A Response to Dr. Boyd
by Drew:
I was originally going to do a second part to my Greg Boyd and the Nazis post dealing with the exegetical evidence against Open Theism. However, Dr. Boyd sort of threw a monkey-wrench into the mix when he commented on my original post! I already responded here, but as promised, in this post, I want to deal with some biblical examples that uphold a classical view of God’s sovereignty and the proper view of his providential will.
Before I get started, I want to say at the outset that Greg Boyd showed more dignity and composure than we have seen here on The Sign of Jonah from any other person whose views we’ve critiqued, even though he didn’t really respond to the specific arguments in my original post. While I don’t agree with his views, Boyd at least responded to the issues instead of calling us mean-spirited and the like. He serves as an example as to how civilized discourse could be conducted and how (hopefully) both parties could benefit from interacting with one another. Thank you Dr. Boyd.
There are other people who are much smarter than I am who have dealt with Open Theism and I would highly recommend anything by Bruce Ware, DA Carson, John Piper and J. Ligon Duncan on the subject. They have been the ones who I’ve found to be the most helpful. So the subject has already been covered. I’m just drawing some highlights to show that the classical view of God is indeed borne out by Scripture and the burden of proof on the Open Theist is insurmountable.
Some examples
We must look at Isaiah 46:10-11:
10I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand and I will do all that I please. 11From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do.
God is declaring what it is that makes him God. The end and the beginning are His shots to call. He summons both beast and man to fulfill His purposes. And what He has planned, He will be faithful to accomplish. It is what Isaiah brings to our attention as something that is unique to God alone. In the context, Isaiah is comparing God to the Babylonian gods who cannot tell the future. This foreknowlege is God’s unique privilege, ascribed to him alone.
Again, a little further back in Isaiah 42:9:
See, the former things have taken place, and new things I declare; before they spring into being I announce them to you.
I don’t see how you can come up with an idea that God does not know the future in intricate detail even announcing things before they spring into being. This privilege is again defining God’s attributes. It is unique to Him, distinguishing him from all other gods.
Judas Iscariot
In John 6:64 we see a specific allusion to Judas’ betrayal as known by Jesus. The text reads:
‘“Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.”’
The argument I think the Open camp would use would be to say that Jesus knew what kind of character Judas was and that it was “predictable” that he would act the way he did. This would render Jesus’ apparent foreknowledge nothing more than a well-informed decision based on the facts available to him. But the reason I highlighted the phrase I did was to point out that Jesus did not know after getting to know Judas that he would be the one to betray him. It’s not as if Jesus met him, saw how he acted in certain situations and then came to the conclusion, “Oh this must be the guy that’s going to betray me.” He knew from the beginning! But that’s not all.
Judas was also held responsible for his actions. John 17:12 pictures Jesus praying in Gethsemane.
12While I was with them, I protected them (speaking of the disciples) and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
I’m not saying it’s easy to understand or that it leaves no mystery, but this concept is known as the doctrine of compatibilism. DA Carson is one of the best on this subject.
The Assyrians
We go back to Isaiah 10 for this one. To set the stage, Israel has angered God and he is punishing them by sending the Assyrians. And here is where we pick it up.
“5Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath! 6I send him against a godless nation, I dispatch him against a people who anger me, to seize loot and snatch plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets. 7But this is not what he (the Assyrian, that is) intends, this is not what he has in mind; his purpose is to destroy, and to put an end to many nations.”
It is clear in this passage that it is God who has dispatched the Assyrians against a godless nation, Israel. He has sent them to do harm and carry out his judgment and wrath. The club in the Assyrian’s hand is actually God’s wrath against Israel. But the Assyrian is not off the hook for coming against God’s people. We must continue.
12When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, (speaking of the judgment brought by the Assyrians) he will say, “I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes.
So the Assyrian, like Judas, is carrying out God’s will and all the while being held accountable for his actions. Let’s read God’s rebuke of the Assyrians.
15Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it, or the saw boast against him who uses it? As if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up, or a club brandish him who is not wood!
The Potter
Again in Isaiah 45:9 we have a picture of a God who is in complete control.
“9Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’
The essence of God-ness
We’ve seen in Isaiah 46 that foreknowledge is one of the unique characteristics that distinguishes God from the false gods of Babylon. Jesus appeals to the same principle going back to his dealings with Judas again equating God-ness with foreknowledge. John 13:19:
“18 I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture: ‘He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me.’ 19I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He.”
John Piper points out that the word “He” is not in the original Greek. Verse nine should read, “I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I Am.” It is not only a statement of the deity of Christ, but also defines that foreknowledge is a telling characteristic of God.
That should be enough
I hope that from the verses provided we can all see that the Open Theism view of the Sovereignty of God is simply not borne out by Scripture. There are too many hurdles that are either sidestepped or toppled over in order to try and justify the Openness position to make it a viable position in orthodox Christianity. I haven’t dealt with the implications (“dangers”) of Open Theism yet, but I will at a later time.
51 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
Well Drew, Keith, and all the people who comment here on a regular basis, I have spent the last 30 mins reading the blogs back and forth and especially the ones written by Greg Boyd and his supporter. To be honset with you I don’t find much that has been written helpful from a theological perspective at all. Please, for the sake of my own limited mind but also in order to keep the post within the boundaries for which it was originally intended, try and keep the debates to biblical arguments and not wonder off into the realms of Greek philosophy!
If you head down that road, man what a hole!!
I would request, if we are going to debate Open Thesism then can some smart people in a nut shell summerise what are the biblical ramifications of such a belief.
For example
why is open theism good? what bible supports such a view and how is it going to help the church and the world in these days ?
or,
Why is Open Theism wrong, why is it dangerous from a biblical perspective and where does such wrong thinking take us doctrinally?
Honsetly I am a little too old and set in my ways to be impressed with intelectual verbage and the winning of brownie points in our arguments!
As Paul said to the Corinthians when they were arguing over who to follow,
‘ learn not to go beyond what is written’ 1Cor. 4:11
So without sounding too rude, I am not trying to , please keep it, if not simple, for that might be unfair for those of you who have larger brains than the rest of us! At least keep it biblical, thanks.
If this is what you are trying to do please forgive me, I must not be reading carfully enough. So have some mercy upon a middle aged fuddy duddy!
Paul,
Your comments must be directed at the discussion thread on the other post (Greg Boyd and the Nazi’s). I didn’t see any appeal to Greek philosophy in anything that Drew wrote in this post. What I did read was a consistent appeal to scripture identifying God as having complete foreknowledge.
I will be taking up the theme as well and will finish my own response soon. I will try to address some of your concerns specifically.
However, Drew has also promised to come back in a later post and address some of the ramifications of believing in a God who does not know the future.
The debate is critical because, like the prophetic movement, the Open Theist position attempts to present the church with a diminished God from the God of the scriptures. (I will defend that premise in my upcoming post.)
Keith
Paul,
This is a tough one to get your head around. I’d encourage you to listen to Lig Duncan’s message above. Don Carson’s explanation of what O-T actually is has also been referenced elsewhere on the site. They are all highly recommended. The implications of the movement are not “no big deal” and deserve our attention.
-d
Yes Keith they are indeed directed at the other post. Sorry I placed them here, I thought this was a continuation of the discussion. I am also thankful; that the core issues at stake will be addressed and yes drew has indeed used scripture above so I look forward to what wil be written in the near future. thanks
yes drew i will listen to the person u mentioned just as soon as I find it ! lol and then perhaps I will understand the implications more clearly thanks again
There are some articles on Dr. Boyd’s web page that I find disturbing as well. In one, Forgive Them Father, he even goes so far to suggest that we shouldn’t judge some of the leaders of the terrorist groups. In fact his theory suggests that we are not to judge at all, but to just be creatures who aren’t concerned with the future, but live with complete love for everyone, in the present moment.
In fact, in one of the articles, he even goes so far to say that life is nothing more than a series of present moments. to be experienced. Then he talks about his obsession with the writings of Plato, which one can clearly see him drifting off into in some of his theories. He claims he’s still in the present though, even though this philospical side of himself gives him very little sleep.
The danger I see in Dr. Boyd’s teachings is that he can make an excellent argument to draw the reader in, then he lowers the boom by making an opposite conclusion. It’s almost as if you’re reading two different authors.
You can go to his website at:
http://www.gregboyd.org, and click on blog, to reference some of these articles. For some reason it won’t come up in the browser by clicking on the name of the website, so you’ll have to copy and paste it to access it.
Interestingly enough, he has no public comments section, where you can openly discuss the issues, like we do here. You can only e-mail him questions.
Another great example of compatibilism comes from the life of Joseph. As Joseph speaks to his brothers after the death of his father he says, “You meant it for evil but God meant it for good.” He goes on to say that God’s purpose was the preservation of the people of Israel.
Here we see that Joseph’s brothers were free to do what they wanted to do. They sinfully sold Joseph into slavery.
Yet even in their sinful action they fulfilled a sovereign purpose of God. So God’s sovereignty was working compatibly with human freedom. God accomplishes His purpose while never condoning human sin or coercing men to do what they do not want to do.
Well Drew and Keith , thanks for the heads up and I did listen, jotter and pen in hand to the lecture by J Ligon Duncan. At the end of his discourse, I am happy to say there in much comfort in being a Calvanist and holding for the most part to the Reformed wing of Christianity. The reference to the ‘1437′ scriptures enforcing the settled future idea was rather encouraging. Thank God for the few brilliant minds that have the conviction to hold to the classical and historical views of God. May truth always triumph in the end.
Although we are all fond of quoting Romans 8:28, to show God works all things to the good, sometimes I think we miss, or even reject the part about US being called to according to HIS purpose, instead of the other way around.
Further on, in Romans 11: 32-34, we can see that future “possibilities” do not, in fact, dictate God’s sovereign future for mankind.
“For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that He may have mercy on them all.
Oh, the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His paths beyond tracing out!
Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor?”
That doesn’t sound like the future is “open” to mere “possibilities” to me.
What would really help is engaging the scriptures that the Open side uses rather than just employing verses that even they agree with. From what I understand an OT believes God can absolutely know something if He sets His mind to do the thing, but that doesn’t mean He handles every affair the same way. That’s what I read and heard.
So maybe go through the verses they use and butt them up against the ones that the Calvies use and try and make sense of the seemingly contradictory views.
I mean, we all know what both sides think and how they view the thing personally, but exegetically it hasn’t been satisfactorily dealt with yet. There are far too many verses that they hold to that haven’t been addressed. Howard Elseth believes he’s found over 11,ooo verses that state his case and footnotes all of them in his book “Did God Know?”. No, I don’t expect exegesis of 11,ooo verses…but at least an attempt to address what they draw on from scripture.
As far as it being dangerous, I know some OT’s and they are the most Godly guys I know. It doesn’t change their holiness, hatred of sin, love of scripture or daily life. I also know of some Calvinists who’s theology doesn’t adversly affect their lives either, and I hold that way of thought to be just as potentially dangerous as thinking that God is great with odds and “what if’s”. Believing something to be dangerous and saying it is doesn’t prove it. You have to provide examples, as if it was a court of law. No lawyer can say, “I rest my case” after opening arguments.
I know of OSAS people who live like devils because of that thinking. Does that mean that all Eternal Security teachers are dangerous and should be warned against? I certainly don’t believe that and don’t practice it. I listen to more of those dudes than the Arminian side of christendom.
Basically, to prove the danger of something there has to be “case law”.
Is there any that you know of?
In pest control, there are three levels of labeling. The least level is CAUTION. That is the least toxic. If you wash it out of your eyes or off your skin pretty quick, nothing will happen. Then there is WARNING. That is harmful in a greater degree. Then there is DANGER, which will kill you. The reason those labels read that way is that there is a verifyable history of proven reactions to certain chemicals.
So is OT dangersous? Will it kill? Does it deserve “WARNING” for potential harm if not dealt with quickly? Or should one proceed with CAUTION in handling it. It can be benign if handled right, or harmful if dealt with in an extremely stupid fashion.
So far, I have not seen nor heard of one example of someone who’s an OT (who isn’t already a flake by nature) causing sin and satanic pain in someone’s life or seperating one from fellowship with God over those issues. In fact, some great repentance preachers and firey men of God are these kind of guys. And then so are some Calvinists who I love just as much and see the same exact fire and holiness working out in their lives.
Maybe you guys have heard of someone who’s an OT and has destroyed lives, I don’t know. But I’ve heard tons of stories of people taking Calvinism to its logical end and as a result become antinomian. So does that prove that Drew is dangerous? Or is it proof that someone else had a flaw in them not really related to theology as much as they had another issue of some other kind?
So far no questions like these have been addressed or asked.
Food for much thought,
mark jr.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2002/1199_How_Open_Theism_Helps_Us_Conceal_Our_Hidden_Idolatries/
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1998/1510_Pastoral_Implications_of_Greg_Boyds_View_in_Dealing_with_Suffering/
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/EventMessages/ByDate/1477_Is_the_Glory_of_God_at_Stake_in_Gods_Foreknowledge_of_Human_Choices/
Mr. Gribble,
The above links are all to DesiringGod.org and mention just a few ways in which OT harms the Church. John Piper (along with many others) maintains that the Glory of God is at stake. I would venture to say that the Glory of God is a pretty big deal. I think Drew and Keith have done a good job of demonstrating that one of the primary ways God defines Himself is by His exhaustive foreknowledge of future events. OT explicitly and aggressively denies one of the key elements of what makes God… God.
Is that not enough harm in and of itself? I find the “no [perceived] harm, no foul” argument really frustrating. Wrong is wrong. Additionally, if we allow brothers and sisters to stray from (or flat-out reject) central tenets of the Christian faith while we just shrug our shoulders and say, “No big deal,” we cede our ability to contend for the faith at all.
Mark, why do we make such a noise about these new-age prophets and apostles? I mean, many of them are “really godly guys”. Can’t we all just get along? I think we need to hold OT to the same measuring stick as we do the Modern Prophetic Movement.
I didn’t address your “actual harm” argument, because I think you’re missing the larger point. However, there is of course great harm done by OT in a very practical sense. I think the links above will address some of them.
God Bless
Thanks, Jim.
Yes, the arguments Piper makes are indeed engaged verse by verse and certainly do give a good, straightforward explanation of the damage the theology of a diminished God does to the tenets of established Christian faith.
