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

Biblical Theology ^ | Dr. Gregory Boyd

[Vernon]

While Omniscience means to me that God knows everything, could it possibly mean that he has the ability to know everything but may choose to limit that knowledge. By an act of self choice, he has not changed the nature of His being, but rather demonstrates it in a different way.

[Corin Stormhands]

While Omniscience means to me that God knows everything, could it possibly mean that he has the ability to know everything but may choose to limit that knowledge.

Interesting thought Vern. When He says of our sins that He will "remember them no more" does He really forget them? I certainly remember them and He knows my thoughts and my words.

[xzins]

Someone said that for God to choose to not know something; first, He'd have to know what it is he has chosen not to know and, therefore, he would know it. Make sense?

[Revelation 911]

As a saint, I have a duty to pull a brother out of his sins.

with all respect of course woody, shouldn't Gods work through the Holy Spirit in thier hearts be enough?

Certainly, I think you can put the gospel before them - but isnt it up to God to kindle the flame?

The subsequent rejection of sin is then a fruit of the faith/spirit

To pull someone from sin and leave them in thier same condition seems works based and antropocentric

I'll go on to say that a natural / un-elect man who is pulled from sin - will return to it

Where is then is the biblical call to save un-elect

Rather, I think you should shake the dust from your shoes and leave it to God to pull the lost from sin

focus on convicting them in word and being an example for them

........and with that - I am off for a well deserved break with my family, some roasted chicken and maybe a salad

See ya fellas

[Corin Stormhands]

Someone said that for God to choose to not know something; first, He'd have to know what it is he has chosen not to know and, therefore, he would know it.

I dunno x. Why do I get this vision of angels dancing on the head of a pin? ;-)

[Vernon]

When He says of our sins that He will "remember them no more" does He really forget them?

I certainly hope so! What that means? Hebrew 8:12 and 10:17 both refer to God not remembering sins. Perhaps someone who is more familiar with the Greek than myself will respond, but as I understand it, the word "remember" is mnaomai and means to bear in mind, to recollect, and with the idea of reward or punishment. In the sense they are forgiven, this aspect of knowledge is covered by God's mercy and grace, and are no longer held against us.

I think that though God has all knowledge, he chooses not to bring those things to remembrance. For us, the hardest thing in the world is to forgive ourselves, or so it seems to me.

[Corin Stormhands]

Recognize that all clams will be steamed with butter in glory

[Vernon]

Why do I get this vision of angels dancing on the head of a pin? ;-)

ROFL...wonderful vision!...

[xzins]

angels on the head of a pin

Even as I typed it, I felt I was in some kind of time vortex. And then I heard late 60's bubblegum music. :>)

[CCWoody]

***with all respect of course woody, shouldn't Gods work through the Holy Spirit in thier hearts be enough?***

Can I presume that you actually read the verse which I noted in my post and that you are, in fact, disputing with the expressed Holy Writ? Or did you not read the verses?

If any man see his brother sinne a sinne that is not vnto death, let him aske, and he shall giue him life for them that sinne not vnto death. There is a sinne vnto death: I say not that thou shouldest pray for it.
(1Jo 5:16 GB)

Or how about this one...

Brethren, if any of you hath erred from the trueth, and some man hath conuerted him, Let him know that he which hath conuerted the sinner from going astray out of his way, shall saue a soule from death, and shall hide a multitude of sinnes.
(Jam 5:19-20 GB)

Woody.

[RnMomof7]

For those interested in another point of view.

Open Theology

Universalism is neither new nor unique in the world of cults.  It has existed in various forms throughout history.  Jeroboam created a false image of Judaism when the Ten Northern Tribes split from Judah and Benjamin following Solomon’s death (1 Kings 12).  His goal was to keep everyone home, away from the Temple in Jerusalem.  His religion taught that the Israelites could find God away from God’s teachings.  The concept has hung around ever since.



