 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > "From/before the foundation of the world" | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 3/5/2004 4:06 PM (GMT -6) |   |
Hi everyone,
I've been spending some time doing some research on the phrase that is usually translated "from/before the foundation of the world", i.e. apo/pro kataboles kosmou". The reason I researched this is that John Earp a while ago pointed out a paper by W. Scott Taylor which claimed that this phrase should be translated as "in view of/because of the fall or moral corruption of the world inhabitants", or in short, "because of the fall". This obviously would be a neat way of seeing these scriptures in a way consistent with open theism. Here is the link:
http://www.biblical-theology.com/omniscience2/meaning.htm
Unfortunately, (and I remain an open theist), the conclusion I have come to is that Taylor's thesis is wrong. I want to explain in some detail why this is so. I would be happy for these comments to be passed on to Taylor for consideration. I would be most happy to be proved wrong in this matter.
There are four Greek words which are at issue in relation to this problem. The first two are the verb themelioo, and the cognate noun themelion/themelios. The second two are the very kataballo, and the cognate noun katabole. In the phrase under contention, which occurs 10 times in the NT (in Mt. 13:35 some manuscripts lack the kosmou, but the sense is the same), it is the noun katabole that occurs.
Taylor's main point is to investigate the meaning of these words in the Hebrew Canon of the Septuagint. I agree with this approach. The first thing that emerges, however, from this, is that although the phrase in the NT employs the noun katabole, Taylor looks only at occurences of the verb kataballo. Why does he do this? The reason is that the noun katabole does not occur anywhere in the Hebrew Canon in the Septuagint. Its only occurence in the Septuagint is in the Apocryphal II Mac. 2:29, where it clearly means a building construction. This is an important point. Although nouns and cognate verbs are related in meaning in some way (with the meaning of one usually derived from the other), they do not necessarily have the same meaning. Those familiar with languages will know what I mean. So the meaning of the verb kataballo is relevant to the meaning of katabole, but less directly so than the way in which katabole itself is used.
The plot thickens as follows. Taylor points out that the verb kataballo occurs in the Hebrew Canon of the Septuagint many times (31 to be precise), and he also points out that it never means to lay a foundation, only to cast down etc. But there is one crucial fact that he fails to address. In the Hebrew Canon of the Septuagint, in all but one of these 31 occasions, kataballo occurs in the active voice. In the remaining one instance (Pr. 25:28), although the form itself could be middle or passive, the grammatical context shows it to be without doubt in the passive voice. What does this mean? That in no instance in the Septuagint, is the verb kataballo ever found in the middle voice. Why is this significant? Because, as the lectionaries show, it is the middle voice of the verb kataballo that is claimed to have the meaning "to lay a foundation". Those familiar with Greek will know that the meaning of verbs in the middle voice is frequently different to their meaning in the active. So Taylor's examples are not really to the point. Taylor should have been aware of this, because he quotes Friberg as follows:
[Friberg]: kataba,llw only mid. and pass. in the NT (1) act. throw down, cast down, strike down; fig. and pass. be cast down, be struck down (2C 4.9); (2) mid. lay (a foundation), found; fig. of a spiritual foundation put down, lay (He 6.1).
Note that definition (2) is the middle voice definition.
Therefore, we must conclude that the Hebrew Canon of the Septuagint provides no evidence about the meaning of the verb kataballo in the middle voice. But the problems increase for Taylor. As an aside, the verb does occur in the Apocrypha in the Septuagint in the middle voice, in II Mac. 2:13 and II Mac. 5:6 - in both cases it means to found or to set up. But let's leave aside the Apocrypha.
In examining the NT evidence, Taylor suddenly switches from the verb kataballo to the noun katabole. This seems curious to me. Why does he not examine the verb kataballo in the NT, since his whole argument is to use the meaning of the verb kataballo in the Septuagint to establish the meaning of the noun katabole in the NT? Surely the meaning of kataballo in the NT is crucial to the whole debate?
