 |
| 
Truedud
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 7/8/2003 7:35 AM (GMT -6) |   | These are the books that interest me in light of how an open theist would explain the specific "foreknown" statements within each of these books of the Bible. Help me see it from an neo-molinist viewpoint please
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 7/8/2003 1:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Truedud,
I don't know if I understand your question (actually, I know I don't), but I'd like to hear more about the book of Daniel. I find it one of the more fascinating books in the Bible and one that actually stirs up a lot of controversy, in Jewish and even in Christian circles (Many Jews don't believe it's "as inspired" as other texts like the books of Moses).
"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/9/2003 3:49 AM (GMT -6) | | If the OV is correct, one of only a few solutions addresses the issues of apparent predestination (at least in regard to a person's ministry).
1. God orchestrates the events in a person's life to bring about what he wants from a person's walk. It doesn't appear to be the norm in Scripture for God to tighten the ropes on all folks as much as He does a few here and there (at least as it's recorded in Scripture). Daniel is a prime example of this. Daniel's life circumstances are God's manner of bringing Daniel into that place God had already chosen for Him. God, knowing Daniel's heart and mind, is able to use those precise events to extract from Daniel the obedience for a Prophet's ministry.
2. God controls the person himself in such a way that the person is pushed into what God wants. Jonah's a classic example. God, knowing very well Jonah's heart and mind, would be able to deal with Jonah himself in the perfect manner to get him to do what he wanted him to do.
3. Combination of both (without total mind control!). Paul, I think is an example of this. Paul knew that both the circumstances surrounding his life ("He is a chosen vessel unto Me") and his life itself ("Woe is me if I preach not the gospel") were brought to that place where he would become fit to be an apostle of the Lord. Hence, both Paul's life circumstances and life itself were controlled (not completely, just enough for God to obtain what He wanted from Paul).
Now, lest we cry NOT FAIR: I'm supposed to be free," I've said this before, but I think it bares repeating: we are simply not as free as we would like to think we are!
Hope this contributes,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truedud
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 7/9/2003 12:36 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Truedud,
I don't know if I understand your question (actually, I know I don't), but I'd like to hear more about the book of Daniel. I find it one of the more fascinating books in the Bible and one that actually stirs up a lot of controversy, in Jewish and even in Christian circles (Many Jews don't believe it's "as inspired" as other texts like the books of Moses).
"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment
Laplace
The question is about the specific "foreknown" events prophesied in the Book of Daniel and Revelation. Excluding the fact that Revelation is a hotly debated book regarding the fulfillment of its prophesies, it is never the less prophecy when it was written just like Daniel was. This being the fact how does an OV theologian interpret these specific foreknown events in light of God's "inability" (for lack of a better word) to see into the future and determine the events is such specific detail. Does this clarify the question better?
Truedud
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truedud
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 7/9/2003 12:44 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
If the OV is correct, one of only a few solutions addresses the issues of apparent predestination (at least in regard to a person's ministry).
1. God orchestrates the events in a person's life to bring about what he wants from a person's walk. It doesn't appear to be the norm in Scripture for God to tighten the ropes on all folks as much as He does a few here and there (at least as it's recorded in Scripture). Daniel is a prime example of this. Daniel's life circumstances are God's manner of bringing Daniel into that place God had already chosen for Him. God, knowing Daniel's heart and mind, is able to use those precise events to extract from Daniel the obedience for a Prophet's ministry.
2. God controls the person himself in such a way that the person is pushed into what God wants. Jonah's a classic example. God, knowing very well Jonah's heart and mind, would be able to deal with Jonah himself in the perfect manner to get him to do what he wanted him to do.
3. Combination of both (without total mind control!). Paul, I think is an example of this. Paul knew that both the circumstances surrounding his life ("He is a chosen vessel unto Me") and his life itself ("Woe is me if I preach not the gospel") were brought to that place where he would become fit to be an apostle of the Lord. Hence, both Paul's life circumstances and life itself were controlled (not completely, just enough for God to obtain what He wanted from Paul).
Now, lest we cry NOT FAIR: I'm supposed to be free," I've said this before, but I think it bares repeating: we are simply not as free as we would like to think we are!
