ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[godrulz]

Godrulz, is this future 'great tribulation' going to be the result of cumulative contingencies gone haywire or the direct meticulous intervention of God?

You really should ask google or wikipedia. They seem to have all the answers?!

My wife asked who my favorite TOL poster/buddy is. I said I have most kinship (belief and heart) with Philetus and muzikman (though we disagree on various things). Take it as a compliment. Even though you were cut out of my will, I trust I am still in yours.

The scope of Rev. 6-19 (Tribulation...Great Trib. may only refer to the last 3 1/2 years) is general in some ways, so cumulative contingencies (whatever that means) will affect the details of that yet future period. Remember our two motifs? God predestines some vs all of the future. The exact details or individuals during this period are not foreknown nor predestined. Whether a current world leader, for example, would manage to stay alive until this starts is not settled. What is predestined is the chronology of the seal/trumpet/bowl judgments (i.e. God predestines, knowing that the Gentile nations will be judged, the specific judgments). The Second Coming of Christ in Rev. 19 and start of the millennial kingdom is also predestined and predictable because God will bring it to pass by His great ability. Whether Joe is here or there or whether a dog barks or not during this time is irrelevant and unknowable as a certainty. The 144,000 super Jewish-Christian evangelists can also be raised up by God as predetermined without knowing who will be part of this number from before they are born (cf. we are predestined as the Church to be the people of God, conformed to Christ's image, without individuals being predestined from eternity past as to who eventually believes or not).

So, Open Theism, unlike simple foreknowledge or determinism, can support the motif of God deciding to do certain things during this future period (whenever He intervenes and history moves sufficiently in the general direction) without these events being seen or determined in exhaustive detail.

 

[Philetus]

=godrulz; We are so close together on this. I definitely reject Mid-Acts Jewish vs Gentile Christians post-cross/pre-Paul, but I do distinguish the people of God in the OT (Israel) from the people of God in the NT (Church).

I also support a now, but not yet sense of the kingdom. His rulership continues even without an earthly kingdom and despite the rejection of national Israel.

I also distinguish between the two - one existed when the other didn't. One exists now that the other doesn't serve any purpose other than as included in the new.
Not dispensations, but covenants: a new covenant replacing the old one. Whether received or rejected, Jesus is the new for both Jews and Gentiles and in Christ there is really neither; there is only the body, the community of Christ.

It informs our understanding of God (attributes) and His ways more than his potential plan for the future. Enyart's 'The Plot' combines Open Theism, dispensationalism, and an eschatological view. I think a variety of end-time views could fit under Calvinism, Open Theism, or Arminianism. e.g. neither of these soteriological views support or negate pre vs post trib or millennial views, per se.

POTENTIAL PLAN? That's not what is being put out by the millenarians. You know I agree more than not ... what I'm digging for is clarity. These attributes emphasized by the OV aren’t suspended during times of tribulation (even the great tribulation if there is one) are they?

I think the Open View of God's future has much to say to all the groups you named above. I'm just not yet sure what it says. I'm willing to explore and even dump any and all preconceived/previously held conclusions if it brings me to greater understanding of who God is and who I am in Christ. What I have come to realize on TOL is that the best way to get the really good thinkers to come clean with their best and bottom line stuff is to pick at them until they are at least a little miffed at you and ready to write you off.

To quote GWBush ... 'bring em on.' For me the only thing at stake are half-truths that tend to keep me up at night.:chuckle:

 

[Philetus]

You really should ask google or wikipedia. They seem to have all the answers?!

My wife asked who my favorite TOL poster/buddy is. I said I have most kinship (belief and heart) with Philetus and muzikman (though we disagree on various things). Take it as a compliment. Even though you were cut out of my will, I trust I am still in yours.

