"The Open View of God" or "Open Theis

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:23 pm

Paidion,

I was hoping to hear your comments regarding the issue I raised in my July 27 post about Jesus' ability to predict Peter's martyrdom, in particular because of the many variables that would be involved. Thanks
And thank you, Homer, for persisting in this request. It prompted me to reconsider the passage, and now I am leaning toward a different explanation.

If we were to look at only the words of Jesus and not those of the commentator, we would probably never guess that the words referred to the martyrdom of Peter:

Truly, I tell you, when you were young, you used to fasten your own belt and to go wherever you wished. But when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go." John 21:18

Peter was an impetuous person. When he was young, he could fasten his own belt. He needed no one to help him. He could also go wherever he wanted. Jesus seems to have been saying that when Peter grows old, he must rely on other people, to stretch out his hands to someone else to fasten his belt for him. Peter will not even be able to decide where to go any longer. His caretaker will take Peter to places where the caretaker wants to go, not necessarily where Peter wants to go.

This passage is followed by the parenthetical :

(He said this to indicate the kind of death by which he would glorify God.)

The question is, was this parenthetical explanation of Jesus' words, added to the text by a later commentator? If so, it may not have been much later, as the expression seems occurs in papyrus 109, which is supposed to have been written in the mid to late second century. I noticed, however, that the word for "death" in the manuscript is not "thanatos" found in later manuscripts, but only two Greek letters "th" and "a". These letters were not underlined to indicate an abbreviation. The customary way to abbreviate a word was to write the first and last letter, not the first two letters. However, it may have still been "thanatos" with the final letters erased or missing. I do not have a copy of the manuscript, only a transcript.

On the other hand, the parenthetical explanation may have been that of the author, namely the apostle John himself. He wrote his gospel years after these events occurred, and it is possible that as he remembered the words of Jesus, he thought about the death of Peter, and it occurred to him that Jesus words may have referred to Peter's death.

I suppose that those who believe that the Bible is inerrant in every detail, would not even consider the suggestion that John may have misinterpreted Jesus' words. Yet, as I see it, that may have been the case.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

User avatar
_Homer
Posts: 639
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Brownsville

Post by _Homer » Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:12 pm

Did not God allow Israel to be defeated by their enemies, while He said that He Himself had done it, and yet He held their conquerers responsible for their actions and punished them for conquering Israel? How were they responsible for their actions if they had no free will? And had not God decreed what He would do to Israel?

When Jesus made statements about future events He made no mistakes and He did not make "educated guesses".
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
A Berean

_STEVE7150
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm

Post by _STEVE7150 » Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:15 pm

We might note that Gen. 22:5 says: "And Abraham said to his young men, 'Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go yonder; and we will worship and return to you.'" Abraham was ready to sacrifice his son and he expected the Lord to resurrect Isaac. This is what it says in Heb. 11:19, "He considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type." So, God knew that Abraham was completely trusting in the Lord. Why then did God still need to test in Abraham? It doesn't make any sense from the Openness position.


A lot of times men have the best intentions in their hearts but despite that they don't always follow through and do what they sincerly want to do or know they should do.
If God has truly given man free will then the knowledge of Abraham's actions were'nt in any knowledge bank until Abraham actually passed the point of no return.
If this were the only example or one of just a few like this where God tests or God makes conditional statements you might be right but there are so many instances like this where God's actions are affected by the actions of the parties being judged that the sheer numerical weight of evidence seems to be persuasive that scripture actually means what it says and is not overidden by a philosophy of what God should be like.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:24 pm

When Jesus made statements about future events He made no mistakes and He did not make "educated guesses".

It seems that Yahweh did. He spoke through His prophet Jonah, "Yet 40 days and Nineveh will be overthrown." It wasn't.

Jesus shares the name "Yahweh" with His Father. Gen 19:24. Two Yahwehs in a single sentence. Was the Son of God not the "man" who stayed behind and spoke to Abraham? The One whom Abraham addressed as "Yahweh"?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

User avatar
_TK
Posts: 698
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: Northeast Ohio

Post by _TK » Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:35 pm

Paidion said:

It seems that Yahweh did. He spoke through His prophet Jonah, "Yet 40 days and Nineveh will be overthrown." It wasn't.

true-- but wasn't a "unless they repent" implied in God's pronouncement? if not, why bother to send Jonah.

TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)

_STEVE7150
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm

Post by _STEVE7150 » Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:21 pm

true-- but wasn't a "unless they repent" implied in God's pronouncement? if not, why bother to send Jonah.

Another conditional statement based on the response of the people under judgement. Another words God's actions would change based on the free will actions of the people of Nineveh which indicates God's decisions are not set in stone ahead of time.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_STEVE7150
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm

Post by _STEVE7150 » Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:27 pm

When Jesus made statements about future events He made no mistakes and He did not make "educated guesses".

True because God made his prophecies come true because everything in the scriptures must be fulfilled.

"My purpose shall stand, and I will fulfill my intention." Isa 46.10

" I have spoken , and I will bring it to pass." Isa 46.11
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_SoaringEagle
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: Louisville, KY

Post by _SoaringEagle » Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:40 pm

TK,

I too know what it's like to have to mutually exclusive ideas or doctrines in my mind, while at the same time, not knowing with certainty which one is correct. Even though I posted Matt Slick's comments on that particular passage, I am still occasionally evaluate both of these ideas (exhaustive foreknowledge of the future, and an unknown by God). Yes, I too know what it's like to lean towards one direction concerning certain subjects and the different views related to them that both can't be correct, and then lean towards another. I think the key is to spend much time in God's presence (like the Word, prayer, private worship and other various things) and be actively obeying the things He speaks to you. Then you will grow in your ability to know His voice and follow Him where he leads you as far as doctrine is concerned.

Your friend,
SoaringEagle
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Homer
Posts: 639
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Brownsville

Post by _Homer » Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:50 pm

Steve 7150 said:
True because God made his prophecies come true because everything in the scriptures must be fulfilled.
Yes, and while doing so He does not violate free will. Man is still held accountable for his actions.

Paidion said:
On the other hand, the parenthetical explanation may have been that of the author, namely the apostle John himself. He wrote his gospel years after these events occurred, and it is possible that as he remembered the words of Jesus, he thought about the death of Peter, and it occurred to him that Jesus words may have referred to Peter's death.

I suppose that those who believe that the Bible is inerrant in every detail, would not even consider the suggestion that John may have misinterpreted Jesus' words. Yet, as I see it, that may have been the case.
And are we to believe Jesus' detailed prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was an after the fact idea of Matthew, Mark, and Luke? How are these events to be explained? Was it not the decretive will of God that it would happen? And did the Romans not retain their free will while fulfilling God's will?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
A Berean

_STEVE7150
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm

Post by _STEVE7150 » Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:20 am

Yes, and while doing so He does not violate free will. Man is still held accountable for his actions.

Homer, Yes , man is held accountable but when God chooses to intervene i'm not aware of anything in scripture that says He never violates man's free will. Free will is not a birthright of man it's a gift from God that He allows to whatever extent it's beneficial to His purposes.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism”