Theology Club: Open Future

2COR12:9 · Sep 14, 2012

These videos are from Greg Boyd, who is more inclined to call it his open future view, not being a fan of the term open theism. These were very helpful in cultivating some previous theories I was working through, and opened my eyes to some areas I had not yet seen. Hope you can gain some knowledge from them.

Stripe · Sep 14, 2012

Lighthouse · Sep 14, 2012

I just wish Greg understood our salvation was eternally secure from the moment we are first saved.

Sherman · Sep 15, 2012

Thanks. Greg does makes some good points in the books of his that I read. I'll have to take a look at these when I can browse with the laptop. Greg believes the Gap Theory. There he is wrong.

Shasta · Oct 4, 2012

Greg Boyd, who is more inclined to call it his open future view, not being a fan of the term open theism. These were very helpful in cultivating some previous theories I was working through, and opened my eyes to some areas I had not yet seen. Hope you can gain some knowledge from them

.

I can see why he would prefer not to use the term "Open Theism" "Theism" is a term describing the nature of the One God and His relationship to the Universe. The idea of an Open future is predicated upon a view of Gods nature. The statement about the the nature of God is the central premise. The concept of an Open Future is the consequent. Since the central premise does concerns fundamental concepts about the nature of God it is most accurate to call the view "Open Theism."

Framing Open Theism in this way makes the doctrine seem like the more accepted view of classical Arminianism which teaches both foreknowledge and freewill. This, BTW was the view held by the early church.

I think it is rather disingenuous to avoid or de-emphasize the radical and novel nature of the premise. Why does he do this? Is this an attempt to draw people's attention away from the main point of controversy? Why does Boyd, or anyone else frame the issue this way? Is it "a spoon full of sugar?"

Lighthouse · Oct 4, 2012

Shasta said:
I can see why he would prefer not to use the term "Open Theism" "Theism" is a term describing the nature of the One God and His relationship to the Universe. The idea of an Open future is predicated upon a view of Gods nature. The statement about the the nature of God is the central premise. The concept of an Open Future is the consequent. Since the central premise does concerns fundamental concepts about the nature of God it is most accurate to call the view "Open Theism."

Most of the time when I use the term "open theism" people think I mean that I believe in all theologies/religions.

2COR12:9 · Oct 4, 2012

Shasta said:
.

I can see why he would prefer not to use the term "Open Theism" "Theism" is a term describing the nature of the One God and His relationship to the Universe. The idea of an Open future is predicated upon a view of Gods nature. The statement about the the nature of God is the central premise. The concept of an Open Future is the consequent. Since the central premise does concerns fundamental concepts about the nature of God it is most accurate to call the view "Open Theism."

Framing Open Theism in this way makes the doctrine seem like the more accepted view of classical Arminianism which teaches both foreknowledge and freewill. This, BTW was the view held by the early church.

I think it is rather disingenuous to avoid or de-emphasize the radical and novel nature of the premise. Why does he do this? Is this an attempt to draw people's attention away from the main point of controversy? Why does Boyd, or anyone else frame the issue this way? Is it "a spoon full of sugar?"

I believe he's shying away from the numerous misconceptions that many are coming up with by merely hearing the statement open theism; and are also quick to assume, based upon the premise of the future possibly being open, they unknowingly label the God of open theism as a deity that is now lacking the central attributes which make Him God. So instead of seeing the main focus upon the future being open, they misunderstand this term, as meaning God can be whoever you want him to him be, usually with the assumption that it's devoid of scriptural support, and merely based on what you like best.

He has to usually assure the newcomer that he's not destroying any of God's fundamental attributes but only enhancing them. God is still omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent and still very much in control. Of course there is still a wide consensus of opinions with those who hold to an open theism view, as it is a fairly new study in theology; and Greg's trying to keep his focus separate from others views with the emphasis being on the future and not a change in the nature and attributes of God.

Tambora · Oct 7, 2012

2COR12:9 said:
These videos are from Greg Boyd,

Thanks for posting these.
I have not watched them yet, but I will.

I am already familiar with some of his work.

Two great points I think he makes are the stories of Jonah & Nineveh, and King Hezekiah.

To paraphrase .....

God tells Jonah to tell Nineveh that they will be destroyed in 40 days.
God offered them no condition that must be met in order for this not to happen.
The only thing Jonah was to tell them was that God was going to destroy them in 40 days.
Jonah tells them that.
The people of Nineveh believed God, fasted, repented of their evil ways, and cried unto God.
God then changed His mind and did not destroy them.

Jonah 3 KJV
(10) And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Here's the dilemma.

Either the future of Nineveh was completely open (so God could change His mind), or God already knew it wasn't going to be destroyed and purposely told Jonah to tell them a lie that God already knew not to be true.

Another story is about Hezekiah.

Hezekiah is sick and on his deathbed.
God tells Isaiah to tell Hezekiah he is dying and will not live.
Again, God specifies no condition to be met on which this will not happen.
Hezekiah wept and prayed to God.
God changed his mind and healed Hezekiah so he did not die.

