 |
| 
keithfoisy
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 4/17/2003 6:42 AM (GMT -6) |   | I recently attended a seminar on Open Theism in Grand Rapids MI. It was sponsered by the reformed Baptist Seminary I attend.
Since this city is known for its reformed theology and being a Calvanistic stronghold (i call it "little Geneva"), it is good to see that the outrage over Openness Theology is beginning to die down.
While the Seminary certainly wasn't promoting Openness theology, they gave a fair presentation. Also, there has been news here that the ETS will probably not gain enough votes to exclude Open Theists from the organization. That's good news.
Leaning toward the Open theistic view myself, I have noticed less annimosity lately. i'm glad for this and i hope that if this is the case in "little Geneva" that it is also the experience of many others in thier locations.
Keith J. Foisy
Edited by - keithfoisy on 04/17/2003 11:44:52 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/17/2003 6:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Keith-
Welcome to the board. Can you tell me where you got the info that the there will probably not be enough votes to exclude open theists from the ETS?
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/17/2003 6:53 AM (GMT -6) | | I remember sitting down with my pastor from my home-church within the BGC. I had borrowed him my Richard Rice book I got from Boyd's class, but apparently he had not read it. So while initially with the heat of the controversy, he had reacted against the open theism. Now he was open to it and I had to explain that open theism basically perceived the notion of God being outside of time seeing past, present and future as the metaphysical equivalent to saying dkjsgoghaisdiojdksljtslkgnskdjdsjasdkjsdkfujdksjfslk really fast three times.
Anyways, then he gave a sermon the next sunday or so presenting all of the positions and critiques of them and ending by saying that it was a mystery but that none of the positions were not Christian.
Thus giving legitimacy to Open Theism, but allowing for continuity in the beliefs within the Church.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/18/2003 9:25 PM (GMT -6) | | In doing some recent research (including online and at three different Christian bookstores), I am of the opposite opinion and believe the debate has not "died down"
Here are some things I've found that make me believe that--
1) The current March/April issue of Moody Magazine entitled "God in Our Image: Are We Making God Like Us?" has an article on page 26 called "Does God Know Everything?" which starts out with this: "'No,' say the advocates of open theism, a controversial doctrine."
An excerpt: "Did God know thatMoody Magazine would discuss the topic of how much He knows before our editors planned it? A view of God that limits His knowledge of the future is being advocated by a SMALL number of evangelical thinkers. Described as "open theism" or the "open" view of God, the doctrine teaches that God's knowledge is limited...." The author goes on to speak against open theism.
2)From a news article dated Feb. 5, 2003 entitled "Scholars Stir Heated Debate Over Open Theism". I didn't see any earlier date so I'm assuming this article was written this past February. http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/5110565.htm
An excerpt: "The opponents have been outspoken. Some may even take action later this year to expel Pinnock and Hasker, chairman of the Division of Humanities and Bible at Huntington College in Indiana, from the Evangelical Theological Society. The society is an association of Christian scholars who believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible."
"Pinnock and Harker are scheduled to argue their case before a society panel in the fall. If the committee finds them in violation of the inerrancy doctrine, a vote on expulsion will be taken up at the group's convention several weeks later."
3) A new book was published this past January as a very strong rebuttal to Open Theism. I'm sure you've probably heard of it: Beyond the Bounds edited by John Piper, Justin Talor, and Paul Kjoss Helseth with contributions from Chad Owen Brand, A.B. Candeay, William Davis, Russell Fuller, Wayne Grundem, Michael S. Horton, Mark Talbot, Brue Ware, and Stephen Wellum. Here's a link to the forward & introduction if you're interested in checking it out.
http://shop.gospelcom.net/isroot/GoodNews/assets/excerpts/1581344627.1.pdf
4)Pastors/authors/teachers are still refuting open theism with some pretty strong words (including "heresy"). Some online articles/sermons/essays that I found in doing some online research. There's too many for me to copy all and put in here, so I'll put just a few.
a) "Are You Open to Open Theism?" by Marvin Padgett, March 2003
http://www.wrfnet.org/articles/article.asp?ID=726
b) "Open theism 'damaging' to faith, prof says in radio interview"
by Michael Foust, January 2003
http://www.jude3.net/open_theism.htm
c) "Willing to Believe: 'The Controversy Over Free Will'", by Dr. Chuck Baynard, March 2003. http://www.christianobserver.org/perspectives/Open_Theism.htm
A quote from this article: "I submit that Open Theism is full‑blown Pelagianism and not even its later and lesser step child semi‑Pelagianism. Because some scholars have embraced this heresy today should not lessen the haste to condemn or severely censure by the church toward those that try to propagate this lie. (This heresy attacks the very foundation of Biblical Christianity, the sovereignty of God.)"
d) "An open and shut case," by Iaian Campbell, March 16, 2003.
http://www.backfreechurch.co.uk/Gazette/open_and_shut.htm
A quote: "The annual meeting of ETS will this year decide on whether to continue to grant membership to two leading proponents of openness theology."
