Posted on 02/04/2004 9:30:35 AM PST by RnMomof7
Southern Seminary journal critiques 'open theism' as false doctrine Aug 29, 2000 By Jeff Robinson
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)--A group of theologians are re-creating God in their own image.
That is the conclusion of writers in the Summer 2000 edition of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, the theological journal of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The journal's subject is "Suffering and the Sovereignty of God," and three of the essays deal with the controversial subject of open theism.
The theological controversy has been fueled by the recent release of "God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God," a book by open theist and Bethel College professor Greg Boyd.
According to open theists, God is ignorant of future events, is impotent in the face of evil and sometimes even repents for being unable to control his creation. When it comes to carrying out his will, he is vacillating and tentative.
And yet, many of those who believe in the updated god and the related theologies -- known as open theism -- claim to take a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Even the widely regarded evangelical publication Christianity Today has begun to question the traditional doctrine of God, SBJT editor and New Testament professor Thomas Schreiner writes in his lead editorial.
Commenting on a Feb. 7, 2000, editorial, "God vs. God," Schreiner asserts, "What is surprising is that the editorial begins by speaking very negatively of the classical view of God ... and a very positive estimation of the benefits of open theism. Indeed, despite some closing words about the importance of church history, we are given the impression that both open theism and classical theology are equally plausible."
Schreiner concludes, "When I read an editorial like this, I wonder if some segments of evangelical Christianity are rootless, lacking any sense of the teaching of the church through the ages."
It is against this rising tide of erroneous doctrine the SBJT writers seek to build a strong dam of biblical truth.
"Some openness theologians claim to be radical biblical literalists, contending that traditional evangelicals have failed to interpret the Scriptures in accord with its most likely meaning," Schreiner writes.
"Hence, open theists insist that when Scripture says, 'God repents,' the text means exactly what it says. God really and truly changes his mind. This claim should be examined seriously since we are summoned to review our hermeneutical approach. The biblical strength of their view, however, is exaggerated."
Schreiner and other Southern Seminary professors, along with four guest essayists, explore the doctrine of God's sovereignty and suffering. The guest essayists are John Piper, senior pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis; D.A. Carson, research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Ill.; Scott Hafemann, Hawthorne professor of Greek at Wheaton College in suburban Chicago; and Bill Haynes, pastor of First Baptist Church of Sweetwater in Longwood, Fla.
Open theism goes even further than stating a case for the repentance and imperfect knowledge of God. Southern theology professor Bruce Ware outlines and weighs the biblical veracity of several of open theism's other tenets in his article, "Despair Amidst Suffering and Pain: A Practical Outworking of Open Theism's Diminished View of God."
Open theists hold that God does not know in advance the future free actions of his moral creatures; that tragic events occur over and through which God has neither control nor purpose; that God sometimes gives guidance, only to later realize that his "will" has led to unintentional hardship and suffering in the lives of his people. At times, God is unable to bring even some good from suffering because he is always uninvolved in its origin.
Writes Ware: "When human tragedy, injustice, suffering, or pain occurs, open theists stand ready with their words of comfort and pastoral counsel: God is as grieved as you are about the difficulties and heartache you are experiencing, and he, too, wishes that things had worked out differently. Because God does not (and cannot) know, much less control, much of what the future holds, and because many things occur that are contrary to his good and loving desires, we must not blame God for the evil things that happen in our lives ... ."
Lest anyone take this re-defining of God's sovereignty to be just another theological wrestling match over a fringe Christian doctrine, Southern professor Stephen J. Wellum spotlights its critical nature in his essay, "The Importance of the Nature of Divine Sovereignty for Our View of Scripture."
Writes Wellum: "... theological doctrines are much more organically related than we often realize and that is why reformulation in one area of doctrine inevitably affects other areas of our theology. This is important to remember, especially in evaluating old and new proposals regarding the nature of divine sovereignty."
Schreiner writes that open theists "see another advantage in their paradigm, namely, God is not responsible for suffering we experience, for he did not know or ordain that it would occur. It is fair to say that open theists think that one of the great advantages of this new paradigm is that it solves the problem of evil."