Mark,
Regarding harm, I believe the real danger here is the preaching of a gospel based upon a God of limited capacities, without complete foreknowledge. How would one possibly convince an unbeliever that God was powerful enough to save them from a fate worse than death, if we are only going to concede that He has limited knowledge of our own future?
I for one wouldn’t feel comfortable trusting my eternal destiny with a God who can only see certain parts of my future in advance. While, I realize Boyd and other OTs believe as we do about salvation, try as I may, I cannot see any real justification in sharing a gospel where God has the power to save us from eternal damnation, but not to know other things in advance.
But, I’m glad you brought that question up, because it is one I frequently have to deal with in my urgent prayer ministry, and one we all need to know how to answer, according to scripture.
“Mark, why do we make such a noise about these new-age prophets and apostles? I mean, many of them are “really godly guys”. Can’t we all just get along? I think we need to hold OT to the same measuring stick as we do the Modern Prophetic Movement.”
The thing with that is that this movement has directly drawn people into demonic manifestations and activities and led many into immorality. It dulls the sensitivity to sin. I was one of them, so I know. There is definite trouble here. It has definitely led to actual tangible sin. That is why I fight it, bare knuckled and bloody. It has and still does produce sin.
These OT dudes say the same about the Calvinist, i.e. the glory of God is at stake. So those kinds of statements don’t really get the job done.
I don’t have time during the week to read those Piper articles, but I’ll copy and paste them into a Word doc and check it out Saturday.
And as I have said previously, does the fact that Calvin taught that un-elect babies that die go to hell keep you guys from being one of his disciples? Does the fact that Calvin once said, “Whoever now shall contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for His church.” keep you guys from thinking that this teaching might lead some to kill guys like me who think he’s off his nut? Isn’t that previous statement dangerous? It’s found in “History of the Christian Church, Vol VIII, pg. 791″. The author is a guy by the name of Schaff. But seriously, should I now be afraid that this will revive today and I should fear for my life? How many Arminians have a history of burning people at the stake, beheading them, putting them in prison for preaching without a licence (as MacArthur proudly proclaims in his critique of the Emerging Church, which is good for that part), authorizing the killing of Jews and burning of their synagogues and confiscation of their lands (Luther in “The Jews and Their Lies”; see also Luther “War against the Jews”)? Aren’t these things a heck of a lot more dangerous if followed out and acted on?
Or do you guys know about Calvin and Luther’s skeletons in their closets?
Or would you rather not talk about it?
Or would you rather say, “It was the culture of the day” as if culture ever has the right to supercede Truth. If that’s your excuse then leave homo’s alone and let them think they’re saved, since our culture today condones it. Let’s allow culture to tell us to abort babies. Let’s allow culture to licence the church to ignore God’s commands and do what we feel we must. It is murder to advise the killing of Jews. It is murder to kill guys for making fun of your Institutes of The Christian Religion. It is murder to behead someone for converting to Arminianism. No murderer has eternal life in them. Don’t you guys believe that if someone can murder and never repent it is proof that he was never converted? Did you know that one year before Calvin died he was still exhonorating himself for the burning of Michael Servetus? He never repented and seemed to think that God himself was prophesying through him to keep death as the sentence for all time for heretics. You don’t think it’s dangerous to follow an unregenerated man? You follow the theology of an unregenerated man? Who is more dangerous?
You guys seem to do that “danger will robinson” thing a little too quickly. That is a word that shouldn’t be over used. Danger implies imminent death.
Uh oh, now we have danger. Nah, let’s just leave it alone…I’m sure these attrocities of the Reformation will never repeat themselves again…wait, Hitlers text book was Luther’s booklet “The Jews and Their Lies”. Maybe we should worry.
You see here? If you want to talk about taking away from the glory of God, I think what Calvin and Luther are historically (unrefutably) guilty of is of much more importance that what Boyd teaches. Will Boyd’s teaching advocate the hate and death of Jews? Will Boyd’s teachings burn someone alive with green wood and put a burning sulfur ring on someone’s head and mock them while they scream in agony for Jesus to save them?
Who’s dangerous, really?
Having said that, I still admire MacArthur. I listen to him everyday…well, sometimes I listen to Allister Begg instead…I love Scottish accents, they just rule. I love Matthew Henry’s commentary. I love William Gurnal’s “Christian In Complete Armor”. We are forever indebted to Edwards, Spurgeon and Whitefield and Christian/American history is left with a vacuum without them.
But all said men being Calvinists, did Calvins’ butchery of innocent lives affect them? No. Not so much as one little yode. I’m glad that when people raised a fuss about their “dangerous” doctrines that no one seemed to listen and folks got saved anyway.
One last thing. A wonderful statement made by Calvin regarding his ICR. It was in the French edition of 1545, in the foreward:
“I dare not bare too strong a testimony in its favor, and declare how profitable the reading of it will be, lest I should seem to prize my own work too highly. However, I may promise this much, that it will be a kind of key opening up to all the children of God a right and ready access to the understanding of the sacred volume….
…and since we are bound to acknowledge that all truth and sound doctrine proceed from God, I will venture boldly to declare what I think of this work, acknowledging it to be God’s work rather than mine.”
This was on pages 22 and 23 of this edition.
Man, this dude thinks his ICR was inspired by God! What a fruitcake, and you guys follow this nut but dare to knock on others who say the same about their beliefs and practices?
Compare histories; who’s done more damage?
So once again, what examples are there of OT leading to sin? How can it? How can one with that view dishonor God any more than the famous Reformers? It seems to me that with this baggage in your guys’ lineage, you oughta be a little more lenient and say something like, “I disagree with this dude big time, but I can’t see how fighting him is gonna produce fruit. I mean, look at our fathers! They turned out terrible, yet some after them shook the world with the power of God.”
So what will you all do if God decides to sweep hundreds/thousands into His kingdom through a bunch of OT dudes? Will you stand their and insult it and cry out, “DANGER!”, or be amazed that God uses people with off-center theology to bring awakening?
That’s the grace that an honest, God loving Arminian ought to and I do extend to the great Calvinists of the faith, past, present and future. If revival broke out in Piper or MacArthur, or Sproul’s church and I’d be the first one their beating down the door.
What/where is the danger and how can it work itself out practically> in real life to where there is warranted fret? Don’t parrot your favorite teachers with “glory” rhetoric and go no further, show me the money. Then I’ll fret with you and get my knuckles bloody in the knocking out of teeth of this “vile enemy” that you all seem to believe it to be.
Try again,
mark jr.
I’m truly not understanding why this is turning into a Calvinist vs. Armenian debate, Mark, jr. It seems to me there’s only one side in God’s kingdom, and that’s His. To my mind, any teaching within the Christian faith that diminishes His complete foreknowledge of the furure is harmful to the witness of the gospel.
Mark, was the a question or something in that tirade?
Wow Mark I counted about 20 questions if that is not spamming I dont know what is! How about you ask 1 nice question at a time and perhaps some might try to answer it? Also if you are going to answer your own question why ask it? so perhaps try asking only questions you don’t really knoiw the answer too. That way if some of us who think the OT way is evil don’t know the answer well tell you.
