Contending for the Doctrine Once Delivered By Man
| Posted On: 05/19/08 12:55:35 PM |
Age 67, OH |
. . . how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to Me’” (Matthew 17:17). The author then says, "This cannot be a request for information; " so by implication this is just rhetorical.
That reasoning is pretty lame. I believe Jesus is speaking from exasperztion and His question is to Himself: "How long will I have to be with you (teaching you) And how long do I have to put up with your shortcomings." This still leaves Jesus not knowing and His exasperation which wells up at the spur of the moment shows that He also did not expect it.
Wouldn't it be better to accept God at His word instead of wrangling over trying to prove your theological doctrine every time God contradicts it? To do that you have to claim that God didn't REALLY mean what He said.
If God says that He does not know something, why can you not accept it? If you don't, you are not argueing with men, but God.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Much Better!
| Posted On: 05/12/08 08:30:06 PM |
Age 28, AUSTRALIA |
I appreciate your article as I have read Boyd's books and find them very well done. He is an excellent and thurough theologian. Since reading his books I have been wanting to see a rebuttle that had actual biblical reasoning and not just smear tactics. Your aritlces approached it from a biblcal basis which was good. I CAN NOT aggree with your conclusion however as I found some of your answers quite strong, but others quite weak. (your analogy of a father in the first article was just silly)
I find both sides compelling, but if you want me to reject open theism, then you will have to do a much better job of refutting it.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Books
| Posted On: 05/12/08 10:54:21 PM | | Age 56, NE |
Bruce Ware has written some excellent books refuting this foolishness.
Click here to reply to this post
Thoughts...
| Posted On: 05/12/08 02:53:56 PM |
Age 20, MN |
Good article overall. Mr. DeWaay is respectful but firm on his critique of Open Theism. My own thoughts on Open Theism seems to be rather interesting. It almost seems that God is inside of time, not outside of it. But this implies that God had a beginning and and has an end. If He is inside time, then he is limited. But then this puts a problem indicating that something OUTSIDE of God is more powerful than He. If this is the case, is Time to be worshipped ultimately since it seems to have power over God?? (For those who may argue otherwise, please clarify and correct me if I misinterpret)
Click here to reply to this post
|
- God lives in time not outside it
| Posted On: 05/13/08 10:37:02 PM | | Age 51, IL |
There is so much to say in favor of open theism. I think it is just reading the Bible as it is written and dispose of your pre existing suppositions. For example we know that time is just one event, moment after another. We live in time and so does God I would say because of Creation... day one.. it was good, then day two... it was good etc. How simple to believe God says what he means in the Bible and means what he says. I tired over the word gymnastics these professors of religion without a sense of what God is really trying to say to us and what we are to do and be as real Christians? What if that God knew Abraham's true faith WHEN he raised that knife? Wouldn't you see your response to the trials you meet as an important way and measure to show your love? Scary isn't it? Or comforting... I can please God... I can show him real love... He can be pleased with me... by faith in Him of course. II Chron. 16:7 "The eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the earth to show himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is perfect toward Him." has more meaning doesn't it? It makes "faith without works" line more revealing too, doesn't it? I vote for Open theism. If I am wrong... I guess God knew I would be back on day one of creation... perfect foreknowledge???? God is exciting! Open thesism removes alot of the mysteries in the box of questions for me. The Holy Spirit lead us into all truth. His Blessings to all. Thanks.
Click here to reply to this post
- Um...
| Posted On: 05/14/08 11:20:17 PM | | Age 20, MN |
Perhaps you did not intend to, but did not respond to my points that I listed, such as God being limited by something outside of Himself, but then this means that time should be worshipped. And maybe it solves some mysteries, but not without compromising other points and it also brings up other, more problematic mysteries. If God is in time (i.e. limited by it) that means God had a beginning. In other words, he is not eternal in the sense that He never began. Incidentally, I fail to see how the creation account indicates that God is actually stuck inside time. Listing Day 1, Day 2, etc. only indicates that he created something (or rested on Day 7), not that He is actually limited by Time. One more point. If there is a degree of uncertainty of God's ability to know the future, can I be entirely sure I will go to heaven, if God's promises are not 100% sure? Well, whatever the case, I am done debating this for now. :) Everyone have a great day and God Bless.
