..::On Kenosis::..

One does not have to say God controls all future events, though one might, in order to say He knows the future. To call unbiblical the idea that God knows the future is to belittle His attributes and speak against the Scripture. This does not enhance his sovereignty, It belittles many of His attributes. A Biblical example would be psalm 46:10- "Be still and know that I am God, I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in all the earth." If God does not know the Future- He might be wrong about this. Perhaps Satan, who is rather crafty, will trick God at some point He yet has knowledge of- or perhaps another creature, yet unborn, will foil God's design to bless the Nations through their knowledge of Him. There is not a sound argument for the openness of God that can stand hand in hand with the full counsel of Scripture.

Chase

"Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow"

"Open theism teaches a sub-Christian view of God that is unworthy of a robust biblical faith. I have no sympathy for this view and think it would be a great mistake for evangelicals to welcome it within the bounds of tolerable theological diversity."

i just posted this like 7 minutes ago. what the crap.

i never called it unbiblical that God simply knows the future. I called it unbiblical that God would know the future in an absolute and effecacious sense.

I believe that God has an immense and indescribable understanding of human nature that we cannot begin to fathom.

as well, i think you are confusing what i am saying with Process theism. God will ultimately redeem the world and establish his Kingdom because he is God. you, I, joe schmoe on the corner drinking a beer, or satan can do nothing to change that.

Not at all, this recent and rare doctrine is open theism. It's implications lead very near to process theism. God does know the future. To say that He does not is to belittle Him, not just that He will redeem the world. He knows the future- all th opposition that will come against His being exalted, how He will ultimately bring it about. This young, and hopefully soon to die doctrine undermines that. See Lewis.

All I know is God knows that I sure wish you'd fix your damn header. And He knows that I wish I had more time to sit down and think through some of this stuff. And He knows that you have a typo in your Grenz quote on the side bar of your page. God knows, Jared.

my header's not messed up. your web browser is. i see my header and it looks damn fine.
God knows that too britton.

Britt- Nice Words about the Kingdom- I don't have a xanquieingia name so I'll tell you here. Jayrod- I commented on liberation of truth part dos.- Loved something you said there and would love to hear what you think about a question I asked there.

"There is not a sound argument for the openness of God that can stand hand in hand with the full counsel of Scripture."

..neither is there a sound argument that can stand hand in hand with the full counsel of Scripture for the idea that God does not change His mind.

There is also a difference between being all-knowing and all-powerful. God can say that He will be exalted among all the nations because He is all powerful and He can make that happen. That does not necessarily mean that He has detailed knowledge of how it will all work out. I don't think He is afraid of being tricked by crafty Satan, what I do think He is concerned with is having an intimate and dynamic relationship with His creation.

There are also many shades of Open Theism just like there are of Calvinism - to shut the concept of a dynamic God down because of the simple fact that it doesn't fit into some Scriptures that you decided to proof text from is an irresponsible handling of the Biblical narrative.

There is much Scripture that supports the soveriegnty of God (which I believe focuses more on His power than His omniscience) and there are also Scriptures that talk about His fore-knowledge and predestined choices - I think we have all been made quite aware of those (thank you Matt Chandler, Louie Giglio and Voddie Baucom) yet there is still a lot of Scripture that speaks about the dynamic nature of God and how He changes His mind...dare I say it.

Could it be that God in His unfathomable nature could both change His mind because of His interactions with us and be sovereign in His reign? Does this belittle His attributes - NO! How would it ever be belittling to think that God loved His creation so much that He actually listened to them. I am sorry to tell you that this view holds up to Scripture.

Beleiving in God's sovereignty and His openess with us are not two mutually exclusive concepts. His openess with us does not take away His power - at all. What it possibly does is make you uncomfortable, but right now that is not really what I am concerned about.

-Stroud

thanks for your thoughts Jared

The issue is not whether I am uncomfortable with open theism. The issue is whther it stands in agreement with the full counsel of Scripture. Just like any system of man, Calvinism, The Armenian eaching, etc., etc. Systems of man will not line up completely with the counsel of the word. Many Calvinists today in many ways don't even square well with Calvin himself, much less the Scripture. However, open theology undermines who God is as well as what He is about. Christianity is historical before it's personal. Openness can not stand with Scripture it is as George, Ware, and others have stated, "deeply flawed, sub-Christian thinking." I so appreciate the dialogue concerning it. The body has been so void of this, why- I do not know. But it is a blessing to be able to think out loud with other believers!

Chase

Give me a minus five for spelling again.

Low views of God destroy the gospel for all who hold them

i couldnt agree more Mr. Tozer.

but i bet you wouldn't agree with someone using your words the way they are here.

and just in case you would condone and be supportive of such use... i never really liked you that much anyways.