The modern church has, however, expanded upon this universal concept in a new form.  This new form is the Open View of God or neotheism.  Open theology does not have to result in universalism, but that conclusion must be forced upon it most of the time.  This is because without universalism, there is little good in the potential outcome of neotheism.



Open theism is sometimes called “free will theism.”  This points to the major component of this new teaching.  Open theology teaches that God may change His mind and that He does not absolutely know the future.  This proposition has amazing results.



First, note if God cannot truly know the future, all of the remaining prophecies of the Bible are in doubt.  Maybe Jesus will not return?  Maybe Satan is never defeated?  Maybe there is no set will for our lives?



Second, if there are no set wills for our lives, our own decisions potentially change our relationship to God in both positive and negative ways that God cannot imagine.  Suppose He desires you become a missionary.  This is His will for your life.  What happens when you simply do not obey this call and never become a missionary?  How will God handle the situation?  Does He have the power to “punish” you for disobeying His will?  How will He save the people you did not reach?


http://www.judeministries.org/neotheism/6.htm

You know Woody it is very easy for man to set himself above God..or at least equal to Him in power. It is very empowering and a natural result of some doctrinal positions .

Is God omniscient ? Not according to this theology. He is a constrained by time just like man . I have no clue what will happen tomorrow and neither does God . I believe Boyd's theology is a heresy from bottom to top. I simply hold fast to a promise that the elect can not be deceived .

[CCWoody]

You know Woody it is very easy for man to set himself above God..or at least equal to Him in power. It is very empowering and a natural result of some doctrinal positions .

Is God omniscient ? Not according to this theology. He is a constrained by time just like man . I have no clue what will happen tomorrow and neither does God . I believe Boyd's theology is a heresy from bottom to top. I simply hold fast to a promise that the elect can not be deceived .

<begin self-censor>













</end self-censor>

There, I'm glad I got that off my chest.

Woody.

[Corin Stormhands]

I think Woody, what Rev is getting at is the difference between confronting a brother with the truth of his sin and the truth of the Word and pulling him out of his sin.

It is God that pulls us from our sin. It is God who gives life. We don't do it for ourselves or each other.

[The Grammarian]

I find it very odd defending an advocate of Open Theism, but every single one of the objections raised in the article you quote were answered in this Boyd article and the last.

[winstonchurchill]

It is hard to know where to jump into an important thread like this one, so let me start with this articulate post.

First, all of the parties here believe that they are holding to a biblical faith. The question is which of the (two predominate) man-made constructs (both purportedly drawn from that biblical base) better "fit" the data. I have come to believe that the 'open theist' model has the better fit to the totality of the biblical data than the determinist model (which some more accurately describe as EDF- exhaustive definitive foreknowledge).

Now let me turn to a couple of points.

It seems [EDF] 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.

Assuming arguendo that Aristotle is correct, a 'goal' or a 'purpose' does not necessarily presuppose the 'competence' (more accurately the capability) to ensure the attainment of the goal or purpose,

The writer then moves on to God as an omnipotent Being and makes the leap (an open theist would see the 'leap' as a Biblical omission) to

Thus if God wills toward an end, certainly He knows what that end is; to conceive of it, [and] to speak it, is already to have created it.

I added the 'and' to point to point in the statement where the author made the leap to the determinist presupposition. Obviously, God wills many things and His will has implicit prioritzation. The writer (and the traditional determinist view) simply assumes that God's highest priority at creation was the achievement of a predetermined outcome. Were that necessarily so, there would be no question that the writer's preferred construct would hold.

However, assume momentarily that God's highest priority in creation of His subordinate beings was to create a being which could, but need not, volitionally love Him. Then, God might well have sacrificed His 'knowledge' of the certainty of some outcomes dependent upon that necessary free will, in order to protect the love which He sought as a priority. That indeed is the key concept of the open theists (at least as I understand it): that God intentionally self-limited Himself, by ceding certain important decisions to the free will of His creation -- the very free will which gave rise to the necessity of the death of His Son.

