Thread: Positives of Open Theism?

Open theism is a heresy and an obvious attack on the sovereignty and character of God.

However, do you think open theists and their hermeneutics has served the church to any extent? For example, it might be argued that they brought scholastic theology back in line in terms of a renewed emphasis on the imminence of God, his relation to time, his emotional qualities.

thoughts?

Like any heresy that gathers attention, it forces the church to examine its teachings and affirm them while denouncing such heresies. Open theism's hermeneutic is terribly flawed and borne from humanistic rationalism. Sigh.

You may be interested in this book, Beyond the Bounds, that can be downloaded here.

AMR

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Open theism is a heresy and an obvious attack on the sovereignty and character of God.

However, do you think open theists and their hermeneutics has served the church to any extent? For example, it might be argued that they brought scholastic theology back in line in terms of a renewed emphasis on the imminence of God, his relation to time, his emotional qualities.

thoughts?

They've done nothing good - nothing at all.

We should be better covenant theologians because of C.I. Scofield. We should be better Calvinists because of Jacobus Arminius. We should even have a better appreciation for the Reformed doctrine of Sola fide because Johann Tetzel was willing to hock the grace of God for a coin. Notwithstanding, it will be a cold day in hell before you find me thanking any such men for disrupting the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace. In a word, because of God’s wisdom and providence we will exercise ourselves unto greater faithfulness because of the tempter, but you don’t see Christians being grateful for the Father of Lies. So, why should we congratulate those Satan uses so powerfully, such as Boyd, Sanders and Pinnock, major proponents of Open Theism? Stand in awe of God’s use of bad men with bad doctrine and leave it there.

Ron

I have a VERY difficult time finding silver linings in dangerous ideas. It still floors me that even with the outspoken open theism of Pinnock and Sanders, only 49% of the Evangelical Theological Society members voted to expel Pinnock, while 59% (but less than the 2/3 required) sought to expel Sanders back in 2003.

I agree with Founder's Tom Ascol that the worst aspects of open theism are not the philosophical aspects but the pastoral consequences. Open Theism undermines confidence in the Scriptures, undermines confidence in God, undermines faith in Christ, undermines prayer, and undermines confident Christian living.

Ascol is worth quoting:

The devotional house in which one lives will be largely determined by the doctrinal foundation on which he builds. The vibrant, joyful life of faith which marked the New Testament church was rooted in a steadfast commitment to the "apostles' doctrine" (Acts 2:42). The Apostle Paul regularly structured his arguments in his letters to the early churches so that his imperatives rested upon his indicatives. First, he laid a doctrinal foundation (for example in Romans 1-11 and Ephesians 1-3); then he exhorted his readers to live up to what they believed (as in Romans 12-16 and Ephesians 4-6). Right believing leads to right living.

. . . Contrary to the way Boyd makes it sound, Open Theism is not simply a philosopher's debate. Redefine reality and the God of reality changes with it. What is at stake is the very doctrine of God, and with that, every aspect of the Christian life.

As A. W. Tozer noted in the middle of the last century, "The gravest question before the Church is always God Himself, and the most portentous fact about any man is not what he at a given time may say or do, but what he in his deep heart conceives God to be like." He goes on to observe, "Were we able to extract from any man a complete answer to the question, 'What comes into your mind when you think about God?' we might predict with certainty the spiritual future of that man." Open Theism's redefinition of God bodes ill for those who embrace it. If our vision of God is diminished, vital godliness is sure to shrink with it.

But, other than that, I suppose that it has some good points.

Originally Posted by Ron

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Open theism is a heresy and an obvious attack on the sovereignty and character of God.

However, do you think open theists and their hermeneutics has served the church to any extent? For example, it might be argued that they brought scholastic theology back in line in terms of a renewed emphasis on the imminence of God, his relation to time, his emotional qualities.

thoughts?

They've done nothing good - nothing at all.

We should be better covenant theologians because of C.I. Scofield. We should be better Calvinists because of Jacobus Arminius. We should even have a better appreciation for the Reformed doctrine of Sola fide because Johann Tetzel was willing to hock the grace of God for a coin. Notwithstanding, it will be a cold day in hell before you find me thanking any such men for disrupting the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace. In a word, because of God’s wisdom and providence we will exercise ourselves unto greater faithfulness because of the tempter, but you don’t see Christians being grateful for the Father of Lies. So, why should we congratulate those Satan uses so powerfully, such as Boyd, Sanders and Pinnock, major proponents of Open Theism? Stand in awe of God’s use of bad men with bad doctrine and leave it there.

