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

[All about Grace]

Pinnock quote: 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.

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.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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."

 

[shannonL]

Mr. Meadows,
Don't lump all fundamentalists in with very very
small percentage of misguided folk who preach a Gospel of hate. I don't consider those folk fundamentalist.
How many homosexuals have you shared the Gospel with lately? I worked as a chaplain in a Rescue Misson for a solid year everyday. I've seen first hand the devestation that the sin of homosexuality brings to a person.
Homosexuals have marginalized themselves due to their own sexual practices.
Frankly I have a greater love for those who have been ensnared by homosexuality than I do for wolves like Pinnock and Boyd.
I get a kick out of guys like you and All about Grace. You state emphatically "I'm against open theism" then you go out and try to prop the dudes up.

"But there were false prophets also among the people,even as there shall be false teachers among you,(insert open theist here) who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
And MANY shall follow their pernicious ways by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they make merchandise of you: whose judgement now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumberth not.PETER 2:1-3

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by All about Grace:

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.

Why can't we be unequivocal when God has been unequivocal? Beleiving what God said about himself is not limiting God in any way. It is sin to do less than to believe what God has said about himself.

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

If his nature is omniscience (and it is), then anything less is violating that. I think you are thinking way too hard about this. I am convinced that open theism (as other false teachings) arise from men who are trying to be smarter than anyone else.

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.

God's changing his mind is not a factor in his omniscience. It simply means that the situation changed with respect to God's holiness and character. It says nothing about what God knew ahead of time. Grudem (I think) has a pretty good simple discussion of this in his systematic.

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

Open theism has done more than this.

How does a Creator God make himself vulnerable to His own creation?

He doesn't.

How does an omnipresent God take on the form of a human being within time and space?

Through the incarnation.

Was Jesus omniscient while on earth?

No; he told us that. Jesus voluntarily limited the use of his divine attributes. He did not give them up.

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

I don't see how, because the Christ they believe in is not the Christ of the Bible. People want to redefine Christ to fit their ideas, and then claim to believe in Christ alone for salvation. They can do that, but not without changing Christ so much that he is no longer who he actually is. Belief in Christ alone for salvation is belief in both who he is and what he did.

God is larger than anything I can grasp or understand.

This is precisely why open theism was misguided from the beginning. Rather than accept that God was bigger than they are, they tried to make him fit. They couldn't understand how a God who knows all things could let the world be as it is, could change his mind, could do this or that. So rather than admit their limitations, they redefined God to be "open."

 

[Charles Meadows]

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.

 

[shannonL]

Mr.Meadows,

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

 

[All about Grace]

Why can't we be unequivocal when God has been unequivocal? Beleiving what God said about himself is not limiting God in any way. It is sin to do less than to believe what God has said about himself.

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?

If his nature is omniscience (and it is), then anything less is violating that.

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.

I think you are thinking way too hard about this. I am convinced that open theism (as other false teachings) arise from men who are trying to be smarter than anyone else.

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.

God's changing his mind is not a factor in his omniscience. It simply means that the situation changed with respect to God's holiness and character. It says nothing about what God knew ahead of time. Grudem (I think) has a pretty good simple discussion of this in his systematic.

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.

Open theism has done more than this.

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

He doesn't [make himself vulnerable].

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.

Through the incarnation.

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.

No; he told us that. Jesus voluntarily limited the use of his divine attributes. He did not give them up.

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.

I don't see how, because the Christ they believe in is not the Christ of the Bible. People want to redefine Christ to fit their ideas, and then claim to believe in Christ alone for salvation. They can do that, but not without changing Christ so much that he is no longer who he actually is. Belief in Christ alone for salvation is belief in both who he is and what he did.

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).

This is precisely why open theism was misguided from the beginning. Rather than accept that God was bigger than they are, they tried to make him fit. They couldn't understand how a God who knows all things could let the world be as it is, could change his mind, could do this or that. So rather than admit their limitations, they redefined God to be "open."

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

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
Do you believe God has exhaustively revealed himself to humanity?

No, of course not.

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

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.

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.

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.

2. God has already done something "less" when he became a human.

No he didn't.

It is a matter of recognizing all theology is man's reflection on God,

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.

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

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

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.

I hardly think that is God being vulnerable.

Through the incarnation, God limited himself.

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

No I didn't.

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).

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

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

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.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

My question is this?

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

 

[All about Grace]

An exhaustive knowledge of God? No, of course not.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

 

[shannonL]

Jesus is coming back soon that is why.

These are murmurers, complainers walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own Godly lusts. These be they who seperate themselves, sensual having not the Spirit

JUDE

Guys like Pinnock and Boyd I believe are spreading this false teaching for personal gain.
What else could it be? Their views gratify the flesh. Their views appeal to man who doesn't want to listen to a all knowing God. Open theism just helps them out.
They're opinions are forming division in and amongst the church : (These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear.)JUDE 12

Its also spreading because teaching sound doctrine forms rigid lines. Its not good for unity or "community" thats the latest buzz word isnt'it. Pretty soon truth will be determined by consensus within the community instead of the Bible.

 

[shannonL]

That would be UNgogly lusts oops!

 

[All about Grace]

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

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).

 

[shannonL]

Just about every heresy that has gained entrance into the Body of Christ started in a academic setting.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I think your comment is a well founded observation.

 

[All about Grace]

Originally posted by shannonL:
Just about every heresy that has gained entrance into the Body of Christ started in a academic setting.

And has left the church stronger and purer.

 

[shannonL]

Well why dont you just come up with a new heresy and take us to new heights?

Why all the warnings in Scripture concerning false teachers. Was it to prepare us for the REVIVAL they were gonna bring with their great grasp of the Scriptures?

Please early on you were nailing me to the wall for supposedly such bologna.

 

[shannonL]

Yea boy with all the Benny Hinn types running around out there and the K.Copeland disciples we are a real purified bunch.

 

[Charles Meadows]

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.