An article on Open Theism and Greg Boyd

This is the contradiction. If man can do nothing to save himself, the nothing includes "choosing." But for you, man chooses and therefore does something. This puts salvation at least partly in man rather than in God. I do believe that man chooses to be saved; but that choice comes from the divinely, unilaterally enabled will.</font>[/QUOTE]Do you not read? Man choosing does not mean that man is saving himself. Go back and read, slowly if you need to... Note such words are "reflexive," "subject," and "object", and THEN reply if you must.

If man's choice comes from a divine, unilateral will, it's not free choice - it's forced.

 

No - the Biblical position shows that God allows man to choose to follow. Because "sovereignty" doesn't appear in the Bible, you can't claim that the Bible specifically talks about "sovereignty" as such. I disagree with your word choice here. God isn't "giving" anything "up." He's allowing man a choice to follow him or not. He's not losing out anything here. In Matthew 22, Christ tells a parable about a king who invites a great number of people to a wedding feast. A whole bunch of them decline. Is the king in this story still sovereign? I would maintain, since the king here is talking about the King, that he is, indeed sovereign. Your position that "sovereignty" is the "control" of all things is weak at best.

And that's the problem. He's saying that it's only possibe to do one or the other. That's the standard Calvinist answer I mentioned earlier. Whenever there's something that doesn't jive with Calvinist theology, the pat answer is "It's not for us to know." God is sovereign and we are autonomous. Is that a paradox as well? Why do we not accept that one? Man can do no good for God on his own, but he can still choose what bad things to do - or God is "making" him to bad things for God's glory.

If man's choice comes from a divine, unilateral will, it's not free choice - it's forced.

And I'll say it again. Man does not have anything within him capable of saving himself. God does all of the saving. However, God does not FORCE his salvation on anyone. They can choose Christ's salvation.

For example, it is impossible for me to afford a 500,000 house. Period. However, a person comes and offers it to me because he loves me like his own child. I choose to accept it. I've done nothing for this house. I didn't buy the house, I didn't earn the house. But the guy offering the house allowed me to choose the house. Where is the difficulty here?

If his choice is always to reject God, how do people become Christians?

You wonder why a eternal decree is not a free choice? If I am God and offer you pancakes in one hand and waffles in the other and say you have a "choice," but I have already decreed that you will select waffles, it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to select pancakes. Therefore, there is no free will.

When there is a lack of Scripture (and, let's face it, there is none on your side either that says specifically about an "eternal decree," because that's not in the Scriptures, either), we must take what we see generally in the Scriptures. The Scriptures show that man has a choice to choose or reject him, and there are rewards and consequences for such choices.

 

I was going to reply to the "Christ's Crucifixion" thread where the subject of "tension" came up again, but since that had gotten off topic, and the same paradox was touched upon hers, this is as good a place.
God says that He sets before us life and death and tells us to choose life (Deut. 30:15, 19). Notice, He is not just setting before us a good choice over a bad choice, but rather life itself. If man were unable to choose life because of his nature, then to the non-elect, this would in no way, shape or form be an offer of "life". Life is just not being set forth before them, only death.
So the true "tension" is between our truly free choices and God's sovereignty, not His decrees and man's responsibility.
Also keep in mind that man's choice is not simply that he's walking around wallowing in sin and then one day just suddenly snaps out of it on his own willing. God does all the drawing, but man at one point must decide to follow or continue in rebellion.

[ June 16, 2002, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

And yet you didn't provide hardly any Scriptures that show how "clear" your definition is.

Psalm 139:16 (NKJV) states that "Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unformed; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." And the word that is often translated "ordained" is yatsar, or planned. And the object of the word ordained is not supplied in the Hebrew text. The NKJV thinks that it's the members of the body that the previous verse talks about. With all of this, it's hard to see how this one verse equals a complete lack of autonomy for man. I will point out the Exodus and Revelation both talk about books being changed as well. If such books can be changed, does that mean God is less autonomous?

And you've yet to provide any Scripture showing your paradox. There is a revelation that God wants all men to be saved. There is a revelation that Christ will draw everyone to him. Why do those not get precedence? As Eric said, we are to choose life. Sounds like an command to autonomous beings.

Problem one: Where does it say that God changes man before He can choose Him, especially in the context that God draws all men to Him?
Problem two: If God doesn't change the will of another man, what does that make Him? If He can do good, but chooses not to do it, what does that make Him?

Why? The man drew me to him to offer me the house? Where is your Scripture that says that man is morally inable to choose after the Spirit draws him? And why do Calvinists so often say the word "clearly?" Do they think it gives them a stronger argument?

I never assumed that man is morally moral. Man is unable to do any good for God at all. However, when the Holy Spirit calls him, he can choose to say "yay" or "nay."