Edited by - Bobbie on 04/19/2003 02:31:19 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/19/2003 3:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Bobbie, keep them coming! It helps to sharpen what you believe by reading what those who disagree with you say.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/19/2003 3:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Oh NO! Are we "full-blown Pelagianists!" That label always cracks me up...
Edited by - honorman on 04/19/2003 08:07:03 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/19/2003 6:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Within the Baptist General Conference, among the majority of people who are understand open theism and know of Boyd's heart and commitment to the Gospel, there may not be agreement, but there is acceptance of Open View Theism.
In these other areas, these are people that do not know Boyd's ministry and who skew Open Theism with statements like does God know Everything?
But let us love our enemies and if we are right then the truth will come out.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
keithfoisy
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 4/19/2003 11:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom, you asked where i got the information that the ETS would not have enough votes to vote out Open Theism next year. The information came from a reformed professor at the seminary i attend. The issue was discussed this year and it seems that views have changed toward the "dangers" of open theism. While most in the ETS don't hold the view, it seems that many don't desire to kick out the Openness thinkers either.
ONe of the questions people are asking has to do with boundaries. If the Openness people are kicked out, then who else will be kicked out? Will they kick out the Arminians next simply because they don't hold to classical theism or some people begin to think Arminianism deglorifies God too?
Another issue (from my understanding)is that there is really only one charge that is being brought against Open Theists. Some argue that Open Theists charge the scriptures with contradicting themselves. Not may people in the ETS believe that Open Theists hold the view that scripture is contradictory. It's a straw-man argument and pretty much everyone sees right through it.
Keith J. Foisy | | Back to Top | | |
|
keithfoisy
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 4/19/2003 12:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Bobbie, you are right to say that the debate has not died down. Certainly it has not. People are just figuring out how to argue their cases against one another.
What i mean by "Open Theism is gaining acceptence" is that most people don't label it as heresy anymore. This was a common charge five years ago. It seems that many in both the academic and lay person ranges seem to view Open Theists as "still being Christian", even though they may radically oppose it. i believe this is a great step forward.
Keith J. Foisy | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/19/2003 3:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Keith,
From my recent research on open theism, I haven't sensed a dying down of the charge of heresy either. Piper and others just published their new book (Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the UNERMINING of Biblical Christianity, Feb. 2003) and pastors/writers/teachers are still refuting Open Theism with boldness mostly in articles & sermons. They might not all be using the word "heresy" but they are certainly refuting it.
As for the Baptist General Conference, I know that they were proposing an amendment. Here is a link to the proposed amendment. It's called "God, Foreknowledge and the Baptist General Conference Explanation and Rationale for the Proposed Amendment to the Affirmation of Faith of the Baptist General Conference."
http://www.thebaptistpage.com/Distinctives/Doctrine/BGC_Resolution.htm
Their desire to add this amendment was solely due to wanting to make it clear that their believes are not the same as Open Theism. When you mentioned the BGC, I was reminded of having found this during my research and I revisited it. It's pretty lengthy and thorough. However, I can't find if the amendment was "passed" or not and wanted to research that more. Maybe you know? I also am not sure what year this was written.
p.s. I'm not an open thiest (just so you know where I'm coming from).
Do you mind if I also ask what seminary you attended and what their approach was/how was open theism presented? Was it a forum, debate, one presenter, etc? I'm just curious. 
Edited by - Bobbie on 04/19/2003 8:39:23 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/20/2003 5:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Bobbie, my father, an ex-colleague of Boyd at Bethel College, likes to call Piper and the Committee of Concerned Pastors, "The Borg" since they never quit and their goal is assimilation.
So, while there are groups of very passionately committed individuals against Open Theism within the BGC, they are by no means representative of the general attitudes of the BGC.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/20/2003 10:49 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW: amen. I think Roger Olsen, of Baylor, is more representative of the majority.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
keithfoisy
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 4/20/2003 12:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello Bobbie,
You asked about the seminary i attend and the format of the discussion on Open Theism.
i attend Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary in G.R. MI. The format was a mix between a forum and a presentation.
The presentation consisted of two primary speakers. The first was Dr. Wittmer, who specializes in systematic theology. The second was Dr. Meadors who specailizes in N.T. There was also an O.T. professor on the panel, but i do not recall his name.
These professors gave an overview of both classical and Openness theologies. They attempted to refute open theism from both a systematic theology and biblical theology theology perspective.
Next there was a forum panel made up of these professors and a couple seasoned pastors. They responded to questions from the audience.
The purpose of the seminar was to inform local ministers of the theology and to show them its weaknesses and limitations, and possible downfalls. The greater hope, i suspect, was to educate these ministers to they would in turn educate their lay people and congregations.
Another purpose was to show the superiority of classical theism for practical ministry.
The presentation was done fairly and there was very little uncalled for criticism. i enjoyed it, but it failed to convince me. Of course i've never held to the classical view and don't find it very helpful or practical for ministry in any sense of the word.
The seminary as a whole is very reformed and holds closely to classicl theism. This is very different from my own background, but i find it challenging and fun to be there.
i had graduated from North Central University in Minneapolis (which is an A.G. school) and was a covenant partner at Woodland Hills where Greg Boyd is the speaking pastor. So you can see my background is very different from the classical tradition. Still, i don't claim to be a part of any particular denominational belief, though i am obviously Arminian. i enjoy the Baptist seminary though and don't like to maintain denominational barriers.
Keith J. Foisy | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/20/2003 12:50 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW: "Bobbie, my father, an ex-colleague of Boyd at Bethel College, likes to call Piper and the Committee of Concerned Pastors, "The Borg" since they never quit and their goal is assimilation"
BOBBIE: DLW, no offense to your father as I'm sure he is a fine and intelligent man, BUT his opinion on Piper and the Committee of Concerned Pastors is no indication as to whether the debate and the claim of heresy has "died down". It is simply one man's opinion. And while he sees Piper's persistence as a "negative," others (such as myself) se it as a positive. It really comes down to differing opinions.
DLW: So, while there are groups of very passionately committed individuals against Open Theism within the BGC, they are by no means representative of the general attitudes of the BGC.
BOBBIE: DLW, I read this as being your OPINION vs. being an actual fact. Is there some support you could possibly provide so as to "prove" this to be true? I have provided some support to show otherwise and am interested how you come to this conclusion other than it being your opinion. The only people I have heard who say the debate/claims of heresy have died down have been open theists in here, but I have not seen any support to show this to be true. Are you a part of the BGC where you can say this with certinty or do you have some evidence that you can share... or is this just your opinion?
HONORMAN: "I think Roger Olsen, of Baylor, is more representative of the majority"
BOBBIE: I disagree.
I have been to three different bookstores this past week looking for books on open theism, etc. I have found in those three stores (one small, one medium, and one very large store called "Berean"-- it's a chain similar to Northwestern Bookstores) not one book by Greg Boyd , John Sanders, or Roger Olson and only one book by Clark Pinnock (in "Berean")- it wasn't on Open Theism but was on the Holy Spirit.
In each store, however, there were sections with Piper's books (the medium-sized store had his name on the shelf indicating this was his section). Each store carried approximately 5-6 different titles. I found "Beyond the Bounds" in the larger store. I also picked up a book called "Ten Lies About God" by Erwin Lutzer, senior pastor of the Moody Church. There is a chapter in it refuting open theism. This week, John Piper is doing a radio message with Dennis Rainey on "Family Life Today" (not on open theism). A quote from the website: "On today's broadcast, well-known pastor John Piper and FamilyLife's Executive Director, Dennis Rainey, shed some light on the resurrection of Christ." http://www.familylife.com/
My point is: John Piper is highly respected by the majority of Christians, and he is fairly well-known. The open theists are not. Perhaps in their own circles they are... but, in the wider evangelical community, they are not well-known (I have spoken to many friends recently who've never heard of Boyd as I also had never heard of him or of open theism until I moved to MN where that's just about all I ever heard about it seemed).
I also picked up "Knowing God" by J.I. Packer, a best-seller for many years, and noticed the endorsements on it made by the following godly men and women: Charles Swindoll, Joni Erickson Tada, Bill Hybels, Elisabeth Elliot, Billy Graham, Michael Card, D. James Kennedy, R. C. Sproul, and a host of others!
