God at War

Editors review
In this bold and compelling work, Gregory Boyd undertakes to reframe the central issues of Christian theodicy. By Boyd’s estimate, theologians still draw too heavily on Augustine’s response to the problem of evil, attributing pain and suffering to the mysterious “good” purposes of God.Accordingly, modern Christians are inclined not to expect evil and so are baffled but resigned when it occurs. New Testament writers, on the other hand, were inclined to expect evil and fight against it. Modern Christians attempt to intellectually understand evil, whereas New Testament writers grappled with overcoming evil.Through a close and sophisticated reading of both Old and New Testaments, Boyd argues that Satan has been in an age-long (but not eternal) battle against God, and that this conflict “is a major dimension of the ultimate canvas against which everything within the biblical narrative, from creation to the eschaton, is to be painted and therefore understood."No less edifying than it is provocative, God at War will reward the careful attention of scholars, pastors, students and educated laypersons alike.

It is good that you recognise that the gospel is not limited to reformed theology. I have still noticed that the word is used to contrast between arminian thoughts about the gospel and reformed ones. When I or someone else present an arminian view of the gospel, someone will almost inevitably say something which can be summarised as this “but the gospel says”, as if what was just said was something entierly different. I do recognise that you do not do this with purpose.

I disagree on some of the positions you have taken, the ones you named. What I dislike is the feeling I get that what is true is relative to how much it is different from the positions you have taken. The assumption that your positions reflect the most truth and other positions less truth in proportion to how they differ from your one. Is there any truth to this suspicion?

västergötland - 05 February 2008 03:22 PM

What I dislike is the feeling I get that what is true is relative to how much it is different from the positions you have taken. The assumption that your positions reflect the most truth and other positions less truth in proportion to how they differ from your one. Is there any truth to this suspicion?

Let’s put it this way. Truth is not relative, it is absolute by its very nature. If we believe truth, we necessarily disbelieve all the falsehoods that masquerade as truth.

For example, if I believe God is in absolute control of this universe, knowing in advance that He would send His Son to die on the cross for our sins, and knowing that His plan could not fail, I could not at the same time subscribe to “open theism” where the future is indeterminate and God is merely waiting for man to do something. Both cannot be true, so this idea that we have relative truths is really striking at the heart of what truth is, by definition.

Again, truth is exclusive, by its very nature. As another example, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs all say they have the one way to heaven—the one way to God. All of these truth claims cannot be harmonized. It is no good to say “They are all right” because we have just violated the very essence of truth. In logic, this is called the ”Law of Non-contradiction”.

So yes, I believe that Reformed theology holds more truth than other theological systems. I cannot reconcile a God who is sovereign with one who cannot act unless we decide to act first. To make such a reconciliation would be to take leave of logic and truth.

But at the same time, I will not condemn you, västergötland, for believing something different than I do. I will try to reason with you and share Scripture with you that I believe establishes my case, but I will not judge you nor condemn you.

Greg

västergötland - 05 February 2008 03:22 PM

I disagree on some of the positions you have taken, the ones you named. What I dislike is the feeling I get that what is true is relative to how much it is different from the positions you have taken. The assumption that your positions reflect the most truth and other positions less truth in proportion to how they differ from your one. Is there any truth to this suspicion?

I’m one of those who plead guilty of thinking that my “positions reflect the most truth and other positions less truth”, but what am I supposed to believe? If I would think that other people’s position reflect more truth than my position and I will still cling to my position, this will be a refusal to acknowledge truth and will be choosing error over truth. If I would believe that my position is not true, I’ll no longer sustain it.

That’s a tactic devised to put us in a bad light just for having strong beliefs in the truthfulness of our message, and it does not help you very much.

