 |
| 
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 4/5/2003 6:43 PM (GMT -6) |   | Greetings, Bob:
Could you further clarify your definition of the "watered down" God that you reference in your post, below?
Thank you...
Peace & blessings,
<><
___________________________
Johnson wrote:
quote:
No, it means he has justice in His wrath. Those who recieve His wrath will not look at it as being good. And will not think that God is good. God has many charateristics that go beyond just being loving and good. His Holyness encompasses all of his characteristics. So when He says that He hates divorce or that he hates sin or that he hates Esau, He is declairing one of His characteristics. He also means that He hates. However, Gods hating is not like our hating because He is not us.What if God, desiring to show his wrath and desiring to make known His power, has endurd with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared before hand for glory? Rom.9:22 & 23
Bob wrote:
quote:
Your words have so much wisdom to them. Thank you. I'm tired of a "watered down" God and theology that makes God what someone WANTS him to be. I don't even want to be a Christian if that's who God is... some spineless God who's like a puppet on a string who just kind of says, "Oh, I just love you so much that you can just go do whatever you want."
Edited by - bob on 04/05/2003 10:13:34 PM
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/5/2003 7:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Good points, John, and I agree about the limitations of the net! I can agree with you that some things might come across rude but are due to this reason.
I probably did not state my statements very well. I do not think "Open Theists" are rude, or rude because they are Open Theists, but more that I have seen comments in these forums that to me, sound like put-downs towards Calvinists or others who don't agree with Open Theism... thus giving me an impression of a prideful attitude and rudeness. Please note that in my post I addressed the forums and comments made therin (not all Open Theists who exist in this world).
The only comment actually made to me in person was one made by a good friend who goes to WHC. I visited Bethlehem Baptist Church for awhile and when I told him, he said, "Oh boy..." and rolled his eyes. I was taken aback by that to be honest, and said nothing but thought to myself, "Oh brother."
Other than that, there has been no rudeness shown to me just because I don't agree... other than my comments being called "absurd"  . Don't worry, I am not taking them personal.
I understand what you're saying about the words "absurd" & "irrational". Yes, it is "irrational" if she is thin to think she is fat. But her feeling is not necessarily irrational or absurd-- it is her feeling. I think that for the most part these words tend to separate and not show respect when said. They easily cause defensiveness in a person but I can agree that that is not necessarily always true. It depends alot on the relationship between the people and how the statement is made... lovingly and gently or with harshness. So thank you for clarifying that. I suppose I made a broad generalization.
That is a little bit off the subject anyhow...
Edited by - bob on 04/06/2003 6:53:25 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/5/2003 8:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Mayflower,
Yes, I deleted the other post. I actually didn't say that I greatly respect J. Piper but that he is greatly respected. But, for the record, I do respect him. I consider him to be an excellent preacher and writer.
I had deleted the post you mentioned with the intent of not getting involved in the debate. I am not really one who totally enjoys debating (esp. when I am in the minority and going "against the flow") although by my comments it seems otherwise! But I then changed my mind and decided to join in.
Since there are very few (I am assuming) in these forums who do not agree with Open Theism, I would imagine that most things said might appear as if we are taking things "personally". I think it will be easy to see me as taking things personal if I am the only one disagreeing with the majority! But I will watch myself so as not to do so.
I don't necessarily judge any Open Theist negatively, although I do wonder if Open Theists judge non-Open Theists negatively... only from comments I have read on here and from a reaction I once received by an Open Theist when I shared with him that I attended Piper's church (in which he rolled his eyes and was expecting me to share some horror story).
I am acquainted with most of the major points of Open Theism and disagree. I have read some of Piper's comments and some of some other's comments and I have researched it on the internet, but it was awhile ago. I will have to go back and re-research it.
Edited by - bob on 04/06/2003 6:48:21 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GODesteem
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 34
| Posted 4/6/2003 7:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Greetings Ryan! I had a couple of points (questions) for you to consider. In your discussion of "love" in relation to God and its meaning, you made the following comment:
"Love is the Trinitarian God composed of one being and three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) who engage in full and complete self-denial for the others."
Are you suggesting the the individual members of the Godhead perform self-denying acts for each other? This is new to me! Please explain, with Scriptural examples if possible.
Later in your discussion you cite what (I assume) Calvinists believe about God's election of sinners:
"Now that is the God I want to dedicate my life to fully and completely, not to one who before the creation of this world decided arbitrarily and specifically who will spend the rest of eternity burning in hell."
To quote your own words, "I suggest you read a little more about what (Calvinism) really is before you employ such irrational and simply absurd statements. Nowhere do Calvinists make such a ridiculous claim." I say this in reference to your citation of the "God" who "arbitrarily" decides "who will spend the rest of eternity burning in hell.".....
Godesteem I say....
God loves Himself more than anything... He is our greatest treasure! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Rpeterso
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 18
| Posted 4/6/2003 10:29 AM (GMT -6) | | GODesteem,
I beg to differ! Based on the classic five points of Calvinism, otherwise known as TULIP, it does appear that God, before the creation of the world, arbitrarily condemns millions of people to hell, and to suggest otherwise, I feel is just plain ignorance (in all due respect of course). The second point of Calvinism, “unconditional election,” is predicated on the very notion that election is not conditioned (hence the term “unconditional”) upon anything the individual does, whether that be works or an acknowledgement of faith in Christ. Rather, one becomes elect simply because God, before the creation of the world, decided solely based on his choice who would be elect and who would not, or who would go to heaven and who would spend eternity burning in hell. Without fail from this point, Calvinist immediately race to Romans 9:11-13 to justify their radical contention. Needless to say, if viewed in a Calvinist context, this very passage displays irrefutably the arbitrary nature of God’s decision to condemn people to hell:
“Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad (before the creation of the world)– in order that God’s purpose (sovereign choice)in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls (not contingent upon anything a person can do, but only by God's personal choice) – she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
This here my friend is God essentially saying, “Some will go to heaven, some will go to hell, and I will decide who goes where arbitrarily. Romans 9 supports this even further in verse 15: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” This isn’t arbitrary? Just to avoid any confusion, the word arbitrary mean, “based on random choice or personal whim.” God’s election is not contingent upon anything the person does, but rather on God’s random choice or personal whim (at this point please revisit Romans 9:11-15). Now, could the all sovereign God have it within his will to love Esau? If its not based on anything Esau did, why could not God love Esau? Could the all sovereign God have it within his will to save everyone? If God can create any world he likes, why does he create one where so many are condemned, based on his choice, to go to hell? If that is not arbitrary then I do not know what is. I am sorry, but the very essence of unconditional election is ARBITRARY!
-Ryan
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 4/6/2003 1:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Qucik question for GODesteem. You said to Ryan
quote:
To quote your own words, "I suggest you read a little more about what (Calvinism) really is before you employ such irrational and simply absurd statements. Nowhere do Calvinists make such a ridiculous claim." I say this in reference to your citation of the "God" who "arbitrarily" decides "who will spend the rest of eternity burning in hell.".....
Like Ryan, I don't believe that this is a misrepresentation of the Calvinistic view. If you believe that this is not the correct view of unconditional election, will you explain what your view is? If you find this view "irrational and simply absurd" perhaps your view is not truly Calvinistic. Hope to hear back from you on the subject.
In answer to Bob's question. Bob said quote:
I do have a question. How does one become an Open Theist? What I mean is... is it taught in a class at church or preached from the pulpit? In my time at WHC, I don't remember hearing the term other than from friends who would explain it and talk about the Piper/Boyd debate.