2 Kings 20 KJV
(5) Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the LORD.

It's the same dilemma.
Either the future of Hezekiah was completely open (so God could change His mind), or God already knew Hezekiah would be healed and purposely told Isaiah to tell him a lie that God already knew not to be true.

surrender · Oct 8, 2012

Great examples, Tambora, showing that the future is not entirely settled. :up:

Tambora · Oct 8, 2012

Another example Boyd makes is the book of life.

Revelation 3 KJV
(5) He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

If God has already known/established who it is that overcomes, is clothed in white raiment, and has his name confessed before the Father; then why would their names ever be in the book to begin with (if God already knew their name did not belong there)?

Tambora · Oct 8, 2012

Another example Boyd makes is about God's repenting/regrets.

Here are a couple of instances:

Genesis 6 KJV
(6) And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

1 Samuel 15 KJV
(11) It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.

How could God genuinely feel regret unless He were hoping for a different outcome than what actually transpired?
And how could God hope for a different outcome if He already knew in advance exactly what the outcome was?

Tambora · Oct 8, 2012

Genesis 22 KJV
(12) And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

now I know

Nang · Oct 8, 2012

Tambora said:
Another example Boyd makes is about God's repenting/regrets.

Here are a couple of instances:

Genesis 6 KJV
(6) And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

1 Samuel 15 KJV
(11) It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.

How could God genuinely feel regret unless He were hoping for a different outcome than what actually transpired?
And how could God hope for a different outcome if He already knew in advance exactly what the outcome was?

The sins of men grieve The Lord and He feels regret regarding the weakness of human flesh. That is why He sent His Son into this world, to overcome human propensity to sin.

However, God's will be done despite the sins of men. Man cannot thwart the purposes of God. God uses even evil to work His good.

2COR12:9 · Oct 10, 2012

Tambora said:
Another example Boyd makes is about God's repenting/regrets.

Here are a couple of instances:

Genesis 6 KJV
(6) And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

1 Samuel 15 KJV
(11) It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.

How could God genuinely feel regret unless He were hoping for a different outcome than what actually transpired?
And how could God hope for a different outcome if He already knew in advance exactly what the outcome was?

I love how this view has drawn me away from seeing God in a duplicitous state; as only "appearing" to be concerned of the course mankind has taken, when He had already foreknew, or even worse ordained that it would be this way. It's truly liberating to see my God as genuinely reacting in regret to sin and the state of man. Even more, I can remove the fictitious stain of transgression from His hand, and leave it upon our own, where it belongs.

Thank you for bringing these verses to light, for those who have not looked into this deeper.

surrender · Oct 10, 2012

2COR12:9 said:
I love how this view has drawn me away from seeing God in a duplicitous state; as only "appearing" to be concerned of the course mankind has taken, when He had already foreknew, or even worse ordained that it would be this way. It's truly liberating to see my God as genuinely reacting in regret to sin and the state of man. Even more, I can remove the fictitious stain of transgression from His hand, and leave it upon our own, where it belongs.

Thank you for bringing these verses to light, for those who have not looked into this deeper.

I feel the same way! :thumb:

Shasta · Oct 12, 2012

2COR12:9 said:
I believe he's shying away from the numerous misconceptions that many are coming up with by merely hearing the statement open theism; and are also quick to assume, based upon the premise of the future possibly being open, they unknowingly label the God of open theism as a deity that is now lacking the central attributes which make Him God. So instead of seeing the main focus upon the future being open, they misunderstand this term, as meaning God can be whoever you want him to him be, usually with the assumption that it's devoid of scriptural support, and merely based on what you like best.

He has to usually assure the newcomer that he's not destroying any of God's fundamental attributes but only enhancing them. God is still omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent and still very much in control. Of course there is still a wide consensus of opinions with those who hold to an open theism view, as it is a fairly new study in theology; and Greg's trying to keep his focus separate from others views with the emphasis being on the future and not a change in the nature and attributes of God.

Greg should address up front how this affects the nature and being of God since the entire concept of an Open Future is predicated on it. It should not be the task of ministers to label their views to make make it more palatable to newcomers. It is really that not hard to explain the concept unless the point is to get them into the door first and he ease them when they are more prepared to accept it. I speak as one this has happened to. Why not change the term "blood of Christ" into something less offensive and re-ntroduce it later?

To be totally above board it would also be necessary to explain that omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent do not really mean what they are understood to mean in common speech. Newcomers should be told that in the lexicon of Open Theism "omnipresent" means that God is as big as the universe. Omniscient means He knows everything THAT CAN BE KNOWN. The things that cannot be known are the choices men will make, events contingent on the interactions of men and God, events not directly controlled by God. In fact God is only a student who is always learning things.

All of this is not incidental but essential and whether or not it represents a serious departure from Orthodoxy is a matter of controversy. I would want to know it. I hope Greg has better motivations that he appears to in his use of terminology I do not know him. Maybe he does.