The scope of Rev. 6-19 (Tribulation...Great Trib. may only refer to the last 3 1/2 years) is general in some ways, so cumulative contingencies (whatever that means) will affect the details of that yet future period. Remember our two motifs? God predestines some vs all of the future. The exact details or individuals during this period are not foreknown nor predestined. Whether a current world leader, for example, would manage to stay alive until this starts is not settled. What is predestined is the chronology of the seal/trumpet/bowl judgments (i.e. God predestines, knowing that the Gentile nations will be judged, the specific judgments). The Second Coming of Christ in Rev. 19 and start of the millennial kingdom is also predestined and predictable because God will bring it to pass by His great ability. Whether Joe is here or there or whether a dog barks or not during this time is irrelevant and unknowable as a certainty. The 144,000 super Jewish-Christian evangelists can also be raised up by God as predetermined without knowing who will be part of this number from before they are born (cf. we are predestined as the Church to be the people of God, conformed to Christ's image, without individuals being predestined from eternity past as to who eventually believes or not).

So, Open Theism, unlike simple foreknowledge or determinism, can support the motif of God deciding to do certain things during this future period (whenever He intervenes and history moves sufficiently in the general direction) without these events being seen or determined in exhaustive detail.

That is the best, most sane expression of 'that view I grew up in opposition to' that I have heard. See OV does have something to say to all positions. Now on to the attributes.

By the way ... you are still in my will. But, I sold everything and gave it to the poor. You are called on in my will to pay for my cremation and flush my ashes. Thanks.

Oh, yea. the feeling is mutual.

 

[Lon]

That is the best, most sane expression of 'that view I grew up in opposition to' that I have heard. See OV does have something to say to all positions. Now on to the attributes.

By the way ... you are still in my will. But, I sold everything and gave it to the poor. You are called on in my will to pay for my cremation and flush my ashes. Thanks.

Keep that burning barrel handy Gr (it might be more beneficial to dump in the flower garden for both parties concerned).

I'm kind of alone in my corner as you've chased away all the Calvinists pretty 'good.' So I appreciate what I can get for sanity here. It is nice to get a backpat while I'm being shoved to the door so I really appreciate the charity.

I'm hopeful one day I'll just get the raised eyebrow instead of the full treatment:execute:

 

[godrulz]

I also distinguish between the two - one existed when the other didn't. One exists now that the other doesn't serve any purpose other than as included in the new.
Not dispensations, but covenants: a new covenant replacing the old one. Whether received or rejected, Jesus is the new for both Jews and Gentiles and in Christ there is really neither; there is only the body, the community of Christ.



POTENTIAL PLAN? That's not what is being put out by the millenarians. You know I agree more than not ... what I'm digging for is clarity. These attributes emphasized by the OV aren’t suspended during times of tribulation (even the great tribulation if there is one) are they?

The potential plan is mapped out to some degree, with other aspects more open, especially in the details. I think we can speculate on a reasonable end times chronology with the evidence we have, but not an exhaustive one.

I agree that the NT Church is Jew and Gentile, one in Christ. There is an Old and New Covenant. However, there were also other covenants including Davidic, Mosaic, Abrahamic, Palestinian, Noahic, (some of which will still be dealt with in the millennium), etc. Some were conditional, others were unconditional. The Church is not Israel. There is a Church Age. During the Tribulation, God renews dealings with national Israel based on previous covenants. He also deals with Gentile nations during this time, a time and purpose for everything. Israel and Gentiles are dealt with during this time, as promised. God has not forsaken the restoration of national Israel and renews dealings with them. Of course, they come to the Messiah, just as the Gentiles do. It is not an accident that Jesus returns to Jerusalem and that there are OT promises to Israel that will be fulfilled in the future earthly kingdom (vs heavenly hope of church).

These ideas are based on all relevant texts, not just a few proof texts. The Kingdom concepts also are not simplistic. There is a theocratic kingdom offered at the first advent, a kingdom program in the present age, and the future millennial kingdom. There is also an eternal kingdom after the 1000 years (new heaven/earth). Throughout history, we see the rulership of God, but expressed in various ways (I think we can be covenantal and dispensational, but not hyper-dispensational).

 

[Philetus]

Keep that burning barrel handy Gr (it might be more beneficial to dump in the flower garden for both parties concerned).

I'm kind of alone in my corner as you've chased away all the Calvinists pretty 'good.' So I appreciate what I can get for sanity here. It is nice to get a backpat while I'm being shoved to the door so I really appreciate the charity.

