 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > How do Open Theists view the book of Revelation | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/15/2003 7:06 AM (GMT -6) |   | I think some of the debate over the biblicalness of various view-points could be cleared up, if we reaccepted the importance of tradition and scripture. This is especially appropriate for Revelations since how one interprets the meaning of Revelations will not be based on Revelations.
That is why it matters to study the History of Theology and do comparisons of different approaches to see how some of the "biblical" views we think are God's Truths may not be so.
Roberta,
I think the open-view may have led the WHC leaders to not tell your husband that he should not divorce you. Yes, divorce is a sin, but there is much sin in this world and a lot of it was compounded in the name of Christianity when the Christian Church accumulated the political power where they could make divorce illegal. Also, sometimes enough hurts have taken place within a relationship that what may have been a viable, God-glorifying relationship can no longer be so... . That I think is one of the "scary" or angst-oriented aspects of Open Theism. We can make it so that we are no longer able to get along with people with whom we were very much in love with at some point.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Arrogance that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/15/2003 7:51 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
O.K. Satan knows Revelation. So either of two things:
1. He doesn't believe Revelation. He's still deluded in thinking he can be like the most high.
2. He realizes he's doomed but is still fighting God, taking as many down with him.
I do think Satan has tried to force God's hand in the past and have some examples in mind but these are only speculations and not worthy of discussion.
Those analogies may be true but do you think that he and the demons and others described in the book of Revelation will act out all of those scenarios with exact detail?
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/15/2003 7:59 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
That is why it matters to study the History of Theology and do comparisons of different approaches to see how some of the "biblical" views we think are God's Truths may not be so.
Hi DLW
I actually I believe in reading and interpretting all Scripture literally unless the Scripture itself is shown to be metaphorical. Even then I still study the metaphor to find it's literal meaning. One of the things that appeals to me about the Open View is that they do not accept clear literal Scriptures as "anthropomorphic."
That is what I do with Revelation. Ten years ago I spent several months teaching on the whole book of Revelation. I taught in in the futuristic sense (with a tinge of dispensationalism). Now the Open View presents a new challenge to me on this. I am not moved by the different interpretations of Revelation (especially people's wild interpretation of symbols) but from reading it, most of it seems very futuristic and I cannot see how much of it has happened yet.
Basically, this book is still keeping me on the side of the pool and keeping me from diving in totally into Open Theist waters. My feet are wet and I have them dangling in but I am not yet covered with water. ;)
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/15/2003 8:01 AM (GMT -6) | |
VictoryWord said:If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
Christians have historically believed that all truth is God's Truth and that their were both revealed and natural sources of truth. Principles for validating the historical accuracy of a text(as given in Boyd's Letters from a Skeptic) are not based on the bible. Similarly, hermeneutical and exegetical principles that help us to understand the Bible better do not come from the Bible.
One can use the Bible to support almost any belief(racism, slavery, isolationism). This is part of metaphysical dualism. Because it can acheive so much good, it can also be warped to justify bad things.
dlw
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com
Prayer from Kenya
From the Arrogance that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/15/2003 8:03 AM (GMT -6) | |
VW:Forgive me DLW but I am not understanding your point here. I did not come to argue exegetics or hermeneutics nor did I come here to argue about my moniker ("If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting") which I use on every forum that I attend. I came here to get answers to specific questions.
DLW:My point is that exegetics and hermeneutics are the point regarding how one interprets Revelation. I am also saying that given the way Revelation was written, that it doesn't contribute much to definite answers to your specific questions...
I know that these forums do not always reveal the true tone and intent of the writer. I don't want to misjudge you and I hope you are not misjudging me. I can debate with the best of them but that is not my purpose right now. I am sincerely looking for dialogue and answers.
DLW:I misinterpreted your saying at the bottom of your posting as something you wrote in response to my previous posting. I'm sorry, if I came across rather antagonistic.
Prayer from Kenya
From the Arrogance that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/15/2003 8:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
VictoryWord said:If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
Christians have historically believed that all truth is God's Truth and that their were both revealed and natural sources of truth. Principles for validating the historical accuracy of a text(as given in Boyd's Letters from a Skeptic) are not based on the bible. Similarly, hermeneutical and exegetical principles that help us to understand the Bible better do not come from the Bible.
