User Tag List

Page 1 of 9 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 122

Thread: Open View and Preterism

  1. #1
    Over 1000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,036
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 303 Times in 223 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    101520

    Open View and Preterism

    I'm not originally either Open Theistic or Preteristic, but as I've moved in the Open direction, I've also become more intrigued with preterism. I haven't settled on either yet (I'm more of a Open Open Theist, rather than a Settled Open Theist ), but would appreciate some feedback from others on this topic.

    I think the two views might fit well together.

    First, Open Theism, which suggests that God makes predictions about the future actions of men based on His knowledge of their current state and inclinations, would, except in the more specific case of God's divine plan for mankind and the universe as a whole, tend to want to shorten the time between prediction and result, as predictions about a people in the far future would be less sure, even for God (yes, this is potentially a black mark against Open Theism, but hang in there for a minute).

    Second, Preterism deals intrinsically with a much closer prediction-to-fulfillment time span in most cases, not based on necessity, but based on reading the scripture with a mindset toward the intended audience, and the lack of benefit such would normally receive from a prediction a couple thousand years in the future (practically no benefit at all to them).

    Third, Open Theism says that the purpose of most prophecy is to get people/nations to change their ways (for example, Jonah on Nineveh, Hezekiah's sickness, Jerusalem's destruction), rather than God just bringing about a calamity to show His astounding ability to predict the future. (See Jer 18:8.) Such would drive the prediction much closer to the fulfillment in almost all cases.

    The two main events in world history/future that could be considered part of God's divine plan for mankind and thus not contingent prophecies, the 2 comings of Jesus, are both laid out hundreds to thousands of years before. Other prophecies, not so much. In fact the biggest gap I can think of (besides the first and second advent) would be between Daniel's vision(s) and the abomination of desolation, assuming it to be the Antiochus Epiphanes episode (the next one, the one Jesus spoke of, moves more into the realm of Jesus' first advent. Maybe the first one does, too.)

    I have been under the impression that Open Theists gravitate more toward premillennialism than preterism, but I don't have good reason for that impression.

    What do you all think? Are Open Theism and Preterism more compatible than other eschatologies?
    If not, why not? In general, do you find that Open Theists are more likely to be Preterists than the ratios of settled viewers?

  2. #2
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56720
    Open Theism is compatible with pretty much any eschatology, with the possible exception of "Left Behind" eschatology, which attempts to take Revelation literally rather than as an apocalyptic writing.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  3. #3
    Over 1000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,036
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 303 Times in 223 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    101520
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Open Theism is compatible with pretty much any eschatology, with the possible exception of "Left Behind" eschatology, which attempts to take Revelation literally rather than as an apocalyptic writing.
    Why do you think a literal interpretation of Revelation is not ok, when Open Theists claim a more literal interpretation of other passages? I'm not disagreeing with you, by the way, I'm just processing the ideas.
    Last edited by Derf; April 29th, 2016 at 07:28 PM. Reason: Added "not" to last sentence. Oops.

  4. #4
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56720
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Why do you think a literal interpretation of Revelation is not ok, when Open Theists claim a more literal interpretation of other passages? I'm not disagreeing with you, by the way, I'm just processing the ideas.
    I don't think Open Theists are any more or less literalists than anyone else. Passages still have to be exegeted in context, including genre. What Open Theists don't do is yell "anthropomorphism" every time scripture records God doing something that their theology disagrees with.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  5. #5
    Over 1000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,036
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 303 Times in 223 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    101520
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    I don't think Open Theists are any more or less literalists than anyone else. Passages still have to be exegeted in context, including genre. What Open Theists don't do is yell "anthropomorphism" every time scripture records God doing something that their theology disagrees with.
    I get that.

    May I ask what eschatology you hold to?

  6. #6
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56720
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I get that.

    May I ask what eschatology you hold to?
    I don't really think any of the current eschatologies are sufficiently rooted in Scripture. Each has it's points, but also places where they say things just to make their system coherent.

