This book, written by Gregory A. Boyd, is an biblical introduction to the view that the future is partly open aswell as partly determined. There are four chapters aswell as an appendix and each chapter considers one aspect of this view. The first one considers such biblical examples which are used to support the classical view of divine foreknowledge. Examples are Isaiah48:3-5
I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, ...
Ezekiel 26: 7-21
For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon,…
And yes, God did foreknow these events. But the question is asked, does the fact that God foreknows some things mean that He foreknows all things? The evidence in chapter two suggests that this is not the case. Boyd writes, ”For example, I am at the present time deliberating about whether or not I should travel to San Diego next month. In deliberating about this matter, I asume that it is up to me to decide,when, where, and how I will travel. How could I honestly deliberate about this decision if I didn’t believe this? But notice, I also assume that much of the future is already settled and not up to me to decide. To deliberate about whether I should travel to San Diego or not, I have to assume that (among many other things) San Diego will exist next month, that the laws of physics will operate as they do today, and that I will be basically the same person then as I am now. I cannot deliberate about issues that are up to me to decide without presupposing the settledness of many other issues that are not up to me to decide.
This example illustrates that we cannot consider choices without presupposing that the future is partly open and partly settled-- the very position that the open view advocates. If we believe that all of the futre was open, we could not decide between options. If we believed that none of the futre was open, we could not decide between options. Hence, the fact that we obviously do decide between option s suggests that at some level we all assume that the future is partly open and partly closed.”
In the second chapter, Boyd presents such biblical examples which support the future being partly open. Among the examples are Genesis 6:6 and 1 Sam 13:13 where God regrets making mankind and Saul king respectively. Boyd asks, ”We must wonder how the Lord could truly experience regret for making Saul king if he was absolutely certain that Saul would act the way he did.”
Another example is found in Isaiah 5 where the Lord expresses suprise in an analogy of a wineyard he planted. The Lord asks ”4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes? ”
The appendix chapter contains many other examples, aswell as the rest of chapter two.
The third chapter explores the practical differences made by espousing the open view rather than the classical one. Boyd argues that it is more rationally coherent, increases the clarity of Gods Word aswell as positively affect our core view of who God. Boyd also argues that it places the urgency back in prayer. This because if the future is exhaustively settled, one may wonder what difference prayer does make. But if God can yet change his mind in answere to prayer, as he indeed is recorded as doing on many occations in the bible (several of the conversations between God and Moses come to mind), then prayer does make a difference. Boyd also argues that the open view brings some resolution to the problem of evil.
The fourth and last chapter gives answers to 18 common questions regarding the open view. Here, questions such as ”Why do you think God can’t foreknow future free actions?”, ” Isn’t Gods wisdom diminished by claiming he can’t foreknow everything about the future?” and ”How can you claim that the future is partly open and partly settled? It seems like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too”.
In conclusion, I found this book easy to read and well written. All may not agree with the conclusions made but that should not be a reason to avoid reading it if the questions it works with are interesting to you. And as Boyd points out in the foreword, this theology is peripherical and should not be allowed to come in the way of our unity in Christ.
Open Theism has its roots in the pagan theology of Alfred North Whitehead, who was clearly not a Christian. An SDA scholar named Richard Rice was one of the pioneeers along with Clark Pinnock in trying to Christianize this heresy. Richard Rice admits his dependence on Whitehead for this theology.. Boyd’s view of God is troubling, in that it tries to bring God down to a human way of thinking.. God’s ways are beyond any human philosophy that tries to make God any less than totally sovereign over creation.
But thanks västergötland, for taking the time to review this book. I have read excerpts from Rice, but have not read this book.
And yet another book I read on the subject could write on how it is not rooted in Mr Whiteheads theology, how it indeed is different from Mr Whiteheads ideas by clearly affirming Gods sovereignty and capability to do whatever He wants to in the world. Where it differs from reformed thought is of course by saying that what God wanted to do with the creation of man was to create a being in the likeness of Himself where one aspect of that likeness was the capability to chose each his own future. So man has a say in his own future, not because that is how it must be as Mr Whitehead would have it but because that is how God sovreignly decided to make men. And God thus limmited His controll of humans, again not because He would be weak and have no choise in the matter as Mr Whitehead would say, but because that was Gods allmighty and unilateral choise in how to make humans. God wanted humans who chould stand in the face of selfishness and still chose to love Him rather than humans who would either love or not love HIm based on what He wanted them to do. A puppeteers doll can act very much in love towards the pupeteer, but if the puppeteer would feel loved by the doll, our usual responce would be to enquire wether he/she could get proffessional help…
This does not mean that man is freely able to choose to do rightly in his/her own strenght as Pelagius would have it. No, God still has to interveene for us to be able to have any kind of relationship with Him. Where this view differs from reformed thought is rather that God intervened for every human ever to be born and all thus have a chance to salvation, though yet only because of the grace of God. Why this does not become universalism is again because God is not overruling human choise in His dealings with us. God desires that every human live, but He will non the less accept the choise of any individual who would rather do evil and live in sin, thus earning sins wages. God will not refrain from paying those death who have chosen sin over Him.
I would beg to differ in your analysis of Boyd’s aim. I think that he is rather trying to find the view of God which most closely is in agreement with the biblical testimony concerning Him. I think what he has done is to refuse let Plato and Aristotle tell us what God is like and then read the bible using this definition. Rather the goal is to read the bible to find its own definition of God and then reject Platos theory of deity where the two are in conflict. Not very different to how you would urge every adventist to deal with Ellen.
Are you an Oakland Raiders fan? if so, how do you think they will do this year?
I agree with you wholeheartedly as to your assessment of Greg Boyd and the Heavenly Sanctuary group. Both Greg and I have posted on that site in the past, and it is heavy on liberal theology.
The word “liberal” is being used in different ways here. Stan’s reference to liberal theology is due to Greg Boyd’s stance on God’s foreknowledge (among other problems) and the prevailing view by the Good News Tour folks that God is unable to punish anyone for sin (replacing the substitutionary atonement with the moral influence theory).
Jesus eating with publicans and sinners is another matter entirely. Jesus came to seek and save the lost, not discriminating between people groups but also not watering down topics like his foreknowledge (John 6:64-65), the wrath of the Father he faced in death (Matthew 27:45-46), and hell (Matthew 5:21-22, Matthew 5:29-30, Matthew 10:28, Matthew 23:15, Matthew 23:33, Luke 12:4-5, etc.), as the Good News Tour folks do.
The word “liberal” is being used in different ways here. Stan’s reference to liberal theology is due to Greg Boyd’s stance on God’s foreknowledge (among other problems) and the prevailing view by the Good News Tour folks that God is unable to punish anyone for sin (replacing the substitutionary atonement with the moral influence theory).
That’s because it seems, upon reading the scriptures they way I do is that the punishment imposed will stem the voluntary separation by the wicked from God. The substitution atonement of Jesus Christ certainly is not discarded by HS.com and in fact displays the tremendous grace and mercy that the Father has for those that even hate Him.
Jesus eating with publicans and sinners is another matter entirely.
It is? I see it as a culmination and outward display of the true nature and character of God.
Jesus came to seek and save the lost, not discriminating between people groups but also not watering down topics like his foreknowledge (John 6:64-65),
He is indeed the author and finisher of our salvation.
the wrath of the Father he faced in death (Matthew 27:45-46),
Appeasement? That’s pagan.
and hell (Matthew 5:21-22, Matthew 5:29-30, Matthew 10:28, Matthew 23:15, Matthew 23:33, Luke 12:4-5, etc.), as the Good News Tour folks do.
Hell? You mean the grave? No, they don’t deny there’s a grave. They do however reject the notion of roasting, toasting and flambeing in torment forever. That would mean Satan was right and make God a liar.
Regarding the substitutionary atonement being pagan, I would like to see some evidence. Jesus was wounded for our transgressions (Isaiah 53:5), was he not? It was the will of the Lord to crush him (Isaiah 53:10), right? Or do you not read the Scriptures this way?
And do you deny that there is a literal hell? That’s interesting when Jesus spoke so frequently about it, and Revelation 14:11 is so graphically clear.
Regarding the substitutionary atonement being pagan, I would like to see some evidence.
I never said substitutionary atonement was pagan. I said the notice of appeasing the wrath of God was pagan. Jesus was God’s sacrifice, God’s very own offering for sin and to solve the sin problem. No, Jesus wasn’t a sacrifice to appease an angry God.
Jesus was wounded for our transgressions (Isaiah 53:5), was he not?
Yes, as a matter of fact He was. Did He wound Himself? Did God wound Him? Or did God allow Him to be wounded?
It was the will of the Lord to crush him (Isaiah 53:10), right?
Or it was God’s will to allow that to happen.
Or do you not read the Scriptures this way?
No.
And do you deny that there is a literal hell?
No. Everyone goes down to the pit. Do I deny the pagan invention of roasting and toasting forever? Yes.
That’s interesting when Jesus spoke so frequently about it, and Revelation 14:11 is so graphically clear.
Well, let’s see.
Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Is Jesus’ lot in eternity, along with apparently the whole host of the Holy Angels, to watch people roast, toast and fricassee forever? It seems to me that what you call so graphically clear can be questioned in terms of application. For example a sinner cannot be in the presence of the Lord. So isn’t it more likely that for the sinner it is shear torture to be in the presence of such Holy beings?
Psa 104:35 Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the LORD, O my soul. Praise ye the LORD.
I never said substitutionary atonement was pagan. I said the notice of appeasing the wrath of God was pagan. Jesus was God’s sacrifice, God’s very own offering for sin and to solve the sin problem. No, Jesus wasn’t a sacrifice to appease an angry God.
Maybe a more basic question is in order. Do you believe God displays his wrath at any time?
Raider Nation Dave - 31 July 2009 04:01 PM
Yes, as a matter of fact He was. Did He wound Himself? Did God wound Him? Or did God allow Him to be wounded?
God the Father wounded God the Son because of our transgressions. The Father was involved in this process, not merely a passive bystander (Acts 2:23-24).
Raider Nation Dave - 31 July 2009 04:01 PM
Or it was God’s will to allow that to happen.
Isaiah says it was the will of the Lord to crush him (Isaiah 53:10), not the will of the Lord to allow him to be crushed. There is a huge difference.
Raider Nation Dave - 31 July 2009 04:01 PM
And do you deny that there is a literal hell?
No. Everyone goes down to the pit. Do I deny the pagan invention of roasting and toasting forever? Yes.
Everyone goes to hell? Is that what you believe?
Raider Nation Dave - 31 July 2009 04:01 PM
So isn’t it more likely that for the sinner it is shear torture to be in the presence of such Holy beings?
So everyone will be in heaven with Jesus — including those who hate him? Is this really what you believe? Revelation 14:11 says “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever”, so according to your reasoning, these individuals would necessarily need to be in his presence for eternity.
Maybe a more basic question is in order. Do you believe God displays his wrath at any time?
Not in the sense that you believe “wrath” to mean.
God the Father wounded God the Son because of our transgressions.
God the Father did not nail His Son to the cross. God the Father allowed His creation to do that. Saying God did something because God allowed something to happen is a gross mischaracterization of God’s character.
The Father was involved in this process, not merely a passive bystander (Acts 2:23-24).
I think you’ve taken a great deal of liberty with theses scriptures frankly. Verse 23 says specifically that God knew what would happen in advance and that “lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death” Jesus Christ. That is a far cry from God actually doing it.
Isaiah says it was the will of the Lord to crush him (Isaiah 53:10), not the will of the Lord to allow him to be crushed. There is a huge difference.
This is the problem with “literalism” in that one never takes the time, or effort to examine the entirety of scripture and explore the wonderful character of God the Father.
What this “literalism” does then in effect is change the loving nature and character of God into that of a brutal monster. If a human father would not do to his own son as you have suggested God the Father did to His only begotten Son then what you manage to do is make the character of a human greater than that of his Creator.
Everyone goes to hell? Is that what you believe?
Yes, I believe everyone goes down in the pit. The grave.
Job 7:9 [As] the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away: so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no [more].
Job 17:13 If I wait, the grave [is] mine house: I have made my bed in the darkness.
So everyone will be in heaven with Jesus — including those who hate him?
Did I suggest that? No. I suggested the wicked are consumed in the presence of Jesus.
Is this really what you believe? Revelation 14:11 says “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever”, so according to your reasoning, these individuals would necessarily need to be in his presence for eternity.
Not at all. Personally, I think you either don’t follow what people clearly state or you obfuscate on purpose to deflect the truth of what scripture really says.
“the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever”
Torment is being related to “smoke.” Have you ever seen a fire where “smoke” goes up forever? No, of course not. Thus what is being said is that the “torment” is forever. The death of the wicked is their “torment.” The torment of the wicked, when they see what is missed by their rejection of Jesus Christ, is what lasts forever. Otherwise what the more common and incorrect interpretation is suggesting is that the wicked are constantly tormented in the presence of Jesus. Yet, when we take into consideration the fact that it is the wicked that die the second death (Rev. 21:8) and are consumed we see clearly what Rev 14:10-11 say.
Isaiah says it was the will of the Lord to crush him (Isaiah 53:10), not the will of the Lord to allow him to be crushed. There is a huge difference.
This is the problem with “literalism” in that one never takes the time, or effort to examine the entirety of scripture and explore the wonderful character of God the Father.
It’s precisely the entirety of Scripture that testifies about God’s direct involvement in bringing death. The flood was caused by God, the fire from God burned Sodom, the firstborns of the Egyptians were put to death by God, “fire came out from before the Lord and consumed” Nadab and Abihu, the two sons of Aaron, Korah, Dathan and Abiram were put to death by God by bringing them alive in the earth, Uzzah was struck down by God, an angel striking with pestilence killed 70 000 people when David sinned by doing a census, “the angel of the Lord went out and struck down a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians” in the time of Hezekiah, Ananias and Sapphira died suddenly for lying the Holy Spirit. There are many cases in the history of the Bible that can’t be interpreted as being simply God’s passive involvement, but an active involvement in which God brought death causing flood, fire, holes in the earth, sudden death with no visible causes, pestilences, etc.