Hope this contributes,
Starkman
Starkman
I like that you have spent some time thinking this stuff through. However, I must ask you to help me see the Books of Daniel and Revelation in light of an OV understanding. These are not prophesies regarding the "life" of their authors. They are worldwide in scope and detailed in predetermined events. They affect massive amounts of "free decisions" to orchestrate such global events as the Greek, Persian, and Roman empires. Explain yourself regarding these national, global prophesies in light of OV theology. I would like to now what Professor Boyd thinks of these questions as well.
Truedud
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/9/2003 3:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Truedud,
In the Open view, the future is not 100% open, it is "partly open, and partly settled." Thus, specific predictive prophecies are that part of the future which is settled. I think you will agree that not 100% of post-biblical history is included in the Bible.
In the OV the omnipotence of God is seen as the explanation of specific predictions such as I think you're wondering about. When God predicts something specific (such as we find some examples of in Daniel and Revelation--though actually most things in these books seem clearly to be intended as symbolic), God is saying, "This is what I'm going to do." It poses no problem whatsoever to the Open View to say "God will do what God has decided he will do."
As to free decisions which are somehow controlled by God, the Open View does not deny that God in some cases controls things unilaterally, but that these are not morally responsible choices, and are the exception to the rule, and not the rule itself (as in compatibilism and determinism).
Also connected to this issue would be the issue of "might counterfactuals" and "would counterfactuals," and God's supreme intelligence in combination with his omniresourcefulness. That is, in the OV God has perfect knowledge of all contingencies, knows perfectly all possible effects of these contingencies when eventuated, and by virtue of His perfect, supreme intelligence and his perfect, supreme ability to respond to each and every eventuality, in addition to His all-pervasive ability to influence any and all free agents towards His purposes, God is far more than able to effect His divine purpose in any given situation. It is simply the contention of the Open view that God does not act in such a unilateral form of coercion in ALL circumstances, as in determinism.
I would recommend that you read Dr. Boyd's book, _God of the Possible_. In it, he explains this aspect of the Open View quite well.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 07/10/2003 01:04:56 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truedud
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 7/10/2003 2:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Mr. Earp
Thanks for your reply. "When God predicts something specific (such as we find some examples of in Daniel and Revelation--though actually most things in these books seem clearly to be intended as symbolic)..." Let me ask you to pursue this quotation in a more fuller manner. Do you believe that much of the "beast" and "statue" prophesies are mainly symbolic in a way as to give God as much "lead-way" as he needs to work out his "four empire" determined plan or do you mean something else? Do you believe that Revelation is preterist or futuristic? If you see Rev as the latter, do you believe that God can orchestrate the "free decisions" of world opinion toward the personality of the Antichrist/Beast mentioned in its pages?
Truedud
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/10/2003 4:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Truedad,
Um ... yeah, what John said! (He said it better than I could! Thanks mucho, John!) But here's some more thought.quote:
I must ask you to help me see the Books of Daniel and Revelation in light of an OV understanding. These are not prophesies regarding the "life" of their authors. They are worldwide in scope and detailed in predetermined events. They affect massive amounts of "free decisions" to orchestrate such global events as the Greek, Persian, and Roman empires.
For Got to manipulate world affairs is no different than for him to manipulate the lives and affairs of the lives of those through whom He has given prophecy; one person, one million persons; it's all the same to God.
You asked John ... quote:
Do you believe that much of the "beast" and "statue" prophesies are mainly symbolic in a way as to give God as much "lead-way" as he needs to work out his "four empire" determined plan or do you mean something else? Do you believe that Revelation is preterist or futuristic? If you see Rev as the latter, do you believe that God can orchestrate the "free decisions" of world opinion toward the personality of the Antichrist/Beast mentioned in its pages?
God does whatever God pretty much wishes, with the exceptions of the unseen "rules of engagement" between Him and the powers of evil, but as John said, it isn't in accord with God desire for relationship with man to manipulate him to the point of loss of freewill. Even Jonah, had he wanted to be a real stubborn butt, could have defied God and told Him, "I ain't going, kill me if you want, I'm outta here." But Jonah wasn't that stubborn, unlike some people.
