37818
Well-Known Member
And your view of my view.
Biblical theology?
You do not like my understanding of:
Genesis 22:12 based on John 1:18.
And:
Mark 13:32 with Acts of the Apostles 1:7 being it's explanation.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Not open theism.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
You do not like my understanding of:
Genesis 22:12 based on John 1:18.
And:
Mark 13:32 with Acts of the Apostles 1:7 being it's explanation.
37818
Well-Known Member
In John 1:18 uses the Greek term exēgeomai.
37818
Well-Known Member
You do not know anything of the sort.
CJP69
Active Member
So what?
37818
Well-Known Member
We disagree.
And I do not believe you accurately understand John 1:18 as it applies to the Son of God in the Old Testament.
Last edited:
37818
Well-Known Member
Yes. And I don't read eisegesis, but exegesis. My "bad" on three counts.
One of which I thought better of you.
Last edited:
CJP69
Active Member
That much is obvious. The difference is that I can explain my doctrine and remain rationally sound while you are forced to resort to ad hoc doctrinal ideas to rescue yours from the plain reading of scripture.
I doubt that we even disagree on it! It's you application that is faulty.
Explain it to me.
CJP69
Active Member
I can't make heads or tails of this post.
From what I have read here, open theism is being based on taking Genesis 22:12 out of context and applying it to force all of the Bible to fit a very narrow, out of context, sentence.
“Don’t lay a hand on the boy!” the angel said. “Do not hurt him in any way, for now I know that you truly fear God. You have not withheld from me even your son, your only son.”
Yet, we read Paul's introduction in Titus, which shows God's sovereign knowledge throughout time when we read:
"This letter is from Paul, a slave of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ. I have been sent to proclaim faith to those God has chosen and to teach them to know the truth that shows them how to live godly lives. This truth gives them confidence that they have eternal life, which God—who does not lie—promised them before the world began."
(Titus 1:1-2)
It seems that an open theist has to come up with excuses, much like earlier when the excuse was falsely made that the appointment was only for Israel and only in certain circumstances.
The open theist is on the constant defensive as he has to reinterpret most of the Bible in an attempt to make God ignorant and reactionary to the whims of man. Such biblical juggling is the action of liberals and humanists who cannot stand to accept God's full authority over every aspect of life. Their complaints on a discussion board are not against myself. They are directly against the God who graciously chose to save them.
“Don’t lay a hand on the boy!” the angel said. “Do not hurt him in any way, for now I know that you truly fear God. You have not withheld from me even your son, your only son.”
Yet, we read Paul's introduction in Titus, which shows God's sovereign knowledge throughout time when we read:
"This letter is from Paul, a slave of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ. I have been sent to proclaim faith to those God has chosen and to teach them to know the truth that shows them how to live godly lives. This truth gives them confidence that they have eternal life, which God—who does not lie—promised them before the world began."
(Titus 1:1-2)
It seems that an open theist has to come up with excuses, much like earlier when the excuse was falsely made that the appointment was only for Israel and only in certain circumstances.
The open theist is on the constant defensive as he has to reinterpret most of the Bible in an attempt to make God ignorant and reactionary to the whims of man. Such biblical juggling is the action of liberals and humanists who cannot stand to accept God's full authority over every aspect of life. Their complaints on a discussion board are not against myself. They are directly against the God who graciously chose to save them.
CJP69
Active Member
Open Theism is NOT based on this verse. The plain reading of this verse merely supports the doctrine.
Your reading your doctrine into the text here. I'd get into the details here but I'm not convinced that it wouldn't be wasted on you.
It isn't an excuse, its what the text of scripture will support.
On the contrary! Open theism is specifically about being able to read the text and take it to mean what it plainly states without having to turn whole passages into figures of speech that seem to mean the opposite of what they say.
John Sanders puts it most succinctly....
"The openness model is an attempt to provide a more biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship.." - John Sanders
You're lying to yourself here.
------
Open theism is nothing less than a continuation of the same process begun by Martin Luther who dove head first into removing the influence of Rome from Christian doctrine. His injunction is echoed in the heats of open theists...
"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God." - Martin Luther
Only this time it isn't Roman dogmas that are being purged but rather it is the influence of pagan Greek philosophy that is through this time.
All world views have certain ideas that serve as its philosophical foundation. Almost always, one's worldview comes down to what one believes about God. This is as true of various Christian world views as it is of pagan or atheistic worldviews. In Christian circles, various doctrines dealing with God's attributes is referred to as "theology proper" and it is differences is their theology proper that is the bottom bedrock difference between Open Theism and Calvinism.