One can use the Bible to support almost any belief(racism, slavery, isolationism). This is part of metaphysical dualism. Because it can acheive so much good, it can also be warped to justify bad things.
dlw
Forgive me DLW but I am not understanding your point here. I did not come to argue exegetics or hermeneutics nor did I come here to argue about my moniker ("If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting") which I use on every forum that I attend. I came here to get answers to specific questions.
I know that these forums do not always reveal the true tone and intent of the writer. I don't want to misjudge you and I hope you are not misjudging me. I can debate with the best of them but that is not my purpose right now. I am sincerely looking for dialogue and answers.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/15/2003 8:41 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DLW:I misinterpreted your saying at the bottom of your posting as something you wrote in response to my previous posting. I'm sorry, if I came across rather antagonistic.
Not a problem DLW. It's easy to misunderstand one another. However, remember that it is only my signature line ;)
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/15/2003 8:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Victorywood, much thanks for answering my question and explaining. I understand what you are saying about people leaving a church or a belief due to hurt that happened there. I wanted to leave WHC way before the divorce though. I did not agree with Open Theism and was not comfortable with some other things there. If I had not been married to my husband, I would not have attended there. It's nothing personal against Greg Boyd or any person. It had alot to do with Open Theistic teachings... and some other things (not having to do with people). The people I knew there were nice people.
Anyways, I was definitely VERY hurt from the divorce (as was my husband. I was disappointed at not receiving help/counsel/prayer from WHC when I sought it, and it killed me when my husband said, "No one says I need to stay with you" after he sought counsel at WHC, BUT... there were far more other things I was concerned with at that time. Later, I really felt that I wanted to share my experience there with Dr. Boyd-- I felt it needed to be "brought to light"-- so I did that in the divorce thread. But it was more out of a concern for and a hatred of divorce than it was my own bitterness. Actually, I am not bitter. I was on and off at first (not at WHC but at my husband). I don't think WHC intentionally meant not to help me, but I do still question their view on divorce. But... I no longer attend there and it's in the past so I simply hope that by bringing it to light, it did some good somehow for couples at WHC that might be struggling. Even if it simply made Dr. Boyd more aware of something in that area, then that is a good thing.
I don't really want to get this or any other thread off and onto the topic of the divorce. So... having said that... things are good, the divorce is over, I don't go to WHC- not because of the divorce, but because far before the divorce, I was uncomfortable there with both Open Theism and some other things, and so, that's that!
I don't consider myself Calvinist, Open Theist, or any other -ist.... but I am a Christian.  I'm sure I am more on the Calvinist side though!  I honestly don't know enough about Calvinism to say with certainty!
Peace!
BACK TO REVELATION...!
Edited by - Bobbie on 04/15/2003 1:54:32 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/15/2003 9:15 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW said: " I think the open-view may have led the WHC leaders to not tell your husband that he should not divorce you."
BOBBIE: Yes, I agree. This is how I see the two tied together. A person's beliefs influence his view, his counsel, his opinons... whether it be on divorce, war, abortion, education, etc. An Open Theist believes certain things about God and the amount of "control" God has and the extent of God's knowledge, and this belief WILL influence the counsel given to someone. I'm not sure I should say this, but I did share with one friend how my husband said "No one says I need to stay with you" after having received counsel at WHC. I shared with this friend some of what Open Theists believe (that the future is open, that God doesn't know all thing that are going to happen- they are not reality until we make the choice and then God knows once that happens, etc), and my friend said, "No wonder your husband didn't receive counsel to stay married!" And he added, "He needs to get out of that church!" That was just his opinion based on a brief explanation of Open Theism.
There are ALOT of people who find alot of falsehoods with Open Theism. I have talked with MANY and read many in an internet search that vehemently disagree with Open Theistic teachings. Open Theism is still not a hugely widespread or accepted teaching.
I do believe with all my heart that had we been at a church that took a stronger stand against divorce, we would have received more counsel and help. To be honest, our marriage was not so problemed that it couldn't be helped. But my husband was in that "hopeless" mindset. He greatly regretted the divorce afterwards but, by then, several things had changed and due to some circumstances, reconciliation was difficult. My husband did not want to wait for it and as far as I know, despite knowing he was divorced, his WHC friends did not encourage reconciliation. Not that they discouraged it... but they just sort of accepted it-- you're divorced, now move on. You know, the average advice given to someone who's divorced. Why reconciliation wasn't encouraged I don't know. Maybe because they believe in "Plan B"? Maybe because they believe divorce is okay in certain situations. Not sure...