Click here to reply to this post
Open theism
| Posted On: 05/08/08 04:28:39 PM |
Age 58, AR |
When I read this, the first thing I thought was, 'why would someone question God's omniscience if they were his child?' That is a given, to believe he is all knowing. I think Mr. Boyd has either gotten carried away with this one point of theology (omniscience), or is not God's child. When the intellectual forgets where he came from, he is carried with self, and needs more to stimulate his intellect, so goes beyond what it says in God's word.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- open theism
| Posted On: 05/09/08 08:55:13 PM | | Age 21, MN |
People can question characteristics of God and still be His children. Questions, doubts, seeking out alternative ideas are not sinful. Plus, if he is "obsessed" with omniscience, it is because a growing number of people see problems withe the traditional view. Plus, open theism DOES NOT question God's omniscience. That is plain ignorance. All open theists claim is that God knows everything there is to know, and that the future DOES NOT exist in a determined sense, but in a flexible way, and that is how God knows it to be. God is still omniscient, but open theists are debating the nature of the future, not God's omniscience. Also, it really is not within your territory to be questioning whether or not someone ins the child of God or not. You don't know his heart, or whether or not Christ is lord over his life, so why go there? It is God's job to judge and know those things. if you start doing things that only God is allowed to do, you are no more a child of God than open theist "heretics" are. -Dan Smith
Click here to reply to this post
- Lord of ALL
| Posted On: 05/12/08 09:17:26 AM | | Age 47, MO |
Dan: You wrote: "Questions, doubts, seeking out alternative ideas are not sinful." This is true if in the realm of growth in obedience to Christ as HE determined truth to be. Otherwise, it is our attempts to be like God, to decree what is good and what is evil by our standards. God wants worshipers in Spirit and in Truth. The Spirit is the reality of what is true; It is faith, hope, beliefs, the counselor, and Christ in us. Indeed HE is truth because God is Spirit and Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. The Spirit can only be heard and followed in as much as the flesh has died. Therefore, if we are trying to figure God out with our understanding, our reasoning, our rightousness, and our reality of what God is- we have erred from the start. The basis must be God is Lord of ALL and we are lumps of clay. John
Click here to reply to this post
- Redefinition
| Posted On: 05/11/08 11:27:25 PM | | Age 56, NE |
Just because you redefine a word doesn't mean that God has changed. Read Psalm 139. God knows our words before we speak them. It is the same as his other attributes. Deny it and you deny the rest. This is just a rewarming of an ancient heresy. Try to explain prophecy without omniscience.
Click here to reply to this post
Great Response
| Posted On: 05/08/08 09:05:38 AM |
Age 46, TX |
This is a very good response to the open theism claim. The response contains the original statements in context, gives specific references and refutes them with sound Biblical arguments and no ad hominem attacks are made. Many articles on this web site take the opposite approach. It is good to see one done right for a change.
Click here to reply to this post
|
INVALID REASONING
| Posted On: 05/08/08 02:52:58 AM |
Age 64, OH |
The reasoning used by Boyd to come to his conclusions are so juvenile and invalid why would anyone take his book serious enough to bother to read it. Boyd's book is not even worth reading in my firm opinion. Lou
Click here to reply to this post
|
- boyd
| Posted On: 05/09/08 08:49:06 PM | | Age 21, MN |
Nice synopsis on someone you don't even know. Great Christ-like attitude. I have read several of Boyd's books, been a student in one of his classes at Bethel, and i go to Woodland Hills church where he speaks. I do not agree with everything he says, and he is human just like everyone else. But, that said, he is a good theologian, author, and pastor who is just trying to figure out God and who He is. His book is actually very well written, and since when did your opinions become the standard for whether or not a book or theological idea is valid? Check your pride at the door. -Dan Smith
Click here to reply to this post
- JESUS KNEW AT THE CREATION WHO WOULD BE IN THE BOOK OF LIFE
| Posted On: 05/12/08 11:08:00 AM | | Age 64, OH |
1ST of all, how would you know who I know and do not know. So are not you guilty of the prejudging you accuse me of. 2nd - I can read the Holy Scriptures and see that there is nothing that God does not know. Does the author quote Boyd correctly in this or the other article. I did not see where anyone accused him of misquoting Boyd. I stand by my statement that the reasoning of Boyd is childish and invalid reasoning. I did not call Boyd childish, but said the reasoning he used in his book was childish. - 3rd I am not an authority, but the One who lives in my heart and tells me to speak is THE Authority. Are you saying that God Almighty can not speak through a foolish man. If God did not know the future then why would He shed His blood for me before the foundations of the world. Rev 13:8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was SLAIN FROM THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. - I never accused Boyd of any sin of the heart for that is for the Judge Jesus to judge, and no man. But do not you accuse me of having an attitude (heart attitude) that is NOT Christ like. You have not accused my behavior but my attitude. It is written in the Holy Scriptures that Only Jesus can Judge the heart, and no man.-- You might want to read 1 Tim 5:1 for Paul has given good advise that has been very profitable to me as I hope it will be too you. May the Grace and mercy of the Lord Jesus be with you. Lou
Click here to reply to this post
- Character
| Posted On: 05/11/08 11:34:27 PM | | Age 56, NE |
I can speak from firsthand experience that Mr. Boyd has helped to lead believers into greater error. It began with him, and other open theists, and has ended in many other errors of a like nature (denying what God's Word obviously teaches). Open theism may not always lead others into greater error but it will never lead to greater orthodoxy. Whether or not Boyd and others are nice guys, "good" theologians, authors, etc. is really beside the point. Volumes have been written, both in the past and recently, refuting the errors he has popularized. His real problem is, as you say, he is trying to figure out God. It can't be done. We can only know what He has revealed, and it's clear that open theists refuse to believe it. How do they propose to get any further in understanding Him when they miss such a basic doctrine?
