Southern prof in middle of growing open theism debate

http://bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=14006 ^ | August 12, 2002 | Michael Foust

[DittoJed2]

Here's another for ya.

[CCWoody]

"Scripture has always been understood very personally here: Christ died for you and he paid for your sins," Ware writes before quoting 1 Peter 2:24, "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross."

"This [doctrine] is lost in open theism, and more importantly, the open view here is not what the Bible teaches." Boyd argues that Christ paid the price for "possible" future sins and that he "over-paid" for all the sins of the world.

Sanders and Boyd both argue that Ware's arguments against open theism can be equally applied to Arminianism, a model accepted within evangelicalism that, among other things, holds that God's election of sinners is based on foreknowledge.

Yep, you open theists, xzins and wc, have Jesus blood spilled in vain, the Father having the Son murdered in a willy nilly haphazard way where creation runs out of God's control.

Of course, I agree with Boyd in that "Ware's arguments against open theism can be equally applied to Arminianism."

[drstevej]

***Boyd, though, disagrees, saying that "since open theists hold that God is able to unilaterally settle as much of the future ahead of time as he desires, there is nothing in principle preventing us from affirming any specific decree of God.... Our view simply holds that God leaves open whatever aspects of the future he sovereignly chooses to leave open."***

It seems that both Open Theism and Arminianism believe God chooses to leave man free to accept or reject salvation. Open Theists want to leave many more things open.

There is only a difference in degree between Arminianism and Open Theism. They are clearly fraternal twins but not Siamese Twins. IMO both diminiish man's depravity and God's sovereignty in an unsuccesful attempt to rescue God from bad press and to soothe pastoral couseling perplexities.

Arminians who want to retain predictive prophecy and inerrancy stop short of a fully open view of God. Arminian is not Open Theology, but it is Theology Ajar!

[The Grammarian]

It seems that both Open Theism and Arminianism believe God chooses to leave man free to accept or reject salvation. Open Theists want to leave many more things open.

That is a simplistic and misleading way of describing Arminianism's hamartiology and soteriology.

There is only a difference in degree between Arminianism and Open Theism. They are clearly fraternal twins but not Siamese Twins. IMO both diminish man's depravity and God's sovereignty in an unsuccesful attempt to rescue God from bad press and to soothe pastoral couseling perplexities.

As long as you are stating that that's your "opinion" of Arminianism, I'm not going to bother debating it.

Arminians who want to retain predictive prophecy and inerrancy stop short of a fully open view of God. Arminian is not Open Theology, but it is Theology Ajar!

You seem to think that predictive prophecy and inerrancy demands causation. Foreknowledge isn't necessity; in other words, just because God knows something will happen doesn't mean that God has caused (at least, actively) it to happen.

[drstevej]

When Paul wrote Romans did God know he would write it or did God breathe it through Paul?

[The Grammarian]

When Paul wrote Romans did God know he would write it or did God breathe it through Paul?

Both. And this is irrelevant to a discussion of the main issue with "predictive prophecy," which is that 'foreknowledge' somehow interferes with one's free agency.

[drstevej]

I thought we'd start with inerrancy.

[The Grammarian]

I thought we'd start with inerrancy.

That's one of the few points that we agree upon. I fail to see how it tips the scales of debate in Calvinism's favor to say that Arminians often hold positions of biblical inerrancy.

[drstevej]

My point is that the desire to retain inerrancy keeps some Arminians from walking down the OT path.

Have to go to my son's school open house...

[RnMomof7]

Just had a nice visit with Jean C and family:>) Flagged to the list..

[Jerry_M]

The SBC rejects open theism, while the CBF gives it "serious consideration".

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. - I John 2:19

Good riddance to old (and new) rubbish!

[winstonchurchill]

My point is that the desire to retain inerrancy keeps some Arminians from walking down the OT path.

First, thanks to dittojed2 for posting the interesting article.

As to your specific comment above, I would appreciate your fleshing out how you see open theism as negating or diminishing a commitment to inerrancy.

I have thought that one of the OT proponents' strongest cases is the OT ability to accept the 'plain meaning' of many important Old Testament passages on God relenting and changing His mind, i.e. interacting with mankind. So, at least in the respect of accepting the plain meaning of Scripture, OT seems to make a pretty strong case for inerrancy.

[RnMomof7]

CBF ???

[DittoJed2]

CBF is the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship- the liberal wing of the Southern Baptist Convention. They got themselves kicked out of places of power in the convention in the mid-eighties and refuse to support the Cooperative program which funds our missionaries, helps pay for ministers tuition, etc., Some have gone the way of mainline churches. Inerrancy was a key issue in the 80s. CBFers do not support it.

[RnMomof7]

Thanks

[Hank Kerchief]

"This [doctrine] is lost in open theism, and more importantly, the open view here is not what the Bible teaches." Boyd argues that Christ paid the price for "possible" future sins and that he "over-paid" for all the sins of the world.

The doctrine that the atonement was "payment" for sin is Calvinist doctrine. There is not one word of Scripture that says sin is payed for. This fact is completely ignored by Cavlinists.

The consequences of sin are never described as a debt, but rather a wage or payment one receives. The wages of sin is death. It is a sentence that must be born, not a payment that can be made to make the sin OK.

The idea that sin can be paid for is the basis of RC indulgences and Calvinist heresy, but is totally unBiblical.

So long as you continue to misunderstand this very basic idea from Scripture, there is no hope you will understand the rest of it.

[CCWoody]

You are an anti-Trinitarian Modalist. Please explain why I should even consider a single word you say concerning the nature of the Atonement.

[Jerry_M]

"CBF is the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship- the liberal wing of the Southern Baptist Convention."

They are not a "wing", but have "flown the coop", and are a new convention in place of the SBC for the liberals.

[Hank Kerchief]

Please explain why I should even consider a single word you say concerning the nature of the Atonement.

Please do not consider anything I say about the atonement, only what God says about the atonement. Why should you do that? Because the fate of your immortal soul depends on it.

I am not your enemy? I do not use the same words you do, because I am suspiscious of what the Catholics invented outside the Word of God, and you are not. The truth is the truth, no matter who speaks it.

Hank