Does my question make sense? What I mean is... is it a doctrine that is simply explained in books, forums, and letters? I don't recall Greg Boyd ever mentioning the words "Open Theism" at WHC while I was there, so I imagine that had I not heard it from word-of-mouth, maybe I would still be unaware?
I hate to get biographical, but maybe it will help you. I would not say that I am an Open Theist. I am still thinking through the issues involving God's foreknowledge of the future. But I am thoroughly convinced that the view of God that true Calvinism teaches is not the God that I know through the person of Jesus Christ, through the teaching of scripture, or through my understanding of what love is through my God given conscience. I went to a Southern Baptist university in Tennessee where through the theology department and my roommates I came into contact with the teaching of Calvinism. I think that Rpeterso's explaining of the Calvinistic position is right on, from what I have read from Calvin, Luther, Sproul, and Piper. In response to this, my Junior year of college was spent in a deep depression because I felt that this was the Christian God- a God who before creation chose who would be saved and who would be damned. I was told that any type of Arminian position concerning who would be saved was unbiblical and Pelagian heresy (works salvation)
The book that changed all this for me was Clark Pinnock's "The Grace of God and the Will of Man." In this book I saw that there were very studied and wise men who believed that Calvinism was logically contradictory. It was so freeing! I read whatever I could get my hands on from the authors of the essays in this book, including Pinnock and John Sander's "The Openness of God." Like I said, I am not clear whether an Open view of the future or a simple foreknowledge view or Molinistic view is the correct view of God's knowledge of the future, but I reject any view that makes God responsible for evil and damnation of millions.
Sorry that was so long, but maybe you will see where I'm coming from. Hope it helped...
Ross
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnson
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 38
| Posted 4/6/2003 2:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Ross,
I let God define His hate. Malachi 1:2-5, I have loved you, says the LORD. But you say, "How have you loved us?" "Is not Esau Jacob's Brother?" declares the LORD. Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert. If Edom says, "We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins," the LORD of hosts says, "They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called the wicked country, and the people with whom the LORD is angry forever." Your own eyes shall see this, and you shall say, Great is the LORD beyond the border of Israel!
2 Peter 2
Prov. 6: 16-19 ...and one who sows, discord among brothers.
Matt. 18:6 ...it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Matt. 10:28 ...fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt. 25: 41..."Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Gods, sence of justice is rooted in the fact that he is HOLY, not loving.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnson
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 38
| Posted 4/6/2003 2:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Ryan,
God's purpose in election is not arbitrary. It does not say that in scripture anywhere.
God's purpose in election is so that His purpose will stand. You even quoted it in the scripture you used - yet you did not see it. He has reasons for his saving some and not others. Chief among those is that God is Glorified in all He does - not man.
So then Gods election is not arbitrary. It is based on purpose. Just because you don't know what that purpose is doesn't mean that He doesn't have one or that it is arbitrary. We do know that is not based on anything that we do but on God.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/6/2003 2:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Ross for the explanation. You said: "my Junior year of college was spent in a deep depression because I felt that this was the Christian God". Well, like you, I have felt very downcast and depressed in my heart when I have considered the God of Open Theism to be a Christian God.
Now, I do not know enough about Calvinism to be able to even say whether I am a Calvinist or not. I know enough about Open Theism to know I don't agree with its teachings. But I do know that the true God of the Bible is not an "easy" God to accept. We are very sinful people whose hearts are easily deceived, even by our own selves, and I think we often convince ourselves that something God has said is not true or is not meant as it sounds. Now, I know that many things in the Bible are not literal because they are poems, songs, parables, etc. but that is not what I am talking about.
For instance, Ryan has pointed out that the Calvinistic view of Rom. 9:11-13 is "arbitrary". But I am wondering... if that is so, then what exactly is Rom. 9:11-13 talking about? Is it just a passage of Scripture to be thrown out? Is it not literal? Is it that "God didn't really mean that"? Has God changed since then?
Ryan refuted the Calvinistic expanation of Rom. 9:11-13, but can someone then tell me what the "correct" interpretation of this passage would be?
You and I would probably agree that the Bible is God's truth and without any book by Boyd, Piper, or any other author, we would have all we need to know about salvation, Christian living, etc. within the pages of the Bible. But... how we interpret it seems to be what differs. Calvinists and Open Theists read the same words but interpret them in different ways. So... who is right and how do we determine who is right?
You see, you were depressed when you considered the God of Calvinism and I, on the other hand, felt depressed when I considered the God of Open Theism because the God of Open Theism is not the God I read about in the Bible.
Edited by - bob on 04/07/2003 6:57:59 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/6/2003 3:00 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
You see, you were depressed when you considered the God of Calvinism and I, on the other hand, felt depressed when I considered the God of Open Theism.
Don't let a bad experience with WH and those involved influence your investigation of Open Theism. I've examined OT for the last 20 years and have only recently found others who believe in it as well. It stands on it's own two feet. Read Roger Forster's "God's Strategy in Human History" or a thin one by Richard Rice "God's Foreknowledge and Man's Free Will", two books I had the pleasure of helping print.
_________________________
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/6/2003 10:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Bob: is disagreeing with someone's interpretation of scripture being unloving and negative? Just curious...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/7/2003 12:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Johnson who insists God has a purpose in election, and Ryan who holds that it is arbitrary, can both be right, but in different senses.
It is meaningful to say God has a purpose in electing a class of people and reprobating a class of people. He is presumably glorified by the grace shown to the elect and the wrath shown to the reprobate.
But its not clear to me what meaning can be given to the notion that he has a purpose in electing or reprobating this or that individual. For God's election and reprobation before the foundation of the world is based on nothing in the individuals. God doesn't elect or reprobate because of a person's faith, character, works, hair color, etc... If you ask, "Why is this person elect and that person reprobate?" the answser can have nothing whatsoever to do with the individuals in question.
And that, I think, is what Ryan means by saying the election and reprobation is "arbitrary." It seems the most accurate way to describe the situation when the discussion is about particular individuals.
Suppose I decide to be very generous. And then suppose, since I like the number three, I decide to actualize this purpose by giving three dollars to every third individual who walks by me on a street.
If you ask, why does Greg give three dollars to some, you can answer, "he has a purpose." If you ask, "why does he give it to every third person?" you can say, "he has a purpose." But if you ask, "why was this particular person given three dollars and not that particular person?" the answer can only be, "it was arbitrary." Greg HAPPENED to pick "three" and some HAPPENED to be the third person who passed them and others not.
Hope that helps.
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 4/7/2003 8:10 AM (GMT -6) | | "Can't we all just get along???"
Umm....can we kinda keep the thread on track? I mean, I think it is veering off course a bit. The thread is about THIS book and the particular chapters in it. But before we get back to that, I feel that I should respond to "bob" and Alan, like I promised.
Bob said:
quote:
Yes, BBC, I am sure you do believe that, and I am sure that most "Open Theists" think the same thing. What does this mean for us who are not Open Theistic? Does it mean you are all going to heaven and the we are going to hell 'cause we've got our theology all screwed up? This is an honest question. Does it mean that we are missing out on fullness and blessings in our life? I honestly don't know what Open Theists believe about the salvation of a person who disagrees with Open Theist theology and am asking with sincerity.
Going to hell? Of course silly!!! HA! HA! HA! That’s funny! Ahhhh…(big sigh)…ok.  Answer? There is the FAITH component. But I think something needs to be clear here. Theology is an enterprise. I think, more than anyone else, Pinnock, by his own example has made this more and more clear to me. Again, I have to quote from him in Most Moved Mover (MMM).