Preterist, futuristic or historic perspectives of Revelation require no more or less of God to control world affairs.
Hope this contributes,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/10/2003 7:01 AM (GMT -6) | | I agree with this:
quote:
Do you believe that much of the "beast" and "statue" prophesies are mainly symbolic
but don't think I would say this:
quote:
...in a way as to give God as much "lead-way" as he needs to work out his "four empire" determined plan or do you mean something else?
I don't think God needs "leeway." He's all-powerful, possesses supreme intelligence and wisdom, and his influence is of course not able to be resisted when He decides to use it in an irresistible manner. Therefore, I don't think God needs "wiggle room" or "leeway" to accomplish his purposes.
What I DO mean is that Daniel and Revelation are highly symbolic books, dispensationalism is not the ONLY way that these books can be fairly interpreted, and therefore I think we should only speak when the Scripture is clear about specific events in the future that God is saying will be "definitely this and not that."
quote:
Do you believe that Revelation is preterist or futuristic? If you see Rev as the latter, do you believe that God can orchestrate the "free decisions" of world opinion toward the personality of the Antichrist/Beast mentioned in its pages?
Again, I don't think I would phrase it as you have. To the extent that history is unilaterally determined by God, it is not open to change. To the extent that individuals are influenced by God to choose something (such as loyalty to the Antichrist, for instance), their actions at some point do become compatabilistic. This is essentially how I understand "the strong delusion" that Paul said God was going to send to the enemies of God in the last days. The will have already sealed their own fate by their persistent rebellion against God at that point, so if God chooses to use them in their hardened state for his purposes, it would be completely in keeping with the evil character they had already chosen prior to this unilateral move on God's part. Not unlike when God used the already self-hardened Pharoah to demonstrate his power in the earth.
But, as I said above, this unilateral action by God to cause people to act in such a way as to fulfill the divine will is the exception to the rule, and does not happen to any who have not already formed their own character/heart against God.
Another good example of this is when Judas had already decided to betray Jesus and Jesus told him at the Supper, "Whatever you do, do it quickly." His character had already been formed, Jesus knew what Judas' heart's motivation was, and from this point the Bible says, "Satan entered him." Kind of like when Jesus talked about blaspheming the Holy Spirit not being a forgivable sin. It's only unforgivable because the one who blasphemes the Holy Spirit has already seared his own conscience to the point of no return.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truedud
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 7/10/2003 1:00 PM (GMT -6) | | To Starkman and Earp
Thanks for your engagement of these questions. Even if my misunderstanding of proper phrases is wrong I realize you get my intention behind the statements themselves. However, it does matter to me regarding the detailed statements in the book of Revelation that are hard to sinc with a OV theology. Much of what was quoted looks back on individuals whose lives where used by God in a "unilateral" way after the fact. This is understandable. However, I am talking about the detailed prophesies of events that have not yet taken place at the time of there writings. How does a God who does not know the future align this much detail up and then move the chess pieces in place when the capriciousness of human beings could change His plans?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/10/2003 1:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Truedad dude!
quote:
How does a God who does not know the future align this much detail up and then move the chess pieces in place when the capriciousness of human beings could change His plans?
First, it isn't that God does not know the future. It is that He does not know ALL the future. Way big difference. Second, we are not as free as we think we are. The freedom alotted to Adam and Eve in the early chapters of Genesis (assuming the chapters are not LEGEND ... SCOTT!!!!--had get that dig in!) is strikingly limited as much as it is expansive. The two first humans are told by God (immediate limitation) that they can do this but cannot do that and the other. Their very makeup speaks volumes of their limitations. And just because they have free will (in SOME areas) is hardly a problem for God's omnipotence.
I'll say something here again that I've said before because it's very important (and trust you me, not a whole hek of a lot of what I say is very important!): When someone encounters the OV, one of the first challenges that person faces is the immediacy of grappling with how much they DON'T understand (and thus believe) that God really is omnipotent. In other words, it is as if the first-time confronter of the OV thinks that God's omnipotence is somehow made impotent or weakened by His (God's) not knowing every single iota of the future, including that part of the future that hasn't even happened yet, which God has left open by not declaring what will, in fact, be.