Click here to reply to this post
- Reading a book
| Posted On: 05/11/08 05:36:46 PM | | Age 61, MO |
I don't know Ekart Tolle or Rowlings, but I trust certain critics to stay away from certain literature. I don't want to waste my time reading a lot of theological gibberish. I trust Lou, and I trust DeWaay. I won't bother to read Boyd. George Cancilla
Click here to reply to this post
Bravo!
| Posted On: 05/08/08 12:18:41 AM |
Age 56, NE |
Excellent article, along with the first, exposing this false system. The deficiencies of open theism are very apparent when you look a bit further than the proponents have. They have followed the example of the cults and used obscure or questionable passages as the norm and view obvious and normal passages as the exceptions. Bob made an excellent point with the Deuteronomy passage that God not only knew that the Israelites would disobey but that He would be angry with them when it happened. It’s obvious that this was no reaction to their sin but a planned response based on His prior knowledge. No matter how the open theists deny it, they have simply followed in the footsteps of the Socinians. They say they differ from them because they believe in the deity of Christ but, as John MacArthur points out, they have gone right past that and denied the deity of the Father. They would deny that as well but the proof is right here in Bob’s article. Denying God His omniscience is the same thing as denying His deity, no different than denying His omnipotence or His omnipresence. If He lacks any of these attributes He is not God. This is true by His own definition found in Isaiah 41:21-24(NASB) “"Present your case," the LORD says. "Bring forward your strong {arguments,}" The King of Jacob says. Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; As for the former {events,} declare what they {were,} That we may consider them and know their outcome. Or announce to us what is coming; Declare the things that are going to come afterward, That we may know that you are gods; Indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together. Behold, you are of no account, And your work amounts to nothing; He who chooses you is an abomination.” God says the defining characteristic of a false god is the inability to declare what is coming. Conversely, the true God knows the future. This proves His claim of deity. The god of open theism is an idol and should be called so by those who love God’s truth. Boyd and others have attempted to tame God and make Him more relational. This is the natural result of the psychologizing of the church.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Foreknowledge
| Posted On: 05/07/08 08:02:05 PM |
Age 48, AR |
While certainly agree that Mr. Bob DeWaay has pointed out and challenged some strained thinking on the part of Dr. Boyd, I am not sure that Bob has presented his own position without attendant difficulties.
Bob writes: "God always expects righteous and God-honoring responses from His creatures, although He rarely gets them."
It seems the same problem has be re-introduced. Why would God expect something that he knows will not transpire? Perhaps you mean "God DEMANDS righteous responses" ... but the word EXPECT, seems imbued with the idea of either "high probability" -- or, suggests an anticipated desire.
Kirk
Click here to reply to this post
|
does not believe in Sovereignty
| Posted On: 05/07/08 07:42:57 PM |
Age 44, CA |
It is quite obvious that Dr. Boyd's theological template is not one that has a substratum in the absolute authority and Sovereignty of God. Unless one begins from a premise that God is absolute and eternal, his theology will be faulty and his interpretation of scripture will be in error.
Proper theology can only begin with a correct premise.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Thank you
| Posted On: 05/07/08 06:54:28 PM |
Age 61, MO |
It is too easy to sometimes just brush off accusations that God does not have complete knowledge of all things. It is good that the author has broken down the various arguments (at least those of Boyd), and debunked them. Bob, your time and study on the matter is appreciated. George Cancilla
Click here to reply to this post
|
Read More Feedback
|
|
|