In there, Pinnock says:
The conventional package of attributes is tightly drawn. Tinkering with one or two of them will not help much. The open view lays down the gauntlet and invites other theologians to take a firmer grip and submit more coherent alternatives. By the same token, the open view has to consider how far this unraveling can be allowed to go.
So, does the open view have some “bugs” in it? Yeah. It does. But should that be considered a “negative” on the system as a whole? Again, Pinnock:
The conventional attributes, rise and fall together. If God is personal and enters into relationships, God cannot be immutable in every respect, timelessly eternal, impassible, or meticulously sovereign. Piecemeal reform will not do the job; we need some thorough rethinking
In other words, let’s bring OT to the theological round table and present it among the alternatives present. Let’s discuss them and work it out. There might be more consistencies on the part of some openness theologians than others (that is they are working their thinking through to it’s logical end which makes for coherency, while others are not) but that may be in part due to the infancy of this view (not to mention “scattered thinking.”) Now, do some theologians have a problem with this? Well, if you read the book, you will find out that they are pretty much alarmist about academic freedom especially in terms of open theism. Anyhoo, what I’m saying, is that OT is “still in the works” and so we should not judge someone’s faith on the basis of whether they have the “right theology.” By the way, if you are familiar with any of Pinnock’s stuff? You get the sense that he is “always in process,” a continual going back to the drawing board. I mean that seems to be all over MMM. Greg? What do you think?
Alan,
I agree with ya. But let me throw something else out for ya. In the chapter on anthropomorphism, Caneday says that Boyd confuses “texts and events.” He says that texts themselves are neither “literal nor figurative” and then he says that texts describe or portray things INCLUDING EVENTS literally or figuratively. (Is it just me? It’s gotta be me. I know it’s me. How can texts themselves on one hand not be literal or figurative and then on the other hand texts themselves describe or portray things including events literally or figuratively? It’s kinda confusing). He also says that Boyd confuses “rhetorical” and “existential” categories. That is, Boyd confuses what is figurative with what is NOT REAL.
So, taking Boyd’s example of the incarnation quoting Boyd:
quote:
”Everybody including Ware, takes some texts as literal and some figurative. No evangelical thinks that the incarnation is figurative, for example, but all agree that expressions of God’s ‘right arm’ are.
and later on CANEDAY HIMSELF says:
quote:
Though the Bible often portrays the Son’s incarnation figuratively, it does not suggest that the incarnation is not literal in the sense of real
Is this what Greg is saying? Greg is saying in the top quote, that no evangelical thinks that the incarnation is not real, that is figurative. That is, no evangelical thinks that the incarnation is NOT real. They all think it IS real. And so here, figurative IS synonymous with “NOT REAL”
Yet in the second quote, Caneday does not say what he means by “figuratively” but WE ALL understand the Bible does not suggest that the incarnation is figurative in the sense that Greg is using it, that it IS NOT real. We all understand that it is real. Does anyone have any problem with this?
Then to make himself clear, Caneday proposes the following:
Following Boyd’s reasoning:
A. Boyd wrongly describes texts as literal rather than the texts portray or describe, even if represented figuratively.
B. Boyd says that literal means “real” or “actual” neither of which stands opposite of figurative in the literary sense.
C. Switches the category of figure of speech under question, specifically “anthropomorphism”, to the broadest use of “metaphorical” which bears the sense “figurative.”
D. Reduces biblical anthropomorphism found in the expression “naham” (relent) to a simplistic translation that favors his own theological assumptions, namely, “change of mind.”
E. Measures God by humans. God changes his mind like humans change their mind.
F. Switches “change of mind” from proper category “anthropomorphism” to an improper category “metaphor.”
Greg, can you weigh in on this along with Alan? But I really don’t get what the problem is.
Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/7/2003 9:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Yo BBB,
You ask: Greg, can you weigh in on this along with Alan? But I really don’t get what the problem is.
I answer: neither do I. It seems to me that Canday is the one who equivocates on anthropomorphisms. He argues that all of the Bible is "anthropomorphic" because it is God using human language and conceptions to talk to us. Who could disagree? And he argues that just because it is anthropomorphic, this doesn't mean its not true -- viz. points to something real. Again, who could disagree? But then he wants to use this observation to argue that passages that describe God changing his mind don't mean that God changes his mind, for we know (he claims) from two other verses (just as anthropomorphic?) that God DOESN'T change his mind. On THIS point, many could disagree.
How can the anthropomorphic nature of "God changed his mind" not point to the reality that God (in some appropriate sense) changes his mind, while the anthropomorphic nature of "God is not a man that he should repent) nevertheless points to the reality that God doesn't change his mind?
It seems to me, quite honestly, that Canaday simply isn't aware of how determinative his presupposed conception of God is on what he allows an anthropomorphism to disclose or not.
And where did he get his conception of God "above the anthropomorphisms" if all scripture is anthropomorphic?
When I have said that passages like "God changes his mind" are literal, I have not meant to deny either that there is a metaphorical quality to the language (viz. we don't LITERALLY change our brains!) or an anthropomorphic quality to the speech (viz. God's "mind" is like and unlike our "mind" in certain ways). I simply mean to say, at the very least, that when an author says "God changed his mind" it has the same status as "God is love" or "God sent his Son" and means roughly what we mean when we say of a person "they changed their mind."
AT the very least, it implies that the statement "God doesn't change his mind" is wrong!
Blessings
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 4/7/2003 10:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg, I like the new signature quote! By the way, sorry to contirbute to the off the subject discussion... On with discussion of beyond the bounds!
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/7/2003 10:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Honorman: is disagreeing with someone's interpretation of scripture being unloving and negative? Just curious...
Bob: Hmmm... gotta go back and find out where I said that. Sorry, can't find it.
BBBCanada: Going to hell? Of course silly!!! HA! HA! HA! That’s funny! Ahhhh…(big sigh)…ok. Answer?
Bob: Okay, so it's clear that you think my question is "silly"... but could you please answer it? It was not rhetorical. I would like to know what you, as an Open Theist, think about non-Open Theists. What is their "fate"? Are they doomed to a lost life believing a lie that has been fed to them from long, long ago? Are they not saved and thus, headed for Hades? I realize it's a laughable question to you, but I am not seeking your opinion on the intelligence of my question; I am seeking an honest answer. Thanks.
Honorman: Answer? There is the FAITH component. But I think something needs to be clear here. Theology is an enterprise
Bob: This is the answer? I'm looking for a "yes" or a "no". Are non Open Theists going to hell because of their beliefs???
Also, what exactly do you mean that "theology is an enterprise?" According to Websters dictionary, an enterprise is a "project undertaken; adventurous spirit or ingenuity; a business firm." Which of those definitions are you alluding to?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/7/2003 10:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg: When I have said that passages like "God changes his mind" are literal
Bob: Could you please share the Scripture reference where it says God changed (or changes) his mind? I am wondering what passages say this because I do not recall any. I read NIV so maybe it is a different translation? I looked in my concordance under "change/changes" and all I found were these verses:
1 Sam. 15:29 "He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
Psalm 110:4 "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind."
Malachi 3:6 "I the Lord do not change."
James 1:17 "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."
