What I said is foolish because Jerry says so. Ok.
I don't get it tho. Perhaps you can tell me why it is foolish in your mind. I don't have a problem with believing it.
Theology Club: Is the Future Open?
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
What I said is foolish because Jerry says so. Ok.
I don't get it tho. Perhaps you can tell me why it is foolish in your mind. I don't have a problem with believing it.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Let us look what you said again:
If it is settled from God's perspective then that means that nothing can change what will happen in the future.
And since nothing can change what will happen in the future then the future is settled and therefore the future is settled as far as man is concerned as well.
If the future is not settled from man's perspective then that can only mean that things are open to change in the future.
From your perspective is the future settled or not?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So you believe that the future is open?
journey
New member
I've already answered the question. Here it is again for you, and it is my final answer:
Jerry, it's all very simple: I don't know the future, so the future is open from my perspective. I obviously don't know what God knows. From God's perspective, He obviously DOES know the future. There is no need in making something so simple complicated.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So obviously you believe that the future is open.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Of course the future is not settled. If the future is settled then the kingdom will not be "at hand" or "nigh at hand" until the Lord Jesus returns to the earth:
"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand (eggys)" (Lk.21:27-31).
Here the words "nigh at hand" are translated from the Greek word eggys and that word means "of times imminent and soon to come pass" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).
If the future is settled and everything is set in stone then it would be impossible that the Lord Jesus would have told the Jews that the kingdom was at hand in the first century because it cannot possibly be "at hand" until the Lord Jesus returns to the earth. But that is exactly what He told them:
"From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (eggizō)" (Mt.4:17).
Here the words "at hand" are translated from the Greek word eggizō, and that word means "to be imminent" (A Greek English Lexicon, Liddell & Scott [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940], 467).
In a note in The Scofield Study Bible we read that "the Biblical term 'at hand' or 'near' is never a positive affirmation that the person or thing said to be at hand will immediately appear, but only that that person or thing has the quality of imminency" (Note at Matthew 4:17).
Something that has the quality of imminency is something that could possibly happen at any moment.
Since the Lord Jesus thought that the kingdom could be brought in during the time when He walked the earth then that means that He did not think the future is settled, that the kingdom could not possibly be at hand until He returns.
So from what the Lord Jesus said at Matthew 4:17 it is clear that the future is open!
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Of course you are not buying that because it clearly shows that the future is not settled.
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
If the future is not settled, that puts in jeopardy biblical prophecy and the inerrancy of bible itself. (sola scriptura)
I don't buy it.
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
Yes, very true. Good of you to admit it. If you would like help getting a new understanding, feel free to ask away. It's better than going to great lengths to explain away the obvious meanings of countless passages of the Bible and brings great peace of mind.
Lon
Well-known member
Then God had a "beginning."
We can never claim one thing without implying the other.
Lon
Well-known member
Did you 'happen' to realize it was addressed to me?
I had responded there, this isn't a debate thread persay so I'm simply giving counter thought to certain implications. I don't feel I can respond to your "absurd" and honor theology club where we are discussing rather than debating so I'll ignore it.
:think:
Then time would be God's god because He could not then have been without a beginning.
▼this▼
You must understand this, it is fundamental to time and God having no beginning. Measure this line (not segment).
<--------------------------------------------------------------->
Equally to drawn segments, time is a segment, not remotely :nono: a consideration of forever past/future.
In order for God to have existed forever (still going into the past by logic and reason)time must necessarily have been a function of creation (there must be a starting place for time to occur or it does not occur/exist).
Did you 'happen' to realize it was addressed to me?
I had responded there, this isn't a debate thread persay so I'm simply giving counter thought to certain implications. I don't feel I can respond to your "absurd" and honor theology club where we are discussing rather than debating so I'll ignore it.
Fine by me. I was just wondering if you wanted to carry on that conversation. If you can't or don't wish to respond, it's up to you. I suppose every conversation must end somewhere.
You are seriously missing something here, Lon. You haven't understood the problem at all.
I am arguing that time is not a thing. It is just a concept to help communicate the idea that things happen in sequence. Hence the idea that time began is absurd.
Time is not a thing. Time is not a dimension. Time cannot be measured.