The journal further ties together suffering and sovereignty in articles by Piper, Carson and others. Piper's essay -- titled, "To Live upon God That Is Invisible: Suffering and Service in the Life of John Bunyan" -- uses the life of Bunyan to demonstrate suffering and sovereignty. Carson does much the same with the biblical account of Job in "Job: Mystery and Faith."
In his sermon, "Never Alone in Suffering: Protected by God's Sustaining Grace," Haynes argues that Christians will be prepared to endure hardships when they understand properly God's sovereignty.
"They [the biblical writers] are not promising that Christians will be protected from sickness, trouble, or unpleasant situations," he notes. "The Word of God makes clear that if you are in Christ, God protects your faith. God protects your inheritance in Christ, and while all the world may be falling apart around us and may explode in chaos, our God is in the midst of it all, protecting those who are His. ...
"What does God promise?" Haynes asks. "I will never leave you. I will never turn My back on you. I will never forsake you. But I will never give you a life of ease either."
Excerpts of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology can be viewed online at www.sbts.edu. The journal can be purchased by calling 1-800-626-5525, ext. 4413. --30--
Would such an impotant god be worthy of worship? is this the god of the Arminians? This theology would be convenient for Antichrist to step into.
Old news.
They know a false teaching when they hear it
Truth never gets old.
For the most part orthodox Christianity has rejected Boyds theology as a heresy, so He is ignored by the mainstream now.But when someone wants to bring it up as a current or new theology that frees us from an oppressive God. It is then time to expose it's history with the Church of Jesus Christ.
Does God Change His Mind? If God is immutable, if He does not change at all, does that mean He never changes His mind either? This is a very thorny problem. The Bible appears to say at times that God changed His mind. Consider, for example, the following episode that took place in the time of Moses:
Then Moses pleaded with the LORD his God, and said: "LORD, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, 'He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and relent from this harm to Your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever." So the LORD relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people. (Exod. 32:11-14)God "relented"? Other translations render the words here, "changed His mind." This narrative seems to make it absolutely clear that God does, in fact, change His mind from time to time. Maybe His being doesn't change, but does His mind cast a shadow every once in awhile?
The problem becomes more vexing when we read elsewhere in Scripture:
"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? Behold, I have received a command to bless; He has blessed, and I cannot reverse it. (Num. 23:19-20)This same concept is repeated elsewhere: "And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent" (1 Sam. 15:29).
Is this a contradiction in Scripture? How are we to understand this?
We could throw up our hands and agree with the Bible's critics who insist that this is a blatant error or contradiction. A more judicious approach would be to grapple with the problem of what is called phenomenological language. (The illusion or appearance of something, "the way we see it" from our perspective. As they appear to us, not necessarily as they really are. The aim of the writer is to make a theological statement, a truth about God and man and his world, he's not using modern scientific precision and technical terminology.
Scripture frequently describes events in terms of how they appear to the observer. The Bible does not "teach" that the sun revolves around the earth, but it does speak about sunrises and sunsets. (Even modern scientists do this when they are using ordinary language. Listen to what the meteorologist on your local TV station says about the sun's "rising" and "setting.")
The most obvious use of phenomenological language in the Bible is its use of human terms to describe God. The Bible speaks of His coming and of His going, of His becoming angry, of His turning from wrath. He is described as having arms, hands, a face, and feet. Yet this multitude of references to God via human imagery is qualified by sober biblical warnings and reminders that God is not a man. It is noteworthy that in these "troubling" passages the qualifier is spelled out precisely in these terms: God "is not a man that He should relent [change His mind]" (1 Sam. 15:29).
If we took the discussion between Moses and God in Exodus and pressed the apparent meaning to the ultimate, what would it teach us about God? Not only would we think that God relented, but we would think that He relented because Moses showed God a more excellent way. Is it even thinkable to us that God should have an idea that is corrected by a fallible creature? If we entertain such a thought the ramifications are sobering.