But... that's all I want to say anymore about it! I don't want to keep sidetracking the thread here. I'm doing really well and have learned and grown as a result of the divorce, so good things have come from it, and now I am enjoying the present and looking forward to the future!
Peace!
"With God ALL things are possible" Matt. 19:26 | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/15/2003 9:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Please forgive me for staying off-topic one more time, but I would argue that one implication of Open Theism that is rather under-appreciated is fallibism. I.e., we do have freedom and choices, but what is God's will is not always apparent.
I.e., the WHC people did not know you and your husband's situation very well. While divorce is tragic, sometimes there are marriages that for various reasons cannot be repaired. As such, the WHC would not make your husband's choice for him, since they were not in a position to do so.
But, the fact they didn't tell him that he needs to stay with you doesn't mean they blessed/encouraged his decision to get the divorce.
They may have been wrong, but, in other situations, for them to take an unequivocal position against divorce may also be wrong... .
Hence, this is what I mean by fallibilism. The Bible is clear about the fact divorce is due to sin, but experience has shown that forbidding divorce in the past has sometimes led to more bad than good.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Arrogance that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/16/2003 7:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi VW,
Three things occur to me about this issue:
1. Everything that will ever happen is not written about in the Book of Revelation (Part of that which is certain as opposed to that which is possible).
2. With a few very cryptic exceptions (Antichrist, False Prophet, etc.) the specific individuals who will be for or against Christ are not named in the Book of Revelation.
3. God can and apparently does at times override human free will to bring about His purposes in history (i.e., Pharoah, Cyrus, etc.)
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/16/2003 8:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Those analogies may be true but do you think that he and the demons and others described in the book of Revelation will act out all of those scenarios with exact detail?
What part of Revelations are you having problems with?
God deals with nations differently than He does with individuals. See the potter and clay story from the O.T. It's dealing with vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath, nations. Much of Revelation deals with nations as well.
_________________________
Isaiah 46:10 --> "God declares the end from the beginning."
Swindoll: ------> "God sees the end from the beginning." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/16/2003 8:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DLW said: " I think the open-view may have led the WHC leaders to not tell your husband that he should not divorce you."
BOBBIE: Yes, I agree. This is how I see the two tied together.
This is ridiculous. If this is so, then Calvinism, knowing that your divorce was fore-ordained from the beginning of time, that it is all part of God's great plan for you, must give you great comfort.
_________________________
Isaiah 46:10 --> "God declares the end from the beginning."
Swindoll: ------> "God sees the end from the beginning." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/16/2003 9:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika, not ridiculous at all. A person's counsel/teaching/opinions will be shaped by their beliefs.
"With God ALL things are possible" Matt. 19:26 | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/16/2003 10:03 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
DLW said: " I think the open-view may have led the WHC leaders to not tell your husband that he should not divorce you."
BOBBIE: Yes, I agree. This is how I see the two tied together.
This is ridiculous. If this is so, then Calvinism, knowing that your divorce was fore-ordained from the beginning of time, that it is all part of God's great plan for you, must give you great comfort.
Okay, let us agree that anything and everything can be construed as part of God's will/plan under Calvinism or be foreknowable with Arminianism.
My point, is that the open-view has a more nuanced view of both predestination and free-will. Sometimes because of our past free choices, certain things come to be predestined(i.e., allowing anti-semitism to foster within the Christian Church, and the lack of a traditional of critical autonomy of the Lutheran Church wrt to the Germany State permitted the Holocaust to take place. But as of rise of the third reich, these views were so firmly engrained that there was scarcely much chance of them not taking place.
So my point with respect to failing marriages was that due to past bad choices or preexisting problems, some marriages may not saveable. WHC ministry may not have been able to discern whether or not this was or was not the case with Roberta and her ex-husband and, as such, chose not to take a firm position against the divorce.
I s'pose this viewpoint is compatible with the other theological viewpoints, but I think open theism tends to encourage a deeper reflection on what we can change and what we cannot change.
dlw
_________________________
Isaiah 46:10 --> "God declares the end from the beginning."
Swindoll: ------> "God sees the end from the beginning."
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/16/2003 10:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
DLW said: " I think the open-view may have led the WHC leaders to not tell your husband that he should not divorce you."
BOBBIE: Yes, I agree. This is how I see the two tied together.
This is ridiculous. If this is so, then Calvinism, knowing that your divorce was fore-ordained from the beginning of time, that it is all part of God's great plan for you, must give you great comfort.
