Conversations with Pastor Miano

“Possibilities are real.”

                      - Gregory A. Boyd

Greetings, all. It has been some time since I've written an article, and in this article I will be revisiting the same topic I wrote about previously, which is the topic of Open Theism. However, things will be slightly different this time, as a good friend of mine has addressed my article via his podcast, sharing disagreements and such, and, therefore, I will be providing a response to this podcast, among other things. If you'd like to listen to the podcast first, you can find it here, and if you haven't read the article under our microscope, you can find that here.

Michael Miano, the voice behind the podcast and pastor of Blue Point Bible Church, in Blue Point, New York, shared his disagreements with my article from his Calvinist perspective. Michael had approached me with the opportunity to join him on the broadcast to discuss my view and bounce some thoughts off one another. Regretfully, scheduling did not permit it, but I was pleased to see Michael still address my article, anyway.

Michael and I have known each other for a number of years now—around four, roughly—having become acquainted with one another very soon after I became a Preterist. In fact, Michael may not remember this, but he and I befriended one another around the time of his “cRapture” broadcast series on Miano Gone Wild (perhaps named Christianity Gone Wild at the time), as he had invited me to take part in one of his broadcasts. Michael was also one of the first Full Preterists I ever met, and I have been blessed to call him my brother ever since. It is with this spirit, this attitude, that he and I discuss the scriptures.

I was finally able to get to the podcast a couple days after he made it, and now it is my turn to offer some thoughts on his counterpoints. Likewise, I seek to clarify some details I feel Michael did not accurately convey regarding Open Theism, as some of Michael's misinformation led to a few unintended straw man arguments, so I thought it best to clear some of these up. And in the event that it was my article which caused the confusion, I offer my apologies and hope I can better present my position this time around.

Defining Terms

In case the article linked above wasn't clear, or you simply didn't read it, it may be suiting to define our terms a bit. During brother Miano's podcast, it became evident to me early on that he was addressing Open Theism without understanding Open Theism. That is, my article supplied arguments with which he disagreed, which resulted in generating a response from him; addressing the points in my article and addressing Open Theism as a whole are two different things, however, for while I share much in common with Open Theists across the board, there are also things I disagree with them on—rather, my views are actually taken a step further in some regards, though this isn't necessarily the case with the points made in the article. Nevertheless, I do wish to provide clarity by stating the necessity of one's individual study of Open Theism to understand the position, and not to rely on one man's brief overview, for I make no claims to be an expert in the field.

When I watch videos of people confronting Calvinism, I find myself a little annoyed at their lack of understanding (not to say my understanding of Calvinism is perfect, of course). To many, Calvinists deny any concept of a free will; the pizza you ate last night, the shower you took before bed, and your 'choice' to hit snooze eight times the next morning, were all predetermined by God to occur, they claim. Yet, few, if any Calvinists would accept this, I reckon. Instead, the issue is one revolving around the nature of a being:

Augustine further elaborated on the Christian understanding of freedom. He argued that people choose according who they are. If they are good, they make good choices. If they are bad, they make bad choices. These choices are free, they just lack liberty. In other words, a person does not become a sinner because they sin, they sin because they are a sinner. It is an issue of nature first. If people are identified with the fallen nature of Adam, then they will make choices similar to that of Adam because it is who they are. Yes, they are making a free choice, but this choice does not include the liberty of freedom of contrary choice. (http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/03/a-calvinists-understanding-of-free-will/)

In essence, we're still slaves to this sin nature, even if some of our choices are free, it is claimed. We can freely choose to eat that pizza, but when it comes to anything contrary to our nature, we can't make a decision outside the confines of that nature. Therefore, it is by the grace of God that any goodness can come from man, for as all are sons of Adam, and thus, born into the sin he brought into the world, we are all inherently bad.

Open Theists take a different approach, substituting these make believe concepts of inherent sin nature and the shackles it places on us, with a libertarian free will and a future open to possibilities. To have a libertarian free will, one is able to act contrary to their “nature,” we'll say. Our choices are truly our own and are truly free. However, the article quoted above continues to reject such a reality as even possible:

Think about all that goes into making 'who you are.' We are born in the fallen line of Adam. Spiritually speaking we have an inbred inclination toward sin. All of our being is infected with sin. This is called 'total depravity.' Every aspect of our being is infected with sin, even if we don't act it out to a maximal degree.

But even if this were not the case,--even if total depravity were a false doctrine—libertarian freedom would still be untenable. Not only are you who you are because of your identification with a fallen human race, but notice all these factors that you did not choose that go into the set up for any given 'free will' decision made …

The author of the article proceeds to list such factors as not choosing when we were born, or where we were born, who our parents are, early life influences, our genetics, our looks, our body type, etc. This is a bit of a straw man argument, however, as no one is arguing against natural limitations placed upon us, or the fact that outside influences are a factor in who we may become. For instance, both of my parents smoked while I was growing up. I never did. Having been around it my entire life, I could have chosen to follow in their life choices. I may not have chosen my parents or their habits, but I certainly chose not to follow their example. In other words, whether my parents were smokers played no part in determining my choice not to become one. And one may argue that it was their choice to smoke, but it was my dislike of it which drove me not to smoke. Duly noted! However, one arguing as such would now be stepping into the realm of possibilities, which means stepping into the realm of Open Theism.

The author of the quote also presupposes a sort of sin gene passed along to Adam's offspring, from Cain and Seth to you and me today. I do not share belief in such a limitation or factor. I'll not touch on this topic at this time, as I expect, should Michael proceed with a response, we will address this issue at some point.

To summarize:

-Calvinists believe we freely make choices.

-Those freely made choices are confined to our inherent nature, which means we do not choose salvation, or freely seek God, but rather, God elects us, and by his irresistible grace are we saved.

-As such, life is fated to be as determined by God, and no choice of ours is truly free (the opposite of libertarian free will).

-Open Theists believe we freely make choices.

-These freely made choices are not confined to any such nature, and instead open up any number of possibilities depending on the choices made (libertarian free will).

-As such, the future is not determined to result any one way. Because of this, God's foreknowledge is limited (by his own will) to that of the realm of possibilities, knowing all that can be known (omniscience), but not always knowing with certainty, as the existence of possibilities does not allow for something to have been determined and is thus not a body of knowledge that can be known. (This is not to say God determines nothing. Prophecy is a result of that which God has predetermined. I am not arguing against that.)

*If you'd like to understand this further, please read my article on Open Theism, which I linked at the beginning.

Examining Miano's Response

“God does everything. God can, and does, and wills everything.”

                                                                                            - Michael Miano

The hour-long podcast saw only fifteen of the last twenty minutes engaging my article. I believe it is because of this time constraint that many of the finer points of the article were not acknowledged. In this section, I will take you through each of the disagreements Michael had with the portions he analyzed.

The first portion pastor Miano analyzed was Abraham's confrontation with God as God spoke to him of passing judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah. To put it simply, my argument is that Abraham changed God's mind when he pleaded for God to spare the cities if a (varying) number of righteous remained. Michael, however, argues that God was simply teaching Abraham a lesson, revealing to him the saving of a remnant, which we know to occur numerous times through the old testament as shadows pointing to the righteous remnant of the new covenant.

My point of agreement is in the type/anti-type relationship. However, nowhere in the text is it stated that God used this to teach Abraham such a lesson. If God needed to do such a thing, pointing back to Noah would have sufficed. Nevertheless, there is absolutely zero indication that God sought to teach Abraham a lesson about the righteous remnant being saved, or to relay his sovereignty to man, as Michael claims. What we do read, is God pronouncing judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness, and for fear of losing Lot, Abraham bargains with God to spare the cities if fifty righteous remain. To test the limits of God's mercy and to better guarantee Lot's survival, Abraham bargains with God to spare cities if only ten righteous remain. God agrees, and withdraws his judgment until this can be verified.