Ron

to be fair to these men (and to me), please understand that we're not out to exonerate their teachings, by ANY means. But can we really say that their reading of the bible is so completely irrational and soaked with lies that we cannot glean any truth at all? Are we not, as Reformed Christians, open to the possibility of obtaining general revelation where we can find it?

Although they have gone to the extreme and distorted the image of God is severe ways, I think it could it be said that they have contributed to contemporary theology in a positive way. Their portrayal of a imminent and relational God is, to me, refreshing (if I may say so without condemning myself).

Again, I am not condoning their heresy!

-----Added 10/16/2009 at 09:10:19 EST-----

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

I have a VERY difficult time finding silver linings in dangerous ideas. It still floors me that even with the outspoken open theism of Pinnock and Sanders, only 49% of the Evangelical Theological Society members voted to expel Pinnock, while 59% (but less than the 2/3 required) sought to expel Sanders back in 2003.

I heard about this controversy. From what I understand, they were tried, not because of their teachings per se, but that it was in violation of the ETS's position on inerrancy. It's kind of an indirect way to deal with the issue, isn't it? On this ground, I could see how it was hard to have them expelled. it's unfortunate that the ETS didn't have a statement of faith that was more comprehensive.

Give us something to gripe about I guess...Helps us sharpen our apologetic skills.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Originally Posted by Ron

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Open theism is a heresy and an obvious attack on the sovereignty and character of God.

However, do you think open theists and their hermeneutics has served the church to any extent? For example, it might be argued that they brought scholastic theology back in line in terms of a renewed emphasis on the imminence of God, his relation to time, his emotional qualities.

thoughts?

They've done nothing good - nothing at all.

We should be better covenant theologians because of C.I. Scofield. We should be better Calvinists because of Jacobus Arminius. We should even have a better appreciation for the Reformed doctrine of Sola fide because Johann Tetzel was willing to hock the grace of God for a coin. Notwithstanding, it will be a cold day in hell before you find me thanking any such men for disrupting the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace. In a word, because of God’s wisdom and providence we will exercise ourselves unto greater faithfulness because of the tempter, but you don’t see Christians being grateful for the Father of Lies. So, why should we congratulate those Satan uses so powerfully, such as Boyd, Sanders and Pinnock, major proponents of Open Theism? Stand in awe of God’s use of bad men with bad doctrine and leave it there.

Ron

to be fair to these men (and to me), please understand that we're not out to exonerate their teachings, by ANY means. But can we really say that their reading of the bible is so completely irrational and soaked with lies that we cannot glean any truth at all? Are we not, as Reformed Christians, open to the possibility of obtaining general revelation where we can find it?

Although they have gone to the extreme and distorted the image of God is severe ways, I think it could it be said that they have contributed to contemporary theology in a positive way. Their portrayal of a imminent and relational God is, to me, refreshing (if I may say so without condemning myself).

Again, I am not condoning their heresy!

The imminent and relational aspects of God have all been addressed well by vast numbers of orthodox theologians throughout church history, though. We don't *need* to glean from blasphemers information that we already have in purer form from orthodox guys, do we?

Open theism is disguised atheism.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Open theism is disguised atheism.

Sir, if I could i'd move to Austrailia to sit under your teaching. I like the cut of your jib.

The imminent and relational aspects of God have all been addressed well by vast numbers of orthodox theologians throughout church history, though. We don't *need* to glean from blasphemers information that we already have in purer form from orthodox guys, do we?

Good point!

I haven't studied the issue in detail. I'm wondering if there might have been instances where these aspects of God's character has been overshadowed by more prominent concepts ie. God's aseity, impassability.

Do you guys believe that God displays emotions? I've heard it denied many a time in favour of a Greek understanding of deity, but doesn't this deny scripture? I'm probably opening up a can of worms here ...

"But can we really say that their reading of the bible is so completely irrational and soaked with lies that we cannot glean any truth at all?"

Dear Dennis,

I’m sure we can glean some truth from them, but why look for food in trash cans - especially food you can get anywhere? They offer nothing new, let alone extraordinary.

"Are we not, as Reformed Christians, open to the possibility of obtaining general revelation where we can find it?"

As Reformed Christians should we go down to Kingdom Hall and learn a bit more about zeal for evangelism? I’m sure there is something we can “glean” from those heretics too, but we wouldn't want to legitimize them, especially when they have nothing new let alone profound to offer.

"Although they have gone to the extreme and distorted the image of God is severe ways, I think it could it be said that they have contributed to contemporary theology in a positive way."

Really? Astonish me with some of their jewels – which the church does not already have a more clear teaching on.

"Their portrayal of a imminent and relational God is, to me, refreshing (if I may say so without condemning myself)."

Ah yes, the relational God who doesn’t know how things will end up in the final analyses, but he has a wonderful plan for your life. They promote a relational god who never would have ordained our suffering. Is that a comfort to the Christian? It's certainly at the heart of the pastoral "genius" of Open Theism.

Friend, we didn’t need the Federal Vision to remind us that salvation need not be accompanied by a crisis conversion and we certainly don’t need Open Theists to tell us that God is relational. I'm sure your pastor can recommend some devotional books with sound theological content, if that's really what you are after.

I am being somewhat abrupt with you intentionally. Open Theists are to be marked an avoided, per Romans 16:17, and Christians are to take that charge seriously. I don’t think Paul would have had such a sanguine view of their theology and I have it on good authority that God despises those who would deny his omniscience. You should too.

Kindly intended,

Your brother in the Lord, Ron

-----Added 10/16/2009 at 10:16:14 EST-----

Originally Posted by Grillsy

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Open theism is disguised atheism.

Sir, if I could i'd move to Austrailia to sit under your teaching. I like the cut of your jib.

I wouldn't move Down Under (but their wines are pretty good - had a Shiraz of theirs on Thursday), but I too appreciate the good pastor. I have for quite some time.

Ron

Originally Posted by steadfast7

The imminent and relational aspects of God have all been addressed well by vast numbers of orthodox theologians throughout church history, though. We don't *need* to glean from blasphemers information that we already have in purer form from orthodox guys, do we?

Good point!

I haven't studied the issue in detail. I'm wondering if there might have been instances where these aspects of God's character has been overshadowed by more prominent concepts ie. God's aseity, impassability.

Do you guys believe that God displays emotions? I've heard it denied many a time in favour of a Greek understanding of deity, but doesn't this deny scripture? I'm probably opening up a can of worms here ...

Yes, God displays emotions. In my limited reading, I don't believe many orthodox authors of the past have denied this, so I don't think the Open Theist is bringing much to the table, other than blasphemy. I think we'd be better off improving our understanding of God's imminent aspects from those who do not rip the Bible to shreds to profane God's nature. Just my .

[Moderator]Before going down the trail of divine emotivity, read this post. The Board does not tolerate deviation from the Confessional doctrine of God.[/Moderator]

Does God have emotions?

Not sure if the mod warning was related to my last post or not, but perhaps I should clarify that what I meant in my last post was simply what Rev. Winzer said in the thread py3ak referenced:

Further, when speaking of God feeling anything, it should be clear that God is being discussed in human terms to accommodate our weakness, not to give us the impression that God actually has feelings.

I'm sorry for my poor communication. That is what I meant up there ^^^.

Yeah, please don't get me wrong brothers,

I'm not trying to defend heresy or their lousy hermeneutics, or challenging the confessed doctrine of God, of which I am very much still a student and novice.

My original post was simply a question as to whether it is possible to recognize and appreciate truth, even if it came from open theists. In my opinion, all truth is God's truth, and part of the grace of God in our disagreements is that we are challenged to consider, understand, and tweak our own positions and thus come closer to the truth.

thanks for your input.

be blessed.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Open theism is disguised atheism.

Rev., I'm not sure I agree. But please expound on how the Open Theist is considered an Atheist if you will. Thanks and God bless.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Yeah, please don't get me wrong brothers,

I'm not trying to defend heresy or their lousy hermeneutics, or challenging the confessed doctrine of God, of which I am very much still a student and novice.

My original post was simply a question as to whether it is possible to recognize and appreciate truth, even if it came from open theists. In my opinion, all truth is God's truth, and part of the grace of God in our disagreements is that we are challenged to consider, understand, and tweak our own positions and thus come closer to the truth.

thanks for your input.

be blessed.

I simply see no need to go hunting for truth there, though. If I may borrow somewhat from Ron's analogy, why go digging in the garbage can for a scrap of dirty food when there is a bakery next door? Go to the bakery, where the food isn't nearly so likely to give you all manner of diseases.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

I heard about this controversy. From what I understand, they were tried, not because of their teachings per se, but that it was in violation of the ETS's position on inerrancy. It's kind of an indirect way to deal with the issue, isn't it? On this ground, I could see how it was hard to have them expelled. it's unfortunate that the ETS didn't have a statement of faith that was more comprehensive.

The ETS has a compound doctrinal standard including both inerrancy and the trinity in the "ETS Constitution":

ARTICLE III: DOCTRINAL BASIS
The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.

God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.

I believe that the concern with Pinnock and Sanders touches upon both issues.

Originally Posted by SolaSaint

Rev., I'm not sure I agree. But please expound on how the Open Theist is considered an Atheist if you will. Thanks and God bless.

In open theism God is Becoming, not Being. The Bible teaches otherwise, Ex. 3:14; Hebrews 11:6.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by SolaSaint

Rev., I'm not sure I agree. But please expound on how the Open Theist is considered an Atheist if you will. Thanks and God bless.

In open theism God is Becoming, not Being. The Bible teaches otherwise, Ex. 3:14; Hebrews 11:6.

Indeed. The view of God by the openist is much like the Survivor television show, in that we have a probabilistically bound God who Outwits, Outlasts, and Outplays his creatures, whose libertarian free will, thwarts God at nearly every turn. God does not know the future (as openists claim), hence God continually accretes knowledge. In other words, the God of Moses is a much lesser God of today...Becoming, never Being.

I have two links to lengthy formal debates with an outspoken open theist, Bob Enyart of the Denver Bible Church, at another discussion board if anyone is interested in studying their views and the Reformed responses (Dr. Sam Lamerson, and yours truly) to them. PM me for details. I am hesitant to post the links here given that they appear at another discussion forum. I am not quite sure of the PB rules regarding this.

AMR

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

I have two links to lengthy formal debates with an outspoken open theist, Bob Enyart of the Denver Bible Church, at another discussion board if anyone is interested in studying their views and the Reformed responses (Dr. Sam Lamerson, and yours truly) to them. PM me for details. I am hesitant to post the links here given that they appear at another discussion forum. I am not quite sure of the PB rules regarding this.

It should be OK to post links as long as there is not cross posting between the two forums.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

I have two links to lengthy formal debates with an outspoken open theist, Bob Enyart of the Denver Bible Church, at another discussion board if anyone is interested in studying their views and the Reformed responses (Dr. Sam Lamerson, and yours truly) to them. PM me for details. I am hesitant to post the links here given that they appear at another discussion forum. I am not quite sure of the PB rules regarding this.

It should be OK to post links as long as there is not cross posting between the two forums.

Good to know. The two links in question are here:

Original Lamerson Debate
Openness Theology - Does God Know Your Entire Future? - Battle Royale X - Theology Forum | Theology Online

Second debate answering the same questions put forth by Bob Enyart, who claimed Lamerson was unresponsive:
One on One: BR X - A Calvinist's Response (Ask Mr. Religion vs. Enyart) - Theology Forum | Theology Online

NOTE: The TOL site is decidedly combative and open theistic in its active membership and administration. Not for the faint of heart.

For anyone who is unable to view the content at the site above, I have MS Word docs containing the content of both debates. Send me an email request to receive them as attachments: amr AT askmrreligion DOT com.

AMR

A believer can always grow in their maturity by studying the scriptures after being challenged with false doctrine, but I'm not sure why we would go out of our way to praise someone for introducing false views of God simply because it ultimately results in growth. People are also deeply hurt by these terrible lies. It is a terrible sin to misrepresent God, which should not be tolerated.

Should we praise the serpent because he tempted man to fall which resulted in Christ being a glorious savior?

Should we praise Cain because he murdered his brother which resulted in a picture of God's mercy since he provided Cain with a sign to protect him from being murdered?

It's not a bad habit to find the good when forced with a bad situation, but that seems different than praising the false teaching of the enemies of the cross.

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

Original Lamerson Debate
Openness Theology - Does God Know Your Entire Future? - Battle Royale X - Theology Forum | Theology Online

Second debate answering the same questions put forth by Bob Enyart, who claimed Lamerson was unresponsive:
One on One: BR X - A Calvinist's Response (Ask Mr. Religion vs. Enyart) - Theology Forum | Theology Online

NOTE: The TOL site is decidedly combative and open theistic in its active membership and administration. Not for the faint of heart.

For anyone who is unable to view the content at the site above, I have MS Word docs containing the content of both debates. Send me an email request to receive them as attachments: amr AT askmrreligion DOT com.

AMR

Here's why I appreciate open theism: It gives me a case in point of where you have to go theologically if you have as both your starting point and core belief the perceived absolute freedom of your will. Classic Arminianism and modern evangelical Arminianism exist with great tension... open theism relieves that tension in favor of the autonomy and sovereignty of the individual's choice.