Gabriel

Greg,

Ok, I got comments on two things in your post. First, that God would be inactive and just sitting around waiting for humans to do something is not an open theist view but merely a straw man of said view. Rather both God and man are active. And God is sovereign. When He decides to give Israel to the babylonian king, Israel can either accept it and live or fight it and die. Each individual is responcible for what they do, and being responcible for ones choise require that you acctually have a choise. Having a choise requires that you could do either of two or more different things, for instance either stay on the walls of Jerusalem or leave the city heading for the hills. One does not have this kind of choise if God has ordained that one will stay on the walls. As soon as God has decided that somebody is to stay on the walls, this person no longer has the alternative to save his life by escaping to the hills in responce to Jeremiahs warnings. Therefore, God is active by giving Israel to Babylon and the inhabitants of Jerusalem are active by either listening to God’s warnings through Jeremiah or by rejecting said warnings, which ever they individually choose to do.

Second, it is true that Truth is not relative. Our knowledge of said truth is an entierly different matter. We start out by not knowing anything at all and we aim to end as close to Truth as we possibly can. Maybe you have come closer to Truth in your journey, and maybe I have come closer to Truth. In either case I think it would be presumptious for either of us to say that we have The Truth. Likewise it is true that Truth is exclusive in that something which is True excludes all different explanations as false. But as we as humans do not possess complete and pure Truth, but are all on our way towards that goal, we ought to be very carefull in using the “truth is exclusive” card.

västergötland - 05 February 2008 04:10 PM

Rather both God and man are active. And God is sovereign. When He decides to give Israel to the babylonian king, Israel can either accept it and live or fight it and die.

But can God be thwarted by Israel? I don’t think so.

In his book, The Openness of God, the Adventist theologian Richard Rice stated that God risked everything by sending His son to die on the cross, since He had no way of knowing ahead of time that the plan would be successful. This is the “open” in “open theism”, because the future is not knowable, even to God. But this flies in the face of Scripture where the mechanism of Jesus’ death is foretold in the Old Testament (Isaiah 53, Psalm 22) and from the lips of Jesus himself who said he would be “lifted up” on the cross (Luke 9:22, John 2:18-21). Only a sovereign God can foretell future events with such precision!

It is an absolute contradiction to say that God is sovereign, but in the same breath, claim that He doesn’t know the future. This is what I am reacting to when I am disagreeing with you on this topic, västergötland.

But as we as humans do not possess complete and pure Truth, but are all on our way towards that goal, we ought to be very carefull in using the “truth is exclusive” card.

But we have been given absolute and pure truth, in the Word of God and in Jesus Christ. He said about himself, “I am the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6), and he said God’s word is truth (John 17:17). I am not claiming to have an infallible understanding of this truth, but I don’t shy away from proclaiming what Scripture (and the mouth of Jesus) clearly teaches on God’s sovereignty. There are not multiple ways to argue “No one can come to me except that the Father draws him (John 6:44). The meaning is ever so clear! We would also not argue over the fact that Jesus acted unilaterally to call Lazarus from the tomb (apart from Lazarus’ participation or permission). And we would not argue that God said He would give His children a “heart of flesh”, replacing their heart of stone (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

I am not claiming infallibility, I’m just repeating what Jesus and the prophets said regarding God’s ability to make claims about a “closed” future and to do whatever He wills, whether it is handing the Israelites over to the Babylonians or rescuing a sinner from the bondage of sin.

Greg

Can God be thwarted by Israel? I do think that had Israel responded as did the Ninevites on Jonahs message, everyone collectively repenting in sackcloth and ash, God would have changed His plan or postponed it to a later generation. God did that previously in Israels history,

21"Behold, I will bring evil upon you, and will utterly sweep you away, and will cut off from Ahab every male, both bond and free in Israel;
22and I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah, because of the provocation with which you have provoked Me to anger, and because you have made Israel sin.
23"Of Jezebel also has the LORD spoken, saying, ‘The dogs will eat Jezebel in the district of Jezreel.’
24"The one belonging to Ahab, who dies in the city, the dogs will eat, and the one who dies in the field the birds of heaven will eat.”
25Surely there was no one like Ahab who sold himself to do evil in the sight of the LORD, because Jezebel his wife incited him.
26He acted very abominably in following idols, according to all that the Amorites had done, whom the LORD cast out before the sons of Israel.
27It came about when Ahab heard these words, that he tore his clothes and put on sackcloth and fasted, and he lay in sackcloth and went about despondently.
28Then the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying,
29“Do you see how Ahab has humbled himself before Me? Because he has humbled himself before Me, I will not bring the evil in his days, but I will bring the evil upon his house in his son’s days.”