Okay, let us agree that anything and everything can be construed as part of God's will/plan under Calvinism or be foreknowable with Arminianism.
My point, is that the open-view has a more nuanced view of both predestination and free-will. Sometimes because of our past free choices, certain things come to be predestined(i.e., allowing anti-semitism to foster within the Christian Church, and the lack of a traditional of critical autonomy of the Lutheran Church wrt to the Germany State permitted the Holocaust to take place. But as of rise of the third reich, these views were so firmly engrained that there was scarcely much chance of them not taking place.
So my point with respect to failing marriages was that due to past bad choices or preexisting problems, some marriages may not saveable. WHC ministry may not have been able to discern whether or not this was or was not the case with Roberta and her ex-husband and, as such, chose not to take a firm position against the divorce.
I s'pose this viewpoint is compatible with the other theological viewpoints, but I think open theism tends to encourage a deeper reflection on what we can change and what we cannot change.
dlw
_________________________
Isaiah 46:10 --> "God declares the end from the beginning."
Swindoll: ------> "God sees the end from the beginning."
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/16/2003 1:38 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW: my point with respect to failing marriages was that due to past bad choices or preexisting problems, some marriages may not saveable. WHC ministry may not have been able to discern whether or not this was or was not the case with Roberta and her ex-husband and, as such, chose not to take a firm position against the divorce.
BOBBIE: And this is my point as well. WHC does not know wehther any marriage can or cannot change. I have read many, many stories of absolutely hopeless marriages (or hopeless people!) in which pastors, friends, or family said, "Chuck the gal!" or "Move on" or "This is beyond saving" or "that person will never change".... something along those lines? Says who!? PEOPLE? When PEOPLE say something is not saveable does that then make it not savable, or isn't God's Word the final authority? Back to these marriages... I have read stories of marriages and individuals told these type of things and later down the road, their marriage was reconciled or the person was healed, etc DESPITE a person saying it "couldn't" be.
The Word says several things about divorce-- in Malachi God says he "hates divorce". In the gospels it says "what God has joined, let NO man separate". Moses said the divorce decree was issued because of their "hardness" of heart. There is not one single Scripture verse that says that some marriages or some people "can't" be saved; and this is why I have great trouble with Open Theism. It is a defeatist theology. In other words, well, it's a pretty bleak and hopeless thing to say that someone or some thing is beyond help or hope. And it sure takes any pressure off my shoulders. If I can say, "Ah, that marriage is too far gone and divorce is the only option", then I don't have to do the work of getting involved through prayer, friendship, counsel, etc. to help this couple. It's a heck of alot easier for all involved to just say, "Chuck it. It can't be helped."
WHC, and all churches, has a responsibility to share the Word no matter what the response of the person. If there has been no adultery, if both are Believers, then in order for WHC or any church to determine that the marriage "can't" be saved/restored/helped... they would HAVE to meet with both people for awhile to see if this is true... and if there was abuse, then they'd need to do all they could to help those people before ever talking about divorce. God certainly doesn't want an abuser to remain abusive and He also doesn't want the person being abused to remain being abused but neither is divorce necessarily the best solution.
I very much disagree with the statement that some marriages are "not saveable". I don't believe this for a moment. But I do believe that this is Open Theistic teaching. If a marriage is not saveable, well a person is also not saveable. So if I'm witnessing to someone, and they've just made way too many bad choices in their life and they are just so hard, etc... well, I might as well, say "Forget it... they are not saveable." The Bible never tells us to do such a thing. We might have to separate ourself from such a person but we can still pray and hope and believe because we know that NOTHING is too difficult for God-- no marriage and no person is beyond the ability for Him to heal or save or help.
Now... please don't equate this to me saying that the person WILL change or the marriage WILL be healed. Obviously, not everything WILL be as it could be, but that is not to say that it is so far damaged that it is impossible for it to be helped/healed/saved, etc. God is an all-powerful God and He can soften the hardest heart, heal the most broken marriage, and save the most lost person... and we see many stories attesting to this in His Word. Again, this is not to say that all will be healed, saved, etc... because many chose to reject God and do not want to obey Him or repent of thier ways... but this doesn't mean the marriage can't be saved... and you and I don't know the future as well. A marriage that right now looks very bad could very well down the road be healed. Far be it from me to condemn any person or any marriage.