Had God known exactly how many righteous were living in the city already, he would have assured Abraham of this knowledge, spared Lot, and proceeded to lay waste to the cities. Instead, God heeded his servant's pleas and gave the cities a chance (he is a merciful God, after all). Of course, ultimately it was only Lot and his family who would be saved, as the cities were truly corrupt. It is simply not scriptural to read this as a matter of God exercising his sovereignty and teaching Abraham a lesson along the way. The only way to conclude as such would be to read the text with Calvinistic presuppositions. The result of such reading is evident in the way Michael, on numerous occasions, concedes his misunderstanding in favor of claims of sovereignty, declaring such instances of sovereignty as secret things which belong to the Lord (Deuteronomy 29:29). And while there is much God did not reveal to us in his word, our own lack of understanding should not default to this, especially when the alternative is so apparent.

Case in point, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was not predetermined, as God took time to observe whether the inhabitants were truly guilty, meaning God did not have precise foreknowledge one way or the other. Also, multiple times in a row Abraham had swayed God's decision, which could not have been done if God predetermined the destruction of the city. Therefore, we can logically and scripturally deduce that God did not have the prescribed precise foreknowledge attributed to him by Miano, and instead knew within the realm of possibilities that Sodom and Gomorrah could have been saved, despite all unlikelihood. The result, however, was the destruction of the cities.

Similarly, we find the same thing to occur when Moses pleads on behalf of his people after they invoked God's anger:

10Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. 11And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? 12Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. 13Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. 14And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. (Exodus 32:10-14)

Throughout Michael's analysis, he often states that God, in enforcing his sovereignty, was revealing things to his servants. Instead of God using scenarios to learn the hearts of his followers, God used the scenarios for his followers to learn God's heart, in other words. In regards to my citation of Jeremiah 18:6-10, brother Miano concedes to just that. Miano states, “According to Jeremiah, it would look—from the human standpoint it would look as if God changed his mind. However, understanding the sovereignty of God, God did not change his mind.” But again, only by reading the text with this presupposition can one find this to be an exercise of sovereignty, rather than what it plainly is, which is God repenting of his decisions because of the decisions of believers. I suspect Michael would do the same regarding the Exodus passage quoted above, if for no other reason than to remain consistent, rather than candid about what the text is telling us.

I would argue Michael's Calvinism backs him into a corner of willful (or perhaps predetermined?) ignorance, conceding to not know God's plans at any given time (yet, ironically being able to identify God's plan to save a righteous remnant), and therefore, not be able to comprehend what scripture's trying to convey in such instances. And this isn't to say Michael lacks understanding or an ability to rightfully divide the word of God. I've known him too long to know that's not the case. Rather, I believe his efforts to remain consistent alongside his presuppositions have forced him to trade the obvious answers for the ones his presuppositions give him. And I believe this is why Christianity as a whole lacks proper knowledge and understanding. Christianity's reliance on such sayings as, “God's got a plan for everyone,” or, “It's all in God's hands,” causes believers to rely on inaction rather than action, ignorance rather than wisdom, while everything we need regarding “God's plan” and his will is contained within the scriptures.

Regarding Abraham's near-sacrifice of Isaac, Miano asks, “Is this God learning from Abraham, or Abraham learning from God?” And again, with this question comes the presupposition of God enforcing his sovereignty every step of the way. Miano's argument is that this entire scenario was simply to prove what God had already put in Abraham (being faith). This is simply Michael's Calvinism speaking, however. The text tells us a something completely different, a test of a believer's faithfulness. Let's observe the passage:

11And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. 12And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. (Genesis 22:11-12)

Notice that God's knowledge of Abraham's faith was dependent on Abraham's actions, as the angel of the Lord said, “... now I know ...” If that wasn't clear enough, a few verses later it is made obvious:

15And an angel of the Lord called Abraam the second time out of heaven, saying, 16I have sworn by myself, says the Lord, because thou hast done this thing, and on my account hast not spared thy beloved son, 17surely blessing I will bless thee … (Genesis 22:15-17)

It was because of Abraham's actions that God knew the extent of his faith. James reiterates this fact:

20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. (James 2:20-23)

However, as has been done repeatedly up to this point, Michael defaults back to God using this to establish a truth to Abraham. And while it's easy to pick out a lesson to be learned here, nothing in the text states or implies that this was the case, but instead a test of Abraham's faith, which God observed every instance of until stopping Abraham from following through with the task, in which God was then able to reach a conclusion.

I believe my previous observation stands affirmed: Because of the presuppositions with which the text is read, the reader is forced into a corner of misunderstanding, their comprehension shrouded by what has been placed onto the text, rather than discerning what is plainly being conveyed. Denying the reality of God's test surely is to make God a liar, contrary to Miano's obvious, but mistaken disagreement.

Strangely enough, the final point Michael addressed was one he happened to think provided support for his own side. I believe this perception is simply the result of how he continues the read the text, however. In Deuteronomy 8:2, God called for them to keep in memory the forty years they spent in the wilderness, which God said he had done to humble them, to prove them, and to know what was in THEIR heart, whether they would keep his commandments or not. Yet, according to Michael, God did this for them to know God's heart, or for them to learn something; God was merely enforcing his sovereignty, thinking, “It's a good idea to leave them in the wilderness for forty years,” simply so he could teach them something. Of course, we know scripture speaks to the contrary. And while there were lessons to be learned, we can be sure, it doesn't change the fact that the forty years in the wilderness were for the sake of learning their hearts. In other words, God was the one learning, not just man, contrary to what Michael's Calvinism tells him to believe.

To Conclude...

I believe with absolute certainty that Biblical interpretation becomes diminished when done through a Calvinistic lens. In Michael's podcast there were a lot of opinions, personal thoughts, and ideas being tossed around, which is fine to a point. But, when it came to addressing my article, I do not feel Michael provided the scriptural support necessary (if it exists) to refute my position. Instead, he repeatedly used a presupposition to counter my claims, a presupposition refuted by the consistent understanding of the scriptures evident throughout my article.

This current article was simply a response to Michael's podcast, and an attempt to clarify some of the points I felt were not conveyed properly during his presentation. I suspect there will be much more in depth discussion should our responses continue from here.

Blessings,

Jason

"Fulfilled Eschatology" by Tim Liwanag: Book Review

The Preterist movement as a whole is not very big, and the number of Full Preterists are fewer than our Partial Preterist counterparts. Nevertheless, this has not stopped Full Preterists from taking the initiative to spread our message around the globe, and now, for the first time, a Filipino Full Preterist author, Tim Liwanag, has added what may arguably be one of the most beneficial tools the Preterist movement has had in decades: Fulfilled Eschatology.

The book begins by asking the questions we have all pondered: When is the end of the world? Can we know when Jesus Christ will return? Which prophecies still need to be fulfilled before said return? We have all no doubt asked ourselves such questions. For most of us, we begin our spiritual journey as Futurists, believing in the future destruction and re-creation of our planet at the coming of the Lord, in which we'll spend a thousand years of bliss on Earth, before returning to Heaven with the Lord. And it truly sounds wonderful, doesn't it? Despite the hopefulness this may provide, have you ever challenged these ideas and tested them with the scriptures?