The mechanism of Jesus death, I think Isaiah 53 would have been fullfilled even if Pilate had stod his ground and released Jesus. The prophecy does not specify a crucifixion. Davids psalm isn’t much more detailed, a back alley robbery could have caused the symptoms told there. And as far as we know, no humans connected these to the messiah around the time of Jesus. He had to explain it to the two diciples on the road to Emmaus before they made the connections.

It is an absolute contradiction to say that God is sovereign, but in the same breath, claim that He doesn’t know the future. This is what I am reacting to when I am disagreeing with you on this topic, västergötland.

Why does sovereignty require knowledge of the future? The word is used about kings and governments but neither of these have knowledge of the future beyond normal human guessing. Does the bible somewhere say that God’s sovereignty requires knowledge of the future?

13I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate,
14that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15which He will bring about at the proper time--He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
16who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

Did Paul err in omitting full knowledge of the future from Jesus divine characteristics?

Yes, Jesus is the absolute and pure Truth, no question about that.

But we have been given absolute and pure truth, in the Word of God and in Jesus Christ. He said about himself, “I am the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6), and he said God’s word is truth (John 17:17). I am not claiming to have an infallible understanding of this truth, but I don’t shy away from proclaiming what Scripture (and the mouth of Jesus) clearly teaches on God’s sovereignty. There are not multiple ways to argue “No one can come to me except that the Father draws him (John 6:44). The meaning is ever so clear! We would also not argue over the fact that Jesus acted unilaterally to call Lazarus from the tomb (apart from Lazarus’ participation or permission). And we would not argue that God said He would give His children a “heart of flesh”, replacing their heart of stone (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

The differences though, are not found in wether anyone could come to Jesus without the drawing of the Father, but wether the Father draws everyone or only a few. Jesus word is clear that humans need to be drawn by the Father, but not quite so clear on the Father deciding to draw some and not others. We are told that many of His diciples withdrew after that sermon, but can we be so sure that some of them did not come back and become one of the 500 or one of the 3000? Surely they where people who had heard Jesus teaching but had not previously been fully commited.

I am not claiming infallibility, I’m just repeating what Jesus and the prophets said regarding God’s ability to make claims about a “closed” future and to do whatever He wills, whether it is handing the Israelites over to the Babylonians or rescuing a sinner from the bondage of sin.

I’d say God’s ability to make claims about the future, wether open or closed. A future that is still waiting to happen is not something which limmit God (except in the impossibility of knowing that which does not yet exist (because the moment God would know about it, it would exist. In one view, what I will do in one months time does not exist yet and is open for a variety of posibilities, in the other view God already knows what will happen and the future does already exist which of course limits our real options to that which already has happened in the future)). When God decides to do something like hand over Israel or rescuing sinners from sin, that is what happens. God rescuing any specific individual from sin is different. We do not think that God planed for Adam to eat the fruit or for Saul to impatiently break God’s commands. We have no reason to believe that God wanted sin to afflict humans, nor that God chose Saul to be king because he needed a fallen king on the throne. God could make Jonah go to Nineveh but He could not make him like God’s graciousness towards the Ninevites.

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 05 February 2008 03:44 PM

västergötland - 05 February 2008 03:22 PM

I disagree on some of the positions you have taken, the ones you named. What I dislike is the feeling I get that what is true is relative to how much it is different from the positions you have taken. The assumption that your positions reflect the most truth and other positions less truth in proportion to how they differ from your one. Is there any truth to this suspicion?

I’m one of those who plead guilty of thinking that my “positions reflect the most truth and other positions less truth”, but what am I supposed to believe? If I would think that other people’s position reflect more truth than my position and I will still cling to my position, this will be a refusal to acknowledge truth and will be choosing error over truth. If I would believe that my position is not true, I’ll no longer sustain it.

That’s a tactic devised to put us in a bad light just for having strong beliefs in the truthfulness of our message, and it does not help you very much.