I have not read your book but I am wondering as to what Scripture verses allude to the thought or belief that God changes his mind. Either God changes his mind or He doesn't, correct? If He does, then how am I to interpret these passages that say He does not?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 4/7/2003 11:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey everyone,
Just wondering...Should we start a new thread to continue the discussion that we are having with Bob, johnson, Rperterso, and others about questions concerning Open Theism? That way this thread could focus on discussing the book "Beyond the Bounds" while we can continue this helpful (hopefully) discussion that several of us have been having? I'm going to start a new thread and call it,hmm, I don't know... "continuing Open Theism Discussion" Maybe that will work (If not we can continue to discuss both on this thread, just tryin to help )
Ross
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/7/2003 12:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Bob: Could you please share the Scripture reference where it says God changed (or changes) his mind?
Greg: Here's a brief exert from my book, God of the Possible.
Perhaps the best example of [God proclaiming he can and will change his mind] is found in Jeremiah, 18. Many in Israel had heard that the Lord was planning on punishing her for her wickedness and had wrongly assumed that this meant that, "It is no use" (vs. 12). If God had prophesied against us, they reasoned, there is nothing that could be done about it. It seems that they were reading into God’s prophecy the assumption that the future was unalterable.
To correct this fatalistic thinking, the Lord directed Jeremiah to go to a potter’s house to watch a potter at work. "The vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as seemed good to him" (2–4). The Lord then instructed Jeremiah, "Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done?… Just like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel" (vs. 6).
The Lord then continues:
At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. (vs. 7–10)
The Lord then applies this teaching to Israel.
Look, I am a potter shaping evil against you and devising a plan against you. Turn now, all of you from your evil way, and amend your ways and your doings. (vs. 11)
There are five points worth making regarding this remarkable passage.
A Virtuously Flexible Omnipotence. First, many ancient and contemporary interpreters have used the "potter/clay" analogy to argue that God exercises unilateral control over us. They mistakenly read Paul to be using the analogy in this fashion (Rom. 9:21–23). Entering into a full discussion of Paul’s analogy would take us too far astray (see Question 18, Chapter IV). What is important for us to note is that in Jeremiah (which Paul is alluding to) the analogy is used to make the exact opposite point. As the potter was willing to revise his vessel once the first plan was "spoiled," so God is willing to revise his initial plan when circumstances call for it. He is not a unilaterally controlling God. He is a graciously flexible God. The "clay" he works with is not lifeless, but has a mind and will of its own, to which he responds appropriately.
Change and Certainty. Second, we must take very seriously the Lord’s word that he will "change his mind about the disaster that [he] intended to bring on one nation" (vs. 8) and/or "change his mind about the good [he] had intended to do to" another nation, if these nations change (vs. 10). If the future is exhaustively fixed, could the Lord genuinely intend to bring something about and then genuinely change his mind and not bring it about? How can someone sincerely intend to do something they are certain they will never do? And how can they truly change their mind if their mind is eternally made up?
Is the "Change" Merely Appearance? Classical theologians usually argue that texts that attribute change to God describe how he appears to us. They do not depict God as he really is. It looks like God changed his mind, but he really didn’t.
Unfortunately for the classical interpretation, the text does not say, or remotely imply, that it looks like the Lord intended something and then changed his mind. Rather, the Lord himself tells us in the plainest terms possible that he intended one thing, and then changed his mind and did something else. How can God’s stated intention be explained as an appearance? There is simply no reason to interpret language about changeable aspects of God less literally than language about unchangeable aspects of God..
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that God wanted to tell us in Scripture that he really does sometimes intend to carry out one course of action and that he really does sometimes change his mind and not do it. How could he tell us this in terms clearer than he did in this passage? He says here (and many other places), "I change my mind." How could he say it clearer? If this passage doesn’t teach us that God can truly change his intentions, what would a passage which did teach this look like?
I suggest that if this text isn’t enough to convince us that God’s mind is not eternally settled, then our philosophical presuppositions are controlling our exegesis to a degree that no conceivable text could ever teach us this. This is not a charge that people who affirm the divine authority of Scripture want to be guilty of.
The Virtue of Changeability. Fourth, while classical theologians have always considered the notion that God changes his mind as denoting a weakness on God’s part, this passage and several others (Jonah 4:2; Joel 2:12–13) consider God’s willingness to change as one of God’s attributes of greatness. When a person is in a genuine relationship with another, willingness to adjust to them is always considered a virtue. Why should this apply to people but not to God?
On the contrary, since God is the epidome of everything we deem praiseworthy, and since we ordinarily deem responsiveness to be praiseworthy, should we not be inclined to view God as the most responsive being conceivable? He never changes his perfect character, of course, for this would not be praiseworthy. But as Scripture indicates, he is wonderfully willing and able to adjust his plans and emotions as his relationship with us calls for it. The Israelites were mistaken precisely because they didn’t appreciate this aspect of God’s greatness (Jere. 18:12).
God Is Not a Human That He Should Change. Finally, we must reconcile Jeremiah 18 and all the other passages which speak of God "changing his mind" with Samuel‘s statement to Saul that "the Glory of Israel will not recant or change his mind, for he is not a moral, that he should change his mind" (1 Sam. 15:35). A nearly identical statement was made by Balaam when he told Balak, "God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind (Num. 23:19). Some defenders of the classical view of foreknowledge seize these two verses and insist that, unlike all the verses that describe God changing his mind, these do not speak figuratively or in terms of how things appear. These verses rather describe God as he really is, viz. he does not change his mind.
A closer examination of both passages reveals that they do not contradict the teaching that God changes his mind and do not speak about God any more literally than do the passages in which God changes his mind.
God Will not Change—But He Could. Regarding Samuel’s statement to Saul, it is important to recall that both before and after this verse we find Scripture explicitly teaching that God regretted making Saul king over Israel (15:11, 35). He intended to bless him, but ended up judging him instead (1 Sam. 13:13–14). We cannot declare the middle verse to be literal and the other two non-literal just because the middle verse might fit best with our theological preconceptions. All three verses sound as though they were intended to be taken literally. There is no indication in the text of a switch from literal to non-literal speech.
Some argue that we must consider that some sort of switch occurs, for otherwise we would have to assume that the Bible contradicts itself (in the space of a dozen verses or so!). If we carefully read each verse in context, however, we find that there is no contradiction between them, even if we interpret them all literally.
It’s important to note that Samuel had prayed all night trying to change
the Lord's mind regarding Saul's dethronement (1 Sam. 15:11–12). This alone is enough to demonstrate that Samuel believed that God could in principle change his mind about things. It’s just that, after trying all night, he came to conclude that in this instance God wouldn’t change is mind. There is a big difference between "couldn’t" and "wouldn’t." The classical view of divine foreknowledge teaches the former, but Scripture on occasion teaches the latter. We find several examples of God declaring, "I will not change my mind" (Ezek. 24:14; Zech. 8:14). But note carefully, these exceptions prove the rule. It is only meaningful for God to say he will not change his mind if it is true that he could change his mind if he wanted to, and if it is true that many times he wants to (cf. Jere. 18:7–10; Jonah 4:2; Joel 2:12–13).
1 Samuel 15:29 does not teach that God couldn’t change his mind, only that in this instance he wouldn’t change it. Perhaps if Saul had truly repented of his sin instead of begging Samuel to change things with a purely selfish motive (vs. 27), God would have reversed his decision once again. Unfortunately, Saul gave God no reason to forgive him or restore him. And, unlike fallible and fickle humans, God can’t be cajoled into altering his plans for any reasons other than what are consistent with his unchanging holy character.