Jayrod,

My apologies for the Tozer impersonation. Done in an accurate context (See knowledge of the Holy)- and in good humor. I had no intention of causing offense and am certainly regretful if that is the case. Please email me your address. I would love to send you the book I read after reading The Openness of God. I would love to read your thoughts on it either through email or on the Blog if you have time for reading over this or the next holiday. I am guessing you still have my email. I hate to put it on the net, but will if you don't. I'd also love to visit with you for the purpose of dialogue on this and other subjects concerning the body- I really believe you have some great thoughts concerning the Church and would love to visit with you more about them. Some folks have recently talked with me about writing some curriculum for them and I'd love to get your views on some of the things they are asking me- anyway- email me your address if you can- if not- I'll shoot my email and we can go from there if interested- Do you do the starbucks thing?

First, let's deal with "Opening Remarks." You know I disagree with you on this. We've discussed it before. But I have a few thoughts I've held back, I guess. I think it's a blatant ignorance of Scriptural evidence to not think God meant us for His glory. But that's secondary to the fact that Scripture seems to clearly indicate that we are in some sense created for His glory. See Isaiah 43:7. I don't pretend to understand the full context of the chapter but God clearly speaks of His people as those "whom I created for My glory." The Message and the NRSV even translate it that way. So some people, somewhere, sometime were formed by God to be for His glory. Now, I don't do a ton of thinking about this. I think it's clear that we were created to give an upright representation of God to the world, which is the literal definition of "glorify" or "glory". That happens no doubt exclusively through reciprocal communion with God. But nonetheless there has to be some sort of concession that we do serve in some major sense to glorify God. He even goes on in chapter 48 to say that He will not share His glory with anyone. That statement says, "I deserve glory. I will be glorified." We're admonished time and again throughout Scripture to ascribe glory to the Lord. This idea stands opposed to much of what you probably do on a typical sunday morning, i.e. singing songs. But more than that, why else would God give us commands? Why tell women to submit to their husbands and tell husbands to love their wives and give themselves up for them? Why ask people to give their lives in His name? Maybe there's a good reason I'm missing, but all I see is that those things honor God and represent Him well among the nations.

Secondly, I continually wrestle more and more with the absolutism that's pervasive in the Sovereignty discussion. I don't think Scripture offers any sort of absolute conclusion. God knows, even plans, what is going to happen and no one can thwart His plan. See Isaiah 14:24,27. He knows what will happen because He has planned what will happen. More than that, He is capable of control. He opens wombs, kills people, wins battles that defy human possibility. He is outside of us, His creation. BUT. Moses prays to Him and He changes His mind. Jonah seems to have a real effect on His actions. We're told to ask and seek and knock and that if we do He will respond. It is THE great paradox. I don't understand it, don't pretend to, and won't try to. But that's what seems to be in the evidence.

The problem in this open theism is that it actually isn't very open. It limits God in some major ways. He can't know everything. He can't do whatever the hell He wants. He has now been bound by a doctrine taken from one extreme as a reaction to the binding found on the other extreme.

This isn't an attempt to fix this issue. It's not me saying this is the right way. It might not be. But it seems that there's clear evidence for both sides and to swing to the extremes is to ignore evidence. Like I said, I don't pretend to completely know the answers. I've thought long and hard about all of this and it just gets more murky the longer I think on it, so I don't think about it much anymore. I think there's more important issues to be dealt with from Scripture than hammering out intellectual theology that has perplexed people for thousands of years.

Look, if there's really Scriptural evidence of God's openness in such a way that it excludes the possibility of His sovereignty then, let's see it. I'm eager to see it. I want to know Truth. Whatever it is. If there's Scripture, specific verses from God, that say He's open to our actions and requests and that He doesn't know what's coming, then share it. But if this is based on reason and philosophical thought, then it needs to be thought about deeply. I think that's a question that requires deep honesty for both sides.

I think the same is true for the glory stuff. If there are verses that come close to the directness of Isaiah 43:7, then skin that smoke wagon and lets take a look. I'm not in this for my agenda. I'm in this for Truth. Even if it isn't easy and pretty and systematic. Even if it's paradoxical.

i'll say one more thing. then ill move on. i dont much like God anymore after this ordeal, nor do i wish to try and qualify him or his attributes any longer so that i dont have to pallet who you present him to be.... or i mean what scripture presents him to be.

as i said, i truly dont think the idea of God's oppenness negates his sovereignty, but i do think that certain systems that idolize his sovereignty to an extreme incapacitate God and his desire to relate with me. and it's those extremes that so vehemently oppose God's openness.

i as well don't think that his openness makes him any less of anything. God is God and he will be whatever it is that he made himself to be. being open to man doesn't detract from his power or his ability to do whatever the hell he wants.

and if it's the case that im just someone who doesn't realize that my opinion doesn't matter as a sinful created thing, then call me pharoah because i refuse to accept your system of interpretation and the God you perpetuate.

i apologize, im not delightfully drugged by the opiate of duty.

pharoah.

"then call me pharoah because i refuse to accept your system of interpretation and the God you perpetuate.

i apologize, im not delightfully drugged by the opiate of duty.

pharoah."

I don't know who you are, but this statement sounds more like Farakahn than Pharoah.