WHC could have discerned if it had done things necessary to discern. As it was, WHC did not discern but they could have. When there are two Believers and no adultery, no abuse, etc... which WHC didn't know of any of that because no one there spoke to me and there's no way to discern anything with only the testimony of one person... NO person and NO church ought to condemn any marriage or any person.
DLW: I think open theism tends to encourage a deeper reflection on what we can change and what we cannot change.
BOBBIE: Yes, I beleive open theism does do this, but I believe it's wrong because it's not about what WE can or can't change, it's about what God CAN change. And not only that, it's about obeying God's Word. If I have a woman come to me saying she hates her husband, they don't love each other, on and on, I am going to share with her God's Word and tell her that God hates divorce and that with prayer and the help of her church and others, God can heal the marriage. I might even say to her... stop reflecting on it and just OBEY God! We can reflect so much and so deeply that we just start totally deceiving ourselves because we're figuring things out with our own understanding rather than obeying God or seeing things as He sees them.
Too many Christians and churches would lazily tell that woman to divorce and that is so wrong. It's not a matter of self reflection, it's a matter of--- what does God's Word say and are you and I going to obey it no matter the cost and no matter how things appear?
Open Theism ought to be encouraging things like obedience, repentence, and holiness... not reflection. Reflection comes pretty easy for us and our hearts are "deceitfully wicked". We easily deceive ourself if left with our own reflective thoughts. It goes like this... I begin reflecting and thinking, "Man, my husband's a slob. He always works and never romances me. Life was better when I was single. Surely God doesn't want me miserable. I never thought I'd divorce but it'd sure be nice to be single again. God forgives... He'd surely forgive me for divorce. It's not like the end of the world" and on and on and pretty soon I have deceived myself into thinking that divorce is okay and a better option. I am not obeying God's Word, I am not repenting of my own sins, and I am not seeking holiness but am rather seeking my happiness because I have refelected and have found that happiness is lacking in my life.
I think Open Theism is a very dangerous theology for the reasons you mentioned DLW.
You said, "WHC ministry may not have been able to discern whether or not this was or was not the case with Roberta and her ex-husband and, as such, chose not to take a firm position against the divorce" and that is such a sad statement. It should be that because WHC was unable to discern, they DID take a firm postion against the divorce. Our inability to discern something doesn't mean that we then give unBiblical advice. Well, I don't know how bad it is with you two, so well, I'm sure whatever you decide is fine. NO... it should be "I don't know how bad it is... but God says He hates divorce and I know you both love the Lord and desire to obey Him. I will help you through this, pray with you, etc." If they get angry with me for saying that, so be it. They are not angry with me.... they are angry with God's Word telling them to do something they don't want to do.
"With God ALL things are possible" Matt. 19:26 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/16/2003 1:43 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW, you said in another post that you were an Open Theist in college and then beset with angst" for a couple years. What was the angst? I kinda got the impression you saw it as a "good" angst... like the type of angst one faces when strugging with a hard issue. But I'm not sure. Are you still an Open Theist? I can't really tell where you stand on it. If you'd rather not say for whatever reason, that's okay. I am just being nosy! :)
SORRY VICTORYWOOD... your thread has gone off in all sorts of directions! I don't have alot of input either on the Revelation question but I think it's a good question.
"With God ALL things are possible" Matt. 19:26 | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 4/17/2003 2:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Bobbie,
You said:
quote:
WHC, and all churches, has a responsibility to share the Word no matter what the response of the person.
So, since I'm part of WHC...
Ro 12:18
If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.
Mt 12:36
"But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.
Mr 11:25
"Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions.
selah
ps. I wonder how many times I've asked you to stop generalizing WHC?
what specifically are you trying to accomplish?
Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb. Rev. 22:1 | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/17/2003 2:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Bobbie
It's okay. This is not the first internet forum I have been on and I know that a thread can often turn into something other than what was originally intended. I have come to expect such things. By the way, I pray that all is well with you. I want to see our Father do some wonderful things in your life.
To All
I was spending some time in prayer this morning and pondering this subject. I really wanted God to speak to me about this because I want everything that I believe to be totally in line with His Word. A thought occurred to me this morning about something that John wrote in the book of Revelation and I began pondering on this. John writes:
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter (Rev. 1:19)
I see that Jesus spoke in three tenses - past, present, and future. He seems to do this even in relation to Himself. One thing I have never read is Him saying "... the things which shall be hereafter from your human perspective but are already occurring in the eternal now." I've always been troubled by this teaching that God was living in the "eternal now" because that left me with the question of how He could have rested on the seventh day (see Genesis) if all of history occurred to Him in one sweeping moment.
