 |
|  Paul M. Blackmore Registered Member
 Date Joined Mar 2005 Total Posts : 53 | Posted 3/30/2005 6:30 AM (GMT -6) |   |
As a brand new board member, I am very interested in what you people have to say about this question of mine.
Having come to what many are calling "open Theism" via the chanel of "literal Bible interpretation", which road I embarked upon following my acceptance of the conclusions of the "creation science" movement; the question of saving the world from the full horrors of "Aramageddon" (even if only for a generation or two) has captivated my mind and soul.
I come from a traditional "brethren" dispensationalist background, which might explain a certain amount of my preoccupation with this question.
Your comments please.
Many blessings in Christ
Paul M. Blackmore
| | Back to Top | | |
   |  MattBrown Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2004 Total Posts : 74 | Posted 3/30/2005 11:08 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
Hi Paul.
I only reply because I was formerly dispensational following E.W. Bullinger and others from England.
On the open view: Most of my family (being dispensational) seem to be very receptive to the open view for various reasons.
On a young earth: I would be sympathetic to the young earth position, though personally I am still up in the air (I can see both sides). I want to point out that this issue is completely separate from the open view. I would say that many who hold the open view may be biased against the young earth position for two reasons. a) Most only know the un-scholarly rhetoric of many young earth proponants, rather than the strong evidence of credible young earth scientists. b) An older earth view via "gap" or "day age" seems to fit better into at least Boyd's "warefare theology". Not to knock the warfare view, since I don't know too much about it, just making an observation.
On pre-Millennialism: Like I said, I was formerly dispenational, pre-Mil being unique to this corner of theology. I have since come something close to A-Mil, ie, much of Revelation did infact take place literally in the 1st century, much of Revelation also takes place literally in the every generation since, and finally much of Revelation will take place literally during some wild and crazy and terrible times in the future, surrounding the "Aramageddon", fire, and a new heaven and new earth.
On literalism: I guess I would overall agree with themuzicman. Having an extreemly high view of scripture does not mean taking it all literally. It means rather getting as close as possible to the original meaning, esp the intention of the author and how the original recipients would have understood it when it was read aloud to them. This is a far cry from the higher critics of the 19th and 20th century who contend that scripture has no literal meaning, has no accurate recording and contains no real history. So am I a literalist against liberal theology, yes. But do I think in the end times a literal dragon will come out of the sea, no. Do I believe that God is literally a rock, that I am literally a branch, or that to evangelize I need to throw a fishing line into the water, then clearly no.
God bless and welcome to the site.
MattBrown Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon. - Nietzsche | | Back to Top | | |
  |  Paul M. Blackmore Registered Member
 Date Joined Mar 2005 Total Posts : 53 | Posted 3/31/2005 12:11 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
Thank you all for your comments.
Jefscott, thank you in particular for yours. I suppose the day and the hour might also be the "specific set of circumstances" which finally trip the wire of the Tribulation scenario. Nevertheless, you raise an excellent point and I shall consider it further.
If the "Open View" be correct, it would seem to me to be out of character to have such a day of destiny fixed with 100% certainty, irregardless of the actual situation on the ground, some 2000+ years after Christ spoke about His Father knowing the "day and the hour".
Of all the deadlines that were extended in Biblical history, it would seem that the Aramageddon date with destiny affecting more people than at any other time in earth history; would be the leading candidate for extended grace and Divine patience.
We could be into overtime right now I suppose, and not even be aware of that fact.
Regards
Paul B.
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  MattBrown Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2004 Total Posts : 74 | Posted 4/6/2005 8:48 AM (GMT -6) |   | I agree. The end times events do affect so many...the whole universe even. God's grace almost demands that he will hold out as far as he can stretch the nature of his divine patience.
