Open Theism

[cdhale]

Back on the old page (pre-updated version), Barry started an Open Theism thread. He recommended reading The God of the Possible by Greg Boyd.

I have since purchased and read the book. While not completely overwhelmed by all the book had to say, I did find that some very important questions were raised. Whether one is an open theist or not, there are some verses that need better explanations than what we have given in the past.

An example would be Jeremiah 3:6-7;19-20.

Does anyone else have comments on this?

clint

[Zaph]

Clint, I missed the discussion about Open Theism on the last message board. Until I just now saw your message I had never heard of it. So naturally I went searching on the internet to find out what it is. However, while I think I might have a small understanding what it is.
I am going to withhold my comments until I know that we are on the same page.

Since you've read the book that is pro Open Theism could you please explain Open Theism as you understand it? Then I will better be able to make comments. Thanks.

[Barry]

Zaph,
Check out THIS LINK (http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=257) for more info. Don't miss the links on the right-hand column.

IHS,
Barry

[Barry]

Clint,
At the very least, Boyd makes a tremendous argument against Calvinism. Even if you don't accept the Open Theist position, it would be hard to accept the traditional Calvinist arguments after reading the biblical support against it.

IHS,
Barry

[Zaph]

Barry, thanks for the sources.

This open theism theory is very interesting and seems to have some sound logic behind it. It would hold more water if it didn't matter which version of the Bible you use.

For instance, lets look at the first Bible passage that Clint mentions first with the NASB then with the NKJV. (Just for the record I am not a KJV only person)

NASB
Jeremiah 3
7 I thought, 'After she has done all these things she will return to Me'; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it.

NKJV
Jeremiah 3
7 And I said, after she had done all these things, "Return to Me.' But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.

The NASB implies that the Lord was hoping and crossing His fingers that she would return. In the NJKV it was command and she simply disobeyed. Two completely different ideas.

If you tell the unconverted person who still loves sin not to sin anymore, would you honestly expect them to comply? They couldn't comply if they wanted to because they are still in bondage to that sin. Only when they have made the choice to let Jesus into their lives could that person have the power to comply.

In the very small amount of time that I have spent looking at this theory it seems to be version dependent. However, I could be wrong and if someone thinks I am. I am willing to listen.

[Barry]

Zaph,
I really don't think this is translation based at all. The KJV & NKJV are notoriously bad translations so I don't think I'd put much stock in them. That doesn't mean they are always wrong by any means, but Open Theism hardly stands or falls on one passage of Scripture. If you'll go to the following link, I think you'll see the biblical support is substantive:

The Bible and the Open View of the Future (http://twtministries.com/articles/9_openness/open.html)

IHS,
Barry

[Barry]

God and the Future
A Brief Outline of the Open View

by Dr. Gregory A. Boyd

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this essay I shall briefly state the Open view of God's relationship to the future with the scriptural grounds on which it is based. I shall then briefly address the most common objections raised against it.

The Open View

It goes without saying that there are many passages of Scripture, which depict God as foreknowing and/or predestining certain things about the future. What is not so often recognized is that there are also many passages of Scripture which suggest that some of the future is open (not settled) and is known by God as such. For example,

The Lord frequently changes his mind in the light of changing circumstances or in the light of prayer (Exod. 32:14; Num. 14:12-20; Deut. 9:13-14, 18-20, 25; 1 Sam. 2:27-36; 2 Kings 20:1-7; 1 Chron. 21:15; Jer. 26:19; Ezek. 20:5-22; Amos 7:1-6; Jon. 1:2; 3:2, 4-10). Other times he explicitly tells us he will change his mind if circumstances change (Jer. 1 8:7-1 1; 26:2-3; Ezek. 3 3:13 -15). This willingness to change is portrayed as one of God's attributes of greatness (Joel 2:13-14; Jon. 4:2).
A number of times he expresses regret and disappointment over how things have turned out - even over previous decisions he has made which went array because of human free will (Gen. 6:5-6; 1 Sam 15:10, 3 5; Ezek. 22:29-3 1).
Other times he tells us he's surprised at how things turned out, for he expected a different outcome (Isa. 5:3-7; Jer. 3:6-7; 19-20).
In several passages the Lord explicitly tells us that he did not know that humans would behave the way they did (Jer. 7:3 1; 19:5; 3 2:3 5).
The Lord frequently tests his people to find out whether or not they'll remain faithful to him (Gen. 22:12; Exod. 16:4; Deut. 8:2; 13:1-3; Judg. 2:20-3:5; 2 Chron. 32:3 1).
The Lord sometimes asks non-rhetorical questions about the future (Num. 14:1 1; Hos. 8:5) and speaks to people in terms of what may or may not happen (Exod. 3:18-4:9 - 13:17; Jer. 38:17-18, 20-21, 23; Ezek. 12:1-3).
Traditionally, theologians have taken all the passages that demonstrate that the future is settled in either in God's mind (foreknowledge) or in God's will (predestination) as revealing the whole truth about God's relationship to the future. They therefore interpret all passages (such as the above) which suggest that God faces a partly open future as being figurative. On exegetical and theological grounds I do not see this approach as warranted. I am therefore compelled to take both sets of passages as literal and thus to draw the conclusion that the future which God faces is partly open and partly settled.

Objections

1. The Open view undermines God's omniscience.

I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that God is absolutely all knowing. There is no difference in my understanding of God's omniscience and any other orthodox theologian. But I hold that part of the reality, which God perfectly knows, consists of possibilities. The difference is in our understanding of creation, not in our understanding of God's omniscience.

2. The Open view undermines God's omnipotence.

I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that God is omnipotent. He is the Creator of all things and thus all power comes from him. But with all Arminians, I also hold that God limits the exercise of his own power by giving free will to creatures (humans and angels).

3. The Open view undermines our confidence in God's ability to accomplish his purposes.

I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that God can and has guaranteed whatever he wants to about the future, for he is omnipotent. But I also affirm (because I believe Scripture teaches) that part of God's purpose in creation is to have free agents who decide some matters for themselves (e.g. their own eternal destiny). Within the parameters set by the Creator, parameters which guarantee whatever God wants to guarantee about the future, humans have some degree of self-determination. This means that concerning the fate of particular individuals things may not turn out, as God desires. If we deny this, we must accept that God actually desires some people to go to hell. But Scripture unequivocally denies this. (I Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9)

4. The Open view undermines God's perfection.

I affirm (because Scripture teaches) the absolute perfection of God. But I do not see that Scripture teaches that the future must be exhaustively settled either in God's mind or in God's will for God to be perfect. Rather, I believe that God's perfection is more exalted when we understand him to be so self-confident in his power that he genuinely gives free will to creatures.

5. This Open view undermines the power of prayer.

I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that petitionary prayer is our most powerful tool in bringing about the Father's will "on earth as it is in heaven." Indeed, because my view allows for the future to be somewhat open, I believe it makes the best sense out of the urgency and efficaciousness, which Scripture attaches to prayer.

6. The Open view cannot account for biblical prophecy.

I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that God can and does determine and predict the future whenever it suits his sovereign purposes to do so. But I deny that this logically entails, or that Scripture teaches, that all of the future is determined and predictable. God is wise enough to be able to achieve his purposes while allowing his creatures a significant element of freedom.

7. The Open View is Incoherent

Some argue that it is logically impossible for God to guarantee some aspects of the future without controlling everything about the future. This objection has been raised by Calvinists against Arminians for centuries and is no more forceful against the Open view than it is against classical Arminians. Everything in life, from our own personal experience down to quantum particles, points to the truth that predictable stability does not rule out an element of unpredictability.

[Zaph]

Barry, for now I will leave your claim that the KJV and the NKJV are "bad" translations alone. All translations have their problems along with their strengths. But please lets not get sidetracked into that no end discussion.

I did go to the website that you linked to. I find it interesting that one of the supporting Bible passages they list is Genesis 22:12 and then go on to claim that it is the Lord speaking here while in verse 11 it is clearly an angel of the LORD speaking. The bible tells us that even the angels do not know the future.

I am sure that we could go back and forth with passages from the Bible and convince no one on a text by text basis. However maybe we should keep our discussion upon the principles on which "Open Theism" is founded. I will probably not say too much more here until I've take a closer look at such things.
J
P.S. Just for the record I don't believe in predestination either.



Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied.
12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

[Barry]

Originally posted by Zaph
I find it interesting that one of the supporting Bible passages they list is Genesis 22:12 and then go on to claim that it is the Lord speaking here while in verse 11 it is clearly an angel of the LORD speaking. The bible tells us that even the angels do not know the future.

But who is the angel of the LORD? Most would say it is none other than Jesus Christ! In addition, even if it were your run of the mill angel, it is God who is speaking through him.

I'd be glad to discuss the main principles behind Open Theism, but the principles are derived directly from the scriptural passages, making it quite difficult to discuss one without the other.

I'll also leave the KJV discussions for later. I've had so many of them in the past that I've gotten quite tired of them. I will agree that all translations have problems, but IMO the KJV has many more problems than the others.

IHS,
Barry

[cdhale]

Originally posted by Barry
Clint,
At the very least, Boyd makes a tremendous argument against Calvinism. Even if you don't accept the Open Theist position, it would be hard to accept the traditional Calvinist arguments after reading the biblical support against it.

IHS,
Barry

I am certainly no Calvinist (though I call many of them my friend and brother/sister, including some on this board). In fact, I found much of Boyd's arguments convincing. Some of his arguments seemed a bit weak (forgive me for not quoting them directly, as I currently have the book loaned out), but that didn't detract from the totality of his argument.

I won't say that I am totally convinced of his position, but I will say that I will openly (no pun intended) continue to evaluate and study on the whole thing. It does appear to me to be a viable opinion, so that I don't think someone would not be Christian who believed this open viewpoint.

Zaph, I will assume that your request of me was made by the links given by Barry. If not, I will be glad to respond.

clint

[Barry]

Originally posted by cdhale
I am certainly no Calvinist (though I call many of them my friend and brother/sister, including some on this board).

You mean you actually talk to those heretics!?! (just kidding, many of my Christian friends are misguided Calvinists too!)

In fact, I found much of Boyd's arguments convincing. Some of his arguments seemed a bit weak (forgive me for not quoting them directly, as I currently have the book loaned out), but that didn't detract from the totality of his argument.

Yes, his arguments are very convincing. Having been an Arminian all of my Christian life, I was quite disturbed when I first read of the Open Theism view. And while I am not fully embracing it, and have a number of questions concerning it, I feel that it is more scripturally sound than either Calvinism or Arminianism. It does a great job of making sense of the theology of prayer.

I won't say that I am totally convinced of his position, but I will say that I will openly (no pun intended) continue to evaluate and study on the whole thing. It does appear to me to be a viable opinion, so that I don't think someone would not be Christian who believed this open viewpoint.

Yes, I think this is the right attitude to take. No viewpoint can answer all the questions we come up with, including Open Theism. But its proponenets are hardly the heretics some try to make them out to be.

IHS,
Barry

[Zaph]

Clint, thanks for being willing to respond to my question but you're correct the links that Barry provided did provide for me what I was looking for. :)

Barry, I hope I never implied that the people who believed in Open Theism were heretics. I had never even heard of it until today. I must say it is an interesting topic. I am wondering though... Do you know the origins of this theology? The Bible tells us there is nothing new under the sun so I am wondering when and where it began?

[Barry]

Zaph,
No, I didn't think you were calling Open Theists heretics, but there are plenty of people out there that are doing exactly that.

I am not sure of the origins of Open Theism. I imagine its proponents would say its origins are in the Bible, but I'm sure there is a person(s) who first came up with the packaged deal, if you know what I mean. The first I new to write about it was Clark Pinnock.

IHS,
Barry

[North]

Thanks for the great links. Boyd (?) provided an interesting scriptural defense of Open Theism. Someone called Open Theism a natural extension of Arminianism. I also saw a review at Amazon of an Open Theism book that said something to the effect that at last there was an explanation (logical/scriptural) that is the way we really experience things.

I was appalled at the way Open Theists were treated by the Evangelical Theological Association (??) who seemed intent on squashing debate (boot you out of the club). A group of scholars as I recall got together and signed a petition against this process and said that within Evangelical circles there needed to be fresh academic debate.

OT is as legitimate an explanation as are Calvinistic attempts and Arminian attempts. I read a book by Grudem who discredited Arminian explanations and he felt demonstrated that Calvinism has a more biblical regard for God's sovereignty and omnipotence. I remember James White saying someting to the effect that Arminianism is warmed over Roman Catholic semi Pelaganism (spelling). An Arminian is going to counter with the opposite.

Boyd and Pinnock have been given a rough ride for their views which they believe have biblical support. I think we need to tolerantly examine others views. Let's face it...if there were a knock out punch in the debates we would no longer be debating Calvinism vs Arminianism.

North

[cdhale]

I think you have a healthy view of the situation North. I agree with all you have said. I do think that the Open view is worthy of some time to study on it. Especially if one isn't a Calvinist :D .

I do see why the Calvinists dislike the Open view so much. I can almost hear them..."SEE!!! Thats where Arminianism leads!!!...."

Oh well. I do tend to study on it some more.

clint

[Barry]

Hi North,
I agree with what you said. I have attended Boyd's church numerous times (it's only about 30 min. away and they have a Sat. Night service so I can make it) and he is one of the most solid biblical teachers/preachers I've ever sat under. What makes people uncomfortable with Boyd is that he does not define Scripture within a particular theological framework, including Open Theism. He is more than willing to admit that a Scripture passage does not fit within his preconceived ideas, and if there is not a good explanation for it, he readily admits that perhaps his view has some weaknesses. I've actually never heard him bring the subject of Open Theism up in a sermon, but it has been the subject of much debate at Bethel College and Seminary where Greg was a theology professor until this year.

The big problem I have with any of these views is that most proponents interpret everything through the lenses of whatever view they hold. For instance, "Hebrews 6 can't say what it says because we believe in perseverance of the saints" (Calvinist). Or "John 10:28ff can't say what it says because we believe that a person can lose their salvation" (Arminian). While I see the advantage of having some type of theological construct as a guide, none of them are without flaws, and none of them should supercede the Scriptures.

IHS,
Barry