Kataballo occurs twice in the NT, in II Cor. 4:9 and Heb. 6:1. In both instances the form of the verb itself could be either middle or passive. But grammar dictates that in II Cor. 4:9 it is in the passive, and there it means to cast down - consistent with the Septuagint. The problem is Heb. 6:1, where grammar implies that it is in the middle voice. And, unfortunately, it clearly means "to lay a foundation". How do I know this? Not just because of the context, although that supports this view, but because it is immediately preceded by the noun themelion in the accusative (again, the form could be nominative, but that wouldn't make sense). In other words, the noun themelion is the direct object in this case of the verb kataballo. It is the themelion that is being kataballo-ed, if you get my meaning. And everyone concedes, and it is obvious from examining where it occurs, that the noun themelion unambiguously means a foundation. So the verb kataballo in the middle voice here in Heb. 6:1 obviously means to lay a foundation.
In conclusion:
Taylor's arguments from the Septuagint are not compelling because he only looks at the verb kataballo in the active and passive voice, and from that tries to infer the meaning of the noun katabole. But it is the middle voice of kataballo which is claimed to mean to lay a foundation, and in any case you can't directly infer the meaning of a noun from its cognate verb.
Taylor ignores the occurence of the verb kataballo in the middle voice in Heb. 6:1, where it clearly means to lay a foundation.
Therefore, I must conclude that no evidence has been produced to dispute the traditional meaning of katabole as "foundation".
Sorry about this - I really wanted the results to support Taylor's thesis, but they just don't.
All the best,
Albert.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 3/5/2004 6:16 PM (GMT -6) | |
A few more thoughts ...
Since Taylor's argument doesn't work, how do I understand the "from/before the foundation of the world passages" to be consistent with open theism?
Most of them just aren't a problem. I'll deal with the ones that at first sight might be:
PROBLEM TEXT #1: Rev. 17:8
Rev. 17:8: ... And those who dwell on the earth will wonder, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world [apo kataboles kosmou], when they see the beast ... (NASB)
This seems a difficult text, but on thinking about it, there is a straightforward explanation. The preposition apo in the phrase "apo kataboles kosmou" frequently has the continuing temporal action sense of "since", i.e. the phrase becomes "since the foundation of the world". Here are some examples:
Heb. 9:26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world [apo kataboles kosmou] ... (NASB)
Obviously, Heb. 9:26 uses apo to mean "since" in the sense of continuing temporal action, and that is how it is translated in many translations.
Lk. 11:50 in order that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world [apo kataboles kosmou], may be charged against this generation (NASB)
Again, apo obviously means "since" in the sense of continuing action here. Other examples could be given. But let's look again at Rev. 17:8:
And those who dwell on the earth will wonder, whose name has not been written in the book of life since the foundation of the world ...
If apo is taken to mean "since" i.e. continuing temporal action, then all this verse means is that your name has to have been written at some time since the foundation of the world. Problem solved.
PROBLEM TEXT #2: Rev. 13:8
This verse is ambiguous, and there are two possible renderings. If you follow the NASB, which reads, "And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, [everyone] whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain", then the explanation is simple - it is the same as Rev. 17:8.
PROBLEM TEXT #3: I Pet. 1:20
I Pet. 1:20: No problem: Jesus was "foreknown" before the foundation of the world. The focus of the verse is on Jesus' person. He was known by the Father through all eternity past, but now is revealed for our sake. It does not assert that the Father foreknew the coming of Jesus or his death, resurrection etc. It only asserts that Jesus in his person was known by the Father before the foundation of the world.
PROBLEM TEXT #4: Eph. 1:4
This refers to God having "chosen us in him" before the foundation of the world. But this is a corporate election (chosen us, plural) and is "in Christ". This is solved by a proper consideration of the nature of election in the NT. It doesn't mean he chose specific individuals to be in Christ. It means he chose Christ and all who would subsequently be in him, to serve him.
None of the other "from/before the foundation of the world" texts are any problem at all for open theism.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/6/2004 7:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Albert,
I'm not sure if your reference to our man brother John was from a previous discussion on this thread, but if you search for statements like "revelation 17:8" and some other well-known passages on this topic you're studying, you'll find a good discussion we had here a while back. Oh, and thanks for your informative post! I'm just now studying Greek, so this was cool to follow!
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/6/2004 7:44 AM (GMT -6) | | One other thing, Albert ...
In regard to Revelation 17:8, you stated, "If apo is taken to mean "since" i.e. continuing temporal action, then all this verse means is that your name has to have been written at some time since the foundation of the world. Problem solved."