I think there may be a good chance that the early christians were right to assume that the end was near and that Christ would return in their generation. It may not just have been a possibility but a high probability. God, being the eternal optimist, was hoping that during the Acts period that the Jews ("to the Jew first") would be overwhelmingly converted to the Messiah and then the Messianic Jews would then turn and overwhelmingly convert the whole Gentile world. Thus ushering in the great events of the anti-christ vs christians, but in this scenario God intervenes and Christ returns and wins the final battle. Yet unfortunately the Jews (on the whole) continued to progressively reject the risen Lord and his second chance throughout Acts. Then God moves to plan B and inserts Paul, to convert the Gentiles without the help of the Jews and thus provoke the Jews to jealously, ushering in a provisional age of grace, setting the stage for a long 2000+ year wait.
Thoughts? Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon. - Nietzsche | | Back to Top | | |
    |  Paul M. Blackmore Registered Member
 Date Joined Mar 2005 Total Posts : 53 | Posted 4/6/2005 8:26 PM (GMT -6) |   | |
Note to Matt:
Enjoyed your post. I am working with a model that is truely "open" but nevertheless allows for a high degree of determinism in matters prophetic.
I see the offer of Salvation to the Jews nationally in the same light as Boaz' offer of Ruth to the kinsman redeeemer who was nearer then he. The offer was made to fulfill a necessary legal obligation only. Boaz never intending for the offer to be taken up because he would marry the "woman from Moab" himself.
I see God engineering unbelieving leaders into places of prominence in the Jewish nation, knowing that once empowered, the prophesied "national" rejection of Christ would take place, clearing the decks legally for the grander plan of free salvation to Jew and Gentile.
So I would say that plan B (from a legal perspective), was really plan A , from the viewpoint of God's predestined purposes to legally and formally include the Gentiles (the other sheep) in his plans to bless all persons of faith from the foundation of the world.
Blessings in Christ
Paul M. Blackmore
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
  |  Paul M. Blackmore Registered Member
 Date Joined Mar 2005 Total Posts : 53 | Posted 4/7/2005 5:19 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
Romans 11:11
I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
From a legal perspective, I feel it is quite apropriate to say that the Gentiles were all "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Ephesians 2:12 (The Abrahamic promise of blessing to all nations notwithstanding)
In other words, the Jews had the only ligitimate claim upon God for national redemption as foretold by the prophets of old. God's willingness to save individual Gentile persons of faith as indeed He did even before the time of Christ, was without reference to any promise more specific than "through Abraham shall all the nations be blest".
Even then of course, Gentile entry into blessing was seen only as coming through Abraham first. The children of Israel had first rights (if any could be said to have such rights) to the gospel of Christ. What the children refused was then "the kings fare indeed" for the family pets (the Gentile dogs if you will).
Regards
Paul M. Blackmore
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
  |  Paul M. Blackmore Registered Member
 Date Joined Mar 2005 Total Posts : 53 | Posted 4/8/2005 5:13 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
themuzicman wrote;
"It's not as though those outside of Israel could not put their faith in God and be saved."
Agreed. Earlier I wrote;
"God's willingness to save individual Gentile persons of faith as indeed He did even before the time of Christ............"
because the Apostle Paul wrote;
Romans 2
"9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11For there is no respect of persons with God. "
The fact which you pointed out that "the gentiles generally wandered around in darkness, serving false gods, even as God worked though His people (the Israelites)", is testament to what generally happened to nations that had not the law, the covenants, the temple, the priesthood, etc.
God did not work amongst the Gentile nations as he did in Israel, and in that sense their situation was hopeless. If a Gentile wanted to know about the true God, he'd best get on his horse a la' the "Ethopian Eunuch" and search God out for himself.
This general ignorance amongst the Gentiles began to radically change when the Jews (nationally) gave up what was theirs first and foremost, "The promised Messiah"; who was to be the deliverer of Israel, the Redeemer of Israel, and who would then exalt Israel over all the other nations of the world.
"Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles."Acts 13:46
Regards
Paul M. Blackmore
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. Post Edited (Paul M. Blackmore) : 4/8/2005 5:26:23 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Similitude Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2004 Total Posts : 4968 | Posted 4/8/2005 8:03 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
Muz: What about Ninevah? They certainly weren't going to enter into the old covenant, yet they repented. Were they ultimately condemned, as well?