God’s Prophecies are not For Hire. Something similar may be said regarding Numbers 23:19. In this passage Balak attempted to get Balaam (a "prophet-for-hire") to prophesy what he wanted to hear (cf. 22:38–23:17). The Lord informed Balak that he, the true God, is not like a human being who can lie when it's profitable or a mortal who will change his mind for the sake of convenience. This was a common practice for false prophets who speak on behalf of false gods. But for the first time in his life Balak (and Balaam!) had confronted the real God. This God is not like a mortal who would change his mind for the reasons Balak is giving him to do so.
We see that there is no good reason to interpret these two passages more literally than those which teach us that God can and does change his mind. If read in context, both sets of verses may be affirmed as accurately depicting God as he really is. God’s mind is unchanging in every way in which it is not virtuous to be changing, but open to change in every way in which it is virtuous to be open to change. No contradiction needs to be resolved. No strained reinterpretation of a major motif of Scripture is needed. The only thing required is that we accept that the future is partly open as well as partly settled, and thus that God is not only the God of what shall certainly be, but also the God of all possibilities.
Reversed Divine Intentions
Jeremiah 18 is hardly alone in explicitly declaring the truth that God changes his mind when circumstances call for it. Let us consider several other examples.
Dispatched "to Destroy." In 1 Chronicles 21:15, for example, we are told that the Lord in his righteous anger sent "an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it." However, "when he was about to destroy it, the Lord relented concerning the calamity." We have to wonder: could the Lord genuinely intend "to destroy" Jerusalem—to the point of actually dispatching an angel to accomplish the task—if he was certain from the start that he wouldn’t destroy the city? If God always knew he wouldn’t destroy it, isn’t Scripture simply wrong in claiming that God sent the angel "to destroy it"?
Note also how impossible it is to dismiss texts such as this one as speaking only in terms of appearances, not reality. For the information which this inspired text imparts to us concerns a subjective motive on God’s part which would we would not have known about had Scripture not revealed it.
An Expanded Life. Along similar lines, in 2 Kings 20:1–7 the Lord tells Hezekiah through an inspired prophet that he’s planning on letting him die. He would not recover from his sickness. Hezekiah pleaded with him, however, and as a result the Lord reversed his stated intention and said, "I will add fifteen years to your life" (vs. 6). Jeremiah later encouraged the fatalistic Israelites by reminding them of this great reversal. "Did [Hezekiah] not fear the Lord and entreat the favor of the Lord, and did not the Lord change his mind about the disaster that he had pronounced…" (Jere. 26:19)?
Now, if we accept the classical view of foreknowledge and suppose that the Lord was certain that he would not let Hezekiah die, wasn’t he being duplicitous when he told Hezekiah that he would not recover? And if we suppose that the Lord was certain all along that Hezekiah would in fact live fifteen years after this episode, wasn’t it misleading for God to tell him that he was adding fifteen years to his life? And wouldn’t Jeremiah simply be mistaken in announcing that God changed his mind when he reversed his stated intentions to Hezekiah—if, in fact, God’s mind never "really" changes?
Examples of Divine Mind Changes. This theme is far more pervasive in Scripture than most believers realize. Consider briefly the following small sampling from Scripture.
o Exodus 32:14. Because of Moses’ intercessory prayer, "the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people" (vs. 14). David later recounts this episode when he notes that the Lord said "he would destroy them had not Moses, his chosen one, stood in the breach before him, to turn away his wrath from destroying them" (Psalm 106:23). Did God really plan on destroying Israel, and did he really change his mind?
* Exodus 33:1–3, 14. In the light of Moses’ pleading, the Lord reversed his plan not to go with the Israelites into Egypt. Was God simply toying with Moses when he told them he was planning on not going?
* Deuteronomy 9:13–29. The Lord "intended to destroy [the Israelites]" (vs. 25, cf. vs. 20) and was even "ready to destroy [Aaron]" (vs. 14). Moses’ forty day intercession altered God’s intention (vs. 25–29). Is Scripture speaking truly when it tells us God intended to do something he later decided not to do? Could God truly intend to do something he was eternally certain he wouldn’t do?
* 1 Samuel 2:27–31. Because Eli "scorned" God’s sacrifices and did not punish his sons for their vile behavior, the Lord says, "’I promised that your house and your father’s house would minister before me forever.’ But now the Lord declares, ‘Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained. The time is coming when I will cut short your strength and the strength of your father’s house…’" Could God have authentically promised Eli something he eternally knew would never take place?
* 1 Kings 21:21–29. The Lord tells Ahab "I will bring disaster on you" because of his sin (vs. 21). Ahab humbles himself before God, and the Lord responds: "Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the disaster in his days"(vs. 29). Is not the easiest reading of texts such as these one that simply admits that God truly intended to bring disaster and then changed his mind in response to human repentance?
* 2 Chronicles 12:5–8. The Lord was going to allow the Israelites to be conquered because of king Reheboam’s rebellion. "You abandoned me, so I have abandoned you to the hand of Shishak" (vs. 5). The king and his officers repent, so the Lord changes his plan. "They have humbled themselves; I will not destroy them…my wrath shall not be poured out on Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak" (vs. 7). Could God really intend to deliver the Israelites over to Shishak if he was eternally certain he wouldn’t?
* Jeremiah 26:2–3. The Lord tells Jeremiah to prophesy to Israel that they should repent, saying "I may change my mind" about the disaster that I intend to bring on [Israel] because of their evil doings." If "in truth" God never changes his mind, is he not lying when he tells the Israelites that he might? Relatedly, is there not something odd going on in Evangelicalism today when certain believers (Open Theists) are labeled "heretical" for taking God’s promise ("I may change my mind") literally? (Not also Jeremiah repeats the teaching that God may change his mind when he reports it to the elders, and the elders repeat the teaching to the people. The point of Jeremiah 26 is that God may change his mind.
* Ezekiel 4:9-15. As an object lesson the Lord tells Ezekiel to cook some food using human excrement as fuel (vss. 12-13). Ezekiel finds this too offensive and objects. So the Lord says, "I will let you use cow’s dung instead of human dung…" (vs. 15). The passage reveals God’s willingness to adjust his plans in response to the sentiments of his children. What was the point of God’s first command if he was certain he would revise it in the light of Ezekiel’s objection?
* Amos 7:1–6. The Lord revealed two judgments he was planning on bringing upon Israel. Twice Amos intercedes, and twice Scripture says, "The Lord relented concerning this…" Was the Lord simply toying with Amos when he showed him what he supposedly planned on doing to Israel? Is there any other way to view God’s interaction with Amos if we believe that God was certain all along that he wasn’t going to bring these visions about?
* Jonah 3:10. God "changed his mind" about the destruction he planned to carry out on Nineveh. Note, neither this or any other verse says or remotely suggests that that "God appeared to change his mind." It simply says, in as plain and straightforward a way as can be imagined, that God "changed his mind."
------ From the Appendix------------
* Exodus 32:33
The Lord says "I will blot out of my book" all those who persist in rebellion against him.
If everything is eternally foreknown by God, one wonders why he would have recorded in his "book" the names of people who were to be blotted out eventually (cf. Rev. 3:5). Indeed, if God foreknew that certain individuals would have to be blotted from his book of life and would suffer eternal hell, one wonders why he created them in the first place.
* Exodus 33:1-3, 14
"The Lord said to Moses, ‘Go, leave this place, you and the people whom you have brought up out of the land of Egypt, and go to the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob… I will send an angel before you, and I will drive out the Canaanites… Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey; but I will not go up among you, or I would consume you on the way, for you are a stiff-necked people…." Moses then pleads with the Lord to stay with the Israelites [vss 12-13] and the Lord responds, "My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest."