Some thing like this … Sorry Mark I dont know the answer to that one!…
Mark,
I’m confused and surprised by your response here. Holding to a belief in God’s complete foreknowledge does not entail endorsing everything that Calvin or Luther (or Wesley for that matter since he also believed in God’s foreknowledge) had to say about every subject.
The point of these posts has been, “What do the scriptures teach?”. I think Drew and I have adequately shown that the scriptures teach that God does possess foreknowledge.
In my last post, I attempted to show how lowering our view of God affects the way we pray and how we respond to adversity and struggle.
What we have yet to see is a Biblical response showing that the scriptures teach that God lacks foreknowledge.
I think I have to agree a little with Mark if he is linking Open Thesism with classical Armenianism vs Clasical Calvanism. For us to go down that path will produce I suspect little or no fruit.
But if we can clearly establish that Open Thesism is a new and different animal all togather then it would be fair to critique it!
Mark, unfair to use the old association slander for those of us who lean to a Calvanistic persuasion, I mean come on ! Associating Calvanism with Hitler to slander the doctrine!
The same argument can be made against believing in God for as the scripture says Demons believe in God , they fear God and shudder!
Hardly a good reason to stop believing in God!
I don’t know any one who leans in his doctrine towards Calvinism who actually worships Calvin! So for you to attack the character of John Calvin by exposing his own sin which he tought was totally depraved apart from the grace of God ! you are actually reinforcing his own teaching!
Because so in so said this and said this and so in so who carried in his pocket Calvin’s writings did this and this is hardly a persuasive argument as to why we need to poopah a certin doctrine!
Rather assess the doctrines from a biblical basis and then decide if good or ill!
But like Mbaker says above, Why are we turning this into a Calvanist vs Armenian debate?
Mark,
Yikes, bro. Tell me how you REALLY feel. What I say next is not intended as a jab or insult (I will confess to having that intention with other comments posted here). You sound EXACTLY like the frustrating defenders of the Modern Prophetic Movement/New Apostolic Restoration (we need to come up with an acronym for this thing; I’m tired of typing that out). You said nothing of substance to convince anyone that your tolerance of Open Theism is justified.
What you DID do was slander (yes, definitionally, that is precisely what you accomplished) two amazing Christian men used mightily by God. Mark, you called Calvin UNREGENERATE! Again, I say, “YIKES!” I don’t like Jacobus Arminius’ theology – much less Boyd’s – but I’m not going to question their regeneration. You didn’t question Calvin’s, you flat-out denied it!
Fortunately, for those who read this comment, I’m not going to exhaust thousands of words defending these men, because I don’t really care (at least not in the context of this conversation). I am not a “disciple of Calvin” or Luther. Mark, you know that. Calvinism is simply the most famous name among others (Reformed, Augustinian, etc.) for a particular Christian theology. Calvin gets the name, because he did much to systematize its thoughts after the Reformation. Don’t like Calvin, Mark? That’s fine. Call me Reformed. I have no allegiance to John Calvin. (Actually, I’ve never even met the man.)
[I’m going back on my earlier statement about not defending Calvin. Mark, you said (quoting Calvin):
“I will venture boldly to declare what I think of this work, acknowledging it to be God’s work rather than mine.” …Man, this dude thinks his ICR was inspired by God! What a fruitcake…”
I don’t make this defense out of a concern for Calvin’s reputation, but to demonstrate how trite your accusations/arguments have been in regards to this issue. It is obvious to all but those who have some strange hatred for the man that Calvin here is merely stating his belief that God guided him in his writing of the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Did you watch the Super Bowl, Mark? The coach and owner of the Indianapolis Colts both credited God for the success of their organization. Man, what a bunch of fruitcakes! Remember, this is almost immediately after the Reformation. The Catholic Church had for generations prevented the laity from reading Scripture for themselves. They did not have the luxury of resources we have today. That God blessed His people, through Calvin, with such an exhaustive treatment of Christian theology as the ICR, is a mighty blessing indeed.
OK, I’m done defending Calvin.]
I concur with those above who have lamented the transformation of this conversation into a Calvinism/Arminianism debate. There is a time and place for that; this probably isn’t it.
Lastly, OT is not Arminianism. All classical Arminians believe in God’s exhaustive foreknowledge. Like you, Mark, I (Calvinist – OOPS! – I mean Reformed) have learned much from Arminian teachers. OT is a whole different ballgame. I don’t know why you think the “Glory of God” is “rhetoric”, but God defines Himself (and His gloriousness) as exhaustively knowing (nay, decreeing) all future events. Denying this is no small matter.
I’m curious, Mark: have you read any good critiques of OT? I love Piper (yes, I am a fanboy) and his website has a few smaller nuggets on the subject, but Bruce Ware’s “God’s Lesser Glory (there’s that silly word again)” is the best book-length treatment I’ve read.
God Bless (and have mercy on your soul for maligning the Greatest Christian that ever lived… John Calvin!)
Just Kidding
Mark,
Since I’ve already emerged from the John Piper fanboy closet, I’ll send you the below link to a biographical sermon on John Calvin. Might give you a little different perspective.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Biographies/1471_The_Divine_Majesty_of_the_Word/
Enjoy!
err,
You guys are just playing into Satan’s hand of divide and concur-Can’t you all agree that you are all christians here and Greg Boyd’s doctrines are flawed and be done with it?
Mary,
I thought that the flaw in Dr. Boyd’s doctrines as opposed to what the Bible says, is what we are trying to get at, although admittedly it may be the long way around. But sometimes that happens. We are trying to have a debate respectful to both sides.
Even as Christians, we frequently have to wade through a lot of written stuff to get to the real bottom line, so we can present it fairly. That’s what many of us who contribute frequently to this post do- we read both sides, put it all up against the word of God, and then try to make an informed decsion based upon that.
Folks can both disagree on principle in a Godly manner, and agree with one another the same way and not be “playing into satan’s hand of divide and concur”. Or did you mean “divide and conquer?”
On the other hand, taking cheap shots, by attacking someone’s character or questioning their Christianity because you don’t agree with what’s being said about an issue, is doing exactly what satan wants.
Everyone makes mistakes, both personally and doctrinally, but few are willing to own up to them in a Godly way. They just get mad, take their marbles and go home. Don’t you think that’s another example of playing into satan’s hands?
ya got me there- yeah I agree.
Mark,
If you’ll note the title of the post, it is a specific response to Greg Boyd. I’m not laying a groundwork, presenting both sides and refuting one of those positions. I am addressing someone who has a lot of experience on the topic and doesn’t need his own views read back to him. In the mean time, does God’s foreknowledge effect the cross? If it does, we’ve all got issues. I’ll get into the implications at a later time. In the meantime, Jim’s provided some great resources to read BEFORE you start getting all upset.
-d
Too late.
“The coach and owner of the Indianapolis Colts both credited God for the success of their organization. Man, what a bunch of fruitcakes!”
Amen! Like God cares about football…
And I’m not an OT. This isn’t a defense of it, but rather pointing to the fact that the word “dangerous” is used far too liberally and no one has yet to show me the actual danger of walking out the logic of that belief to the hilt. I just haven’t seen it.