But, I still must didg through Revelation and see how this all ties together. Thank you for those who have tried to help me with this.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/17/2003 6:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Note:I am going both reply to Bobbie and tie it back in with Revelations.
We may never know whether or not you are right and more could have been done, but we do have to let go of these things since to hold onto them for too long or too hard will undermine our witness as Christians(as well as other things in our lives).
In my view, Revelations was written to accomplish a similar function for the early Church. They were under extensive persecution and many were losing their lives. It provides both prophetic encouragement by pointing out that yes the world is evil and will be subject to judgment some day and then it points to the need to focus on Jesus and his imminent return and that this return would happen when those who have rejected Jesus are no longer able to choose otherwise(i.e., all of the acts of God as judgment have no effect on their choice to basically give him the finger).
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/17/2003 1:28 PM (GMT -6) | | VW,
A couple of other possibilities with regard to the Book of Revelation vis a vis the Open View would be preterism or perhaps even amillenialism; if the entire book was fulfilled in the apostolic age, little, if any part of the book even refers to the future. Perhaps an easier option would be the majority Christian opinion throughout the centuries, amillenialism. If the book was written as a prophetic illustration of spiritual warfare, then the particulars as to the future fulfillment are not nearly as much of a difficulty for the Open View.
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/17/2003 1:39 PM (GMT -6) | | John: thank you for bring other possibilities. With the "Left Behind," series so popular it seems Christians assume that this is the only view of Christ's second coming. There are several good books out there that deal with the subject that take alternative views.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/18/2003 4:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Good morning John
First let me say that I have enjoyed these discussions with you. You have helped me immensely in many areas.
I have had some opportunity to check out the Preterist view again yesterday. I have a hard time seeing it their way, or believing that the events of Revelation have already been fulfilled. Unless one takes the visions of the Jesus coming with His saints and making war upon the beast and the anti-christ, if Satan has already been bound in the pit for 1000 and has now been thrown in the lake of fire, and other seemingly futuristic events as has already happened or are simply symbols or metaphors of current spiritual warfare, its hard to accept the Preterist viewpoint.
If I began to interpret Revelation is metaphoric then where does it end. Too many liberal theologians want to do the same with Genesis and other parts of Scripture. One of the things I find attractive about OV is that they have taken certain passages of Scripture to mean exactly what it says. It would seem contradictory to me if the OVers begin to do to Revelation what their opponents do to Scriptur that supports the OV position.
Even if the Preterist view is right and I am wrong on believing that Revelation is futuristic and there are events yet to be fulfilled (and I am open to learning), those events had to be futuristic at some point before they were ever fulfilled even in the Preterist viewpoint. John writes:
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: (Rev. 1:1)
Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; (Rev. 1:19)
After this I looked, and, behold, a door [was] opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard [was] as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. (Rev. 4:1)
So whether these things had already been fulfilled or are going to be fulfilled, at some time John was speaking about a future event. Of course, this could fall under the Open Theism view that this part of the future is indeed settled because God's omnipotent power can bring it to pass.
My still partially Arminian mindset won't allow me to accept the Calvinistic view that God will control the will of each player in the event to make it happen exactly the way it is written. My Arminian thinking sees this as God having looked into the future and seeing the events that will take place. This is in contrast with my OV/Free Will Theist mindset which says that God does not know the future exhaustively and does not know all of the free will actions of His creatures. I still find myself in a conundrum. I know you guys have tried to help me but I guess this is one I have to work out in prayer with God Himself.
Honorman
I believed in a pretribulation rapture many years before the popular "Left Behind" series came out. As a matter of fact, I do not care for that series because it is long and drawn out. I like fast paced novels myself.
I do not believe that a pretrib belief would be totally inconsistent with the OV. However, the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation seems to conflict with God not knowing the future exhaustively. These are my only trouble spots. Otherwise, I am convinced that the OV is Scripturally sound.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/19/2003 6:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi VW,
I also have problems with the preterist view (as I do with all eschatological views). I was only offering food for thought, and relating info I had seen from other OVers. I personally am leaning towards amillenialism (though I was raised with the pretrib, premill belief pervasive within the Assemblies of God denomination).
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
| 64 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:56 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 |
|
|