You might think, “Of course such beliefs are scriptural! They have been taught in the church for years!” And sure, they have been taught for years. This, of course, does not make something true, and as Tim Liwanag addresses, such beliefs are nothing close to scriptural, providing hundreds of scripture citations to prove his points. His exegetical work demolishes Futurist presuppositions, providing assurance of a fulfilled life through our savior, Lord Jesus Christ, and his atoning work on the cross and fulfillment of promises.

One of the strongest statements the author makes is at the beginning of chapter one:

“Christian Futurists are discarding biblical prophecy in favor of a 'doom and gloom' stance. Others are willing to disregard the 'analogy of faith' [Scripture interprets Scripture] method in order to not frustrate the 'Second Coming' expectation among all professing Christians. In other words, vain imaginations or sheer speculations have overrun biblical prophecies that were already fulfilled. True exegesis seems to be waning even among the most conservative church members” (p.13)

In the Church, Christians concern themselves with orthodoxy and church membership, rather than an accurate understanding of scripture. The appeal to church fathers and creeds, rather than the words of the prophets, apostles, and Christ himself, is overwhelming. Such time indicators, as “soon,” “at hand,” and “near,” are discarded in favor of eisegesis and lies, all to maintain church membership, credibility, and to avoid the dreaded heretic label.

Fulfilled Eschatology does not shy away from the truth in spite of this. The author does a profound job teaching the reader about the use of prophetic language, how to interpret it, and how to apply it. His emphasis on proper hermeneutics in chapter one provides a strong, sound foundation for readers, so that they can further equip themselves for not only what is to come in the the book, but their own biblical studies, as well.

The emphasis on Christ in the second chapter helps direct the reader to the understanding that all scripture is Christ-centered. The Bible is not merely a compilation of historical facts, parables, and prophecies; everything is tied together as part of a single plan—a revelation, if you will—and Christ is at the center of it all. From the promise of salvation in the garden to his parousia at the end of the age, without Christ as the focal point of all prophecy, one cannot properly interpret said prophecies. And, as the author points out, we must acknowledge Israel's role in it all, for “[w]e are not the original audience of the prophets who spoke in God's name and by his authority (Exodus 7:1). We are not born of Jewish blood, the ethnic and physical Israel, or physical descendants of Abraham; therefore, we have to make sure that we understand the written Word and not misinterpret the promises and prophecies that were originally addressed to God's chosen people in the Old Covenant period (Deuteronomy 7:6-8)” (p.21).

The importance of audience relevance is discarded by many Futurists. It is generally ignored by pastors, scholars, and casual believers alike, trading solid hermeneutics for personal application. But in doing so, one cannot interpret prophecy correctly, as every prophecy had an intended audience, whether near or far from the time the prophecy was given, and to reject this fact in favor of personal application leads to misinterpretation, even private interpretation (cf. 2 Peter 1:20-21). This, however, is not to say there is no scripture applicable to us today, rather that we must bear in mind the original intended audience and interpret scripture in light of that audience. Chapter two does a fine job of providing the proper means of understanding these things.

Chapter three is an especially powerful chapter. Picking up from the chapter two's message of Christ-centered interpretation, Liwanag provides important emphasis on “purpose-fulfillment, which he defines as “the fulfillment of God's redemptive purpose” (p.25). The way the author explains this on pages 25 and 26 is done very cleverly in his explanation of Israel's Babylonian captivity and the eventual release by Cyrus.

But, as Liwanag further notes, God's redemptive purposes were not fulfilled solely through what we read of historical Israel, but also through the promise of the Lord's coming, reign, and kingdom (p.26). The call for repentance was to all nations (cf. Matthew 28:19-20), and God would provide a solution to a problem that had begun thousands of years prior in the garden of Eden. We find the fulfillment of this solution through the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and the full establishment of his kingdom and covenant with all who come to him, near and far.

Chapters three and four provide much more for the reader to take in, and I encourage every reader to spend much time in these chapters, as the details the author provides are critical for every believer to understand. Part 1 of Fulfilled Eschatology concludes with the fourth chapter.

In part two of the book, I find my first point of major disagreement in the author's understanding of the terms of the new covenant, as explained in part two's introduction. Fortunately, this does not do much harm to the overall points being made, though I find the section on immersion one of the weakest points in the book as a whole. Though, for those who agree with his understanding of the terms of the new covenant this will be no problem at all. The reader simply makes up their own mind as to whether the author is correct, and should not feel discouraged to continue should they not agree with this point.

Where chapter one lacks, chapters two and three shine. I found the section titled, “The Indwelling God in the Days of Christ's Glory” (p.63), especially enlightening, as the topic of the Holy Spirit's indwelling is a subject of dispute among Futurists and Preterists alike. The topic of Spirit baptism was also handled very well, though I believe it lends further confusion as to the author's understanding of new covenant terms. Nevertheless, I do not find disagreement here, only with the implications it carries in contrast to chapter one.

Furthermore, chapter four's discussion of the remnant and the chosen generation is a huge hammer to popular Futurist views regarding God's chosen, and chapter five's discussion of the new creature is especially powerful. Both chapters provide the kind of foundational knowledge necessary for proper understanding regarding the fulfillment of God's promises in the establishment of the new creation, from timing of fulfillment to the specifics of the resurrection. Very powerful chapters, indeed.

While parts one and two are used to create a stable biblical foundation (and successfully do so), part three, “Fulfilled Prophecies,” gets into the meat of the book. Initially, I had reviewed this section in detail, but given its nature (interpretation of prophetic texts) I have shortened my remarks, as it requires too much space to provide commentary on every major point.

Chapters one and two effectively engage Futurist views regarding the signs of the times and the timing of the last days. Futurism and Preterism are such separate views because of these issues. While Futurism seeks the signs of the times per what I call newspaper exegesis (using current events to interpret prophecy), Preterists know to let scripture interpret itself. And thus, as the author makes us aware, when Jesus was giving his listeners the signs of the impending end of the age (their age, not ours), we must understand that the end of the age was coming to a close soon, not two thousand years later.

Chapter three provides one of the most sound arguments for the identification of the two witnesses I have read in years. Whether one agrees with the author's conclusions is simply up to the reader, though I encourage those who disagree to challenge every point of the author's exegesis before discarding it. Chapter four's discussion of the harlot city, Jerusalem, is equally powerful, though I expected this chapter to be much longer. Identifying Mystery Babylon is key to interpreting the book of Revelation, and it felt as though proper emphasis was not given to this subject. Nevertheless, the author manages to nail very huge points in his limited space, points which cannot be refuted by any school of eschatological thought.

And just as chapter four deals a huge blow to the Futurist interpretations of Mystery Babylon, chapters five and six give the reader another paradigm shift, this time addressing the topic of the antichrist and the man of sin. Those familiar with the Left Behind-esque interpretations of modern Dispensationalism should be no stranger to the misconception of a single world ruler in the future—Satan incarnate. Liwanag does away with this belief quickly and efficiently, leaving little room for doubt as the author points fingers at the Herods. And if that wasn't a shock to Futurist interpretations, identifying the restrainer as the Caesars may seem even more mind-blowing. But with every interpretation the author gives, he provides the scriptural and historical sources to support them.

Chapters seven through eleven deal heavily with the book of Revelation's imagery of beasts and dragons. Among Futurist camps, the interpretations are removed from the time of the Roman empire (cf. Daniel 2 and 7), despite such interpretations actually identifying the fourth beast as the Roman empire (i.e., while identifying this beast appropriately as the Roman empire, they unfaithfully insert gaps and re-write history to appease their interpretation of a future Roman kingdom via the one world government). Liwanag puts a stop to this, observing the line of Caesars and Herods as a whole and identifies their roles during the last days leading up to the tribulation (addressed in chapter eleven).

