45386Re: [faithmaps] "Open theism"
- Aug 29, 2006Hi Peter;
About Amos 3:6
I keep forgetting you're using KJV. NKJV and other versions use words like
disaster or calamity instead of evil. Not sure if you'll accept their
versions but they uphold the concept that God can not do evil. The
difference between evil and disaster is that evil's raison d'etre is to
destroy us but God's purpose is to bring us to Him and He will use adverse
events to bring about that ultimate good. Not sure if that's a minor or
major quibble but I've been down this road with other KJVers. I've been told
that a) my version is not the inspired one and b) God hardens sinners so
that they are more deserving of hell.
I do believe God is omniscient and omnipotent so there are plans of His that
will not be derailed. He will bring them to pass. This concept is compatible
with Open Theism. God's sovereignty or the accuracy of long range prophecies
are not questioned. God gives those long range prophecies to prove His
sovereignty and to increase our faith in His sovereignty. But does He have
to manage everything to the minute or second in other to achieve His
purpose? Or is He such a master chess player that no matter what we do, His
will will ultimately prevail?
Where OT diverges from traditional thinking is the emphasis on how crucial
pivotal decision points are in an individual's or a community's lifes. What
if Cain had heeded God's warning to watch out that he is not overcome by
sin? What if Jehoash actually believed in prophetic actions and struck the
arrow more that 3 times? What if Moses had not struck the rock?
If these actions were predetermined, then why should they (and others)
suffer and be judged for it? That is the question Open Theism seeks to
P.S. Mea culpa that now on Faithmaps Last Day, I'm not bothering to trim
down the message I'm replying to a la repeated pleas from our beleaguered
On 8/28/06, Peter Attwood <attwoods@...> wrote:
> >> The whole Bible affirms that God is in charge of everything,
> prophesying events in detail that come to pass long after and asking in the
> Proverbs, "Is there evil in a city and the Lord has not done it."
> >Can you give a reference for that as I can't find it in my bible.
> Amos 3:6
> >Also, the prophecies were not in detail or obvious as it was only
> >after the fact that people realized how they fit. Ex. Matthew 2:23
> >said "He will be called a Nazarene" but no where in the OT does it say
> >that specifically and if it was implied, it was probably an
> >implication that he will be dedicated to the Lord, not necessarily
> >that he would be from Nazareth (which he was, anyhow). Or the prophecy
> >in Matthew 2:15 "Out of Egypt, I will call my son" which is a
> >reference to God bringing the Israelites out of Egypt under Moses.
> >This statement in Hosea became messianic prophecy in Matthew. The list
> >is endless including the prophecy that he would be betrayed by a
> >friend. He was eventually betrayed by 2, Peter and Judas, on the night
> >before he was crucified.
> I think it's quite clever of God to have arranged it so that his
> prophecies are hidden from those that want to use them for insider trading,
> which even the Securities and Exchange Commission of this world frowns on,
> while making them clear after the fact. In this way the scripture is
> fulfilled that the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes,
> so that doing the word is how we get enlightened by it, not by prying
> secrets out of the text.
> Among the more impressive examples are Noah's prophecy that God would be
> the God of Shem and that Japheth would dwell in his tents, and that both
> would enslave Canaan - all precisely fulfilled many thousands of years later
> in the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, the destruction and enslavement of Tyre
> and Carthage by Alexander and Rome respectively, and the call of the Greeks
> and Romans into Christ through the gospel.
> >Or we could just read the passage as it was written.
> This assumes that our reading and perceiving faculty is somehow pure and
> reliable. At least in others, this evidently can't be assumed, and I've
> concluded that the rule holds true for me as well. Reading the passage as
> it's written is the gift of God as he delivers us from self-deception, whose
> only evidence is frequently that others confront us with questions for which
> we have no good answers.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>