TULIP by Dr. Daniel L. Akin

[Andy T.]

For the record, I am opposed to Open Theism—it is heresy. However, does God ever change His mind? What about when God changes or reverses his decrees? How do you know these members in the pew are saying the same thing as the Open Theism theologians? Laymen tend to state theology loosely and theologians tend to hear them narrowly. I can see how God does appear to change His mind when He reverses a decree. Please explain precisely. Thank you.

The people I heard say that God changes his mind, did not clarify such. It was clear from their statements and context that they meant God changes his mind in an absolute sense. There was no clarification in their statements. No discussions of anthropomorphisms, etc. They took, for instance, the narratives in Jonah and Abraham (re: Sodom & Gom.) in an absolute way, ingnoring other passages that clearly state God does not change. There was no nuance in their statements. For all intents and purposes, that is Open Theism, whether they are aware of the term or not. And of course, there are those who flat-out deny God's perfect omniscience, as in the previous context and in other scenarios.

I've never said that the SBC is rampant with such thinking. It is definitely in the minority, at this point. However, I think it is foolish to think that Open Theism is not or will not be a problem in the SBC.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> For the record, I am opposed to Open Theism—it is heresy. However, does God ever change His mind? What about when God changes or reverses his decrees? How do you know these members in the pew are saying the same thing as the Open Theism theologians? Laymen tend to state theology loosely and theologians tend to hear them narrowly. I can see how God does appear to change His mind when He reverses a decree. Please explain precisely. Thank you.

The people I heard say that God changes his mind, did not clarify such. It was clear from their statements and context that they meant God changes his mind in an absolute sense. There was no clarification in their statements. No discussions of anthropomorphisms, etc. They took, for instance, the narratives in Jonah and Abraham (re: Sodom & Gom.) in an absolute way, ingnoring other passages that clearly state God does not change. There was no nuance in their statements. For all intents and purposes, that is Open Theism, whether they are aware of the term or not. And of course, there are those who flat-out deny God's perfect omniscience, as in the previous context and in other scenarios.

I've never said that the SBC is rampant with such thinking. It is definitely in the minority, at this point. However, I think it is foolish to think that Open Theism is not or will not be a problem in the SBC. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, how do you from a common sense point of view explain God changing or reversing His decrees as numerous OT narratives attest?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by J.D.:
Just call me poly!

Hi Polly! Wanna cracker?

 

[Andy T.]

Well, how do you from a common sense point of view explain God changing or reversing His decrees as numerous OT narratives attest?

Here is a good article that articulates how I approach such passages:

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/foreknowledge/glory_foreknowledge.html

 

[go2church]

That article is how YOU articulate or how John Piper articulates an approach to such passages?

 

[Andy T.]

John Piper articulated it; I agree with it. Is that clearer?

 

[npetreley]

duplicate post, and the original generated complaint had words I'd rather not include

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
In discussions of pew theology, we must remember that theologians tend to think of words in technical terms loaded with details and nuances but the layman uses words in the common usage and does not make the semantical connections in the same way. It is a matter of resolution (i.e. seeing differences in details) and fine points. The layman sees the larger picture in outline whereas the theologian is concerned with resolving minutiae. Therefore, we must be careful about writing off the man in the pew as heretical. Remember that it was largely the man in the pew who stood as a bulwark against the liberalism of theologians in the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of a bygone generation.

This almost sounds like one of those automatically generated complaints. For example...

I feel obligated to say something about the theologian, because, as the Talmud says, "Silence is akin to assent." First, the misinformation: the theologian suggests that it has answers to everything. Where the heck did they come up with that? Before you answer, let me point out that if you've read any of the destructive, crafty slop that they have concocted, you'll undoubtedly recall their descriptions of such concepts as "self," "justice," "freedom," and other profundities. If you haven't read any of it, well, all you really need to know is that if the theologian can one day crush any semblance of opposition to the theologian's callow sophistries, then the long descent into night is sure to follow. etc...