A quote re: Knowing God: "During the past 20 years, J. I. Packer's classic has revealed to over one million Christians around the world the wonder, the glory and the joy of knowing God."
A book such as this does not last for 20 years as a best-seller selling millions around the world in various languages unless there are ALOT of people buying it and if they are buying it, one could assume they are agreeing with it. Well, I probably don't need to point this out, but J.I. Packer's attributes of God in this book are quite opposite those of open theism. In fact, J.I. Packer has an edorsement on Bruce Ware's "God of Lesser Glory" book.
Now, here we have 3 bookstores (granted... this is only 3 out of many in the U.S.) with no Boyd, no Sanders, no Olson, and one Pinnock "Holy Spirit" book. And in those same three bookstores are several Piper titles, several John McArthur titles, several Wayne Grudem books (I recently picked one up called Pastoral Leadership for Manhood and Womanhood written with Dennis Rainey. There is a chapter on church discipline in which Grudem's and Rainey's views are quite contrary to Boyd's views which I believe is a reflection of their theological views of God), and I also found God's Lesser Glory by Bruce Ware... not to mention J.I. Packer's, R.C. Sproul's, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Charles Swindoll, and John McArthur books and sections (all of whom are respected pastors/authors whose views are reformed Christianity).
I also noticed in the bookstores several John Calvin biographies (no Greg Boyd biographies), I picked up the current Moody Magazine featuring the open theism article I mentioned above, and while driving to the bookstore, I was listening to a Steven Curtis Chapman song called "God Is God" with the following lyrics:
God is God and I am not
I can only see a part of the picture He’s painting
God is God and I am man
So I’ll never understand it all
For only God is God...
Can I form a single mountain
Take the stars in hand and count them
Can I even take a breath without God giving it to me
He is first and last before all that has been
Beyond all that will pass
CHORUS
Oh, how great are the riches of His wisdom and knowledge
How unsearchable for to Him and through Him and from Him are all things
And I was reminded again of how futile it is to try to understand all the mysteries and unexplainables about God which in the depths of my heart is something that I feel open theism is attempting to do so as to appeal to people who have a hard time accepting God. God does not change to suit the person and his desire to have a God that appeals to him and "makes sense" to him.
I wondered to myself: Would S.C. Chapman agree with open theism? I don't know for sure, but I found the following statment:
While at the capitol on Sept. 11, Steven's wife Mary Beth asked Steven: "Should we run? Should we go somewhere?" Steven replied, "Sweetheart, either everything that we have said to be true of us is true and we are in God's hands and He is in control of our lives, or it's not. And if it is true, then the truth is the truth and no matter where we run, we are in God's hands and ultimately He is in control of our lives"
http://cbn.org/living/entertainment/music/scottross-StevenCurtisChapman.asp
The Chapmans found COMFORT in that knowledge, something that an open theist does not seem to believe to be possible; a true open theist (one who accepts all the teachings of Boyd, Pinnock, etc) believes that to claim & believe that "God is in control" is to say that we are puppets manipulated by God, etc. I believe God to be "in control" and have never in all my time as a Christian ever felt like a puppet or ever relinquished any of my responsibility in my life with the thought of God controlling me like some subservient puppy or something.
Okay... I'm wandering off the subject...
I'm currrenty reading a book called Esther by Charles Swindoll (part of his Biblical character series) and the book has nothing to do with open theism BUT C. Swindoll's beliefs are reflected in his comments in which he says:
"We live our lives under that careful, loving, gracious, albeit sovereign, hand of God. And the movements of time and history tick off according to His reckoning, exactly as He ordained... When I think of the power of God, I usually think in terms of 'sovereign control'." ... God is in sovereign control, not only of the events in Paul's day, but in the events of our own day.... God NEVER knows frustration. He NEVER has to scratch His head, wondering what in the world He's going to do next with people like us, or with nations of this world."
Obviously, C. Swindoll would find the teachings of open theism to be contrary his beliefs on God.
I have not read alot of the anti- open theism books and have read some excerpts and articles only recently in the past month, BUT I have read many, many books by Chrisitan men and women, such as Charles Swindoll, and I have listened to the lyrics of Christian men and women including the great hymns as well as contemporary music which still mostly reflect God's ultimate sovereignty, and I have yet to see open theism being a majority thought among Christian evangelicals... nor do I see it being accepted as truth. I only see its teaching reflected in books/articles by the open theists themselves as well as in some philosophy.
