 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/8/2003 12:32 AM (GMT -6) |   | Was reading through Tom Ascol’s chapter “Pastoral Implications of Open Theism” in Bound Only Once (I still don’t understand the title of that book). I’d like to quickly summarize what Ascol argues are five implications of the open view and then explore responses. Sorry for the length.
One: It undermines confidence in Scripture
It is an established hermeneutical principle that didactic passages which clearly assert a doctrine or principle shed light on narrative passages. It is illegitimate to use the ‘stories’ of Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and others as “examples of God changing his mind, repenting, being disappointed or caught off guard by what happened.” Didactic passages which assert God's sovereign control over people and events ("'O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?' says the Lord. 'Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel!'", Jer. 18:6; "A man's heart plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps," Pr. 16:9; "The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever he wishes," Pr. 21:1; "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the Lord?" Ex. 4:11) are to shed light on the so-called “open passages.” Intentional or not, the openness reading of Scripture, if followed consistently, renders direct teachings of the Bible vacuous if not incomprehensible.
Two: It undermines confidence in God
“The traditional understanding of God gives full weight to those biblical declarations which describe Him as ‘Lord God Almighty…King of the Saints’ (Rev. 15:3), who ‘rules over the nations’ (Ps. 22:28) and ‘the raging of the sea’ (Ps. 89:9) and who shall ‘reign forever and ever’ (Ex. 15:18). Nebuchadnezzar's inspired declaration of God's unhindered, meticulous exercise of His divine providence is no embarrassment to orthodox theism: ‘All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven; And among the inhabitants of the earth; No one can restrain His hand; Or say to Him, What have you done?’ (Dan. 4:35)….
“Open Theism reduces God to a cosmic gambler--and not a very successful one at that. He created billions of image bearers, gambling that they would choose to love and trust Him. This was to have been an "almost sure thing" because of His love and provision. Nevertheless, in terms of sheer quantitative analysis, His gamble hardly paid off. From creation to the present, the openness God has continued to take risks, only to experience repeated failures. Both the Bible and history are filled with accounts of people and "projects" that he counted on in vain.
How can such a God be trusted? If that which he has intended to do has so catastrophically and repeatedly failed to come to pass, why depend on Him to fulfill any of his promises, no matter how well intentioned they may be?”
Regarding Doc’s example of Suzanne, Ascol writes, “However, why did God not work in Suzanne to encourage her to create a future that avoided this possibility [that of divorce]? Surely she fits Boyd's profile of the type of person who can trust the open God to do just that…How can God be ‘trusted to inspire’ His children to take certain decisions when He Himself is as fallible as we are because He does not exhaustively know the future?” In other words, if trusting God the first time landed her in divorce, what reason should Suzanne have for trusting God to guide her after the divorce?
Three: It undermines faith in Christ
“Open Theism's revisioning of the nature of the future and of God erodes the very heart of the Christian faith by undermining faith in Jesus Christ. No doubt, this is one of the unintended implications of openness proponents--and one that they would strongly renounce. When God's limited foreknowledge is applied to the incarnation and crucifixion, however, the credibility of Christ and the biblical witness to Christ is compromised.
“In the openness scheme Jesus did not--could not--know beforehand that He would be called to die for sinners. Sanders unashamedly reconstructs the events leading up to and surrounding Christ's death to portray both Father and Son deciding only at the last minute that Jesus had to die. ‘Although Scripture attests that the incarnation was planned from the creation of the world, this is not so with the cross. The path of the cross comes about only through God's interaction with humans in history.’ Not until the agonizing prayer in Gethsemane do ‘Father and Son … both come to understand that there is no other way.’ Even after this new discovery comes to God, the question still hangs over Jesus, ‘Will this gambit work?’…
“Diminish Jesus' foreknowledge and you bring His deity into question and thereby undermine the faith of those whom He calls to trust Him. Yet, this is precisely the effect of Open Theism. We are asked to trust a Christ who was prone to mistakes because He could not know the future exhaustively. As John Piper has commented on this passage, Jesus' foreknowledge ‘was an essential aspect of his glory as the incarnate Word, the Son of God.’ The denial of this foreknowledge is, I believe John would say, an assault on the deity of Christ.’”
Four: It undermines prayer
“One's understanding of providence necessarily affects his view of prayer. What God can do or has chosen to do in His relationship to the world governs the ways that we invoke His help for specific needs. The openness view of reality eliminates the specific control that God exercises over creatures. Because the future is not "real" and therefore cannot be known by God, and because people have libertarian freedom, God is dependent on people to help Him create the future. When God is viewed as having this kind of contingency in relation to His creation, petitionary prayer is ultimately undermined in the life of the believer….