Complaint generator:

http://www.pakin.org/complaint/

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
John Piper articulated it; I agree with it. Is that clearer?

Cheater.

 

[Andy T.]

Originally posted by whatever:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andy T.:
John Piper articulated it; I agree with it. Is that clearer?

Cheater.

</font>[/QUOTE]

Like I've heard others say here and elsewhere, 99% of my beliefs are unoriginal. If I ever do get an original thought, I realize that I'm probably wrong.

 

[genesis12]

Realize, please, Andy, that you are probably wrong about the SBC. I think it is called "majoring on minors," "way out in left field," and similar.

 

[Andy T.]

Originally posted by genesis12:
Realize, please, Andy, that you are probably wrong about the SBC. I think it is called "majoring on minors," "way out in left field," and similar.

OhhhKayyy. Thanks for the constructive criticism.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Well, how do you from a common sense point of view explain God changing or reversing His decrees as numerous OT narratives attest?

Here is a good article that articulates how I approach such passages:

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/foreknowledge/glory_foreknowledge.html </font>[/QUOTE]Piper is correct about the word repent referring more to God's compassion and mercy than changing His mind but he does not directly and fully answer the question. For example, how do you explain David's behavior and statements in II Samuel 12 regarding the death of his child?

 

[Bill Brown]

You have hard-line 5-pointers calling other 5-pointers Arminianists because they believe that someone who does not accept all 5-points with hardness is saved.

No, most Calvinist's would say that anyone who does not completely embrace the doctrines of sovereign grace is not a Calvinist. We do not question their salvation, just their acceptance of sovereign grace. Are there some Calvinists who may question an Arminians salvation? Yes. Are they correct? To the extent that any of us can be sure a person is actually saved, no. They are not correct. There are Arminians who believe Calvinists are not saved just because they are Calvinists. To use your phrase (which I like by the way)...poppycock!

 

[Andy T.]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andy T.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Well, how do you from a common sense point of view explain God changing or reversing His decrees as numerous OT narratives attest?

Here is a good article that articulates how I approach such passages:

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/foreknowledge/glory_foreknowledge.html </font>[/QUOTE]Piper is correct about the word repent referring more to God's compassion and mercy than changing His mind but he does not directly and fully answer the question. For example, how do you explain David's behavior and statements in II Samuel 12 regarding the death of his child? </font>[/QUOTE]I suppose you are referring to David's statement in verse 22:

He said, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, 'Who knows whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?

So do you think when David says, "Who knows?" - that he is referring to God? No, he is referring to himself and to other humans who do not know the future.

So how do you interpret the passage?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andy T.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Well, how do you from a common sense point of view explain God changing or reversing His decrees as numerous OT narratives attest?

Here is a good article that articulates how I approach such passages:

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/foreknowledge/glory_foreknowledge.html </font>[/QUOTE]Piper is correct about the word repent referring more to God's compassion and mercy than changing His mind but he does not directly and fully answer the question. For example, how do you explain David's behavior and statements in II Samuel 12 regarding the death of his child? </font>[/QUOTE]I suppose you are referring to David's statement in verse 22:

He said, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, 'Who knows whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?

So do you think when David says, "Who knows?" - that he is referring to God? No, he is referring to himself and to other humans who do not know the future.

So how do you interpret the passage? </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly what it says--David believed that God might be merciful and change the decree against the child. He did not know whether God would revoke the decree or not but he considered it as a possibility. On the other hand, what was the purpose of David fasting and praying if God was unbending toward changing the decree? God was going to do what He please regardless of David's plea.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Bill Brown:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You have hard-line 5-pointers calling other 5-pointers Arminianists because they believe that someone who does not accept all 5-points with hardness is saved.