It’s funny how only Calvinist historians defend Calvin. No bias there…(rolls eyes)…
Yah, you guys missed the point real bad. It actually has nothing to do with Calvin versus anyone. I’m showing how you say one guys is dangerous. Somehow that must mean that real harm and destruction will come in some way shape or form to one who adheres to OT. I can’t see it, BUT I can very easily see how “dangerous” it would be to walk in the shoes of these Reformers if you follow them to the logical end of what they said was right. And then I asked, “Who’s dangerous?”. You guys just aren’t being totally honest about who is really dangerous, or what “danger” means.
I’m not ‘ALL’ upset. Like I was yelling at my computer and spitting the whole time…ya’ll missed it bad. What grinds on me is how quick you call someone dangerous without levying equity toward your own Titans and warning people about those dangers. My issue is one of equal picking-on I guess.
So, having said all that, my point is (the horse is dead now with…never mind, I was gonna quote something Beavis once said about this time that Butthead jumped on a dead horses stomach…
that I just want someone here to give a logical and thought out scenario or an actual danger from following OT and all that it implies, hypothetical or actual. My point is also to say that saying one is dangerous doesn’t make him so. Folks say being Calvinist is dangerous (Dan Corner is a great one for this…ad nauseum). I don’t agree with that and wouldn’t say it. I go tit for tat on certain issues when they come up, but as a whole can’t with good conscience apply a label of “dangerous” to men who enrich me and even get on my nerves and force me to find their errors. Heck, my best friend is essentially at least a 3 or 4 pointer…we served the body of Christ together in his church he pastored in Turlock, CA for a little while. It ruled.
See my point? I feel like you guys paid way-hay-hay too much attention to what I said about the historical facts about Calvin rather than seeing that that was to point to the fact that none of you who follow him would ever publicly say that following all that he held to be truth from God is “dangerous”, even though it would be. I mean, he wasn’t even on the List.
You’re simply not being fair or honest with yourselves or anyone here when you do that.
Why is he (Greg) dangerous? DANGER means death. “Caution” is for wet roads, but that won’t kill you by itself. Danger is for a bridge out. You can’t drive off a bridge and live, you die. I remember the ‘89 earthquake in SF. I was playing soccer that day for Fremont Christian when it hit (freshman dork). I remember the news reel showing car after car driving off the edge of a collapsed part of the Cypress structure. Every single one died. Danger has real danger. Danger is a house on fire.
So how is this dude dangerous?
Jim, yah, I’ve read Pipers critiques side by side with Boyd’s. I’ve not been especially impressed by either side. I guess I’m a Calminian. I don’t know and seriously, these issues have not affected my walk at all and that is the other reason why I can’t see the danger. I can’t see how I would benefit from either view. So I just believe what I read even when some verses make God look like He’s watching something happen and develop for the first time (not learning, just observing something new in time), or the one’s that blatantly say He knew the end from the beginning. He’s God, I guess for now that’ll have to do.
Oh, and Calvin didn’t say God helped him, he called it God’s work. God only wrote one book, not two. His language was exact and not vague or ambiguous. C’mon dude…
I’m not and don’t want to defend OT, but I hate duplicity in judgment and couldn’t hold it in any longer. Enough is enough; attack everything false with equity or hold your peace. Other wise it comes off like some kind of Reformed bigotry. I said you come off as one, not that you are one…just so you don’t hear that wrong.
Trust me, if Arminius had skeletons in his closet I’d have ‘em hanging from the rafters!
Technically, I’m not even a true Arminian. I’ve not read one single document of his. I haven’t even read Wesley on those issues, nor Finney. I have no desire to really. It helps out when folks tell you you’re a brainwashed heretic from reading those guys’ stuff…then I can tell ‘em I never read any of their stuff, just the bible. But enough of that…
…whoa, I just noticed that the dumb thing bolded out a bunch of what I wrote up their…I didn’t know that looked that way. What the…
Ya, didn’t know that was gonna come out bold and italicised…I musta forgot to put the end deal on after a quote. Oops…makes it look even uglier.
D’oh.
Dang, it’s 9 o’clock. Stupid job has me out til 7-7:30. I shouldn’t have even wasted all this time, but what the heck I’ll post it now. Stupid bugs…
There’s, I feel, more explaining to do from what comments I read…but suffice it to say, I honestly think you guys missed my intentions, but I must not have worded good enough. I’ll have to take that instead of just assuming that all 8-9 of you are wrong and I’m right…or however many of you there are that are pissed at me.
I think that even now I feel to tired to be careful enough about how I phrase stuff, so sorry to all for coming off like a starving bear in February after hibernating the winter and having to go to the bathroom at the same time and not knowing which one to do first…
…what? I am tired…
g’night…
dale
Dangit I did it again…
should have ended the italics after that one sentence it started in.
goodness sakes…
‘night…
dale
(you don’t know me but I know where you live)
Mark,
You have still refused to deal with the substance of the post. Does the Bible teach that God possesses foreknowledge or not? If it does, then it is wrong for somone to teach the contrary.
Keith
Can I just take a stab at how a ministry with a deminished view of God can be harmful to the body of Christ? This is not Greg Boyd’s church so this is unfair to him but I’ll say it anyway. And I know I’m getting myself in trouble here. I used to a attend a mega church-actually the same church that JP Moreland used to attend years ago in Baltimore. It was a dispensationalist church and had, what I think is fair to say, a diminished view of God. Infact you would be hardpressed to find any bible exposition ever in any sermons. My roommate attended that church -she co-led a bible study with another guy and after each weekly study -when everyone left her appartment-they would sleep together. Another guy in the church is a contractor and infamous at that. My husband was just telling me that there are numerous lawsuits against him. Infact a couple my husband has been doing work for wants to know the name of this guy’s church so they can call and let the church know how corrupt he is. He totally screwed them over and ran with the money. So my appologies to Greg Boyd, but I this is what happens when you have a powerless church with a powerless god.
And just so I don’t sound holier than thou, to be fair I was doing the same with my boyfriend.
Mark (or Dale) Every wrong doctrine about God is dangerous straight acroos the board because they all lead to a destination eventualy far from the God who has revealed Himself in scripture.
How can you ask why Open Theism is dangerous? If they teach that God does not know the future in certain areas which brother Boyd does then it portrays God as not being omnisient ( knows every thing lol) This is a different God from the one revealed in scripture who according to one Theologue says there are 1437 scriptural references to the the future being settled!
how is teaching something wrong about God not dangerous?
So Mark jr/Dale, buddy
If for no other reason than it is the first step in a process that will ultimately lead us to a different god, a god of our own design , a god who cannot save the lost for he is a different god from the one revealed in scripture.
That seems rather dangerous to me!
Mark, jr.
First of all let me say that I’m a fan of many of your articles on your personal forum. They are really well thought out and scriptural. So it’s a little hard for me to understand your position on this one, brother, it really is.
If we are to judge a tree by its fruit as scripture counsels, then a diminished God would produce diminished fruit. Diminished fruit would produce diminished Christians. Diminished Christians would produce the same. Ultimately, we would be preaching a diminished gospel, with a diminished impact.
If that’s not hazardous to everyone’s spiritual health, what is?
