Open Theism

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed

Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with dr.

White call now It's 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James white And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line, my name is indeed

James white we're live today at 2 o 'clock Mountain Standard time no

Mountain What is it we are mountain standard time, that's right, and it's not two o 'clock

Mountain Daylight time or whatever time it is I don't know but I think that's gonna change pretty soon and then everybody's gonna be really confused and everybody's gonna come into the channel and go what?

I'm you on you keep changing times and we don't know we don't never change time We never we are we don't even touch our our clocks.

No, we're not Pacific Time. No, I'm sorry. That's that No, I'm sorry. You're wrong. I know that we happen to be synced up with Pacific Daylight time, but we are not

Pacific Time See we are Mountain Standard Time and we're always Mountain Standard Time because we never change

See, we never go to daylight time. So we're always MST. So It from the rest of the world's perspective.

See it's all a matter of perspective The rest of the world they get messed up with this daylight savings time stuff.

We don't do it We respect time and that actually has something to do. Yes. It did sound like Brack.

I was trying to sound like Brack I've never seen Brack, but I've been introduced to Brack by by people in the channel who play stuff by Brack and It sounds very strange and I don't

I've I've not figured out what would be so exciting about a cartoon character that sounds like an idiot from the the sticks in Tennessee someplace, but anyways as Almost nothing to do with the topic today

Though it does a little bit because I mentioned time and time does seem to be the issue as we discuss the subject of open theism today

I Have a lot of stuff going through my mind. We've got a debate In only two weeks from this evening on the subject of open theism against one of the leading proponents of the subject dr.

John Sanders and So obviously that is my primary area of reading right now and That Causes me to be thinking a lot about it.

But of course, I don't stop doing everything else That I am doing and it's interesting when you're studying one subject you begin to see the connections that it might have with other areas of theology and I'm really intending on writing a a book in the not -too -distant future

Regarding the fact that When we reduce the doctrines of grace to a

Side Disputation that really isn't important when we put off to the side and say well, you know what?

This isn't something that defines Healthy theology that you can have a healthy theology and yet have a man -centered focus, which is what our minion ism is

The results are many and As I've been dealing with various sundry issues

What I've decided I'm going to do is I want to write a book. I don't have a publisher for it yet Though I have one in mind

Demonstrating that when one has a a solid foundation in the doctrines of grace many of the issues that trouble the church today you you have a basis upon which to deal with them and Certainly in the debates that are coming up in two weeks from this this very weekend on open theism and on inclusivism the only real response to both of these is the reformed perspective and I don't even like using the term perspective there

That sounds like you know, well, you know one perspective is equal to another perspective and it just simply isn't the case

I don't know how else to describe it. However in regards to In regards to the fact that there are different perspectives that are expressed out there

Yet God's Word is not many it is one God's Word only teaches one truth.

It does not teach many and It has certainly been my Experience that as I look at the the presentations of people who have

Fallen into error in various areas. I am reminded of the centrality of doing

Consistent exegesis based upon a belief in the inspiration of Scripture those two things

Consistent Exegesis based upon a belief in the inspiration of Scripture and what

I mean by that is it's one thing you can find people who will engage in exegesis, but if they do not believe in the subject if they don't believe in inspiration if they do not believe that the scriptures are consistent with themselves and are an object of divine revelation, then you can exegete yourself forever and You're not gonna ever get any place.

I'm trying to message the folks next door, but no one is listening to me and so the other thing though is is if you believe that the word is divine, but then you do not exegete it properly then you allow for tradition to become established as your belief

Rather than having the Word of God established as a foundation of your belief your traditions Override meaningful exegesis when we listen to Adrian Rogers.

We we noted that strange two worlds that exist

Where when dealing with one subject he would be right on because he would do proper exegesis, and he would accurately deal with the text of Scripture but then

When he'd come to those areas where his tradition conflicts With the teaching of the text then all of a sudden exegesis goes out the door and you don't

You don't have solid exegesis taking place any longer. And so you have these two different things going on And we saw it in Adrian Rogers Past couple of weeks.

I've exchanged a few emails with with David cloud and David cloud

King James only advocates Oh Timothy is one of his public relations Publications, I think is the term the newsletter that he sends out and way of life org.

I believe is the is the website and Of course he's taken a number of shots at me and written response to the

King James only controversy and and we've corresponded a few times in the past and I've I've always had a bit of respect for for dr.

Cloud. He he's one of the few people I'm sorry, David cloud. He he's one of the few people who?

Responded to Gail Ripplinger and he went, you know, he point out there are problems in her book and she went after him

And there's a section of one of her little books where she makes fun of his name. That's about the best that Gail can do and So on so forth.

So, you know, we've had some contact a number of years ago I forget exactly when it was

I was teaching down in Tucson. I remember that and He was driving through the area and happened to Pick up on our program heard us discussing the

Jehovah's Witnesses something that we could agree on and and Appreciate the information. I shared a few things like that.

So what I did is Someone came to the channel posted the

URL went to the URL and I happened to notice that there was a sermon that you could listen to in In Apple QuickTime formats on Calvinism who is the real enemy and so I download it and began listening to it and it was you know

Just this same old same old, you know If you listen to Adrian Rogers if you listen to David cloud you've listened to Dave Hunt if you listen to any of these folks

It's just the same old same old and it's it's really You know

It's extremely frustrating because all you hear over John 644 when you go over to John 1232 and Jesus draws all men so it doesn't really mean that and You can respond and they none of these folks ever give the slightest indication

That they have ever seriously listened to a refutation of their own position It's like there's nobody else out there and you can just keep repeating the same

Surface level shallow isogenical stuff and that's supposed to be enough and It makes you go.

Wait a minute. I take the time to listen to what they're saying I take the time to listen to what their position is and if they somehow come up with some new way of putting things

I'll take the time to to listen and to respond to it and you go to the text and you Respond, you know, you provide an answer based upon the text do all the kind of stuff

They don't seem to do that and I don't understand the mindset of people that can just repeat the same thing over and over and over and over again without ever listening to it being refuted and then

Responding to that. I do not understand that and so I I just wrote to him and I said, you know

I'm I'm gonna probably play some sections of your sermon on the air and I'm gonna respond to it on our program and I just want to remind you you've you've got a standing invitation

We would very much like to debate this subject since for some reason You know, it's like David Cloud and Dave Hunt they've all decided to jump on the anti -reform bandwagon, which would seemingly indicate that we're getting through to somebody the

Lord's blessing in some way and You know, I would very much Like to see a you know, some public debates on these issues because I honestly believe that This position of Arminianism cannot stand

Any type of cross -examination it cannot stand public debate you you cannot throw that kind of stuff out there without it getting shredded by someone who knows something about what they're doing and So I would

I would like to people to see this be able to hear both sides instead of just going and reading something by Them then reading some about the other side let the two sides get together and do the debate.

