The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Do You Believe in IHCs?

For those unfamiliar with the phrase and it effects on prophecy IHC = Intervening Historical Contingencies. I have attached a link (Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions) to supplement any questions one may have.

Do You Believe in IHCs? single choice
	Yes
	No, it is Openness Theology
	No
	Who Knows?
Votes accepted starting: Wed Apr 13, 2005 1:00 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

I said "No, it is Openness Theology", but maybe "No, it is Molinism" might be better?

Joe,

IMHO I think his statement below sums it up pretty well.


He is the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end. Nothing subjective about that! Surely He sees the end from the beginning. Just as the Psalmist wrote, "Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them." (Psalm 139:16)


Wes

I agree. Several disagree with Pratt in his article, including myself. While I don't think it measures up to the point of Open Theism (Pratt differentiates on this in his lectures) I do think it gets dangerously close. God is sovereign, He knows what the future holds, nothing is changing to Him, though to us it may appear so from the circumstances.

Joe: I had a problem with the following two statements:


Sounds like God has to wait before He really knows the future. Did he really mean this or am I reading wrong?

Dave

Joe,
In agreement with you, Marie and Dave on this. Unless Mr. Pratt is being quite careless in his use of the terms wait and react, I find it very difficult to see how he would not have to defend against at least a mild form of Molinism. After the opening to which Wes referred, which is quite orthodox, he seems compelled to account for "contingency" by having God "wait and react". How can that be reconciled with WCF 2.2:More importantly, how can it be reconciled with the Scriptures. I can't remember who makes the point--Owen, maybe--but the resolution of "non-fulfilled threats/promises" can only, and must always, be resolved by saying that God uses those very threats/promises as means to accomplish his most holy, determinate will in the lives of people. Mr. Pratt seems to dismiss this premise at the outset, and ends up with God needing to make contingent responses to his creation. He implies that the Lord's return may have been delayed by the Church . I thought the Father knows the day and hour. Are we now to think that he also may in fact be merely waiting to find out, based on how his Church is doing ????

Joe, was there ever any substantive response to this article from RTS or elsewhere?

Sorry, but I will need to reply to you and DaveVan3 in one post. Actually it is taught “explicitly” that the Lord “could have” come back at an earlier date, “if” the church had it all together …., and that put up red flags for me (Gal 4:4, etc.).

TMK Pratt has not addressed the Molinism issue, but ... a Molinian desires to make a case that an action must first take place before it can be true. Thus, God cannot know anything as absolute unless it has happens first and thus God becomes reliant upon the acts of men instead of on His own eternal decree(s). However, Pratt does say, “we must approach prophetic predictions with assurance that historical contingencies have never interrupted the immutable decrees of God. No uncertainties ever lay before him, no power can thwart the slightest part of his plan. Yahweh spoke through his prophets with full knowledge and control of what was going to happen in the near and distant future. Any outlook that denies this theological conviction is less than adequate.” Thus, at best this issue is “confusing,” as I hear truth in one ear and then something else (Molinism?) in the other. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/spin.gif" alt="" /> This article is in Bruce Waltke’s book (Way of Wisdom, actually honoring Waltke) as well (edited by Packer), and thus it makes me wonder if “I” am missing Pratt’s point. He is a GREAT professor in so many other areas and delivered this address in 1993, and I thus wonder if it was only me … that had a problem …

How does one reconcile Pratt’s article with Isaiah 46:10-11? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

Joe,
I too was very confused after that promising, orthodox beginning, and recalling your positive remarks in the past about his teaching. Honestly, as I read, I kept hoping the next line would be a variation of Ps. 73:15 If I had said, "I will speak thus", behold, I would have been untrue to the generation of your children., followed by proper exposition. But it never came. Something does not compute.

Could it be that most of the confusion about this is caused by language limitations? Humans do the best they can, but how is it possible to accurately describe any sort of intrusion into history by an Eternal God? Jesus did, but he had to actually come and do it in person--and even then it wasn't easy!