Perhaps this is the reason why open theism is such a stark contrast and such a point of friction/debate. Myself.... I GREATLY admire men and women such as C. Swindoll, S.C. Chapman, Elisabeth Elliot, J.I. Packer, Dennis Rainey, Joni Erickson Tada, etc.... and their faith has influenced me. I never even heard of G. Boyd, C. Pinnock, and the others until recently when I had moved to Minnesota. Their teachings are NOT widespread and NOT yet widely accepted (and it is my prayer that they never will be). This is not a "put down" to them, but simply to say, that in my opinion, open theism is not as "accepted" as open theists might think.
The men and women I have mentioned above are influential in that they have radio ministries, have published many books (Piper's list alone is HUGE), have well-established churches with many ministries including schools/colleges (such as John McArthur's "The Master's College and Seminary" or D. James Kennedy's "Knox Theological Seminary" (where R. C. Sproul is a visiting professor) and "Westminster Academy") Some notable ministries: D. James Kennedy's "Center for Reclaiming America", Dennis Rainey's "Family Life Today", Charles Swindoll's "Insight for Living", John McArthur's "Grace to You" radio ministry and so on).
I guess what I am saying is I see much FRUIT in these people's lives. These are men and women whose beliefs are contrary to the teachings of open theism and although they might not publish a book or article directly refuting open theism, they do reflect their beliefs (on God's sovereignty, on his mind not changing, etc) in their teachings (through speaking and writing)... these teachings which reach FAR more than Boyd's or Pinnock's do due to their solid and well-known reputations and ministries that reach out to many.
Please correct me if I am wrong; please provide actual "proof" vs. opinion.
Edited by - Bobbie on 04/20/2003 6:04:43 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/20/2003 1:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Keith,
I just posted my last post (it's kinda long! I can be rather verbose! ) and saw your post. Thanks for answering.
You said: "Of course i've never held to the classical view and don't find it very helpful or practical for ministry in any sense of the word."
What is it about the classical view that you don't find "helpful" or "practical"? I am wondering because I have been a Christian for a long time and I find open theism to be rather unbiblical. I have spent about 22 yrs. as a Christian and while there have been trials and tests (that are a part of life period!), I have never regretted that decision to accept Christ and I feel I have lived a very vibrant, joy-filled life with the beliefs (classical view) that I have had. It has also been a fruitful life in which I have ministered in various ways and been blessed by the fruits of my labor. It has not been an unhelpful or unpractical life but yet you say you find the classical belief to be unhelpful/unpractical? What are the people like around you who hold to the classical belief? Would you describe them this way?
Anyways... I was just curious about your view.
It is interesting because the Christain college that I went to was somewhat "open" in that it was non-denominational and had many backgrounds there and they encouraged us to really consider what we believed and to wrestle with our beliefs, etc... in order to make them our own (vs. just accepting our parent's beliefs, etc). I took an entire class on C.S. Lewis! And here I am a "classical view" Christian (although I never knew that until coming here!  ) and you go to a Baptist seminary who supports classical teaching and you are a open-theist. Go figure, huh?
Was your first exposure to Christianity at Woodland Hills (I also attended there for awhile)? Well, you mentioned you went to an A.G. college.
The Baptist seminary seems to be opposed to open theism yet you do enjoy it? What is it that you enjoy (considering it is opposed to your beliefs)?
Also, one last question: what do you mean by "practical ministry?" What do you mean when you say "practical"?
"With God ALL things are possible" Matt. 19:26 | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/20/2003 4:17 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DLW: "Bobbie, my father, an ex-colleague of Boyd at Bethel College, likes to call Piper and the Committee of Concerned Pastors, "The Borg" since they never quit and their goal is assimilation"
BOBBIE: DLW, no offense to your father as I'm sure he is a fine and intelligent man, BUT his opinion on Piper and the Committee of Concerned Pastors is no indication as to whether the debate and the claim of heresy has "died down". It is simply one man's opinion. And while he sees Piper's persistence as a "negative," others (such as myself) se it as a positive. It really comes down to differing opinions.
DLW: So, while there are groups of very passionately committed individuals against Open Theism within the BGC, they are by no means representative of the general attitudes of the BGC.
BOBBIE: DLW, I read this as being your OPINION vs. being an actual fact. Is there some support you could possibly provide so as to "prove" this to be true? I have provided some support to show otherwise and am interested how you come to this conclusion other than it being your opinion. The only people I have heard who say the debate/claims of heresy have died down have been open theists in here, but I have not seen any support to show this to be true. Are you a part of the BGC where you can say this with certinty or do you have some evidence that you can share... or is this just your opinion?