I’m sure I don’t need to answer for Mark Jr. (a.k.a. tazmanian devil is it?) love ya Mark- and I’m sure he’ll be coming on the scene soon (sound of drumr roll…)but I think if I understand him right, dangerous churches are not just churches with bad theology. I’ve been in some great PCA churches and one not so good. I mean we watched RC sunday mornings and we had our points down but the church was chained to the programs and how things had to be. I mean my bible study leader thought it was more important for all of us to attend the church strawberry festival then spend an afternoon with our families. UH.. come on eatin strawberry shortcake and drinking tea from fine china -yeah like that is gona do loads for the kingdom. Thats about the time my brother died (see mark’s post on earnestly. contend..)
so I really missed the boat there. So maybe we should take Greg Boyd off the list and add collectively all the dead churches out there that are stuck in their traditions and won’t allow the Spirit OF God TO ACTUALLY MOVE ONCE IN A WHILE. Maybe they by shear numbers are doing more damage then Greg Boyd’s church is doing.
Mary,
Certainly we are in agreement that any church that promotes bad theology , or requires slavish devotion to the traditions of men, is not promoting the kingdom of God in the way that God would desire it. No one is questioning that point. In fact you gave a really good example of that in action, I thought.
What we are talking about specifically is how Open Theism, Dr. Boyd’s theory that God doesn’t have full foreknowledge of the future leads to doubting God’s omnipotence. We are not trying to pick on Dr. Boyd or his church personally, but are trying to understand where in scripture his theory is supported by fact.
Keith is right. No one who holds to Dr’ Boyd’s theory has really addressed his belief scripturally yet, and that is the whole point of the post. We have heard every other explanation from Boyd’s camp but that one.
So, guys, could we all please try to be respectful of Drew by confining our comments to the original subject and content of this post?
Alright Mark,
Fortunately for you, I have some free time today. I hope you appreciate this.
Practical implications/dangers of Open Theism:
1. Boyd speaks of the “comfort” provided to those in the midst of tragedy by knowing that God was just as surprised by the event as they were and therefore relates to our pain in a “real” way. This is no comfort at all (at least not divine comfort). I would like to think that you, Mark, would also “feel my pain” if tragedy were to strike my life.
2. There is no “divine purpose” in our suffering – it is merely the consequence of the free will actions of others. This flies in the face of Scripture. Heb. 12: 5-6; The “discipline of the Lord” is the “hostility of sinners”. Therefore, there IS divine purpose in the “free will” actions of others. God uses the actions of others to discipline His children.
3. Dangerous hermeneutic: OT derives doctrine from narrative passages (Sodom & Gomorrah, Abraham’s offering of Isaac, etc.) and uses it to trump (or reinterpret) doctrine clearly taught from didactic texts (those intended to explicitly teach doctrine). For example: God “changes His mind” with Abraham in regards to the fate of Sodom & Gomorrah. Therefore, according to OT, God is malleable and “repents” of His decisions if appropriately appealed to. Never mind the explicit didactic teachings of Isaiah, Romans, Ephesians, etc. to the contrary. Instead, clear doctrinal teaching (e.g. God’s exhaustive foreknowledge) should inform our reading of narrative passages. This might not sound all that “dangerous”, but the same source of error is found in the Prophetic movement; namely, making the Bible say whatever you want it to say with a sloppy (or nonexistent) hermeneutic.
4. God becomes a “risk-taker” who cannot really be trusted. My understanding of OT’s view of Biblical history (at least from one author) is this: God “risked” creating Adam & Eve w/libertarian free will. God really believed this would work out. Alas, it did not. On to Plan B: Noah and the Flood. God selected one righteous man and his family; drowned everyone else. God really believed this would work out. Unfortunately, Noah was drunk and naked within, it seems, moments of the consummation of his divine rescue. On to Plan C: Israel. God really believed this would work out. For those of us who have read the Old Testament, we know this did not exactly pan out either. On to Plan D: Christ and His Church. John Sanders goes so far as to say that Father and Son did not ultimately decide “yea or nay” on the Cross until the Garden of Gethsemane (a prime example of Danger #2).
5. I believe the biggest danger of OT is the diminished confidence one has in God as a result of Danger #3. Plans A-C did not work out. How can we be sure Plan D (Christ/Church) will? The OT system undermines the entirety of Christian faith! The Cross was not the culmination of God’s plan from the foundation of the world, but merely His latest risk-venture in response to man’s libertarian free will actions.
“Yah, you guys missed the point real bad. It actually has nothing to do with Calvin…”
Uhhhh… you were the one who decided to invest 3 pages, 14 paragraphs and 1,115 words in assailing the man (yes, I counted). If we missed your point, the fault likely lies with you. If you have the time, I really would recommend the Piper biography on Calvin. My intent is not necessarily to bring you over to the dark side, but to give you a bit more balanced and charitable view of Calvin. Your comments evidence an unholy hatred and/or stupendous ignorance of his life and ministry.
“Oh, and Calvin didn’t say God helped him, he called it God’s work. God only wrote one book, not two. His language was exact and not vague or ambiguous. C’mon dude…”
Dude, I don’t know who tainted your view so hatefully of this man, but you sound ridiculous. Without Calvin, there is no Sola Scriptura. Whoever told you Calvin truly believed his Institutes were equal with Scripture is a fool. You could argue that Calvin thought VERY highly of his work – perhaps too highly. Calvin (like all Reformed thinkers) believed that God’s absolute sovereignty necessitates His direct involvement in everything. Therefore, it is neither unnatural nor heretical for Calvin to say that his work was God’s doing.
Does it ever give you pause that all these men you say you admire/respect (Piper, MacArthur, Begg, Sproul, etc.) would hold your valuation of Calvin as insane? Again, I’m really not trying to convert you, but it seems your tolerance of OT springs from a weird animus toward Calvin and Reformed theology.
God Bless
P.S. Is your job as awesome as it sounds?
I just wrote a response to each individual persons claims.
Then I deleted it. I feel much better.
OT’s believe in foreknowledge. All of them. They think everyone else just has it wrong in the right understanding of it. Like this guys right here http://www.biblical-theology.com/omniscience2/meaning.htm
For them, they see everyone else as having the diminished view. Saying someone has a diminished view doesn’t make it so.
“Refused” isn’t what I was doing Keith. Just tired and sleepy…it was late both times I wrote.
The funny thing about the “diminished God” remark is that these guys are powerful evangelistic types who preach very convicting messages to the unsaved. God’s law, BAM, you’re guilty and going to hell. Then they introduce Jesus. I don’t see and have not seen their “diminished view of God” have any affect on them at all. In fact, it almost seems to make them take life a little more seriously…like they have responsiblity. I’m sorry, after knowing these guys for the last 9 years I can say that there is not one speck of defect in their walk from their belief. So it’s not just speculation, there is no evidence in my world of friends to justify the “danger” claim.
If all error is dangerous, then dang dude, everyone is jacked. I don’t know of a single church that doesn’t have error in something they teach. I don’t call them dangerous until it begins to create sin, or produce it as a byproduct. I’ve seen the prophetic movement do that over and over again. Hence the danger.
I guess I only see sin as danger, not just having a wrong idea about something if it doesn’t actually tarnish the life you live. I mean, is Drew a sinner or dangerous because he’s a cessasionist? That’s total error, as many of you here would agree (even the co-contributor), yet no one has put the label of dangerous on ‘ol Drewster. Why? BECAUSE IT ISN’T WARRANTED, even though he has errant beliefs. But then he’d say the same about me. So now I’m dangerous. Oooo, danger…danger…it’s everywhere!!
