ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
Philetus
New member
May I quote my favorite author? Gregory A. Boyd in “Is God to Blame?” InterVarsity Press, 2003. pages 49 - 51.
I would encourage everyone to read Boyd’s book, especially my Open Theist friends who are continually drawn into ridiculous discussions about who is “responsible” for our salvation. Such talk grows out of our knowledge of good and evil – not our redemption and certainly not from our relationship with Jesus.
The ‘meticulous control model’ purports to know a great deal about God, but one must ask, “Have they seen the Father?”
I would encourage everyone to read Boyd’s book, especially my Open Theist friends who are continually drawn into ridiculous discussions about who is “responsible” for our salvation. Such talk grows out of our knowledge of good and evil – not our redemption and certainly not from our relationship with Jesus.
The ‘meticulous control model’ purports to know a great deal about God, but one must ask, “Have they seen the Father?”
Philetus
New member
Good to 'see' you, Pastor Hill.
I'm having a discussion with myself. :chuckle:
John 14:7
“If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
2 Corinthians 4
1Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
I’ll take the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ over the knowledge of good and evil any day.
I'm having a discussion with myself. :chuckle:
John 14:7
“If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
2 Corinthians 4
1Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
I’ll take the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ over the knowledge of good and evil any day.
Bob Hill
TOL Subscriber
I really don’t understand why we shouldn’t give God credit for our salvation.
Open Theism is about God and His ability to have feelings, passion, remorse, anger, expectations, sorrow, etc. It is the biblical theology that shows that man has enough freedom to believe God when God says he may be saved by believing in Jesus Christ as his Savior because He died for him.
It also is the answer to the Calvinistic view that God predetermines everything that has happened and will happen. We have much material on this subject. I think we should stick to that.
Phil 1:3-11 I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, 4 always in every prayer of mine making request for you all with joy, 5 for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now, 6 being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ; 7 just as it is right for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart, inasmuch as both in my chains and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers with me of grace. 8 For God is my witness, how greatly I long for you all with the affection of Jesus Christ. 9 And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, 10 that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, 11 being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.
You will not find this kind of a statement outside of God’s mystery that He gave to Paul, including the portions of Acts that showed Paul’s ministry.
Our Dispensation of Grace is not found anywhere else in the Bible.
In Christ,
Bob Hill
Bob Hill
TOL Subscriber
Here is a great contrast. The Lord’s word to Israel was conditional.
Zep 2:3 “seek righteousness . . . perhaps you will be hidden in the day of the Lord’s anger”.
Lk 21:36 “Be vigilant . . . that you may be deemed worthy to escape . . . and to stand before the Son of Man”.
Rev 3:5 “He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels”.
Rev 3:10 “Because you have kept My command to endure, I will also keep you from the hour of trial”.
Pauline references cited show that the church “will not suffer the wrath of God.” This point forces post-tribulationists to make a sharp distinction between the tribulation period and the day of the Lord, for that day is “the day of His fierce anger”, Isa 13:13.
The post-tribulationist position must maintain that God’s wrath is absent from the seven-year tribulation. This arrangement is wrong for the following reasons:
1. The day of the Lord is a period of substantial duration.
2. The day of the Lord and the tribulation coincide.
3. God will be in control during the tribulation. It’s His day.
4. The wrath of God is present during the tribulation.
If the day of the Lord were limited to Christ’s second advent, the Thessalonians could hardly have been led to believe it had already arrived.
At least several months would have passed from the time they were troubled by the false teachers until Paul dispatched his epistle to them.
2 Th 2:1-3 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition.
Verse one has one main subject – “concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him”. In the Greek, the definite article, the, precedes the word “coming”. There is not a definite article preceding “our gathering together”. This indicates that these two things, connected by and, are actually one and the same event – His coming and our gathering together to Him. This event is called the rapture of 1 The 4:13-18!
