Open Theism and Determinism

[robbyyoung]

Gentlemen, note the following:

Ecc 3:14-15 I know that whatever God doeth, it shall be for ever; there is nothing to be added to it, nor anything to be taken from it; and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. That which is - was long ago, and that which is to be - hath already been; and God bringeth back again that which is past.

Here God tells us that all He does was set perfectly from eternity. He then shares with us that He summons these things into our TIME EXISTENCE. It has already been accomplish on His end and then He summons it into our unfolding time. So what does this mean to you? Can you accept this or not? The fear of the Lord is indeed the beginning of wisdom, so does this knowledge of scripture bring the fear of God before us?

This is a principle established by God, so how can we reconcile this with other passages that seem to suggest otherwise?

What is the 'sure thing' you refer to? It seems to me that at the end of your earlier post you admitted there are passages that seem to suggest something different.

The mistake, I think, is in your interpretation of the passage.

1. You start by saying "Here God tells us" but that's forgetting that God is not the speaker in Ecclesiastes 3.
2. You then suggest the passage says that all God's actions were set from eternity. But the passage doesn't say anything of the sort. It says that whatever God chooses to do, lasts. It doesn't tell us if God chose to do everything He'll ever do at the beginning of time (let alone outside of time). The passage is simply saying that when God does stuff, it sticks.
3. You then state dogmatically that the passage says "He summons these things into our TIME EXISTENCE" even though the passage says nothing of the sort. You're reading that into the passage. Could it be interpreted that way? I suppose so. But that is hardly the only interpretive option. It could just as easily be the author's way of saying that life tends to go in cycles (this fits much better with the context).

You are, of course, free to interpret the passage as you have. But I don't think it makes sense to say your interpretation of it is a certainty... especially when it hasn't even really been defended.

Hi Matt,

I'll say this as kindly as I can. Your thoughts on the matter are useless. Until you see Ecc. as inspired over your own mind, there really can be no discussion with you, for you're operating outside scripture and on your own authority. All your points are simply wrong. The text says exactly what was posted. But it wouldn't matter to you anyway, it's not from God, so you say. I wonder if you feel the same way about other books that don't meet your inspired approval. You do err my friend and I hope you don't out-smart yourself.

God Bless!

[mattrose]

I do believe Ecclesiastes is an inspired text (I even used the word earlier).

But you are making the mistake of thinking the Bible approves of everything it records. It's a common mistake, but a needless one. Job's friends were not inspired... but the RECORD of their arguments is an inspired text (God has a purpose in preserving it). The author of Ecclesiastes was up front about searching for meaning without revelation from God (he was looking 'under the sun'). It is an inspired record of a flawed pursuit.

But I don't seem to be making a dent in your dogmatism on this issue. I shall bow out of this particular argumentative point as well

[steve7150]

In the Torah, God decrees that the Promised Land: Israel is for the descendants of Abraham, but it is a conditional promise: valid as long as they abide by the terms of their covenant with Him. Since God is immanent: always now, this promise was also made before the foundation of the world. It is no difference with the decree regarding Christ. If mankind sins, He comes. Why would Christ come if mankind didn't sin? Another conditional promise - formal and authoritative but conditional.





In the case of Israel keeping the covenant God explicitly used the word "if" , "Now therefore if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant" Ex 19.5

Peter didn't use the word "if" or any other qualification.

[robbyyoung]

I do believe Ecclesiastes is an inspired text (I even used the word earlier).

But you are making the mistake of thinking the Bible approves of everything it records. It's a common mistake, but a needless one. Job's friends were not inspired... but the RECORD of their arguments is an inspired text (God has a purpose in preserving it). The author of Ecclesiastes was up front about searching for meaning without revelation from God (he was looking 'under the sun'). It is an inspired record of a flawed pursuit.

But I don't seem to be making a dent in your dogmatism on this issue. I shall bow out of this particular argumentative point as well

Ok Matt, forgive me. I believe I provoked something that was unnecessary. I'm not shallow and I throughly know what you are talking about concerning the book. You see the words written as not approved for doctrine and I simply do. I see no contradiction anywhere against the other attributes of God found in scripture. So we will respectfully agree to disagree. I vaguely know of your ministry but it is indeed beneficial to all believers, especially here on this forum. I'll continue to pray for your zeal for the Lord and excellent work

God Bless!