“Literalism” means interpreting biblical texts without taken care of the literary style. In the examples brought above there is no hint in the text that we should take these cases as anything else than historical narratives, in which the words are used with literal meanings, not in a metaphorical sense.
The reason why people eschew taking these texts as expressing God’s real involvement in putting those people to death is their commitment to the presupposition that God can’t do these things without being a brutal monster.
Raider Nation Dave - 02 August 2009 11:53 AM
What this “literalism” does then in effect is change the loving nature and character of God into that of a brutal monster.
This apriori commitment to a particular image or concept of God is what governs the interpretation of all these situations which I listed above. And at every step, we are told by those committed to a God not involved in bringing death, we should not be “literalistic” in looking at these examples. Instead of letting the text lead us to the obvious conclusion that God is involved in bringing death, we are told that we should interpret them in a different light, with other words, through the lens of some preconceived opinions regarding God’s character. In this way, no matter how much evidence is brought to the table, instead of examining if the evidence sustains or contradicts the thesis, it is assumed that the thesis is right and the evidence should be seen in such a way as to confirm the thesis.
Raider Nation Dave - 02 August 2009 11:53 AM
If a human father would not do to his own son as you have suggested God the Father did to His only begotten Son then what you manage to do is make the character of a human greater than that of his Creator.
While we are created in God’s image, we are not identical with God, and while some similarities exists, there are many dissimilarities. The Father and the Son are one being, I and my son are two beings. God is one being and this means that in Christ, God suffered his wrath in himself, not one being punishing another being, one inflicting wrath, the other suffering."God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” 2 Cor. 5:19. That’s something different than what happens between two beings, as me and my son. I can punish myself if I want to without this implying that I’m abusing my child. True, the Son and the Father are distinct persons, and it would be a mistake to think that the Father suffered in the same sense as his Son, still, because they are one being, the same being, the Son had not suffered without the Father. The Father was connected with Son’s suffering. Beside this, the Son’s will, being the same will as his Father, consented to this act, in order to save sinners.
Gabriel brings up a very important point. It is easy to understand why many Adventists see the Cross as “divine child abuse,” since Adventism does not believe that God is one Being. Indeed, it is God Himself who took His own wrath and punishment upon Himself on the Cross.
Once again, we see that Adventism’s denial of the Trinity (see my website in my signature below for more info) impacts many other aspects of their theology, as well.
Gabriel brings up a very important point. It is easy to understand why many Adventists see the Cross as “divine child abuse,” since Adventism does not believe that God is one Being.
This is odd. What you are describing is a nontrinitarian position which is actually very Unitarian. The Godhead consists of three distinct persons - Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Maybe you’re a monotheist. I can’t tell. One thing we know for sure is that Jesus wasn’t praying to Himself when He went to the Father in prayer.
Indeed, it is God Himself who took His own wrath and punishment upon Himself on the Cross.
God Himself took the punishment - which would be God the Son. God the Father did not take the punishment nor did He pour out His wrath upon His Son. That’s paganism.
Once again, we see that Adventism’s denial of the Trinity (see my website in my signature below for more info) impacts many other aspects of their theology, as well.
Jeremy, Adventist’s do not deny the trinity (I prefer the term Godhead). However, I would say they have a greater understanding of the nature of the Godhead than you seem to be offering.
This is odd. What you are describing is a nontrinitarian position which is actually very Unitarian.
That is false. And Unitarians don’t even believe in the deity of Jesus Christ.
Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 03:47 PM
The Godhead consists of three distinct persons - Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Maybe you’re a monotheist. I can’t tell. One thing we know for sure is that Jesus wasn’t praying to Himself when He went to the Father in prayer.
Yes, of course I’m a monotheist! Are you admitting to being a polytheist?
I would suggest you study up on what the historical, orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches. God is one indivisible spirit Being, without body or parts, who exists as three distinct, but not separate, persons.
Even your own SDA scholars admit that Adventism has a different “Trinity” doctrine than the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 03:47 PM
God Himself took the punishment - which would be God the Son. God the Father did not take the punishment nor did He pour out His wrath upon His Son. That’s paganism.
See Gabriel’s post above. Neither I nor Gabriel are teaching paganism or nontrinitarianism.
Raider Nation Dave - 03 August 2009 03:47 PM
Jeremy, Adventist’s do not deny the trinity (I prefer the term Godhead). However, I would say they have a greater understanding of the nature of the Godhead than you seem to be offering.
The SDA teaching is Tritheism, and does indeed deny the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The SDA teaching of “the Godhead” is what is “paganism,” as it is simply polytheism.
Adventism cannot just come along and use the term “Trinity” while redefining it from how it has been defined in the historic Christian creeds, and expect to be recognized as Trinitarian. The word “Trinity” is a uniquely Christian word, created by the early Church, and it is deceptive for any group to use the term without holding to the Christian definition.