Verse 2 is essential to help us understand the main reason that Paul wrote this portion of Scripture. The Greek perfect tense normally indicates something that has already occurred and the results are still present, or continuing. In our case, it would be translated, “had come”, “as though the Day of Christ had come” But, Moulton and Milligan, in The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, p. 215, wrote, “Contemporary usage makes it clear that in 2 Th 2:2 [our selection] it should be rendered as pointing to strictly present time, ‘as that the day of the Lord is now present’.”
The Thessalonians thought or were being led by some to believe that they were now in the Day of Christ/Day of the Lord! This is the error that Paul was addressing so they would not be deceived by any means – especially not by another epistle that some alleged to be from Paul.
Verse 3 includes a supplied phrase - “that Day will not come” - which seems to complete the ellipsis well; nothing else really makes sense here. That day will not come until the apostasia, comes first.
This word, apostasia, is generally translated “falling away”, but the root of the word simply means, “to depart.” In fact, its cognate verb form, afistaymi, has this meaning.
Comparing a noun to its cognate verb is not always an accurate way to get the meaning of a word, but it often helps. One example of the verb form is in Acts 12:10. An angel of the Lord had just freed Peter from prison and led him past the guard posts to the city gate. The angel then, using this verb, departed! In fact, of the 15 times this verb appears in the NT, it is translated “depart” 9 times in the NKJV.
The way I would translate this particular portion would be, “for unless the departure comes first and the man of sin be revealed, that day will not come.”
Something else is significant in this Greek passage. It’s the use of the definite article (the) before apostasia, departure. This is called the anaphoric use of the definite article. This means that its noun – in this case, the departure – is referring back to something already mentioned. Here it points back to verse one. Christ’s coming and our gathering together to Him is the departure. It is the rapture. In addition, Paul referred to “the departure” in his first epistle to the Thessalonians.
Of course “the departure” delivers us from the coming wrath of the tribulation of 1 Th 1:10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.
1 Th 4:13-18; 5:8,9 is the rest of the rapture material Paul was referring to: “But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words. 5:8 But let us who are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation. 9 For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
In addition to all of this, Paul had personally told them about these things as 2 Th 2:5 shows us: “Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?”
The Thessalonians had been given quite a bit of information concerning the rapture. When Paul referred to the departure, they would know exactly what he was referring to.
Also, there is nothing in either of the Thessalonian epistles referring to a “falling away”, or an apostasy, which this apostasia could be referring to. This strengthens the argument even more for the meaning to be “departure”.
Therefore, I believe verse 4, along with the latter part of verse 3, describes the first beast of Revelation 13:1-10. For lack of a better term, I will call this beast the “anti-god”. I think we will find that there is a strong parallel between our passage and Revelation 12 & 13.
In 2 Th 2:6,7, the Greek verb katecw [The w represents the Greek omega a long o sound.], and its meaning, is a key to understanding what is going on. This word is used once in both verses and is usually translated “restrain”. It is translated various other ways in the NT, but its basic meaning is simply to “hold on(to)”, “hold fast” or “keep”. This is the only time in the NT that the translators translated this word “restrain”.
Here is a complete concordance of the word katecw in the NT.
Our word is italicized to help you identify its translation:
Mat 21:38 Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.
Lk 4:42 And the crowd sought Him and came to Him, and tried to keep Him from leaving them.
Lk 8:15 those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.
Lk 14:9 Give place to this man, and then you begin with shame to take the lowest place.
John 5:4 after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had.
Acts 27:40 they hoisted the mainsail to the wind and made for shore.
Rom 1:18 against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
Rom 7:6 having died to what we were held by.
1 Co 7:30 those who buy as though they did not possess.
1 Co 11:2 and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
1 Co 15:2 if you hold fast that word which I preached to you.
2 Co 6:10 as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.
1 Th 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Phi 13 whom I wished to keep with me.
Heb 3:6 whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence.
Heb 3:14 if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end.
Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering.
