 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > What did He know, & when did He know it? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/30/2003 2:28 AM (GMT -6) |   | Don: Maybe I missed something, but didn't Railey come down firmly in the Arminian camp. While he did seem to articulate the OV position well, he concluded that God does have complete knowledge of the future and on that basis could guide us.
Tom: Yeah, Railey holds to simple-foreknowledge. But I don't think he articulated the OV accurately at all. He reallly misunderstood the view then.
Don: ...the same tired old A/G position they have always maintained.
Tom: Hey,  watch who you're calling old and tired! 
 | | Back to Top | | |
 |
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 12/30/2003 5:55 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
Well, you learn something new every day!!! I can't believe that stuff about Dake. Unbelievable. Yes, he has some dispensation eccentricities, but he's widely admired, especially among fundamentalists. (Did you know that he also held to the gap theory? for all his oddness, the guy "obviously" had some insight into the word!!!!) I've got to pick up his God's Plan book! Is it still in print?
Thanks Victory Word for the tip.
Thanks to nofuture as well as Icon, TGB and others who responded. I think the take offered by Icon/TGB is about as solid an interpretation we can get.
So far as I can see, it certainly beats the standard/meaningless anthropomorphism interpretation.
Blessings
Greg
You're welcome and thank YOU Dr. Boyd. By the way, I have been enjoying your latest book "Is God to Blame?".
Yes, Dake strongly advocates the GAP theory, even in "God's Plan For Man". I often felt that this position explained things a little better than the "Young Earth" theory or even the "Christian Evolution" teaching I am hearing about. Actually I had the impression that You did too. I thought you mentioned it in "God At War" but I could be wrong.
I have my troubles with dispensationalism but thankfully Dake did not take it to the extreme that some do.
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 12/30/2003 6:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
I was almost afraid to mention Dake here as I know that he is taboo among many nonPentecostals. I did not want to begin a debate on the validity of his writings here.
I try to take the "chew the meat and spit out the bones" approach to just about any theologian or commentator. Dake's Bible has some things in it that I believe to be in error. However, on the whole I think he did a great job at being a self-taught theologian to the middle decades of the Pentecostal movement, when most Pentecostals viewed theologians with a lot of suspicion.
Same here John. I have often been perplexed by people who totally reject a teaching, movement or doctrine based on some silly things that one of it's advocates might teach. Dake has written a few things that I did not care for but overall his writings have been very helpful to me. The first thing I look for with any teaching is to see where it lines up with Scripture and reject the portion that does not. That is why I can say that I have been blesed by the writings of even some cessationists and some Calvinists (of course in areas where they are NOT advocating Calvinism).
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
quote:
However, in light of nofuture's question, I could not resist. I remember reading Dake's view of omniscience and foreknowledge 11 years ago but I rejected it at the time. Only in the past two years have I begun to reconsider it due to studying Open Theism. Not sure though how much Dake's view of omniscience fits with OVs definition of omnicience that God knows all things past and present.
I would like to hear how Dake explains specific predictive prophecies in light of his views of omniscience. Until my copy of GPFM gets here, all I have to go on is my copy of his Annotated Bible. Any clues as to good places to look in his Bible for info about how predictive prophecy works in his understanding?
He talks about those things in "God's Plan For Man" and he also has a book on the "rapture" and a commentary on Revelation. Like me he is pretrib and he believes that Revelation is FUTURISTIC. However, he does not view the prophecy from an "eternal now" aspect. Here is what he says:
The Revelation had its origin in the mind of God. The things contained therein were in His mind from eternity, but were not given to Christ until after He was exalted as the head of the church. "God gave unto him" this Revelation. (Revelation Expounded, p. 25)
If nothing else at this point, Dake is in dispute with the teaching of Revelation from an "Eternal Now" doctrinal aspect. As you read the commentary further, Dake presupposes that this Revelation is the result of God's orginal plan to have man rule and reign with Him. Though the fall cause some setback to His orginal plan, God intends to go on with this plan.
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
While there are some strong similarities between Dake's theology and Moral Government Theology, in view of the fact that Dake affirmed that all sinned in Adam (Original Sin) as well as the Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement, it would not be accurate to say he was a promotor of Moral Gov't Theology. The Augustinian Doctrine of Original Sin as well as the Penal Substition theory of the atonement are very emphatically denied by Moral Gov't Theology. Where it appears Dake agrees with MGT is in:
1. Real freedom from sin being the Christian's privilege and responsibility in Christ (that is, holiness is God's standard of living for his people).
2. Perseverance of the Saints conditioned upon actual continuance in holiness.
3. The Atonement is universal in potential application. (It seems Dake is inconsistent on the Atonement as far as I can tell. If the atonement was a Penal Substitution as well as universal in its application, then Universalism must necessarily follow, though of course, Dake did not believe in or teach Universalism.
4. Conditional Election.
5. Grace able to be resisted.
You could be right. I have not studied MGT thoroughly outside of the teachings on omniscience and foreknowledge. Though I have read many of Finney's teachings, they have been primarily in the areas of prayer and revivalism. Therefore I am far from being an expert on MGT. New lesson learned today: stay away from making statements about stuff I am not familiar enough with 
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 1/12/2004 4:23 PM (GMT -6) | | John Earp mentioned this earlier and I brought it up on another forum. Since I went thru the trouble of typing up the definitions, I wanted to give the readers here the benefit of this.
Here is a definition of OMNISCIENCE from the Full Life Study Bible which is a Charismatic/Pentecostal study Bible. The notes were written by the late Pentecostal scholar, Donald C. Stamps:
God is omniscient - i.e., he knows everything (Ps 139:1-6; 147:5). He knows not only our actions but also our very thoughts (1Sa 16:7; 1Ki 8:39; Ps 44:21; Jer 17:9-10). When the Bible speaks of God's foreknowledge (Isa. 42:9; Ac 2:33; 1Pe 1:2), it means that he knows all things possible as possible, all things certain as certain, all things contingent as contingent, all things future as future, all things past as past, all things foreordained as predestined certainties (cf 1Sa 23:10-13; Jer 38:17-20). Biblical foreknowledge does not entail philosophical determinism. God remains free to make decisions and alter purposes in time and history, according to his own will and wisdom. In other words, God is not a prisoner of his own foreknowledge (see Nu 14:11-20; 2Ki 20:1-7 ....)- From page 882
I like this definition (which I think is very close to Dake's as well) because it doesn't put God in a box and it does not close the future to some unchangeable blueprint, except where God has stated certain things must occur. However, my future is open to possibilities. HALLELUJAH!!!!
However, this would not be complete without Stamps definition of God's immutability,
God is unchangeable - i.e., there is no change in God's attributes, in his perfections or in his purpose for humankind (Nu 23:19; Ps 102:26-28; Isa 41:4; Mal 3:6; Heb 1:11-12; Jas 1:17); this doesn't mean, however, that God never alters his temporary purposes in response to the actions of humans. He may, for example, alter his intentions of judgment because of the sincere repentence of sinners (cf. Jnh 3:6-10). Furthermore, he remains free to respond to the needs of human beings and to the prayers of his people. The Bible often speaks of God changing his mind as a result of the diligent prayers of the righteous (e. g., Nu 14:1-20; 2Ki 20:2-6; Isa 38:2-6; Lk 18:1-8 .... )
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 1/15/2004 7:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Hi VW,
Thanks for typing in the FLSB excerpt on Omniscience. I remember noting that portion of the article not long after I began studying the Open View.
By the way, I just received my copy of Dake's God's Plan for Man today. In reading Dake's section on Moral Law and Moral Government, it seems to me that he had to be strongly influenced by Finney on this issue.
Also, I have read much of Olson's work, including the book you are talking about. Gordon C. Olson was a pioneer in the view now known as the Open view of the future. I find his writing style quite difficult at times, but overall find his stuff to be quite stimulating reading.
You are most welcome John. I remembered reading the FLSB the same day you mentioned that article here. I also decided to read Stamp's article on Predestination and Election. I saw that Stamps believed in corporate election and gave an excellent illustration about a chosen ship predestined for a course, but it was the will of the passengers to decide whether or not to go on the voyage.
Since "coming out of the closet" about my Open Theism views, and the unfortunate habit of enjoying a good debate, I thought that the FLSB article would help in making a case with some who were unsure of this teaching. I think I am winning some converts (hehehehehehe).
Also, I don't know if you remember but it was you who led me to the webpage that enabled me to purchase the Olson books. You are right. Olson is insightful but difficult to read for someone who might be new to learning the OV. However, in his book on foreknowledge, I like how he tackles both the Calvinist view as well as the classic Arminian view. I took another look at his book on omniscience and it seems to be primarily refuting the "eternal now" doctrine more than it is offering a defense (or critique) of the subject in the title.
Anyway, gotta go.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
| 33 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| 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 |
|
|