The rest of part three covers virtually every remaining major point of the book of Revelation, and then some!. At this point, the author has put the nail in the coffin, so to speak, regarding the timing of Revelation's fulfillment and the completion of the last days. When the reader completes the book, there is no doubt about the first century fulfillment of the last days.

It is important to understand that we live in the new heaven and the new earth, as citizens of the new Jerusalem—the bride, the Church! The Church has been wedded to Christ, the old covenant is obsolete, and Christ thrives in all who come into his covenant with him; the covenant Jesus Christ shed his blood for so that we may live!

Become the new creature today! Bask in the Lord's glory and the fulfillment of his promises!

With blessings,

Jason Watt

P.S. Please send a message to Tim Liwanag via his Facebook page for your chance to receive a FREE electronic copy of this incredible book! (https://www.facebook.com/tim.liwanag?fref=ts)

The Open Future

When considering the extent of God's knowledge, our conclusion is usually that God is one who knows all things, past, present, and future. Very few people in all of Christendom would be crazy enough to challenge this, because, after all, scripture makes it obvious that we have such a God, right? For instance, how could God be viewed as a being who doesn't know the future, yet could give his prophets visions of the future? So, like I said, it would be crazy to challenge this.

But that's exactly what we're going to do. Is it not worth considering the possibility that we don't quite have the understanding of God we have been led to believe? If you're no stranger to my articles, you should probably be expecting a very uncomfortable read for the entirety of this work, and you wouldn't be wrong. We're going to challenge the norm, the orthodoxy, the very comfort of everyone who relies on their view of a God who knows all knowledge beyond what is knowable.

The position I am writing to you about is called Open Theism. It wasn't all too long ago that I had heard of this term, though I did share the position prior to hearing of it. Open Theism is known by other names, such as The Openness of God or The Openness of the Future, but for the sake of this article we will just call it Open Theism, the term more widely used by its advocates.

This position, in simple terms, claims that God does not know every detail in advance. God can see the number of possibilities in any given circumstance, for he understands the reality he created and the way things operate within that reality, meaning he may be able to deduce the end result from among those possibilities. However, is it possible that God doesn't know the exact result of every circumstance, perhaps leaving him as surprised as we are sometimes? And how does this explain prophecy?

The question arises, then, of whether God knows all things. I, as would every other Open Theist, argue that God does know all things, but knows all things that are knowable. See, there is a difference between this and knowing the unknowable, such as a future that has not been determined. In regards to man's free will, God does not have absolute certainty which directions we will take at all times. Man's free will would not be free if it were preordained, obviously. And, if man's will could be known, it would not be subject to change, and a future devoid of the possibility of change is a future that has been determined. Because of this, some events of the future may go one way or may go another, and it seems that God recognizes these possible courses, but which way they will go exactly he does not know. Therefore, this writer argues that God knows the future in terms of possibilities as if they were certainty, though no single possibility is always certain. However, because he sees them as certainties, and thus, sees them perfectly, God is all-knowing, for he knows all that is knowable.

This likely raises many questions, not the least of which is whether there is scriptural evidence for these bold claims. I believe there is, and we will examine a small portion of the plethora of passages that are proof of our theses.

A God Who Changes His Mind

The first aspect of the openness of God that we'll observe is the fact that God changes his mind. To put it simply, this implies that God's will can be changed. As we observe a couple examples, I want you to consider that a God who changes his mind is a God who has an attribute foreign to a God who knows all things eternally. In various instances throughout scripture, man leads God to change his mind about things. In Genesis 18, we find Abraham changing God's mind about destroying all of Sodom and Gomorrah on account of the wicked, which would have resulted in the righteous perishing with them. But first, note that God heard the cries pertaining to what was occurring in those cities, yet had to observe for himself to know for sure:

20And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. (Genesis 18:20-21)

According to Christian understanding today, God should have had foreknowledge of this event, for he supposedly knows the future before it happens. But as we see here, he did not know for certain that Sodom and Gomorrah had “done altogether according to the cry of it.” We can also deduce that God did not preordain their wickedness, for if he had, no observation would have been necessary. Abraham stayed back with the Lord at this time and asked him if he would destroy the righteous with the wicked (18:23). Because of Abraham's question, we can understand that he was aware of the fact that God would destroy the righteous along with the wicked. But Abraham, on behalf of the righteous (namely Lot and his family), convinced God to spare the cities if even ten righteous people remained (18:24ff).

We know God ultimately destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, finding only Lot and his family righteous, a family of fewer than ten. Nevertheless, God still heeded Abraham's plea to spare the righteous, and Lot and his family were given time to make it to safety (Genesis 19:15-25), except for his wife, who looked back and was turned to a pillar of salt (19:26). Though Sodom and Gomorrah were ultimately judged as guilty, God's mind was certainly changed regarding the all-around result, and it was not the only time this would happen.

In the book of Jeremiah, there are actually multiple instances of God changing his mind. For the sake of space, we'll observe just one. In Jeremiah 18, Jeremiah is told to go down to the potter's house (18:2), where he would learn something. So, Jeremiah obeyed, observing a potter molding clay (18:3). However, the vessel the potter was making was not turning out as intended, so the potter altered his original plans (18:4). Then, Jeremiah learns a lesson:

6O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mind hand, O house of Israel. 7At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; 8If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. 9And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; 10If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, the I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. (Jeremiah 18:6-10)

When God declares judgment against a city or nation, he is right to carry it out. At that time, it is his will to do so. However, God can change his mind if the inhabitants should repent. God is giving them a chance to repent by their own choice, meaning their fate is not predetermined and they have the free will choice to heed God's warning, lest they are judged and destroyed. If God can know all things unknowable, there would be no choice for a city or nation's inhabitants to make. God would execute judgment swiftly and without a second thought. Yet, we always find God having that second thought when a city or nation repents. The Ninevites are another prime example (refer to the book of Jonah).

A God Who Tests

Another interesting thing to consider is how God tests people in order to know something with certainty. If God already had knowledge of a person's love, for example, there would be no need to test them in order for God to know for sure. Makes sense, right? And if God had preordained a person to follow him, we can also agree that there would be no need to test whether or not this person is, in fact, following him, correct? In the following examples, we'll observe God testing his followers for the sake of God's own assurance as to where they stood with him, beginning with Abraham.

In Genesis 22, God calls upon Abraham for a test. Everyone knows the story of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac per the Lord's command (22:2), but have you ever caught on as to why God would test him? And if you have, do you understand the implications of God's reasoning? Just as Abraham is about to slay his son, he is stopped:

11And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. 12And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. (Genesis 22:11-12)

I've read some objections to this, one being a question of why God sent his angel to stop him if he did not know whether Abraham would follow through with the act. Such an objection is misplaced, however, because God sending his angel to stop Abraham in no way implies God had foreknowledge of the event so much as was observing the event as it took place. In verse 10, we read that Abraham had stretched forth his hand to slay his son. At that point, it was certain Abraham was going to follow through with it, and so God sent his angel to stop him. No foreknowledge necessary, just mere observation. A second objection is why God would have had a ram prepared as a substitute for Isaac ahead of time (22:13). This objection merely assumes that this ram was prepared ahead of time, but that is not necessarily what the text implies. Verse 13, at the very least, suggests the ram was provided at that very moment, not ahead of time. And at most, the verse should be taken to mean that God anticipated the various possibilities and had prepared ahead of time. No absolute foreknowledge necessary, nor implied.

