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

[Marcia]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
I am not an open theist. Yet I am not as quick to toss around the word "heretic" as some. I would like to see some of the critics here interact with the Pinnock interview cited earlier:
http://www.homileticsonline.com/subscriber/interviews/Pinnock.asp

It is easy to attack what one thinks others believe. It is more difficult to confront the actual beliefs. Here is your opportunity.

Why do you think we are not confronting the beliefs??

Here's some of what Pinnock says:

So our view is not that God knows everything that can be known and is therefore omniscient without qualification, but that some aspects of the future are settled and other aspects are not settled. The world is such that certain things are still being settled by the agents in the world, by us and by God, so God knows things as possible as well as certain.

...Traditionally, God knows everything that will ever happen certainly, so it must happen exactly that way. Whereas we’re saying that God appears in the Bible to know some things for certain because he planned them or because they’re going to happen definitely, but aspects of the future may surprise him.

...But if, in fact, God’s will is affected by what his creatures decide, then that calls for a personal theism, relational theism, open theism.

 

[Marcia]

(Cont. from previous post)
These statements change the orthodox view of God's nature. God can be surprised? Frankly, I don't want a God that can be surprised. How do we know that the Christ will come back for sure? How do we know that Satan will be thrown into the lake of fire? (Of course, Pinnock also denies eternal punishment). If the answer is: God planned these things so they will happen, then how can God plan if he can be surprised? This theory is full of holes.

If God's will is affected by his creatures, then he is not immutable or impassible. This means that maybe God wants Jim to become a doctor, but Jim prays that he will become a car dealer, so God says, "Oh, okay, I'll scrap my plans for Jim and let him be a car dealer." What kind of God is this? This would mean that God did not know best, among other things. The implications of this kind of thinking are staggering.

 

[Marcia]

Here is more from Pinnock:

The Bible does not speak with a single voice; there is a dialogue between the different voices," Pinnock argues. "The writings contain a long and complex search for the mind of God and in this struggle various points of view compete and interact."

Pinnock also makes the frank claim that God's limited knowledge of the future causes him sometimes to get prophecies simply wrong. Noting that evangelicals "might not like to admit it," Pinnock recites a litany of prophecies that turned out to go unfulfilled. Pinnock suggests that John the Baptist was wrong when he prophesied that Jesus would cast the wicked into the fire, and that "contrary to Paul, the second coming was not just around the corner." Perhaps most startlingly, Pinnock claims that Jesus was wrong at one point because "despite Jesus, in the destruction of the temple, some stones were left one on the other (Mt 24:2)."

. . . Pinnock further "strikes out in new directions" of his own when he suggests that there is another issue "that has not been raised yet in the open view of God," namely the question of whether God has a body. While classical Christian doctrine has always insisted that God the Son does indeed have a body, having taken upon himself human nature in the Incarnation, orthodox Christianity historically has maintained that the Father is a spirit, a consensus Pinnock asks Christians to reconsider.
From
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=12026

 

[Marcia]

Pinnock's views on inerrancy of scripture:
http://www.ses.edu/NormGeisler/pinnock.htm

 

[Pastor Larry]

Just an fyi that Open Theists would not deny that God is omniscient

Actutally they do. They try to get around it by redefining "omniscience," but in the end, they say there are certain things that God does not know, and therefore, by definition, he cannot be omniscient.

 

[Bob Alkire]

If God does not know all He isn't ominiscience. My God's knows all!!!

 

[shannonL]

Marcia,
That is alot of typing thanks for putting that stuff up I've read alot of it before. I just don't have access to it to put it up.That and I don't even know how to do the link stuff. All about Grace is a little quicker on the draw than I'am. We have been kicking around some other stuff on another thread. I started this thread and didn't even realize it was the ETS not the NAE that I was refering to. I feel a little goofy now. I apologize.
My question is if these guys can stay in the society then who should they keep out?

When you have guys like the president of Fuller apologizing to the Mormons who knows what can happen in that kind of atmosphere?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

To say that an Open Theist don't deny God's omniscience is the ultimate in doublespeak.

God knows everything but He doesn't know the future.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

To me, heresy occurs when an individual denies the plain teaching of Scripture. I define this denial as interperting Scripture in such a way as to deny the meaning of words and language. If Mr. Pinnock has done this (and from the looks of it he has), then he is ipso facto a heretic.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yes, it was the ETS, not hte NAE. I missed that as well. The NAE wouldn't kick these guys out either though ... small consolation that is ...

 

[Charles Meadows]

You would have better luck eating the hole out the center of a donut than finding a KJVO who denies the omniscence of God.

The Pharisees probably believed God to be omniscient too - but they didn't truly know Him.

 

[Pipedude]

The ETS has lost much of its backbone, sort of like the average church today who wouldn't excommunicate anyone. I was at the meeting when they failed to expel Pinnock and Sanders. Debaters were afraid of a slippery slope of witch hunting, etc.

Last year the ETS adopted a resolution linking their doctrinal statement to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, but it was worded in such a way as to make it toothless. When were about to mark our ballots, I asked an old professor next to me,

"Are we in favor or this?"

"Yes."

"Will it make any difference when it passes?"

"Not a bit."

 

[All about Grace]

Again I say for the record: I am not an open theist. I believe in the absolute sovereignty of God.

Yet let me also say that the picture that is often painted of OT is not entirely accurate. There are some that believe in the surprise element more than others. In reality a God who knows all that can be known will not be surprised.

If I put spinach or ice cream in front of my children and tell them to pick one, guess what? I know what they will choose. Imagine a God who has exhaustive knowledge and the certainty with which he operates.

Again, this is not what I believe. I am simply saying that it is inaccurate to portray OT as believing God is sitting in heaven wondering what will happen next.

Here is a thought to consider as well: has God willingly placed himself within the confines of time and history before? Yes. In Jesus Christ. It is obvious in the NT that Jesus grew in wisdom. Does that mean there were times Jesus was surprised on this earth? If he were growing in wisdom, then perhaps.

Here's the follow-up question: could God choose to do the same thing in regard to his relationship with His created world?

I will also point out that OTs do have some legitimate scriptural arguments where the Bible "plainly read" indicates that God changed his mind or acted in a certain way b/c of human events. It is easy for us "orthodox evangelicals" to interpret those passages within our theological boxes, but in reality those passages are not quite as cut-and-dry as we like to pretend (b/c if they are not it disrupts our box).

In many ways I think Open Theism is just the natural result of Arminian thinking. I am not an Arminian by any stretch of the imagination, but I am not sure I am ready to toss them out of the evangelical world either.

I simply try to understand why people believe what they believe and to ask myself "does this position make reasonable and biblical sense?" My jury is still out on Open Theism. I can seek to understand a position w/o embracing it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Here's the follow-up question: could God choose to do the same thing in regard to his relationship with His created world?

The answer to this has to be unequivocally no. For reasons of clear biblical statement (I know the end from the beginning, declaring all things; having all knowledge) and from basic reason (how does a God who know all things give up that knowledge without giving up his omniscience?).

The truth is that if your questioned were answered in teh affirmative, then God would no longer be omniscient. He could theoretically get it back whenever he wanted, but he would not be omniscient while he gave it up.

You are right that this is the end of arminianism. It is a gross distortion of hte biblical teaching about God. It deserves no place in evangelical theology.

 

[shannonL]

All about Grace,

Some things are worthy of debate such as the things you've talked about in other posts. These guys Pinnock,Boyd are false teachers. I know the word dogmatic would probably sound like a curse word to your type but, dude I'm gonna be dogmatic when it comes to God's omniscence.
Also, I understand that Jesus was all God, All man. I get the whole humanity thing. But while on earth He was still all God. You honestly think the Jesus who knew what people were thinking before they said it may have been suprised?

Give an example ole boy? From the Bible. Not from that scholarly mind of yours.

The theology of country music applies here.
It comes from a song entitled:
"You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything" Thats the direction your headed
All about Grace. With your line of thinking 20yrs. from now I'm gonna be reading some theological book written by you and your gonna be denying everything. Even the very small amount of things you consider essential today.

Charles Meadows your a liberal just fess up!

 

[Charles Meadows]

Shannon,

No, I'm not a liberal. But I admit I am not a run of the mill fundamentalist.

Open theism is wrong for sure.

But consider this statement you made:

Liberals are always trying to bring God down to their level. Because if they can do that then they don't have to answer to Him as the Absolute authority of their lives.

That is largely not true. While there are some with a true universalist and antiChristian agenda (and woe unto them), most liberals are trying to see the Bible in the context of Jesus' moralism. Those who oppose the "anti-gay" bias of today's fundamentalism do so not out of disdain for the Bible but out of love for a people they see as marginalized and not loved as Christ said all should be. Open theists do not reject God as all-powerful - rather they are attempting to know Him as He really is (and not necessarily how men have always SAID He is). That doesn't make these people right - but they are not horned monsters out to destroy all that is good.

I have always been uncomfortable with the way that many fundamentalists treat those with whom they disagree.

Remember the Pharisees. Did not they keep the Law to the letter? Yet they did not see the real heart of the Law. They had no love for others and Jesus saw right through them.

While I will do neither, I would rather be accused of being a theological liberal but loving God's people than to be accused of being one who was arch conservative but who had no love or tolerance.

 

[All about Grace]

The answer to this has to be unequivocally no

I am not sure we can unequivocally say anything about what God can and cannot do -- after all He is the Creator & if we believe He is absolutely sovereign, we cannot limit God in any way.

Yes I know He "cannot" violate His own character and nature but I am not sure this issue falls into that category.

For reasons of clear biblical statement (I know the end from the beginning, declaring all things; having all knowledge) .

And there are equally clear biblical statements that God changed his mind, repented, etc. We explain these away by saying the Bible is using human terms in order for us to understand. Yet we will not allow the same liberty regarding passages that support our own views.

We must not say God cannot confine Himself to time and space b/c He has already done so.

and from basic reason (how does a God who know all things give up that knowledge without giving up his omniscience?)

How does a Creator God make himself vulnerable to His own creation? How does an omnipresent God take on the form of a human being within time and space?

Obviously there are things about God that go beyond our capacity to make sense of them.

He could theoretically get it back whenever he wanted, but he would not be omniscient while he gave it up.

Was Jesus omniscient while on earth?

It is a gross distortion of hte biblical teaching about God. It deserves no place in evangelical theology.

Can a person believe open theism and still trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation?


*** Please remember -- I am not an open theist. I do not believe it. I just like a good intellectual challenge to remind myself that I do not have all the answers. God is larger than anything I can grasp or understand.

 

[Artimaeus]

From Clark H. Pinnock

So our view is not that God knows everything that can be known and is therefore omniscient without qualification, but that some aspects of the future are settled and other aspects are not settled. The world is such that certain things are still being settled by the agents in the world, by us and by God, so God knows things as possible as well as certain.

Traditionally, God knows everything that will ever happen certainly, so it must happen exactly that way. Whereas we’re saying that God appears in the Bible to know some things for certain because he planned them or because they’re going to happen definitely, but aspects of the future may surprise him.

I think that’s a point that’s gotten people scared, the idea that God takes risks and is vulnerable. The same thing with the impassibility of God.

This is heresy. This is a deal breaker with me. I would not be a member of any church, association, etc. that allowed these folks to be a member.

 

[All about Grace]

Some things are worthy of debate such as the things you've talked about in other posts

I am afraid most churches spend their time debating the things that are not worthy of debate b/c they do not matter in eternity. Whether you feel this matter is worthy of debate is up to you, but it has definitely attracted the attention of some heavyweights on both sides of the argument.

You honestly think the Jesus who knew what people were thinking before they said it may have been suprised?

Give an example ole boy? From the Bible. Not from that scholarly mind of yours.

I know the Bible also says Jesus "grew in wisdom". There's a Bible verse for you. Explain that one in light of your arguments.

By the way, I asked on more than one occasion on other threads for scriptural support for your accusations, but I have yet to get one.

With your line of thinking 20yrs. from now I'm gonna be reading some theological book written by you and your gonna be denying everything. Even the very small amount of things you consider essential today.

Do you think we ought to think outside of our own theological comfort zones at times in order to try and get a better grasp of how great God truly is?

 

[All about Grace]

Here's another follow-up question:

What did Jesus mean when He said the Son does not know the day or hour of His return?

Is the Son of God as much God as the Father? Equally omniscient? Then what does this verse mean? Should it be read "plainly"?

Again my only point is that it is easy to interpret certain passages within our theological framework. It makes it easy to explain passages like this one. Yet we are hesitant to allow others to interpret difficult passages within another framework.