So I send that off and he he sends a pretty nice little note back that says

Well, you know, hey, I'm nobody but you know, help yourself and so on so forth and I wrote back to him a very nice letter and Said, you know very much like to debate.

So if you won't do a public debate, how about a written debate? How about you and I write a debate like on John chapter 6 because he mentioned it in his sermon he mentioned me in his sermon for that matter and He wrote back and said head.

No, you know, this is a fact here. I've got the email in front of me Hello again, I really don't want to debate James I've presented my position on John 6 37 to 45 in my book things hard to be understood

It has been dealt with by many men who do not hold to the Calvinist position We are simply we simply are going to have to disagree about these things and we do disagree strongly

And I you know, I wrote I wrote back to that I wrote back to him and I said I'm surprised this statement, sir

Are you suggesting that the exegesis of John 6 37 to 45 can produce different but equally true results if you are correct in your exegesis?

Then you should be able to refute the extensive exegetical discussions I've presented and drawn by the father and the potter's freedom would not providing that kind of refutation of one of the key passages

Be vitally important I provide exegetical refutation of the misuse of such passages as 1st

Timothy 2 4 2nd Peter 3 9 Matthew 20 to 37 and Have seen Reformation break out on campuses and in ministries as a result surely showing where I have erred in my exegesis would be a worthwhile effort

Would it not? Then I said, of course, I have never seen a consistent or defensible exegesis of John 6 37 to 45 by a non -reformed person

I honestly have not I have looked high and low I have debated Roman Catholics about our minions

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons and have never found anyone Who could deal with the text as it stands without?

Abandoning it and running to other passages to try to get away from the teaching of the Lord And so then I went through what he sent me.

He sent me the text to his dealing with John 6 and I refuted his exegesis provided the text from The potter's freedom where I go into the meaning of the words provide the exegesis so on and so forth.

So is his response Was very short each each each email response got charter and charter and charter.

Here's the response I have seen how dishonestly you dealt with Dave Hunt and also how you have dealt with the

Bible version issue I have no hope that you will listen to the truth. I am sure you feel the same about me What purpose then is all of this now?

No, wait a minute. I said, excuse me. Excuse me How do you how do you get there?

How do you how do you come up with a response like that? I responded to him and said sir, please document a single dishonesty in my response to Dave Hunt You have made the accusation.

I'm sure you will exercise the temerity to document I am sorry You choose to ignore the exegesis of the scriptures I thought more highly of you it seems and I ought to have because here you provide

What what must it be like you send your exegesis someone they respond fully and their only response is to say well

You know, you're you're dishonest anyways, and so he wrote back and he says James I regret the use of the term dishonest

I am sure you're reporting things as you see it though I believe you're taking things out of context and misusing hunt statements beyond that I am just not interested in any kind of dialogue

Dave Hunt already pointed out the errors in your critique of his work and Having read his book carefully. I agree with what he has said and you just you have to step back and go

Well, wait a minute. What was one of the main things we demonstrate Hunt's misrepresentation of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, so is he defending that I cannot believe that David cloud would defend

Anything in regards that if she knows what what Spurgeon believed about that and I'm just asking for specifics

I mean when someone says you've dishonestly dealt with someone then Don't you think you have some level of?

Responsibility to respond and be able to provide some type of specifics So I wrote back to him and I said again

I asked you to back up the statement when he said taking things out of context misusing or at least have the honesty and temerity to admit that you cannot do so and Will not make such statements in public since you have failed to back them up in person -to -person discussion

And then when he says Dave Hunt already pointed out the errors. I responded again. That is simply not true

Mr Hunt has been shown to be utterly dishonest in his handling of the Spurgeon issue for example And his response to my open letter did not provide a single bit of exegetical response whatsoever

I again ask you to document your accusation or withdraw it admit that you cannot substantiate it

I take accusations of dishonesty or of out -of -context citation very seriously if you cannot be specific

I ask that you admit this and withdraw that allegation. Thank you and the last note that I got and I didn't really bother respond to its is to Three sentences and I can't believe that you would write such nonsense

I had very little respect for you before now. I have none. That's it. That was the last last bit

Well, you know, I'll probably hear about that In the not -too -distant future on some, you know,

I get people who write me that hey I just attended this conference and David cloud spoke and he talked about you saying this this and this and it always

Mutates over time at least now having read it to all you folks You will at least know where to look to find out was actually said without having to bother me for the emails

But of course, I'll keep the emails too But I just found it absolutely amazing that there's just no willingness.

I'm David clouds part Dave hunts part Adrian Rogers part to really interact with anything and and if and if I had written what

David cloud has written on John chapter 6 and And put that out there and someone says no, wait a minute you see you're you're you're inaccurate here

You're an accurate here that the word doesn't mean this here. You you leapt over a logical problem here. I Would want to know what they had to say

But they don't want to deal with these things. They will not interact with these things.

It is absolutely Amazing and and some people say well, you know, okay Adrian Rogers is not known as a person who teaches exegesis.

Okay, and Norman Geisler, he's a philosopher and a theologian Dave hunt, you know, what's his famous quote that I've heard more than once?

I cannot read the New Testament in Greek. It might as well be in Chinese, but I can read English You know, look at Dave hunt.

He's King Jane or Dave David cloud. He's King James only What do you expect? You know, why don't you why don't you find some folks that could really dig into this?

Why don't you find some real scholars? Well, it's fascinating because if you look at Oh My I just someone just now here is the value of doing this live

Someone just quoted from the Berean call Got the brain call today in questions

Dave says sadly with few exceptions Most of the Calvinists who write to me make similar unsupported charges.

For example, see James White's response to my book. What love is this? Oh My goodness, yeah,

I don't understand that kind of statement. How can anyone read my open letter and make the kinds of statements

That that I just it boggles my mind. I do not understand it.

Well anyways Some folks might say well deal with some scholarly Armenians.

Well, okay so you look at the issue today of Open theism and the writers in the field of open theism

And when I've been telling people about this debate people go, so what's your debating open theism? They look at you like What that what what in the world is that?

They've they've not heard much of it, which basically means they haven't been reading Christianity today very much. That's for sure

But open theism is a big and hot topic today I'm gonna be making some of those of you who like bibliographies and book recommendations and stuff like that They're spread out all around me here on my on my desk at the moment

So I'll give you some some recommendations and some stuff you can dig into because I think it's it is definitely important It's another one of those areas

Where as I said the reformed position the the biblical

Understanding of God's freedom is the only foundation upon which you can respond to this

Armenians who are historical Armenians and I would like to differentiate here open theists openly call themselves

Arminian They're one of the few groups to do You know, you've noticed it. There are a lot of folks.

I'm not Arminian, you know, the a lot of the King James I'm not Arminian. I believe and they turn it once saved always saved, you know

I ain't no Arminian. Well, actually that just means you're an inconsistent Arminian. That's all you don't have any basis for that but you believe in anyways, but They will openly say we are

Arminian we truly believe in in libertarian freedom and we we deny that God has a decree

They believe in what's called simple foreknowledge Historical Arminians believe that God does know the future

They believe that God Knows the future however in such a way that his decree does not form the future and Hey, you got it you got admit the open theists have got him on this one

The open theists have have identified a clear Inconsistency in The view of the future that is part and parcel of Arminianism, there's no no two ways about it the the open theists are not wrong on this point and their point is that if you are an

Arminian and you believe in libertarian free will and You believe that autonomous creatures make free choices that are not a part of a divine decree that they when faced with with choice a are free outside of any kind of Of decree on God's part of choosing a or B or C or whatever

If you believe that then you don't have a basis upon which to believe that God truly knows the future

How would God know what free creatures are going to do and if he does know what free creatures are going to do? how can they do anything other than that and The open theists emphasize that argument in all of their works and let me just mention for those of you who aren't familiar with it

Open Theism is In essence the teaching that God's knowledge of the future

Is divided into two compartments and that would be God's knowledge of that which is certain the future and that which is not certain the future the future is partially open and partially closed

Now that's more Greg Boyd's emphasis I There's there's a spectrum here you you you know when you make a certain statement you especially when you've read all their books and you're you're becoming more familiar with the way of of How one person will nuance it?

They'll spin it this way another person will spin it that way and then you recognize You know Boyd says things that I don't think

Sanders would ever say and Sanders says things a Pinnock wouldn't say and Pinnock says a lot of things that nobody else would ever say and These guys each have their own little, you know little perspectives

For example Boyd sort of dropped a little mini bomb with his response to Bruce where where he said

I believe Jesus had compatibilist freedom and That blew everybody away Because it raises all sorts of issues and you go.

Well, what's compatibilist freedom? Is that different than libertarian freedom? Yeah, it is. And I think it's one of the reasons that some of the real arguments haven't gotten overly popular on The lay person's levels because it's utilizing terms that actually, you know

It doesn't take a lot of in the way of brainpower to know understand what the differences are They're just using words and aren't normally used by folks you could demythologize scholarship if you just simply let people know what various and sundry terms meant and So there's there's different there's different perspectives if you want to sort of grab the the the big books

You can go back To David Basinger and you can go back to Richard Rice in the 80s

And and they're really the ones who who started the the modern resurgence of this.

This is not a new position It's not that there haven't been people in the past Who said God doesn't know the future?

Because the future does not yet exist Fundamentally, what open theism is saying is that the future doesn't exist.

So God can't know it now God has intentions That he is going to establish the things he's going to do in the future

And Boyd will want to talk about how God knows those things even though I really don't think he has a basis for saying that and Bruce where I think has done an excellent job in in in pointing out that Okay.

Well God may know that an earthquake is going to take place at such as such a time, but anything

Whatsoever in the future that has to do with the

Free choices of free creatures Cannot on open theistic grounds be truly known because God cannot know what a truly free creature is going to do what you need to understand is that the central assertion of open theism is libertarian free will the autonomy of the creature

The autonomy of the creature and that is so central that open theists are willing to remove from God his ability to know

Exhaustively all future events. God cannot know the future because man must be free

So God learns things each day God in some way experiences this progression of time

The future doesn't exist to him and he learns what happens and He is frequently surprised by what happens

In fact, they will cite passages where God will talk about Israel and I thought

Israel returned to me But no, she has continued in her idolatry. They'll say see see God thought

Israel's gonna repent, but God didn't and God was surprised and They will point to Genesis 22 and now

I know he says to Abraham that that you Truly have faith that you truly believe in me and God didn't know that before Abraham raised the knife

Now the problem is that at least up until this point in time That open theists continue to say that God has exhaustive knowledge of the past in the present and I I believe there is good basis for saying that I I just don't see how open theism is going to be able to Touch Someone just just just came in and mentioned the man's gotta be what?

1999 Dan corners thing about the skull and crossbones award you briefed as so old folks

Go to our website look it up. We've dealt with that a long time ago. I don't see how open theism is going to be able to Continue to assert that God has exhaustive

Knowledge of the past and the present their hermeneutic leads to Problems in that area.

I just don't see how they're gonna be able to continue to do it I I think it's gonna eventually develop into something beyond what it is right now, but be that as it may the assertion is

God has Exhaustive knowledge of the past in the present and of course that raises all sorts of issues if he exhaustively knows us better than we know ourselves in fact

Let me let me just give you an example, and I'm probably you know not doing this in the best order Well, let me try to remember that I can give you this example.

Let me first give you the books you want to look at All right Let's start with the ones from open theism.

Oh, yeah, I'm almost out of time look at that All right, when

I come back get your pen and pencil out And I will give you the listing of what books you want to be looking at from the pro and con side here on the subject open theism then we'll

Dive into a couple of them and and do stuff like that here on the dividing line. We'll be right back The history of the

Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith Once the core of the Reformation the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine in his book the

God who justifies theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of Understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme

Justification is the heart of the gospel in today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute

James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith

Dr. J. Adams says I lost sleep over this book. I simply couldn't put it down James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates

This is no book for casual reading. There is solid meat throughout an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words

The God who justifies by dr. James White get your copy today at a omen org

More than any time in the past Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together They are standing shoulder -to -shoulder against social evils

They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements and many evangelicals are finding the history tradition and grandeur of the

Roman Catholic Church appealing This newfound rapport has caused many evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age -old disagreements that have divided

Protestants and Catholics Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language James White's book the

Roman Catholic controversy is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture the papacy the mass purgatory and indulgences and Marian doctrine

James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself.

They cannot be ignored Order your copy of the Roman Catholic controversy by going to our website at a omen

Org, this portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming

Lord's Day The morning Bible study begins at 9 30 a .m. And the worship service is at 10 45

Evening services are at 6 30 p .m. On Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7

The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix You can call for further information at 602 2 6 grace

If you're unable to attend you can still participate with your computer and real audio at Prbc .org

Where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day

It's not an easy way It's a journey

Following Jesus And Welcome back to the dividing line

We were talking about open theism today and as I promised and I actually remembered all the way through the break

That's an amazing thing given my my advanced age that What books you want to look at?

Well? I've mentioned this book before We've got a check the date here

Hmm of 2000 on Gregory Boyd's book

God of the possible does God ever change his mind God of the possible a biblical introduction to the open view of God now if you probably want to read just one

That's that's probably Where you want to start? Boyd of course is one up in in Minnesota He's the main one that John Piper has been concerned with because they're both in the same denomination

Bethel Seminary etc, etc, etc, and He's the senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church Baptist General Conference professor of theology at Bethel College.

It's a Baker book I've been looking at some of the very strange exegesis that is offered there

My opponent this coming the weekend after next is dr.

John Sanders dr. Sanders is associate professor of philosophy and religion Huntington College, Huntington, Indiana and two books that he and I could be debating no other name an investigation of the destiny of the unevangelized is his presentation of Inclusivism the idea that while everyone who will be saved will be saved only in Jesus Christ You can be saved by Jesus Christ without knowing who

Jesus Christ is And so a Muslim a Buddhist a Hindu that makes a true move of faith toward God can be saved but he is saved only through Jesus Christ will only discover he's saved through Jesus Christ forever after death and The inclusivist get into some wild stuff including post -mortem evangelism and all sorts of stuff like that It's different than universalism

But it's a spectrum and I think for example someone like Clark Pinnock gets as close to universalism as a inclusivist can

To the point where he's not only into post -mortem evangelism and annihilation. No hell

But also says that as you're as you're walking Into the point of being annihilated you can up to that point.

You can still repent There's just no limits on that but back to the subject of theism John Sanders the

God who risks a theology of Providence This is an IVP book University Press seems to be very very happy about open theism for some strange reason and This is one of the larger works

But again, I think if you were to carefully read Sanders and Boyd you'd go

I've sent some some differences in in approach differences in emphasis and that's certainly

I'm not I'm not making that an argument, of course But you will find them Sanders. I Think is a good bit to the left of Boyd.

I think Pinnock is to the left of Sanders Boyd is in a in a

Baptist conference Pinnock is has gone way way out there and and Sanders, you know

Sanders For example says God the Father did not know that Christ would go to the cross until the garden the incarnation was predestined in the sense of foreknown, but the cross was not and God did not know that Christ would die until until the garden and The God did not expect

Adam and Eve to fall. He was surprised that they did and in fact that God What God looked back upon the flood and He honestly

Felt you know, I I think I overreacted That he regretted what he did in in bringing the flood upon the earth though.

I will Admit in his response another source and we look at in just a moment.

That's that's really good He I think sort of tried to modify that because that causes all sorts of issues to be raised the

God who risks the theology of providence by By Sanders and then you have on Pinnock's part

One of his newest books the most moved mover That's a a

Baker academic book His inclusivism work for those of you who are interested is called a wideness in God's mercy.

That's Zondervan Well, you just pretty much everybody's throwing stuff out here.

And if you want another Open theism books. It's a little bit more complex from Boyd Satan and the problem of evil

That's an IVP book that has come out. So IVP Zondervan Baker. It seems that everybody's being infected this stuff and and then if you want another what was really

I think a very important book earlier on 1994 the openness of God a biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God It's another

IVP book and here you have essays by Pinnock Rice Sanders William Hasker and David Basinger Those are those the big names

Pinnock Rice Sanders Hasker and Basinger those are the the big big big names as far as the openness of God goes and That really set the stage for all these other books that have come flooding out since then was the response that that got and The response really that is a troubling issue

That I may or may not remember to get back to now if you really want though And and this is something

I wanted to spend some time on today, but I'm discovering as we're going along here this is a much bigger subject than Then I can possibly address in a period of time that we have.

Um, I think Having looked at all the rest of this stuff That probably the single most useful and maybe again it's because it allows for interaction.

It's sort of like a debate and For some reason when you get everybody together and they actually have to interact with each other

At least they're supposed to interact with each other that really helps. Maybe it's just me I'm really helped by seeing that type of thing take place.

Maybe I'm the only one or something. I don't know but One of the most useful resources you can track down In June 2002 issue of the

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society also known with well,

I was gonna say with with with love or affection, but I'm not going to use that those terms as Jets Jets the

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society volume 45 number 2 June of 2002 is

Dedicated almost entirely to the subject of Open theism and the reason being you may recall our our friend from Colorado called in and and reported for us on the the meeting of the

Evangelical Theological Society Almost full year ago now on the subject of open theism and the fact that dr.

Bruce Ware from Southern Seminary spearheaded the attempt It wasn't

What I'm gonna say attempted the discussion of whether open theism is within the bounds of evangelicalism

Specifically with an eye to eventually introducing a resolution to have the

Evangelical Theological Society vote officially on whether a person can be an open theist and a member of the

Evangelical Theological Society and Dr. Ware His book by the way, let's go ahead and at least talk about some of the books that have been written in response

God's lesser glory. It's a crossway book by dr. Bruce where God's lesser glory the diminished

God of open theism excellent Excellent work

Very necessary if you're gonna be picking up any of the others and make sure to pick up Bruce's book John M frame.

No other God a response to open theism, which is a Presbyterian reformed work you might want to pick up and then

One that I'm actually using as a textbook in Teaching right now. It's a canon press book comes out of Doug Wilson's group up in the snowy north

Bound only once the failure of open theism There's all sorts of folks who contributed to this including

Doug Wilson Doug Jones RC Sproul jr John frame John MacArthur Phil Johnson the director of grace to you and quite a excellent writer on his on his own merits and He wrote an excellent article in here called our chapter in here called

God without mood swings And if you know if you ever been a

Spurgeon org and have you ever been exposed to Phil Johnson stuff Then you you listen to that and go.

Yeah, I got that mood swings. That's good Bunch of other folks Tom Askew are here in this particular work

Responding and that of course is the most passionate of the books Dr. Where's work is the most scholarly and That's not to say that bound only once is done by non, you know on a non scholarly level, but there is more passion in it

There is not really a desire to dialogue on the part of anyone writing in there It is a clear warning to the church.

This is this is falsehood. This is heresy. Let's not even play with it Let's understand why it's wrong and why we should be concerned about it

So on and so forth and so bound only once the failure of open theism the problem with the title there is that you might

Not catch that in in a search or something along those lines But it's definitely worthwhile to get those books.

So Those books will then make reference to other books Paul Helms the eternal

God and and things like that that have to do with the eternity of God and you know can sort of Function as a foundation to to start spreading out and ordering other what other works, but like I said the

Jets Article the Jets of I'm sorry issue June 2002 of the journal very very good because dr

Ware presents his paper his discussion of open theism and then Pinnock Sanders and Boyd respond and then where has a rejoinder and let me just mention a

Fascinating interaction I Think a debate on this subject

With all the the primary people involved would be very very interesting I think what we're going to be doing in two weeks is going to be very very interesting indeed in regards to the subject of open theism, but having multiple people involved

I think would be very very fascinating because The contrast between both the attitude and the content of Dr.

Ware's presentation and then the response of Pinnock Sanders and Boyd very very interesting

Bruce where his presentation is is very straightforward it is

Unrelenting in its logic it raises numerous issues and Many of those issues are not even touched in the responses

Pinnock's articles the shortest of the three It almost seemed to me, and I don't know this

I don't have any inside information here But it almost seemed to me like the three of them got together and said okay

Clark you take this perspective and Sanders you go this direction and Boyd you go this direction and Pinnock's Main response is well

We'll talk to where it didn't deal with Didn't deal with all the positive things that come out of open theism.