Gabriel

The passage you quoted is in context with the passage you did not quote;
<quote>
It is good that you recognise that the gospel is not limited to reformed theology. I have still noticed that the word is used to contrast between arminian thoughts about the gospel and reformed ones. When I or someone else present an arminian view of the gospel, someone will almost inevitably say something which can be summarised as this “but the gospel says”, as if what was just said was something entierly different. I do recognise that you do not do this with purpose.<end quote>

To characterise the reformed view as the gospel and the arminian view as less than the gospel is the problem. Let me put it this way. I imagen you are not thrilled about the claims of some adventists that “we(adventists) have the Truth and if you leave the adventist church, you leave God”, or “we(adventists) are the remnant and all other ‘churches’ are the fallen daughters of babylon”. Well, just as you dislike adventist statements about adventism being a VIP lane or one way street to God, similarly I dislike hints about reformed faith being a VIP lane to God. Do you understand what I am saying now?

västergötland - 06 February 2008 12:30 AM

The mechanism of Jesus death, I think Isaiah 53 would have been fullfilled even if Pilate had stod his ground and released Jesus. The prophecy does not specify a crucifixion. Davids psalm isn’t much more detailed, a back alley robbery could have caused the symptoms told there. And as far as we know, no humans connected these to the messiah around the time of Jesus. He had to explain it to the two diciples on the road to Emmaus before they made the connections.

västergötland, the messianic prophecies regarding Jesus’ life, his ministry, the mechanism of his death and his resurrection are simply staggering. Jesus made the same claim when he addressed the Pharisees: “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me...” (John 5:39 ESV).

Your argument about Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 implies that because the mechanism of Jesus’ death was not clear, the prophecies contained enough “wiggle room” for the death to be left “open” to the events as they unfolded. You say he could have been killed in a back alley robbery instead of crucified on a cross, but by asserting this, your argument defeats itself. You are still acknowledging that Jesus had to die. The mechanism is not so important as the idea that Jesus was the lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). If you embrace open theism, you are forced to admit that, while God had a good plan for redeeming sinners through the death of Christ, it could have failed. The plan of salvation was left up to chance—chance that Jesus would be able to pull it off and chance that men would cooperate and ultimately kill him.

västergötland, are you prepared to say that God’s plan of redemption could have failed, and Jesus could have failed in his mission to “bear the sins of many” by dying for us?

If Jesus’ death was left simply to chance, the apostles’ interpretations of the events are illogical at best and incomprehensible at worst. For example, in speaking to the Israelites at Solomon’s portico, the apostle Peter said, “But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled.” (Acts 3:18). If the future is “open” and Jesus’ death was a prophecy that could have failed, Peter had no business speaking this way!

Speaking at Pentecost, Peter said “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” (Acts 2:22-23 ESV) What do you say about this, västergötland? Are you willing to ignore this Scripture to keep God captive to the will of man?

Did Paul err in omitting full knowledge of the future from Jesus divine characteristics?

Of course not...he identified Jesus as Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords. If Paul did not specifically include foreknowledge and omniscience in this list (even though it is implied), it certainly doesn’t mean that Jesus is lacking in these attributes. As a student of the Hebrew Scriptures, Paul would have been well aware of the many texts which declare that God knows the future and indeed, Paul references God’s foreknowledge elsewhere (e.g. Ephesians 1).

Paul would have easily quoted Isaiah 46:9-10, which says, “...for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose’...”

If the future is “open” and not knowable by God with any clarity or ordained by His will, Isaiah 46:9-10 is simply incomprehensible.

The differences though, are not found in wether anyone could come to Jesus without the drawing of the Father, but wether the Father draws everyone or only a few. Jesus word is clear that humans need to be drawn by the Father, but not quite so clear on the Father deciding to draw some and not others. We are told that many of His diciples withdrew after that sermon, but can we be so sure that some of them did not come back and become one of the 500 or one of the 3000? Surely they where people who had heard Jesus teaching but had not previously been fully committed.

“But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:64-65 ESV)

västergötland, so now you are willing to overturn Jesus’ words explaining the unbelief of his hearers with conjecture about what might have happened at a later time? This is an excellent example of nullifying Jesus’ words with pure speculation and it needs no further comment from me.

When God decides to do something like hand over Israel or rescuing sinners from sin, that is what happens. God rescuing any specific individual from sin is different.

Here is the “rub”. Under your view, God is allowed to perform general acts of providence, but His hands are utterly tied when dealing with specifics. He’s able to generally save mankind from their sins, but utterly incapable of saving individuals, because He would be violating their “freedom”. Thus, God is captive to the will of man, rather than the other way around.

Greg

Vastergotland,

There are differences which are “in house” debates, like arminianism versus calvinism. These differences are inside Christianity, and are between the borders of orthodoxy. But there are also differences which go beyond the borders of Christianity, and move the debates between Christian and non-Christian positions.

To explain myself before being accused of being judgmental, both arminians and calvinists believe in God’s sovereignty, but of course, they have different understanding about it. I recognize my arminian friends as brothers and sisters in Christ because they profess belief in a God who is sovereign, immutable, omniscient, entirely holy, just, perfect in all his attributes. Of course, arminians believe that God’s election is dependent on his foreknowledge, which in my view is a misunderstanding of the way in which these attributes are related with each other in God. But I’m not asking for them to manifest a perfect understanding because I’ll indict myself neither I have a perfect understanding. They believe in theism, and I think that theism is an essential belief on Christianity.

But the position of open theism goes against everything that theism affirms, and arminians will protest as strongly as calvinists against such a picture of God which is manifested in open theism. All God’s attributes affirmed in theism are denied by open theism. God is no longer omniscient, he lacks foreknowledge, and since he is not even able to prevent bad things happening because of lack of foreknowledge he cannot be sovereign at all. From start you have open denial of God’s sovereignty. Notice that arminians still affirm a sort of God’s sovereignty and his omniscience, but open theism denies these cardinal attributes. Beside this, God is no longer immutable, he changes in time, he learns through experience, he’s depending on his creation for his progress, and learns by mistakes: “Ups, I did it wrong when I created man, I’ll bring a flood to cleanse the earth”.  He’s no longer perfect in all his attributes and consequently he’s no longer holy, but tainted with imperfection and sin. Open theism and process theology destroy theism and are moving beyond the borders of Christianity.

The adventists are wrong by using sabbath, because they take a minor issue, the day of worship, and make it a huge test of orthodoxy, judging everyone’s salvation in relation with something which is of secondary importance. But open theism, making God subject to creation, to change, to progress through mistakes, is a negation of something which is essential for the Christian faith. To put it bluntly, theism is a test of orthodoxy as Trinity is a test of orthodoxy. Move beyond the borders as open theists do and you’ll have no Christianity. 

John Piper, on his site, had edited and put it online for free a book entitled “Beyond the Bounds”, Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity. That’s strong language, but it reflects the reality that what is at stake is nothing less than Christianity itself. Open theism is a denial of central, essential Christian beliefs, and consequently has a direct bearing on salvation. You can download the book here, http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_bbb/books_bbb.pdf

Vastergotland, if you believe that calvinism is wrong, so be it, you’re free to reject if if you think that it is not biblical, but if you will follow Boyd in rejecting theism by adopting open theism, you’re placing yourself in a position which is beyond the borders of Christian faith, and which has nothing to do with rejecting calvinism. You can reject the reformed position without going too far as to ascribe imperfection to God and reject along with the reformed faith essential truths of the Christian faith.

Gabriel

Greg - 06 February 2008 08:38 AM

västergötland - 06 February 2008 12:30 AM

The mechanism of Jesus death, I think Isaiah 53 would have been fullfilled even if Pilate had stod his ground and released Jesus. The prophecy does not specify a crucifixion. Davids psalm isn’t much more detailed, a back alley robbery could have caused the symptoms told there. And as far as we know, no humans connected these to the messiah around the time of Jesus. He had to explain it to the two diciples on the road to Emmaus before they made the connections.

västergötland, the messianic prophecies regarding Jesus’ life, his ministry, the mechanism of his death and his resurrection are simply staggering. Jesus made the same claim when he addressed the Pharisees: “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me...” (John 5:39 ESV).

Your argument about Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 implies that because the mechanism of Jesus’ death was not clear, the prophecies contained enough “wiggle room” for the death to be left “open” to the events as they unfolded. You say he could have been killed in a back alley robbery instead of crucified on a cross, but by asserting this, your argument defeats itself. You are still acknowledging that Jesus had to die. The mechanism is not so important as the idea that Jesus was the lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). If you embrace open theism, you are forced to admit that, while God had a good plan for redeeming sinners through the death of Christ, it could have failed. The plan of salvation was left up to chance—chance that Jesus would be able to pull it off and chance that men would cooperate and ultimately kill him.

Lets see here. You say that my argument defeats itself since I confirm the belief that Jesus had to die. This implies that I acctually did argue such a thing. I did not say that Jesus death did not have to happen, that is something you get from some place else. I did say that it did not have to be a crucifixion per the prophecy of Isaiah or Davids psalm. And I do believe that God can succeed in finnishing that which He sets out to do. God’s plan to redem sinners could have succeeded in some different way, but God is almighty and failiure is therefore not an option.

västergötland, are you prepared to say that God’s plan of redemption could have failed, and Jesus could have failed in his mission to “bear the sins of many” by dying for us?

No, I am not saying that.

If Jesus’ death was left simply to chance, the apostles’ interpretations of the events are illogical at best and incomprehensible at worst. For example, in speaking to the Israelites at Solomon’s portico, the apostle Peter said, “But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled.” (Acts 3:18). If the future is “open” and Jesus’ death was a prophecy that could have failed, Peter had no business speaking this way!

1When Israel was a youth I loved him,
And out of Egypt I called My son.
2The more they called them,
The more they went from them;
They kept sacrificing to the Baals
And burning incense to idols.
3Yet it is I who taught Ephraim to walk,
I took them in My arms;
But they did not know that I healed them.
4I led them with cords of a man, with bonds of love,
And I became to them as one who lifts the yoke from their jaws;
And I bent down and fed them.

Did Hosea ever realise that he was writing a messianic prophecy? Did any in his audience realise this?
And no, I never said Jesus death was left simply to chance. That christ would suffer is something the Isaiah 53 prophecy does tell us quite clearly.

Speaking at Pentecost, Peter said “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” (Acts 2:22-23 ESV) What do you say about this, västergötland? Are you willing to ignore this Scripture to keep God captive to the will of man?

Keeping God captive to the will of man is another phrase you are trying to set into my mouth. You did not find it there. God had and has a plan for salvation and God need ask nobody for permision to go through with it. Why do you insist on making this into an either or question? That God either controlls everything that happens absolutely or God controlls nothing that happens absolutely? That is not my view.

Did Paul err in omitting full knowledge of the future from Jesus divine characteristics?

Of course not...he identified Jesus as Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords. If Paul did not specifically include foreknowledge and omniscience in this list (even though it is implied), it certainly doesn’t mean that Jesus is lacking in these attributes. As a student of the Hebrew Scriptures, Paul would have been well aware of the many texts which declare that God knows the future and indeed, Paul references God’s foreknowledge elsewhere (e.g. Ephesians 1).

It is only implied here by your presuposition that divine sovereignty does include foreknowledge and omniscience, not otherwise. As the diligent student we know Paul was, he would also have been aware of the many texts which describes Gods expectations, hopes, changes of mind and learning about people.

Paul would have easily quoted Isaiah 46:9-10, which says, “...for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose’...”

If the future is “open” and not knowable by God with any clarity or ordained by His will, Isaiah 46:9-10 is simply incomprehensible.

The end from the beginning, a son of Eve will crush the serpents head and the serpent will bite the boy. Indeed an example of God declaring the end from the beginning and from anicent times things not yet done. God will accomplish all His purpose indeed. To go from this to say that this which God is declaring from the beginning includes every action or reaction that will ever take place in the history of creation may be unwarranted by the text itself.

The differences though, are not found in wether anyone could come to Jesus without the drawing of the Father, but wether the Father draws everyone or only a few. Jesus word is clear that humans need to be drawn by the Father, but not quite so clear on the Father deciding to draw some and not others. We are told that many of His diciples withdrew after that sermon, but can we be so sure that some of them did not come back and become one of the 500 or one of the 3000? Surely they where people who had heard Jesus teaching but had not previously been fully committed.

“But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:64-65 ESV)

västergötland, so now you are willing to overturn Jesus’ words explaining the unbelief of his hearers with conjecture about what might have happened at a later time? This is an excellent example of nullifying Jesus’ words with pure speculation and it needs no further comment from me.

Not at all. Jesus said that some of them did not believe and that was true, some did not believe. Does this mean that those who did not believe could not do so at a future time? Is Jesus here judging their eternal destiny in those words? That would contradict Jesus saying that : “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” Jesus was on a mission of salvation. How contradictory it would be for Him then to tell some of His audience that they are unable to believe because the Father did not wish to save them?

When God decides to do something like hand over Israel or rescuing sinners from sin, that is what happens. God rescuing any specific individual from sin is different.

Here is the “rub”. Under your view, God is allowed to perform general acts of providence, but His hands are utterly tied when dealing with specifics. He’s able to generally save mankind from their sins, but utterly incapable of saving individuals, because He would be violating their “freedom”. Thus, God is captive to the will of man, rather than the other way around.

Greg

God is allowed to do whatever He wishes. What I believe is that God has decided that granting humans a certain freedom is how He has decided He want to have it. Noone is forcing any limitations upon God, anyone capable of doing that would be greater than God, and such a being does not exist. But God is fully free to place this limit upon Himself for purposes He deems good. Thus Gods hands are not tied up except in such a way as hands are tied up by being true to ones own decision. We are told that God loves us, would you therefore say that this statement utterly ties Gods hands from hating us? No, God loves and God grants freedom of choise to humans and out of His own free choise does He do this.

västergötland - 06 February 2008 01:54 PM

You say that my argument defeats itself since I confirm the belief that Jesus had to die. This implies that I acctually did argue such a thing.

I have only one question for you because this thread is reaching the point of diminishing returns. Please clarify what you said here. Do you believe Jesus had to die for the sins of man?

Greg

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 06 February 2008 09:42 AM

Vastergotland,

There are differences which are “in house” debates, like arminianism versus calvinism. These differences are inside Christianity, and are between the borders of orthodoxy. But there are also differences which go beyond the borders of Christianity, and move the debates between Christian and non-Christian positions.

Yes, I would have thought this was the kind of discussion we are having here.

To explain myself before being accused of being judgmental, both arminians and calvinists believe in God’s sovereignty, but of course, they have different understanding about it. I recognize my arminian friends as brothers and sisters in Christ because they profess belief in a God who is sovereign, immutable, omniscient, entirely holy, just, perfect in all his attributes. Of course, arminians believe that God’s election is dependent on his foreknowledge, which in my view is a misunderstanding of the way in which these attributes are related with each other in God. But I’m not asking for them to manifest a perfect understanding because I’ll indict myself neither I have a perfect understanding. They believe in theism, and I think that theism is an essential belief on Christianity.

But the position of open theism goes against everything that theism affirms, and arminians will protest as strongly as calvinists against such a picture of God which is manifested in open theism. All God’s attributes affirmed in theism are denied by open theism. God is no longer omniscient, he lacks foreknowledge, and since he is not even able to prevent bad things happening because of lack of foreknowledge he cannot be sovereign at all. From start you have open denial of God’s sovereignty. Notice that arminians still affirm a sort of God’s sovereignty and his omniscience, but open theism denies these cardinal attributes. Beside this, God is no longer immutable, he changes in time, he learns through experience, he’s depending on his creation for his progress, and learns by mistakes: “Ups, I did it wrong when I created man, I’ll bring a flood to cleanse the earth”.  He’s no longer perfect in all his attributes and consequently he’s no longer holy, but tainted with imperfection and sin. Open theism and process theology destroy theism and are moving beyond the borders of Christianity.

About omniscientce, God knows everything that can be known.
About foreknowledge, true foreknowledge requires the reformed view on sovereignty.
About not being able to prevent bad things from happening, uhm, I thought your understanding was that God used bad things for His higher and mysterious purposes? Bad things happen and denying that is akin to claiming to be a cookie on a coffetable.
About foreknowledge being an intristic part of sovereignty, none of you have yet explained how that works. An honest inquiry in how things really are must build on something more solid than “some chaps on a internet forum said it was so”.
About open denial of God’s sovereignty, you will have to explain this more in depth aswell. How and where?

5Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
7The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”

VS

“Ups, I did it wrong when I created man, I’ll bring a flood to cleanse the earth”

Not exactly the same but also not entierly unrelated. Maybe you can enlighten me about what really took place since Moses apparently must have missunderstood something about this event?
Which are Gods attributes according to scripture? What is Gods holiness according to scripture? What is sin according to scripture?
I am still learning and maybe you can show that the reformen position is the one closer to truth after all.

The adventists are wrong by using sabbath, because they take a minor issue, the day of worship, and make it a huge test of orthodoxy, judging everyone’s salvation in relation with something which is of secondary importance. But open theism, making God subject to creation, to change, to progress through mistakes, is a negation of something which is essential for the Christian faith. To put it bluntly, theism is a test of orthodoxy as Trinity is a test of orthodoxy. Move beyond the borders as open theists do and you’ll have no Christianity. 

About making God subject to creation, how does it do that?
God being subject to change and time, the bible says that one of Gods attributes is love. As the old saying goes, to love is to risk rejection, but not to love is to loose it all. If God acts in history, then there must be a before God acted and an after God acted. If there is no before nor after with God, then God did not act.
About progress through misstakes, not quite I’d say. God created humans and declared His creation very good. Progress through misstakes would imply that we/God have/s gained something of importance through Adams sin. I do not think mankinds fall into sin is progress of any conceviable kind.
May I ask how all of this is not Theism? Theism is belief in God, christian theism is belief in the God who revealed Himself through Jesus Christ. How is any of this against theism?

John Piper, on his site, had edited and put it online for free a book entitled “Beyond the Bounds”, Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity. That’s strong language, but it reflects the reality that what is at stake is nothing less than Christianity itself. Open theism is a denial of central, essential Christian beliefs, and consequently has a direct bearing on salvation. You can download the book here, http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_bbb/books_bbb.pdf

Vastergotland, if you believe that calvinism is wrong, so be it, you’re free to reject if if you think that it is not biblical, but if you will follow Boyd in rejecting theism by adopting open theism, you’re placing yourself in a position which is beyond the borders of Christian faith, and which has nothing to do with rejecting calvinism. You can reject the reformed position without going too far as to ascribe imperfection to God and reject along with the reformed faith essential truths of the Christian faith.

Gabriel

I will have a look at the book.

Greg - 06 February 2008 02:47 PM

västergötland - 06 February 2008 01:54 PM

You say that my argument defeats itself since I confirm the belief that Jesus had to die. This implies that I acctually did argue such a thing.

I have only one question for you because this thread is reaching the point of diminishing returns. Please clarify what you said here. Do you believe Jesus had to die for the sins of man?

Greg

Yes

Vastergotland said:

God is allowed to do whatever He wishes. What I believe is that God has decided that granting humans a certain freedom is how He has decided He want to have it. Noone is forcing any limitations upon God, anyone capable of doing that would be greater than God, and such a being does not exist. But God is fully free to place this limit upon Himself for purposes He deems good. Thus Gods hands are not tied up except in such a way as hands are tied up by being true to ones own decision. We are told that God loves us, would you therefore say that this statement utterly ties Gods hands from hating us? No, God loves and God grants freedom of choise to humans and out of His own free choise does He do this.

So God can limit certain aspects of His character if He wants to?  Is that what you’re saying?  If so, what all can He self-limit?

västergötland - 06 February 2008 02:59 PM

Greg - 06 February 2008 02:47 PM

I have only one question for you because this thread is reaching the point of diminishing returns. Please clarify what you said here. Do you believe Jesus had to die for the sins of man?

Greg

Yes

If there was no other way for Jesus to redeem the sins of man than to die, how did God avoid violating the freedom of the men who crucified Jesus? Acts 2:22-23 says God caused this crucifixion to happen, just like He “raised up” Pharoah to accomplish His purpose (Romans 9:17).

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” (Acts 2:22-23 ESV)

Greg