Abraham's faithfulness to God's test determined whether God would follow through with the blessings previously granted to Abraham (22:16-18), and it is absolutely senseless for anyone to suggest that God had foreknowledge of how it would turn out. If foreknowledge was in play here, then God was merely playing a game with Abraham. And one may certainly assume this to be the case, though it runs contrary to the fact that God was previously uncertain that Abraham feared him, but now knew for certain because of Abraham's actions. To deny God's uncertainty is to make God a liar, plain and simple.

Similarly, God had to test the Israelites to know exactly what was in their hearts. Their exodus from Egypt lasted forty years, forty years God spent examining their hearts. If God had the foreknowledge necessary to arrive at the proper conclusion, or had even preordained the results, a test would not have been necessary. Observe the following:

2And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no. (Deuteronomy 8:2)

Likewise, the Israelites were warned against false prophets, that their signs and wonders may come to pass for the sake of proving Israel's love for God:

13If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deuteronomy 13:1-3)

A God who relies on tests to fool mankind into believing they have choices is contrary to the God of the Bible, a God who allows man to act freely of their own choices. God tests such free beings to know their hearts, something absolutely unnecessary should God already have the foreknowledge to answer this for him.

A God Who Regrets

When I began questioning what kind of knowledge God has, it came from simply making my way through Genesis, specifically after arriving at chapter 6. In fact, I still remember reading through this chapter and onward, stopping after the story of the tower of Babel, suddenly arriving at some questions I never had before. Such questions may have lightly come to mind during previous readings, but it was at this time they stuck with me.

You see, God did not know for certain how man would turn out. I believe he knew all along that it was possible for man to desire darkness more than light (especially if one takes the pre-Adamite view, for God would have had plenty of experience with men walking in darkness prior to creating Adam). But because of God's covenant with Adam, there was a chance to walk in the light. All they had to do was choose to take that path, leaving open two possibilities that otherwise would not have been available, to either walk in darkness or walk in the light. But, as we find in Genesis 6, darkness won over the light:

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. (Genesis 6:1-7)

For a God who knew exactly how man turned out, or even preordained them to be as such, it would seem odd for him to regret having even made them. Is his regret imaginary? Of course not! But it would have to be if the more classical views of God are true. To think that God regretted making man regardless of already knowing how they would turn out, is like someone going to a grocery store without money, expecting not to buy anything, getting to the register and not being able to make their purchase, and then regretting that they couldn't make that purchase. It simply doesn't make sense.

It also makes even less sense for God to appoint kingship to someone, and then regret giving them such a position, if all along he knew how the king would act. In the case of king Saul, God showed regret for having appointed him the position of king over Israel. Saul was expected to obey God's commands (1 Samuel 15:1-3), yet Saul did not do as the Lord commanded (15:5-9). And thus, the Lord said:

11It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night. (1 Samuel 15:11)

God knew Saul could have walked in his commandments, but it was just as likely that he would not. God knew the possibilities, but did not know which possibility would become reality. This is why he could feel regret for having made Saul king. To argue that God always knew that Saul would disobey his commandments would make God's feelings fake. I, however, believe God's feelings are genuine, that he hopes for man to walk in his ways, rejoicing when they do and feeling sorrow when they do not. This hope would not exist if God knew all things with certainty, however.

This is why God can feel regret, for he, like us, has expectations, and sometimes those expectations and hopes are not met. It speaks volumes to me to realize that our God is a God who gives the benefit of the doubt, for surely seeing all possible outcomes leaves much room for doubt, while the mere fact of God's regret reveals that his hopes are in spite of any doubt there may be.

Such expectations are evidenced in Isaiah 5, in which the inhabitants of Jerusalem, against all odds, managed to fail God. God questioned what more he could have done to his vineyard (the house of Israel, verse 7), for he had seemingly done everything he could, and he expected the vineyard to yield grapes. Yet, despite all God had done, to his surprise the vineyard yielded wild grapes, instead; his pleasant plant (the men of Judah, verse 7) had become the wild grapes thereof. God expected things to turn out one way, and all signs even pointed in favor of God's expectations, yet we find here that man had caused God's expectations to not come to pass. I believe God's surprise is evident in verse 4.

In Ezekiel 22, God states that he had been searching for a specific kind of person, but could not find what he was looking for:

30And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none. 31Therefore have I poured out mine indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, saith the Lord God. (Ezekiel 22:30-31)

Can God genuinely look for something he knows is not there, or preordained to not be there? No. God did not know he would not find someone, and I believe his frustration over the matter is evident, frustration he could not have possibly had if he already knew what to expect. And if he knew what exactly what the result would be, yet expected differently, I feel we would be justified in questioning the intelligence of such a being.

What About Prophecy?

An examination of Open Theism would be incomplete without addressing the source of classical theism's ideas pertaining to the foreknowledge of God: prophetic insight.

I have done my fair share of research regarding the objections people make to Open Theism, the most common allegation being that Open Theists disregard God's omniscience, and therefore, classical theists object to any idea of a God with limited knowledge of the future, evidenced by God's ability to foresee events far ahead of when they occur.

To be clear again, Open Theists do not deny God's omniscience. God's omniscience, we believe, is extended to the realm of possibility and not always certainty, however. In other words, God knows all that is knowable. But how does this explain God's foreknowledge of future events, such as the succession of kingdoms leading up the last days (Daniel 7), or the rise of our savior, Jesus Christ (Genesis 3:15)? To put it simply, God provided his prophets with knowledge of things he had already determined to pass according to his will.

Prophecies were sometimes conditional, as we observed in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah. Jonah was told to prophesy to Nineveh in response to their wickedness (Jonah 1:2). When Jonah did not listen, God approached him again (3:1-2). Jonah prophesied against the Ninevites, saying, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown” (Jonah 3:4). However, this was conditional upon the Ninevites' repentance, and because they repented, so did God (3:10).

Returning to Jeremiah 18, which we observed earlier, we can find these conditions confirmed:

7At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; 8If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil I thought to do unto them. 9And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; 10If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. (Jeremiah 18:7-10)

Thus, not all instances of prophecy were set in stone. Their fulfillment was conditional as to how those being judged reacted, whether they repented of the evil that put them in God's sights in the first place. God's warnings to the churches of Asia in the book of Revelation were exactly in line with this.

However, not all prophecy can be viewed as conditional. Some events would come to pass, and no amount of man's free will would stop it from happening, such as the coming of Jesus Christ. First prophesied by God himself in Genesis 3, God went to great lengths to keep a faithful line through which the messiah would be born, even wiping out humans with a flood and sparing a remnant. I believe the necessity of the messiah was dependent upon Adam's actions, however, and it would seem my Christian brethren acknowledge this, if only passively. Consider that there would have been no need for saving had Adam not sinned and brought the knowledge of sin into the world (cf. Romans 5:12).

But many would argue that Jesus Christ was “foreordained before the foundation of the world,” with which I would agree. However, considering the evidence put forth thus far, is it accurate to deduce that God had eternal foreknowledge of man's fall and need for a savior? Or, is it perhaps more accurate to deduce that God knew things would go two ways, that either Adam and those that followed would keep his commandments perfectly and have no need for a savior, or that they would sin and require a savior on their behalf, and therefore, God prepared a savior for mankind from before the foundation of the world? Refer back to Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac, and that God had prepared a ram as a substitute in case Abraham was really willing to go through with God's test. I believe we are right to see a similarity between the two scenarios, but should view them as God reacting to possibilities, not certainties. And as with the sinners of Genesis 6, so is it true of Adam, in that God could not be certain which path he would take, though he was surely aware of the possibility.