My father is not an open theist, but he is an elder in a BGC church and I have within my family people who are or were in leadership positions within the BGC. My family attends the Minnesota Baptist Conference meetings and follows the BGC proceedings rather carefully. I think their view can be seen as reflecting the general views of the BGC.
My point, as before, is that people who take the time to actually learn about the open view of God, may not choose to believe it, but do accept it as a legitimate Evangelical Christian belief. A good book by Stanley Grenz, "The Renewing of the Center" does acknowledge and give a place to the open-view(it even mentions Boyd, although it focuses more attention on Sanders) as it did Pinnock.
If you will read my link on Dorrien's "The Remaking of Evangelical Theology", you will see that there is nothing new about Evangelicals having quite different Theologies. The point of Open Theism is a simple one and leaves quite a bit of lee-way for disagreement on the particulars regarding what is open and what-not. But belief in it as Truth is separate from a commitment to following Christ and accepting his gift of salvation. Supposedly, if it were true then Satan would also be aware of this, and he clearly isn't saved.
I think one aspect of the objections surrounding open theism is its implication of fallibilism. What was understood as Classical Theism for a significant period of Christian history may have been an incorrect theology. I don't think that acknowledging that as a possibility is so terrible when one considers how anti-semitism was also institutionalized into European Christianity.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/20/2003 8:02 PM (GMT -6) | | bobbie said: "John Piper is highly respected by the majority of Christians"
John replies: Really? The majority of Christians? How do you or can you know this?
In any case, no doubt Piper is well respected by those who know him; I don't recall anyone here saying he wasn't. But just because a person is respected by others doesn't mean that person's views are therefore infallibly (or even most of the time) correct.
In any case, if we are going by "numbers" as a determiner of truth, then the Pope has simply got to be right about everything! :)
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 04/21/2003 01:12:12 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/20/2003 8:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Bobbie: I was not going to respond, but since you brought up bookstores and I am a supervisor at one, I thought I'd address your points.
First off, your Stephen Curtis Chapman take is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the issue. Totally your own opinion. You do not know what his views are. He may not even have one. So who cares? Besides he is a songwriter, not a theologian. Try sticking to those who actually have a view of the issue.
Second, open theism is relatively new, so there aren't that many published works on it. The ones that are are, by and large, scholarly works. Kinds that average Christian bookstore usually don't carry. I know this because I know my bookstore and have talked about it with others. Both pro and con books are not usually stocked in the average Christian bookstore. We still have Ware's book sitting on our sales table and Piper's will not be in our store anytime soon (I had to order mine. I wanted to carry it but was overruled). Piper is carried in stores because he articulates the Reformed position well, not because he is for or against open theism. As are the other writers you mentioned.
As far as Piper goes, I admire some of his works, but I think he is wrong in this area. I believe Doctor Boyd is right in this area, but I disagree with him in other areas, just as with Sanders and Pinnock. Besides, whether or not people know who these people has nothing to do with the truthfulness of their arguments.
Finally, most Christians have never heard of Piper, Ware, Boyd, etc., unless they are pastors of their church. Theologians, by and large are simply not well know people (sorry, Doctor Boyd).
Finally, you are up for the clueless statement of the year, so be aware. Calvin has biographers but Boyd doesn't? WHo cares! Calvin is a historical figure, part of the Protestant reformation and has been dead for 500 years. Doctor Boyd is in his 40s. Sorry if he is disppointing you! Does this mean that open theism is false? Because Doctor Boyd hasn't had his biography written? After that statement you may want to hire a professional editor.
Finally, there are a lot of people I admire. But of all the people I admire, God is tops on the list. So I have to interpret his word as best I can and see what I come with, regardless of what the people I admire say...
Edited by - honorman on 04/21/2003 01:10:58 AM
Edited by - honorman on 04/21/2003 01:14:12 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/21/2003 2:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
bobbie said: "John Piper is highly respected by the majority of Christians"
John replies: Really? The majority of Christians? How do you or can you know this?
In any case, no doubt Piper is well respected by those who know him; I don't recall anyone here saying he wasn't. But just because a person is respected by others doesn't mean that person's views are therefore infallibly (or even most of the time) correct.
In any case, if we are going by "numbers" as a determiner of truth, then the Pope has simply got to be right about everything! :)
The Pope? What about Elvis?
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing.
