Posted on 08/15/2002 8:11:42 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Does God give bad advice?
New evangelical view of God presents a deity with a backup plan By R. Albert Mohler
What does God know, and when does He know it? This startling question lies at the heart of what may well become the hottest theological debate among evangelicals. The outcome will determine whether evangelicals remain committed to what the church has always believed about God, or veer off in favor of a more user-friendly deity.
The current debate swirls around the arguments of Gregory A. Boyd, a theology professor at Bethel College and pastor of a large church in St. Paul, Minn. A popular lecturer and a provocative writer, Mr. Boyd has become the focus of intense debate within the Baptist General Conference (with which Bethel College is affiliated), Baker Book House (his publisher), and the larger evangelical world.
Mr. Boyd's theological argument comes down to this: The Christian church has adopted a doctrine of God that is deeply rooted in Greek philosophy, hopelessly irrelevant to contemporary life, and in conflict with biblical passages indicating that God changes his mind and fails to know the future decisions of his free creatures.
Joining the argument on behalf of the "openness of God," Mr. Boyd insists that God simply cannot know what his creatures will decide to do in the future, for these decisions do not yet exist. God knows some things definitely, but He knows some aspects of the future "as possibly this way and possibly not that way."
Confused? Mr. Boyd's proposal strikes at the heart of the omniscience of God, the affirmation that God perfectly knows all things-past, present, and future. The classical form of this doctrine, held by all branches of the church throughout the centuries, holds that God possesses exhaustive foreknowledge: God knows everything, perfectly.
Mr. Boyd holds that this is incompatible with modern science and philosophy, as well as with those passages of Scripture that present God as changing his mind. In God of the Possible, the recently released summary of his argument, Mr. Boyd claims that his view-rather than the majority view-is faithful to the Bible and to the real needs of modern Christians.
Most modern philosophers agree with the majority position of the church in affirming that if God perfectly knows the future, the future is settled and certain. The Bible certainly presents God as knowing the future, and in control of events as well as the final end of all things.
This is precisely what Mr. Boyd rejects. He holds that "the future consists partly of settled realities and partly of unsettled realities." God's chosen future will eventually come to pass, at least in the big picture. Nevertheless, God does not "micromanage" the universe and control every aspect of reality.
In order to make his argument, Mr. Boyd must redefine key theological terms. God's omnipotence is now "flexible." God must be ready with Plan B when Plan A fails. Claiming to be orthodox, Mr. Boyd must affirm both God's omniscience and omnipotence. In order to do so, however, he must turn the words on their heads. God perfectly knows what He can know-which is a great deal, but not everything. Future decisions do not yet exist, so they cannot be known. God is sovereign, but not in a comprehensive sense. Mr. Boyd argues that God is so sovereign He doesn't have to be sovereign.
Mr. Boyd's challenge cannot be ignored. Has the church really misunderstood the Bible's revelation about God's power and attributes? Has the church followed Plato rather than Moses?
No. Mr. Boyd emphasizes biblical passages that speak of God changing his mind as He works with his creatures. Most theologians, past and present, understand those passages as pictorial and metaphorical, like passages that speak of God's hand or arm. Mr. Boyd insists that they be taken literally.
To do so, he must ignore or reinterpret the overwhelming witness of the Bible to God's unconditional sovereignty, absolute power, and perfectly exhaustive foreknowledge. What is left is a God more easily explained to modern Americans-who works with us "to truly change what might have been into what should be."
Mr. Boyd writes as a pastor, and his illustrations reveal the emptiness and danger of his proposal. He tells of Suzanne, a woman committed to missions in Taiwan, who felt God was leading her to marry a fine young man following the same call. Later, the man turned out to be an abusive adulterer who abandoned her, extinguishing her ministry to Taiwan. How can this be explained? Mr. Boyd told the woman that God was surprised and grieved by how this young man turned out.
This is God cut down to size-a God who is well-intended, but is ready with Plan B when Plan A fails. In the end, Mr. Boyd believes that God sometimes gives bad advice. Contrast that with the confession of Job: "I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted." The God of the Bible needs no Plan B.
Amen sister!! My God is right on schedule.
The problem with Christianity isn't that it's irrelevant, it's that it's changed too much so it won't be objectionable to modern society. It's left it's biblical roots.
And to think that God can't see the past present and future is nutty. He's eternal, outside of time. He created time.
Yep...now if we could just agree on everthing else:>)
Rom 16:17-18 "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."
He said " His sheep know His voice..if the goats start following it is not the shepherd of the sheep, it is a goat herder"
.Seems to me that lots of goat herders are preaching to the choir
It is so and we are in trouble
I'm currently reading Boyd's book.
So far the quote above has not appeared....so it must be Mohler's opinion. I don't think Boyd would say that "God gives bad advice."
Boyd writes humbly and with some clarity. Contrary to what Mohler says above, Boyd does not base his argument on its compatibility with modern science and philosphy. It is argued entirely from the bible.
Since Mohler is right that this will be a matter of discussion for some time, it's obvious that people should read the book for themselves as Mohler has done. I got my copy at amazon.com.
Herein lies the heart of Boyd's blasphemy.
After that, every word he might write is tripe.
While God doesn't need a Plan 'B', it does seem that he has alternatives to His first choice.
God wants Moses to speak directly to Pharaoh, Moses balks so God sends Aaron.
Elishah gets upset with Joash when he only strikes the arrows three times instead of five or six, since if he had Syria would have been consumed, not just defeated the 3 times. (1Ki.13:19)
A man's decision affected the outcome of what God would have accomplished.
Absolutely! Amen!
Great BIBLICAL examples, ftD!
Wesleyan/Armininism IS the original Open Theology..Do not be surprised..all the Wesleyans will end up agree with this. Remember the scripture warning of the great falling away...here it is...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.