"The whole import and substance of the Bible teaches us that the God who does not need any thing nevertheless desires the adoration and worship of His created children."
Whatever Happened to Worship?, AW Tozer, pg37.
Worship: God's Presence on Monday
Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the
glory of God
--1 Corinthians 10:31
On Monday, as we go about our different duties and tasks, are we aware of the Presence of God? The Lord desires still to be in His holy temple, wherever we are. He wants the continuing love and delight and worship of His children, wherever we work.
Is it not a beautiful thing for a businessman to enter his office on Monday morning with an inner call to worship: "The Lord is in my office--let all the world be silent before Him."
If you cannot worship the Lord in the midst of your responsibilities on Monday, it is not very likely that you were worshiping on Sunday!...
I guess many people have an idea that they have God in a box. He is just in the church sanctuary, and when we leave and drive toward home, we have a rather faint, homesick feeling that we are leaving God in the big box.
You know that is not true, but what are you doing about it?
Whatever Happened to Worship?, AW Tozer, pg122.
75 comments:
I need the Holy Spirit to worship you today as I go to work; so be with me Heavenly Father and fill with your Spirit. Help me not to panic or be overwhelmed; help me to continually remember you.
Amen
Good post, quotes, and nice prayer to pray Susan.
Jesus said, "You human fathers, who are evil, know how to give good things to your kids, so how much greater is your Heavenly Father going to give you good things, and the Holy Spirit, when you ask Him." (paraphrased)
I've missed your posts.
He is unchanging when I am like waves tossing things about.
The immutability of God is a comforting doctrine. Unfortunately, some Bible teachers do not correctly handle difficult passages like Genesis 6:6, where God seems to have changed his mind. If He is sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient and immutable, there must be a better way than telling people flat-out that yes, God can change His mind.
Think about it. How unsettling would that be, if the great I AM was as capricious as the man-made legends of pagan cultures?
Humm - while I agree in principle, to be God He must have the freedom to do as He sees fit, even if that involves changing His mind. He must not be constrained in any way except that He must be true to His own character.
However, since He is infinitely wise and all knowing, He already knows all things at all times and has laid His plans accordingly; so He never needs to change His mind.
I think the rub comes in when the question isn't clear. It's a whole different matter if one is asking, "what is possible with God" with the response, "for God all things in accordance with His character are possible" versus "what did He actually do". They seem to me to be totally separate issues.
I think that is what can be confusing if the language used is not precise enough. Of course the Biblical passages that suggest God "repented" of a choice He'd made make it all the more confusing.
How would you phrase that (Gen 6:6) in English to properly reflect the true character of God and yet remain true to the passage?
I would never presume to rephrase Bible text. Expository teaching is quite a different matter, though.
When studying, we begin anything we do with a certain perspective. For philosophers, it is called "worldview," and mathematicians might call it a "given." Theologians have their "doctrine." In any case, we always go in knowing at least a little about something. When a challenge is presented to these foundational presuppositions, it is necessary to investigate, rather than blurt it out.
Yes, God can do anything he wants. But if he has revealed that he does not change, then we must take him at his word. {Numbers 23:19, Isaiah 46:10-11, Malachi 3:6, James 1:17}
If there seems to be an inconsistency in Scripture, we cannot just pick whichever verse we like. God is not conflicted and incongruent, so we go back to the texts with the new assumption that all cannot be as it seems. Then we dig until we find a reasonable solution.
When I read that passage, I see a Holy God who is disgusted with sin. I get an idea of how horrible our sin problem really is, and I come to a place where I realize that I need to be rescued; I need a Savior.
The scripture tells us God doesn't repent as man (1 Sma. 15:29).
He does change His mind with Nineveh, and doesn't destroy the city. Becasue, the poeple repent.
Did God know they would repent is where Open Theism is born, and is growing. There are those who believe the Bible teaches God doesn't know the future, and so He responds accordingly.
This could be a long thread if we discuss Open Theism.
The way i see God is that in the moment God is in that moment, as with Adam, when he said, "Adam where are you?" Certainly He knew, and even knew Adam would sin, but I believe God was grieved when Adam sinned.
For our finite minds we can't fathom that.
I believe God elected me from before He created the universe for His own, and yet i was a blasphemous sinner, and so the day came when He set my soul free from the darkness and from my sin, and from the devil, and brought me to repentance and trusting in His death and resurrection, and on that day there was joy in the Lord's heart, and in heaven, as there was for Craver, Susan, and all whom the Lord saves, and brings into His kingdom and family.
I do not disagree Craver; however, one must use some explanation as to the apparent conflict and that is what I was asking you. How would you personally have explained the text to both show the immutability of God but take into account what the text actually says.
Don, do you mean that Open Theism says that God did not know all things from before the beginning of time? My Bible Study Fellowship teacher has this saying that I like, "did it ever occur to you that nothing occurs to God?"