For several centuries God had planned on leading the Israelites out of Egypt and into the land of Canaan. Now, however, he was so disgruntled with his people that he was considering a "Plan B," as it were. He wouldn’t destroy them, as he previously threatened. Nor would he cancel his promise to give them the land flowing with milk and honey. Indeed, by sending his angel to lead them he would continue to help them in acquiring this land. But he was now considering with drawing his presence from them. They would continue on with him, and he would help them do so! Only Moses’ pleading (once again) caused God to change his mind and remain with the Israelites.
I do not see how the EDF doctrine can be squared with a straight forward reading of this fascinating passage. Very clearly we find the Lord offering Moses a rather elaborate "Plan B" in the light of the remarkable obstinacy of his people. If the future is eternally settled in God’s mind, however, there really can never be a "Plan B," however things may appear. That is, if God eternally knew he would never do what he told Moses he was planning on doing, then he wasn’t really planning on doing what he told Moses he was planning on doing. So far as I can see, the entire episode is thereby reduced to a rather elaborate charade. Why go to the bothering of distinguishing between his presence and the angel as well as mentioning of all the various people he would help drive out (33:2) if it was certain all along that he will never carry out such a thing?
A straight forward reading of this text would rather suggest that God in fact seriously considered this "Plan B" until Moses’ moved him to do otherwise. And the only way this divine consideration could be serious is if the future was open to the possibility of what God was considering.
* Numbers 11:1–2
The Lord was in the process of judging Israel by fire when Moses interceded in prayer "and the fire abated."
A common sense reading of the verse suggests that the fire would have continued had Moses not prayed. As shall be seen, Scripture is full of examples of God changing his plans in response to human prayer and repentance. And this suggests that God’s plans are not eternally fixed, as the classical view teaches. He is the God of the possible, not merely the God of the unalterable.
* Numbers 14:12–20
In response to Israel’s bickering the Lord says "I will strike them with pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you [Moses] a nation greater and mightier than they" (vs. 12). Moses asks the Lord to forgive the people, and the Lord eventually responds, "I do forgive, just as you have asked" (vs. 20).
Unless the intention the Lord declared to Moses in verse 12 was insincere, we must conclude that he did not at that point intend on forgiving the Israelites. It cannot have been certain at that time (let alone from all eternity) that God would forgive the Israelites. Hence, it seems that either the Lord is insincere, or the classical view of divine foreknowledge is mistaken.
* Numbers 16:20–35
After Israel’s sin under the leadership of Korah, the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "Separate yourselves from this congrega-tion, so that I may consume them in a moment" (vs. 21). Moses and Aaron pleaded with the Lord to only judge those who were most guilty. In response, the Lord modifies his judgment and gives the people a choice between himself or "wicked men" (vs. 23–35).
The passage represents another instance of the Lord modifying his expressed intentions in response to prayer. If all of the future is exhaustively settled in God’s mind, however, God’s declared intention to "consume" the whole congregation could not have been sincere. He never really intended to do it, for he always foreknew he wouldn’t do it. For all of the godly motives of those who defend the EDF doctrine, it has the unfortunate consequence of depicting God as one who toys with us with idle threats he has no intention of following through on.
* Numbers 16:41–48
The day following the Korah incident (see vs. 20–35), the Israelites rebelled against Moses again, this time because they blamed him for the death of those who were judged the day before (vs. 41). The Lord was very angry because of this and said to Moses and Aaron, "Get away from this congregation, so that I may consume them in a moment" (vs. 45). People immediately began to die from a plague (vs. 46). Moses prayed while Aaron quickly "made atonement" for their sins: "and the plagued was stopped" (vs. 47).
The view that the future is eternally settled in God’s mind has the effect of undermining the honesty of God’s expressed intention to judge Israel and the power of prayer to change God’s mind as it is depicted in this passage.
* Deuteronomy 9:13–14, 18–20, 25
The Lord tells Moses "Let me alone that I may destroy them [the Israelites] and blot out their name from under heaven…" (vs. 14). Moses later says to the Israelites, "the Lord INTENDED to destroy you" (vs. 25). Moses interceded for forty days and then tells the Israelites, "the Lord listened to me…" (vs. 19). So too, "the Lord was so angry with Aaron that he WAS READY TO destroy him, but [Moses] interceded also on behalf of Aaron at the same time" (vs. 20) and Aaron was spared.
If the future is exhaustively settled and known by God as such, the integrity of Scripture’s account of God’s expressed intention to destroy Israel and Aaron would be compromised. God cannot genuinely plan to do something he foreknows he will not do. If neither God nor inspired Scripture can be disingen-u-ous, it seems reasonable, if not necessary, to deny the EDF doctrine.
* Judges 10:13–15
The Israelites cry out to God because of their oppression from foreign rulers. The Lord refuses to deliver them because they have abandoned him (13–14). The Israelites repented, put away their foreign gods and worshipped the Lord. The Lord "also could no longer bear to see Israel suffer" (vs. 16). Hence the Lord changed his mind about the matter and fought once again on behalf of Israel (ch. 2).
If the whole of the future is eternally settled in the divine mind, God could not have been straightforward in declaring his intention to not deliver Israel from their plight—for he ended up doing just this. This passage, like so many others, shows God to be a relational God whose estimation of a relationship varies as the relationship varies. He is not locked into one course of action, but is the God of possibilities who is perfectly responsive to new circumstances which his free creations initiate.
* 1 Samuel 2:27-31
Because Eli "scorned" God’s sacrifices and did not punish his sons for their vile behavior, the Lord says, "’I promised that your house and your father’s house would minister before me forever.’ But now the Lord declares, ‘Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained. The time is coming when I will cut short your strength and the strength of your father’s house…’"
If taken at face value, this passage reflects a genuine reversal in God’s plans for the house of Eli. God’s promise that Eli’s family line would "minister before me forever" can only be sincere if God genuinely intended to have his family line minister before him forever at the time he made the promise. But it is difficult to see how the Lord could have genuinely intended this if it was absolutely certain to God at the time he made this promise (let alone from all eternity) that Eli’s family would not minister before him forever.
* 2 Samuel 24:17–25
"So the Lord answered [David’s] supplication for the land, and the plague was averted from Israel."
The passage suggests that the Lord intended the plague to judge Israel further but David’s supplication persuaded him to change his mind and relent from his punishment. If the future is to some degree open and God is gen-uinely affected in the present by what we do and by how we pray, the urgency which the Bible attaches to prayer begins to make sense. If everything is eternally settled, this urgency is compromised.
* 1 Kings 21:27–29
Because of Ahab’s great sin the Lord tells him, "I will bring disaster on you; I will consume you…" (vs. 21). Ahab repents and the Lord responds by telling his messenger prophet, "Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the disaster in his days…" (vs. 29).
The Lord revoked his prophecy against Ahab and delayed his judg-ment on his family line because of Ahab’s repentance. If all of this was foreknown to God, his prophecy to Ahab that he was going to bring disaster and consume him could not have been given in earnest. If verse 21 expresses God’s genuine intention, then we must conclude that God’s mind can genuinely change in the light of change in people’s attitudes and action (something the Lord explicitly tells us is true in other passages, e.g. Jer. 18:7–10).
* 2 Kings 13:3–5
The Lord judged the Israelites by allowing them to be oppressed by King Hazael of Aram (vs. 3). "But Jehoahaz entreated the Lord, and the Lord HEEDED HIM; FOR HE SAW the oppression of Israel, how the king of Aram oppressed them. THEREFORE the Lord gave Israel a savior, so that they escaped from the hand of the Arameans."