[mattrose]

No worries. I could be wrong about both my interpretation of Ecclesiastes and my open view of the future. I guess we'll have to wait and see

[kenblogton]

Reply to Paidion
If God "exists" outside of time (whatever "existence" outside of time means, since the very word "exists" implies the present), and sees only a great eternal NOW, then how does he distinguish temporal events? To Him it's all NOW. He can He tell us what to do, since He already sees us doing it or not doing it in the great, eternal NOW?
And where in the Bible do you find God's existence outside of time, or that He sees everything as occurring NOW? Or is this just a philosophical construct with no Biblical support?
We agree that to God it's all now. Scripture tells us that God does not change and is timelessly eternal (e.g., Genesis 21:33; Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Nehemiah 9:5, Psalm 90:2; Psalm 102:27, Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8.). Also, logic tells us that God cannot change. If God changes, then God had a beginning. If God had a beginning, then some other entity would be needed to create God. This could lead to a never-ending series of changing entities which create, so we stop the series of changing entities with one entity, the unchanging God. There is no was or will be with God – was and will be are the change characteristics of our physical world. The name that immanent God takes in the Bible (see Exodus 3:14.) is I AM – God is always now. Therefore, because He cannot change, God does not exist in time, because everything that exists is time changes. God knows all of time from the moment of creation, but exists outside of the universe of matter, energy, space & time which He created.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

Reply to steve7150
In the case of Israel keeping the covenant God explicitly used the word "if" , "Now therefore if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant" Ex 19.5
Peter didn't use the word "if" or any other qualification.
In Genesis 17:7, the statement of the covenant to Abraham is unconditional "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you." In Exodus 19:5, the statement is conditional - but it is the same covenant!
In 1 Peter 1:20, Christ was chosen before the creation of the world. But for what was He chosen? To redeem sinful but repentant humankind. If humankind had not sinned, Christ would not have come because there would have been no need for Him to come.
kenblogton

[steve7150]

In Genesis 17:7, the statement of the covenant to Abraham is unconditional "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you." In Exodus 19:5, the statement is conditional - but it is the same covenant!
In 1 Peter 1:20, Christ was chosen before the creation of the world. But for what was He chosen? To redeem sinful but repentant humankind. If humankind had not sinned, Christ would not have come because there would have been no need for Him to come.
kenblogton









I think the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants are different covenants, one unconditional the other conditional. Re Peter it is simply never said "if humankind had not sinned." It's not in the text, it's not alluded to and it's simply not there. The "if" is missing.

If you want to add words to what Peter said that's your right but you should clearly say "in my opinion" or "i think he meant."

[kenblogton]

Reply to steve7150
I think the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants are different covenants, one unconditional the other conditional. Re Peter it is simply never said "if humankind had not sinned." It's not in the text, it's not alluded to and it's simply not there. The "if" is missing.
If you want to add words to what Peter said that's your right but you should clearly say "in my opinion" or "i think he meant."
In Exodus 3:6, at the burning bush, God identifies Himself to Moses as follows "Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God." In Exodus 32:13, Moses reminds God "Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: 'I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.'" Exodus to Deuteronomy details the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant for the Israelites led by Moses - the same covenant.
Now please reply to my comment to you: In 1 Peter 1:20, Christ was chosen before the creation of the world. But for what was He chosen? To redeem sinful but repentant humankind. If humankind had not sinned, Christ would not have come because there would have been no need for Him to come. Why was Christ chosen - what was the purpose of the choice? As you well know, Christ came to redeem mankind from the penalty for sin. That's the central message of the entire New Testament. Do you have a different answer?
kenblogton

[steve7150]

In Exodus 32:13, Moses reminds God "Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: 'I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.'" Exodus to Deuteronomy details the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant for the Israelites led by Moses - the same covenant.








This may be my last post in this thread because it seems like we are not covering any new ground.

Ex 32.13 is a good observation where Moses references the Abrahamic Covenant and he did indeed lead his people into Israel. However there is a reason the Sinaitic Covenant is called by it's name, which is that God gave it to Moses at Mount Sinai. That's where God gave Moses the ten commandments and the rest of the law. Do you think the ten commandments and the law of Moses are part of the Abrahamic Covenent? Duet 28 is all about blessings and curses based on obedience to the law, all conditional whereas the Abrahamic Covenant is God decreeing the land to Israel and many decendents to Abraham with no conditions after Abraham left his home.

Again regarding Peter, nothing is said which requires the word "if" or "if man sinned." We have different opinions as i think man was destined to sin.