Replies

This dilemma in which the Arminian finds himself can be avoided in one of two ways. One is to submit to the Biblical teaching concerning God's ultimate sovereignty in election. The other choice, which is gaining a foothold in evangelicalism in our day, is to give up God's sovereignty all together and stake out the position of men such as Clark Pinnock and Greg Boyd. These men are moving in the direction of Process Theology and have openly denied that God has any foreknowledge whatsoever. They represent the modern version of the Socinians. At the point of foreknowledge, they are at least more consistent than Arminians. They deny that God has foreknowledge. God cannot know the free acts of free agents.

This is the position of alot of the Pastors in the Church of the Nazarene (including mine) My Pastor says that foreknowlege = predestination

Open Theology is finding fertile soil in believers steeped in Arminian concepts. I think the argument that foreknowledge = foresight leads to the position of Pinnock, Boyd et al. that God's foresight is limited because man is truly free.

BTW Boyd's denomination brought the statement "that He foreknows infallibly all that shall come to pass" to a vote.

It was voted down 275 to 251 (52% to 48%)-- June 1999.

Boyd and his fellow open theists then posit a God who fulfills prophecy by being shrewd enough to checkmate free choices by anticipating options and contingency planning. Wild stuff. Might be an intersting thread: Does Arminianism lead to Open Theism?