There are many varied characteristics of God that cover things like how big is God, how much does He know, how much power does He have, etc. Christians have words to refer to these quantitative attributes. Words like omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent. The traditional understanding of these attributes of God is not founded in scripture but on the Classics (i.e. Aristotle and Plato). The omni-doctrines, as normally understood, as well as doctrines like immutability, impassibility, impeccability, et. al. were all likewise imported into Christian doctrine by Augustine of Hippo from the Classics and simply are not taught in the bible. (If you think otherwise, it is because you are reading those doctrines into whatever text you happen to be thinking of, which I'm happy to demonstrate, by the way.)
(Arminianism, while significantly different and less offensive to God's character than Calvinism, commits many of the same Aristotelian errors, just less consistently so. The two together, along with their variants comprise what is often referred to as the "Settled View". That term is fine but I've found that it is easier to simply refer to these doctrines as Calvinism or Augustinianism, which has become my normal practice.)
This, however, is not to say that God is not omniscient or omnipotent or omnipresent in some sense of those terms, God can do anything that He wants to do that is logically doable. He can be in all real places that He wants to be in when AND IF He wants to be there. Likewise, God knows and is able to keep perfect track of everything He wants to know and is able to find out that which He doesn't already know of that which is logically knowable. God cannot do the undoable (i.e. the rationally absurd) and as such cannot go to a place that doesn't exist or know that which cannot be known. This is the ONLY position that is consistent with the actual biblical material, which is a good thing because otherwise, the bible would falsify itself.
There are other attributes of God, attributes that deal with God's quality of character and personhood. God is living, personal, relational, righteous, just and loving,. These are the core attributes of the God we worship because they are the attributes that make Him worthy of worship. It is not how much God knows or God's size or how strong God is that makes Him holy, it is what He does with that knowledge and power that makes Him holy and worthy of praise. We do not worship God because He knows everything but because He is wise. We do not worship God because He is powerful but because He uses that power to practice justice and acts in the long term best interests of others at His own expense.
Now, here's the point of all this. It turns out that one is forced to choose which attributes to emphasize. One is forced, when forming one's doctrine, to choose which attribute(s) of God is paramount and which are not. The Calvinist picks one single attribute above all others. They, of course, are unwilling to admit this, but the fact is that they place supremacy on the doctrine of God's absolute immutability. The idea that God cannot change in any way WHATSOEVER is THE bedrock foundational precept upon which EVERY single distinctively Calvinist doctrine is built. That includes all of the TULIP doctrines and anything else that distinguishes Calvinism from all other forms of Christianity.
That, once again, is a point that I'm happy to demonstrate but to do so here would make this post, which is already too long, dramatically longer and so I'll wait for someone to challenge it. Suffice it to say that Open Theism is not the childish stupidity that taisto has ignorantly claimed. It is the result of a courageous allegiance to the righteous and loving character of our God and to, as Luther put it, "scripture and plain reason".
37818
Well-Known Member
When you ask me about eisegesis I wrongly read it as exegesis.
CJP69
Active Member
I see.
Yeah, they're just opposites. Eisegesis, as you've likely already found out, is when someone brings their doctrine to the text and conforms the text to that doctrine, where exegesis starts with the text and conforms the doctrine to it. The later is the proper way to do it.
Greg Boyd (open theist) and John Piper (Sovereignty of God) went round and round on this subject. While Piper soundly defeated Boyd in each debate, the heresy of open theism remains in the Baptist General Conference (Now called "Emerge"). Boyd got kicked out of his own church for his radical views and now adjuncts at Bethel University where he persists in railing against Reformed doctrine (a friend of my son's was forced to endure his tirades).
Here is an article that informs us of the lunacy of open theism.
Controversy over God’s foreknowledge recapped by pastor in Baptist de | Baptist Press
Here is an article that informs us of the lunacy of open theism.
Controversy over God’s foreknowledge recapped by pastor in Baptist de | Baptist Press
First, just read the text:
"This letter is from Paul, a slave of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ. I have been sent to proclaim faith to those God has chosen and to teach them to know the truth that shows them how to live godly lives. This truth gives them confidence that they have eternal life, which God—who does not lie—promised them before the world began."
(Titus 1:1-2)
Exegete the passage and see.
Paul was sent to proclaim faith to those God has chosen.
God promised, the chosen, eternal life before the world began.
That's the text. For you to speak otherwise is for you to ignore the text.
