The Narrow Path Ministries

This question needs to be explored, since accusations are thrown around to this effect in the most careless and irresponsible manner.

If Open Theism is to be regarded as "heresy," then we need to establish a few points.

First, how do you define heresy? If it means any doctrine that one person, or a large group of people find to be contrary to scripture, then Arminianism is a heresy to the Calvinists and Calvinism is a heresy to the Arminians. Yet, I have not noticed any Arminians (or Open Theists) decrying Calvinism as "heresy." Perhaps Calvinism has as much reason to be called by that label as does Open Theism, but we will never know until someone lays out an authoritative definition of heresy.

If the charge of heresy is simply a reference to doctrine that is in disagreement with the majority of historic theologians, then both Jesus and Paul were heretics in their day, Augustine was a heretic in his day, and Luther was a heretic in his day.

Until someone here can give us the objective parameters for defining it, I suggest that "heresy" is a useless word, except as a baseless insult. Please, if you are one of those Christians that feels the need to use such a vague term, do us all the service of defining a) what the term means, and b) the facts that justify your use of it in the particular case you are making.

Second, since "heretic" is always used as a perjorative—that is, it is saying that somebody is not all that a Christian should be, just what are the implications of the term in the mind of the person making the accusation? Is a heretic only mistaken, or is he lost? Does he have a place at the table of Christian fellowship and discussion, or is he a son of hell, with the wrath of God abiding on him? If the latter, I would request that those using the term provide the scriptural justification for saying such a thing about another godly Christian. God hates the man who sows discord among brethren (Prov.6:19).

Third, once we know what the term means, and how serious a charge it represents, one should show from scripture that the person accused of the error actually believes something that the Bible identifies as intolerable, or that that person denies a doctrine that the Bible identifies as essential.

What, exactly, does Open Theism teach that the Bible calls heresy? Where does the Bible condemn people who believe it?

If these steps are not taken, then the use of the words "heresy" and "heretic" are not tools of communication, but only childish and meaningless insults that are the last resort of spiritual juveniles unable to sustain a fruitful dialogue with those whose views they do not understand, or with whom they simply do not agree.

If all you are saying, in calling another a heretic, is that you don't agree with him, or that his view is new and novel to your ears, then you would make less a fool of yourself by stating these things plainly, than by defiling the Body of Christ by your unguarded speech..

It's interesting to note the way in which the word is used in the New Testament.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. NKJV

This, actually, is the place in the New Testament in which the word is used in the strongest negative sense. In the most of the other verses containing the word, translators use the English word "sect" to translate the word. Indeed, the word is used to identify the sects (denominations?) of Judaism. Today, the sects of Judaism are Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform.

Acts 5:17 Then the high priest rose up, and all those who were with him (which is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with indignation.

Acts 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

Acts 26:5 "They knew me from the first, if they were willing to testify, that according to the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
NKJV

Interestingly enough, Christianity itself was regarded as a sect of Judaism.

Acts 24:5 "For we have found this man a plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.

Acts 24:14 "But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.

Acts 28:22 "But we desire to hear from you what you think; for concerning this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere. NKJV"

Any type of division in the body of Christ was also called a "heresy". The word is often translated as "faction" in I Corinthians 11:19. This is possibly a reference to the beginning of "denominationalism" where the Corinthians made known their allegiance to a particular leader. Chapter 1 describes this where people made it known, "I belong to Paul"," I belong to Apollos", "I belong to Cephas" or even "I belong to Christ". Each was a faction, a division in the Body of Christ. Yet Paul asked the question, "Is Christ divided?" For Paul, the answer seemed obvious. "No". Each faction was a sect within the church, and according to Paul was "of the flesh".

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. NKJV

Paul lists sectarianism as one of the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-21

God wants to unite His people. Jesus prayed, "... that they may be one, as You, Father, and I, are one." Fallen humanity is elitist in nature. They love to be in the "inner circle" where they can be specially recognized as important. You can see these "heresies" (cliques) developing in young children on the playground at school ----- accepting some into their clique and rejecting others.

In Greek, the verbal form of the word "heresy" means "to choose for oneself." This verb is found in Philippians 1:22, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, and Hebrews 11:25

In the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, it seems that the church of the day
called anyone who didn't worship with themselves "heretics".

Both Paidion and Christopher have laid out the biblical definitions of the words "heresy" and "heretic." However, it would seem that those who enjoy tossing the word about at this forum (as far as I can recall, all of whom are Calvinists, apparently blessing us with the brother-bashing approach that seems to characterize their own internet forums) are not using it in any sense that the Bible does. Instead, they seem to be using the term as it came to be used by the corrupted church of the Middle Ages.

In the early centuries after the apostles, the term was applied to groups like Manicheans and Gnostics, who denied the incarnation and sought to divide the Body of Christ, drawing disciples after themselves over doctrine. I cannot help but observe that the attitudes displayed by some of our heresy-hunters more resembles the attitudes of the early heretics than of those who refuted them. I have not seen any evidence of the Open Theists here, or elsewhere, trying to divide the Body of Christ, or to draw off disciples unto themselves.

In the Middle Ages, the term heretic seems to have been applied to anyone who held different theological opinions from those of the mainstream (Catholic) Church. If the essence of heresy is dividing the church, then the "heretics" seem to have moved from the fringes into the Vatican itself during this period.

I would appreciate those who use the term here to identify their intended meaning. Are they using the term as in the New Testament, as in the second and third centuries, as in the Middle Ages, or are they making up their own definitions? As I said, without clearer definition of the user's intent, nothing of value is communicated by the term.

In regard to Open Theism, I believe that Paidion (and others) have done an admirable job demonstrating why such a view is NOT heresy.