It doesn't seem to be either here or there that "apo" is a continuing temporal action; the people mentioned in 17:8 apparently were never entered into the book. It doesn't read as if to mean "were there for a while and are now not." That was the crux of the issue for me: if these people were never entered into the book (and, come to think of it, even if they were and then blotted out, since this would have to be the case), in what manner is this foreknown? This has implications within the Open View, because it is people we are talking about here--presumably, people who have yet to have been born (John, I believe, takes a Preterit view, so he slackeredd out on that part of this issue ... the dawg!!!)
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 3/6/2004 4:59 PM (GMT -6) | |
Thanks for your comments guys. Here is a summary table of meaning for kataballo
and katabole. You can see that there is a perfect consistency in usage across
the Hebrew Canon in the LXX, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament. You can also
see where Taylor went wrong.
-----------|----------------------|---------------------|---------------------|
| Hebrew Canon in LXX | Apocrypha in LXX | New Testament |
-----------|----------------------|---------------------|---------------------|
Kataballo | 31 x | 13 x | II Cor. 4:9 |
in active | To cast down | To cast down | To cast down |
or passive | | | |
-----------|----------------------|---------------------|---------------------|
Kataballo | | 2x | Heb. 6:1 |
in middle | DOES NOT OCCUR | To lay a foundation | To lay a foundation |
-----------|----------------------|---------------------|---------------------|
| | 1x | 11x |
Katabole | DOES NOT OCCUR | Building | Foundation, |
| | construction | beginning, creation |
-----------|----------------------|---------------------|---------------------|
By the way, another significant problem for Taylor's thesis is that he is forced
to understand the prepositions apo and pro as meaning "because of", but if that
is indeed a possible meaning for them, then it is nonetheless a very rare one.
The meaning "because of" is expressed usually by other means. That also makes his
hypothesis unlikely.
All the best,
Albert.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 3/6/2004 5:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Here's a re-paste of the table. Hopefully it will work this time!
-----------|----------------------|---------------------|---------------------|
| Hebrew Canon in LXX | Apocrypha in LXX | New Testament |
-----------|----------------------|---------------------|---------------------|
Kataballo | 31 x | 13 x | II Cor. 4:9 |
in active | To cast down | To cast down | To cast down |
or passive | | | |
-----------|----------------------|---------------------|---------------------|
Kataballo | | 2x | Heb. 6:1 |
in middle | DOES NOT OCCUR | To lay a foundation | To lay a foundation |
-----------|----------------------|---------------------|---------------------|
| | 1x | 11x |
Katabole | DOES NOT OCCUR | Building | Foundation, |
| | construction | beginning, creation |
-----------|----------------------|---------------------|---------------------|
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 3/6/2004 5:05 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 3/6/2004 5:16 PM (GMT -6) | |
One correction to my original post:
In my concluding remarks I said that "Taylor ignores the occurence of the verb kataballo in the middle voice in Heb. 6:1". That is not quite correct, because he does mention it as follows:
"The verb only appears once in the New Testament in the middle voice and nowhere else in the Bible. In that one instance (Heb. 6:1) the word for foundation is qeme,lion. So in the middle voice, it points to the thing being laid, thrown, or set down".
However, this evades the point. The action in question is quite clearly laying for reasons I discussed, not casting down. It is a foundation being laid. So the middle voice meaning is consistent with its usage in other literature, i.e. to lay a foundation.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 3/6/2004 5:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman wrote: It doesn't seem to be either here or there that "apo" is a continuing temporal action; the people mentioned in 17:8 apparently were never entered into the book. It doesn't read as if to mean "were there for a while and are now not." That was the crux of the issue for me: if these people were never entered into the book (and, come to think of it, even if they were and then blotted out, since this would have to be the case), in what manner is this foreknown?
Albert replies: My interpretation is that once you are saved, you get written into the book. Hence, these people have never been saved, so they aren't written in. Being blotted out of the book is only possible for a believer and means to fall away and become apostate.
If the phrase in question means that the persons' names were not written in "at" the foundation of the world, that might imply that some peoples' names were written in "at" the foundation of the world, and hence that would seem to entail predestined fate. But the "since" meaning solves this problem neatly.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 3/6/2004 5:56 PM (GMT -6) | | One last try without the spaces
-----------|----------------------|---------------------|---------------------|
...........|.Hebrew.Canon.in.LXX..|..Apocrypha.in.LXX...|..New.Testament......|
-----------|----------------------|---------------------|---------------------|
Kataballo..|.......31.x...........|.......13.x..........|....II.Cor..4:9......|
in.active..| To.cast.down......|...To.cast.down......|...To.cast.down......|
or.passive.|......................|.....................|.....................|
-----------|----------------------|---------------------|---------------------|
Kataballo..|......................|........2x...........|.......Heb..6:1......|
in.middle..|.DOES.NOT.OCCUR.......|.To.lay.a.foundation.|.To.lay.a.foundation.|
-----------|----------------------|---------------------|---------------------|
...........|......................|........1x...........|.........11x.........|
Katabole...|.DOES.NOT.OCCUR.......|......Building.......|.Foundation,.........|
...........|......................|.....construction....|.beginning,.creation.|
-----------|----------------------|---------------------|---------------------|
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/8/2004 12:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Albert: Albert replies: My interpretation is that once you are saved, you get written into the book. Hence, these people have never been saved, so they aren't written in. Being blotted out of the book is only possible for a believer and means to fall away and become apostate.
Starkman: OK, I'm still bothered about this, Albert. As I see it, we are still somewhat inside the parameters of predestination. If it is known that some people's names are never going to be written in the book of life, then it is predestined that those people will never be saved. But I'm also seeing the Open View: God declaring the future in regard to the outcome of those who refuse to believe during the Tribulation; since there definitely will be a group of people who will not become believers, they will never be written into the book of life. "They" who never believe are not noted in Revelation as a specific number of people or as people who's names are already known to God. Yet, it is foreknown that there will be people who will not believe, and they will be doomed.
I guess the question, then, is what are the chances that everyone would become a believer during the Tribulation and defy the prophecy? Not much!
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 3/8/2004 1:11 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
God declaring the future in regard to the outcome of those who refuse to believe during the Tribulation
If you're a pre-millenial...  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 3/8/2004 8:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman: OK, I'm still bothered about this, Albert. As I see it, we are still somewhat inside the parameters of predestination. If it is known that some people's names are never going to be written in the book of life, then it is predestined that those people will never be saved.
Albert replies: I don't see the problem. All the verse says is that everyone will wonder at the antichrist whose name has not been written in the book of life at some time before that point in time [yes I'm assuming the futurist position]. That is just another way of saying that everyone will wonder, who has not been saved before this event occurs. So I don't see how it implies predestination of anything.
Laika wrote: Albert, are you using the [ code ] tags? It presents data exactly as you type it into the post, doesn't do any formatting.
Albert replies: Ahhhh, I see ... here goes again ...
-----------|----------------------|---------------------|---------------------|
| Hebrew Canon in LXX | Apocrypha in LXX | New Testament |
-----------|----------------------|---------------------|---------------------|
Kataballo | 31 x | 13 x | II Cor. 4:9 |
in active | To cast down | To cast down | To cast down |
or passive | | | |
-----------|----------------------|---------------------|---------------------|
Kataballo | | 2x | Heb. 6:1 |
in middle | DOES NOT OCCUR | To lay a foundation | To lay a foundation |
-----------|----------------------|---------------------|---------------------|
| | 1x | 11x |
Katabole | DOES NOT OCCUR | Building | Foundation, |
| | construction | beginning, creation |
-----------|----------------------|---------------------|---------------------|
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/9/2004 6:52 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Heb. 9:26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world [apo kataboles kosmou] ... (NASB)
Obviously, Heb. 9:26 uses apo to mean "since" in the sense of continuing temporal action, and that is how it is translated in many translations.
Yes, and the meaning conveyed, as I understand the use of "since" here, is that there'd be continuing suffering since (or from the start of) the foundation of the world.
quote:
Lk. 11:50 in order that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world [apo kataboles kosmou], may be charged against this generation (NASB)
Again, apo obviously means "since" in the sense of continuing action here.
Same aspect of the usage of "since" as I noted above: blood shed since (or from the start of) the foundation of the world.
quote:
But let's look again at Rev. 17:8:
And those who dwell on the earth will wonder, whose name has not been written in the book of life since the foundation of the world ...