What's going on is the person is being challenged, often for the very first time, with understanding (and believing) God's omnipotence. The OV will do that; one will be forced to consider just how powerful God is. From the Classical and Traditional perspectives of God's foreknowledge, one doesn't even have to give it a thought; God's all powerful. Enough said. Well, it isn't enough said, as a good confrontation with the OV proves.
God is quite able to map out things accordingly--people's lives, people's history, people in general. Too, as I and others have said, it isn't that there aren't challenging passages to the OV in Scripture; sure there are. The norm, however, seems clearly to be that the OV is the way things really are, both for God and us.
Hope this helps more.
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truedud
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 7/10/2003 2:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman
You are doing a good job in discussing the philosophical aspects of OV. However, you are not speaking to the direct issues found in the books of Daniel and Revelation. For instance, the seven year / 70th week issue; the personality, program, and activity of the beast / antichrist; the system of Babylon / ten-nation confederacy etc. I understand your philosophical underpinnings. What I am here to address is squaring the above issues with OV theology. For instance, I am an Arminian still in my concept of predestination and foreknowledge. For me these books are easily explained in God's understanding of future events. Boyd's books have challenged me in a very real way but I am still in the Arminian camp at this point. The reason I am there is because of these two books of the Bible.
Please, begin to deal with the specifics of these books in relationship to OV theology. OV works great for a Calvanist looking for a more workable plan of theodocy but to an Arminian God's foreknowledge is not determined but simply known. However, I am getting away from the reason for this initial posting. I want to know specifics of answering these two books of the Bible in light of OV theology. So far I am only getting "out of the circle" discussions on the overall OV arguments. I will engage you hopefully tomorrow. God bless
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/10/2003 3:17 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
For instance, the seven year / 70th week issue; the personality, program, and activity of the beast / antichrist; the system of Babylon / ten-nation confederacy etc.
As I said above, all the things you list could quite easily be brought to pass by God's omnipotence. God does need to possess exhaustive definite foreknowledge in order to bring any number of things to pass, because he is able to do anything.
quote:
OV works great for a Calvanist looking for a more workable plan of theodocy but to an Arminian God's foreknowledge is not determined but simply known.
If God knows a thing ahead of time with absolutely certainty, then calling it foreknowledge or predestination or even fate really make no substantive difference. If it is known by God to be "definitely this and not that" then even God can't change it, can He?
quote:
However, I am getting away from the reason for this initial posting. I want to know specifics of answering these two books of the Bible in light of OV theology. So far I am only getting "out of the circle" discussions on the overall OV arguments. I will engage you hopefully tomorrow. God bless
God bless you too. By virtue of His ability to do anything, cause anything to come to pass, etc., God is without a doubt able to bring His own prophetic predictions to pass. In other words, the predictions that you refer to pose no problem if we keep in mind that God is able to DO anything.
In my opinion, traditional foreknowledge ties God's hands, and in the end makes only an appearance of an improvement upon determinism. (And I was an Arminian for years before I came into contact with the OV).
Edited by - John Earp on 07/10/2003 8:41:32 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/10/2003 5:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Trudud,
quote:
You are doing a good job in discussing the philosophical aspects of OV. However, you are not speaking to the direct issues found in the books of Daniel and Revelation. For instance, the seven year / 70th week issue; the personality, program, and activity of the beast / antichrist; the system of Babylon / ten-nation confederacy etc. I understand your philosophical underpinnings. What I am here to address is squaring the above issues with OV theology.
If you want to talk about the theology an OVer holds in regard to the issues above, it's neither here nor there (in many respects) that one holds to the OV, to Calvinism or to Arminianism. All the open view says is that the future is partly open. It doesn't address whether the Antichrist, the Beast, the systems of Babylon or whether the preterist, historical or symbolic approaches to interpreting the books are correct or not. The theology of the books is kind of an to-each-his-own thing, regardless of the perspective one holds of God's foreknowledge.
[quote]For instance, I am an Arminian still in my concept of predestination and foreknowledge. For me these books are easily explained in God's understanding of future events. Boyd's books have challenged me in a very real way but I am still in the Arminian camp at this point. The reason I am there is because of these two books of the Bible.
