The God Who Doesn't Know If He Is Able
Our Father Who is in heaven, Shallow be Your name. Your kingdom might come, Your will could be done, Perhaps on earth as it sometimes is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, Surprise, we all wanted cake instead. And forgive us our debts without expiation, Just as we also forgive your gambling and speculation. And try not to lead us into temptation, But deliver us from evil as was your supposition. For Yours might be the kingdom and some power and most of the glory, For today, since You know not what tomorrow will be. Amen ON THE THEOLOGY OF GOD "In that he is God, he is an absolutely and infinitely perfect being; and it is impossible that he should do amiss. As he is eternal, and receives not his existence from any other, he cannot be limited in his being, or any attribute, to any certain determinate quantity. If anything have bounds fixed to it, there must be some cause or reason why those bounds are fixed just where they are. Whence it will follow, that every limited thing must have some cause. And therefore that being which has no cause must be unlimited.So says Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) in his sermon, The Sole Consideration That God Is God, Sufficient To Still All Objections To His Sovereignty. However, there are those in today's theological world who would deny that Jonathan Edwards' description of God applies to the God which they define in a much different manner. For them, God is not sovereign, not incapable of doing wrong, not infinite in understanding and knowledge, not infinitely perfect and not unlimited as to His being. For every exalted and superlative characteristic assigned to God by Jonathan Edwards, those individuals would claim the opposite, their God being formed and defined to represent almost every weakness inherent in human nature. This humanized God is the God of Open Theism which claims that the future is "open" in relation to His knowledge; that He cannot know the future, because it has not yet occurred. It is claimed that the God of the Bible is really the God of Open Theism, but this has not been known before, because of wrong views of God and wrong interpretations of Scripture. The Open Theist, who has only been around for the last 20 years or so, claims to have finally discovered the truth about God, which the rest of the Christian church has missed for almost 2,000 years. The old apostasy theory is once again brought out of the closet, dusted off and given a new coat of paint. The Open Theist would have everyone believe that the Old and New Testaments originally revealed an "open" God, the early church and the apostles believed in an "open" God, but somehow the true message of the Bible became confused and finally, in the late twentieth century, the truth was once again discovered. It is a remarkable discovery, because the God of Open Theism thinks, acts and operates just like human beings. Even more remarkable, the God of Open Theism is subject to the decisions and actions of human beings, His plans for the future being constantly in a state of flux, as He attempts to guess what the decisions and actions of human beings will be, which He cannot know in advance. Having made plans for the future, based on His best educated guess, God must constantly change those plans and formulate new plans, when He finds that human beings have made decisions and taken actions which were contrary to what He had assumed. For the God of Open Theism each day is a brand new day in which He must reassess His plans for the future based on the decisions made by humanity the day before. However, God is not viewed as totally without abilities, but that He has rescinded some of those abilities in order to have a true relationship with human beings. In other words, He has deferred some of His knowledge in order that human beings can make a "real" choice about which He knows very little. It is claimed that God has superior abilities, especially to know the heart of man, and so He can make certain predictions for the future based on that knowledge. He probably gets more things right than wrong, but the reality is that every decision and prediction is just a very good educated guess. In other words, God gambles with what He claims to be knowledge of a future, which He does not truly know for certain. How convenient that the God of Open Theism would so closely reflect the current emphasis of modern American society on the interests of self-gratification, self-determination and contemporary religious thought which embraces the deification of man. Why does God not know the future? Open Theism gives the simplistic answer that is the core of the doctrine; the future has not yet occurred, therefore God cannot know it. God is defined as being confined to the constraints of time and can only know for sure the elements of the past and the present. That settles the issue for Open Theism, because it defines God and places Him within the confines of the definition provided. Yet, to state a definition by no means makes that definition true and by no law is God bound to conform to any human definition of His being. Open Theism presumes to be able to place God into a box, by which they define the boundaries of His knowledge, power and presence. The God who created everything that exists, is defined as being subject to the boundaries of His own creation, existing solely within the finite nature of that creation and unable to move outside and into the infinite. It escapes the reason of the Open Theist that God existed prior to the creation of the finite world in which they live, including the fabric of time itself, the