The way that Christ describes in John. The Father draws men through the Holy Spirit with the result that they freely come to him for salvation. He regenerates the will. If you offer me pancakes and waffles and I don’t like pancakes, then I will choose the waffles everytime. That is the situation. Natural man does not want God or seek after God (Rom 3). He cannot please God (Rom 8). He is dead in trespasses and sins (Eph 2).

chooses to come. Does that mean all who hear will choose to come? Apparently not, since the Gosp[els talk repeatedly about those whose life Christ didn't have a salvation impact on.

Natural man doesn't want God or seek God until God draws him (everyone is drawn). As for Romans 8, it says that no one in the flesh can please God. And man is dead until quickened by the Father, since salvation is a gift from God.

No Scripture about the eternal decree? Hmmm... I have never denied that man doesn't seek God, doesn't want God, and so on. Never have I done that. So why do you say that I do? What I DO say is that God calls all men, invites all men, draws all men, and once he has done such, gives him a choice to follow him or reject him. You know the passages that say that Christ died for all, for the world, that he draws all, that he loves all, and so on and so forth, yet you ignore those passages, choosing to limit their impact to serve your own theology. I strongly disagree with that.

Remember, I never said I was an open theist, but you talk about them as if they think God konws nothing and is completely subject to every whim that man has, which is, in fact, an extremely false position. Open Theists say that God does have a plan, he has foreknowledge, and that he does ordain things. If you would have EVER read anything by them, you'd know that. Since you don't, I find it hard that you've read anything about them.

Here's a paradox for you: If God draws all men, and not everyone becomes a Christian, where is the break in logic?

We can either assume that God truly does draw all and not everyone responds to the gospel, or we can say that God only draws some. (Or something else - if you have another option, let me know... I don't want to be guilty of the same haughtiness as Storms with his one way or the other question).

Do we say that Scripture is not what it says it is, or do we admit that man has a choice to say no?

[ June 16, 2002, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: ScottEmerson ]

 

The following is from The Sovereignty of God by A.W. Pink, pp. 20-21.

"How different is the God of the Bible from the God of modern Christendom! The conception of Deity which prevails most widely today, even among those who profess to give heed to the Scriptures, is a miserable caricature, a blasphemous travesty of the Truth. The God of the twentieth century is a helpless, effeminate being who commands the respect of no really thoughtful man. The God of the popular mind is the creation of maudlin sentimentality. The God of many a present-day pulpit is an object of pity rather than of awe-inspiring reverence. To say that God the Father has purposed the salvation of all mankind, that God the Son died with the express intention of saving the whole human race, and that God the Holy Spirit is now seeking to win the world to Christ; when, as a matter of common observation, it is apparent that the great majority of our fellowmen are dying in sin, and passing into a hopeless eternity; is to say that God the Father is disappointed, that God the Son is dissatisfied, and that God the Holy Spirit is defeated. We have stated the issue baldly, but there is no escaping the conclusion. To argue that God is "trying His best" to save all mankind, but that the majority of men will not let Him save them, is to insist that the will of the Creator is impotent, and that the will of the creature is omnipotent. To throw the blame, as many do, upon the Devil, does not remove the difficulty, for if Satan is defeating the purpose of God, then, Satan is Almighty and God is no longer the Supreme Being.

To declare that the Creator's original plan has been frustrated by sin, is to dethrone God. To suggest that God was taken by surprise in Eden and that He is now attempting to remedy an unforeseen calamity, is to degrade the Most High to the level of a finite, erring mortal. To argue that man is a free moral agent and the determiner of his own destiny, and that therefore he has the power to checkmate his Maker, is to strip God of the attribute of Omnipotence. To say that the creature has burst the bounds assigned by his Creator, and that God is now practically a helpless Spectator before the sin and suffering entailed by Adam's fall, is to repudiate the express declaration of Holy Writ, namely, "Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee: the remainder of wrath shalt Thou restrain" (Psa. 76:10). In a word, to deny the Sovereignty of God is to enter upon a path which, if followed to its logical terminus, is to arrive at blank atheism.

The Sovereignty of the God of Scripture is absolute, irresistible, infinite. When we say that God is Sovereign we affirm His right to govern the universe which He has made for His own glory, just as He pleases. We affirm that His right is the right of the Potter over the clay, i. e., that He may mold that clay into whatsoever form He chooses, fashioning out of the same lump one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor. We affirm that He is under no rule or law outside of His own will and nature, that God is a law unto Himself, and that He is under no obligation to give an account of His matters to any."

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...

[ June 16, 2002, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Scott, the above quote is from your third post, though I'm not sure if you're responding or quoting Boyd. Anyway, this is where is think the open view really breaks down, and no amount of clever argumentation can remedy the fact that the open view denies the foreknowledge of God. For perspective, let me say that, though I disagree with the open view, I am willing to accept some of the points within the pale of orthodoxy. For example, I do not believe that if God allows man choice that it automatically undermines His sovereignty. I see sovereignty as meaning that God does whatsoever He pleases and I do not have to reconcile what He pleases with what I think He should please in order to believe that He does as He pleases. Nor do I believe that all who hold the open view are lost idolaters. That being said, I see no way to reconcile the open view with an orthodox view of foreknowledge and omniscience. Simply put, the above quote makes it clear that (according to the open view), God does not know everything. He doesn't know everything that will come to pass. Just foreknowing possibilities (and not certainties) is not consistent with the concept of an all-knowing God.