Well, we're right back now to what we've already been talking about, so this is rather confusing, Trudud  ! And no, it's really not as simple for the Arminian view to reduce the fore-ordained events in Daniel and Revelation to "God's understanding of future events." It's just that you haven't thought through--and that's not a cut-down, it's just that you've never had to consider thinking through--the problems involved with the Arminian view. For instance, if God knows EVERYTHING from eternity past, then the past, present and future are settled lock, stock and barrel (or is it barrell?); they're aint nothing you nor God can do to change it (note John's commentary on this just above this post). It's already settled. Prayer can't change it, God can't change it, you can't change it. It's solidly settled. We've had several discussions on this, so you might do some searching on this site for those key words and see if you can't nab some of those good discussions! Another example is that we neither live like nor treat God, in our daily lives, like He knows all things--I mean every single iota of everything there is to know. It's simply not reality, and God doesn't communicate to us as if it is. No, the Arminian view isn't as solid as people think it is; it's just that not much thought is given to what that view is because there's nothing in the view to instigate thinking about it. And that's not wrong, per se, it just means that when you do think bout the view, more things start coming to light ... as you've found reading Doc Boyd's stuff.
Oh, I should add that for 23.5 years of my 25 years of being a Christian, I was an Arminian. We know both where you're coming from and what you're going through as you seek more insight. Fight on, dude, fight on! We're with ya! (I just hope this time I've answered the questions more specifically!!!)
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truedud
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 7/11/2003 5:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman & Earp
It is perhaps my own fault that I am not dealing with the "inside the circle" aspects of Daniel and Revelation. I, again, understand the philosophical aspects of OV. Now let me pose a specific question regarding where I want to go with the future discussions.
I read in Boyd's God of the Possible book that Why would God allow a Hitler to be born knowing he would kill 6 million plus people? A very good question I might add. His conclusion, from what I gathered was that God did not allow a Hitler to be born as though he knew a Hitler would do what he would ultimately do. Instead, God discovered this aspect of Hitler through the sequence of time. Aa the argument goes, God does not know a future that has yet to happen. Let me say, that I do understand that OV includes certain "foreknown events" that are "closed" in nature. Excluding that aspect for a minute, let me ask you to address the "open" part of the unknown future.
If Hitler's horror was known by God than some how it seems to OV theologians that God is culpable in some way to his allowance of Hitler's life. Now, with that understanding, let me ask you to address this specific aspect of the book of Revelations. If, as the book says that over one-third or more of the world is going to be destroyed by war, famine, and pestilence as well as by the Antichrist/Beast activity. And if God knew this was going to happen either by predestined ends or simple foreknowledge is not the God who is culpable in the Hitler scenerio above also culpable for what is prophesied in Revelation?
Thank you
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/11/2003 6:29 PM (GMT -6) | | While of course God allowed Hitler to be born, and the OV would say that God at least knew it as a possibility that Hitler would turn out as he did, I don't think it is fair to say that God is thereby culpable for Hitler's own free moral choices in life. It has been a little over a year since I read S&TPOE, but from what I recall, in the OV libertarian free will necessitates choice between good and evil.
Hitler is simply the opposite of a Mother Theresa, and while any Christian would surely attribute all the good they might do or be to the grace of God in their life, in this scenario both Hitler and Mother Theresa made free choices under the influences they each had for good or evil, and thus were begun the pattern of their subsequent lifestyles. Both Hitler and Mother Theresa could have chosen other than they did, and consequently, history would have been a very different thing.
Unless we are willing to say that Hitler really could not help himself, and his choices were predetermined by God, I really don't see any way around the issue than to say that one freely chooses the evil one does. To say God was responsible for Hitler's character is I think to clearly misunderstand the nature of moral responsibility.
