http://tartantalk.yuku.com/topic/437/master/1/
Mark
Please feel free to discuss Open Theism in this thread, maybe interact with the link above..
Open Theism?
-
_tartanarmy
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
Open Theism?
http://tartantalk.yuku.com/topic/437/master/1/
Mark
Please feel free to discuss Open Theism in this thread, maybe interact with the link above..
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_tartanarmy
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
Not just Calvinists call Open Theism Heresy!
Thomas Oden's Charge of Heresy Concerning the Denial of God's Foreknowledge
By John Piper April 8, 1998
The recent articles in Christianity Today (Feb. 9, 1998) by Roger Olson and Timothy George and Thomas Oden intensify the concern that we should have over the teaching of Greg Boyd (especially concerning the foreknowledge of God), professor of theology at Bethel College and preaching pastor of Woodland Hills Church. Of particular relevance is the recent article by Thomas Oden, a Methodist scholar who has become famous in recent years because of his turn from old-line liberalism to evangelicalism.
Oden knows theological liberalism and how a group gets there. Oden's comments are all the more significant for two other reasons. Oden is not a Calvinist. This is significant because the question of whether Greg Boyd's view is orthodox has been deflected by some, as if it were an intramural tiff between Calvinists and Arminians, which it isn't. Here is what Thomas Oden said of the view that Boyd (and Clark Pinnock and others) teaches and writes:
If "reformists" insist on keeping the boundaries of heresy open, however, then they must be resisted with charity. The fantasy that God is ignorant of the future is a heresy that must be rejected on scriptural grounds ("I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come"; Isa. 46:10a; cf. Job 28; Ps. 90; Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1), as it has been in the history of the exegesis of relevant passages. This issue was thoroughly discussed by patristic exegetes as early as Origen's Against Celsus. Keeping the boundaries of faith undefined is a demonic temptation that evangelicals within the mainline have learned all too well and have been burned by all too painfully. (Thomas Oden, "The Real Reformers and the Traditionalists," Christianity Today, Feb. 9, 1998, p. 46. emphasis added)
There is no point in equivocating here about the degree to which the future is known. In this context in CT, with Clark Pinnock involved, and the issue of the "openness of God" on the front burner, the reader is not left in the dark as to what Thomas Oden is referring to. He is referring to the very kind of doctrine that is being taught at Bethel College and defended in three books from Greg Boyd (Letters From a Skeptic, God at War, and Trinity and Process, with another volume promised, Satan and the Problem of Evil).
In other words, a leading non-Calvinist evangelical theologian who is not marginal or alarmist or fundamentalistic or narrow calls this view "heresy." He does so not in a huff behind closed doors, but calmly and with charity in a mainstream evangelical publication. This is very significant.
What is needed now, in view of this public development, brought about from outside assessment, but confirming the concerns of many pastors, is some clarification from the Conference leadership as to where the BGC stands on two questions: 1) Does the denial of God's foreknowledge of human choices contradict or cohere with the Conference-defining faith of the BGC? 2) May a person who denies God's foreknowledge of human choices remain in good standing as the pastor of a BGC church?
I believe a great deal for the future of our Conference hangs on how we respond to Oden's charge of "heresy" relating to the views of one of our most influential pastors and teachers.
© Desiring God
Thomas Oden's Charge of Heresy Concerning the Denial of God's Foreknowledge
By John Piper April 8, 1998
The recent articles in Christianity Today (Feb. 9, 1998) by Roger Olson and Timothy George and Thomas Oden intensify the concern that we should have over the teaching of Greg Boyd (especially concerning the foreknowledge of God), professor of theology at Bethel College and preaching pastor of Woodland Hills Church. Of particular relevance is the recent article by Thomas Oden, a Methodist scholar who has become famous in recent years because of his turn from old-line liberalism to evangelicalism.
Oden knows theological liberalism and how a group gets there. Oden's comments are all the more significant for two other reasons. Oden is not a Calvinist. This is significant because the question of whether Greg Boyd's view is orthodox has been deflected by some, as if it were an intramural tiff between Calvinists and Arminians, which it isn't. Here is what Thomas Oden said of the view that Boyd (and Clark Pinnock and others) teaches and writes:
If "reformists" insist on keeping the boundaries of heresy open, however, then they must be resisted with charity. The fantasy that God is ignorant of the future is a heresy that must be rejected on scriptural grounds ("I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come"; Isa. 46:10a; cf. Job 28; Ps. 90; Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1), as it has been in the history of the exegesis of relevant passages. This issue was thoroughly discussed by patristic exegetes as early as Origen's Against Celsus. Keeping the boundaries of faith undefined is a demonic temptation that evangelicals within the mainline have learned all too well and have been burned by all too painfully. (Thomas Oden, "The Real Reformers and the Traditionalists," Christianity Today, Feb. 9, 1998, p. 46. emphasis added)
There is no point in equivocating here about the degree to which the future is known. In this context in CT, with Clark Pinnock involved, and the issue of the "openness of God" on the front burner, the reader is not left in the dark as to what Thomas Oden is referring to. He is referring to the very kind of doctrine that is being taught at Bethel College and defended in three books from Greg Boyd (Letters From a Skeptic, God at War, and Trinity and Process, with another volume promised, Satan and the Problem of Evil).