    I do think that there are two eschatologies in scripture, one for the Old Covenant, and one for the New, but that's about as far as I go, ATM.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  7. #7
    Over 1000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,036
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 303 Times in 223 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    101520
    I thought I replied to this already, but i don't see it. I think u r saying that if the Jews behaved differently, the end times would have looked different than it will look now?

  8. #8
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56720
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I thought I replied to this already, but i don't see it. I think u r saying that if the Jews behaved differently, the end times would have looked different than it will look now?
    I don't think the Jews had the option to behave in a way that would have prevented their judgment. But that's a matter of inability, not free will.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  9. #9
    Over 1000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,036
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 303 Times in 223 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    101520
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    I don't think the Jews had the option to behave in a way that would have prevented their judgment. But that's a matter of inability, not free will.
    So the Jews as a nation were predestined to be judged in a particular manner with a preordained result? Sounds a bit Calvinistic to me. Inability to escape judgment with the coming of one's deliverer sounds counterproductive.

  10. #10
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56720
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    So the Jews as a nation were predestined to be judged in a particular manner with a preordained result? Sounds a bit Calvinistic to me. Inability to escape judgment with the coming of one's deliverer sounds counterproductive.
    This only affects the Jews (John 12:40, Romans 9, etc.).

    And this is evidence that God can predestine things without exhaustive, definite foreknowledge. Thus, it is not Calvinism.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  11. #11
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,811
    Thanks
    214
    Thanked 2,618 Times in 1,730 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1703814
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I'm not originally either Open Theistic or Preteristic, but as I've moved in the Open direction, I've also become more intrigued with preterism. I haven't settled on either yet (I'm more of a Open Open Theist, rather than a Settled Open Theist ), but would appreciate some feedback from others on this topic.

    I think the two views might fit well together.

    First, Open Theism, which suggests that God makes predictions about the future actions of men based on His knowledge of their current state and inclinations, would, except in the more specific case of God's divine plan for mankind and the universe as a whole, tend to want to shorten the time between prediction and result, as predictions about a people in the far future would be less sure, even for God (yes, this is potentially a black mark against Open Theism, but hang in there for a minute).

    Second, Preterism deals intrinsically with a much closer prediction-to-fulfillment time span in most cases, not based on necessity, but based on reading the scripture with a mindset toward the intended audience, and the lack of benefit such would normally receive from a prediction a couple thousand years in the future (practically no benefit at all to them).

    Third, Open Theism says that the purpose of most prophecy is to get people/nations to change their ways (for example, Jonah on Nineveh, Hezekiah's sickness, Jerusalem's destruction), rather than God just bringing about a calamity to show His astounding ability to predict the future. (See Jer 18:8.) Such would drive the prediction much closer to the fulfillment in almost all cases.

    The two main events in world history/future that could be considered part of God's divine plan for mankind and thus not contingent prophecies, the 2 comings of Jesus, are both laid out hundreds to thousands of years before. Other prophecies, not so much. In fact the biggest gap I can think of (besides the first and second advent) would be between Daniel's vision(s) and the abomination of desolation, assuming it to be the Antiochus Epiphanes episode (the next one, the one Jesus spoke of, moves more into the realm of Jesus' first advent. Maybe the first one does, too.)

    I have been under the impression that Open Theists gravitate more toward premillennialism than preterism, but I don't have good reason for that impression.

    What do you all think? Are Open Theism and Preterism more compatible than other eschatologies?
    If not, why not? In general, do you find that Open Theists are more likely to be Preterists than the ratios of settled viewers?
    The foundational principle of Open Theism is rationally sound doctrine informed by a plain reading of the text of scripture and so while the idea of Preterism itself isn't antithetical to Open Theism, Preterism's use of scripture surely is. Preterism wants to turn virtually any passage of scripture that seems to teach against their doctrine into a metaphor or otherwise symbolic passage. It isn't their eschatological approach that's the issue its their hermeneutics that's the problem.