As to those who suffer in the Book of Revelation, it seems to me that we have two classes of individuals depicted therein: Suffering saints and suffering sinners. The suffering sinners depicted in Revelation do not appear to my reading to be anything but outright God-haters, and the suffering Christians then, as always, suffer for righteousness' sake. We have two different kinds of wrath depicted in Revelation, Satan's and God's, and each are directed at their respective enemies. Finally, this spiritual war will be brought to a close, and God will reign over all in righteousness and truth.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 07/11/2003 11:31:02 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/12/2003 1:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Trudud,
You ask a question about God having allowed Hitler to exist. But you (not you yourself, but "you" including everyone) do so from the very framework we were never supposed to be asking these questions from in the first place: from the those immersed in the knowledge of good and evil. In other words, here we (all of us) are in this pit we were told not to get into, and we're telling God that He shouldn't have let a Hitler live. (And I'm not saying you, Trudud, are saying this. I'm simply taking what you said and working with it.) I mean, how about we start with ourselves: God, why have you allowed ME to live? As if we can answer the question ourself--which is exactly what we do--by saying, "Well, I haven't killed anyone, for pete's sake." And that totally misses the issue.
Only God is able to have all knowledge of good and evil and remain necessarily and essentially wholly transendent apart from said knowledge being able to subordinate Him; for only God is good. But this is not the case with us: for we are neither "good" nor are we essentially made to use the knowledge of good and evil. We were ONLY to know that death would be effected if we ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and that we had the choice between obedience to God's Word or ... death. Never, though, were we made to function with the capacity of knowing good and evil.
Finally ... (I forgot what the hek I was posting all of this for! Oh yes, now I remember!) if God allows a Hitler to live, it is because He allows me to live. There is no world without both of us. Both of us are sinners, and both of us are condemmed before God apart from Christ; not because Hitler is worse, but because we are all evil.
So, the OV (to try to get back to Trudud's main question) says that God knows all propostional truth values; He knows what can and cannot be, what may and may not be (oh, those counterfactuals, and now it's "conjoined" counterfactuals. Sheesh!). God's not in the business of wiping out, or preventing, Hitlers, He's in the business of wiping out all evil. Maybe it won't happen today, but one day it will.
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truedud
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 7/15/2003 4:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Earp and Starkman
Can a OVer be a dispensationalist in regards to Daniel and Revelation? If so then the events prophesied in Revelation are detailed and specific regarding the "facts" of the future world society of which it forecasts. I tend to believe that most OVers do not, nor can they be dispensational in regards to Revelation. Am I write or wrong?
Up to this point, I have been frustrated (just a little) with the answers I am receiving from both of you. I think you are avoiding the conversation regarding these two books. Boyd did not address these two books either in any of his published works of which I have read (God of the Possible, S&POE, God at War, Across the Spectrum). Please don't take this wrong, but I don't think either one of you has addressed my original desire of trying to show how an OV person can resolve the issues in this book with their theology. Granted, if one looks at a preterist, postmillinial view of these books than one can legitimize the OV position from the proximity of Revelation's fulfillment to the Early Church period. However, am I write in assuming that OV believers cannot embrace Revelations as a dispensationalist?
Thanks
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/15/2003 5:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Trudud,
Well, I'm certainly not trying to avoid your questions; I guess I just don't either what the questions are or what more can be said to answer them. Don't know what else to do ...
quote:
Can a OVer be a dispensationalist in regards to Daniel and Revelation? If so then the events prophesied in Revelation are detailed and specific regarding the "facts" of the future world society of which it forecasts. I tend to believe that most OVers do not, nor can they be dispensational in regards to Revelation.
Dispenstations are, at core, nothing more than certain epochs and periods of certain types of movements of God in Scripture: one era/epoch changes in that God is now doing something different than He did before. For instance, movement from the law on the conscience to the written Law--from Adam to Moses--could be considered a dispensation; or movement from the Law to Grace is considered by some to be a new dispensation.
In this sense of the word dispensation, being an OVer would have nothing at odds with this (that I can see). God's just being God. That God has plans (has foretold) the future to some extent (not exhaustively) is nothing new or uncommon or at odds with the Open View.
Don't know what else to say there, Trudud.
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/15/2003 6:59 AM (GMT -6) | | I think it perhaps is true that you are being frustrated because you are not getting the answer you expect.