The first time katecw is used in our passage, verse 6, is in the neuter gender. The fact that the gender is neuter is significant. It is referring to some thing which is holding on to the man of sin, “so that he should be revealed in his own time.”
This man of sin is the first beast of Revelation 13. What is holding this man of sin, this beast?
According to Rev 17:8, it is the pit, abussou, that is holding him. Rev 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
He is under the control and power of God, of course, until he is allowed to ascend from the pit. I believe the beast could even be there now waiting to be released! This fits in with the immediate setting which Paul was describing – the Day of the Lord (Christ), the subject of the book of Revelation.
In verse 7, we have the verb katecw again, but this time it is a masculine participle. This definitely indicates that the subject matter of this participle is not the same as in verse 6. Because Paul has switched the gender from neuter to masculine, he has switched from describing some thing to a masculine someone.
Who is this someone, and what is he holding onto? The two common views are that “he” is either the Body of Christ, the church, or the Holy Spirit.
But since we must understand that James, Peter, and John ministered specifically to the circumcision believers, they wrote their epistles to those who were expecting to go through the tribulation (Jam 5:7-8; 1 Pe 1:13, 2:9,10; 4:7-13; 2 Pe 3:1-3; 1 Jo 1:17,18,28; Rev 1:9).
The tribulation is also called “the time of Jacob’s (Israel’s) trouble” (Jer 30:7).
The Holy Spirit is operating on the earth at that time (cf. Jam 4:5; 1 Pe 1:2,22; 4:10,11; 1 Jo 2:17-27; 4:2,13).
I also do not believe that “he” is the Holy Spirit because the common translation, “...until he is taken out of the way...” is not what the Greek says! First, the verb genaytai comes from ginomai, which basically means “to be”, “to become”, or “come to be”. This is the only place in the entire NT where they translated this verb “taken”.
Second, the prepositional phrase ek mesou, which was translated, “out of the way”, should simply be translated “out of the midst”. This is the literal Greek translation for these words. Again, this is the only place in the NT where mesou, midst, is translated “way”.
What we have in most English translations, then, is a translation that disregards the common and natural meanings of two words, and gives them meanings here that are not found anywhere else! If we translate this passage using the common meanings for the words, we get “... he who is now holding on will do so until he becomes (or comes to be) out of the midst ...”.
At first, this does not seem to make any sense – especially if “he who holds on” is the Holy Spirit. But, keep in mind the context – the Day of the Lord. Our passage has corresponded to the 12th and 13th chapters of Revelation. But the question remains: Who is “he”?
Now, according to 2 Th 2:8, the lawless one will be revealed after “he who is holding on ... becomes out of the midst.” Is there any clue to “his” identity in Revelation? I believe the answer lies in Rev. 12:7. Here, we find the dragon (Satan) fighting to “hold on” to his position in Heaven. Yes, he is there even now!
But, in Rev 12:8&9, we find Satan and his followers defeated and cast out of the midst of Heaven, from the midst of the elect angels, down to earth. Immediately afterward, we see the beasts arising in Rev 13, and doing the things Paul described in 2 Th 2:4-10 according to the power of Satan. That is exactly what both passages say!
To summarize, then, what we have is:
1. The falling away is really the rapture, the departure.
2. Satan is cast out of the midst of heaven and the elect angels. He could no longer hold on to his position there after being defeated by Michael and his angels.
3. The first beast, the man of sin, is revealed after he was released from the pit which was holding him.
4. The second beast, he had two horns like a lamb, is revealed, apparently rising from this pit also, according to Rev 11:7.
In light of the fact that the events Paul described in 2 The 2:2-10 parallel the events of Revelation 12 & 13 so well, along with the fact that the syntax, grammar and vocabulary of the original do not really fit the traditional interpretation, I have found that the position I have described makes more sense than any other that I have heard. For me, no other explanation fits either the context, or the Greek.
That Day will not overtake us! For God did not appoint us (the Body of Christ) to the wrath, but to salvation from it, through our Lord Jesus Christ, through sanctification by the Spirit, and belief in the truth.
This is the truth proclaimed through “our gospel” (2 The 2:14), the gospel of the grace of God which was preached by Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles and to the Body of Christ!
Sudden destruction will not come upon us for we are not of the darkness! The Body of Christ will not have to endure the terror of the tribulation. Praise God, we can comfort and edify one another with this knowledge!
In Christ,
Bob Hill
Zep 2:3 “seek righteousness . . . perhaps you will be hidden in the day of the Lord’s anger”.
Lk 21:36 “Be vigilant . . . that you may be deemed worthy to escape . . . and to stand before the Son of Man”.
Rev 3:5 “He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels”.
Rev 3:10 “Because you have kept My command to endure, I will also keep you from the hour of trial”.
Pauline references cited show that the church “will not suffer the wrath of God.” This point forces post-tribulationists to make a sharp distinction between the tribulation period and the day of the Lord, for that day is “the day of His fierce anger”, Isa 13:13.
The post-tribulationist position must maintain that God’s wrath is absent from the seven-year tribulation. This arrangement is wrong for the following reasons:
1. The day of the Lord is a period of substantial duration.
2. The day of the Lord and the tribulation coincide.
3. God will be in control during the tribulation. It’s His day.
4. The wrath of God is present during the tribulation.
If the day of the Lord were limited to Christ’s second advent, the Thessalonians could hardly have been led to believe it had already arrived.
At least several months would have passed from the time they were troubled by the false teachers until Paul dispatched his epistle to them.
2 Th 2:1-3 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition.
Verse one has one main subject – “concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him”. In the Greek, the definite article, the, precedes the word “coming”. There is not a definite article preceding “our gathering together”. This indicates that these two things, connected by and, are actually one and the same event – His coming and our gathering together to Him. This event is called the rapture of 1 The 4:13-18!
Verse 2 is essential to help us understand the main reason that Paul wrote this portion of Scripture. The Greek perfect tense normally indicates something that has already occurred and the results are still present, or continuing. In our case, it would be translated, “had come”, “as though the Day of Christ had come” But, Moulton and Milligan, in The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, p. 215, wrote, “Contemporary usage makes it clear that in 2 Th 2:2 [our selection] it should be rendered as pointing to strictly present time, ‘as that the day of the Lord is now present’.”
The Thessalonians thought or were being led by some to believe that they were now in the Day of Christ/Day of the Lord! This is the error that Paul was addressing so they would not be deceived by any means – especially not by another epistle that some alleged to be from Paul.
Verse 3 includes a supplied phrase - “that Day will not come” - which seems to complete the ellipsis well; nothing else really makes sense here. That day will not come until the apostasia, comes first.
This word, apostasia, is generally translated “falling away”, but the root of the word simply means, “to depart.” In fact, its cognate verb form, afistaymi, has this meaning.
Comparing a noun to its cognate verb is not always an accurate way to get the meaning of a word, but it often helps. One example of the verb form is in Acts 12:10. An angel of the Lord had just freed Peter from prison and led him past the guard posts to the city gate. The angel then, using this verb, departed! In fact, of the 15 times this verb appears in the NT, it is translated “depart” 9 times in the NKJV.
The way I would translate this particular portion would be, “for unless the departure comes first and the man of sin be revealed, that day will not come.”
Something else is significant in this Greek passage. It’s the use of the definite article (the) before apostasia, departure. This is called the anaphoric use of the definite article. This means that its noun – in this case, the departure – is referring back to something already mentioned. Here it points back to verse one. Christ’s coming and our gathering together to Him is the departure. It is the rapture. In addition, Paul referred to “the departure” in his first epistle to the Thessalonians.
Of course “the departure” delivers us from the coming wrath of the tribulation of 1 Th 1:10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.
1 Th 4:13-18; 5:8,9 is the rest of the rapture material Paul was referring to: “But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words. 5:8 But let us who are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation. 9 For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
In addition to all of this, Paul had personally told them about these things as 2 Th 2:5 shows us: “Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?”
The Thessalonians had been given quite a bit of information concerning the rapture. When Paul referred to the departure, they would know exactly what he was referring to.
Also, there is nothing in either of the Thessalonian epistles referring to a “falling away”, or an apostasy, which this apostasia could be referring to. This strengthens the argument even more for the meaning to be “departure”.
Therefore, I believe verse 4, along with the latter part of verse 3, describes the first beast of Revelation 13:1-10. For lack of a better term, I will call this beast the “anti-god”. I think we will find that there is a strong parallel between our passage and Revelation 12 & 13.
In 2 Th 2:6,7, the Greek verb katecw [The w represents the Greek omega a long o sound.], and its meaning, is a key to understanding what is going on. This word is used once in both verses and is usually translated “restrain”. It is translated various other ways in the NT, but its basic meaning is simply to “hold on(to)”, “hold fast” or “keep”. This is the only time in the NT that the translators translated this word “restrain”.
Here is a complete concordance of the word katecw in the NT.
Our word is italicized to help you identify its translation:
Mat 21:38 Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.
Lk 4:42 And the crowd sought Him and came to Him, and tried to keep Him from leaving them.
Lk 8:15 those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.
Lk 14:9 Give place to this man, and then you begin with shame to take the lowest place.
John 5:4 after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had.
Acts 27:40 they hoisted the mainsail to the wind and made for shore.
Rom 1:18 against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
Rom 7:6 having died to what we were held by.
1 Co 7:30 those who buy as though they did not possess.
1 Co 11:2 and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
1 Co 15:2 if you hold fast that word which I preached to you.
2 Co 6:10 as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.
1 Th 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Phi 13 whom I wished to keep with me.
Heb 3:6 whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence.
Heb 3:14 if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end.
Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering.
The first time katecw is used in our passage, verse 6, is in the neuter gender. The fact that the gender is neuter is significant. It is referring to some thing which is holding on to the man of sin, “so that he should be revealed in his own time.”
This man of sin is the first beast of Revelation 13. What is holding this man of sin, this beast?
According to Rev 17:8, it is the pit, abussou, that is holding him. Rev 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
He is under the control and power of God, of course, until he is allowed to ascend from the pit. I believe the beast could even be there now waiting to be released! This fits in with the immediate setting which Paul was describing – the Day of the Lord (Christ), the subject of the book of Revelation.
In verse 7, we have the verb katecw again, but this time it is a masculine participle. This definitely indicates that the subject matter of this participle is not the same as in verse 6. Because Paul has switched the gender from neuter to masculine, he has switched from describing some thing to a masculine someone.
Who is this someone, and what is he holding onto? The two common views are that “he” is either the Body of Christ, the church, or the Holy Spirit.
But since we must understand that James, Peter, and John ministered specifically to the circumcision believers, they wrote their epistles to those who were expecting to go through the tribulation (Jam 5:7-8; 1 Pe 1:13, 2:9,10; 4:7-13; 2 Pe 3:1-3; 1 Jo 1:17,18,28; Rev 1:9).
The tribulation is also called “the time of Jacob’s (Israel’s) trouble” (Jer 30:7).
The Holy Spirit is operating on the earth at that time (cf. Jam 4:5; 1 Pe 1:2,22; 4:10,11; 1 Jo 2:17-27; 4:2,13).
I also do not believe that “he” is the Holy Spirit because the common translation, “...until he is taken out of the way...” is not what the Greek says! First, the verb genaytai comes from ginomai, which basically means “to be”, “to become”, or “come to be”. This is the only place in the entire NT where they translated this verb “taken”.
Second, the prepositional phrase ek mesou, which was translated, “out of the way”, should simply be translated “out of the midst”. This is the literal Greek translation for these words. Again, this is the only place in the NT where mesou, midst, is translated “way”.
What we have in most English translations, then, is a translation that disregards the common and natural meanings of two words, and gives them meanings here that are not found anywhere else! If we translate this passage using the common meanings for the words, we get “... he who is now holding on will do so until he becomes (or comes to be) out of the midst ...”.
At first, this does not seem to make any sense – especially if “he who holds on” is the Holy Spirit. But, keep in mind the context – the Day of the Lord. Our passage has corresponded to the 12th and 13th chapters of Revelation. But the question remains: Who is “he”?
Now, according to 2 Th 2:8, the lawless one will be revealed after “he who is holding on ... becomes out of the midst.” Is there any clue to “his” identity in Revelation? I believe the answer lies in Rev. 12:7. Here, we find the dragon (Satan) fighting to “hold on” to his position in Heaven. Yes, he is there even now!
But, in Rev 12:8&9, we find Satan and his followers defeated and cast out of the midst of Heaven, from the midst of the elect angels, down to earth. Immediately afterward, we see the beasts arising in Rev 13, and doing the things Paul described in 2 Th 2:4-10 according to the power of Satan. That is exactly what both passages say!
To summarize, then, what we have is:
1. The falling away is really the rapture, the departure.
2. Satan is cast out of the midst of heaven and the elect angels. He could no longer hold on to his position there after being defeated by Michael and his angels.
3. The first beast, the man of sin, is revealed after he was released from the pit which was holding him.
4. The second beast, he had two horns like a lamb, is revealed, apparently rising from this pit also, according to Rev 11:7.
In light of the fact that the events Paul described in 2 The 2:2-10 parallel the events of Revelation 12 & 13 so well, along with the fact that the syntax, grammar and vocabulary of the original do not really fit the traditional interpretation, I have found that the position I have described makes more sense than any other that I have heard. For me, no other explanation fits either the context, or the Greek.
That Day will not overtake us! For God did not appoint us (the Body of Christ) to the wrath, but to salvation from it, through our Lord Jesus Christ, through sanctification by the Spirit, and belief in the truth.
This is the truth proclaimed through “our gospel” (2 The 2:14), the gospel of the grace of God which was preached by Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles and to the Body of Christ!
Sudden destruction will not come upon us for we are not of the darkness! The Body of Christ will not have to endure the terror of the tribulation. Praise God, we can comfort and edify one another with this knowledge!
In Christ,
Bob Hill
But the entire English speaking world knows that this "lesser authority" crap is just that. When you say someone is responsible for something you are saying that they are the one's who did it. That's why when the sales men here at my work complain about prices going up again, I can confidently say that I'm not responsible for it, John (the owner and highest authority in this company) did it, not me and there’s not a thing that any of us can do about it! I know that you understand this and that Jim actually does too; he's just intentionally being stupid because it's either that or his theology falls to pieces.Philetus said:
The word is perfect fine just exactly the way it is. It doesn't take that much effort to stay on the same page as someone when they speak in common parlance. If the SV is correct then God is responsible for everything that happens - period. He's responsible because He's the one who did it. I don't care whether there is anyone for Him to answer to or not, which of course there isn't, that isn't the point. The point is that God is responsible for every evil act that will ever happen if the SV is correct because the He is the one who did it all! What difference does it make whether anyone could do anything about it or not? God has given each of us a moral conscience so that we can know right from wrong and whether or not we can do anything about it or not, we can know whether we've been screwed or treated with our best interests in mind. In the SV God does both! He screws us over and then pulls our backsides out of the fire. Some heroic god that is!
A totally predictable tactic on Jim's part. As soon as he detects that someone is backing him into a corner he immediately starts with the "disrespecting the debate" accusations and shortly afterward the personal attacks that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. It's entirely intentional and done with clock work predictability.
It's like I told Knight. This thread is the best thing to happen to the Open View in years! Jim has proven very profitable indeed! And all because he has insisted upon going down Wackoville Road in relation to the definitions of common words that everyone in the world knows the meaning of but Jim.
