever heard of a 3 or 4-point Calvinist?

Any Calvinist will tell you that they're not Calvinists.

I'm probably a bit naive about this, but I don't think of the all-things-decreed-before-creation as the most important and necessary part of Calvinism, though it rides high in the thoughts of most.

It is fundamental to Calvinist soteriology. It is the basis for unconditional election and limited atonement.

I was under the impression that Open Theism allowed for the possibility that both individuals and nations could repent, especially if the Christ, the one who was promised to come, came and preached a message of repentance.

Open Theism doesn't speak to this at all. Open Theism is concerned with the nature of what God created.

So perhaps God wanted them to be blind in order to "trick" them into killing their messiah, or to cause such a sin in them that He could bring severe judgment down on them, but that (the latter), again, is how Calvinists think.

Similarities? Yes. Calvinism isn't built out of thin air. Calvinism's error in this respect is that they take the blindness of the Jews and extend it to all people.

He certainly can. And if He decides to remake them into a vessel of honor because they turned from their wickedness, He could do it--but not if He blinded them with the intention of not letting them turn from their wickedness.

Why not? If they had already turned from him, and this was their judgment, there's nothing wrong with that.

God can bring judgment on those who break covenant. And He can do it however He wishes, within the constraints of His character, and His character is that He does not lie. So, if He means what He says when He says, "[Jer 18:7-8 KJV] 7 [At what] instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy [it]; 8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them", then it seems like the nation (not just individuals) has a chance to avoid the punishment--especially His chosen people.

They did.

But in like manner, if the people whom He has chosen decide to turn from righteousness, can He not then judge them? I can see that's what Jer 18 is saying, and it seems like that could be what Rom 9:21 is saying--that God is not so limited by His covenant that He cannot deal with the covenant breakers.

He didn't turn them from righteousness. They did that on their own.

At this late hour, I may not have thought that all through like I should, so feel free to tear it apart.

I feel somewhat negligent if I don't try to bring the posts back toward the thread topic. I hope you don't get tired of me doing so, as here:
If Jer 18 speaks of nations repenting and thus avoiding destruction

It doesn't. It speaks about Israel.

 

[Derf]

One problem I find in your assertions is that they appear to be based on conclusions absent of a much more exhaustive searching out of these issues in the Scripture itself.

The result being that your above assertions appear to be based more on your own reasoning about these issues in contrast to reasoning on them through the Scriptures.

This is always a danger. So thanks for watching out for it!

For example, the calamity that Jeremiah had prophesied would befall Israel: both their Babylonian Captivity and Scattering that Daniel prays about many many decades later, had been based on Moses' words GENERATIONS earlier - to HIS generation.

The basic principle behind "what does this have to with me now" being that it was taught to every Israelite child, as per Deuteronomy 6's Sheva.

The Israelite Prophet: Daniel, would disagree with you on your assertion.

Daniel 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem. ...

9:10 Neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, ...

I don't disagree with what you've said here--those things were definitely spoken of by Moses. But were they spoken of by Moses as a foregone conclusion--prophecy of things that cannot be avoided? Or were they warnings, "contingent prophecies", so to speak. I have to conclude that Moses spoke of things he wanting Israel to avoid, else there's not much point to telling them ahead of time. And if that's the reason for Moses' statements, the Israelites at the time of Daniel were not being punished for something that happened in the time of Moses, but something that had happened more recently--possibly within the last 3 or 4 generations--going back to Hezekiah's prideful display of his wealth to the Babylonians, at least, but that wasn't the only issue God was dealing with, by any means.

My premise on the preterism/open theism link suggests that a much future prophecy would punish well beyond the third and fourth generation, which then seems to predetermine that those much future generations will sin to deserve the punishment. You've given examples of much future prophecies that I think are more in line with what I'm suggesting--Moses' generation did not sin in the way Moses was talking about, and the future generations were not compelled to sin by God--nor did He want them to do so--else He's the author of sin.

 

[Derf]

Any Calvinist will tell you that they're not Calvinists.

That's what 7-pointers say about 5-pointers, too. And Calvin himself would probably tell you that the 5 points are not the entirety of what he was promoting.

It is fundamental to Calvinist soteriology. It is the basis for unconditional election and limited atonement.

I'm not quite ready to agree with that. I believe the basis for those things is that those things are spelled out in scripture (though I don't necessarily agree with their interpretation), and the election of certain people was determined before the foundation of the world, not that ALL things were determined at that time. The "ALL things" part is where they get into trouble, in my opinion, but that doesn't necessarily mean that "ALL things determined before the foundation of the world" is fundamental or even necessary, without some other presuppositions--like that God knows ALL things ahead of time. This is the attraction Open Theism holds for me--it doesn't require that God know things that are unknowable--but Calvinists are mostly locked in with that idea.

Open Theism doesn't speak to this at all. Open Theism is concerned with the nature of what God created.

And part of that nature is that God doesn't predetermine His creation to sin. Maybe that's not part of Open Theism, but it seemed to me to be inextricably entwined.

Similarities? Yes. Calvinism isn't built out of thin air. Calvinism's error in this respect is that they take the blindness of the Jews and extend it to all people.

Agreed.

Why not? If they had already turned from him, and this was their judgment, there's nothing wrong with that.

Then why call them to repentance? If God calls to repentance, and says that if a nation turns from their wickedness then He will turn from the judgment He had planned (and you seem to think that passage applies specifically to the Jews according to your comment below), then there is something wrong with that--it says God is the author of unrepentance, which I think can be established as sin, since God commanded it.

He didn't turn them from righteousness. They did that on their own.

I don't think you understood what I was saying there. I didn't say God turned them from righteousness, but that if they do, He can judge appropriately.

It doesn't. It speaks about Israel.

The chapter is certainly about Israel, but the principle it expresses is not, even there, limited to Israel. It says "If a nation..."

Thanks for the continued conversation, Muz.

 

[themuzicman]

That's what 7-pointers say about 5-pointers, too. And Calvin himself would probably tell you that the 5 points are not the entirety of what he was promoting.

Well, anything less than 5 points really doesn't fit.

I'm not quite ready to agree with that. I believe the basis for those things is that those things are spelled out in scripture (though I don't necessarily agree with their interpretation), and the election of certain people was determined before the foundation of the world, not that ALL things were determined at that time.

It would be difficult to say that certain people are elect without determining the course in which those people came into existence. After all, if the wrong sperm meets the wrong egg, some elect person might not come into being.

The "ALL things" part is where they get into trouble, in my opinion, but that doesn't necessarily mean that "ALL things determined before the foundation of the world" is fundamental or even necessary, without some other presuppositions--like that God knows ALL things ahead of time. This is the attraction Open Theism holds for me--it doesn't require that God know things that are unknowable--but Calvinists are mostly locked in with that idea.
And part of that nature is that God doesn't predetermine His creation to sin. Maybe that's not part of Open Theism, but it seemed to me to be inextricably entwined.

Not sure what version of Calvinism you're into, but in every version I'm aware of, God decrees all things before the foundation of the world.

Then why call them to repentance?

Because some will.

I don't think you understood what I was saying there. I didn't say God turned them from righteousness, but that if they do, He can judge appropriately.

Which is what is happening in the exile.

The chapter is certainly about Israel, but the principle it expresses is not, even there, limited to Israel. It says "If a nation..."

Thanks for the continued conversation, Muz.

Israel is the only nation in covenant with God. It doesn't have application beyond them.