In the case of Daniel's prophecies, we have a very large amount of time in which they would be fulfilled, covering nearly 500 years. There would be a number of successive powers over this time (Daniel 2 and 7), which would result in a great number of events occurring in order to make this happen (cf. Daniel 11). It would seem evident that God preordained such events to mold a specific state for Israel during the last days, through which the messiah would be brought forth. These events were preordained according to God's will to carry out very specific plans, plans which no less revolved around his promise of a savior in the garden of Eden.

When God's prophets received knowledge of such things, they received predetermined knowledge, not unknowable knowledge. That is the difference between the understanding of Open Theists and those inclined toward the classical views. Open Theists have harmonized the various modes of God's knowledge in a way that is consistent with God's nature (per the examples given in this article and many more).

Conclusion

It is my position that God, in both the Old and New Testaments, is found working with his creation. God conveys his hopes for people, rather than compelling them to act in some prescribed way. I believe this is evident throughout the Old Testament's narrative of Israel. I also believe the very call for repentance supports the Open Theist's position, proving man's free will choice to heed or disregard God's commandments.

All that we have observed in this brief examination suggests that God desires to be in a relationship with his creation, a relationship which respects the freedom to respond to him, whether it is to question him, as in the case of Abraham, or heed his warnings, as in the case of the Ninevites. Because of this freedom, some of God's will is conditional upon man's choices, whereas, in order to fulfill a promise, aspects of the future were preordained, though we must recognize that even the existence of the promises themselves were conditional upon man's choice to remain obedient, making even a preordained future dependent on those to whom a promise was given.

Without a nature such as what has been advocated in this article, I believe we can only conclude that God is one who does not truly share in the emotions we experience, for God could never have genuinely felt regret or anger had he predetermined the course of all of man's actions, let alone eternally foreknew the courses all men would take. As proved by Abraham, God has a real relationship with his people, a relationship that cannot exist with a God who shows no flexibility. And while he is our Lord and we are to obey him, our relationship is not without freedom of choice, choice that may even cause God to give something a second thought.

How wonderful a relationship like this is, I do argue.

Christian LARPing

Among my brief list of interests are video games, namely those of the role-playing genre. What is role-playing, you ask? It is assuming the role of an existing character. In real-life role-playing (known as LARPing; i.e., Live-Action Role-Playing), the player adopts the characteristics and behavior of an existing character.

You may have never noticed this, but some denominations hold LARPing conventions every single week. Yes, even some Christians can't resist role-playing games. Have you ever heard about these LARPing conventions? They're known by a more common name, one that allows the conventions to hide in plain sight:

Church.

Every Sunday, certain church-goers assume the roles of first century Christians, in that they adopt certain behaviors experienced by believers of that time, known as gifts of the Holy Spirit, or charismata. It is my belief that these gifts no longer served a purpose after the parousia, and therefore, ceased at that time (70 CE), or just prior. This would mean that anyone claiming to have these gifts today is merely adopting a role, or role-playing.

It will be our focus in this article to determine whether the gifts of the Holy Spirit still exist today, and therefore, whether Christians claiming the gifts today truly experience the charismata.

The Gifts

In the first century (and today, as many would argue), many believers received gifts that were spiritual in nature (1 Corinthians 12:1; 14:1), all of which came from the same Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:11). We can understand these gifts to have been manifestations of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:7), visible and audible evidence of the Spirit's influence.

These gifts were distributed as the Holy Spirit determined (1 Corinthians 12:11). I believe it may be accurate to assume those with greater roles received more gifts, such as the apostles (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:18), or even those at the church of Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:4-7), though more gifts did not mean greater spiritual maturity (1 Corinthians 3:1-4). Spiritual gifts were often received upon the laying on of the apostles' hands (Acts 8:14-19; 19:6; Romans 1:11; 2 Timothy 1:6), but perhaps not limited to the apostles, as Paul received his sight and the Holy Spirit through the laying on of Ananias' hands (Acts 9:17), which may imply the imparting of the Spirit's gifts.

The list of gifts is a diverse one (1 Corinthians 12:4):

7And to each hath been given the manifestation of the Spirit for profit; 8for to one through the Spirit hath been given a word of wisdom, and to another a word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; 9and to another faith in the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healings in the same Spirit; 10and to another in-workings of mighty deeds; and to another prophecy; and to another discernings of spirits; and to another [divers] kinds of tongues; and to another interpretation of tongues: (1 Corinthians 12:7-10)

These gifts weren't merely for show, rather for aiding in the growth of the infant church, revealing (e.g., prophecy) and confirming (e.g., miracles) the will of God (Mark 16:17-20; Hebrews 2:3-4) for the profit of all (1 Corinthians 12:7).

What's left to question is the duration of these gifts. They clearly had a purpose, but would that purpose never find completion?

The Duration of the Charismata

I believe scripture is clear regarding the cessation of these gifts:

8Love never ends. There are gifts of prophecy, but they will be ended. There are gifts of speaking in different languages, but those gifts will stop. There is the gift of knowledge, but it will come to an end. 9The reason is that our knowledge and our ability to prophesy are not perfect. 10But when the perfection comes, the things that are not perfect will end. (1 Corinthians 13:8-10)

When discussing this with Pentecostal Preterists it isn't too rare for one to claim Paul to have been saying that imperfect gifts would be made perfect. However, this isn't what the text says at all. Notice that at the time of “the perfection” the things that are imperfect will end, not be made perfect. Prophecy would end, speaking in tongues would end. Thus, there is a certain level of inconsistency among Preterists who claim the existence of these gifts today, while claiming the fulfillment of “the perfection.”

The Perfect

Interpretations of “the perfection,” or “that which is perfect,” do vary among Christians. And depending on the interpretation of this perfection, one may come to a different conclusion regarding the duration of the gifts than another. One interpretation maintains that “the perfection” is the time at which Christ returns. Among Futurists, this would allow for a consistent belief in present-day charismata. Preterists do not have this luxury, for the parousia—that is, Christ's second coming—has already occurred, and therefore, “that which is perfect” has come, causing the gifts to cease.

When we observe the overall context, I believe we find that the text suggests something different, though perhaps related (at least from the Preterist viewpoint). There is a contrast between partial knowledge and “that which is perfect,” and given that the gifts were for the purpose of revealing and confirming God's will, we can deduce the completion of the gifts' purpose would come at a time in which God's complete revelation for us had been made: the penning of the book of Revelation.

The last book of the canon to be penned, John relayed the revelation of Jesus Christ to the seven churches of Asia Minor. Through the work of the apostles, the gospel had been spread to all the nations (Colossians 1:23; cf. Matthew 28:19-20) by the time of the parousia. With John's completion of the book of Revelation, the apostles' epistles prior to this, and the spreading of the gospel to the nations, God had revealed all that he intended to reveal to the world, confirming these revelations along the way. Therefore, with the full revelation and confirmation of God's will by 70 CE at the latest, we can accurately deduce a date of no later than 70 CE for the cessation of the gifts.

I find that Paul affirms this conclusion through some of the contrasts he makes:

11When I was a babe, as a babe I was speaking, as a babe I was thinking, as a babe I was reasoning, and when I have become a man, I have made useless the things of the babe; 12for we see now through a mirror obscurely, and then face to face; now I know in part, and then I shall fully know, as also I was known; (1 Corinthians 13:11-12)

The spiritual gifts served to aid the infancy of the church. Once their purpose (revelation and confirmation) was complete, they lost their necessity and were done away with, just as Paul's adolescent knowledge became useless upon maturity; the church, upon entering maturity, had no need for imperfect/infantile knowledge. In Paul's second example, he contrasts looking through a mirror obscurely and then face to face (clearly). During the period in which God's will was incomplete, it was as though looking at a vague image. And when God's will was fully revealed, the image was also made clear.