If apo is taken to mean "since" i.e. continuing temporal action, then all this verse means is that your name has to have been written at some time since the foundation of the world. Problem solved.
And ...
quote:
Albert replies: I don't see the problem. All the verse says is that everyone will wonder at the antichrist whose name has not been written in the book of life at some time before that point in time [yes I'm assuming the futurist position]. That is just another way of saying that everyone will wonder, who has not been saved before this event occurs. So I don't see how it implies predestination of anything.
For the sake of details regarding your quote of Rev 17:8, the reading should be "whose names have not been written ..." not " whose name has not been written." The latter looks as if it references the Antichrist's name. But I think I know what you meant.
Again, "since" (or from the start of) the foundation of the world, sticking with the continuous meaning of "since" in your previous examples, would imply people from the start of the world. The context cannot, however, mean people "since" the foundation of the world, since only the people who are alive during these events can be the referents; the others long dead--those "since" the foundation of the world.
Here is the verse from the New English Translation (www.bible.org): The inhabitants of the earth—all those whose names have not been written in the book of life since the foundation of the world—will be astounded when they see that the beast was, and is not, but is to come.
Unless I am really missing something here--and, hey, I'm the first to admit to any and all abnormalites surrounding my ability to catch the "Ooooh, I get it"--we are back to having to understand "since" as another way of saying "These people, whose names have not been written in the book of life since the world has been, will worship the beast." And yes, this presupposes, then, that some names must, therefore, have been entered "since" (or from the start of) the foundation of the world.
I'm not trying to argue with you, Albert, I'm just still confused as to how your point is made (or even what your point is) about the use of "since," in order to illustrate continous action; how that can possibly change the simple, clear meaning of the verse, namely, some folk's names are not in the book--never were, are never going to be--since the world got to going! I'm NOT saying that I agree with the outcome of my interpretation of Revelation 17:8 when read the way I see it. I'm simply not seeing your point, and that leaves me, still, with having to contend with constructing a theology that is both consistent with my reading of the verse and explains the issue of when names are put in the book of life. Help me out here, dude!
Thanks,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 3/9/2004 7:28 PM (GMT -6) | |
Dear Starkman,
Thanks for your response!
As you rightly point out, in Luke 11:50, the "since the foundation of the world" clearly means thing that have been happening from early on in history until recent times. The very next verse reads:
"from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation."
Similarly, in Heb. 9:26, it is talking about suffering that has been going on since early in history right through.
So I am arguing that "whose names have not been written in the book of life since the creation of the world" refers to ongoing activity, from the time when Abel's name was written in the book of life right near the start of history, to someone's name that was written only yesterday (like the death of Abel to the death of Zechariah in Luke 11:50-51).
Starkman wrote: Again, "since" (or from the start of) the foundation of the world, sticking with the continuous meaning of "since" in your previous examples, would imply people from the start of the world. The context cannot, however, mean people "since" the foundation of the world, since only the people who are alive during these events can be the referents; the others long dead--those "since" the foundation of the world.
I don't think the referents of the phrase "whose names have not been written in the book of life since the creation of the world" is just those alive on earth, but of all people who have ever lived. Of course, given the preceding phrase "The inhabitants of the earth", only people alive are the ones who will worship the beast. But the phrase "The inhabitants of the earth" points to a subset of the group "whose names have not been written in the book of life since the creation of the world". For example, if I say "all those who live in the state of Texas, who were born in the USA, are eligible to be the governer of Texas", that does not mean that the phrase "who were born in the USA" applies only to Texans.
All the best,
Albert.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 3/9/2004 7:34 PM (GMT -6) | |
Dear Starkman,
Let me explain somewhat more clearly. Those whose names are not written in the book of life, are being contrasted with another group whose names have been written in the book of life. This group, I think, includes all believers from the very beginning of history. The verse is saying that inhabitants of the earth who are not a member of that group (all believers throughout history) will worship the beast.
Hope that helps!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 3/10/2004 5:53 PM (GMT -6) | |
Let me try and explain a bit more.
You can't state the time at which something does not happen, only the time at which something does happen. If I say, "at what time did I not put on my shoes?", how are you going to answer? But if I ask "at what time did I put on my shoes?", that you can answer.