Of course! But there is no need to turn ourselves all into lawyers and worry about the precise definition of every word in the dictionary. Words have a whole range of meanings and EVERYONE with a brain knows what is being said when someone says that God is responsible for something. Sozo made this same error in regards to the term "sin". He had some super strict definition of the word and so went around telling everyone that he never ever sinned and that no Christian is capable of sinning. Was he right? Yeah, probably; at least for the most part he was but only from a very specific perspective that almost no one understood. The result was massive confusion and endless and meaningless arguments. And the result here is similar only worse. It leads directly to the Calvinist believing that God is not responsible for our salvation. It's just ridiculous.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Philetus
New member
Clete,
Turning into lawyers is exactly the point. Why even speak of ‘responsibility’ in regards to salvation. I agreed already with Knight about the word gaming tendency that Jim and most SVers have. They have to do it. And like I said it probably isn’t worth the effort but the distortion that the SV (and Jim in particular) puts forth in using the word ‘responsible’ is so damaging to the scriptural view of God that we have to admit ‘they aren’t hearing us’. I’m not sure that everyone does have the same working definition of ‘responsible’. Jim’s is sure different than yours and mine and he is typical of most hyper Calvinists. Maybe it is more a cultural issue than not and we can’t see it for being so immersed in it; the Calvinistic distortion has been around a long time and is everywhere. Next time you are singing a hymn in church (if you still sing hymns) look critically at the words. I suspect you are filtering a lot of them through the Open lens. Most don’t. Unless you are fortunate enough to have a pastor who is Open then how many times do you cringe at a comment that most just pass over without a thought? I run into it all the time in the alley even with the non-churched. I just believe that there is a better way to say it and I’m willing to risk looking like the buffoon to find it even to other Open Theists.
As for Sozo, who knows? But, I have to admit that there are times when I read even your posts and have to go “Huh?” But, I have complete confidence in your foundation as an Open Theist and you always get the benefit of the doubt from me. Given time and a few more posts you usually get it said … but not every time. I would only hope for the same courtesy in return.
Philetus
patman
Active member
lee_merrill said:
If God told someone to kill Jesus, it would be sin not to.
God holds the right to decide who lives and who dies. If he wants someone to die, and we oppose his will, we sinned.
You have a problem with seeing the Bible as more than a series of wise sayings. It is a book, there is a lot to consider, more than one verse here and there can tell us sometimes. You always go around and take some verse from its context and put it on here.
And then when there is a good answer, you just do it again, instead of listening to the answer and see if it applies to your next verse, you just sling it against the wall to see if it sticks. You are getting a very muddy wall, lee.
"They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen." (Acts 4:28)
And I agree! God did want Jesus to die. And they did it. But God appointed NO ONE to sin in doing it. Any sin committed was their own sin.
Philetus
New member
Clete,
I don’t think Jim is being intentional stupid, nor am I (I hope :chuckle: ). Are you? I don’t think so. Jim would say that the rise in prices is not due to John at all. Jim would say that God did it … that God was responsible for the price increase. And according to his view and in his negative way he is right. (Anybody heard from RobE lately? Oh please … no … cause and effect! Or how about Lee … he is so stuck on that tread mill he distorts every proof text he posts.) They are not hearing us! They can't unless we find new ways to say it.
Let’s use the word responsible in a perfectly Open way: “He, who was in no way responsible for sin, took the full responsibility for our sin upon himself.” It makes sense but it is awkward to many to say the least. But no less awkward to the same people when we say, “God is totally responsible for our salvation but we have full responsibility for accepting or rejecting it.” It is perfectly correct but those steeped in the ‘meticulous control model’ don’t hear the same thing we are saying. I think we would do well to speak of response ability than to continually and legalistically try to hammer out a word that for the most part is imposed upon the good news by a culture that always wants to place blame and hold others accountable.
I’m sure he didn’t mean to, but Jim made the point clearly. He isn’t hearing us! The god of this world has made many blinded and deaf to the truth about God. We don’t have to wonder who he would say is ‘responsible’ for that, do we?