It was meant to be the the positive warm fluffy Response that I'm not gonna deal with all stuff that you said

But you know let's remember that open theism has all this wonderful positive stuff about it, and it's so it's just all positive stuff

And and I just wish that dr. Ware had been more fair to us and talking about the positive things that the open theism brings

That was basically Pinnock's response Sanders or took off the gloves a little bit, and he you know he tried to interact with a few things

But I was I was very disappointed with both Sanders and Boyd They were extremely unkind to where where was was not in any way shape or form

He never got close to ad hominem in his in his statements at all But it was there was a tremendous.

I got a tremendous feeling of well that man's mean I mean Sanders response was beware of where and Boy, I wish he you know

I I wish he'd be fair. I think it's just terrible what he's doing, and it's un -christian it's unkind and and You know it there was just well come on at the same time

Then they'd be making all these gratuitous gratuitous remarks about where and it's like whack

What is what what's it? What's this all about the main thing that I think anyone would see is that where's?

exegetical concerns were not addressed Boyd's response was

I felt was rather shrill and and again like I said it sort of dropped that bomb He didn't really develop it nor really wouldn't have time to do so But it was it was a pretty one -sided issue

I think if you were to read that then read where's response which again was very very Bruce where is very careful he he really maintains his distance.

He really doesn't You know he wants to be very very careful, and how responsive

I can guarantee you He wants to say some things he isn't saying let's put it that way he leaves that to other people to do

But you read where is opening the responses and where's rejoinder, and it's it's not even

Basically the fundamental argument of the responses is hey Hey, if you're trying to keep us out of the evangelical theological side

Do you want us kicked out then you need to be consistent and kick all the Armenians out? Because your arguments against us are equally valid against our minions now.

That's not exactly correct, and we're correct that but This does sort of go back to where I started and that is what

I said was I'm thinking about Producing something that says you know what? The only sound response these people is a reformed response

And you know what the Armenians don't have a basis for doing these things and in essence the only reason that we

That you know when people remember the the question that was asked of I think it was

Mike Horton on the Bible answer man show Do you believe that's our minion ism.

Do you believe our minions are saved? No, no, it wasn't our minute. Do you believe our minion ism is in the pale of orthodoxy is within the pale of orthodoxy?

His response is something along the lines of barely Inconsistently so and how many times has been has the has the response been given hey our minion ism is a self

Refuting proposition what our minions seem to believe about God's knowledge the future is contradicted by what they believe about the will of man and the grace of God and so on and so forth and our minion ism is a self refuting system and So about the only merit in their responses is that hey

We're actually our minions and our fellow our minions need to realize if you kick us out Then it's just a bunch of nasty

Calvinists that are gonna take over which I found very very very very fascinating, but I wanted to get to some of the specifics and and I wanted to read some stuff for you just to give you some an example of How do you know how to tie all this together?

remember I was talking about David cloud the beginning and unwillingness to respond to a

Exegetical refutation of his position. Well David cloud, but he may not call himself an Armenian. He is one. He's an

Armenian He holds to our Arminian view of God's knowledge and an election and the whole nine yards

You may not want to use that terms. I'll find wonderful. That's great. But truth is truth facts facts and and that's position you hold

The open theists though though they hold to an Arminian theology are obviously much better at rhetoric and in fact,

I think the reason that their their movement is gaining ground and You see people

There was a I wonder if I'm gonna lose my place in here if I do this, but There is a fascinating little

Let's see. There's the rejoinder section that have did II this is where Rush Limbaugh likes to rattle paper around and and do stuff like that In The section as I recall on Christian called

Christian love and academic dialogue, that's what Boyd chose to be his Well, I'm going to assume he chose that risk for that title.

I don't know that Who interesting uses of terms like Neo Arminian ism is the term they're using they this this is

Sanders uses of open theism. I find that neo Arminian ism and he refers to where is a neo evangelical

Calvinist but I Find that rather rather interesting.

Anyways, there was a discussion of the fact that to various the sundry other, you know very some sundry people have found these perspectives to either be acceptable or non -personal non acceptable and I'm looking at a bunch of stuff here.

Do you need ah Gilbert Bill is

Icky end of Wheaton College and isn't he like the the chief Theological dude to use a non -technical term at Willow Creek At least he's been associated at some point then again who hasn't at some point been associated with Willow Creek He's quoted in one of these

Yeah, here's fact he's got a section on the back of both the openness of God and Baker Almost five centuries ago

Christians thrilled the recovery of the truth of salvation by grace that have been hijacked from them for a millennium of Church history

This book throbs today with the same excitement of the read at the rediscovery of a God infinitely greater and freer than the cold abstractions of medievally minded reductionist theologians make him to be the openness of God signals a new openness of his people toward the

God who has never ceased being open to them Gilbert Bill is Icky and professor emeritus

Wheaton College and there he's called professor emeritus and I know he's associated with Willow Creek and Here you have you know, why is this is this movement gaining this kind of ground?

well, it's gonna be promoted and and once it's it's Grabbed hold of by people who have teaching positions, then it'll be simplified and presented to people in the pew and That's what's happening in evangelicalism and folks.

Let's face it if Evangelicalism cannot determine what it believes about this and evangelicalism is dead

It cannot any longer even to find its own God And that's that that's just a simple fact well

These folks are really good at presenting Their denial of the and they loved use term classical

Traditional view of God's knowledge of the future and those are always meant to be negative things. We have a new perspective and a new

Insight and all the rest that kind of stuff These folks are very good at rhetoric and they're very good at appealing to post -modernists.

They're very good appealing to those who've been dragged into the church but through the means of the latte bar and the the diminishment of Christian music music down to the

Christianizing of popular secular songs, okay, you know what I'm talking about to those people who have

Decided to help the Lord along by adding a little religiosity to their to their daily routine rather than anything else and so he

These folks really know how to communicate with these folks. So let me give an example this is from Clark Pinnock in the openness of God the 1994 work, so it's one of the older ones and It's under it's on page 103 it's under a title called basic models

Two models of God in particular are the most influential that people commonly carry around in their minds

We may think of God primarily as an aloof monarch removed from the contingencies the world

Unchangeable in every aspect of being as an all -determining an irresistible power aware of everything that will ever happen and never taking risks

Or we may understand God as a caring parent with qualities of love and responsiveness generosity and sensitivity openness and vulnerability a person rather than a metaphysical principle who

Experiences the world responds to what happens relates to us and interacts dynamically with humans

These correspond to the differences Sanders has noted between the God of Greek philosophy and the God of the

Bible God is sovereign in both models, but the mode of sovereignty differs in This book we are advancing the second or the open view of God our understanding of the scriptures leads us to depict

God the sovereign creator is voluntarily bring into existence a world with significantly free personal agents in it agents who can respond positively to God or reject his plans for them in line with the decision to make this kind of world

God rules in such a way as to uphold the created structures and Because he gives liberty to his creatures is happy to accept