Similarly, there is no time at which a name is not written in something. What is being stated is that these people's names are not among those names which have been written since the foundation of the world. So the verse can be paraphrased as follows:
"All the inhabitants of the earth will wonder, whose names are not among those names that have been written in the book of life since the creation of the world"
The names in question are the names of the inhabitants of the earth, but these are the names which are not written. The writing refers to the names that have been written, i.e. the saved through all generations.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/12/2004 4:22 AM (GMT -6) | | albert: So the verse can be paraphrased as follows:
"All the inhabitants of the earth will wonder, whose names are not among those names that have been written in the book of life since the creation of the world"
The names in question are the names of the inhabitants of the earth, but these are the names which are not written. The writing refers to the names that have been written, i.e. the saved
The verse (Revelation 17:8): The inhabitants of the earth—all those whose names have not been written in the book of life since the foundation of the world—will be astounded when they see that the beast was, and is not, but is to come.
Starkman: OK! I see your point now. I do think it has some merit, Albert. The only issue I would have is that it seems superfluous to say "since the foundation of the world" when "whose names are not written in the book if life" would suffice. Here's how it might read this way:
"The inhabitants of the earth—all those whose names have not been written in the book of life--will be astounded when they see that the beast was, and is not, but is to come."
It seems unnecessary to add the addition "since ..." statement unless it's adding something particular. But, again, I could be missing something here. Good points, though!
Finally, your approach to the from/since issue keeps the verses within the Open View, but wouldn't you agree that regardless, there is an aspect of predetermined people who will one day (from a futuristic point) not believe the gospel; predetermined in that it is already known, not necessarily ordained in the Calvinistic manner, that some will not believe? The kinds of passages do not suggest that God knows who will not believe, only that there will be those who do not believe. So, I go back to one of my points in prior posts: isn't it true, then, that if this part of the future is open, and there are those who could choose otherwise, that there's just the slightest chance in a zillion that all could repent? If not, it has been predetermined (not classically predestined) that they won't. Obviously, it is virtually an impossibility that all will repent. Mankind is pretty good at proving otherwise.
I bring this up because it is an element, like other verses along this same vein, that can be questioned by those who are interested in an open view perspective of these specific verses, but come from an Arminian view. Personally, that there are those noted who will never believe is all throughout Scripture; that element, however, does lend itself to a form of a future predetermined with regard to people's salvation.
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/13/2004 3:35 AM (GMT -6) | | I think I see the temptation here to talk about the nuts and the bolts but to ignore the machine in full. Maybe one can get away with that for a while when discussing 'names in a book.' But isn't it obvious that what is 'before the foundation of the world' can't be reduced to nuts and bolts?
The Mystery of Christ is 'from before' even while it is true that his accomplishing our salvation was fulfilled on Mount Calvary. THAT redefines ALL of history with respect to itself. And all that is 'pre'-history points towards it. Even any pre-any-history has it in mind. And all of 'this' history both draws life from it AND lives in anticipation of what 'is to come.'
What I'm saying is that I think I see in this dicussion, here, the temptation to consider history as flat. But not everything is the same. The MEANING of the Cross redefines all other meanings. And the MEANING of the world to come gives definition to the worshipfilled life of those who even now participate in the 'meaning'/life of the world to come.
(W. Pannenberg points out that history does not just 'move' in one direction.)
See? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/13/2004 12:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey echo,
With all due respect, I, Personally, do not feel that were Jesus to be sitting with us, talking about the topic of this post, he would go mystic on this particular conversation: What I'm saying is that I think I see in this dicussion, here, the temptation to consider history as flat. But not everything is the same. The MEANING of the Cross redefines all other meanings. And the MEANING of the world to come gives definition to the worshipfilled life of those who even now participate in the 'meaning'/life of the world to come.
The issue is very specific and important (well, to some of us, I suppose). It has nothing to do with what Christ accomplished or when He accomplised anything. It has to do with bringing clarity of understanding through respectable interpretation of verses (such as Revelation 17:8) in regard to an exhaustively determined or partially determined future. This has great baring (or is it bearing?) on how one both understands one's walk with God and how one approaches God within one's walk. Quite important, therefore, are these nuts and bolts!
For ... nuts-and-bolts theology,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 3/14/2004 3:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman: isn't it true, then, that if this part of the future is open, and there are those who could choose otherwise, that there's just the slightest chance in a zillion that all could repent? If not, it has been predetermined (not classically predestined) that they won't. Obviously, it is virtually an impossibility that all will repent. Mankind is pretty good at proving otherwise.
Albert replies: I don't think that follows. Can I make two points. Firstly, I don't think that the open view, or the Arminian view for that matter, needs to allow that people can always repent at any time in their lives. It may be that God allows them a certain time period in which to repent, but that after that time period elapses, they become "fixed" in their wickedness and unable to repent. So all that is required here is that God gives the inhabitants of the earth sufficient time and conviction and so forth to repent. But if they don't, then they pass the point of no return. Secondly, I don't think that God has necessarily fixed a particular time and date for the end of the age. All he needs to do is wait for a time in which he has given people ample opportunity to repent, and they have persistently rejected it. Similarly, I don't think God has necessarily picked a particular person in advance to be the antichrist. There are plenty of potential candidates! God just waits for the right time and then will bring things about in relation to those circumstances. I don't think that God would have much difficulty finding a time period in which lots of wicked people who won't repent are around and there's someone who can play the role of the antichrist. Aren't most times in human history kinda like that?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 3/24/2004 4:12 PM (GMT -6) | | I have spoke with Taylor about your post.
he is extremely busy with some private consulting but tells me he will eventually respond
He is working on converting complete paper and appendices to Adobe and posting a link and then responding
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/10/2004 8:54 AM (GMT -6) | |
I'm new to this forum and am not sure how to deal with all the formatting options, so please be patient with me 'til I get it figured out!
I became an open theist back in the 1980's while I was trying to derive my own solution to the problem of evil, and Ephesians 1:4 was the most problematic verse for me. Consequently, I've thought about the phrase "foundation of the earth," trying to get a view of it that could be reconciled to open theism. I had concluded that it referred to the Fall. But this post has made me reconsider.
But let me mention how I had resolved Hebrews 6:1. The context suggests that the believers that the author is writing had become sluggish in their hearing, causing them to need a reconfirmation in the milk. The author says they should have been teachers on account of the length of time that they had been believers. He then says, that "if God will permit," he (the author) would leave those first principles (milk), not AGAIN "casting down" the foundation doctrines, and move on to doctrines associated with "perfection."
So I took the idea of "casting down" a foundation to be consistent with the idea of lack of time. I.e., the author would have to hastily "cast down" the foundation.
On the other hand, the "laying" of a foundation may, in some cases of ancient building practices, have involved the actual "casting down" of materials rather than a "placing" of materials. This "casting" could then be used analogically to describe the casting down, by God, of the materials He used to found the earth. The problem I have with that, though, is the kosmos and earth are two different ideas. The kosmos is many times used to describe the world of men - not necessarily the physical earth. Hence, the analogy seems strained. If on the other hand, kosmos is used in it's normal meaning, the idea of the Fall fits better.
Also, years ago, I had the same problem Starkman had with "continous past action" of the verse in Revelation. The explanation given is correct, in my opinion, but Starkman showed some reservation. I would like to give another example to clarify the explanation further.
In John 17:24, Christ says, "Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."
Now, it would seem that God loved Christ AFTER the foundation of the world, also. Why, then, does Christ say, "thou lovedst me BEFORE the foundation of the world?" The key, I think, is verse 17:5, where Christ says,
"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."
So the time element seems to be intentional, though implicit. And, interestingly enough, this makes good sense in an open-view. Since the Fall was NOT intended, there is a since in which God's love for Christ (as well as Christ's glory) was affected - because due to the fall, Christ would have to humble himself and suffer. The timing of this necessity was the Fall.
This same kind of intentional, implicit allusion? may be used in Revelation. The fact that John uses the phrase "from the foundation of the world," seems to purposely and implicitly draw our attention to the fact that people's access to life has always been obtained "in time;" i.e., it was not predestined. And the implication may be, that those dwelling on the earth, at that time, are not in the Book of Life for the same reason that people in times past did not get into it - they don't REPENT.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
| 35 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:27 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 |
|
|