Jeff: Don't know for sure, but it seems conceivable to me. The mere fact that their repentance required a miraculous sign might suggest it was a repentance of fear only. That kind of behavior would be consistent with how they "feared" their own "gods."
But Christ, Himself, spoke of people who change only for a while, like the cases in the parable of the sower. Also, think of the case of the magician in Samaria in Acts. Also, think of Israelites in the wilderness who changed for a while but were later judged. Peter talks of those who "escaped" but whose latter end is worse for falling away.
Christ said had Sodom and Gomorrah seen the signs He did, they would have repented. If "repented" in that statement equals conversion, why, in your opinion, didn't God give Sodom the signs so they could be converted?
Muz: If so, what was the point?
Jeff: Maybe what the book of Jonah says at the end is sufficient (Jon. 4:10-11). Although, it may have had other purposes, also, less obvious.
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 4/8/2005 8:08:55 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |  MattBrown Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2004 Total Posts : 74 | Posted 4/8/2005 9:45 AM (GMT -6) |   |
|
Matt: Which prophecies are you thinking about?
Jeff: Those relating to your comment, "ushering in the great events of the anti-christ vs christians." In particular, how might the alternate scenario you mentioned have played out with any prophecies you think are related to "the great events of the anti-christ vs. christians?"
Matt: I was just brainstorming and had in mind ALL prophecies of the 'end'. I guess, after pondering, I would say specifically Mt 24 et al, where JC seems to indicate that all hell will break loose and the end will come in that generation. God, under his most optimistic possibility, aka desired outcome, knew as settle that the Jewish leaders would reject and kill JC. God also knew that the newly empowered, disciples/apostles would evangelize like mad and convert many in a divine expodential multiplication process. However, what happens then was open. God's desired outcome was that the Jews as a whole would finally repent and turn to the risen, yet absent in body, Savior. The Jews would then turn to the world and fulfill the great commission within a generation. And if this possibility happens then the trip wire is set off, JC returns "ushering in the great events of the anti-christ vs christians." Thus, Mt 24 could have been 100% fulfilled instead of the partial fulfillment in AD 63 to 70.
But that is all ad hoc thinking. | Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon. - Nietzsche | | Back to Top | | |
 |  MattBrown Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2004 Total Posts : 74 | Posted 4/8/2005 10:03 AM (GMT -6) |   | Muz: What about Ninevah? They certainly weren't going to enter into the old covenant, yet they repented. Were they ultimately condemned, as well? If so, what was the point?
I agree that Ninevah did not have to enter into the Old Cov or convert to Judism to be saved from condemnation.
I think they may have been ultimately condemned but only because that same generation that sincerely repented, within a generation or two of Jonah, returned to their godlessness, and God sends Jonah part 2 aka Nahum.
I would agree with jefscott, the point of Jonah was the ending. God is so loving and merciful at heart, not willing that any should perish that he has tons of "pity" and is always giving humans and culture and nations 2nd, 3rd, 4th chances to repent and return to him. What a great God hey! Desiring his creatures who constantly hurt him and let him down to turn back to him so he can welcome us back into his arms. Amen and amen.
Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon. - Nietzsche | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Nathan Straub Registered Member
 Date Joined May 2005 Total Posts : 50 | Posted 5/13/2005 8:56 PM (GMT -6) |   | MattBrown said...Matt: I was just brainstorming and had in mind ALL prophecies of the 'end'. I guess, after pondering, I would say specifically Mt 24 et al, where JC seems to indicate that all hell will break loose and the end will come in that generation. God, under his most optimistic possibility, aka desired outcome, knew as settle that the Jewish leaders would reject and kill JC. God also knew that the newly empowered, disciples/apostles would evangelize like mad and convert many in a divine expodential multiplication process. However, what happens then was open. God's desired outcome was that the Jews as a whole would finally repent and turn to the risen, yet absent in body, Savior. The Jews would then turn to the world and fulfill the great commission within a generation. And if this possibility happens then the trip wire is set off, JC returns "ushering in the great events of the anti-christ vs christians." Thus, Mt 24 could have been 100% fulfilled instead of the partial fulfillment in AD 63 to 70. But that is all ad hoc thinking.
|
How could you think that God didn't know exactly when the Day of the Lord will come? See Mark 13:32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Habakkuk 2:3 and Hebrews 10:27 say that day will not be delayed.