I believe that a lot of what has been expressed on this blog is totally in error. But I haven’t called you guys dangerous. Why? Because the errant things some of you believe don’t cause sin or destruction.
Jim, my job is pretty much awesome. I mean, psh, I kill bugs and drive around eating and drinking….sweet tea. Mmm, God bless the south. California never had sweet tea anywhere. Oh yah, and BBQ joints are everywhere out here. This job is great!
So folks, all’s I can say is that I have not seen in almost 10 years now how the OT teachings are dangerous anymore than Calvinism or Pentecostal teachings (tongues is the only evidence kinda stuff) or anything else. I know many great men from all those three just mentioned. DANGER isn’t a word that comes to mind when I think of my Calvinist or my OT friends. Their views are not totally mine, but it could be worse…
…they could be going to Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship!
mark jr.
Mark,
With all due respect, you have yet to address any of the substantive issues raised in regards to OT. All you have offered is, “But I know some OT guys, and they’re really great!” And, “They really do believe in foreknowledge… just differently.” As you have repeatedly stated, saying it doesn’t prove it.
I’m not pressing you on this to aggravate you, but because I think you’re a pretty bright guy. The arguments you are making are IDENTICAL to those proffered by the wild-eyed charismaniacs who lambaste Drew and Keith for daring to question the likes of Bickle, Joyner, Cain, etc.
You asked for examples of how OT is dangerous. Many have been offered, yet you have not interacted with one. I’ll try again:
Did you know that many prominent OTs also believe in annihilationism (no hell) and inclusivism (all roads lead to heaven)? If you have read any OT authors, you will notice that all emphasize God’s love – trumping all of His other attributes. This is really, I believe, at the heart of OT: God is Love (and nothing else). Therefore, God cannot be ultimately responsible for evil (therefore, a theology must be devised that gets God “off the hook” for sovereignly decreeing all human history – good and evil). This over-emphasis on God’s love leads invariably to heretical notions like annihilationism (a loving God certainly cannot send people to eternal torment in hell) and inclusivism (the flip-side of annihilationism).
Dangerous enough for ya?
Hey Mark, because you say that even our own Drew has theology that is wrong does that mean hes dangerous? Well yes it does… if he is wrong, for all bad theology is dangerous no mater how much we like or respect the individual.
There are no exceptions, wrong belief and wrong teaching always leads to dangerous places.
Do we all have some theology that is wrong then? Quite possibly!
Does that make us all dangerous? Yes we all have to potential to do dangerous things with the wrong doctrine we embrace if we actually have wrong doctrine.
This potential destructive ability then should lead us all to walk with a teachable heart and a fear of God. We should walk with the prayer that God might lead us out of any darkness we walk in, for if we do walk in darkness, it is also in ignorance.
The possibility that we could be embracing wrong theology should never be an excuse for not trying to address known wrong theology that we see around us.
It is just not helpful nor responsible to think, ‘that guy does not have good theology but that does not matter cause really hes an ok Guy.’ In such an attitude we are neither blessing the ok guy nor are we helping to protect Christ’s Church.
One more wee comment,
I believe if we teach wrong theology about God it is sin. I know that sounds really harsh but if we teach wrong theology we deceive people by misrepresenting the character and nature of the Almighty. For the vast majority of us this is a sin of ignorance and thank the Lord that His shed blood cleanses us from all sin but I believe that it is still a sin and as such no small thing.
I didn’t want to drop names in the above comment, because I was not 100 % certain and I don’t want to libel anyone.
However, I am certain now.
Greg Boyd is, essentially, an annihilationist.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2002/1197_Greg_Boyd_on_the_The_Eternal_Suffering_of_Agents_Who_HaveBeen_Annihilated/
Clark Pinnock is certainly an annihilationist.
“How can Christians possibly project a deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness whose ways include inflicting everlasting torture upon his creatures, however sinful they may have been? Surely a God who would do such a thing is more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards, and by the gospel itself.”
- Clark Pinnock, “The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent,” Criswell Theological Review 4 (Spring 1990):246-47.
John Sanders is a self-described inclusivist.
“The final theological argument in support of inclusivism draws on the previous arguments and applies them to the real-life situations in which the unevangelized find themselves—participants in religions other than Christianity. No one supposes that the unevangelized are devoid of religious practice or worship; the question is whether God is at work redemptively with such people. Inclusivists argue both theologically and anthropologically that God is at work redemptively in the lives of all people.
- John Sanders, No Other Name, p. 241
Those are the Big Three of OT.
Error is error, Mark jr. And while I agree with you no one is immune to it, calling it something else to defend friends who are Godly examples in other ways doesn’t establish truth either. I thought it was God’s truth that all of us Christians are supposed to be operating under, regardless of our denominational beliefs, whether we’re Calvinists, Armenians, Reformed, good friends, admired teachers, or whatever.
Like you, I’ve a lot of friends who can preach the word of God on a level with anyone, and they too lead very Godly lives, but they are still not promoting correct doctrine. So what good is it to tell someone that Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and the word of God is inerrant, and then turn around and tell them they are going to be serving a God who sometimes, maybe knows some of the future.
That’s like saying it’s okay to believe in someone’s prophecy when they’re only right 66% of the time, just because those that prophesy are sincere in their beliefs. The result is the same with Open Theism, because it makes God less than 100% in all things.
In John 7: even Jesus makes the case for not judging by appearances, when He is doubted by His brothers to the point that they tell Him to prove Himself by doing miracles in public. ” I’m not teaching my own ideas, but those of God who sent me. Anyone who wants to do the will of God will know whether my teaching is from God or merely my own.” Shouldn’t that be the same criteria we all judge ourselvesand other Christian’s by , regardless of who they are, especially if Jesus, our Lord and Savior judged Himself that way?
He goes on to say, in verse 24, “Do not judge by appearances, but with righteous judgment.” Many doctrines nowadays appear to be all right, because they are sincerely spoken, by men who sincerely believe them. But sincerity, in and of itself, does not establish truth.
You said it yourself a few posts ago to someone else. “God’s word is the plumbline.” So give me a case for defending Open Theism on that basis, like you do so well on your personal forum, and I’ll understand where you’re coming from a little better.
I’m not attacking you, please understand that. I’m only encouraging you to make one of your typical well thought out, scriptural responses.
Jim I just read the thoughts of Mr Boyd from the posting you placed. I know this sounds very simplistic, it is but the guy seems to camoflage his points in verbage. No doubt he seems a master of english for to pin the man down on what he actually is saying is more difficult than nailing jello to a tree!
Strange how clearly the scriptures seem to be compared to the wordy semi intelligable arguments that Dr Boyd uses to neither support The historical doctrine of the eternal punishment of the damned and the heretical anihilation views of the modernists!
What ever the brilliant mind of the man actualy said, I don’t like it and the fact that I did not completely understand all that he wrote only enforces my view that he is wrong!
God never intended scripture to be only understood by people with post graduate degrees and true I don’t have one.
I would hate for that guy to try and teach Sunday school!
Mark,
Sorry, but I just can’t relent.
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj12a.pdf
The above article by John MacArthur does an excellent job of demonstrating OT’s rejection of substitutionary atonement.
Danger! Danger!