Regarding Hezekiah’s prayer, argued by open theists as an example of prayer changing God’s mind, Ascol writes, “The classical view is supported by the broader context of this story. When Hezekiah died, his son Manasseh, who was twelve years old, became king in his place (2 Ki. 20:21, 21:1). What this means is that Manasseh was born during the fifteen year extension of Hezekiah's life. Sanders says that if Hezekiah had not prayed to God, ‘biblical history would have been different.’ That is a woefully inadequate understatement. Had Hezekiah died when Isaiah first spoke to him, he would have left no heir to the throne and the promise that God made to David three hundred years earlier would have been broken. The Lord had promised David, ‘You shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel’ (1 Ki. 2:4), which simply affirms that the posterity of David was not to be cut off, so as to leave no offshoot which could take possession of the throne….
“This problem is compounded if God is viewed as having created a world in which people have the power to do things that He never intended to happen. Any specific intervention by God to interfere directly with a person's chosen course would be a violation of the individual's personhood, as well as the ‘rules of the game God sovereignly established’ in creating people with libertarian freedom. How could someone pray passionately for God to restrain evil people or protect His own people if he genuinely believes that the rules by which God is bound prohibit Him from ever removing the potential to choose evil from a person? Would not such prayer be asking God to do what He has committed Himself not to do?”
Five: It undermines confident living
“If God is not in control, then who is? No one, according to free will theists. In their scheme, the world is at the collective mercy of libertarian free human wills, libertarian free angelic wills and God. Of course, neither people nor angels have as much power as God, but neither does God have complete control over them. One of the most devastating implications of this is the existence of gratuitous evil in the world. Sanders admits that ‘at least some evil is pointless’ and ‘God does not have a specific divine purpose for each and every occurrence of evil.’ Boyd also concedes this point: ‘It is true that according to the open view things can happen in our lives that God didn't plan or even foreknow with certainty (though he always foreknew they were possible). This means that in the open view things can happen to us that have no overarching divine purpose.’…
“The early apostles did not view the death of Jesus from an open theistic point of view. At Pentecost, Peter preached Christ as, ‘Him, being delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death’ (Acts 2:23). ‘Determined counsel and foreknowledge of God,’ means it was God's (decreed) will. ‘Lawless hands’ means it was contrary to God's (revealed) will. This same perspective is found in the disciples' prayer recorded in Acts 4:24-30. It is difficult to understand, in the light of this apostolic viewpoint, why Boyd is driven to help us ‘rid ourselves of any lingering suspicion that evil somehow fits into the eternal purposes of God.’
“If the greatest evil in all the world, though a clear violation of God's revealed will, was definitely decreed by God for the good of His people, then why would we not believe that in a similar way all lesser evils in the world, though contrary to God's commandments, nevertheless fall within His good, wise and sovereign will for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose? Such a view of God's ways with us in no way diminishes the tragedy of evil and suffering. However, it does give us reason to live with joy and hope in the midst of suffering.”
----------------------------
Ideas? Responses? Let’s talk about the practical, pastoral implications of the open view.
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/9/2003 6:46 AM (GMT -6) | | I care very much how a belief impacts one’s living, so I try to listen intently when people talk about the perceived practical implications of believing the open view.
Two opening thoughts about Ascol’s five points and then some comments.
First, as Doc noted in his response to Ware in last Summer’s issue of JETS, we should be careful about discounting a position or dismissing from fellowship those who hold a position based on the implications we think follow from that position. Since all five of Ascols’s points deal with what he perceives to be the implications of the open view, this point is especially relevant.
Secondly, to find out if the open view undermines confidence and faith in God, one really needs to talk to open theists themselves. Do they pray? Do they trust God? Do they live confidently? If they do, then the most Ascol can claim is that HE finds it impossible to trust in God given the open view. But since open theists feel the same way about determinism, nothing is ultimately proved about the pastoral implications of either view on appealing to ‘academic’ arguments alone. Only open theists can say what the effect of believing open theism is.
On Ascol’s points:
On Confidence in Scripture. First, the passages Ascol appeals to as confirming an exhaustively deterministic view of sovereignty are themselves a matter of debate. They can be understood as allowing for a less than exhaustively deterministic sovereignty without appeal to open view positions. That is, even if we grant that the passages Ascol feels ought to have priority (as opposed to Old Testament stories) over the so-called open passages, one can still justifiably end up as an open theist.
Secondly, not all so-called open passages are found in Old Testament narratives.