I'm hopeful one day I'll just get the raised eyebrow instead of the full treatment:execute:

I would rather contribute to the bean crop than the tulips. Nothing wrong with flowers, but my BS is more likely suited to beens than bloomers. :chuckle:

Calvinists have a tendency to run themselves off. This amazing thread was started in opposition to OVT. I've learned from both camps. If the opposition gets a backpat from an OVer here in this thread, it is well deserved. It isn't charity. That doesn't mean Calvinism doesn't stink. :jazz: It's just harder and harder to find one that admits full-boar to being one.

 

[Clete]

Calvinists have a tendency to run themselves off.
[snip]

It's just harder and harder to find one that admits full-boar to being one.

This is so true. I seems I can't be nice enough to a Calvinist to have him stick around; its a real catch 22 with many of them. If you're mean then they have a good excuse to leave and often do just that, if you're not mean but simply respond dispassionately to their points then they generally freak out and accuse you of being mean and use the accusation as an excuse to leave, and if you're as nice as can be, then they accuse you of setting some sort of trap and leave because they don't trust you. There's just no way to win.

If you want to have some fun, go over to one of the other theology forums that has a whole bunch of Calvinists on it and just start making a few of the open theism arguments. It won't get six posts into the discussion before at least one of them loses his mind, goes totally off the deep end and starts talking about how you should be banned. Calvinists generally react so emotionally to open theism that you'd think they were Catholics and that you just insulted Mary.

I for one would absolutely love it if there were a lot more Calvinists on this website. I also have to admit that I am responsible in part for having run some of them off in the past, even though at the time that was not my intention, it doesn't excuse the way I've treated a few around here. That's why I'm sort of excited to see Ask Mr. Religion show up on TOL. He hasn't posted in any of the open theism threads yet but I hope he will do so and I hope that he proves to be as intellectually competent as his early posts would seem to suggest that he is.

Okay; I'm done. I'll step down off my soap box and you guys can get back to whatever you were discussing.

God bless!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Lonster,

I have not been following your posts lately and so forgive me if this should be obvious but are you a Calvinist?

If so, I'd love to engage you in a debate on whatever topic you choose.

I totally promise to be respectful!

I'll win but I promise not to gloat about it!

 

[Yorzhik]

Like This?click here for generic tiny Christian forum

I couldn't have been nicer. I hardly even made a point just to avoid "freak outs"... but got darn close to them anyways!

 

[Lon]

Lonster,

I have not been following your posts lately and so forgive me if this should be obvious but are you a Calvinist?

If so, I'd love to engage you in a debate on whatever topic you choose.

I totally promise to be respectful!

I'll win but I promise not to gloat about it!

"I'll win but I promise not to gloat about it!" That's hilarious!

I'd say I'm more Calvinist than anything, but when it comes to the OV questions, they've always been mine (for the most part) as well, so it isn't a complete buy-in. I believe they'd consider me Calvinist-light, which is a bit of a different animal.

 

[Clete]

"I'll win but I promise not to gloat about it!" That's hilarious!

I'd say I'm more Calvinist than anything, but when it comes to the OV questions, they've always been mine (for the most part) as well, so it isn't a complete buy-in. I believe they'd consider me Calvinist-light, which is a bit of a different animal.

Okay, so at the risk of going over stuff you've already said, why are you mostly Calvinist? What's preventing your questions about it from causing you to reject it outright?

 

[Yorzhik]

Clete, check out my link. What did I do wrong?

Also, I've started 2 more threads. We'll see where they go.

 

[Philetus]

Clete, check out my link. What did I do wrong?

Also, I've started 2 more threads. We'll see where they go.

Hey, Yorzhik.

I'm not Clete, (just hope to be someday ) but I went to your link and read the thread and a couple of things struck me.

First you dun good! Good replies to the comments and with a humble spirit, too.

However, I think you bit off more than anyone could chew. Starting in 'enemy territory' by lumping Greg B. and Bob E. in the same camp would likely stir up a hornets nest here so its no surprise that in a forum where almost every poster (except one self-declared young immature Christian) admitted right off the bat that they never heard of Open View Theism, you raised more issues than necessary. If you have read Boyd's "Myth of a Christian Nation" then you know that he and Bob E. are not on the same page when it comes to how Government should function. I think that confused some on the other forum. Not all open theists share all of Bob's views, nor do all agree with Greg on issues of Government. (When he preached the series that later became the book, one third of his church left.)

Had you started off with the basics of Open Theism only, you probably would have made better progress and been burned at the stake much sooner.:rotfl:

Man, that thread really shows how ingrained the church is in Augustinian philosopie and Constantine's Christendoom. (sad pun intended)

What an illustration of how much work we have to do in learning ways to say it clearly, so that we are heard before we burn.:crackup:

Rep to you for the courageous effort!:first:

 

[Philetus]

This is so true. I seems I can't be nice enough to a Calvinist to have him stick around; its a real catch 22 with many of them. If you're mean then they have a good excuse to leave and often do just that, if you're not mean but simply respond dispassionately to their points then they generally freak out and accuse you of being mean and use the accusation as an excuse to leave, and if you're as nice as can be, then they accuse you of setting some sort of trap and leave because they don't trust you. There's just no way to win.

If you want to have some fun, go over to one of the other theology forums that has a whole bunch of Calvinists on it and just start making a few of the open theism arguments. It won't get six posts into the discussion before at least one of them loses his mind, goes totally off the deep end and starts talking about how you should be banned. Calvinists generally react so emotionally to open theism that you'd think they were Catholics and that you just insulted Mary.

I for one would absolutely love it if there were a lot more Calvinists on this website. I also have to admit that I am responsible in part for having run some of them off in the past, even though at the time that was not my intention, it doesn't excuse the way I've treated a few around here. That's why I'm sort of excited to see Ask Mr. Religion show up on TOL. He hasn't posted in any of the open theism threads yet but I hope he will do so and I hope that he proves to be as intellectually competent as his early posts would seem to suggest that he is.

Okay; I'm done. I'll step down off my soap box and you guys can get back to whatever you were discussing.

God bless!

Resting in Him,
Clete

:rotfl: :up: :idea:

Time for a raid?:surf: :surf: :surf: :surf:
"The Open Theists are coming! The Open Theists are coming! Hide the women and children! Get your proof texts ready! Defend the truth? Save God from becoming small!"

It can get boring in friendly territory.:yawn:

 

[Philetus]

This forum is too 'open' for Calvin!

 

[Philetus]

"I'll win but I promise not to gloat about it!" That's hilarious!

I'd say I'm more Calvinist than anything, but when it comes to the OV questions, they've always been mine (for the most part) as well, so it isn't a complete buy-in. I believe they'd consider me Calvinist-light, which is a bit of a different animal.

Lonster,
I'm glad your here, and I'm glad to call you brother!

Yorzhik's little venture puts the shoe on the other foot for a change. That forum is too 'closed' for Bob and Greg.

It's refreshing to get the ax once in a while. It keeps us humble. No easy task in my case.

 

[Lon]

Lonster,
I'm glad your here, and I'm glad to call you brother!

Yorzhik's little venture puts the shoe on the other foot for a change. That forum is too 'closed' for Bob and Greg.

It's refreshing to get the ax once in a while. It keeps us humble. No easy task in my case.

Ooop! Ya just perked my curiosity! ....brb ( )

 

[Lon]

Okay, so at the risk of going over stuff you've already said, why are you mostly Calvinist? What's preventing your questions about it from causing you to reject it outright?

Actually, I've been slowly moving more 'toward' that camp as I'm able to understand it.

I was arminian before, but have started latching onto the other two points slowly.

 

[Clete]

Clete, check out my link. What did I do wrong?

Also, I've started 2 more threads. We'll see where they go.

I read the whole first page of posts yesterday. I'll read the rest and let you know what I think.

 

[Clete]

Actually, I've been slowly moving more 'toward' that camp as I'm able to understand it.

I was arminian before, but have started latching onto the other two points slowly.

Calvinism is more logically consistent than Arminianism but they are both diametrically apposed to Open Theism (and therefore the Bible in my view).

Are you saying your moving from Arminianism toward Calvinism or toward open theism?