 

Scott, the above quote is from your third post, though I'm not sure if you're responding or quoting Boyd. Anyway, this is where is think the open view really breaks down, and no amount of clever argumentation can remedy the fact that the open view denies the foreknowledge of God. For perspective, let me say that, though I disagree with the open view, I am willing to accept some of the points within the pale of orthodoxy. For example, I do not believe that if God allows man choice that it automatically undermines His sovereignty. I see sovereignty as meaning that God does whatsoever He pleases and I do not have to reconcile what He pleases with what I think He should please in order to believe that He does as He pleases. Nor do I believe that all who hold the open view are lost idolaters. That being said, I see no way to reconcile the open view with an orthodox view of foreknowledge and omniscience. Simply put, the above quote makes it clear that (according to the open view), God does not know everything. He doesn't know everything that will come to pass. Just foreknowing possibilities (and not certainties) is not consistent with the concept of an all-knowing God.</font>[/QUOTE]What Scriptures of God being all-knowing are you talking about? How do we define orthodoxy in foreknowledge and omniscience? By the Arminian standard? By the Calvinist standard? By the Baptist standard? Note that orthodox relates to the teachings of the church. John Sanders does an intersting job showing that the early church didn't follow the same ideas of foreknowledge and omniscience as Calvinists do today - that came with the neo-Platonic thinking of Augustine. Very interesting work, it is.

 

A few points of note:

To say that God the Father has purposed the salvation of all mankind, that God the Son died with the express intention of saving the whole human race, and that God the Holy Spirit is now seeking to win the world to Christ; when, as a matter of common observation, it is apparent that the great majority of our fellowmen are dying in sin, and passing into a hopeless eternity; is to say that God the Father is disappointed, that God the Son is dissatisfied, and that God the Holy Spirit is defeated.[/quote]

This is true only if God has not offered man a choice. If man does have a choice, God isn't "losing" anything.

And who says that God is trying his best? The Arminian position is that Christ has already died for all. Giving man one choice no more makes man omnipotent than it makes God impotent. This is rhetorical nonsense.

Who says God was surprised by sin? Let's look at the other extreme - to say God was the designer of sin says something else about the Most High.

Saying that God cannot give man a choice is to strip Him of the attribute of omnipotence, for isn't this something God CANNOT do?

Who is denying that God is a helpless spectator? Pink is a master at creating straw men.

And if he pleases to give man a free choice... ?

No obligation - but He does. Scripture is full of instances where He does anyway. He tells His children what He's up to.

 

Scott, I am responding to what is contradictory in your/Boyd's own defense, so it doesn't matter how I define these things, does it? And it is Boyd who wanted to be identified as orthodox: "There is no difference in my understanding of God’s omniscience and that of any other orthodox theologian..." Now, this is from your second post:

Does that quote contradict this one:

?????????

 

Scott????

 

Does that quote contradict this one:

?????????</font>[/QUOTE]You'll have to ask Dr. Boyd. Remember, I'm not an open theist!

 

You coulda fooled me! In fact, you did. Thanks for clarifying.

 

I think what the Calvinists fail to realize is that their appeal to paradox is not the only one that can be submitted and on a Biblical basis. The Calvinists see the issue between God's sovereignty and man's free will. For another, the issue may be God's foreknowledge and man's free will; that is where they may find difficulty in establishing a coherent model of salvation. I guess this is where one would take up the Calvinistic refrain, "It's a mystery" (I'm reminded of that song by Matt Redman that goes, "It's the mystery of the universe, your the God of holiness, yet you welcome souls like me;" pardon the digression).

I don't know if I explained myself very clearly but if the Calvinist can say, "You just need to humbly accept the paradox between God's soveriengty and man's free will as taught by the Reformed because it is Biblical;" then, another person (let's say an Arminian) may say, "I have coherently shown how the Calvinist position regarding God's sovereignty is not Biblical."

And if a Calvinist retorts (as has been done on this board), "The Arminian position is just as problematic! How can God create someone he knows is going to hell? Is that a good God?" Then the Arminian's reply can justifiably be, "Well, it is a paradox that you will have to humbly accept because it is Biblical. Our finite, depraved minds cannot comprehend the vastness of God's wisdom: 'My thoughts are not your thoughts' and 'Who are you to answer back to God?'" and so on and so forth.

[ June 20, 2002, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: Nelson ]

 

Thank you, Nelson

[ June 22, 2002, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]