In the light of Jehoahaz’s prayer and the severity of Hazael’s oppres-sive treat-ment of Israel God reversed his judgment. This verse, like many others, shows how God graciously alters his plans as a result of prayer and in the light of changing cir-cumstances (cf. Jon. 4:2; Joel 2:13–14). Such flexibility makes sense only if the future is partly open and not exhaustively settled in God’s mind.
* 2 Kings 20:1–7 (Isaiah 38:1–5)
The Lord tells Hezekiah "you SHALL die: you SHALL NOT recover" (vs. 1). Hezekiah pleads with God and God says, "I will ADD fifteen years to your life" (vs. 6).
If everything about the future was exhaustively settled and known by God as such, his pro-phecy to Hezekiah that he was going to die would have been manipulative and his declaration that he was now adding years to his life inaccurate. The prophecy is straightforward only if it expresses God’s true intention at the time he gave it. And for this to be possible it could not have been an eternally foregone conclusion that he was going to spare Hezekiah’s life.
* 1 Chronicles 21:15
"And God sent an angel to Jerusalem TO DESTROY IT; but when he was about to destroy it, the Lord took note and RELENTED con-cerning the calamity; he said to the destroying angel, ‘Enough! Stay your hand.’"
This powerful passage tells us why God sent the angel and why he changed his mind. If God foreknew he was not going to destroy Jerusalem, he could not have genuinely intended to destroy it and the Scripture which explicitly tells us "he was about to destroy it" must be considered incorrect. Moreover, if God never really intended to destroy the city, his dispatching the angel for the expressed purpose of doing so becomes altogether unintelligible. Nor could he have authentically "relented" from a previous plan, for he never really planned this destruction in the first place.
The EDF doctrine intro-duces a certain artificiality into texts such as this one which depict God as changing his plans. For this reason, I believe we should reject this view of the future and accept that God can in truth change his mind about temporal matters.
* 2 Chronicles 12:5–8
The Lord allows King Shishak of Egypt to almost conquer all of Israel because of King Reheboam’s rebellion. "You abandoned me, so I have abandoned you to the hand of Shishak" (vs. 5). The officers and king repent, so the Lord responds by saying, "They have humbled themselves; I will not destroy them, but I will grant them some deliverance, and my wrath shall not be poured out on Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak" (vs. 7).
This is another example of God modifying his sincere inten-tions to judge a nation in response to their repentance, a feature of God that is hard to reconcile with the classical understanding that the whole of world history is settled in God’s mind from before the world began (cf. Jer. 18:7–10).
* Psalm 106:23
"Therefore he said he would destroy them—
had not Moses, his chosen one,
stood in the breach before him,
to turn away his wrath from destroying them."
Moses (on several occasions, we have seen) changed God’s mind regarding his plan to judge Israel. The inspired verse explicitly says that God "would destroy them…had not Moses…stood in the breach." If God always foreknew that Moses was going to stand in the breach and thus that he wasn’t going to destroy Israel, can we avoid concluding that his declaration to Moses that he was going to destroying Israel was somewhat duplicitous? If the outcome was eternally known to God, can we avoid getting the impression that he was playing a Machiavellian game with his prophet?
If we trust that God is above such antics, however, we must accept the straightforward meaning of this verse. As we shall argue more fully in Chapter IV, accepting this view has the added advantage of accentuating the importance and urgency of intercessory prayer in a way that is, I believe, impossible if we believe the future is exhaustively settled in God’s mind (cf. Ezek. 22:29–31).
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/7/2003 12:56 PM (GMT -6) | | * Ezekiel 20:5–22
I apparently ran out of space. Here's the rest (I think... the typing got screwed up)
The Lord recounts to Ezekiel how he "chose Israel" and "swore to the offspring of the house of Jacob" that he would be their God and deliver them from Egypt (vs. 6). But even in Egypt the Israelites wouldn’t follow his ways. The Lord then says, "Then I THOUGHT I would pour out my wrath upon them and spend my anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt. But I acted for the sake of my name…So I led them out of the land of Egypt" (vs. 8–9). Even after this graciousness they continued to rebel, however, so the Lord adds, "Then I THOUGHT I would pour out my wrath upon them in the wilderness, to make an end of them. But I acted for the sake of my name…" (vs. 13–14). [cf. Exod. 32:11–14] After continued rebellion the Lord again "THOUGHT [he] would pour out [his] wrath upon them and send [his] angagainst them…But [he] withheld his hand…" (vs. 21–22).
If God is sincere in telling us he "thought" about carrying out the judgments he ultimately decided against, he could not have foreknown with certainty he would not carry out these deeds. Our estima-tion of the integrity of the Lord’s self-disclosure in this passage depends on our willingness to accept that the Lord genuinely considered carrying out his judgment but then decided against it (cf. Ps. 106:45; Hos. 11:8–9).
* Ezekiel 33:13–15
"[W]hen I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered…he will die. But when I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and he turns from his sin and practices jus-tice and righteousness, if a wicked man restores a pledge, pays back what he has taken by robbery, walks by the statues which ensure life without committing iniquity, he will surely live; he shall not die."
How are we to understand the Lord telling a righteous person "you shall surely live" or telling a wicked person "you shall surely die" if we also believe that at that very moment the Lord was perfectly certain that the righteous person he is speaking to would not live (for he eternally foreknew they’d fall) and the wicked person he’s speaking to would not die (for he eter-nally foreknew they’d repent)? Declarations are truthful only if they reflect sincere beliefs. But if God’s knowledge about a person’s fate is eternally settled, then any declaration he gives which goes against this knowledge is insincere.
If we grant that when the Bible depicts God as changing his mind it depicts him as he truly is and not simply as he appears to us, these problems disappear. In good faith, the Lord tells the righteous they shall live and the wicked they shall die, for this is what the Lord truly believes about them at the time of the declaration. If they change, however, his belief about them truly changes, and so his sincere declaration about them changes.
Blessings
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/7/2003 2:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Ross... that is a good idea.  I will join in on the other discussion as I have not read this particular book anyhow.
Greg... thank you for the excerpt. I don't really have time to read it all right now (and my printer is broke!). I have been on here waaaayyyy too much lately! But I will go back through it (I skimmed it) and read it more thoroughly and post any thoughts (maybe in the other thread that Ross began). I have been out of college for about 10 yrs. and it's been a looooong time since I've used or heard all these theological terms and lingo so I am going to have to also do some studying and refreshing of my mind!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 4/7/2003 5:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Greetings, "Bob:"
Hm.
I see that you've posted 70 posts in the past month or so (some here, but most were on your DIVORCE thread); however, the vast majority of your posts have simply vanished!
I'm sorry.
Perhaps I misunderstood your response (attached below).
You didn't mean that you deleted MOST of your posts, did you?
If not, do you think the list administrator should be notified of any potential glitches that could be responsible for that many additional posts that have disappeared??
Thank you...
<><
Bob wrote:
quote:
Yes, I deleted the other post. I actually didn't say that I greatly respect
J. Piper but that he is greatly respected. But, for the record, I do respect him.
I think he is an excellent preacher and writer.
This is not said though in comparison to any other preacher (including G. Boyd).
There are many preachers who I consider excellent.
I had deleted the post you mentioned with the intent of not getting involved in the debate. I am not really one who totally enjoys debating (esp. when I am in the minority and going "against the flow") although by my comments it seems otherwise! But I then changed my mind and decided to join in even with my limited expertise!