The future is open not closed and a relationship of the world that is dynamic not static We believe that the

Bible presents an open view of God is living and active involved in history relating to us and changing in relation

To us we see the universe as a context in which there are real choices alternatives and surprises

God's openness means that God is open to the changing realities of history that God cares about us and lets what we do impact him

Our lives make a difference to God they're truly significant God is delighted when we trust him and saddened when we rebel against him

God made us significant creatures and treats us as such we are significant to God in the apple of his eye, and so there's

There's the the rhetorical Perspective now anyone with a with a theological bone in their body realizes wait a minute

That's about as is as fair as a TV advertisement There's there's no fairness there one of the things that I wanted to read keep that description mind

We'll go back to in a second, but I found it absolutely Amazing that Greg Boyd in his response to Bruce where and you know

Anyone who reads God's lesser glory has got to admit. It is so fair He he will over and over again says now now

Boyd says this But Sanders says this and documents it and cites it and he deals with it from a from a scholarly perspective

Well, it's almost like none of these guys have bothered to read his book And you know I wouldn't put it past some folks because I've debated lots of folks never bothered to read a word

I ever said and yet they'd go into a debate with in total ignorance of What I had written, but Boyd says page 243 of the

Jets issue He's criticizing where and he's saying you present us in the weakest possible way and listen to what he says casting a position in its weakest possible form and using

Alarmist and inflammatory language is not the way to deepen understanding into further academic and Christian dialogue

Well folks that is the that is the only way that open theism deals with with traditional theism

That is the only way I've ever seen these folks Present their perspective listen that listen to Pinnock again a pin at Pinnock says in in presenting the allegedly

You know traditional viewpoint we may think of God primarily as an aloof monarch.

That's fair That's accurate and aloof monarch remove the contingencies the world unchangeable in every aspect of being as an all -determining an irresistible power aware of everything that will ever happen and never taking risks and Then you you contrast that with God as a caring parent qualities of love and responsiveness

Generosity, that's fair. No, that's pure rhetoric That's not fair if if boy to be

Fair then he'd have to apply what he just said there to not only his own books, but Pinnock's and Sanders as well

I mean, I'm marking this thing up just going you've got to be kidding me How how can someone possibly say these things the straight face?

I just do not know anyways Want to try to tie all this together.

I'm not going to be dealing with all open theism today in any way shape or form I want to get back to this fact.

Okay here. We have a group of people who are openly embracing the term Arminian and yet The Theology and the exegesis they offer

Has no more depth to it than Dave Hunt And I mean that The exegesis that is offered on the key issues is still just as shallow and easily refuted as The stuff we get from the people we talked about the beginning

Want some examples? All right. I'll give them to you after the break You're listening to the dividing line. We'll be right back

Oh Such a rare today

So many stars Strong and true Quickly fall away

What is dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book chosen, but free a new cult secularism false prophecy scenarios

No, dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called

Calvinism he insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent Philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant in his book the potter's freedom

James White replies to dr. Geisler, but the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply It is a defense of the very principles upon which the

Protestant Reformation was founded Indeed is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate

James White masterfully counters the evidence against so -called extreme Calvinism Defines what the reformed faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of scripture

The potter's freedom a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen But free you'll find it in the reformed theology section of our bookstore at a omen org

Millions of petitioners from around the world are employing Pope John Paul the second to recognize the Virgin Mary as co -redeemer with Christ Elevating the topic of Roman Catholic views of Mary to national headlines and widespread discussion in his book

Mary another Redeemer James White sidesteps hostile rhetoric and cites directly from Roman Catholic sources to explore this volatile topic

He traces how Mary of the Bible esteemed mother of the Lord obedient servant and chosen vessel of God Has become the immaculately conceived bodily assumed

Queen of Heaven Viewed as co -mediator with Christ and now recognized as co -redeemer by many in the

Roman Catholic Church Mary another Redeemer is fresh insight into the woman The Bible calls a blessed among women and an invitation to single -minded devotion to God's truth

You can order your copy of James White's book. Mary another Redeemer at a omen org incorporating the most recent research and solid biblical truth

Letters to a Mormon elder by James White is a series of personal letters written to a fictional

Mormon missionary Examining the teaching and theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints The book brings a relational approach to material usually presented in textbook style

James White draws from his extensive apologetics ministry to thousands of Mormons in presenting the truth of Christianity with well -defined arguments

James White provides readers with insight and understanding into the Book of Mormon the prophecies visions and teachings of Joseph Smith the

Theological implications of the doctrines of Mormonism and other major historical issues relevant to the claims of the

LDS Church This marvelous study is a valuable text for Christians who talk with Mormons and is an ideal book to be read by Mormons Letters to a

Mormon elder get your copy today in the Mormonism section of our bookstore at a omen org

And welcome back to the dividing line, my name is James White we're talking about the subject of open theism today sort of as a not so much just open theism, but the fact that it is a consistent form of Arminianism it is self -consciously

Arminian and rather self -consciously its fundamental assertion is that if you're going to talk about the sovereignty of God you need to reduce that to this level and that is that the

Intention of God in his sovereignty is solely to create a universe in which man is

Absolutely free God isn't free God's freedom is limited to the fact that he chooses to make such a universe

But once that universe comes into existence then in reality the creature has libertarian free will but God doesn't except in the natural realm

God can do what he wants to do in the natural realm he can go off and play with stars and planets and things like that, but when it comes to the

Libertarian free will the creature no no God will not override that And yet there are just so many things in Scripture where God prophesies future events that require

Multitudes of free will choices of creatures that to say that God doesn't know is to absolutely rip

The the text of Scripture into a million parts now in God the possible by Greg Boyd let me give you some examples of What I mean by the just outrageous exegesis it should be is a

Jesus One of the big problems is that the the

Bible does present God as having Exhaustive divine foreknowledge

In the sense that isn't there such thing as prophecy in the scripture doesn't God say that such -and -such is gonna happen

It's not just you know some general thing down the road and well, it's going to snow in the future

You know it's not that kind of you know type of thing you see from Gene Dixon and some silly grocery store tabloid

Example Peter You're gonna deny me three times three times

Not two times not four times not 120 times and in a specific time frame

Now how do you explain such a thing? Within the context of open theism, that's a tough one

That's tough one. How do you explain that? Well Greg Boyd tries to and Here's here's some discussions page 35

God the possible Our omniscient Creator knows us perfectly far better than we know ourselves hence

We can assume that he is able to predict our behavior far more Extensively and accurately than we could predict it ourselves

This does not mean that everything we'll ever do is predictable for our present character doesn't determine all of our future But it does mean that our behavior is predictable to the extent that our character is solidified and future

Circumstances that will affect this are in place Hmm Peter's denial perhaps the most familiar examples when the

Lord tells Peter who will deny him three times before morning Matthew 26 33 to 35 Contrary the assumption of many we do not need to believe that the future is exhaustively settled to explain this prediction

We only need to believe that God the Father knew and revealed to Jesus one very predictable aspect of Peter's character

Anyone who knew Peter's character perfectly could have predicted that under certain highly pressured

Circumstances that God could easily orchestrate he would act just the way he did

Some have thought that Peter's general bravado and Especially his act of cutting off the ear of the high priest slave

Reveals that his character was not cowardly on the contrary exposing the superficiality of his of this bravado

Was one of the central points as divinely orchestrated lesson Peter had just made the typically proud claim to Jesus I will never desert you even though I must die

Jesus told him of his denial at this point in order to set up the disclosure of just how deluded

Peter was about his own character in the character of the Messiah It's important to remember that Peter had always believed that the

Messiah would be a military leader who would not suffer But rather would vanquish his enemies among Jews at the time.