boundaries of which they are placed under subjection by the creative word of God. It is the Open Theist who cannot know the future because it has not yet happened. However, it is a humanistically oriented conclusion to assume that since human beings cannot know the future, because it has not happened in the finite time frame of the universe, that the infinite God is restricted by the same consideration. "These things you have done and I kept silence; you thought that I was just like you; I will reprove you and state the case in order before your eyes. Psalm 50:21 (NAS) "Remember this, and be assured; recall it to mind, you transgressors. Remember the former things long past, for I am God and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, 'My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it." Isaiah 46:8-11 (NAS)The God who created the universe is also the God who created and ordered time. He not only created it and ordered it as to its sequence, He also established and directed its course. Far from being subject to time, it is time that is subject to God, without His direction, time could not continue. The book of Hebrews presents the case: "...but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe." Hebrews 1:2 (NIV)The literal translation of universe in both verses is AGES, implying a continuing entity or perpetuity, such as a course from beginning to end. God is over time and manipulates its content to suit His good pleasure. By placing God in a box, the Open Theist believes that the actions of God are better understood because of His weaknesses. A God who is weak and subject to error and mistakes is a much more warm and fuzzy deity than one who is all powerful, all knowing and determines every detail of history. It is claimed that human beings can be liberated from the oppression of believing in an autocratic God who does not know or sympathize with their feelings. The claim of liberation is simply placing human beings into a greater bondage, by proposing a God who is powerless to save and powerless to control. Once again the Open Theist fails to understand that it is God who created man from the blueprint of His own mind. It is God who placed within human beings the emotions and desires that the Open Theist claims God does not understand and with which He cannot sympathize. Once again the claim is that God is less than He actually is, because, as the Designer, God does not understand what He designed and it is the created being who must inform Him of His deficiencies of knowledge and understanding. Open Theism proposes that human beings do exactly what the Scripture condemns by the words of God: "Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker — An earthenware vessel among the vessels of the earth! Will the clay say to the potter, 'What are you doing?' Or the thing you are making say, 'He has no hands'? Woe to him who says to a father, 'What are you begetting?' Or to a woman, 'To what are you giving birth?'" Isaiah 45:9-10 (NAS)The God of Open Theism is an imperfect God, one who can and does make mistakes. Those mistakes often bring about pain, suffering and death in humanity, because He has made plans and taken action on those plans without the ability to know the true outcome. God becomes cruel because of His ignorance, a situation for which He constantly apologizes and regrets. The definition of God in Open Theism has much more in common with Mormon theology than with orthodox Christian belief. The God of Open Theism is not omniscient. He can only guess the future, hope for the best and apologize and regret for the worst.Ultimately, at the very core, Open Theism reveals its true motive. It concerns the question of sovereignty. Is God sovereign or is man sovereign? Regardless of all the ornate language and excuses given, Open Theism claims that God is less than sovereign and man is more than subservient. God is incapable of knowing, with certainty, the future decisions of man and man can subvert or change whatever decisions have previously been made by God. To what end is this motive and theology directed? The hidden agenda of Open Theism is apparent, because it is opening the door for a unification of what are now many divergent beliefs. It is a theology that appeals to the lowest common denominator by which unity can be achieved. It is a theology that humanizes God and deifies man. Open Theism can embrace the Mormon church, which is desperately seeking to appear to be mainstream Christianity, and its concept of God who is imperfect and continually in a state of learning. Recently, Gordon Hinckley, Prophet and President of the Mormon church, has equivocated on the historic and basic Mormon doctrine that man can become a god. Consequently, their teaching that the god of this universe was once a man, might eventually be placed in their archives of convenient forgetfulness, opening the way to a connection with mainstream Christianity. The Positive Confession, Word of Faith proponents, such as Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland, who claim that words and faith have superior power over the will of God and can control the actions of God, would have no difficulty embracing Open Theism. Kenneth Copeland already embraces the belief taught in Open Theism that God makes mistakes, because he has stated, "God is the biggest failure in the Bible. The reason you've never thought that is because He never said He was one." Many, many groups holding to Arminian theology, in which God is subject to the choice of man, could easily embrace Open Theism with only minor adjustments, including many Baptist groups such as the Baptist General Conference which administers Bethel College where Greg Boyd is a professor and who is a major proponent of the theology. With the charismatic experience having already united many Protestant and Catholic groups, the meeting of the charismatic (which is exclusively Arminian in theology) and Open Theism could further bring about a unity of unprecedented magnitude. To be mainstream is not necessarily to adopt a biblical foundation, and in most situations that is the case. Unity can always be achieved by adopting the lowest common denominator which, in the majority of cases, is to deny the absolute sovereignty of God. To be unified against the fundamental attributes of God is a unity of heresy. The proponents of Open Theism are not concerned with promoting the dignity, majesty, glory and righteousness of God, but are concerned with their own time of fame, in which they can establish themselves as the authority over those who would accept their views. They are unswayed by the Biblical arguments against their claims, because it is irrelevant whether what they say is true or false, only that they can make a claim and assert their expertise in relation to their adherents. Their concern for what those who oppose them might say, goes only so far as to what course they will follow to circumvent the criticism marshaled against them. Although masquerading under the cloak of historic protestant orthodox belief, Open Theism is a very sinister and deceitful heresy of the highest magnitude. Does it matter that this God of Open Theism is claimed to be the true God who should be worshipped and trusted? READ ABOUT WHAT THIS DOCTRINE MEANS ON THIS WEBSITE The Impossibility of "God Of The Possible" Richard L. Mayhue - The Masters Seminary Journal - Volume 12, pp. 203- 220 Is The Glory Of God At Stake In God's Foreknowledge Of Human Choices? John S. Piper Open Theism Gary E. Gilley Is There Knowledge In The Most High? Larry D. Pettegrew - The Masters Seminary Journal - Volume 12, pp. 133- 148 How Open Theism Helps Us Conceal Our Hidden Idolatries John S. Piper Does God Make Mistakes? John S. Piper The Enormous Ignorance Of God John S. Piper Answering Greg Boyd's Openness Of God Texts John S. Piper The Openness Of God: Does Prayer Change God? William D. Barrick - The Masters Seminary Journal - Volume 12, pp. 149-166 ON JESUS CHRIST AND SALVATION If Open Theism redefines the nature and character of God, then, by necessity, it must also redefine the nature and character of Jesus Christ, since "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation," (Colossians 1:15 NAS). Since Open Theism defines God as less than traditionally believed, Jesus Christ must also be less than traditionally believed, since He is representative of His Father. By the same measure, since God and Jesus Christ are less than traditionally believed, then the same must be true of the Holy Spirit. Where does Open Theism leave Jesus Christ, who claims all authority and power was granted to Him by the Father? According to Open Theism, the Father does not have all power or all authority, and is lacking in ability and the understanding necessary to accomplish His plans. It is not possible that the Son is greater than the Father, so the Son must be subject to the same defects possessed by the Father as defined in Open Theism. If God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are as defined by Open Theism, then all Christians should be very much afraid, because their souls are in danger and their salvation is suspect, because those charged with their safekeeping are defective in their ability to provide contingencies for future events that might endanger their security. READ ABOUT WHAT THIS VIEW MEANS ON THIS WEBSITE Open Theism's Attack On The Atonement John F. MacArthur ON HISTORICAL REFLECTION The subsequent semi-Pelagianism which has stained the thought of the whole Latin Church, and the Arminianism which has sapped the purity of so large a section of Protestant thought, are but less acute forms of the same exaggeration of human rights and powers as over against the sovereign right and absolute power of the Ruler of the universe. And just as the pagan considers his idol as his property, and requires of it the services which he asks of it-beating it when it fails to give according to his desires, and destroying it when it no longer fulfills his expectations-so modern "thinkers," still considering themselves Christians, look upon their God as the product of their intellection, keep him strictly to the activities for which they have invented him, and require at his hands all that they have made him for. So poor Heine was sure of forgiveness, for, as he said, "that is what God is for"; and so our new Kantians acknowledge God only so far as they have need of him to harmonize their intellectual difficulties or solve their moral doubts. Like the idols of the heathen, he is the work of their hands, and exists only to serve their ends. They never imagine that they are the work of his hands and exist only to serve his ends. ---- Benjamin B. WarfieldBenjamin Warfield speaks about the origins of heresies in the above statement, his description bearing striking similarities to the origins of Open Theism. Rarely, if ever, does a heretical doctrine attempt to present a higher and more lofty view of God, but to do just the opposite, by demeaning and humiliating the God taught in the Bible and exalting humanity to a higher position to which it is not entitled. There is no lack of current heresies which fit the definition. Their number is legion, but among the most popular are: Positive Confession, Word of FaithVIEW BENJAMIN WARFIELD'S ARTICLE ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF HERESY ON THIS WEBSITE Heresy and Concession Benjamin B. Warfield, from The Presbyterian Messenger, May 7, 1896, p. 672 ON BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION "That a single passage has one meaning and one meaning only has been a long-established principle in biblical interpretation. Among evangelicals, recent violations of that principle have multiplied. Violations have included those by Clark Pinnock with his insistence on adding "future" meanings to historical meanings of a text. Mikel Neumann and his expansion of the role of contextualization, Greg Beale and Grant Osborne and their views about certain features of Revelation 11, recent works on hermeneutics and their advocacy of multiple meanings for a single passage, Kenneth Gentry and his preterist views on Revelation, and Progressive Dispensationalism with its promotion of complimentary hermeneutics. The single-meaning principle is of foundational importance in understanding God's communication with mankind, just as it has been since the creation of the human race. The entrance of sin in Genesis 3 brought a confusion in this area that has continued ever since." ---- The Masters Seminary Journal READ THE ARTICLE ABOUT SINGLE MEANING INTERPRETATION The Principle Of Single Meaning The Master's Seminary Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 33-47 Robert L. Thomas ON JOURNALS "Like other recent evangelical innovations, Open Theism has faltered through its use of errant hermeneutical principles. It has adopted a wrong view of general revelation, has allowed preunderstanding to produce a subjectively biased understanding of various texts, has used 1 John 4:8 as an interpretative center for the whole of Scripture, and has followed a discourse analysis approach that fails to take into account the context of various statements. Open Theism views the sovereignty of God as limited, an inadequate view that is especially prominent in the way it advocates handling Romans 9-11. A careful tracing of the reasoning of Romans 9 in particular reveals that the open-theistic view that God has surrendered some of His sovereignty is totally unbiblical." READ THE ARTICLE ABOUT HERMENEUTICS The Hermeneutics Of Open Theism Robert L. Thomas - The Master's Seminary Journal - Vol. 12, pp. 179-202 "Eight sermons in Isaiah 40-48 pose a challenge to Open Theism's limitation of the Lord's power and knowledge of the future. Rhetorical questions and declarations about the certainty of divine purpose are two literary strategies employed by Isaiah. Rhetorical interrogation and appropriate vocabulary and facts characterize the first sermon in Isaiah 40. These constitute a powerful indictment against Israel for her lack of trust in the Lord. According to Isaiah 46, He planned the creation from outside of time and history and implemented His plans within time and history. Isaiah 44 cites classic examples of His governance in world history, including His naming in advance a Persian king who would decree the rebuilding of Jerusalem. These sermons also cite the deeds of the Lord in dealing with Israel and the nations. The sermons, though addressed to Israel as a rebuke for her idolatry, also point out the error of Open Theism in that system's demeaning of God and exalting of man." READ THE ARTICLE ABOUT THE SERMONS IN ISAIAH Isaiah 40-48: A Sermonic Challenge To Open Theism Trevor CraigenThe Master's Seminary Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 167-177 ON CHRISTIAN SOCIETY Does biblical doctrine make a difference in the lives of the majority of those who claim to be Christian? Apparently not and it should come as no real surprise. With the advent of self-oriented theology, found in the teachings of Open Theism, Word of Faith, Dominion Theology and many Charismatic groups, and the feel-good homilies of the psychological gospel, people are being taught that God is not nearly as much in control as has been assumed and man has more authority and power than has previously been demonstrated. It is claimed that the actions of God can be controlled by the words and decisions that man makes, placing God in a position of subservience instead of being he sovereign deity of the universe. An eclectic mixture of various beliefs, all designed to enhance the self-esteem and position human beings, along with a consequent reduction of accountability to God, provides theologies of convenience; teachings which the adherents have determined that they wish to hear rather than what God has stated that they need. People have adopted the approach that simply believing or making an assertion makes a claim true. What are some of the core assumptions, leading to beliefs that deviate significantly from biblical truth? READ THE CURRENT FINDINGS OF BARNA RESEARCH - Off Site: www.barna.org Barna Identifies Seven Paradoxes Regarding America's Faith ADDITIONAL ARTICLES FROM BARNA RESEARCH - Off Site: www.barna.org Beliefs: General Religious Evangelical Christians Beliefs: Theological Beliefs: Salvation American Faith is Diverse, as Shown Among Five Faith-Based Segments Americans Are More Likely to Base Truth on Feelings READ ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHRISTIAN ON THIS WEBSITE Gospel Grounds And Evidences Of The Faith Of God's Elect John Owen 1616-1683 Christianity Without Christ Charles Hodge 1797-1878 Marks Of A True Conversion George Whitefield 1714-1770 The Nature Of Saving Faith John F. MacArthur, Jr. 1939 What Is Christianity? J. Gresham Machen 1881-1937 What Is A Christian? On Doctrine or E-MAIL ON DOCTRINE AT: ondoctrine@ondoctrine.com
|
COPYRIGHT © 2002 by ON
DOCTRINE & ONDOCTRINE.COM, All Rights Reserved