That being said, I am not totally convinced that it is the correct approach, and find myself wavering back and forth.

However, it is important to note that a traditional believer (like my mom, e.g.), if they were presented with the idea that "God doesnt know what we will do next week," they would think that is unbiblical and possibly heresy, because it seems to limit God's omniscience, which has been taught as one of God's primary attributes from the beginning.

The problem is getting them to sit still long enough (and to be able to grasp) the alternative view that Paidion sets forth. What Paidion says makes perfect sense logically. The only idea I struggle with is whether God is constrained by our logic (I can hear Paidion groaning as I type this)

A couple of years ago I would have probably thought that open theism was heretical. But having debated and discussed the issue, I now see it as a possibly correct alternative view. The fact that it is possibly correct, in my view, takes it out of the realm of heresy. This is not to say that anything that is "possibly correct" might not be heresy; what I am suggesting is that if scripture does not rule out a certain viewpoint, then it would not be heretical to believe it. then again, maybe i have no idea what i am talking about!

TK

I am of a similar opinion to yours, TK. I do not think Open Theism adequately accounts for all the biblical data—but then, neither does the view that calls it "heresy." It strikes me as a reasonable view that does not threaten any essential doctrine of scripture of which I am aware.

Those who call it "heresy" suggest that it presents an inferior view of God's attributes, eliminating His omniscience.

However, it seems to me that Openness does not present an alternative view of God, but, rather, an alternative conception of time. The God of the Open Theists is as omniscient as is the God of the classical view—that is, both views attribute to God the ability to know everything that is and that could ever be.

However, the classical view of time makes the future somewhat determined and accessible to God, while the Openness View regards "the future" as a non-entity. The only reason God is not said to know it is that there is nothing there to know. It is like saying, "Though God knows all things, He does not know the names of the six-winged, four-headed, pink reptiles on Neptune—simply because there aren't any such creatures for Him to know!"

If a view made God less than omniscient, then it would strike at the very nature of the Deity, and might qualify for "heresy" (by some justifiable definitions). However, I can't think of any scripture that would make it mandatory for Christians to hold any particular philosophical position about the nature of "time."

IMHO the problem that we have is that the scriptures present something, rather clearly I believe, that apears to be a paradox: God is able to know the future exhaustively, and man has free-will. (More later, my better half just asked for my help.)

Steve wrote:However, it seems to me that Openness does not present an alternative view of God, but, rather, an alternative conception of time. The God of the Open Theists is as omniscient as is the God of the classical view—that is, both views attribute to God the ability to know everything that is and that could ever be.

However, the classical view of time makes the future somewhat determined and accessible to God, while the Openness View regards "the future" as a non-entity. The only reason God is not said to know it is that there is nothing there to know. It is like saying, "Though God knows all things, He does not know the names of the six-winged, four-headed, pink reptiles on Neptune—simply because there aren't any such creatures for Him to know!"

I find myself often taking the position of an Open theist in conversations with fellow believers because they are convinced that it is heresy. I'm not sure I agree with Open Theism (I've much to learn about all sides) although I understand the basics.

However, I'm always struggling to give a good snapshot definition. Your description is perfect, Steve. It gets people away from preconceived notions that OT has a less than adequate view of God's omniscience.

Thanks


Dave

IMO the "H" word is typically bandied about as a means of marginalizing people of different viewpoints (not simply dividing, but isolating). Nobody wants to be called a "heretic" so the word gets used as a warning signal to those who don't "toe the line" with tradition.

I've heard Calvinists use phrases like "Semi-pelagian" or say that Arminianism taken to it's logical conclusion leads to Open Theism as if it's the slippery slope to denying God altogether. I've heard dispensationalists say the same thing about partial-prets how that view drawn to its logical conclusion leads to full-preterism (mother of all heresies in their mind).

Neither of those views alarms me as damnable heresies as far as I can see from scripture, yet they seem to serve as out of bounds markers in most Christian circles and so the warning is usually don't even flirt with it.

I think the word is used largely the same today as it was in the middle-ages as a justification for marginilization (and ultimately elimination) of Christians who have the audacity to think for themselves and arrive at different conclusions (albeit wrong ones ).

IMHO the problem that we have is that the scriptures present something, rather clearly I believe, that apears to be a paradox: God is able to know the future exhaustively, and man has free-will. (More later, my better half just asked for my help.)



It appears to be a paradox because both Calvinists and Arminians are wrong IMO because while we do have a will and we do choose to sin , our will is not free. Making choices is not akin to freedom of choice when your choices are influenced by your God given sin nature. Just look at Eve's impulses before she sinned, she has lust of the eyes and flesh and pride within her and the dye was already cast, her nature was anything but perfect.

However, it seems to me that Openness does not present an alternative view of God, but, rather, an alternative conception of time.

With that comment it really is quite impossible for me to find a way to discuss this any further.
It really makes me wonder just how much Sanders, Boyd or Pinnock you have actually read!

Anyway, it seems quite obvious I have been labelled here as someone who is merely trying to "marginalize" fellow believers etc, and that I am one of those big bad meanie Calvinists who is out to offend brothers!


I give up. Time to move on. Getting nowhere with my efforts here.
I came here to passionately defend God and His truth, and experience has shown me at least, that such encourages brothers, not divide them.

As far as I know, there is only one Open Theist at these boards, a whole lot of sympathisers, and a couple of opponents. Well, there is now one less opponent posting here for now.

Please read Gordon Olson, Winkie Pratney, Richard Rice, David Basinger, Gregory Boyd, Thomas Jay Oord, Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, and William Hasker.

Then we might be able to discuss whether or not this movement presents an alternative view of God.

Until then Steve,

Mark