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

Biblical Theology ^ | Dr. Gregory Boyd

[Corin Stormhands]

#1 Huh! When did Freaky Friday happen?

Not worth a response.

#2 Did you not read my cited verse?

In several translations. Did you not read my post? If you did, you obviously...

#1 Didn't understand it.

#2 Still want to play games.

I understand you have the need to "pull brother from sin," but that would make you a "savior."

And you certainly aren't mine.

[Corin Stormhands]

Any particular reason you chose to quote me and not ping me?

Just asking.

[Revelation 911]

I understand you have the need to "pull brother from sin," but that would make you a "savior."

glad you saw my point

[nobdysfool]

None that I care to mention...

[CCWoody]

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.

Woody.

[Corin Stormhands]

Bless your heart.

[Corin Stormhands]

Of course I saw your point. Everybody saw your point.

Even those that won't acknowledge it.

[Corin Stormhands]

...or turn him from his error, to truth again; for this designs not first conversion, or the turning of a sinner from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God, and from the evil of a man's heart and ways and from a dependence on his own righteousness, to the Lord Jesus Christ, to look to him for righteousness, life, and salvation, which is wholly and entirely God's work, and not man's; but conversion after backslidings; for a restoration from a fallen condition is sometimes so called, and which one brother may be an instrument of to another, by showing him, and setting before him, the evil of his errors, whether in principle or practice; and by instructing him in the doctrines of the Gospel, and in the duties of religion; and by reproving him in meekness, and according to the rules of Christ; which means are sometimes blessed for the gaining of such; and which may be called conversion: and also, this is sometimes done by praying for him; and which seems chiefly to be intended here; for from praying for the healing of the diseases of the body, the apostle proceeds to encourage the saints to pray for one another, for the healing of the diseases of the mind; and suggests, that if prayer avails to the one, it may to the other; and which is the most desirable, and the greatest blessing, as follows.

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible...James 5:19

I see no reference to "pulling."

[connectthedots]

The basic conviction that leads me to my position is that I want to affirm the whole of Scripture as literally true unless Scripture itself gives me reason to think it doesn't mean to be taken as literal. There are, of course, many passages of Scripture which suggest that at least some aspects of the future are predestined and/or foreknown. But there are many other passages of Scripture which suggests that at least some aspects of the future are not predestined or foreknown.

I figured this out a long time ago without having to read it in an article by some theologian. This is so obvious from scripture that I question how any reasonable person could conclude otherwise. But then again, I'm a pretty smart guy, as much as this fact may pain some people.

[PFKEY]

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

What twisted logic.

I agree but couldn't it be said much simpler?

God's is omniscient.

I'm not up on this Open Theology concept.

What are the main objections?

From the couple articles I've read it seems to be some labored attempt to explain how God can be omniscient and man can be a free moral agent.

Is there something else?

[PFKEY]

Therefore, God knows it as a decision I will make because He has granted me the free choice to make decisions.

I would also say He know what your decision will be.

[nobdysfool]

From the couple articles I've read it seems to be some labored attempt to explain how God can be omniscient and man can be a free moral agent.

The one thing that no one can get around, free will or no, is that ALL will answer to God. So maybe the "free will" isn't as free as some would wish it to be....

[Vernon]

I would also say He know what your decision will be.

If He chooses to know. Why do we believe that because God is omniscient that he has no choices? To say that God has no choices, even as to whether or not to limit His knowledge or power, is to make Him less than God. Is is obvious He choses to limit His justice and power at the present or we would be hurting...big time!

[PFKEY]

areas where the scripture is not all that clear.

A good point.

There are many areas where scripture is not clear or is entirely silent.

I would like to think that God intended it to be that way because the matter is not for us to understand or the larger concept is the point that God is making.

Take prophecy for example, specifically the book of Revelation.

I believe the overall ideas, images, concepts, patterns are what we are to understand not trying to decipher the meaning of the color of clothing a horseman is wearing.

[ksen]

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.

Don't you think at some level that this makes Man the center and being of Creation? This thought makes Man the Sovereign Creator because it is not God that brings reality into existence, rather it is us and our decisions.

[PFKEY]

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.

Excellent reasoning.

Look at the story in Luke...

LUKE 8
[45] And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?
[46] And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.
[47] And when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before him, she declared unto him before all the people for what cause she had touched him and how she was healed immediately.
[48] And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.

[ksen]

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.

Can I have the FReedom to whack the Open Theists with a stick? ;^)

[Vernon]

Excellent reasoning.

Thanks, my friend. I better quit while I'm ahead! (LOL)

[PFKEY]

So maybe the "free will" isn't as free as some would wish it to be....

Never heard anyone with a position that free-will applies to judgement in that we can opt in or out.

[nobdysfool]

Never heard anyone with a position that free-will applies to judgement in that we can opt in or out.

That really wasn't what I was referring to. But free will, taken to its logical extreme, would have to allow for that possibility, wouldn't it?

My point was, even if the will is truly free, it is still constrained by God's Will. Personally, I believe that God is the only One with truly free will. All men have a will that is limited by their nature, their circumstances, God's Laws with regard to the physical realm, and their desires. To argue that free will can overcome those limitations, in and of itself, is sheerest folly.