Edited by - Laika on 04/21/2003 07:15:35 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/21/2003 2:33 AM (GMT -6) | | After reading books on church history, I have to be glad that we live in the USA. Most of us who hold Biblical views that differ from those who proclaim what is supposed to be "orthodx" would be hunted down and burned at the stake by now.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
keithfoisy
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 4/21/2003 10:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Bobbie,
Perhaps i mean that i don't find the classical view as being practical for ministry in the same way that you don't find the free will view practical for ministry. i certainly don't mean any offense. i know that many people find the classical view very practical. i don't.
Here are the issues i disagree with about the classical view: Meticulous soveriegnty and particular predestination. i find it impractical to tell people that their child died because of the mysterious will of God, or that their father is in hell because it "was in God's will that he should be set apart for eternal distruction".
To think of God as meticulously controlling all things causes major difficulty for me when i consider the evil which plagues our world. i believe the devil is a rebel and that death and sickness do not typically come from the hand of God. Satan is a real advesary, and humans truly act against the will of God.
But i think we have gotten off the topic of the discussion board.
You asked why i enjoy the seminary i attend. i guess i enjoy it because i enjoy people. i hold many of these doctrinal views lightly. i believe that Christians ought to stand united in love, regardless of our differences of "opinion". Bobbie, that's all this is; a difference of opinion. We do not stand and fall according to whether we follow the ideas of Calvin, Arminius, or any other great theologian. We are united in Christ and ought to hold our opinions carefully, so as not to divide the body. i believe that is the greatest sin a Christian can commit.
So i really enjoy the profs and students at the seminary and they seem to like me. We laugh together, debate one another, and pray together.
Also, i believe we should all put ourselves in a position where our beliefs can be challenged. That doesn't happen by staying in our own little "club house". i have been streched and have grown in my appreciation for the reformed/classical beliefs. i have also been reaffirmed in some of my own convictions which differ from those classical beliefs. It's been good.
Keith J. Foisy | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/21/2003 3:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Keith,
You said: ...i certainly don't mean any offense. i know that many people find the classical view very practical. i don't.
Bobbie says: You didn't at all come across offensive. I'm just not clear on what you mean by "practical". In my own experience, I've never thought of Christianity/ministry in terms of being "practical" but more in terms of being just the truth that people need. I guess I'm not figuring out how the two go together--> Christianity + practical = ?? That was why I was asking. It's no offense to you either. As Honorman graciously pointed out, I'm "up for the clueless statement of the year!" heehee
Thanks for answering the questions and explaining your views.
You said: Satan is a real advesary, and humans truly act against the will of God.
Bobbie says: Very much agreed.
Keith says: Bobbie, that's all this is; a difference of opinion. We do not stand and fall according to whether we follow the ideas of Calvin, Arminius, or any other great theologian. We are united in Christ and ought to hold our opinions carefully, so as not to divide the body. i believe that is the greatest sin a Christian can commit.
Bobbie says: I believe though that open theism teaches some things that are VERY unbiblical that lead people astray. There are alot of things I find wrong with the teachings of open theism, and while I agree with you that we are "united in Christ", how can we be united if our Christ or our God is such a different God... for the God of open theism is very different than the God of the "classical view".
Of course, I do realize that you might disagree with this as do others. So it kinda depends on the person's belief. I see two very different Gods and I honestly grieve when I hear the way God is described by open theism. But that's me! And not eveyone would agree.
As for being united and not divided... I don't think that's a sin to be divided... depending on the reasons, of course. Yes, Jesus said to keep peace "as far as it is up to you" but He also said He WOULD divide... that He'd come as a sword and the own members of one's household would be enemies because one would chose Christ and another would not. I know this in my own life. My father is a part of a cult and while he'd LOVE to see me be with him in that, I cannot be. I have had to chose my faith and Christianity over my father basically. And if I disagree with him on his teachings... well, it divides us. So... I either say nothing and let him be deceived or I risk speaking and face his hostility. Which is best? It's really a hard question, to be honest. Or I could deny my faith altogether for the sake of pleasing my earthly father.
I understand that you are really talking about division between Christians... and I agree that within the Body of Christ, we ought to be in unity. But my father believes he is a Christian. So, back when I first became a Christian, I closely examined his beliefs. He talks like a Christian, acts better than some Christians, etc... BUT when I examined his beliefs, I found that they are not Biblical. I do not wish to offend you or others, but realize that I will when I say this-- I have examined open theism and feel strongly that it is unbiblical. Not to the extent of my father's religion. But to the extent that I do feel very strongly that I will risk even hatred from open theists rather than agree with open theistic teachings.
My point is, following Jesus does divide.
Matt. 10:36 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law agsint her mother-in-law-- a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."
The debate re: open theism is a heated debate for the reason that there are those who feel open theism goes beyond being just another theology to the point of being a heresy because of what it teaches. That is why alot of people are willing to not "keep the peace" because they have a stronger desire to refute open theism. For me and others, it goes far beyond being just a matter of opinion.
You don't see it as anything worth being divided over, and that's okay but for me, and others, it is a teaching that is worth being divided over because we feel it is a false teaching. To be honest, the more I have discovered about it, the more "passionate" I have become about it's falseness. When I only knew a little, I wasn't as concerned although I did lack peace and comfort with it (and with attending Woodland Hills Church) but wasn't totally always sure why. Now, that I know alot more, I am more certain of why I felt that way and I am more concerned now than I was then about it. If that makes sense...
You said: "Also, i believe we should all put ourselves in a position where our beliefs can be challenged."
Bobbie says: I agree, to an extent, I think. I think even a pastor's beliefs ought to be "challenged" in that the person looks to Scripture to see if those beliefs are truth. Anything we say as humans should line up with Scripture and who God is/isn't.
Well, I hope you continue to enjoy your seminary time! Blessings!
Bobbie
Edited by - Bobbie on 04/21/2003 8:11:12 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/21/2003 4:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Bobbie: I would appreciate it if you would list, in your view exactly how the classical view of God and the open view of God differ.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 4/21/2003 6:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Bobbie,
I find it very interesting that you read a lot written by DTS (Dallas Theological Seminary) products, like Chuck Swindoll, but Swindoll and many of the others you cite aren't theologians. Swindoll is a very popular Evangelical Free Church (EFC) radio personality that I remember listening to in the middle '70's. I also remember that I quit listening when he deviated from the teachings of C.C. Ryrie and S. Lewis Johnson (both professors at DTS at some point in time) and became liberal enough to be popular. S. Lewis Johnson left DTS because it wasn't conforming to Reformed Theology to the degree he liked, but I don't know why Ryrie left.
I grew up in Southern Baptist Churches (since 1952) and graduated from a SBC seminary, but I found it very easy to go all the way to Arminianism and lean toward Open Theism with such a good start. Of course, when I pastored an EFC I was only a 4 point Arminian (i.e. Southern Baptist), but they didn't have a problem with it. My Arminianism didn't bother the SBC church I preached at after I left the Freewill Baptist either. What really seemed to bother all of them was my efforts to reduce the influence of the world on the body of Christ. My demise on the radio wasn't Arminianism/Open Theism, it was denouncing short skirts!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/21/2003 7:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Paul,
You said: I find it very interesting that you read a lot written by DTS (Dallas Theological Seminary) products, like Chuck Swindoll, but Swindoll and many of the others you cite aren't theologians.
Bobbie: Why so "interesting?"
Paul: Swindoll is a very popular Evangelical Free Church (EFC) radio personality that I remember listening to in the middle '70's.
Bobbie: Yep. He is still pretty popular-- he's been around awhile, eh? I enjoy his writing/speaking alot.
Paul: S. Lewis Johnson left DTS because it wasn't conforming to Reformed Theology to the degree he liked, but I don't know why Ryrie left.
Bobbie: Me either (why Ryrie left). I don't know S. Lewis Johnson though.
Paul: I grew up in Southern Baptist Churches (since 1952) and graduated from a SBC seminary, but I found it very easy to go all the way to Arminianism and lean toward Open Theism with such a good start.
Bobbie: Great. I've been to a So. Baptist Church too before-- great pastor... it was awhile ago (during college). It didn't lean me towards open theism though.
Paul: Of course, when I pastored an EFC
Bobbie: You don't pastor there anymore?
Paul: I was only a 4 point Arminian (i.e. Southern Baptist)
Bobbie: Sorry, Paul, I'm not very theologian-minded and not familiar with "4 point Arminian"
Paul: they didn't have a problem with it.
Bobbie: That's good.
Paul: What really seemed to bother all of them was my efforts to reduce the influence of the world on the body of Christ. My demise on the radio wasn't Arminianism/Open Theism, it was denouncing short skirts!
Bobbie: Hm? Not sure I follow? You talked on the radio but not anymore because you said it was wrong to wear short skirts? I'm rephrasing to see if I understand what you were saying. That's good though that you were trying to reduce the influence of the world on the body of Christ.
"With God ALL things are possible" Matt. 19:26 | | Back to Top | | |
| 40 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:12 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|