Should open theist be allowed as members of N.A.E.?

Is it possible to take these words and affirm God's sovereignty instead of denouncing it?

In other words, can God being sovereign only mean that He has preordained everything to happen in a certain way (which is where our side of the fence also has difficulty explaining how God can be this sovereign and yet humans have freedom)?

You see anytime we fit God into a theological system (Calvinism, Arminianism, Open Theism, etc.), there are unanswerable questions that surface. There are limitations to our knowledge. There are weaknesses in our views. That is why God is God and we are not. Every system is flawed at some level.

I believe God's sovereignty is more than we can even begin to grasp. That is why I hesitate to say God must do this or God must do that, for the moment I do, I am limiting an absolutely sovereign God.

Again do not get me wrong. I do not believe in a fickle God who is inconsistent. I simply believe God is beyond our human comprehension.

 

All of your questions about Jesus and His "lack of omniscience" are clearly answered in the fact that He took on the form of a servant, willingly laying aside His omniscience and choosing "not to know" certain things while on earth.

I have no problem understanding that there are different views in areas, and I can respect those views. But this theology of a an ignorant god is rank heresy. If God is not omniscient He is not God.

An Open Theist dealing with tragedy.

"Pastor, why did my mom have to die? Why did God let that car hit her and kill her."

"Well, you have to understand. God doesn't know everything. Sometimes things like this just take God by surprise. You can't expect God to know which road our lives are going to take. There are many futures out there, God may know them all, but He can't possibly know how man is going to act to determine which future will occur."

 

Shannon,

I see homosexuals daily (usually in the HIV clinic).

Open theist may not deny the Lord now (If the are saved?) but give them time. They will find a way to start chipping away at Jesus too.

Once again you are automatically imputing bad faith to these people. On what ground do you say that Pinnock will one day start chipping away at Jesus too? He may be wrong on some theological points but that doesn;t mean he doesn't have a close relationship with Jesus.

 

Do you believe God has exhaustively revealed himself to humanity?

Do you admit there are places in the Scriptures that imply God functions in response to what happens within time and space?

2 observations:

1. Omniscience is a term humans have applied to God, thus it is limited to a human definition. God supercedes human definitions so we can only at best apply a human definition to an eternal Creator.

2. God has already done something "less" when he became a human. So you have admitedly opened the door to that possibility.

And I think we cannot even begin to wrap our minds around the sovereignty of God. It's not a matter of being "smarter". It is a matter of recognizing all theology is man's reflection on God, therefore theology is somewhat fluid and not always concrete. From the earliest church councils, humans have tried to state in human terms their understanding of God.

And this explanation fits within your theological framework. It does not fit within other evangelical "systems". In case you have not noticed, many opponents of open theism do not adhere to this explanation.

Not the point. The point is that God has already done what some here have said he cannot do.

I would say Jesus made himself vulnerable when he had to be nursed as a child by a human parent. I would say he was vulnerable when he was beaten and slaughtered. I would say he made himself vulnerable when he took the form of a servant and became obedient unto death.

Exactly. Through the incarnation, God limited himself. What has been implied here is that an omniscient God cannot do that -- response: He has already done that. You admit that He voluntarily limited Himself while in human form. And I would suggest that if the Son of God remains in human form (which from all indications He has), He continues to limit himself. The point is simply this: God has chosen in history to limit himself to time and space. So we should not pretend the pretense is not there for Him to do this.

Another concise theological statement that fits in our framework but stretches the biblical language to fit our system. As multitudes of scholars admit, we are not sure what Paul means when he says "He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped." We are not sure what the incarnation entails. We are not sure what Jesus did or did not "give up" in order to become one of us. We simply know He limited himself in time and space and yet remained God.

So now you are saying that not only must a person have the same understanding as you regarding the nature of God to be an evangelical, but they must have the same beliefs about you regarding God's nature in order to be believer. Wow.

You just anathematized a lot of people who claim to trust in Jesus alone for salvation.

We better start passing out theology books as we share the gospel b/c evidently it requires an understanding of omniscience equal to yours (which eliminates Arminians by the way).

And we are not guilty of making God fit our framework???

 

No, of course not.

No. There is no "implication" about it. The Scriptures clearly teach that God functions in response to humans in time and space. That is a red herring. It is not the issue of open theism.

Inadequate explanation. The term "omniscience" is a human one. I don't care whether one uses it or not. It is hte meaning of it that is important, and biblically, omniscience means that God has exhaustive knowledge of all things, past, present, and future. Open theism denies this basic biblical teaching.

No he didn't.

Not at all. God has revealed theology to us. When the Bible tells us, for instance, that God knows all things, why do we not accept that? It is human reflection to say that he can't know things that haven't happened yet. Why can't he know them? Well, no good biblical reason. Simply the reasoning of men who wish to save God from himself, I suppose. It is bad reasoning to deny what Scripture says in favor of something else.

That point certainly has not been shown from Scripture, but only from man's mind.

I hardly think that is God being vulnerable.

No, through the incarnation Jesus limited himself and his deity. God the Father still retained the full use of his attributes.

I am not sure that many scholars are actually debating what Paul meant. The biggest debate is about whether or not the Kenosis is a metaphor.

I said no such thing. I said that followers of Christ must believe who he is and what he did. It is not at all about what I think or believe. I think too many people make the mistake of thinking that their own thinking is the standard. It isn't. We are operating out of revealed theology here.

No I didn't.

No, clearly not. If you think I said anything of the sort, you need to go back and read closer.

I can't speak for you, but I would not plead guilty to that. I admittedly have some "illogic" in my view of God because Scripture determines what I believe. It certainly isn't the framework I would desire, but rather than one that I found in Scripture.

I think in the end, you, for some reason, are giving open theists way too much credit. I can't imagine for the life of me what there is to defend there. This is a pretty cut and dried issue it seems.

 

Thank you for your very clear and succint defence Pastor Larry. Everything about this heresy is insidious. It denies the power of God and the rabbit trails about the incarnation of Christ lend credence to the fact that there is NO Bible basis for the theolgical wasteland of the open theists who worship an ignorant god.

 

My question is this?

Why is this cancer spreading so rapidly through the church now? Any ideas?

 

Then it is hard for us to put limits on what God can and cannot do.

Would you agree that most open theists base their beliefs on certain Scriptures? They are not operating void of scriptural proof.

I disagree with their interpretations, but I do not pretend that a particular interpretive method is infallible. There are simply some texts along these lines that cannot be explained in a way that is completely satisfactory.

I agree it is not the central issue, but this truth opens the door to Arminianism and eventually Open Theism. Unless we lived in a closed universe where every action is prescribed by the Creator, this issue remains. No system can adequately account for both the complete sovereignty of God and the freedom of humans (and all that entails as far as the existence of evil, etc.). There is a mystery element that we simply cannot resolve. We tend to fall on the side of sovereignty (b/c of the overwhelming scriptural proof) but there are reasonable claims on the other side as well.

This is our definition. Other texts seem to lend support to the other view.

I do accept it. OTOH the Bible speaks at times in terms of God changing His mind, repenting, etc. This type of terminology leads others to explore a position such as open theism (with which I disagree).

The moment you embrace a system of theology, you embrace a framework that is limited. Since you have already admitted that God has not revealed Himself exhaustively, you have admitted that your view of God is limited to your own human reasoning and interpretation. Obviously the Bible is an authoritative source to reveal what God wants to be known, but it is only the Scripture itself that is flawless, not our understanding of it. A "plain" reading of Scripture does not always leave us with a "plain" understanding of the indescrible, incomprehensible God we serve.

 

I don't think it is. For the most part, I think it is reserved to academic settings. I actually can't believe I spent as much time on this thread as I did. Open Theism is not even on my radar as far as local church ministry. It will not stifle the church or its mission. I guess I just have a tendency to defend those getting bashed particularly when a lot of the criticism is based on unwarranted assertions.

Let the record show: All about Grace is not an open theist. I believe in the absolute sovereignty of God. And I also believe that God is larger than anything we can wrap our minds around. If people like Pinnock, Boyd, Basinger, and others want to give their time to exploring the relational side of the God we serve and reach a different conclusion than me, that is their perogative. It does not rattle my faith. Hopefully it will cause me to think and refine my own beliefs.

At the end of the day, people are still dying and we must do what we can to share Christ with them. That will be my primary focus. I will leave the theological debates to those who enjoy spending their time doing that sort of thing (which I have to admit creates a stir in me on occasion as well).

 

And has left the church stronger and purer.

 

Shannon,

People who have a close relationship with Jesus don't go around propagating a false doctrine.

KJVO is false doctrine.

So is the idea that tongue speaking is a real sign of the Spirit.

These are errors - but the people who hold them can still have close relationships with Christ.

Shannon, we are all sinners - and as I'm sure you realize - we all have some misconceptions. If you or I think we have it all right then we are puffed up indeed.

Open theism is wrong, and it sets a disturbing precedent. But you still should not be imputing bad faith to men you don't know. Every person is an individual.