One thing you wrote caught my eye. You said open theism is a new study in theology. I agree. It is but isn't that disconcerting? Are entirely new areas of theological studies supposed to be appearing. I thought the faith, the DNA of the seed of life is complete. I think such "new" things like this cooked up in the last 30 years are so are suspect on the face of it; even more when they fundamentally alter major tenets of theology held since the Apostolic Church. Theology is like the Constitution. We do not set out to explore brand new ways of looking at it and to write new amendments.

surrender · Oct 12, 2012

Shasta said:
Well Greg should address up front how this affects the nature and being of God since the entire concept of an Open Future is predicated on it. I do not think it is up to Christian to label their views in such a way as make it more palatable to newcomers so he can ease them It is not hard to explain the concept unless the point is to get them into the door first. Why not change the term "blood of Christ" into something not as offensive and introduce it later when they can be prepared and taught?

"Open" is a corollary not the premise.The deepest issue hidden from newcomers is the idea that God is a temporal, spacial Being that has since creation been permanently wedded to the the Material Universe. I think that represents a radical change in theology.

I do not know Greg but of this is am already suspicious.

Greg didn't coin the term "Open View." And by the way, he doesn't teach the view at his church.

Tambora · Oct 12, 2012

Shasta said:
Omniscient means He knows everything THAT CAN BE KNOWN.

Boyd made a comment about God knowing everything that can be known, that went something like this ....

God can't know the shoe size of Santa Claus because Santa Claus doesn't really exist.

2COR12:9 · Oct 13, 2012

Shasta said:
Greg should address up front how this affects the nature and being of God since the entire concept of an Open Future is predicated on it. It should not be the task of ministers to label their views to make make it more palatable to newcomers. It is really that not hard to explain the concept unless the point is to get them into the door first and he ease them when they are more prepared to accept it. I speak as one this has happened to. Why not change the term "blood of Christ" into something less offensive and re-ntroduce it later?

To be totally above board it would also be necessary to explain that omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent do not really mean what they are understood to mean in common speech. Newcomers should be told that in the lexicon of Open Theism "omnipresent" means that God is as big as the universe. Omniscient means He knows everything THAT CAN BE KNOWN. The things that cannot be known are the choices men will make, events contingent on the interactions of men and God, events not directly controlled by God. In fact God is only a student who is always learning things.

All of this is not incidental but essential and whether or not it represents a serious departure from Orthodoxy is a matter of controversy. I would want to know it. I hope Greg has better motivations that he appears to in his use of terminology I do not know him. Maybe he does.

One thing you wrote caught my eye. You said open theism is a new study in theology. I agree. It is but isn't that disconcerting? Are entirely new areas of theological studies supposed to be appearing. I thought the faith, the DNA of the seed of life is complete. I think such "new" things like this cooked up in the last 30 years are so are suspect on the face of it; even more when they fundamentally alter major tenets of theology held since the Apostolic Church. Theology is like the Constitution. We do not set out to explore brand new ways of looking at it and to write new amendments.

There's too many contingencies to say a new theology can not be presented in this day and age, and because some were initiated by early church fathers doesn't necessarily establish them as orthodox. I still don't think Augustine got everything right but that won't stop others from holding to his views, wrong or not. The simple fact that there are around 40,000 denominations should reveal the diversities within the body from the interpreting of scripture. If this argument was applied to the reformation, saying it's been 1500 years should we break what's been established as dogmatic within church and theology we'd possibly still be under Roman Catholic rule. Some theologies were not looked upon kindly when brought to light, such as the Anabaptist's who believed infant baptism was not scriptural, and that only believers baptism need apply, and they were happily burned and drowned for their view. There may have been many who held to this view though were afraid to bring it too light for fear of being accused of heresy. Personally I had a form of the open view before I knew of any formal teachings on it, the research of others has only helped me to cultivate what was already preexisting within concepts of my theology. It was a relief to find I was not the only one, and in the age of social media it's given us a chance to connect more readily with others of shared views which would not have been prominently available in days past; though no way can it bring me to conclude that no one had these views, even up to the very first believers in God. The fact is that it's still based primarily on scripture, and that our interpretations don't connect with the predominant view doesn't shock me. I always try to remain teachable and constantly pray for wisdom and discernment from the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to me regardless of what I feel about it, and in my faith this is where I've been lead. That is first and foremost why I do not consider it suspect, and I still don't believe it alters any major attribute of God within the understanding of what each attribute defines; of coursed the reformed view would say God is sovereign so he must ordain everything, and I simply see God as still being sovereign in allowing his subjects to be free moral agents within the parameters he's created. God still would be in power regardless, it's simply how you look at it, and because for many years it was looked upon as one way doesn't make the way I interpret it any less credible.

Shasta · Oct 16, 2012

Lighthouse said:
I just wish Greg understood our salvation was eternally secure from the moment we are first saved.

Here is a conundrum. I who do not believe in Open Theism believe a person can lose their salvation and you, who do, believe you cannot.

Theology Club: Open Future

New member

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle

The Dark Knight

I identify as a Christian

Well-known member

The Dark Knight

New member

Get your armor ready!

New member

Get your armor ready!

Get your armor ready!

Get your armor ready!

TOL Subscriber

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Get your armor ready!

New member

Well-known member