In other words, a leading non-Calvinist evangelical theologian who is not marginal or alarmist or fundamentalistic or narrow calls this view "heresy." He does so not in a huff behind closed doors, but calmly and with charity in a mainstream evangelical publication. This is very significant.
What is needed now, in view of this public development, brought about from outside assessment, but confirming the concerns of many pastors, is some clarification from the Conference leadership as to where the BGC stands on two questions: 1) Does the denial of God's foreknowledge of human choices contradict or cohere with the Conference-defining faith of the BGC? 2) May a person who denies God's foreknowledge of human choices remain in good standing as the pastor of a BGC church?
I believe a great deal for the future of our Conference hangs on how we respond to Oden's charge of "heresy" relating to the views of one of our most influential pastors and teachers.
© Desiring God
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_tartanarmy
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
Now thats a good question!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_SoaringEagle
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: Louisville, KY
Open future and The 2nd Coming
The following relevant thoughts are taken from this article
Divine Reversals and an Indefinite Future.
It is along these same lines that we should contemplate the implications of the Lord's threat to all who contemplate abandoning their faith to "blot [their] names out of the book of life" (Rev. 3:5, cf Ex. 32:33). We are elsewhere told that the names of the faithful have been in the process of being recorded since the foundation of the world (Rev. 17:8 ). But despite God's desire to lose no one (2 Pet. 3:9) and despite strong commitments from the Lord to preserve all his sheep (Jn. 10), this record is apparently yet probational through this present age. Believers can, it seems, have their names blotted out of the book of life. If God possessed EDF, (exhaustive definite foreknowledge) however, he would obviously know from all eternity who those were who would ultimately fall away. And so one has to wonder why he'd have written their names in the book in the first place.
Another interesting passage which suggests that the Lord faces an open future (and not just a future which seems open to us) is 2 Pet., 3:9-12. Even though Jesus taught us that the Father alone knows the day and hour (Mk.. 13:32), Peter suggests that God has delayed the second coming because he is "patient with you, not wanting any to perish" (2 Pet. 3:9). Moreover, Peter then encourages believers to be "looking for and hastening (speudõ) the coming of the day of God" (2 Pet. 3:12, NAS).5 Two points may be made regarding this passage.
First, if it can be delayed by God and speeded up by us, the time of the second coming must not be fixed-at least not from all eternity. Hence, when Jesus tells us the Father alone knows "the day and the hour, of the coming of the son of man, we should perhaps take this as an idiomatic way of saying that the decision as to when it should occur is completely the Father's, and he alone will know when the time is right. I may tell my daughter that "I know the time" when she'll be ready to drive a car. But I'm not thereby claiming that I have a pre-set date in mind. I'm rather saying that I know the criteria in her life that I'm looking for upon which my decision is based. Judging from 2 Peter, it appears that the rate of the growth of the Kingdom in the world is one important variable which the Father considers in deciding when to bring to a close this age. But when this criteria shall be met seems somewhat open to our influence.
Secondly, it seems difficult, if not impossible, to take seriously the teaching that the second coming can really be delayed or speeded up depending somewhat on what we do if we also hold that God possesses EDF. If God possesses EDF, then he would possess an unalterable knowledge of exactly when the second coming would take place. But in this case it hardly makes sense to say that God delayed it or that we should try to speed it up.
Divine Reversals and an Indefinite Future.
It is along these same lines that we should contemplate the implications of the Lord's threat to all who contemplate abandoning their faith to "blot [their] names out of the book of life" (Rev. 3:5, cf Ex. 32:33). We are elsewhere told that the names of the faithful have been in the process of being recorded since the foundation of the world (Rev. 17:8 ). But despite God's desire to lose no one (2 Pet. 3:9) and despite strong commitments from the Lord to preserve all his sheep (Jn. 10), this record is apparently yet probational through this present age. Believers can, it seems, have their names blotted out of the book of life. If God possessed EDF, (exhaustive definite foreknowledge) however, he would obviously know from all eternity who those were who would ultimately fall away. And so one has to wonder why he'd have written their names in the book in the first place.