This is, again, not to say that the gifts themselves would be made perfect and abundant at that time, for Paul makes it clear their cessation (1 Corinthians 13:8-10); rather, this is to state that, despite the gifts' cessation, believers would rest in the fulness of knowledge at the time in which God's will has been fully revealed and confirmed.

This writer concludes, then, as of 70 CE at the latest, “the perfection” had come and the gifts of the Spirit had ceased, for their purpose, to reveal and confirm God's will (his word), had been completed.

So, if not the true manifestations of the Holy Spirit, what is it that Christians today claim to experience? Am I arrogant to believe my own understanding over what is claimed by millions around the world?

Modern-day Charismatics

According to this article's conclusion regarding these gifts, neither Futurists nor Preterists can maintain consistency in believing in present-day charismata. So, why is it that so many Christians, Futurist and Preterist alike, claim to experience these gifts? How many people do you know have claimed to speak in tongues, or to have been healed instantly by the laying on of another Christian's hands?

In society, everything revolves around labels, crowds, and identity. In high school there was always the goth crowd, the preps, the jocks, etc. Each person clung to these labels for a sense of identity. I believe Christians, being humans, of course, act no differently in church scenarios. For many, upbringing likely has much to do with it. For example, those brought up in a Pentecostal church, with generations of Pentecostal family members before them, are going to be conditioned to Pentecostal ways: outward expression of claimed gifts, adoption of behaviors (e.g., running up and down aisles, spiritual drunkenness, etc.), and so on. This is true of anyone brought up similarly in any denomination.

Christians new to the church experience may be seeking acceptance. Likely, they are new to the faith and feel uncomfortable about some things still. As such, attending church may be a means of finding that comfort, and the last thing an uncomfortable person wants to feel is more discomfort by not fitting in. Therefore, it isn't unlikely for them to adopt certain behaviors of their congregation, what ever they might be.

As with all things, repetition creates habit. If a church contains members stumbling around in “drunkenness” and babbling incoherent...babble...all one needs to do is mimic these “experiences” enough times to feel comfortable with them, and that's when they become habitual. For those brought up in a particular denomination, these behaviors may simply be conditioned behaviors, but are habitual nonetheless.

This isn't to rule out the likelihood that some simply adopt these behaviors with the realization that what they are doing is deceitful from the start.

One explanation for why many are convinced of certain perceived manifestations of the Spirit may simply be that people see what they choose to see. If one believes there's a devil named Lucifer invoking evil in the world, this person will see the devil's hand in all acts of evil. Likewise, if someone believes a person can prophesy (even themselves), they'll look for confirmation of this belief. Once they have confirmation, it becomes proof of their belief, and no amount of scripture will take that away from them.

However, no amount of denial can take away the fact that scripture alone brings an end to the gifts nearly 2,000 years ago. I'll leave the various implications for you to determine.

*If someone wants to prove me wrong, please bring a friend with a video camera to the nearest hospital and clear it of its sick people. That would be great, thanks!*

A Little Horn Among Little Horns

Well, it has certainly been a while since I've written an article. Unfortunately, with summer comes baseball and softball tournaments, which, of course, means I am actually kept busy at work for once. But more than that, I've had some difficulties feeling motivated. I thought, “Why not try to write something and see what happens? Perhaps it will be all I need to jump over this hurdle [or mountain] of writer's block.” Let's see what happens.

Not too long ago, I was confronted by a Historicist claiming that the “little horn” of Daniel 8 is the same “little horn” of Daniel 7. I found this to be incorrect. I still find this to be incorrect. However, the smallest detail had always eluded me, and it is something that has eluded countless others, I believe. And when I share this with you, I hope you have the same reaction I had: “Uh...duh!”

Thus, the focus of this article will be Daniel 7 and 8. I simply wish to share some observations with you as we study the scriptures together.

Identifying the Beasts

Daniel 7 is at the heart of prophetic texts pertaining to the last days. And while much of Christendom is united in a general interpretation of which kingdoms the four beasts of Daniel 7 represent, there are still those who have their own interpretations. Let's first observe the text, then draw our conclusions:

2I Daniel beheld, and, lo, the four winds of heaven blew violently upon the great sea. 3And there came up four great beasts out of the sea, differing from one another. 4The first was a lionness, and her wings as an eagle's; I beheld until her wings were plucked, and she was lifted off from the earth, and she stood on human feet, and a man's heart was given to her. 5And, behold, a second beast like a bear, and it supported itself on one side, and there were three ribs in its mouth, between its teeth: and thus they said to it, Arise, devour much flesh. 6And after this one I looked, and behold another wild beast as a leopard, and it had four wings of a bird upon it: and the wild beast had four heads, and power was given to it. 7After this one I looked, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and exceedingly strong, and its teeth were of iron; devouring and crushing to atoms, and it trampled the remainder with its feet: and it was altogether different from the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. 8I noticed his horns, and behold, another little horn came up in the midst of them, and before it three of the former horns were rooted out: and, behold, there were eyes as the eyes of a man in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:2-8)

What we have here are four beasts. I believe these beasts represent Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Consider the following:

Babylon:

When prophesying of the coming of Babylon against Judah, Jeremiah wrote:

5Declare ye in Juda, and let it be heard in Jerusalem: say ye, Sound the trumpet in the land; cry ye aloud: say ye, gather yourselves together, and let us enter in to the fortified cities. 6Gather up your wares and flee to Sion, stay not: for I will bring evils from the north, and great destruction. 7The lion is gone up from his lair, he has roused himself to the destruction of the nations, and has gone forth out of his place, to make the land desolate; and the cities shall be destroyed, so as to be without inhabitant. (Jeremiah 4:5-7)

Jerusalem had been called to repentance so that they could be saved from the coming wrath of the Babylonian kingdom (Jeremiah 4:14). As we know, they did not repent, and Babylon came at them like a lion, just as the Lord declared. This harmonizes with Daniel's vision in Daniel 7. In Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed of a colossal figure in the image of a man. This figure was made of various metals. The head, which was made of gold, was identified by Daniel as the Babylonian kingdom (Daniel 2:38-39). Nebuchadnezzar's dream correlates with Daniel's own vision in Daniel 7, and therefore, we are to interpret the lion as Babylon.

Medo-Persia:

Identifying what the bear in Daniel 7 represents is quite simple to do. The kingdom which followed Babylon was that of the Medes and Persians. When Medo-Persia conquered Babylon they also managed to take Lydia and Egypt, symbolized by the three ribs in the bear's mouth. The fact that this bear was raised up on one side likely symbolizes the dominance of Persian power over the Medes.

Isaiah prophesied against Babylon quite some time before the kingdom's fall. And who did God promise to stir up against them? The Medes:

17Behold, I will stir up against you the Medes, who do not regard silver, neither have they need of gold. (Isaiah 13:17).

Therefore, I find it accurate to identify the second beast of Daniel 7 as the Medo-Persian empire.

Leopard:

In Daniel 8, Daniel prophesied of a ram and goat. This was two years after his dream in Daniel 7. The ram depicted the kings of Media and Persia (Daniel 8:20), and the goat depicted Greece (Daniel 8:21). Daniel's vision of the ram and goat portrays the Greeks overthrowing Medo-Persia (Daniel 8:5-7), and therefore, identifying the leopard of Daniel 7.