It is no surprise, therefore, that open theism appeals most strongly to those of Arminian persuasion. Their construct of the Biblical data makes the key open theist point quite a natural progression.

Well, what of the 'anthropomorphism' argument? (That is, that Biblical references to God being limited by time, i.e. learning things sequentially, changing His mind, etc, are merely anthropomorphisms intended to speak to us with the limitations of our capabilities as humans.)

It certainly has some appeal. We recognize that the Bible wasn't written just for us, but for generations before us as well. Many of those generations were quite ignorant of philosophical, theological and scientific concepts by our current day standards. Thus, it is quite appealing to simply label (apparently) 'primitive' concepts as a subcategory made necessary by some infirmity of an earlier generation. (Generally, we are assumed to be immune to such 'speaking down' to man, because we can perceive them as such.)

There are two problems with this from my perspective.

One, it is an explanatory tool, not an analytical, one. That is, we only apply it to Biblical statements which don't fit within our construct. So we have to start with the philosophical/theological end we want to meet in order to know when to apply it.

Second, it is a devilish slippery slope of a device. The same device is used by those convinced that the miracle 'stories' of our Lord are merely that, stories, made as such to explain complex events to our limited 'anthropomorphic' minds. Once we start applying the 'explanatory tool' of 'anthropomorphisms' to biblical data, it is hard to know where to stop.

Where does this all end? Well, it really doesn't. Those who are most comfortable in organizing the biblical data in a determinist mold will find the open theist construct model startling, and deeply unnerving. They find great comfort in a belief that, in some wholly inexplicable way, God tolerates (and depending on the view, even helps it along) huge evils 'for our own good'.

Those who are most comfortable in organizing the biblical data in an Arminian and/or open theist mold will find the newer understanding deeply liberating and greatly comforting when confronting suffering and evil.

Ultimately, it is about how we each, internally, organize and make sense of the (sometimes apparently) disparate biblical data. Those who have run into me in the forums previously know that I believe that the key to our markedly different 'reads' of the same data reflect different prioritizations of data, based on something in our experience which is hard to isolate.

BTW, I really like the 'new attitude' at FR.

[CCWoody]

***It is God that pulls us from our sin. It is God who gives life. We don't do it for ourselves or each other.***

Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.

Corin, my words are specific, precise, and Biblical. Nowhere did I not acknowledge the hand of the Lord in things, even acknowledging that such action is preceeded by prayer and the counsel of God. Therefore, when Rev presumes to begin to lecture me about the Sovereignty of God in turning a sinner from his sin, I must wonder, especially since it is we Calvinists who are ever opposing the anthroprocentric constructs of Arminians,...

#1 Huh! When did Freaky Friday happen?
#2 Did you not read my cited verse?

Woody.

[RnMomof7]

Boyd is a heretic IMHO. Like God is omniscient in all HE CAN KNOW

He just changes the meanings of generations of teaching . But as I said .God has a remnant here that can not be deceived.

As for the others one heresy is as good as another.

[The Grammarian]

Boyd is a heretic IMHO. Like God is omniscient in all HE CAN KNOW.

"Test the spirits, whether they are from God," John says. How is Mr. Boyd a heretic? In that God is omniscient in all he "can" know? You say no more (or less) in your predestinarian view: God can only know what is possible to be known. The argument is over what is possible to be known. Boyd and open theists say that God cannot know the exact individual choices that his own creatures make; you and supports of what Boyd calls "EDF" say that God CAN know the exact individual choices that his creatures make--for the Calvinist, because God ultimately made the decision for the creature; for the Arminian, because God knows all things.

[Vernon]

What makes one a heretic?

[nobdysfool]

When He says of our sins that He will "remember them no more" does He really forget them? I certainly remember them and He knows my thoughts and my words.

My understanding is that forgiven sins are "off the books", as in no longer imputed to us. God does not take them into account when judging us, because the penalty for our sins (those who are Christians) is marked "paid in full". He forgets them with regard to us, but He still could call them to mind, He just doesn't where Christians are concerned.