Another interesting passage which suggests that the Lord faces an open future (and not just a future which seems open to us) is 2 Pet., 3:9-12. Even though Jesus taught us that the Father alone knows the day and hour (Mk.. 13:32), Peter suggests that God has delayed the second coming because he is "patient with you, not wanting any to perish" (2 Pet. 3:9). Moreover, Peter then encourages believers to be "looking for and hastening (speudõ) the coming of the day of God" (2 Pet. 3:12, NAS).5 Two points may be made regarding this passage.
First, if it can be delayed by God and speeded up by us, the time of the second coming must not be fixed-at least not from all eternity. Hence, when Jesus tells us the Father alone knows "the day and the hour, of the coming of the son of man, we should perhaps take this as an idiomatic way of saying that the decision as to when it should occur is completely the Father's, and he alone will know when the time is right. I may tell my daughter that "I know the time" when she'll be ready to drive a car. But I'm not thereby claiming that I have a pre-set date in mind. I'm rather saying that I know the criteria in her life that I'm looking for upon which my decision is based. Judging from 2 Peter, it appears that the rate of the growth of the Kingdom in the world is one important variable which the Father considers in deciding when to bring to a close this age. But when this criteria shall be met seems somewhat open to our influence.
Secondly, it seems difficult, if not impossible, to take seriously the teaching that the second coming can really be delayed or speeded up depending somewhat on what we do if we also hold that God possesses EDF. If God possesses EDF, then he would possess an unalterable knowledge of exactly when the second coming would take place. But in this case it hardly makes sense to say that God delayed it or that we should try to speed it up.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Micah 3:12 Therefore because of you Zion shall be plowed as a field; Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins, and the mountain of the house a wooded height.
Was Micah a true prophet of God? If so, when was the above prophecy fulfilled?
According to Jeremiah, it wasn't. Let's read the account:
In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came from the LORD, saying, "Thus says the LORD, ‘Stand in the court of the LORD’S house, and speak to all the cities of Judah who have come to worship in the LORD’S house all the words that I have commanded you to speak to them. Do not omit a word!
‘Perhaps they will listen and everyone will turn from his evil way, that I may repent of the calamity which I am planning to do to them because of the evil of their deeds.’And you will say to them, ‘Thus says the LORD, "If you will not listen to Me, to walk in My law which I have set before you, to listen to the words of My servants the prophets, whom I have been sending to you again and again, but you have not listened; then I will make this house like Shiloh, and this city I will make a curse to all the nations of the earth."’
The priests and the prophets and all the people heard Jeremiah speaking these words in the house of the LORD. When Jeremiah finished speaking all that the LORD had commanded him to speak to all the people, the priests and the prophets and all the people seized him, saying, "You must die!
"Why have you prophesied in the name of the LORD saying, ‘This house will be like Shiloh and this city will be desolate, without inhabitant’?" And all the people gathered about Jeremiah in the house of the LORD.
When the officials of Judah heard these things, they came up from the king’s house to the house of the LORD and sat in the entrance of the New Gate of the LORD’S house. Then the priests and the prophets spoke to the officials and to all the people, saying, "A death sentence for this man! For he has prophesied against this city as you have heard in your hearing."
Then Jeremiah spoke to all the officials and to all the people, saying, "The LORD sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city all the words that you have heard. Now therefore amend your ways and your deeds and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will change His mind about the misfortune which He has pronounced against you. But as for me, behold, I am in your hands; do with me as is good and right in your sight. Only know for certain that if you put me to death, you will bring innocent blood on yourselves, and on this city and on its inhabitants; for truly the LORD has sent me to you to speak all these words in your hearing."
Then the officials and all the people said to the priests and to the prophets, "No death sentence for this man! For he has spoken to us in the name of the LORD our God."
Then some of the elders of the land rose up and spoke to all the assembly of the people, saying, "Micah of Moresheth prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah; and he spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, ‘Thus the LORD of hosts has said, "Zion will be plowed as a field, And Jerusalem will become ruins, And the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest."’
"Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and entreat the favor of the LORD, and the LORD changed His mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them? But we are committing a great evil against ourselves."
Jeremiah 26:1-19
Did God inspire the Micah to prophesy that Zion and Jerusalem would be destroyed? Why would He do that, if He knew the people would repent? If God changes His mind, does that not prove that his original intention is not "written in stone"?
Was Micah a true prophet of God? If so, when was the above prophecy fulfilled?
According to Jeremiah, it wasn't. Let's read the account:
In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came from the LORD, saying, "Thus says the LORD, ‘Stand in the court of the LORD’S house, and speak to all the cities of Judah who have come to worship in the LORD’S house all the words that I have commanded you to speak to them. Do not omit a word!