Thirdly, Ascol is less than consistent in applying this to himself. He’s quick to appeal to Acts 4 for example (a narrative passage) as evidence of compatibilistic determinism. Granted, he can argue that this is legit since the didactic passages independently confirm a deterministic worldview. But since the didactic passages themselves are a matter of debate, this begs the question.
Lastly, the hermeneutical principal Ascol appeals to is neither universally agreed upon by all evangelicals nor uniformly applied by those who accept it as legitimate. I hardly think wise, then, to accuse open theists of undermining confidence in Scripture itself on the basis of this particular hermeneutical principal.
On Confidence in God. How can God be trusted if it is ever true that he does not get what he wants? Clearly the open view asks us to consider what we may and may not rightly trust God for. If Ascol wishes to deny that God ever takes risks, it certainly remains true that we don’t live in a risk free world. Whether or not one is a Calvinist, an Arminian, or an open theist, tragedy and suffering are experienced by us all the time. Regardless of our theological positions, we have no absolute guarantees regarding our safety, the safety of our loved ones, our health, our retirement investments, our marriages, etc. Paul in Rm. 8 clearly admits that sword, famine, sickness, and death touch us all. The only absolute guarantee is that for those who trust Christ no such circumstance or suffering can separate them from the love of God. Since this is the only guarantee we have, and since open theists introduce no positions on perseverance different than those already accepted within evangelicalism, what’s Ascol’s point? What Ascol says about confident living can be included here too.
On faith in Christ. I find it difficult to see any real bite to Ascol’s claims here. I don’t think open theists all agree on just how the crucifixion figures into God’s foreknowledge. Regardless of this, however, infinite intelligence accounts for God’s providential control of things. Open theists have discussed the crucifixion on several occasions. It would be nice to see opponents of the open view interact with the different views more and especially with the implications of God’s infinite intelligence.
On Prayer. All I can say to Ascol is, read Terrance Teissen’s Prayer and Providence.
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 2/9/2003 6:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom quote:
Bound Only Once (I still don’t understand the title of that book).
I'd like to take a shot at this. The title to me seems to mean that "bound" -- directed and restricted; "only once" -- that the course has no other direction than the ONE. The title of this book almost seems intentional to contrast the idea of possibilities. It is giving no alternative choices. May I share my personal reaction to what you shared from that chapter?
1. ("'O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?' says the Lord. 'Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel!'", Jer. 18:6; "A man's heart plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps," Pr. 16:9; "The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever he wishes," Pr. 21:1; "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the Lord?" Ex. 4:11)
What these verses represent is the awesome power and wonder of God. God CAN do ANYTHING he wants and chooses. God could destroy our world right now if he chose. Every breath we breath is ONLY because God has given it to us. God is the potter! God directs the big picture of life BUT that doesn't mean he has to control, nor even know with certainty, every minute detail and choice. The open view does not diminish the awesome wonder of God but rather demonstrates and brags on God's glory and wonder. IT brags on how God is so wonderous that He is able to accomplish his great purpose and the big picture, despite us, by allowing and working within the many possibilities. I just find that kind of a giving love so beautiful! God cares so much for us that He allows us to interrupt and work within His plans. What love!
2. "From creation to the present, the openness God has continued to take risks, only to experience repeated failures. Both the Bible and history are filled with accounts of people and "projects" that he counted on in vain."
And to experience successes as well! True love (not robotic love) must be worth the risk of failures to God, although it breaks His heart as is seen in the verses where God weeps for his people and continually desires for them to see the truth. Ah, what love was seen on the cross when our Lord cried out in agony, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they are doing."
3. "Not until the agonizing prayer in Gethsemane do ‘Father and Son … both come to understand that there is no other way.’
Even after this new discovery comes to God, the question still hangs over Jesus, ‘Will this gambit work?’…"
Jesus was fully God BUT Jesus was also fully human. Speaking on behalf of humans I would have to say that even when I know that I will have to do some horrendous task I cry out to God, "God, is there anyway I can get out from this? If not, will you give me the strength?" Now, if I were to quadruple that again and again and again perhaps I would get a glimpse of what if must have felt like to be Jesus in the garden. Jesus knew the path he was headed, with certainty, yet anguished to the Father about it (since he was also fully human).
I don't see how this contradicts the open view? Why couldn't it be that God knew there'd have to be a perfect sacrifice hence sent his son? God CAN know certain things as certain without knowing everything as exhaustive (WHY NOT?) How does this undermine faith in Christ? I don't understand the logic.
4. “This problem is compounded if God is viewed as having created a world in which people have the power to do things that He never intended to happen. Any specific intervention by God to interfere directly with a person's chosen course would be a violation of the individual's personhood, as well as the ‘rules of the game God sovereignly established’ in creating people with libertarian freedom. How could someone pray passionately for God to restrain evil people or protect His own people if he genuinely believes that the rules by which God is bound prohibit Him from ever removing the potential to choose evil from a person? Would not such prayer be asking God to do what He has committed Himself not to do?”
On the contrary! God has given and instructed us to use the most powerful weapon in the warfare -- PRAYER. When we pray, we are allowing God to enter into our boundary of freewill and work in our lives. After all, God is a respecter of persons. Jesus instructed the disciples to pray at ALL times. When Jesus was in the garden he prayed "Not my will but YOURS be done." In the Lord's Prayer we are instructed to pray "Thy Kingdom come, THY WILL be done..." We are giving God the say-so in our lives. What purpose would all this be in instructing us how to pray if God already had the say-so and knew the outcome? Through our submissive prayer we are unleashing the heavenly hosts to intervene on our behalf. (2Corin.10:3-5) "We do not wage war with flesh and blood but with principalities in heavenly places." Within the open view prayer is even more significant since we CAN and DO have an influence on what happens and on the outcome.
5. “If the greatest evil in all the world, though a clear violation of God's revealed will, was definitely decreed by God for the good of His people, then why would we not believe that in a similar way all lesser evils in the world, though contrary to God's commandments, nevertheless fall within His good, wise and sovereign will for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose? Such a view of God's ways with us in no way diminishes the tragedy of evil and suffering. However, it does give us reason to live with joy and hope in the midst of suffering.”
This is where I TOTALLY cannot understand those who want to say that the future is completely known by God. In the view that the above is trying to convey I see a God in heaven creating little babies, sending them to earth, while all along knowing that these babies will end up in hell. I see a God knowing with all certainty that a little baby will never see their second birthday because their stepfather will shake them to death (but there was a point to this life?) I see a God who knew that Adam and Eve would inevitably eat the forbidden fruit yet told them not to anyway (so in a sense setting up the scene for the fall)
The joy and hope I find in the midst of suffering is ONLY in that "God works all things out for our good" BUT this doesn't mean this was His will nor His heart for us. We are in a warfare with freewill agents!
Tom quote:
Let’s talk about the practical, pastoral implications of the open view.
The pastoral implications: God is FOR us not against us. God does not want ANY to perish but have eternal life! God loves us enough to give us freedom to choose to love Him back (or not). God is actively working in relationship WITH us. God is so great, so glorious, so beautiful, so awesome that HE can bring about the BIG picture while working within the possibilities of our choices!
That's my two cents,
trosie
Edited by - trosie on 02/10/2003 12:20:24 AM
Edited by - trosie on 02/10/2003 12:25:57 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 2/9/2003 6:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom quote:
It would be nice to see opponents of the open view interact with the different views more and especially with the implications of God’s infinite intelligence.
AMEN!
Edited by - trosie on 02/10/2003 12:12:33 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 3/2/2003 6:20 AM (GMT -6) | | This reminds me of several nights ago when we had some friends over and discussed theology. They are Calvinists and claimed that if I argued a different view of predestination I was undermining who God is and it would cause him to question all of scripture. It stands as a whole or it falls all together.
I pointed out that half of the last chapter of Mark is in question and asked what that would do to his faith. He dropped that argument.
Then they claimed that God planned everything and is in total control of everything or else he would not be God. I asked if he planned the holocaust, they claimed he at least knew it would happen. OK, if so, and if he planned it that way, then he is actually the cause of it, not Hitler who was merely part of God’s plan. “Well, he’s God, he can do what he wants.” Yes, he is but that does not make wrong right.
I argued that it is logically absurd to believe that God can plan everything then claim that some of that plan was against his will. Sin is a violation of his will, therefore, he could not will (plan) for a violation of his will.
Earl just stared when his wife asked him about that and he capitulated with “he’s right.”
As the old ideas die off they will not go quietly. People will continue to come up with tangential ideas about why OV can’t be right and throw them out like a parachute to slow the fall. But this, like Pandora’s box, is open and I don’t see it slowing down. More and more smoke will pour in to avoid dealing with the fact that most Christians are not being taught an honest view of God.
We must strive to continue though because of people like the lady in our Sunday School class who said “How can prayer change things? God already knows what is going to happen.” Or the guy who called Greg Koukl on the air and said “I am one of the people God didn’t choose, I can’t accept him because I am chosen to spend eternity in hell.”
These are rational responses to the classical view.
Chew on those implications.
"Neuk'em" | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:23 AM (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 |
|
|