    Take Romans 9-11 as a prime example.

    In Jeremiah 18, God explains that just because God says He's going to do something to or for and nation doesn't set it in stone. If God promises to give a nation a kingdom but that nation does evil, then God said that He will repent of the good He intended to bless the nation with and vise versa...

    Jeremiah 18: 1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying: 2 “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.” 3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.

    5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the Lord. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

    In Romans 9-11, Paul explains that Israel has been cut off because of the principle taught in Jeremiah 18. In short, Israel was cut off because of unbelief (Romans 11:20). They did not believe that Jesus was their Messiah. God wanted to bless Israel and to give her a kingdom but they refused (Romans 10:21) How then can God give a kingdom to a nation which rejects the King? Thus God, intending to make Israel into a vessel of honor, made it instead into a vessel of dishonor. (Romans 9:21)

    Now, that isn't an "Open Theism reading" of Romans 9-11 per se, that's just the plain reading of it. That's what it teaches because that's what it says and, as I mentioned already, allowing the bible to mean what it says is a foundational principle of Open Theism. There's no way Preterism is compatible with such a reading and any other reading, particularly of Romans 9, not only takes you away from one of Open Theism's foundational principles (the plain reading of the text of scripture) but generally leads people to conclude that God predestines everything because we're all clay in the Potter's hands, which takes you away from Open Theism on doctrinal grounds. So, you have to pick your poison; simply reading Romans 9-11 takes you away from Preterism and do anything else with Romans 9-11 takes you away from Open Theism.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 31st, 2017),patrick jane (May 11th, 2016),Tambora (May 11th, 2016)

  13. #12
    Over 1000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,036
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 303 Times in 223 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    101520
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    This only affects the Jews (John 12:40, Romans 9, etc.).

    And this is evidence that God can predestine things without exhaustive, definite foreknowledge. Thus, it is not Calvinism.
    Forgive my denseness, but I don't see how Jn 12:40, at least, says any such thing. In it God is the one that blinds eyes and hardens hearts, and while it may not require exhaustive foreknowledge to do that, it is the same language used by Calvinists to say that we need God to change our minds before we can believe, and if He's doing the changing anyway (before we believe), and if He knows what He's planning to do (a tenet of both Calvinism and Open Theism), and if He always is able to accomplish what He decides to do (also a tenet of both), then how can you say it is NOT Calvinism, at least based on Jn 12:40?

    I'll admit to some serious misgivings about whether I can understand exactly what Rom 9 is saying, but Clete's description above seems reasonable, if incomplete. But if Clete is correct, then Rom 9 doesn't really address exhaustive, definite foreknowledge at all--it just allows for God to do one thing or another depending on what a nation does.

    Those two ideas, that God causes the blindness and hardheartedness on the one hand and deals with nations according to their autonomous actions on the other, are antithetical to each other on the surface in terms of what "exhaustive, definite foreknowledge" means ("God knows the future because He does the action" or "God knows the future because He sees the action"). Only the former is Calvinistic. The latter is Arminian. The solution to the obviously false dichotomy is likely Open Theism, from what I understand of it--that God deals with people/nations according to what they do, but He still is able to fulfill any plans He decides don't depend on anyone else's actions.

    And I believe that God CAN and DOES harden people's hearts, though He uses means to do so which cause the effect through the people's own wills. Pharaoh's case in point, God hardened Pharaoh's heart and he hardened his own heart, and I think I can see in a little way how God did that. For one thing, He gave Moses miracles (sounds better than magic tricks, but possibly the same effect) that were easy to replicate for Pharaoh's magicians. Until the lice. And by then, Pharaoh was accustomed to hardening his heart because of the magician's duplicative tricks, and this was just one small step beyond that (Ex 8:19).

    But I'm getting a little off topic. To bring it back home:

    I think God does harden people's hearts, but I question whether He plans long centuries before-hand which ones He's going to harden. Thus a preterist view shrinks the timescale of the intentions to harden or bring other judgment to either the generation God is dealing with ([Mat 24:34 KJV] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.), or at most 3 or 4 generations, at least in the large majority of cases.

    [Num 14:18 KJV] The LORD [is] longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing [the guilty], visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation].
    [Exo 20:5 KJV] Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;



    And God does turn the hearts of kings like rivers ([Pro 21:1 KJV] The king's heart [is] in the hand of the LORD, [as] the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.), but there are some interesting things to note about that. 1. that rivers don't (usually) turn on a dime, and 2. the effect is most often felt just downstream a little. If you've ever tried to block a small stream, you can see that it is possible to do so, but the effort is not trivial--you put up dams and dig channels to make it go where you want, and the faster the change, the more effort (and materials) required. To make the turn occur at the proper point, you have to start the dams and channels upstream a bit, but only a bit. And eventually the stream rejoins its previous course. (Think of turning the Mississippi river and trying to make it dump into the Pacific Ocean).

    In terms of time, if God wanted to do something to somebody that had not yet been born, nor had his parents or grand or great-grand parents (etc.) been born, and thus nobody had done anything to deserve that thing (good or bad), prophecies concerning that somebody would mostly be unappreciated by the people that received them.

  14. #13
    Over 1000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,036
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 303 Times in 223 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    101520
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    The foundational principle of Open Theism is rationally sound doctrine informed by a plain reading of the text of scripture and so while the idea of Preterism itself isn't antithetical to Open Theism, Preterism's use of scripture surely is. Preterism wants to turn virtually any passage of scripture that seems to teach against their doctrine into a metaphor or otherwise symbolic passage. It isn't their eschatological approach that's the issue its their hermeneutics that's the problem.

    Take Romans 9-11 as a prime example.

    In Jeremiah 18, God explains that just because God says He's going to do something to or for and nation doesn't set it in stone. If God promises to give a nation a kingdom but that nation does evil, then God said that He will repent of the good He intended to bless the nation with and vise versa...

    Jeremiah 18: 1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying: 2 “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.” 3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.

    5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the Lord. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

    In Romans 9-11, Paul explains that Israel has been cut off because of the principle taught in Jeremiah 18. In short, Israel was cut off because of unbelief (Romans 11:20). They did not believe that Jesus was their Messiah. God wanted to bless Israel and to give her a kingdom but they refused (Romans 10:21) How then can God give a kingdom to a nation which rejects the King? Thus God, intending to make Israel into a vessel of honor, made it instead into a vessel of dishonor. (Romans 9:21)

    Now, that isn't an "Open Theism reading" of Romans 9-11 per se, that's just the plain reading of it. That's what it teaches because that's what it says and, as I mentioned already, allowing the bible to mean what it says is a foundational principle of Open Theism. There's no way Preterism is compatible with such a reading and any other reading, particularly of Romans 9, not only takes you away from one of Open Theism's foundational principles (the plain reading of the text of scripture) but generally leads people to conclude that God predestines everything because we're all clay in the Potter's hands, which takes you away from Open Theism on doctrinal grounds. So, you have to pick your poison; simply reading Romans 9-11 takes you away from Preterism and do anything else with Romans 9-11 takes you away from Open Theism.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    Hi Clete. Thanks for the response!

    I think your allusion to Jer 18 is helpful to understand Rom 9-11. I'm not sure it goes far enough, as I don't think it explains the hardening verses, which seem like they talk of God's causing the unbelief, or at least keeping the people in unbelief when they might have started to believe. I'd be interested to hear what you think about that idea.

    But I'm also not sure why Rom 9-11 has anything to say for or against preterism. From Wikipedia:

    Preterism as a Christian eschatological view interprets some (Partial Preterism) or all (Full Preterism) prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened.

    I don't find a particular hermeneutic required for that definition. Is there a better one you can offer?

    The best I could find eschatologically in Rom 9-11 is this:
    [Rom 11:25 KJV] For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
    [Rom 11:26 KJV] And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
    [Rom 11:27 KJV] For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

    I'm not sure that it gives a prophecy of WHEN Israel will be saved, but just a recognition of HOW Israel will be saved, should/when they choose to be.

    Am I missing something?

  15. #14
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,811
    Thanks
    214
    Thanked 2,618 Times in 1,730 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1703814
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Hi Clete. Thanks for the response!

    I think your allusion to Jer 18 is helpful to understand Rom 9-11. I'm not sure it goes far enough, as I don't think it explains the hardening verses, which seem like they talk of God's causing the unbelief, or at least keeping the people in unbelief when they might have started to believe. I'd be interested to hear what you think about that idea.
    Generally God hardens people's hearts by performing undeniable physical miracles, which people respond to with unbelief, by their own choice.

    Some people (Calvinists in particular) would have you believe that God removes a person's will and forces them into disbelief and then punishes them for the very same disbelief. Any god that does such a thing is unjust and therefore unrighteous (same thing) and therefore NOT the God of the bible or of Christianity.

    But I'm also not sure why Rom 9-11 has anything to say for or against preterism. From Wikipedia:

    Preterism as a Christian eschatological view interprets some (Partial Preterism) or all (Full Preterism) prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened.

    I don't find a particular hermeneutic required for that definition. Is there a better one you can offer?
    How can the prophecies for Israel have been fulfilled in 79AD if God cut them some forty years earlier?

    Even if you wanted to dispute the precise timing of Israel's judgement, it can't have been after Romans was written and no one would dare attempt to suggest that all of Israel's prophesies had been fulfilled by that time. It makes no sense to suggest that all of Israel's prophesies have been fulfilled now, never mind before Paul was sent to the gentiles as a result of Israel being cut off.

    The best I could find eschatologically in Rom 9-11 is this:
    [Rom 11:25 KJV] For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
    [Rom 11:26 KJV] And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
    [Rom 11:27 KJV] For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

    I'm not sure that it gives a prophecy of WHEN Israel will be saved, but just a recognition of HOW Israel will be saved, should/when they choose to be.

    Am I missing something?
    That's an excellent example of how Preterism couldn't be compatible with a plain reading to Romans. Is the dispensation of Grace finished? Has the fullness of the Gentiles come in? Has God turned again to Israel? Why would God even need to ever turn again to Israel if Preterism is true and all of Israel's prophesies have already been fulfilled?

    The only possible way to make the passage you quote compatible with Preterism is to somehow "spiritualise" it and turn it into some sort of wacky figure of speech where it means something altogether different than what it seems to say by simply having read it. Which, as I mentioned before, is what Preterism is prone to do with any passage that seems to teach contrary to their doctrine. The Preterist way of handling scripture is quite incompatible with the way Open Theism does it. The two doctrines are therefore launched from two entirely different launching pads. I can't see how the two could be compatible because Open Theism REQUIRES a plain reading of the text whenever possible and Preterism REQUIRES the opposite whenever the need arises. And that's actually an important point, by the way. There is no systematic rule, in the Preterist system, for when a passage is to be taken as substance vs. when it is to be taken as shadow. That is, there is no rule other than the that which says that any passage that teaches something that conflicts with Preterism must be taken figuratively. It's a very irrational way of doing theology.


    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 31st, 2017),Tambora (May 11th, 2016)

  17. #15
    Over 1000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,036
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 303 Times in 223 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    101520
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Generally God hardens people's hearts by performing undeniable physical miracles, which people respond to with unbelief, by their own choice.

    Some people (Calvinists in particular) would have you believe that God removes a person's will and forces them into disbelief and then punishes them for the very same disbelief. Any god that does such a thing is unjust and therefore unrighteous (same thing) and therefore NOT the God of the bible or of Christianity.
    I'll leave this without comment, except to say "thanks", as it was a rabbit trail off the OP anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    How can the prophecies for Israel have been fulfilled in 79AD if God cut them some forty years earlier?

    Even if you wanted to dispute the precise timing of Israel's judgement, it can't have been after Romans was written and no one would dare attempt to suggest that all of Israel's prophesies had been fulfilled by that time. It makes no sense to suggest that all of Israel's prophesies have been fulfilled now, never mind before Paul was sent to the gentiles as a result of Israel being cut off.
    Part of the beauty of open theism is that it doesn't see everything as prophecy that MUST be fulfilled, but sometimes as something that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be fulfilled, depending on the actions of the prophecy's focus group. Much of the prophecies Jesus gave in Matt 24, for example, would make sense if fulfilled in the same generation that Jesus spoke to--thus the "this generation" reference.

    On the other hand, preterism in its less extreme form (not hyper-preterism, in other words) allows for some prophecy to be put off 'til another time future to 70 AD.
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    That's an excellent example of how Preterism couldn't be compatible with a plain reading to Romans. Is the dispensation of Grace finished? Has the fullness of the Gentiles come in? Has God turned again to Israel? Why would God even need to ever turn again to Israel if Preterism is true and all of Israel's prophesies have already been fulfilled?

    The only possible way to make the passage you quote compatible with Preterism is to somehow "spiritualise" it and turn it into some sort of wacky figure of speech where it means something altogether different than what it seems to say by simply having read it.
    I'll repeat my passage here so we know what we're talking about.
    [Rom 11:25 KJV] For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
    [Rom 11:26 KJV] And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
    [Rom 11:27 KJV] For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.


    My point before was that it might not be a prophecy at all. A "plain" reading (meaning, I suppose, one without a theological bias) is nigh impossible for either side, but that was my intent in suggesting it's not eschatological at all. Read through it again and see if you can read "my" plain reading in it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Which, as I mentioned before, is what Preterism is prone to do with any passage that seems to teach contrary to their doctrine. The Preterist way of handling scripture is quite incompatible with the way Open Theism does it. The two doctrines are therefore launched from two entirely different launching pads. I can't see how the two could be compatible because Open Theism REQUIRES a plain reading of the text whenever possible and Preterism REQUIRES the opposite whenever the need arises. And that's actually an important point, by the way. There is no systematic rule, in the Preterist system, for when a passage is to be taken as substance vs. when it is to be taken as shadow. That is, there is no rule other than the that which says that any passage that teaches something that conflicts with Preterism must be taken figuratively. It's a very irrational way of doing theology.
    I tended to agree with your opinion there, until I read Is 13 in conjunction with Matt 24. In particular:
    [Mat 24:31 KJV] 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

    and

    [Isa 13:3, 5 KJV] 3 I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones for mine anger, [even] them that rejoice in my highness. ... 5 They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, [even] the LORD, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land.

    "His elect" (Jesus is talking here, so it's not "Jesus' elect") and "my sanctified ones" (God talking here, so it's also not Jesus' saints) are likely referring to the same kind of group--one that is composed of armies gathered for destroying a land, in Is 13 the land is Babylon; in Matt 24, the land is Jerusalem/Judea (which some associate with "mystery Babylon" in Revelation).

    I'm not saying all is well understood in the preterist camp. But if it makes sense that the "elect" that is gathered is along the same lines as the "sanctified ones"--that it's not talking about the saved--it brings some cohesion to a difficult passage. It could well be talking about the Roman armies under Vespasian and Titus.

    I still have some grave concerns about wildly diluting the judgment passages to try to fit them into a preconceived notion--I'm certainly not convinced about preterism. But the idea that much of the wrath of God would be directed at the city that killed His only Son is very, very compelling. It makes sense of the "harlot" references in Revelation, as it only makes sense to refer to a group that is considered already attached to God to become a harlot--either the church or Jerusalem. And it makes more sense from an open theism point of view to consider such judgmental prophecies within the 1 to 4 generations of the event. And it makes more sense to consider that if Jesus said "this generation", He might have really meant the generation He was talking to.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us