I believe the leopard was used to portray swiftness. Alexander the Great, arguably the greatest conqueror in history, expanded his kingdom with more ferocity than kingdoms before him, and he did so with great speed. When he died, his kingdom was divided between his four generals. Notice that the leopard has four wings and four heads (Daniel 7:6). I believe one of these sets of four (likely the heads) represents this division. Likewise, we read in Daniel 8 of broken horn on the goat, which spawned four more horns in its place. I believe this broken horn is Alexander the Great, and the four horns in his place are his generals.

Fourth Beast:

A number of scholars believe the fourth, indescribable beast of Daniel 7 is the Seleucid empire from which Antiochus IV Epiphanes would come. A few things weigh against this. For starters, Gabriel attributes the power of Antiochus IV Epiphanes to one of the horns spawned from the fall of Alexander the Great. Pay attention to the context:

21The he-goat is the King of the Greeks: and the great horn which was between his eyes, he is the first king. 22And as for the one that was broken, in whose place there stood up four horns, four kings shall arise out of his nation, but not in their own strength. 23And at the latter time of their kingdom, when their sins are coming to the full, there shall arise a king bold in countenance, and understanding riddles. 24And his power shall be great, and he shall destroy wonderfully, and prosper, and practise, and shall destroy mighty men, and the holy people. (Daniel 8:21-24).

The one that would come and destroy the holy people was Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Daniel says he would come from the division of the Grecian empire. While the Seleucid empire is distinct from the Grecian empire of Alexander the Great, this terrible and mighty king who would destroy the holy people was still being attributed to the power and image of the goat by Gabriel.

A second strike against the Seleucid view is a rather simple one. In Daniel 7, Daniel notes that the fourth beast would “excel all other kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth” (Daniel 7:23). The Seleucid empire, while quite ferocious, did not obtain the same power the of the Roman empire. Encyclopedia Brittanica notes the following: “The Seleucid kingdom began losing control over large territories in the 3^rd century BC. An inexorable decline followed the first defeat of the Seleucids by the Romans in 190.” The Seleucid empire did maintain its power for a fair share of time, but it hardly had the power of the Roman empire. This empire had a difficult time holding onto its larger territories.

Another strike against the Seleucid view is that Daniel prophesies of the coming of the Messiah during the time of this fourth beast. When the “little horn” “shall wear out the saints of the Most High,” the everlasting kingdom of the Most High would be given to the saints (Daniel 7:27). Nebuchadnezzar's dream also depicted God's kingdom at this time (Daniel 2:44-45). This is depicted again in Daniel 7:9-14.

Is the “Little Horn” of Daniel 7 the same "Little Horn" of Daniel 8?

As stated earlier, Historicists claim that the “little horn” of Daniel 7 is the same as the “little horn” of Daniel 8. The logic behind this is that we should be interpreting scripture with scripture, and since Daniel 7 has a “little horn,” the “little horn” in Daniel 8 must apparently be the same figure. However, we've already begun dismantling this position, for the persecuting power in Daniel 7 is part of the fourth beast, which is not the same as the goat in Daniel 8, earlier identified as the Grecian empire.

I will elaborate on this a little further in due time, but for now I'd like to observe something else. At the beginning of this article I had mentioned finally coming across something that had eluded me. That which eluded me has to do with this “little horn” in Daniel 7. The question that came to mind was, “Which little horn?” What do I mean? Glad you asked. Note the following:

7After this one I looked, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and exceedingly strong, and its teeth were of iron; devouring and crushing to atoms, and it trampled the remainder with its feet: and it was altogether different from the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. 8I noticed his horns, and behold, another little horn came up in the midst of them, and before it three of the former horns were rooted out: and, behold, there were eyes as the eyes of a man in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:7-8).

This is the first instance in which we read of the fourth beast's horns. This beast had ten horns. Were they large? Were they small? Notice that Daniel says “another little horn” came up. How could there be another one if none of the other horns were little? Have you ever noticed how numerous interpretations rely on this horn's size to determine the figure it represents? This is not to say whether I agree or disagree with this interpretation, but note the fact that a number of Preterists identify this “little horn” as Titus, son of emperor Vespasian. Titus, who was not yet emperor, is the one who laid waste to Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Because he was not yet emperor, many see him as “little,” or inferior to his father. But is this necessarily the accurate way to interpret the eleventh horn? Even if the interpretation itself is correct, the text doesn't actually portray this “little horn” as a different size than the others, for it is “another little horn,” suggesting that there are others of similar size.

I, too, have tried to interpret the eleventh horn according to its size. However, I'm not certain that's actually accurate. Thus, when we read of a “little horn” in Daniel 8, we can't actually interpret it the way some claim we should, for all of the horns on the fourth beast in Daniel 7 are seemingly “little.” Historicists could do themselves a greater service to rely solely on the characteristics of the two horns to find correlation, instead. The point I am trying to make is that I believe Historicists, and others who interpret similarly (Partial Preterist James B. Jordan comes to mind), cannot maintain a consistent interpretation by these means. (James B. Jordan believes the horns in Daniel 7 are the Herods, and thus, the “little horn” of Daniel 8 must also be a Herod. I don't wish to determine whether he is correct or incorrect, but simply point out his hermeneutic. For more on this, read his commentary on the book of Daniel.)

My scripture citations have come from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of Old Testament. In order to read of a “little horn” in Daniel 8, an alternate translation must be used. I'll switch to the King James Version for this:

8Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. 9And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. 10And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. (Daniel 8:8-10 KJV)

This “little horn” is simply a “strong horn” in the Septuagint. This horn is most certainly strong, too! The similarities between this “little horn” and the one in Daniel 7 are also quite obvious. Both of these horns are persecuting powers and maintain quite the strength. So, the similarities are certainly there. However, the Historicist interpretation crumbles when one understands that the “little horn” of Daniel 8 comes from one of the four horns that spawned from the great horn of the goat! Again, when Alexander died his kingdom was divided among his four generals. Of this division was the Seleucid empire from which Antiochus IV Epiphanes would come. Therefore, if the Seleucid empire was one of the four “notable [horns]” of the Grecian empire, and a “little horn” would come from one such horn, then clearly the “little horn” of Daniel 8 cannot be the “little horn,” or eleventh horn, of Daniel 7! Gabriel concurs when he identifies the goat as the Grecian empire. The “little horn” in question comes from this empire, not the Roman empire.

Conclusion

I believe the Historicists are doing the best they can to interpret Daniel 8 with consistency. I do not believe they are coming to the proper conclusions, however. Gabriel did all of the interpretation for Daniel. There is no question as to what the ram and goat of Daniel 8 are representing, for Gabriel explained all of this. Historicists, therefore, must ignore Gabriel's explanation of the prophecy's imagery. They improperly attribute this prophecy's fulfillment to the time of the fourth beast. But as we have seen, the goat of Daniel 8 is the Grecian empire, which was the third beast of Daniel 7, not the fourth.

I believe we do ourselves a disservice to base our interpretation of the eleventh horn of Daniel 7 on the characteristic of size, as well as identify the “little horn” of Daniel 8 as the same “little horn” in Daniel 7. The text doesn't actually support such a distinction between the eleventh horn and the other ten. Since probably 99% or more of Christendom refers to the eleventh horn as a “little horn,” it is accurate to assume that the majority of Christians believe there is such a distinction given by the text. And again, I was one such individual until recently. I find this to be an error now, however, and simply wish to share this with you for your own consideration.

Blessings,

Jason Watt