Thanks Clete. I have to work a 48 hour weekend starting in a few hours. Look forward to continuing ……. later.
Philetus
Actually, I thought Jim's definitions for the word "responsible" were excellent! That's why I stuck with them to prove he was wrong.Philetus said:
Well I can't say that I disagree with the point of this post at all. It is definitely important to define terms and to be careful to make sure that we are making ourselves clear to those to whom we are speaking and if that were all that Jim was doing then I wouldn't have a problem but unfortunately it isn't. What we should all do as Christians is to find a way to rationally communicate our theology within the scope of normal discorse and only resort of off the wall definitions when it is necessary to do so. What Jim does is effectively make up the definitions of words to fit his theology at any place where the normal definition conflicts with it, and then he accuses everyone else of being dullards when he comes off as a complete nut case. Jim is using the "it depends on what the definition of the word "is" is" defense and as I've said a few times now, it's just ridiculous.Philetus said:
Resting in Him,
Clete
lee_merrill
New member
Why is that, though? If God told someone to rape a person, it would not be a sin?patman said:
No, sin is sin, even if God (per impossible) were to command it, that does not change the nature of the deed.
But the killing an innocent person is a sin.
Well, but you need to answer my points more specifically. This even sounds more like a conclusion, than arguments.
Let us note "The Lord took away," and Job did not sin in saying this.
What then, does this mean? And I thought the Open View was majoring on taking the plain sense of a verse as the sense, as even being a firm rule--God says he changed his mind, he changed his mind, Scripture says the Lord took away, thus the Lord took away.
Yet "the Son of perdition" implies God appointed at least that there be someone to betray Jesus, and that was--a sin.
Wounding Jesus also was a sin, and also ordained by God, for how else could it be that by his wounds we are healed?
I'm astonished you cannot see this.
Blessings,
Lee
patman
Active member
lee_merrill said:
Just like I was astonished how you were closing your eyes to the Tyre/Egypt situation? No, because I already gave you the answeres.
If you say God sinned when he sent Jesus to the cross, you are the one who should be astonished at yourself! Look at what you are saying!
God holds life in his hand, it is his to give and his to take away. He commands life, he can take it away, from anyone. I told you this last time. His power, his authority, and his say. All life is in his hand, innocent and guilty. He has every right to take it away.
But Jesus laid his life down. He told us that. He was always going to lay it down. No one took his life from him, he gave it up! Judas didn't kill him, the jews didn't kill him, the Romans didn't kill him, he gave us his life, on his own.
All this time, S.V. has been accusing the O.V. of taking power away from God? Lee? You do that, and then you accuse him of sin. Just because things happened a certain way doesn't mean that is how God wanted it to happen. It is a false assumption your theology drives you to make.
Instead, God is free! He is powerful enough to do anything, but he simply will not go against his nature by his nature. He is good, Lee, not the gardener of Evil.
And I do follow scripture. The bible said Satan struck Job, and that is who I SAY did it too. But you gotta go and point the finger at God, just like Job did!
patman
Active member
Lee,
You think it was the nails that killed Jesus, the person who drove them into his hand? Did not Jesus have the power to heal his hands as they went in? Did the spear in his side make him die? Perhaps the whip? Jesus is above these things. When he died, he chose to die. No one killed him. Someone crucified him, but no one killed him.
God did not plan sin in his son's death. Sinners though, naturally, sinned in other ways during the crucifixion. Not God's Fault nor his idea.
You think it was the nails that killed Jesus, the person who drove them into his hand? Did not Jesus have the power to heal his hands as they went in? Did the spear in his side make him die? Perhaps the whip? Jesus is above these things. When he died, he chose to die. No one killed him. Someone crucified him, but no one killed him.
God did not plan sin in his son's death. Sinners though, naturally, sinned in other ways during the crucifixion. Not God's Fault nor his idea.
Last edited:
- Status