That is a good question. I wish I had the time to study the passage more, to present a decent answer. You know that I have a whole bunch of things going on right now, and my breaks have been used up for the day at work. But If I was preparing a lesson on this topic, you can be sure that I would either have a good answer prepared or steer clear of controversial statements that I was not prepared to defend. Right now, I can say for sure that it doesn't jive, to say that the immutable God changes his mind. The passage seems to have more to do with a proclamation of displeasure with the sinful deeds of rebellious creatures... and less to do with establishing doctrine on the attributes of God.
Susan, there are teachers like Greg Boyd ( http://www.gregboyd.org), who teach that God doesn't know all of the future. He is surprised the way things work out, and even becomes as sad as we do.
"..Boyd speaks of God as being surprised by what occurs. Commenting on Jeremiah 3;6-7, 19-20, he writes,
Since God is omniscient, he always knew that it was remotely possible for his people to be stubborn, for example. But he genuinely did not expect them to actualize this remote possibility. he authentically expected that they'd be won over by his grace."
Boyd loves free will, and says there is no free will if God already knows what will happen.
He is a very bright theologian, but he is also a heretic on this one teaching.
And there are many others who have followed this Open Theism doctrine.
Oh my gosh, Don. That is appalling! I didn't have any idea that anyone thought like that.
Craver - gonna disagree with you there. I don't have any trouble reading straight through a passage and saying, "hum, I don't really know how this fits together with this other truth because it can't actually mean....." and then just moving on. Scripture says that some knowledge belongs to us and some just to Him. So I'm not uncomfortable with not clearly understanding how the two fit together.
I also think that it was a literal reading of what was there, not a statement of theology. I believe a large dollop of grace is needed when observing and listening especially to new teachers. Everyone misspeaks at some time or another or says something poorly, or communicates it in an way that is not clearly understood by the hearers. That's why it's called progressive sanctification.
i am thinking lately that worship must vary from person to person, and variable as to where a person is, the surroundings, and circumstances.
i would think that there are some things about what worship is, that might be agreed on by many people, and then there is probably other ideas of what it is, that is personal to each person.
Hi Susan, Craver, Don et al,
Good thoughts here. The way I've come to understand God "changing His mind" can be grasps well through the Nineveh event. It wasn't God who changed. He would have destroyed Nineveh. However, the situation changed: the people of Nineveh repented. Same with when God was about to destroy Israel and then Moses pleaded with God and God didn't destroy them. It wasn't God who changed; the situation changed: Moses prayed.
I have to agree with Craver in all he's been saying here. The immutability of God is very clear in Scripture. And in situations like that when there is something very clearly taught in the Bible then the more ambiguous things should be interpreted in light of the clear things. Does that make sense? Let scripture interpret scripture. The clear things can open up to us the ambiguous. And the unchangeableness of God is quite clear in Scripture. And thank goodness it is so! For instance, what if God really could change His mind? He might say, "I had a plan of saving people through my Son, but now I've changed My mind!" How terrifying. And this wouldn’t necessarily go against his character since His character demands our condemnation. It is His immutability which should ever give us confidence in our salvation in Christ. As He said in Malachi 3:6:
“For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed”
…And even in the Genesis 6 account, it is not God who changed. The situation changed: The earth filled with sin and every intent of man's heart became only evil continually (Gen. 6:5). V. 6 is God's response to the changed situation.
BTW: When I said in my previous comment that "it would not necessarily be against his character" I know it would be against His character to lie and promise us one thing and do another. I was simply thinking of His character of holiness which demands punishment for sin.
"The passage seems to have more to do with a proclamation of displeasure with the sinful deeds of rebellious creatures... and less to do with establishing doctrine on the attributes of God" (Craver). Do you see the Bible as a systematic theology text or catechism? I see that most of what we know of God in the Bible is God's self-revelation by means of his historical dealings with people. Thus a text may not itself have at its purpose only the revelation of God's attributes, but we learn who God is by what he does. It's just like that of any human relationship.
As for God seemingly "changing his mind," here's one way to think of it: God does, in fact, change his mind: he had said he was going to destroy Nineveh, but at their repentance, he relented and did not destroy it. So in one sense he changed his mind or relented. But in another sense he is unchangeable and consistent, not fickle as man: His set purpose and lasting manner is to relent of disaster when sinful man repents. At repentance God's attitude really does change, yet it changes in accord with his consistent character. These passages need not be contradictory, yet we can consider them on their own terms.
As for Genesis 6:6, the verse in question, it merely says that "God was grieved" and that "his heart was filled with pain" at his creation gone awry. It never says he changed his mind. It's like a parent whose child is ill and needs a medicinal injection. The parent knows ahead of time that the cure will be painful for the child, and so the parent still grieves over what he knows must be done--even what he knew ahead of time.
Good thoughts and post, Susan. And we continue to pray.
God in a box. Yes, don't we do that, unfortunately. God is faithful, and personal, and wants a relationship with us. And in that, he wants to change us- in Jesus, radically.
I don't have any trouble reading straight through a passage and saying, "hum, I don't really know how this fits together with this other truth because it can't actually mean....." and then just moving on.
Sure, Susan. You and I may not be too far off from each other, because I'm totally fine with how you phrased that. Unfortunately, that's different from the bold proclamation that was made in the class. The question was flat-out asked: "Does God change his mind? ...Yes, he does." And there was no attempt to reconcile that bold statement with the Scriptures that conflict, and there was no challenge from anyone in the room, either. I was hoping at least to hear someone ask for clarification.