I'll say it again -- The OV does not have a problem with predictive prophesy, if one keeps distinctly in mind that God can do anything. "Anything" covers God's predictions about the future. God is saying, "This is what I'm going to do, this is how I'm going to do it." And then He does it. It is "declaring the end from the beginning concerning future things." He will bring it to pass.
As to dispensationalism, I don't see why it would necessarily exclude Open Theism, unless one is of the opinion that each and every thing that will ever happen in history is contained in Dan. and Rev. (Which of course, all of history is not contained in these two books).
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/15/2003 7:28 AM (GMT -6) | | But what's the difference between God saying and doing what he wants to do and God saying and doing what he wants to do through other people? The OVers are saying, "God can do anything. "Anything" covers God's predictions about the future. God is saying, "This is what I'm going to do, this is how I'm going to do it." And then He does it. "
OK, fine. So the predictions in Revelation have only to do with what God is going to do. I agree. But God is going to raise up the antichrist, wreak havoc on the world and most of its population- etc., through media other than just himself. People aren't going to actually see God doing these things. Rather, they will just happen. Natural catastrophes will happen. People will take the mark of the beast.
Don't you see there's not much difference between him doing what he wills, and him doing what he wills by using people and nature? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/15/2003 7:55 AM (GMT -6) | | What, is God going to pick someone (at the end of this age) and make him the antichrist without that person having any say-so? I wouldn't think so! Obviously, there is much that goes on behind the scenes, a la the book of Job. We haven't the slightest idea (well, a very slim idea we have) of the rules of engagement, so to speak, between God and the forces of evil. If there's to be an antichrist, it must be because this is something Satan wishes to do ("they worshiped the dragon because he had given ruling authority to the beast ... The beast was ... permitted to exercise ruling authority), not because God has already decreed that someone's just one hek of an unlucky person to have been born: "YOU! You are to be the antichrist. Off with ya now, and no complaints!"
NOT for the antichrist,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 7/15/2003 10:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Though I lean primarily towards the OV, I have had the same questions and wonderings that Truedud has about these two books, primarily Revelation. Most of the Bible can be seen in an OV view and the OVers have done a much more convincing job in expounding on Scripture than their opponents.
However, the book of Revelation is always the "achilles heel" that I find in my otherwise acceptance of Open Theism. This is probably why I remain a closet OVer at best. Being able to reconcile Revelation with Open Theism would help me come out of the closet and walk in the parade. :D
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/15/2003 11:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Revelation dictates very little in regard to specific human (or otherwise) beings; it is gloable and not confined to the predictions of specifics. God can surely bring about the necessary pressures and manipulations in order to force the issue: people choosing for or against Him. It's not that difficult of an issue. I mean, can think of other specific issues that would pose more of a problem to the OV --e.g. the predictions of Judas betraying Christ--than the books of Daniel or Revelation. But that's just how I see it.
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 7/15/2003 2:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Truedud:
quote:
These are the books that interest me in light of how an open theist would explain the specific "foreknown" statements within each of these books of the Bible. Help me see it from an neo-molinist viewpoint please
Your intuitions are correct, the book of Daniel is scripturally the biggest camel OVer's must swallow. Consider only Daniel 11:2-35, his prophecy of the kings before Antiochus IV. This piece of scripture is so accurate (over 100 fulfilled predictions)and detailed that atheists and liberal Christians alike have used it as evidence that Daniel must have been written after the fact!
John, you wrote:
quote:
though actually most things in these books seem clearly to be intended as symbolic), God is saying, "This is what I'm going to do." It poses no problem whatsoever to the Open View to say "God will do what God has decided he will do."
You can't have it both ways John. Maybe God is saying "This is what I'm going to do!" but isn't this problematic because Daniel predicts the great evil of Antiochus Epiphanes (among many others). Are you willing to say that God willed this evil into existence? I've heard it argued here that God won't hold you morally acountable for actions He "forces" upon you. So, who's accountable for them?
Likewise, if God is saying "This is what I'm going to do!", what is the pupose? Is He demonstrating that He micromanages history? Because that is certainly what would be required to acomplish several hundred years of human history with such precision. Picture the millions upon millions of human free decisions that would need to be over-riden!
| | Back to Top | | |
| 97 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:33 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|