Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 191835 | ||
Doc, You said “Their work, founded on the sole authority of Scripture, are openly available to us all.” While their work was founded on the sole authority of Scripture, each of those bible scholars was a product of their times. For example, consider this observation from the book Jesus Through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture, by Jaroslav Pelikan, Sterling Professor of History Emeritus at Yale: “During the past two thousand years, few issues if any have so persistently brought out the fundamental assumptions of each epoch as has the attempt to come to terms with the meaning of the figure of Jesus of Nazareth.” My point is that Boyd contends that he has rigorously observed the sole authority of scripture, as does Piper, as do all the other bible scholars of good repute. As I read both Piper and Boyd, I believe this to be true, i.e. I can find no instances of invoking authority outside scripture in their derivations. Neither of these authors is heretical, for they uphold the fundamental tenets of our faith. Yet, on matters that do not fundamentally affect our relationship with Jesus, i.e. His divinity, etc, on those matters that reasonably can and should be explored within the context of the core truths about Jesus, these two most respected bible scholars hold mutually exclusive views. This does not imply that one or the other has erred, but rather the truth about the positions they hold cannot be established with absolute certainty. This is why these questions are not part of the orthodox canon. Because of this, I agree that Open Theism is not of great important for this forum, except it does represent an attempt to understand issues such as were raised by an adolescent boy to his father who struggles to respond from a strictly orthodox perspective. If you disagree with Boyd’s conclusions, that is your right, but to imply on that basis that Boyd has not respected the sole authority of scripture is unfounded. If you can cite one specific instance in which Boyd has erred by invoking authority other than scripture to justify his position, I would be most interested. Peace, Parable |
||||||
2 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 191852 | ||
Greetings Parable! I actually sat under one of the major Open Theism proponents while in college, Dr. William Hasker. There are so many theological errors in this position that it would be impossible to touch upon all of them. So, allow me to briefly discuss just one with you. The Open Theism position, including that of Boyd, is that God cannot know future events, because they are unknowable (as they haven't happened yet). Yet, when we read the story of Joseph, we find that God knows how many years of plenty there will be, and how many years of famine there will be. He also knows the choices that Joseph's brothers, Potiphar, Potiphar's wife, the prison warden, the cup bearer, the baker, Pharoah, and even Joseph himself will make. We see this expressed in Joseph's great statement of faith in Gen. 50:20 - "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives." John Sanders (another open theist) writes about this verse, "I take this to mean that God has brought something good out of their evil actions." John Sanders, The God Who Risks, a Theology of Providence (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998) p. 55. This is clearly not Scriptural. Throughout the account, one sees God both knowing and working toward a certain future. Take the prediction of Peter's threefold denial of Christ. Open Theists argue that God only predicted what would happen because of God's exhaustive knowledge of Peter's character. Yet, the prediction wasn't that Peter would simply deny Christ. The prediction was that Peter would deny Christ three times before the rooster crowed (Mt. 26:34). Read Isaiah 41 where God is contrasted and compared with the false idols. The idols do not know the future, but God has proclaimed it to Israel. Or consider Is. 42:7, where God says of Himself, "See, the former things have taken place, and new things I declare; before they spring into being I announce them to you." Consider Gen. 15:13, where God tells Abram what will happen to his descendants and exactly how long they will be in slavery in Egypt. God is described in Is. 46:10, "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please." Open Theism's view of God is far from Scriptural. They view God as not knowing the future, as making mistakes, and of being surprised by future events. This is a far cry from what Scripture actually teaches about God my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||