There is no shame in saying, "Guys, I did my homework, but I had trouble with this verse because..." Or "Listen, there is something there worth studying, and maybe we'll go there some day, but today..."
I do not see the entire body of text as systematic theology or catechism. There are parts which are historical narrative, poetry, parable, prophecy, and doctrine. I imagine it's okay to treat the Ten Commandments as catechism, but not a parable.
By the way folks, I absolutely do intend to follow through with the teacher, but I don't want to clobber the guy, so I'm working with someone to determine the right course of action. ...Grace plus truth.
That someone being me, Craver or someone else that wasn't in the room at the time?
Don't read more into it than what I said. There were forty people in that room and nobody questioned the statement. It is not a personal attack. For all I know, any of the leaders could have been distracted. I myself, had to tell one of the kids to stop stabbing his neighbor with the pencil.
So, that "somebody" could be anybody.
“...Grace plus truth.”
Craver, perhaps you could say you’d like to talk with him. Then offer him a soft feather pillow on which he can rest his head. Afterwards, quietly slip a black cloth over your head and reveal the poleax. From there you could begin "I've been thinking about what you said in class...."
Just foolin' around, bro!
Triston, I'd say you have a sick sense of humor, but since I smiled reading it, that would get me as well! :)
Craver, not taking it personally or thinking it was meant personally. I was trying to keep the "level" down to what I think it was, a poor communication of what the teacher actually believes and within the circle of adults that were present and actually "heard" what was said. I say "heard" because sometimes I'm so taken aback by something someone says, I'm thinking about it and don't hear the following qualifying statements and then miss the intent of their statements. I'm also very poor at remembering exact conversations, just impressions. I also took it, from the student comments afterward, that what they took away en mass, was that God was merciful not that He was "changeable".
So glad you caught the pencil stabber - hopefully you and I will be able to "relocate" that particular individual - or any others you caught that I didn't (you didn't think I sat facing the group for fun, right? :) - and redirect their seating arrangements on Sunday.
Drew - actually, I think I like the intent behind your statements even better than mine - that apparent inconsistencies are actually consistent because they stay true to His overall character and plan - is that what you are saying - do I understand correctly?
Brothers and sisters,
Give this a fair reading, one good example here, and you'll see that Gregory Boyd is not espousing heresy. (I'm not saying I agree -or disagree- on the knowledge of God aspect, I don't know, but certainly see God as all-knowing)
And I'm glad Deb is reading, and she's enjoying this book by Boyd. Another book like it, by Os Guinness, is one of my favorites.
Need I point out that as great as Martin Luther and John Calvin were, they had their errors in both their doctrine and practice? All do, because even though in the faith, we are fallible.
"Gregory Boyd is not espousing heresy."
Greg says God doesn't know the future Ted. That a different God than the orthodox God throughout the History of the Church.
I like Greg Boyd, he is an expert drummer, but he is no expert on the Scriptures. He is very bright, but he is in grave error.
But I suppose we need to argue this somewhere else. Unless Susan wants us to discuss Open Theism, and how it is a false doctrine.
"Drew - actually, I think I like the intent behind your statements even better than mine - that apparent inconsistencies are actually consistent because they stay true to His overall character and plan - is that what you are saying - do I understand correctly?" -- Yes, I think you nailed it. And even when we cannot put together all the pieces in a way that makes sense to us, this doesn't mean that they are actually at odds with one another or that they are contradictory in God's mind and according to his wisdom. We have to remember that we are servants and he is Lord; our knowledge and apprehension are bound by time, experiences, culture, worldview, spiritual receptivity, and--above all--God's own freedom and sovereignty in revealing or clouding that which he chooses (Deut. 29:29).
Don,
I have to agree with the Calvin professor. I may not agree with Boyd, I didn't agree with the one book I had by an open theist, but I say you're not reading him with a hermeneutic of both truth and love. In other words, you're pulling out the worst case construction on his writings. Anyone can pull out a quote and take one out of context.
Such a view also shows a lack of understanding the complexities over what many have said among Christian leaders and writers throughout the centuries.
Piper is wrong, following Luther who was wrong, who followed Augustine influenced by the Pelagian heresy, who was wrong in how he read Paul, and N.T. Wright and the New Perspective for whatever is surely wrong in it, sets them right basically, on that- on justification, etc.
Luther was not only anti-Jewish, but anti-Semitic; Calvin believed that adulterers should be put to death in his Geneva. But I can get all kinds of great good from them both.
I myself put Boyd in the same classification as Brian McLaren. I'll read neither one anymore, and in the case of Boyd, I haven't read him at all to speak of, that I'm familiar with.
Some are always going after others, calling their teaching heresy, and I'm saying you'd better slow down and read more. Because if I said what I thought about the teaching of those in that kind of hunt from what I see on the Internet, it would be far from pretty.
Sorry to put it so bluntly and boldly. But I say Boyd is not being read so as to give him the benefit of the doubt. Classic theism and all theology is not infallible by the way, as are not the Reformers or any theology. All must be taken over and over again to Scripture, and all of it.