‘Perhaps they will listen and everyone will turn from his evil way, that I may repent of the calamity which I am planning to do to them because of the evil of their deeds.’And you will say to them, ‘Thus says the LORD, "If you will not listen to Me, to walk in My law which I have set before you, to listen to the words of My servants the prophets, whom I have been sending to you again and again, but you have not listened; then I will make this house like Shiloh, and this city I will make a curse to all the nations of the earth."’
The priests and the prophets and all the people heard Jeremiah speaking these words in the house of the LORD. When Jeremiah finished speaking all that the LORD had commanded him to speak to all the people, the priests and the prophets and all the people seized him, saying, "You must die!
"Why have you prophesied in the name of the LORD saying, ‘This house will be like Shiloh and this city will be desolate, without inhabitant’?" And all the people gathered about Jeremiah in the house of the LORD.
When the officials of Judah heard these things, they came up from the king’s house to the house of the LORD and sat in the entrance of the New Gate of the LORD’S house. Then the priests and the prophets spoke to the officials and to all the people, saying, "A death sentence for this man! For he has prophesied against this city as you have heard in your hearing."
Then Jeremiah spoke to all the officials and to all the people, saying, "The LORD sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city all the words that you have heard. Now therefore amend your ways and your deeds and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will change His mind about the misfortune which He has pronounced against you. But as for me, behold, I am in your hands; do with me as is good and right in your sight. Only know for certain that if you put me to death, you will bring innocent blood on yourselves, and on this city and on its inhabitants; for truly the LORD has sent me to you to speak all these words in your hearing."
Then the officials and all the people said to the priests and to the prophets, "No death sentence for this man! For he has spoken to us in the name of the LORD our God."
Then some of the elders of the land rose up and spoke to all the assembly of the people, saying, "Micah of Moresheth prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah; and he spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, ‘Thus the LORD of hosts has said, "Zion will be plowed as a field, And Jerusalem will become ruins, And the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest."’
"Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and entreat the favor of the LORD, and the LORD changed His mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them? But we are committing a great evil against ourselves."
Jeremiah 26:1-19
Did God inspire the Micah to prophesy that Zion and Jerusalem would be destroyed? Why would He do that, if He knew the people would repent? If God changes His mind, does that not prove that his original intention is not "written in stone"?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Why did God have Micah prophesy that the city would be destroyed if that was not God's resolute intention? Why, if God knew that He was waiting to see whether they would repent, if He was planning to withhold the doom which Micah pronounced contingent on their response, did He inspire Micah to speak in language of certainty what would happen?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
We had a fairly long thread on open theism under "Misc Theological Topics" which i just bumped up, so if anyone is interested in responding to the numerous verses in scripture that indicate God regreted making man or similar sounding verses go for it.
Better to respond to the specific verses then to just call "Open Theism" a heresy. I'm not necessarily an open theist but it has a lot more scripture on it's side then Calvinism.
Better to respond to the specific verses then to just call "Open Theism" a heresy. I'm not necessarily an open theist but it has a lot more scripture on it's side then Calvinism.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I have just moved that thread into this forum, since it seems to belong here. It is entitled: "The Open View of God" or "Open Theism."
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Hmm, here's an interesting tidbit. I was curious about the word "maybe/perhaps" in Jer. 26:3--is there an actual word "maybe", or is it a translation of a grammatical tense/voice/whatever of a verb, or what?
It is a word, "'ûlay", Strong's number H194. Most of the occurrences I see in the KJV concordance function of e-Sword seem to be the clear equivalent of the English "maybe".
However, check out Numbers 22:33 (ESV). "33 The donkey saw me and turned aside before me these three times. If she had not turned aside from me, surely just now I would have killed you and let her live.”"
The "If" at the beginning of the second sentence is the same word, ûlay. So it's used of an event in the past, to speak of a conceivable situation (a conceivable alternate history) and the results of that situation. But the speaker had no uncertainty about the event--what had happened was a perfectly-known actuality.
I'm not sure how well that use can be applied to verses like Jer. 26:3, but it's worth considering. At the very least, it weakens any at-first-glance strength in the open theist argument from that language.
It is a word, "'ûlay", Strong's number H194. Most of the occurrences I see in the KJV concordance function of e-Sword seem to be the clear equivalent of the English "maybe".
However, check out Numbers 22:33 (ESV). "33 The donkey saw me and turned aside before me these three times. If she had not turned aside from me, surely just now I would have killed you and let her live.”"