Isaiah 46:13, right after describing God's exhaustive, absolute and determinative foreknowledge, and how God's plans cannot be thwarted, says "I am bringing my righteousness near, it is not far away; and my salvation will not be delayed. I will grant salvation to Zion, my splendor to Israel." Why could this not refer to the salvation of many Jews at the time of the end, prophecied in Romans 11?
One last point. Romans 11:2-6 says "God did not reject his people whom he foreknew." And that there remains a remnant (specifically numbered, just as in Elijah's time) chosen by grace. Did this inform your eschatology? | | Back to Top | | |
   |  JEE Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2004 Total Posts : 1466 | Posted 5/14/2005 3:01 PM (GMT -6) |   | The Son of God, in his self-limited (kenotic) existence as the Son of Man, was not omniscient, though He certainly had extremely great access to the Holy Spirit, as John's Gospel says Jesus had the Spirit without measure. Christ said of himself, "I do only the things I see the Father do," and "I speak only those things I have learned from my Father."
In other words, Jesus, by virtue of his total voluntary submission to the Father in all things, and by virtue of the optimal measure of the Spirit's anointing He possessed or was possessed of, was perfectly led by the Spirit in his ministry, but that does not mean He, "in the days of His flesh," was omniscient like the Father and the Spirit were.
I don't know of any heresy that is implied by admitting the Jesus was to a huge extent limited by the very nature of his incarnate state. May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.netPost Edited (JEE) : 5/14/2005 5:38:05 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Laika Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003 Total Posts : 2433 | Posted 5/14/2005 5:25 PM (GMT -6) |   |
Nathan Straub said... Isaiah 46:13, right after describing God's exhaustive, absolute and determinative foreknowledge, and how God's plans cannot be thwarted,
Which is funny because if it was really there, you'd have quoted it instead of just paraphrasing it. LOL
Isaiah 46:9"Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, 10Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; 11Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it. 12"Listen to Me, you stubborn-minded, Who are far from righteousness. 13"I bring near My righteousness, it is not far off; And My salvation will not delay And I will grant salvation in Zion, And My glory for Israel."
Point out this "exhaustive, absolute and determinative foreknowledge" in the passage above.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Nathan Straub Registered Member
 Date Joined May 2005 Total Posts : 50 | Posted 5/15/2005 12:30 AM (GMT -6) |   | And the papists told Luther to point out the "sola" in "iustus autem ex fide vivit" by which he translated "Der Gerechte wird seines Glaubens leben."
And his answer: Martin Luther said... Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about that word "sola" than simply "Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors." ...For you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the word "sola"...I also know that in Rom. 3, the word "solum" is not present in either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me that - it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text - if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there. I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in translation - not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word "solum" only along with the word "not" (nicht) or "no" (kein). For example, we say "the farmer brings only (allein) grain and no money"; or "No, I really have no money, but only (allein) grain"; I have only eaten and not yet drunk"; "Did you write it only and not read it over?" There are a vast number of such everyday cases.
In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German tongue to add "allein" in order that "nicht" or "kein" may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say "The farmer brings grain and no (kein) money, but the words "kein money" do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, "the farmer brings allein grain and kein money." Here the word "allein" helps the word "kein" so much that it becomes a clear and complete German expression.
Do you want me to write like Luther did? In both cases, it is immaterial whether the verse exactly says what you are looking for, if the word would complete the sense of the text.
Suffice to say, that "My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all my good pleasure" leaves no room for God's plans to be thwarted.
"Declaring the end from the beginning" does not allow for anything to be left out of that end. Furthermore, a fortiori, if God declares the furthest end, how can He not know the middle? | | Back to Top | | |
  | 47 posts in this thread. Viewing Page : 1 2 | | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:17 AM (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 |
|
|