Guys I know that this is the wrong place to post this but the information found on this web site goes a long way to helping us understand what we are actually up against. Its the International Coalition of Apostles own web site and you can access a few very interesting PDF documents as to who they are and how they define an apostle. I hope this helps if you have not already accessed it.
http://www.apostlesnet.net/index.asp?action=home
Here’s another excellent one on the dangers of Open Theism:
http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/articles/read_articles.asp?id=69
Paul,
Thanks, that is an interesting site.
“He then asked C. Peter Wagner to assume overall leadership of ICA as Presiding Apostle.”
“Membership is attained only by official invitation from the Presiding Apostle.”
Hmmmm… Maybe we should refer to him as Pope Wagner I.
“What Some Apostles Do: • Exposing heresy.”
Oh, really… Maybe Drew and Keith should petition for a papal invitation.
“Special Characteristics of Workplace Apostles: - Negotiating legal structures. Workplace apostles intuitively move through and around legal entanglements. They do not allow legal structures to set boundaries restricting what God can do.”
Yikes! “Negotiating legal structures” sounds a lot like “breaking the law”. So much for integrity as an apostolic qualification…
(Sorry, Drew/Keith – this really has nothing to do with Open Theism.)
And to “pay” $500.00 a year or $250.00 to become and retain being a “member of the elite”.
lol I thought that was agood deal to pay 250$ if you live outside canada! lol
Drew and Keith I would request that you do a blog on the contents of this International Coalition of Apostles site as really its out there man! It clearly shows the degree to which these men and women will violate scripture to usurp authority and set up as an alternative spiritual government to over run the established Church.
Would you please address this in the future some time?
“Did you know that many prominent OTs also believe in annihilationism (no hell) and inclusivism (all roads lead to heaven)? If you have read any OT authors, you will notice that all emphasize God’s love – trumping all of His other attributes. ”
Not the ones I know. It seems that as many as believe some of OT there are as many different guys. The ones I’m talking about would never teach that. But then people who aren’t OT teach that too (Seventh Day Adventists).
You’re right about those things…that stuff is bunk, but as far as I know is not intrisically linked to OT. Lovey-duvey Jesus crap is everywhere…
Atonement issues….yah, that is bunk, but once again, not all who hold to OT believe that. It’s kinda like this: not all southern white men drink Bud, wear wife beaters and have their names on their belt buckles. But a lot do. You’re right about the major things you addressed…but as far as I know, that again is not intrinsic to OT, just people making God kinda…queer, I guess. Well, not gay, just weiner.
“Error is error, Mark jr. And while I agree with you no one is immune to it, calling it something else to defend friends who are Godly examples in other ways doesn’t establish truth either.”
Yep. I haven’t called it something else, at all. I’ve just pointed out that so far, and this is limited to those I know, it hasn’t turned them into guys who don’t believe in eternal hell, atonment as substitutionary, inclusivism (I understand that to be Carlton Pierson’s error? true?), or any of the other things pointed out. You guys are right about those….and those beliefs will make you stupid and are dangerous errors.
However, and once again this is limited to those I know personally who don’t hold to any of the things listed above, their views about what foreknowledge is hasn’t made them stop believing in the nature of atonement, eternal burning in hell, whatever the opposite of inclusivism is (lol), or any of the other horrible doctrines listed by brutha Jim.
OT’s may believe those seperate ideas, but it seems that just the basic tenets of whatever predestination and foreknowledge mean have not caused these idiotic doctrines to come into their lives. JIm, dude, you are totally 100% right about all those other aberrant teachings…but do you have to believe those things to still consider yourself one with an open view?
Maybe my buddies really aren’t open theists…it’s wierd…lemme give you a reference point as to what these guys are like by listing the major influences they lean on:
Paris Reidhead (if you’ve never heard “Ten Shekels and a Shirt”, man, yooz missin’ out), Tozer, Ravenhill, Duncan Campbell (Hebredes Revival), Wesley, Edwards, Whitefield, Finney (minus the legalistic/perfectionism that he later renounced in his old age), BIG TIME RAY COMFORT FANS, especially in how they witness, and more guys like them you believe in literal hell, eternal hell that is, and all the important aspect of Christs’ diety, the trinity, atonement, yahda yahda yahda…
So I don’t know. They don’t believe a single thing that Jim pointed out as coming from the OT camp…and once I share with them those things they may eschew that title alltogether. Most disturbing. Honestly, I had no idea that those guys believed that stuff. So now I know why your guys’ skin has been crawling the whole time I have “seemingly” just kinda sluffed off some of these guys teachings….ech, no, dude, had I known that, I would have been much more distinct.
So yah, they have a view of foreknowledge that is different and a view of predestination that is different, but that’s about all, as far as what seems to be considered OT.
Paul, I guess you made a decent point about danger. I just don’t want to jump up and down and wave my hands like a freak. I try to look at people in an “over all” way and just nail what is aberrant (spelled wrong?) in their thinking…but I think I’m supposed to have charity in those issues. As long as folks hold to the basics about Christs’ diety, the nature/purpose of his death, repentance, obedience, holiness…oh yeah, hell…I don’t know, I know that lot’s of dudes with bunk theology have been so radically used of God to save literally hundreds of thousands that I just try to be gracious in what I say. Wesley was way too legalistic, IMO, as was Finney by his own admission later in life….yet thousands were converted and between those two they averaged about 70-80 percent as far as a “no falling away” count goes. I think Edwards and Spurgeon had it wrong on many things, yet they rocked England and America. As I said before, we really have no America without Puritans….all who were Calvinist, yet holy, HOLY men of God.
You guys see what I mean yet?
I guess my ignorance as to the rest of what these OT yahoo’s teach only made things worse….I had no idea that those teachings were considered to be inside the pale of OT…I mean, I’m pissed now after reading that crap.
Well this was fun.
I thought OT was just a “nature of what the future is” kinda deal.
I’m done folks…if I’ve not done a satisfactory job on this last post, then I just suck and you’ll have to deal with that.
One last summary: I haven’t seen someone who has a different view of what the future actually is believe the crap that Jim shared. My buds that think foreknowledge is more along the lines of prognosis don’t live wack or have any other dumb view that you guys discussed. I just flat out had no idea that that other stuff was considered OT. So no, I wasn’t dogding those things, I just didn’t know that those things were on your mind as being part and parcel of OT. One might suppose that an OT can’t be secure in God’s power with a view like that, but I haven’t seen them shaken in that area. So I can’t say that a view like that will neccessarily produce lack of confidence in God’s keeping power cuz I just haven’t seen it…and like, it’s been 9 years for one guy, and about 6 years for the other, so it’s not like I’m just guessing that it does no harm…I mean, when you watch someone’s life for almost a decade, you’d like to think that if something is gonna cause trouble, you’d see it within 10 years. I don’t know…
I’m done.
Love you all very, VERY much…
mark jr.
I hope being done, doesn’t mean you’re leaving us Mark, Jr. We may honestly disagree with you at times, but we love you too..and sincerely hope you’ll stay around.
I was thinking about this whole thing, being that God works all things to the good, according to His purpose, is that maybe this all came up for a reason.
Now that you do know some of the erroneous things these OT folks advocate, and why we are so concerned about them, maybe you can talk to your friends about it, and share some of these resources with them, in your own way.