This was a common idea, etc Etc. Etc. God, of course saw past Peter's false bravado and knew the effect

Jesus rest would have on him He lovingly used this knowledge to teach us important future pull the church an invaluable lesson about love and servant leadership

We do not know how much if any supernatural intervention was employed in God's orchestration of the events of that evening

But the outcome was just as he anticipated Three times Peter had his true character squeezed out of him so that after the resurrection

He might three times have characters the Christ character squeezed into him It is no coincidence that three times resurrected

Jesus asked Peter Do you love me telling him defeated sheep? after each refrain and concluding with a prophecy about how

Peter would die a martyr's death just as he had as he had how in the World Jesus knew that nobody knows never again would

Peter identify leadership with military victory leadership The kingdom of God is about laying down one's life and feeding the Lord sheep

It was a lesson Peter had to learn and live if he was to be everything God knew he could be in any event

And here's the conclusion in any event it seems evident that we do not need to believe that the future is

Exhaustively settled in God's mind to make sense of Jesus prediction of Peter's denial we need only believe that God possesses a perfect knowledge of the past and present and That he revealed some of it to Jesus now

Think about this for just a second Three denials. What was the context?

Oh, I remember Peter goes out next to the fire and He can see into the house and He's warming himself and Someone comes up the fire

Remember the servant girl. Hey You're with that Jesus guy. I don't know the man

Now let's start thinking remember free will choices of Creatures cannot be known by God God could not know that Peter would necessarily go to that fire or That someone would come up to the fire that Peter was at who knew him and had seen him

Maybe no one chooses to go to the fire that Peter's at maybe there's more than one fire

Maybe he's got body odor and nobody wants to stand near him. Who knows but remember

Jesus has already said this is gonna happen What if in some

Amazing turn of events Peter decides to confess Christ or Peter goes to the wrong fire

Peter makes the wrong choice because he's ignorant and goes down the wrong road and gets lost in Any of these multitudes of situations that are fully open and possible because they have to do with free creatures

Jesus becomes a false prophet The sinless Son of God becomes a false prophet because God can't know

How can God know These are all free will choices free will choices if they're going to be free cannot be known

Think of all the different free will choices that played into the three not two not four not five

Not ten the three denials of Peter Peter could have chosen after the first one.

You know, I don't like that. I'm leaving Jesus becomes a false prophet. He goes chosen at the second one to go to a different file fire.

It just becomes a false prophet Maybe the individuals who ring these confessions out of him just choose and you know what?

Let's leave the guy alone could have happened Jesus becomes a false prophet The simple fact matter is there is absolutely no way in the open theistic perspective

For this prophecy to take place. How can knowing Peter's? personality

Perfectly tell you it's going to be three denials and not two or four

Especially because each one of these involved The interaction of a number of free

Creatures whose actions are not Known to God their decisions are not known to God now

So they are well actually but you see God knew all those other people perfectly and so he perfectly so he he could tell he could predict

Which fire they'd go to now, come on folks Knowing someone's character perfectly does not tell you what they're gonna do

Oh, you may know it better, but if there are three fires there and you're equidistant from each one

It's not your character that determines which one you go to No one having that kind of knowledge could ever come that kind of conclusion no matter how infinitely wise

God is There is no way to establish That kind of a perspective it just it just doesn't work

Now then Boyd and we've got a caller I'll try to get to it in a second or Let me suppose but this way callers asking about Psalm 139 and Psalm 139 is one of these passages that very

Oops that very much Illustrates is very this very issue because does not

Psalm 139 Talk about the fact that God for example in Psalm 139 16 your eyes have seen my unformed substance and In your book were all written the days that were ordained for me when as yet there was not one of them

Now that Excuse me, but how do you understand that in the context of open theism?

That's pretty hard to understand. Well, let me give you an example Again Gregory Boyd God of the possible page 40

I have in mind verse 4 and I'll get to a thing Is it true that our days were numbered does

David's testimony that in your book were written all the days that were formed for me? Refute the open view of the future. I'd like to like to offer a certain number of brief considerations.

How does he get around to it? How does he get around to it? Well all he does in dealing with Psalm 139 and to answer the question of The callers asking about Psalm 139 for even before there is word of my tongue behold.

Oh Lord, you know it all Well again, I would say the open theist would say in response to 139 for you know it all now

By knowing me perfectly in the present But they would then say it doesn't follow

You get that God knows the future now. I agree with you. Psalm 139 Ford isn't saying that I'm just guessing

The fact the matter is as Bruce Ware has pointed out and as John frame points out you can go through the openness materials and There's all sorts of verses that won't even show up that are extremely problematic and now they may say well

We can't address everything but especially you'd think those passages that would indicate an exhaustive knowledge of the future

Would at least be addressed But just just to give you an idea Why say that going back to Psalm 139 16?

first even if this verse said that the exact length of our lives was settled before we were born it wouldn't fall that everything about our future was settled before we were born and Certainly not that it was settled from all eternity now.

Just stop just for a moment right there this Gives you a really broad answer wait a minute is

Not the length of my life Dependent upon an innumerable number of Unconstrained unknown freewill choices

Of course I mean I can choose To jump off a cliff

I Can choose to engage in certain activities that are going to shorten my life.

I can choose to smoke I can choose to drink I can choose to sit in front of TV with remote never exercise

Isn't that going to determine the length of my days well of course it is of course it is so How can

I Just it boggles the mind that someone's would say well even if it does mean that all your days known to God Doesn't mean that everything's known to God Well wait a minute the whole open theistic perspective is based upon the idea that future free choices of free creatures cannot be known

The length of my life is clearly dependent not only and think about this not only about the free choices

I make But are not our lives very often impacted by the future free choices of all sorts of other people

Were there not over 2 ,000 people in the World Trade Centers whose length of their life

Was cut short by the free will choices of 19 men and more in the

Mideast of course so to in his cavalier way say well

That's it doesn't mean that everything's known is absolutely ridiculous, but Boyd then goes on and does something really weird

In essence he tries to find a way around saying that all of my days have been formed or determined and Basically, he's just playing with linguistics.