If my comments appear to have been that I took the other writer's comments "personally", I apologize for it coming across that way. I suppose since there are very few (I am assuming) in these forums who do not agree with Open Theism, I would imagine that most things said might appear as if we are taking things "personally". But it was clear that Ross was not attacking me as much as he was simply defending his beliefs and clarifying them as well. I think though that it will be easy to see me as taking things personal if I am the only one disagreeing with the majority! But I will watch myself so as not to do so.
I don't necessarily judge any Open Theist negatively, although I do wonder if Open Theists judge non-Open Theists negatively... only from comments I have read on here and from a reaction I once received by an Open Theist when I shared I attended Piper's church (in which he rolled his eyes and was expecting me to share some horror story).
I am acquainted with most of the major points of Open Theism and disagree.
I have read some of Piper's comments and some of some other's comments and I have researched it some on the internet, but I really cannot remember all of it. It was awhile ago.
I do have a question. How does one become an Open Theist? What I mean is... is it taught in a class at church or preached from the pulpit? In my time at WHC, I don't remember hearing the term other than from friends who would explain it and talk about the Piper/Boyd debate (neither of whom I'd ever heard of before... although I discovered that I owned a book by Piper but when I bought it, I did not know he was a Calvinist in MN involved in this heated debate).
Does my question make sense? What I mean is... is it a doctrine that is simply explained in books, forums, and letters? I don't recall Greg Boyd ever mentioning the words "Open Theism" at WHC while I was there, so I imagine that had I not heard it from word-of-mouth, maybe I would still be unaware?
Well, I am sorry to get this off the topic of the book! I do not want to totally sidetrack it. These things are probably discussed in other threads and they are not questions that I think about too much, so please don't get too distracted with them!
61 Posts
Posted - 04/06/2003 : 01:07:47 AM
Edited by - bob on 04/06/2003 01:20:32 AM
| | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/7/2003 6:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Mayflower said: Greetings, "Bob:" Hm. I see that you've posted 70 posts in the past month or so (some here, but most were on your DIVORCE thread); however, the vast majority of your posts have simply vanished! I'm sorry. Perhaps I misunderstood your response (attached below). You didn't mean that you deleted MOST of your posts, did you?
Bob says: Greetings "Mayflower". You seem very concerned about me deleting previous posts as you have now mentioned it twice to me and have made sure you copy the entirity of my post in your reply making sure to highlight the things you would like others to take special note of? Not sure, but I notice that certain sentences are highlighted. Oh, let me guess... these must be sentences I edited or something? Hmmm... not sure, but seeing as you are pretty concerned about my deleting of messages, I am assuming this is the case.
No, I don't think you misunderstood... I think I must've misunderstood you. You see, your comment to me was this: "In ONE of your earlier posts on THIS TOPIC (which you have since deleted)..."
To which I replied: "Yes, I deleted THE OTHER POST."
You did not ask me about all my other posts. You seemed concerned about one: the one in which I mentioned "respect" and "John Piper" in the same sentence.
Am I missing something because I don't see you asking about or mentioning any of my other posts, and it did not cross my mind that you had them in mind. Thus, I answered your question that yes, I deleted the specific post that you asked me about. You did not mention any others, you did not mention any other topics, and I had no idea that you were concerned about those posts as well.
Now... if you would like to discuss the deletion of my other posts... I'd be happy to. I really didn't think anyone in here would be too concerned about it, but since you are, I certainly do not mind sharing. But I think maybe you should email me or something rather than me filling up a long post with an explanation. As for the deletion of my divorce comments, I explain in there.
*** quick note! I EDITED and also DELETED half of what I originally wrote in this post yesterday!!! Yep! I am guilty. I wrote a loooong explanation of why I edit, have edited, will edit, delete, have deleted, will delete... and then decided it's really not necessary... unless of course everyone is dying to know and it's pertinent to the topic and to my validity as a poster.
As for your concern "Mayflower", is it to disqualify my comments in here? Or are you really suspicious about who I am? I'm not sure. Would you like me to give you age, weight, height, etc.? I notice that you, like me, give very little info about you other than your age.
"Mayflower"... you said: "Do you think the list administrator should be notified of any potential glitches that could be responsible for that many additional posts that have disappeared??"
I have a better idea. Maybe the list administrator ought to get rid of the "edit" and "delete" buttons so as not to give the person the option. As long as the option exists, it will probably be used; thus, if it is not an option, we won't have this problem, will we? Oh... but you were being sarcastic weren't you? That's okay... so am I!
For the record, I am not John Piper nor am I one of his secret agents. Haha... just a little humor there!
Edited by - bob on 04/08/2003 09:27:10 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/8/2003 3:35 AM (GMT -6) | | These appear to be good representative samples of Greg Boyd's view.
(I would call attention to the fact that while the views on Calvinism and Arminianism are Greg's, those may not necessarily be the view of, say, a Wesley on "Arminianism" or a Calvin on "Calvinism.")
quote:
from: http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1824&whichpage=5
How are we to understand the Lord telling a righteous person "you shall surely live" or telling a wicked person "you shall surely die" if we also believe that at that very moment the Lord was perfectly certain that the righteous person he is speaking to would not live (for he eternally foreknew they’d fall) and the wicked person he’s speaking to would not die (for he eter-nally foreknew they’d repent)? Declarations are truthful only if they reflect sincere beliefs. But if God’s knowledge about a person’s fate is eternally settled, then any declaration he gives which goes against this knowledge is insincere.
If we grant that when the Bible depicts God as changing his mind it depicts him as he truly is and not simply as he appears to us, these problems disappear. In good faith, the Lord tells the righteous they shall live and the wicked they shall die, for this is what the Lord truly believes about them at the time of the declaration. If they change, however, his belief about them truly changes, and so his sincere declaration about them changes.
Blessings
Greg
===============================
from: http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1940
Bob: Can someone sum up in maybe 4-5 sentences the MAIN premises of Open Theism and perhaps in contrast to Calvinism.
Greg: Open Theism -- or, my preferred label -- the open view of the future -- is the belief that possibilities are ultimately real. Some of the future is, by God's design or by present causes, definite (already settled). But some of the future is indefinite (not yet settled). Because of this, free agents have the power, responsibility, and priviledge of shaping the future through prayer and morally responsible decisions.
The view contrasts with Calvinism in that Calvinism holds that all things are settled in the will of God. The future is predestined from the foundation of the world. Whatever happens reflects the will of God, and given the will of God, things could not transpire differently than they shall transpire. There are ultimately no real possibilities (things that may go one way or another). We experience possibilities only because of our ignorance of what shall occur.
The view also contrasts with Arminianism in that, while Arminians affirm free will, they hold that the future is eternally settled in the mind of God. There are no real possibilities, no maybe's, to God. Again, we experience possibilities only because of our ignorance of what shall occur.
Hope that helps.
Greg
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/9/2003 6:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Some things:
1) Haven't gotten a hold of the book yet. Hoping to soon.
2) POW, my address is yielded@hotmail.com. I couldn't use this one because it was already registered HERE under my Mephi2K name. Holla!
3) Brandon, about my profile...sometimes, in some situations, all you can do is laugh. Right?
4) About the Plato quote. Isn't God and "chooser" and therefore responsible for the choices GOD has made? And isn't possible that at least some of these choices have resulted in SOME use of evil? Hmmm?? God is NOT blameless...for God IS a chooser.
C-ya,
 | | Back to Top | | |
| 80 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:16 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 |
|
|