This is admittedly from my limited perspective. But if you refuse to get any good from someone like Boyd, then throw out Piper, Origen, Wright, Augustine, all of them, is all I'm saying.
"...the infinitely intelligent God is able to attend to each and every one of a gazillion possibilities as though each one were the only possibility he had to attend to. This means he anticipates each possibility, or series of possibilities, as perfectly as if it was the settled future of the classical view. He doesn’t lose anything. God is as prepared for each and every possible event in the future as he would be if he foreknew it as a certainty from all eternity."
Greg Boyd (from "The Significance of God’s Infinitude", on first link on my previous comment)
Ted,
I know you hate to use the word heresy; hate to have anyone quickly labeled a heretic, and that is admirable. However, when throughout all Christian history the church has universally confessed a certain belief (such as God knowing all things; God knowing the future) and someone comes along and denies this universal orthodox belief, then that person's teaching is technically heresy — unless the meaning of the word heresy is robbed of its meaning.
Probably my closest friend of all is a full-preterist. I love him. I know he is a genuine Christian. He knows the Bible better than me. I could sing his praises all day (his strong faith in Christ; the way he raises his kids, the love and devotion he has for his wife, his integrity, the myriad of other doctrinal issues on which he is on solid ground, etc), but none of this takes away the fact that by denying the “future” return of Christ, he has put his self outside of orthodoxy. Full-preterism is heresy, and Open theism is also heresy (unless the word heresy doesn’t mean heresy any more). Open theism goes against what all Christians in all times have universally confessed, making it heresy.
I honestly don't know how you can disagree with this (above) in light of what the word heresy means. Are you suggesting we should redefine the meaning of heresy?
And (I know you will disagree with this below) but even people such as Wright who are trying to redefine justification are fooling around with the same danger. They are good Christians (as are people like Boyd) but they might slip outside of orthodoxy and embrace a technical heresy (in the Protestant arm of Christendom).
Ted,
The quote you provided from Greg Boyd shows that he denies that God knows the future. God does not know the future; He only knows all the infinite possibilities. Boyd is denying what all Christians in all history in every branch of Christendom have confessed: That God knows the future. From the quote you provide, it is clear that Boyd embraces the heresy of open theism. I've already explained why open theism is heresy, unless you want to redefine the meaning of the word heresy itself.
Heresy defined:
"Any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position."
I'll try again.
Lt'l Luther,
I have no trouble using the word "heresy". I'd like to apply it to five point Calvinism, but I know better. Spencer Burke wrote a heretical book (maybe he's repented since then; I don't know), one of the so-called "Emergents", but that doesn't make all other Emergents heretical in their teachings. The Reformers and those of the New Persepective disagree among themselves. You have to take each of the open theists for what they say.
But for those who want to continue to call Boyd's teaching heretical, read more. Read his quote I left, and do so with a hermeneutic of love, and truth. And we can agree to disagree.
That's my last word on this. If anyone wants to bring up anything more, please email me.
"I myself put Boyd in the same classification as Brian McLaren. I'll read neither one anymore, and in the case of Boyd, I haven't read him at all to speak of, that I'm familiar with."
I don't. Brian is way way outside orthodoxy, and he keeps on going and going like the Everyready Battery bunny. There's no hell, the Cross is false advertising, homosexula pastors are endorsed, and political advertising for Obama as a pastor, and endorsing him big time.
Boyd seems to be in error, but doesn't run crazy like McLaren. Though I'm not that familiar with Grege, and so maybe he is on the same road as Brian. I hope not.
I was amiss on my reference to five point Calvinism, and do ask for everyone's forgiveness on that.
Thanks.
Discuss away, gentlemen, if you'd like. Only please do so with grace and gentleness. I'd hate to behave like a parent and put comment enabling on again. Do remember that there are others reading, even if they don't comment, besides yourselves.
I do have a question though - and it is serious as it concerns me. What does one do when, as in Luther (if I am wrong and he is not the one) takes on positions that are just plain wrong and cannot be defended by good conscience. Surely we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. And yet, it seems that we are willing to do so when people come about it in the opposite fashion - throwing out all the work when we know some to be tainted.
I'm not espousing embrassing open whatever by any means. I also consider it to be heresy. But I am wondering what we do with the teachings of some when we think parts are in error. For example, I think it is Rob Bell that has much good work and yet some of his theology I just don't buy. Perhaps (no gasping from the audience please) even John Piper and I have areas like this where I disagree. So, do I "pitch" them all together?
Just thinking out loud and wondering what you all think about the issue.
Sorry - off for more work - do pray as you remember. These final days are very distressing and things are not going well at the old place that I'm packing up and moving from or the paperwork for the new place that I'm supposed to move to. I'm supposed to "start" July 1 but the current estimation is that the paperwork won't be completed before August 1.
PS - I think our conversation has been interesting but I should say for the record that Craver and I were having a "conversation" by blog that we likely should have had by email only since we were discussing a particular situation that we were both present for and the rest of you, save my Andrew, were not.
PSS - remember that I cannot for the life of me spell and some of the words, as I read over the comment I just posted, "look" pretty wrong!
Susan, I am the worse speller on planet earth. You hardly ever make a spelling error.
As far as be discerning of others teaching it's a wide variety of Christians out there. However, the Cross of Christ, and His bodily resurrection can never be compromised. When the Gospel is twisted even a bit, then this teaching, and teacher are to be accursed.
And at the same time we should have hearts that would want to be accursed for them.
Halfmom, Susan,
We continue to pray!
Your comment is excellent, and I think in a recent comment I touch on this very problem. For example Origen who was too influenced by Greek philosophy, had teachings deemed heretical by the church, and if I'm not mistaken, with some good reason. Yet to some extent he has been exonerated. And his work contributed to the orthodox formulation of the teaching of the Trinity, hammered out in the church council, years later.
Seminary was partly an experience of shock for me. You learned not to be in shock any longer, nor to jump to conclusions, but to ask questions, and search out matters for yourself. Which is why I'm so slow to slap down the heresy label on teachings, as I want to see them in their full context.
One thing is a given: no one will be right on everything, and no theology or theological position is infallible.
Good points, Ted.
Susan, like counseling, the best time to work with the issues is when they are still manageable, I think. Too often we wait until something has gotten out of control, and drastic measures then have to be taken.
That is not to say that we should also judiciously "pick our battles." There is a time to simply let it go.
If the discussions can happen in a loving and reasonable manner, we could get a whole lot of things hammered out.
"If the discussions can happen in a loving and reasonable manner, we could get a whole lot of things hammered out."
And nailed down.
When I hear someone say, "I think the Scriptures teach that God changed His mind, so could it be possible He doesn't really know the future?" And this same person would be someoine I know, then I'm willing to go to Scripture and study these things.
When I see a book on the market that teaches God doesn't know the future, then I hope my pastor will check this out.
In act my pastor, Greg Dutcher, did read Greg Boyd's bbok on Open theism. I asked Greg, "Is Grege off, or is this heresy. Grege said, "It's a heresy."
So I have warned the people in my church that there's a false teaching about God, and it's called Open Theism theology, which says God doesn't know the future, but He has a very incredible ability to imagine how things may turn out, yet He can be wrong. This is a false teaching in the Church. Beware."
The teachers John Sanders, Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, and others, are our brothers in Christ, as far as I know, and yet are in grave error.
I pray they would turn from this false teaching that God doesn't know the future. Because it teaches a different God than the sovereign God of the Bible, who does know all things throughout all eternity. Open theism can surely lead people astray, and even to other false teachings as well.
Thanks, Craver. I like your last point especially well. Reminds me of the book I want to read I mention on my blog posting of today (not to ad my blog, but it just so happens).
Good point, Don. I agree. But is that really answering Susan's question. She would know better than I. But by what you say there, I would argue that both McLaren and Boyd are not preaching a different gospel. By clear profession, they accept the orthodox faith, e.g., Jesus as God-Human, and they believe in Jesus' atoning death for sin, and resurrection, and that this is at the heart of the gospel.
As I understand her question, it's more like- can we accept good from those who are in the faith, even if they do have heretical or questionable teachings?
Perhaps your words "twisted even a bit", you need to explain better. Paul meant in Galatians, as I understand it, that if anyone teaches that circumcision in the flesh is necessary to be God's people, then that person is to be accursed. That only through Christ in his death and resurrection, and by faith, is anyone a child of Abraham.
So I'm just not sure what you're saying on this.
Don,
I can see by your comment that you at least see Boyd as a brother in the Lord, who evidently then, is not preaching a different, alien gospel.
With all due respect, I'm not so sure that Boyd's teaching is heretical on that issue. I would say, Not so at this point- but unlike your pastor, who as a pastor should read such books- and I commend him for that!- I have not read it, and really have no interest in open theistic writers, though I myself have wondered if there is any future laid out before God for him to know. He certainly knows what he is going to do, and can override any human will and change it at any time, as he did with Cyrus and Balaam- I take it. And he knows precisely what he will do, as we read in Revelation, at the end of the story (and a new beginning). But I take the position that I just don't know, but I do see God as infinite (just as Boyd himself emphasizes), and transcending, as well as filling space and time.
I went ahead, because Susan seemed to open the door for further discussion on this issue, here, provided we behave ourselves! :)
"God is as prepared for each and every possible event in the future as he would be if he foreknew it as a certainty from all eternity" (G. Boyd). I'm sorry, Ted, but I think open theism is flat-out wrong and--gasp!--heretical. God did, in fact, foreknow and foreordain the world's course of events and has secured the future of his kingdom. This is why he was able to prophesy of events to come (e.g., the Messiah being born in Bethlehem, whatever). I think we (non-open theists) have problems with what is possible, though, because we fashion God into our image, unable to imagine how God could know the future. Because God's omniscience is a "non-communicable" attribute that doesn't correspond to anything in human nature or experience, I think our speculation about it (a) always falls short; (b) needs to be based on what is clear in Scripture (Deut. 29:29); and (c) handled graciously by those who disagree as we allow room for mystery.
I'm not sure yet whether I'd label Brian McLaren as a heretic, since I've only read his Generous Orthodoxy. But McLaren's "orthodoxy" makes Karl Barth look like John Gresham Machen! (For you non-Presbyterians, Machen was a staunch advocate of rigorously confessional orthodoxy, while Barth's "neo-orthodoxy" redefined much of orthodox Christian belief.) While I applaud McLaren's desire to see the church become a missional servant movement in the world, he is so far off base that I can't even take him seriously.
...the idea that God learns, and is doing better now than he did in Old Testament times- I have a friend who actually is an ordained pastor, once our pastor in a previous church- not pastoring now- who holds to that, or has advocated it on his blog. I do consider that idea both a misreading of Scripture (e.g., when God tells Abraham, "Now I know that you fear God..." - Gen 22:12), and heresy. I do not believe the man is a heretic, but that this teaching, or notion that he has, at least, embraced, is heresy.
Just to let everyone know that I do believe that some notions of God entertained within an open theistic view, are heretical.
Andrew,
You may well be right. I don't believe God has to orchestrate everything in advance, but in the mystery of God, perhaps he does.
Remember too, we are made in God's image, so while we can fashion God in our own image, there is some sort of correspondence there between us and God. But yes, some characteristics of God I too, indeed take to belong to God alone.
I certainly don't believe God ordains rapes, wars, someone having an affair- like David did, etc., though I also believe that God is somehow sovereign in all things, and has the last word in everything, in Christ, both by judgment, and grace.
"God did, in fact, foreknow and foreordain the world's course of events and has secured the future of his kingdom." -Andrew
God has eternally purposed all things for His glory. The sin and evil in this world are not of God, but are ordained by God.
In fact, the greatest evil wickedness that ever took place on this earth was predestined by a loving Father, and a merciful Savior, Jesus Christ, his beloved Son. The Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ was a despicable and heinous deed of mankind, and yet God purposed this from before creation itself. Why?
For His glory, and so that the whole universe could see His awesome mercy. And also because He loves sinners.
What passage explicitly teaches that, Don? I can think of none.
Nice theology, or at least interesting.
...and I mean with reference to your entire statement (and Andrew's), and not to each part. Of course Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
I'm always outnumbered on this blog. Get out the hankees.
I'll add to that,
It's a nice story, but not the one told by the Bible.
"..but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you" 1 Peter 1:19-20
"..for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your plan had predestined to take place." Acts 4:28
And:
"..yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.
Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief;" Isaiah 53
Come on, Don. That doesn't say what you were saying at all.
Except for the part all Christians have agreed on!
Calvinism is a nice, interesting system, and seems to be based on Scripture, more like certain isolated texts interpreted apart from the whole. But when you work on exegesis and see the whole, it simply does not fit.
God does take seriously what we do. God delights in human love, which is of grace and comes by faith, but he doesn't coerce it. Calvinism saying that God ordains evil and then redemption, and that God ordains everything, including my drifting from God, (oh, not God's moral will for me, but his decree!) is pure nonsense and folly, I'm sorry to say.
And your passages don't bear out at all the whole of what you're claiming.
The same error Piper falls into in his book critiquing N.T. Wright on justification.
No one’s theology is flawless, including yours truly. But to compare Boyd and Piper is outrageous in my opinion. That’s like comparing little league baseball and the major league. Piper is a very gifted teacher and gift to the church. Not so with Boyd and certainly not McLaren. Unfortunately these little league players are having a huge, damaging impact on the game.
I still struggle with our old debate: whether a Christian can believe in evolution and not be in heresy because of all the issues it touches on (original sin, the image of God in Man, Jesus’ own ancestral line going back to Adam, whether the Scripture can be trusted, such as Romans 5 on Adam, etc., etc.). I’m not trying to pick a fight. It’s a genuine struggle in my mind.
Triston,
Augustine was unsettled in his own view as to how to interpret Genesis 1 and 2. He had four different possiblities, and none of them was what so called "Creation Science" espouses.
The greatest problem with Creation Science, I think is not from science, but from Genesis, and the accounts there. I've become convinced of that.
Look at a good pastor who I would listen to any day over either Boyd, or McLaren, who actually travels with Piper, Tim Keller, a Presybterian from NYC whose book, "The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith", along with another book, to help atheists and our witness to such, I most certainly want to read! He accepts evolution himself, but he's solid in the faith, and a Calvinist to boot!
#1) "In fact, the greatest evil wickedness that ever took place on this earth was predestined by a loving Father, and a merciful Savior, Jesus Christ, his beloved Son. The Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ was a despicable and heinous deed of mankind, and yet God purposed this from before creation itself." -- Don's use of Acts 4 is perfectly reasonable, to which I might add Acts 2:23: "This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men."
#2) Please, let's not get back into a creation "versus" evolution debate here, gentlemen.
It is interesting that as I recall even John Wesley believed that God ordained sin, and of course we all agree he ordained redemption.
Okay, I could be wrong, and this could all be a part of the mystery of God, but I take it that what God has revealed, as opposed to the hidden things (Dt) indicates that God indeed does not ordain sin, and the heinous acts of it we see, and struggle with, in our own hearts at times.
So I'm sure we can go our separate ways, and agree to disagree on all of this. We are still one, and united together in Christ.
I would make a good conservative Anglican, because their's is a mediating denomination, at its best. Those who want to divide, I really have problems with. But I'm confident I'll be taken to task for that statement as well, and understood wrongly, understandably so. But this is why we need the message of Alan Jacobs in his book, in bringing out the primacy of love, within the truth in Jesus, as we relate to each other.
My goodness what a surprise I found when I logged in to gmail to see all your comments. You guys have been busy!
I agree Drew - no more conversations about evolution and creation, please! If you wish to have them, please do so by email or on your own blogs.
And Drew, I like your comment about mystery. As you know, I'm much more comfortable than most in accepting the fact that some things just cannot be known and it's ok with me to just wait until heaven to find out.
Triston - poor brother, I am afraid I am frequently outrageous in your book :) I was more questioning Piper and Rob Bell as I know there are areas where I differ from each and yet areas where I think they have useful things to offer the community of faith as well as presenting the gospel to nonbelievers. I know nothing of these other two men that you guys are talking about and based on the definition my Andrew gives me of, what was it called, open theology?, I don't want to know anything more about them either!
My question, as Ted was suggesting, is not the theology per se, but when and how we draw the line on how much difference we will accept and still find benefit in what is being taught.
Craver - I think those discussions can happen certainly. They happen best though when one has taken the time and trouble to build a relationship of trust and support first. Then the discussions happen as a natural part of the relationship. And you are so very right, counseling does work the same way. My BSF teaching leader uses this saying, "people don't care what you know until they know that you care".
Don - I'm not exactly sure what you and Ted are throwing back and forth - you're over my head - so I'll just leave your discussion without comment (well, as long as you two are nice to each other :). I do know that if someone was as "off" theologically as to suggest that God knows all the options rather than all of history, I don't want to know much more from them!
"And your passages don't bear out at all the whole of what you're claiming."
I think they say that God predetermined in His great love to magnify His grace and display a love that is beyond belief. Jesus Christ's death for the ungodly, and His taking our sin is what makes life precious.
As Paul said, "He loved me, and gave Himself for me."
It's always good to discuss Scripture with you Ted. Your a fine brother in Christ. Peace to you, and may our Lord be pleased with our discussion. I appreciate Andrews thoughts as well.
Thanks Susan for allowing this dialog. Have a terrific weekend and Lord's Day.
Susan, Open theism is like thinking of God as a great chess player. He knows every move His opponent might throw at him, but until His opponent actually makes his move, God has no idea what it will be! Any way, open theism is nothing but heresy. And I totally agree with you, Susan. I don't want to learn or read from guys who espouse that our God doesn't know the future. Maybe Satan wins in the end. How would God know? There is so much to read out there and not enough time. So I'm with you in avoiding reading guys who espouse heresy.
But where do you draw the line when you will throw out everything someone writes as trash? I believe Don’s answer is correct: When that person teaches a different Gospel. That’s when you can burn their books. I’m not saying open theists are teaching a different Gospel, only that there isn’t enough time to read all the good writers out there and the whacked open theist writers too.
Don, I never said what you're suggesting I'm denying! I'm saying that God does not predetermine EVERYTHING in advance, such as human sins like adultery, murder, etc....
I'm afraid you're putting words in my mouth.
Triston - "I’m not saying .....only that there isn’t enough time to read all the good writers out there...." - amen to that!
"God has no idea what it will be!"
Actually Triston, Boyd and the others would say, God has a fairly good idea what will happen. They teach that God has a lot of knowledge, and so can predict a lot of things that will happen, but it's a risk God is taking, and sometimes God will be surprised, and will be sad , even as sad as we become sad.
Hey Ted, I wasn't thinking what you say I was thinking about you. If words were put wrongly in your mouth, I sure didn't mean it.
Sorry for being a bad communicator.
Real short and sweet:
I believe the Bible teaches God ordained, and ordains, all things to come to pass, and yet He is holy, and sin is not from Him in any way or form.
It's a infinite truth.
And we are finite beings.
And so we disagree, and that's fine with me. Most Christians today don't believe God ordained everything, in the same manner as He ordained His Son's death for sinners.
Peace and grace.
Don,
I must have been a terrible communicator myself, but actually I was saying that, and have said that all along.
There are no semi-Pelagians out there among Christians, who think that somehow their works have to be added on to God's grace in Christ, to be accepted by God. Not in the official teachings, though we'd have to disagree here, as well.
When Christians are always discussing things they are divided on, I'm troubled. But maybe that's what drives blogs. It certainly does drive some blogs! But I can't go on participating in such.
Grace and peace, as well.
Boyd says God infinitely knows what could happen, and while he can be disappointed, he is not taken back as if such a thing did not occur to him.
I left a quote that said that. Not that God merely has a good idea.
The quote from him I left earlier:
"...the infinitely intelligent God is able to attend to each and every one of a gazillion possibilities as though each one were the only possibility he had to attend to. This means he anticipates each possibility, or series of possibilities, as perfectly as if it was the settled future of the classical view. He doesn’t lose anything. God is as prepared for each and every possible event in the future as he would be if he foreknew it as a certainty from all eternity."
Greg Boyd
Do I believe that? No. Although we do grieve God, and God does seem to be in an interactive relationship with humans, in Scripture. I tend toward the more traditional view, but with a measure of agnosticism, except to adhere to anything Scripture says on the matter.
Don,
God ordains sin along with Christ's redemption, God chooses certain sinners he ordained to sin to receive eternal life through Christ, and the rest of humankind whom God ordained to sin and be sinners, God sends to everlasting punishment- accordingt to what you're saying.
Correct?
"God ordains sin along with Christ's redemption, God chooses certain sinners he ordained to sin"
Adam sinned. God foreknew Adam, before He created the universe. He surely could have not made Adam knowing Adam, in the future, would sin.
God chose to make Adam, and Adam's sin is 100% Adam's, even though God knew Adam would sin.
All of mankind, every human born is now cursed, and a sinner. We will sin, and every sin matters to God. He could stop us from sinning, or He could make sure only those who are His elect are born.
God does what he is doing because He is a sovereign infinite Creator.
All who will be judged will deserve it. God is holy and a just God. All who will find themselves welcomed into glory will not deserve it.
So, I'm rambling.
God ordains all things. And yet God is not responsible for sin. Paradoxes are in the Scriptures. There are a few that we simply have to wait until we reach glory and then maybe we will understand, and maybe not even then.
It's as the Triune God is One God, and yet there three fully God persons. Impossible. Another paradox.
...I should say, TRY to adhere to all in Scripture.
I fail, not only in knowledge of course- that's a given since none of us have it all down. But in practice, which I did this morning.
Ted,
The quote you left for a second time from Greg Boyd, and which I read for a second time, I still believe is heresy.
On the other issue, I can understand why you don't want to think of God ordaining all things that come to pass. There is so much evil in the world. This week here in Kathmandu, for instance, we read about a poor 19 year old girl who was lured to a house on the pretext of a good job interview. The man raped her, held her for ransom and after her parents paid up, he chopped off her head and chopped her body in 10 parts and scattered them all over. He murdered her so he wouldn’t be identified by the girl and so he could get away with the cash.
Like you, I also don't want to believe that God would ordain such an evil thing to happen. And I also don't understand it either. If my understanding is correct on the Reformed traditions take on God ordaining all things, not only was that girl’s death and the gruesome murder ordained by God (which is awful to think about God) but, moreover, all my key stroke errors as I type this to you are ordained too (which seems silly).
I don't understand it, and yet for God to really be God it seems that He must be sovereign over everything that happens. And you think about the little details that come together which completely alter your life — for instance, how my wife and I met. So many tiny, insignificant details had to come into place for that to happen, and surely God ordained who I would marry and spend the rest of my life with, right? Yet, it all happened through insignificant, random details that must have been ordained by God.
BTW: They caught the guy who murdered that girl. He's already confessed. I’d like to think his capture was ordained by God, too!
Good point, Triston. How terribly sad and tragic!
But like you say, God is sovereign over every event. But God is so great in his sovereignty and person, that God does not have to control every detail to be sovereign. God is at work in all things, after the counsel of his will (Ephesians 1). And works even in regard to the wicked, preparing them for their judgment (Proverbs).
God is sovereign because nothing escapes him. But God is so great that he does not have to control everything to be in control of everything. Yes, people sin. As Don said, God is not responsible for their sin, they are. But in Christ God is present in everything for judgment and grace.
But in Christ God is present in everything THROUGH judgment and grace.
(the way I should have said it, based on my understanding) :)
Heresy defined:
"Any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position."
Luther: I've just been skim reading the comments and my eyes popped out when I saw this comment.
If you define heresy as this, then surely you must be in agreement with the Holy Catholic Church, as they have the official orthodox position!
Hi Lorenzo,
There are many things which I do agree with the Roman Catholic Church: their view of the Trinity, Jesus' virgin birth, sinless life, the Apostle's creed, etc. But when it comes to the Reformation and why it took place, I believe the Roman Catholic Church abandoned the orthodox position set down by the Apostles.
But you get to a valid point: there are many things on which Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians all agree (I’ve mentioned some above) and one more thing on which they all agree is that God knows the future. And when someone goes against what every branch of Christendom confess to be true, then that person is obviously in heresy.
Our Father,
We pray that Your Name be hallowed, Your kingdom come, and Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
We ask that You meet each and every one of Susan's needs. Be her Strength and Salvation. Give her peace and joy in the Holy Spirit and in her time of trouble make Yourself known to her as her Refuge and Strength, ever present through it all.
We pray for needed details to be worked out, that You would intervene and move the hearts of people to accomplish what needs to be done. And give Susan special wisdom during this time. Meet all of her needs and beyond.
Thank You for the strong support she has from Your Body at her church.
Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever. Through Jesus our Lord, and by the Holy Spirit.
Amen.
Thank you all for your prayers.
Post a Comment