You know each other?Tell him I said hi.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You know each other?Tell him I said hi.
Decades ago, before we went to Japan in 1980. Curtis Hutson preached the message for my ordination in August, 1979.You know each other?
The opposite view is called "open theism." This view regards God as a "risk taker."
"Although he may have a plan for how he will bring things to pass, not knowing future actions of free moral agents, he often has to change his plans in light of unforeseen developments" (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed., p. 369).
Now, if the 1 day and 1000 years Peter is talking about are symbolic, the passage makes no sense
What about John Reynolds?Decades ago, before we went to Japan in 1980. Curtis Hutson preached the message for my ordination in August, 1979.
There are many views of open theism - including Islamic open theism. You need to specify which open theism you are talking about - preferably by stating the name of the open theist you are referring to.
You're quoting vocal opponents of Open Theism to define open theism. This is silly.
No, an open theist would say that God has already planned for unforeseen actions by free agents. So no, he doesn't change plans due to unforeseen actions, he has already made sure of his plan despite them.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
It is my opinion but I see no reason to claim or produce other documents. It's just the way Peter is writing. In any case one-off Bible verses have become proverbial e.g. "A little bird told me." Ecc. 10:20This must remain purely opinion unless you can produce other documents from the 1st century showing this statement. In the case of Paul's statement about the Cretians in Titus 1:12, the statement has been found in secular authors, so it is definitely a proverb.Ian said:I consider that the way Peter is using day/years is what we would call a "saying" or "proverb" like "a miss is as good as a mile" or "hunger is the best sauce."
Ian said:Because of the teaching of two comings - for the imminent destruction & the final coming - it is possible to see the day as the destruction & the thousand years as the time until the final coming, both periods being indefinite - short & long - but I don't think that is the way Peter is writing. We can work too hard to interpret a simple expression.
It would be helpful if you considered & replied to what I wrote. Note that I wrote "it is possible .... but I don't think that is the way Peter is writing."John said:No, the day is a day and the years are years. There is no indication in the text that they are figures of speech. Before you said they were not figures of speech, but now you are saying "the day is destruction" and "the thousand years...the time until the final coming." Make up your mind.
RE:Open Theism
Marty, this may not apply to your thoughts but many years ago I had an Open Theism time of tension after reading:
Genesis 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
I wondered - if God is all knowing (in fact ALL-Everything) why would He put Himself through this grief?
Didn't He know what would happen?
Then one day as I was headed to the dentist for a root canal I had similar thoughts at my human level.
Why Am I having this done and even paying the dentist to inflict it upon me?
To save my tooth.
See the application? It satisfied me at the time, later it was expanded to "All things work together for good...".
No, an open theist would say that God has already planned for unforeseen actions by free agents. So no, he doesn't change plans due to unforeseen actions, he has already made sure of his plan despite them.
True, God is Master of time, and He does set time periods. That doesn't mean that the "a day is as a thousand years" is a literal interpretation. This illustrates the different viewpoints between man's view of time from God's view.The point is, God is master of time, while not Himself being bound by it. Thus, He can set periods of time and time limits for man. And I believe the 1k years is LITERAL, as it's been pointed out, it's mentioned in Scripture several times.
And, while prets insist the eschatological prophecies have already been fulfilled because "soon" & "shortly" are applied to them, we must remember that God is master of time, not vice versa, and that HE sets time periods & limits as HE chooses.
The FACT that the eschatological events have NOT yet occurred should be convincing to prets that their doctrine is incorrect, but, unfortunately, they generally choose to believe their gurus over Scripture, history, and reality.
but Peters comparison was a literal time period used by man but that to God was nothing from God's viewpointTrue, God is Master of time, and He does set time periods. That doesn't mean that the "a day is as a thousand years" is a literal interpretation. This illustrates the different viewpoints between man's view of time from God's view.
You are going off the presupposition that these events have not happened yet.
If someone ever takes a proper course called “Reading in the Content Areas”, he or she will learn about how someone’s background influences the way one reads a text.
Sometimes people read what they expect as oppose to what is actually being said. It’s not stubborness, it’s just reading from a limited point of view.
When you were reading Genesis, starting with chapter one and up to 6:6, what part made you think that God knew exactly what what coming up next? Did it say. “On the sixth day, God created man whom he knew in the future would end up failing and murdering one another, so he would send a flood to kill all but a few. And God thought this was very good.” in the first or second chapter?
No, it doesn’t. You have to read something like this into the text. You are reading what you expect as oppose to what is there. This is why you had a crisis on Genesis 6:6. If you had read Genesis without your theology, Genesis 6:6 wouldn’t have even caused you to have a moment’s thought.
So think how a dogmatic viewpoint on God can taint the entire reading of the Bible. This is why I said before that I don’t even read the same Bible as some here do because the theology taints the manner of reading and the interpretation of the Bible so much, I feel we are reading different books.
I see no correlation between how often it's mentioned and whether it's a literal thousand years.As was pointed out, "thousand years" is mentioned six times, so in the case of the "millenium", it's literal.
Both time periods were "literal" only by way of comparison. It's like saying that the Atlantic Ocean is a drop in God's bucket - it's huge to us, and small to God. Peter wasn't focused on time, but on encouraging his audience to be patient in their trials.but Peters comparison was a literal time period used by man but that to God was nothing from God's viewpoint
Hmm, is eternal life "eternal"?Both time periods were "literal" only by way of comparison. It's like saying that the Atlantic Ocean is a drop in God's bucket - it's huge to us, and small to God. Peter wasn't focused on time, but on encouraging his audience to be patient in their trials.
Of course. "Eternal" is a descriptive term for time that will have no end. "One day" and "thousand years" are juxtaposed to show our perspective is not the same as God's.Hmm, is eternal life "eternal"?
Peter is alluding to Psalms 90:4. Just saying.Quite often, those who believe in spiritualising prophetic Scripture come to this passage in 2 Peter 3 and say that it doesn't mean a literal day and years, so therefore we can take Rev. 20's 1000 years figuratively. Here is the Scripture (obviously referring to the 2nd Coming):
Of course and that means not to be doubting God because of the delay of the return of His Son (visibly and bodily, seen by "every eye").Of course. "Eternal" is a descriptive term for time that will have no end. "One day" and "thousand years" are juxtaposed to show our perspective is not the same as God's.
This is rather dreadful on a whole load of bases. If you only read to Genesis 6:6, you would already know that God knew the future because of all the 'will's and 'shall's in Genesis 3:15ff. But why would you stop reading at Genesis 6? Why not read on to Genesis 18:18-19, where God shows an intimate knowledge of Abraham's future? Why not read on to Isaiah 41:18-29 or Isaiah 44:8-13 where God shows that it is He who brings about all things?When you were reading Genesis, starting with chapter one and up to 6:6, what part made you think that God knew exactly what what coming up next? Did it say. “On the sixth day, God created man whom he knew in the future would end up failing and murdering one another, so he would send a flood to kill all but a few. And God thought this was very good.” in the first or second chapter?
No, it doesn’t. You have to read something like this into the text. You are reading what you expect as oppose to what is there. This is why you had a crisis on Genesis 6:6. If you had read Genesis without your theology, Genesis 6:6 wouldn’t have even caused you to have a moment’s thought.