The "If" at the beginning of the second sentence is the same word, ûlay. So it's used of an event in the past, to speak of a conceivable situation (a conceivable alternate history) and the results of that situation. But the speaker had no uncertainty about the event--what had happened was a perfectly-known actuality.
I'm not sure how well that use can be applied to verses like Jer. 26:3, but it's worth considering. At the very least, it weakens any at-first-glance strength in the open theist argument from that language.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_SoaringEagle
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: Louisville, KY
Changeability As a Divine Attribute
The Virtue of Flexibility. While the notion of God changing his mind or heart strikes many contemporary Christians as strange, the concept apparently presented no problem to believers in the Bible. To the contrary, for biblical authors the Lord's ability and willingness to change His mind was seen by them as one of the Lord's praiseworthy attributes. So, for example, the prophet Joel encourages Israel to,
Return to the Lord...for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger…and relents from punishing. Who knows whether he will not turn and relent, and leave a blessing behind him... (Joel 2:13-14)
So too, in identical language (which some Old Testament scholars argue indicates that we are here dealing with an established ancient Israeli creed) Jonah reluctantly acknowledges that Yahweh is a God who was "slow to anger…and ready to relent from punishing" (Jon. 4:2). They understood that being willing and sensitive enough to adjust oneself in the light of new situations was a positive attribute that God did not lack. When people change, God is willing to change.
Just this sort of admirable flexibility is reflected in Hosea's record of the Lord's painful inner turmoil between his righteous anger and his compassion which ultimately led him to reverse his plan to bring harsh judgment on his people (Hos. II: 8-9). If the Lord knows all that's going to occur from all eternity, this inner turmoil in time with its resulting reversal in divine plans is difficult to understand.
A similar sentiment seems to be behind the Lord's change of mind in allowing an angel of death to wreak destruction throughout Jerusalem as punishment for David's sin (2 Chr. 21:15). So too, the Lord expressed every intention of wiping out Israel because of their infidelity to him. But through the intercessory prayers of Moses, Scripture says, "the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people" (Ex. 32:14). Note, it does not say "the Lord appeared to change his mind," or "the Lord took a new course of action as though he had changed his mind." It simply says, "the Lord changed his mind."
Though open theists are often accused with being more influenced by philosophical presuppositions than by Scripture, I would submit that if any thing, it is the classical philosophical reading of these passages that is reflecting a heavily philosophical influence. The only "crime" of which open theists can be legitimately accused is that they take Scripture literally when it gives no reason for taking it otherwise. And that is a rather strange "crime" for anyone who would claim to follow Scripture to accuse someone of.
The Virtue of Flexibility. While the notion of God changing his mind or heart strikes many contemporary Christians as strange, the concept apparently presented no problem to believers in the Bible. To the contrary, for biblical authors the Lord's ability and willingness to change His mind was seen by them as one of the Lord's praiseworthy attributes. So, for example, the prophet Joel encourages Israel to,
Return to the Lord...for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger…and relents from punishing. Who knows whether he will not turn and relent, and leave a blessing behind him... (Joel 2:13-14)
So too, in identical language (which some Old Testament scholars argue indicates that we are here dealing with an established ancient Israeli creed) Jonah reluctantly acknowledges that Yahweh is a God who was "slow to anger…and ready to relent from punishing" (Jon. 4:2). They understood that being willing and sensitive enough to adjust oneself in the light of new situations was a positive attribute that God did not lack. When people change, God is willing to change.
Just this sort of admirable flexibility is reflected in Hosea's record of the Lord's painful inner turmoil between his righteous anger and his compassion which ultimately led him to reverse his plan to bring harsh judgment on his people (Hos. II: 8-9). If the Lord knows all that's going to occur from all eternity, this inner turmoil in time with its resulting reversal in divine plans is difficult to understand.
A similar sentiment seems to be behind the Lord's change of mind in allowing an angel of death to wreak destruction throughout Jerusalem as punishment for David's sin (2 Chr. 21:15). So too, the Lord expressed every intention of wiping out Israel because of their infidelity to him. But through the intercessory prayers of Moses, Scripture says, "the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people" (Ex. 32:14). Note, it does not say "the Lord appeared to change his mind," or "the Lord took a new course of action as though he had changed his mind." It simply says, "the Lord changed his mind."
Though open theists are often accused with being more influenced by philosophical presuppositions than by Scripture, I would submit that if any thing, it is the classical philosophical reading of these passages that is reflecting a heavily philosophical influence. The only "crime" of which open theists can be legitimately accused is that they take Scripture literally when it gives no reason for taking it otherwise. And that is a rather strange "crime" for anyone who would claim to follow Scripture to accuse someone of.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: