1

Yes, it is good that non-conventional evangelicals are featured in this series. Unfortunately, this heresy DOES have the ear of faar too many evangelicals. I have not dealt with this rubbish as throughly as I ought to, but it has been addressed in some circles for what it is: making God in our image. For others, I might suggest the Sep./Oct. 1999 issue of "Modern Reformation" dealing with this exact issue. Also readers might want to pick up "Bound Only Once" by John MacArthur, et al. (available from Canon Press. http://www.canonpress.org/pages/bibstudies.asp)

2

Joe,
I think you should include David G. Myers in your list of evangelicals to know. His introductory psychology textbooks and his social psychology textbooks are used in universities all across the country. I wouldn't mind seeing George Marsden, too, but you've already had some historians on the list.

3

Open-view theism sounds like the sort of religiosity that liberals Democrats are likely to discover as the 2006 elections approach. It's vague, soft, and warm. God is open as in open-minded or open-handed. That reminds me of a church I once attended where the staff titles were so vague, people were left wondering just what anyone did.

You can't have theology without Greek. Since the orthodox point of view is Ominscience for "all-knowing," I'd suggest they adopt Microscience for "little-knowing." This is a "god" who knows little and muddles along with clever guesses that sometimes go astray. Reminds me of what I do when I choose a checkout line at the supermarket.

I always pick the one that moves the slowest.

--Mike Perry, Inkling Books, Seattle

4

What is open-view theism?

5

"You can't have theology without Greek. Since the orthodox point of view is Ominscience for "all-knowing," I'd suggest they adopt Microscience for "little-knowing."

Um, I think omniscience (note spelling) is Latin, not Greek.

6

The question is, do we still consider someone to be an "evangelical" who holds to a position that is not biblical? Someone who thinks that God regrets how some of his plans have turned out, or who thinks God is as surprised by tragedy as I am, really isn't worshipping the same God I am.

7

jon,

The question is, do we still consider someone to be an "evangelical" who holds to a position that is not biblical?

I think Boyd would argue that his view is Biblical. Unlike many other openness theologians, Boyd takes the Bible seriously and uses it as a starting point, rather than just a proof-text.

I’m not saying that I agree with him (I personally think its possible for the future to be exhaustively known) but I think he deserves an honest hearing. Too often we evangelicals assume that anything that is outside of what we were taught in Sunday School is automatically “heretical.” Of course, Boyd’s view may very well be a heretical position. But I think we have much we can learn by examining his arguments and giving them an honest hearing.

8

The question is, do we still consider someone to be an "evangelical" who holds to a position that is not biblical?

I think Boyd would argue that his view is Biblical.

So everyone who thinks their position is biblical is "evangelical"? I know you didn't quite say that, but some might assert that from what you said. Lots of cults say that they believe their positions are biblical, yet they are still heretical.

Also, since it hasn't been mentioned, everyone interested in this issue should buy Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Christianity by Piper, Taylor, and Helseth.

9

I've not read Boyd's work in particular (not that I remember, anyway) but I had a reading group a few years ago and when we tackled this issue, it struck me that the impetus for settling on the "open theism" claim was less about remaining true to Scripture and more about fitting an interpretation of Scripture to match our intuitions about freedom. In particular, the open theists seem (rightly, perhaps) worried that accepting the traditional view of God's omniscience means that humans can't really be free, since if God knows what they will do, they don't really have a choice to do otherwise. Hence, they can't be free, and...they can't be responsible, either. A whole can of worms, there.

It's not to say that there aren't places in Scripture where God appears to change His mind or relent upon petition (a key part of the open-theist argument) but it did seem to me that if you don't start with the libertarian view of freedom (freedom and responsibility require the possibility of choosing otherwise), the open-theist argument doesn't really get off the ground.

10

Open Theism: Earnestly contending for the doctrine of the ignorance of God.

11

Too often we evangelicals assume that anything that is outside of what we were taught in Sunday School is automatically “heretical.”