For example, in the Exodus incident Moses pleaded with God, arguing that God would look bad to the Egyptians if He carried out His threat. Then God changed His mind? Think of the meaning of this in human terms: If God first thought about punishing His people, He must have overlooked the consequence of that action on His reputation. His reasoning was flawed. His decision was impulsive. Fortunately, Moses was astute enough to see the folly of this decision and persuaded the shortsighted Deity to come up with a better plan. Fortunately for God, He was helped by a superior guidance counselor. Without the help of Moses, God would have made a foolish mistake!
Even to talk like this is to border on blasphemy. That God could be corrected by Moses or any other creature is utterly unthinkable. Yet, that seems to be the implication of the narrative. This is a major reason why we must interpret the narrative passages of Scripture by the didactic or "teaching" portions. If we try to find too much theology in narrative passages, we can easily go beyond the point of the narrative into serious errors.
The biblical narratives in which God appears to repent, or change His mind, are almost always narratives that deal with His threats of judgment and punishment. These threats are then followed by the repentance of the people or by the intercessory petitions of their leaders. God is not talked into "changing His mind." Out of His gracious heart He only does what He has promised to do all along - not punish sinners who repent and turn from their evil ways. He chooses not to do what He has every right to do.
The point of these narratives is to encourage us to pray. We are to make intercession. The promised threats of divine punishment are given with the condition attached that if we repent, we wi1l escape those punishments. Sometimes that condition is spelled out explicitly, while at other times it is merely implied. When we repent, then God removes the threat of punishment. The question is, Who is ultimately repenting here? God never repents in the sense that He turns away from sin or from error.
God is not a man. He does not ultimately or literally have arms or legs. He does not repent as men repent. He listens to our prayers but is never corrected by them. He changes not- neither in the perfection of His being nor in the perfection of His thoughts.
It is one of the most solemn, even awful thoughts - that of the Divine repentance, which we should approach with worshipful reverence.God's repentance is not like ours, for "the Strength of Israel will not lie, nor repent; for He is not a man that He should repent."
- Man's repentance implies a change of mind, God's repentance a change of circumstances and relations. He has not changed, but is ever the same; it is man who has changed in his position relatively to God.
- God's repentance is the unmovedness of Himself, while others move and change. The Divine finger ever points to the same spot; but man has moved from it to the opposite pole.
From "One Holy Passion", by R.C. Sproul.
Unfortunately it seems that Wesleyans like it and teach it to their flock.
Jer 12:10 Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard, they have trodden my portion under foot, they have made my pleasant portion a desolate wilderness.
Jer 23:1 Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD.
Some things never change
I see no one teaching it RN. Nor do you. I see a lot of discussion. You know the difference.
Gregory Boyd gives a strong and accessible argument for views that challenge some traditional theological positions. Many will disagree, but fair-minded readers will come to understand both that the “open God” position is motivated by a desire to be faithful to the Bible and that it is consistent with both classical Christian orthodoxy and evangelical distinctives. Boyd himself provides a fine example of how evangelical Christians may disagree in a loving and respectful manner.
— C. Stephen Evans | professor of philosophy and dean for research and scholarship, Calvin College
Thanks for the quote from a Calvinist:>). Can you find me one from a Wesleyan?? :>))
We had a Wesleyan pastor posting here for a while that was a definite proponent of the doctrine.
Vernon and xzins seem to have embraced it. People always teach from their own belief position.
I will say that it was my experience that in Wesleyan circles the denial of Foreknowledge is common and taught..that is the building block Boyde builds his system on, so it is a simple move.
I think you and I both know that it would be more correct to say that in Wesleyan circles there is a different understanding of foreknowledge. And you know that Wesley taught that "foreknowledge" was a concept for man's understanding.
God has always known everything that He knows now. He didn't know something before He knew something else.
Otherwise you're saying that God can learn. And isn't that the problem you have with Boyd?
I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.
To be honest, I can not read that so it makes sense to me..I must not understand what you are saying :>)
Corine I used to post on a Wesleyan forum ..many pastors and even a well known theologist posted on it. To a man they denied God's foreknowledge . My old Pastor refuted Gods foreknowledge as he said (and is true) that Foreknowledge = predestination .
I have two problems ..no three with Boyd
1) It changes the nature of God
2)it makes Gods actions fully dependent on the actions of men to make a plan or decision
3) And yes that he makes God a student at the feet of His creations..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.