Open Theology: A Response to John Piper by Dr. Gregory Boyd

Biblical Theology ^ | Dr. Gregory Boyd

[xzins]

Secondly, I agree with Oden that if anyone claimed that God was "ignorant" of anything that existed this would be a heresy, for it would be admitting that God is limited. But I do not affirm this. God is not "ignorant" of a unicorn in my office, because there is no unicorn in my office. So too God is not "ignorant" of the future if in fact the future is not exhaustively there to be known.

God doesn't foreknow what is not going to end up being true about the future. Makes sense to me.

[Corin Stormhands]

Bookmarked.

(I'll never get all my homework done...)

[xzins]

You've got homework?

What are you studying?

[Corin Stormhands]

I mean my FR homework.

However I am in the midst of organizing myself to get back into the study with an institution you know quite well.

[Revelation 911]

God doesn't foreknow what is not going to end up being true about the future. Makes sense to me.

x, is that to say though that He knows all of the possibilities?

Otherwise He ends up limited

[xzins]

Wow. Can I go too?

:>)

On the serious side, though it is good that we affirm that God knows all of reality. Boyd says he does believe that. He says he's accused of saying that God is ignorant of some things. He replies that he believes God knows everything in all of reality.

He cautions, though, that God does not know about the new Beemer sportscar in my garage. Why? Because there is no beemer sportscar in my garage.

Applied to the future, he appears to be saying that God prefectly knows of that someday I will choose to receive social security at age 62 or 65 or 70. That decision, however, hasn't arrived yet. Therefore, God knows it as a decision I will make because He has granted me the free choice to make decisions.

Is that what you understand him to be saying?

[xzins]

Boyd argues that God does know all of the possibilities.

I think Alamo-girl's (and marlowe's?) criticisms on the other thread are the best. The problem with Boyd is that he is short-sighted regarding the issue of time and God's timelessness and outside-of-timeness. (Did I actually just write that sentence? :>)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the ping to this thread!

Here are the links to P-Marlowe's post and mine.

The summary of my view was as follows, though it doesn't make much sense unless attached to the previous article (LOL!):

The author does not define time and thus draws his conclusions hastily; since our physical vision and mind are "anthropomorphic" to space/time, it is reasonable to conclude that the Scriptures are also primarily anthropomorphic to space/time.

Thank you so much for all the encouragements on the previous thread! Hugs!

[Vernon]

The author does not define time and thus draws his conclusions hastily; since our physical vision and mind are "anthropomorphic" to space/time, it is reasonable to conclude that the Scriptures are also primarily anthropomorphic to space/time.

Absolutely, Amen. It MUST be anthropomorphic since that relates to the Space, Time, Energy, Mass box aspect of reality. If it was not anthropomorphic (within the STEM box), we would not perceive the transcendent aspect of God, thus anything in the Bible, including the Incarnation, etc., would not be available to us.

[Alamo-Girl]

If it was not anthropomorphic (within the STEM box), we would not perceive the transcendent aspect of God

Indeed. Thank you so much for your insight!

[CCWoody]

***God doesn't foreknow what is not going to end up being true about the future.***

Does this mean you are back on the Open Theism bandwagon?

As a saint, I have a duty to pull a brother out of his sins. But, there is that fine line where I am not even asked to pray about certain things which a professing Christian who is not really saved is mired in. See 1 John 5:16. I tend to regard Open Theism as a fatal sin because how could someone who has actually met the Lord believe something so outrageously wrong about Him. How could someone so degrade the majesty of God? Could I be wrong? Yep! I don't think so. I think this wind which bloweth through the church is of the same spirit as those who deny the Trinity. And she ain't the Holy Spirit.

I am also still tending to be of the opinion that it would not be to my FReep health to wade into this mess, even though I know a great deal about the fatal flaws in the arguments of Open Theism. Besides, my well reasoned argument would probably not be read. You yourself have in the past indicated that you don't read my posts.

Woody.

[xzins]

We are in a new era. A well-reasoned, non-flaming piece WOULD be read by me and probably others.

I think your knowledge of math and engineering(?) would be welcome in a discussion of time. Did you see Alamo-Girl's post on the other thread? Excellent.

I'm not an open theist. I want the freedom, however, to discuss it. And if someone is an open theist, I want them to have the freedom to discuss it.

"God doesn't foreknow as true that which is not going to be true about the future." Do you agree with that? That's what I was trying to say in the other line that you paste/copied.

[P-Marlowe]

I know a great deal about the fatal flaws in the arguments of Open Theism. Besides, my well reasoned argument would probably not be read.

Woody, if you have any specific criticizms of the article, then post them. If you are going to resort to calling every idea that does not comport with CCWoodyism a fatal sin, without providing evidence of that fact, then yes, maybe you ought not to participate.

The article was posted for discussion. I don't agree with it, but I'm not going to go off on a limb and claim that anyone who agrees with Boyd must be some kind of reprobate. Our salvation is not dependent upon our understanding of God in the realms of space/time/relativity, but only on our recognition of the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross.

Boyd's arguments are for the most part well reasoned, and they encroach upon areas where the scripture is not all that clear. Now maybe you think that everyone ought to be as clear on the subject as you or else they are not saved. Fine. Think it all you want. It doesn't make it true and it doesn't make you the final arbiter of all things orthodox.

So, if you have some specific criticizm of Dr. Boyd's arguments and you think you can convince everyone of the errors of his ways, then lets hear your viewpoint. If you can't do it, then don't even bother posting. Everybody knows that you think that you are the most orthodox person on the planet. You don't have to remind us in every post.

[Wrigley]

I'm not an open theist. I want the freedom, however, to discuss it. And if someone is an open theist, I want them to have the freedom to discuss it.

And who has said they can't?

[CCWoody]

***We are in a new era. A well-reasoned, non-flaming piece WOULD be read by me and probably others.***

This was not the answer you gave for not reading my posts in the past. They were simply too long. Or so you said.

***I think your knowledge of math and engineering(?) would be welcome in a discussion of time. Did you see Alamo-Girl's post on the other thread? Excellent.***

I have skimmed through them. But to be frank, my being an expert in certain things is irrevelant. The Omniscience of God is not "rocket science." It requires nothing more than a truth receptor in one's soul. See 1 Corinthians 2:14. There is a dangerous theme which plays out on these threads. Over and over, Arminians appeal to intelligence and scientific reasoning (please note that I'm not impeaching Alamo Girl) in the formulation and defense of their doctrines. We Calvinists come along with our Bible.

So, I am particularly uninterested in discussing "time" with you or anyone. If there is a disciple of Boyd here, I might be willing to show him/ her a thing or two about what the Scriptures really teach.

Woody.

[CCWoody]

*** the fatal flaws in the arguments *** ~ my actual words

***If you are going to resort to calling every idea that does not comport with CCWoodyism a fatal sin,...***

Are you intentionally misrepresenting me or trying to lay out some flame bait?

***Our salvation is not dependent upon our understanding of God in the realms of space/time/relativity, but only on our recognition of the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross.***

xzins, see what I mean about appeals to intelligence and scientific reasoning. The Omniscience of God really can be discussed Biblically.

***Everybody knows that you think that you are the most orthodox person on the planet.***

Is this personal flame called for?

Woody.

[xzins]

I don't know that there are any disciples of Boyd here. There might be, but they haven't announced themselves.

I understand you to say that you don't want to discuss these ideas with anyone who is not a disciple of Boyd.

Whatever my reasons for not reading your posts in the past, we've been told we're in a new era. I'm ok with that.

[xzins]

Actually, I think the omniscience of God being discussed biblically was Boyd's reason for going this route that is called open theology.

They wished to remain true to a high view of scripture and inspiration, and maintain a "literal" hermeneutic while taking the problem passages of God at face value.

If God said he repented of something, then they wanted to be literal about it. If God said, he changed his mind, then they wanted to be literal about it. If God said something never entered His mind, then they wanted to be literal about it.

But to do so required them to look for new ways to be literal about other portions of scripture.

I think it's fairly clear to me that they were being honest because I'd had the same concerns about some passages of scripture long before I ever heard of open theology.

[betty boop]

The problem with Boyd is that he is short-sighted regarding the issue of time and God's timelessness and outside-of-timeness. (Did I actually just write that sentence? :>)

Yep, you did -- and it makes perfect sense to me.

In that other Boyd thread (recently locked until Religion Mod has an opportunity to review it), Boyd draws the critical distinction between ontology and epistemology; but then it seems he lets the epistemological tail wag the ontological dog. I think he got seriously tripped up regarding his idea that God does not possess "exhaustively definite foreknowledge" (EDF) of the future.

Let's consider what that would mean. It seems this would suggest that God is a less than competent creator.

As Aristotle pointed out, no one would do anything unless he had a goal or purpose in view as the end of his action. This is certainly true of humans. But humans do not possess the perfections of God -- Who is absolutely omniscient and omnipotent, and absolutely eternal (wholly outside of space and time as we humans perceive these things).

Thus if God wills toward an end, certainly He knows what that end is; to conceive of it, to speak it, is already to have created it. But from the human point of view, all we can say is "it will come to pass" (note verb tense -- indicating future). From God's "vantage point" of eternity -- where there is no "future," but only Presence (Present), He already knows what that end is, even if we humans cannot; by His willing intelligence it already exists. (D. Bohm referred to the "implicit order," J. A. Wheeler to "pre-space," which to my mind denote the ontologically crucial distinction of timelessness-in-time; I think these concepts are analogous to what we are struggling to grasp here.)

God is First Cause, Prime Mover of creation. The creation itself is what Aristotle called Final Cause -- a cause toward which everything is apparently (from the human perspective) proceeding in time, a cause which does not serve or seek to benefit any particular element or constituent of the “collective everything,” but finally seeks realization of itself for its own sake – that is to say, for God’s sake.

As humans bound to space-time categories, it is extraordinarily difficult for us to comprehend the idea of an Eternal Now -- which is God, and which is with God. From God's point of view, what looks like "future" to us, already manifestly IS.

FWIW. I hope this makes sense, xzins! Thanks for the excellent posts.