Second, open theism is a modern day theory that twists scripture (just like you have done) using eisegesis, not exegesis. Your founders have been thoroughly beaten in every debate. The theory exists only as a tool of Satan to try weaken God in the eyes of those who are perishing.
CJP69
Active Member
I find it laughably absurd that Calvinists routinely resort to intentional lying and ad hominems to more or less propagandize their audience against Open Theism.
I have NEVER seen, not one single time, a Calvinist win ANY debate with anyone about anything other than an atheist when debating whether God exists at all. Surely, all the Calvinists that I have seen crushed into veritable powder must all believe that God predestined them to lose so completely that they are forced to pretend that the debate never took place while the Open Theist puts the debate up for sale on their website.
I DARE you to post a link to any single debate that you think Greg Boyd lost against John Piper. I guarantee you that no such debate exists.
It took place at Bethel College (now Bethel University) where both were teaching in the theology department. Piper went on to preach at Bethlehem Baptist Church. Boyd went on to plant Woodland Hills in an old mall on the east side of St Paul. Boyd has fallen into obscurity. God has openly blessed Piper and Desiring God into a global ministry. The proof is in God's blessing. Open theism is a dying fad of humanists who think their actions cause God to be reactionary. It, like all false theologies, will fall away into obscurity until Satan tries to resurrect it under another veil.
CJP69
Active Member
I simply do not believe you.
Let me guess. There is no recording, no video, nor any other evidence that this debate actually occurred, right? If it happened at all, Boyd didn't lose the debate. I've seen too many such debates and know how they go. It's almost always the same thing. The Open Theist makes arguments, the Calvinist simply ignores the arguments or pretends that he doesn't understand them and proceeds to simply state and restate his doctrine as though doing so counts as a rebuttal. That's the way it happens on debate forums and that's the way it happens when the pros do it too. The only exception that I've ever seen was in the form of book called "Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views" (a book that I whole wholeheartedly encourage anyone to read). The format was such that the participants really couldn't get away with ignoring the arguments from their opponents.
If a miracle happened (which is what it would take) and the Calvinist did win, (which he didn't), why do you resort to ad hominems and insults (no, those aren't the same thing)? Why not just parrot the arguments that your favorite theologian made against Boyd? I very much doubt that any open theist here, including myself, could do much better than Boyd is capable of, so why don't you just crush us all to dust with Piper's brilliance? Is it because that would be too much effort or is it because no such open theists dust producing arguments exist? It is surely one or the other!
In regards to Boyd's career in a Baptist college, it is no surprise that Baptists with even a modicum of power would not permit any Open Theist to persist in their presence for long. God had nothing to do with it. The fact that you think otherwise just demonstrates the shallowness of your biblical knowledge and understanding, not to mention your inability to think in a manner consistent with your own doctrine. It's your own doctrine that teaches that God predestined Boyd to have ever taught in that university in the first place.
As for open theism being "a dying fad of humanists", I have no doubt that there were plenty of Catholics who said the same thing about both Martin Luther and Calvin. Not to mention the fact that, once again, it is your own doctrine that teaches that every humanist fad that has ever taken place was predestined to do so by God Himself.
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)
“But since he foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place, they vainly raise a quarrel over foreknowledge, when it is clear that all things take place rather by his determination and bidding.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)
“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)
“But since he foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place, they vainly raise a quarrel over foreknowledge, when it is clear that all things take place rather by his determination and bidding.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)
“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)
Seeking nothing but each other’s harm, these kings will plot against each other at the conference table, attempting to deceive each other. But it will make no difference, for the end will come at the appointed time. “The king of the north will then return home with great riches. On the way he will set himself against the people of the holy covenant, doing much damage before continuing his journey. “Then at the appointed time he will once again invade the south, but this time the result will be different.
(Daniel 11:27-29)
The idea that God doesn't know the outcome of events is simply wrong. The idea that men are free to do whatever they will is pure humanism. It is the Tower of Babel repeating itself as many attempts to lift himself up higher. Yet today, as then, God always descends down to the level of man and then disperses the foolish ideas they erect in an attempt to reduce God. Such is the actions of open theists who are humanists at heart.
(Daniel 11:27-29)
The idea that God doesn't know the outcome of events is simply wrong. The idea that men are free to do whatever they will is pure humanism. It is the Tower of Babel repeating itself as many attempts to lift himself up higher. Yet today, as then, God always descends down to the level of man and then disperses the foolish ideas they erect in an attempt to reduce God. Such is the actions of open theists who are humanists at heart.
Last edited:
CJP69
Active Member
Saying it doesn't make it so!