No, most Calvinist's would say that anyone who does not completely embrace the doctrines of sovereign grace is not a Calvinist. We do not question their salvation, just their acceptance of sovereign grace. Are there some Calvinists who may question an Arminians salvation? Yes. Are they correct? To the extent that any of us can be sure a person is actually saved, no. They are not correct. There are Arminians who believe Calvinists are not saved just because they are Calvinists. To use your phrase (which I like by the way)...poppycock! </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, but even amongst those who profess all five points, there is a difference of definition and interpretation of the five points especially among those who are evangelicals.

 

[Andy T.]

Exactly what it says--David believed that God might be merciful and change the decree against the child. He did not know whether God would revoke the decree or not but he considered it as a possibility. On the other hand, what was the purpose of David fasting and praying if God was unbending toward changing the decree? God was going to do what He please regardless of David's plea.

Here's the difference between us: I interpret this passage in light of all the clear passages that God does not change and His perfect foreknowledge. Verses like Num. 23:19 and James 1:17. You apparently do not take those verses to mean "exactly what they say" - you have some interpretive grid to explain those verses away.

And we all do this - it is nothing to be ashamed of. We all hold to certain essential doctrines that at times appear to be challenged by a few verses here or there. For instance, as a Baptist, I assume you do not believe that a person must be baptized in order to be saved - i.e., baptismal regeneration ("BP"). However, there are a few verses in Acts where it says you must "Repent and be baptized" to be saved. Those who hold to BP claim these as proof-texts, while you and I have a method of intepreting those verses in light of other clear passages that say salvation is by grace through faith alone.

Another example - Catholics use John 6:53 to support their view of transubstantiation - i.e., that the bread and the wine in communion are actually Jesus' flesh and blood. But we would say that Jesus is speaking figuratively. Catholics would say that they intepret the passage to mean "exactly what it says". Suddenly, we find Catholics in the role of Fundamentalists making us Baptists look like liberals, since we don't interpret it to mean "exactly what it says".

So back to our issue - I intepret passages like II Sam. 12 in light of the rest of Scripture that teach God's perfect omniscience and immutability. You, apparently reject those doctrines, and therefore must have some way of explaining/clarifying those passages that teach the contrary.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
[snip]
So back to our issue - I intepret passages like II Sam. 12 in light of the rest of Scripture that teach God's perfect omniscience and immutability. You, apparently reject those doctrines, and therefore must have some way of explaining/clarifying those passages that teach the contrary.

No, you err in assuming what I believe. To question and debate an issue does not necessarily indicate one's own personal beliefs. Also, it is possible to see specific instances in different lights and still accept the larger Biblical doctrine. There are times when we must say that we don't know or understand the specific details but we do believe the broader doctrines that are the clear teachings of Scripture. Often we get into trouble, as I believe the Open Theism guys do, when we try to resolute issues beyond our comprehension or more than is revealed in Scripture. This leads to speculation and eisegesis. Although I believe in the omniscience, foreknowledge, immutability and sovereignty of God, I still pray for God to bring specific things to pass. What about you?

(As an interesting aside, how do you see Christ's prayer in the Garden? How could Jesus, Who knew God's purpose and will, ask for the cup to pass from Him?)

 

[Andy T.]

paidaogos,

I am glad to hear that you affirm those doctrines. I do not pretend to know everything or have it all figured out. Yes, there is some mystery involved when we speak of God and His attributes. Yes, I pray for specific things to happen, even though I believe He has ordained the beginning from the end. But I always try to end my prayers with "but Thy will be done" - as modeled by Jesus in the garden. Christ's prayer was one of utter anguish that no one can ever imagine. Jesus is fully human and fully divine. I do not understand how his dual nature interacts. But at times, the Gospels seem to portray more of his human nature, and other times his divine nature. Maybe his prayer to take the cup from him was in his human nature, but he finishes it in his divine nature (Thy will be done). It is a mystery - we cannot exhaustively comprehend God and His attributes. But God is not completely unknowable. There are certain things about Him that we can know for certain, as revealed in Scripture.