He goes to the King James version Now when someone goes to the

KJV Especially in the Psalms, and I've seen this happen more than once in my lifetime

Got in trouble in a church lunch because the pastor decided to do this He always preached out of the new American standard decided to preach out of the

King James one day The reason was the proper translation would have supported his sermon topic The King James says thine eyes did see my substance yet being

Unperfect and in thy book all my members were written which in continuance were fashioned when as yet there was none of them aside from the fact that again we

I'm not sure exactly what that means in modern English, but for some reason the

King James doesn't want to translate the term yamim as days and So it translates as my members and so he actually focuses on the

King James translation and Tries to say well

Okay, though this wording is a bit awkward It has the advantage of being consistent with the rest of the psalm and especially the immediate

Context is verse psalm 139 is about God's moment -by -moment intimate involvement in our lives The verses immediately preceding verse 16 described the formation of the psalmist body in the womb

Indeed the first stanza verse 16 your eyes behold my informed substance also concerns the intimate awareness The Lord has the psalmist even before he's formed notice how it's not

God's creative power, but his awareness That's not

I mean Absolutely indefensible, but that's what they end up doing with psalm 139 so in answer to that question

But I want to deal with and I'm run out of time here The foreordained

Messiah and the predestined Church How does Gregory Boyd as an Arminian open theist as a consistent

Arminian? Deal with the fact that the Bible very clearly Speaks of God's predestination.

Let me let me give you an example The foreordained Messiah the predestined Church page 44 predestined event and non predestined players.

Did you hear that? predestined event with non predestined players

What do we mean since God determines whatever he wants to about world history

We should not find it surprising that the central defining event in world history the crucifixion included a number of predestined aspects

It seems that the Incarnation and crucifixion were part of God's plan from before the foundation of the world first Peter 120

Revelation 13 8 Hence scripture makes it clear that Jesus was not crucified by accident

Rather he was delivered up and crucified according to the definite plan for knowledge of God acts 223

See also acts 428 keep that in mind in light of this next paragraph Because you're gonna go come on.

You're you've got to be misreading this. No one can seriously put this in print Why do

I say that? Well, some of you may not have a Bible open. Let's look at Acts 428 for a member for a moment.

Remember that rather signal passage of Scripture Actually, you need to you need to go back to the preceding verse acts 427

Which specifically says the church is praying for truly in the city They 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 purpose predestined to occur

That's one of those tough passages. It's pretty hard to get around that one. There's one of your passages.

It deals very clearly with compatibilism but notice acts 427

Both Herod and Pontius Pilate along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel. All right, keep that in mind.

Listen to this paragraph Right after signing acts 428 not for 27, but actually while Scripture portrays the crucifixion as a predestined event

It never suggests that the individuals who participated in this event were predestined to do so or for known as doing so It was certain that Jesus would be crucified

But it was not certain from eternity that Pilate Herod or Caiaphas would play the roles

They played in the crucifixion they participated in Christ's death of their own free wills Excuse me,

I Had the exact same response to that that I had when I read Norm Geisler Dealing with John 644 and concluding that it teaches the free will of man

It's like A total and complete disconnection.

I Mean could someone put this on a chart for me, please? Acts 427 and 28

Says that these men did exactly what God predestined and it mentions them by name

They did what God's hand and beforehand predestined would occur and and the response is well

But but it's only the occurrence That was predestined not who did it?

think again how Many free will unknown to God choices went into the crucifixion

How many? God could not have any knowledge of such things in the open theistic perspective

Absolutely amazing But but that's a how about the predestined church someone just Instant message or a private message to me something.

I have absolutely positively no idea what any of it has to do with anything. But anyways, um the predestined church listen to this a

Page of 46 in the same way that God predestined and foreknew the death of Jesus without predestining or for knowing which

Individuals would condemn him something we've already seen is absolutely ridiculous. So God predestined and foreknew the church

Without predestining or for knowing which specific individuals would belong to it a

Careful examination of relevant text support this interpretation. Where have we heard that one before? Here's class election

God predestines that the church is going to exist. We just don't know who's going to be in it We don't know who's gonna be in it.

For example when Paul says That God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world

He immediately specifies this predestination was for us to be holy and blameless before him in love Note Paul does not say that we were individually predestined to be in Christ or not

Where have we heard that before? I?

Mean This old saw it's an Arminian saw That's that's what

Norm Geisler says, but Norm Geisler is not an open theist is he no, but what do they share in common? Arminianism a belief in libertarian free will as the central facet of Their theology.

It truly is the central facet of this theology and by the way Ephesians 1 for the direct object of Choose is always

Personal Personal Not an impersonal thing. Think about what this results in.

I mean open theism. This this came up in the in the the Jets stuff If God doesn't know the future then

God did not know that any single one of us Was going to exist when he created this world

God did not know that any person listening to this broadcast was going to exist when he created and Think about it

God did not know about any one of us who's listened to this broadcast when

Christ died Was that due to substitutionary atonement? Think about it

Jesus didn't know you're ever gonna exist Your name couldn't have been in his lips in His mind as he suffered upon the cross the whole concept of substitutionary atonement is

Completely undercut of course Arminianism doesn't have substitutionary atonement at least not historically

Interesting isn't it? Ah, yes it is Scripture elsewhere tells us and boy you ready for this

Here's the Arminianism Scripture elsewhere tells us that if it were up to God alone, he would save everyone first Timothy 2 for second

Peter 3 9. Ah Yes, here we go. The mantra of the completely and totally

Unexecuted passages in first Timothy 2 for in second Peter 3 9, but it is not up to God alone

God gave humans free will what Paul says in this verse is that whoever chooses to be in Christ is

Predestined to be holy and blameless before him in love. Do you hear that folks? Look at Ephesians 1 4 and then listen to the

Arminian say what Paul says in this verse Is that whoever chooses to be in Christ is predestined to be holy and blameless before him in love?

Talk about turning a text completely upon its head Now that we have chosen to be in Christ We can say with Paul that we believers were predestined to be holy and blameless before God Indeed as a group we were given this grace in Christ Jesus before the ages began second

Timothy 1 9 What does that mean if this grace was given to an? Unnamed group and this grace is given to a theory

This is theoretical grace and it's limited just to the idea that we will be made holy and blameless

That's all predestination is about and isn't that what Dave Hunt says it is It is absolutely amazing the complete and total

Isagetical Nature Of this kind of stuff and you might say well

These are the scholarly ones. Yeah, I know But for example, John Sanders book no other name on inclusivism

He says right at the start now This book is not going to be convincing to people who believe in limited

Atonement and for him limited Atonement means all Calvinists I don't know why uses that way, but that's that's terminology that uses because it assumes

That first in the two four second Peter three nine and Matthew 23 37 revealed that God has a universal salvific will he takes as a given

God's universal salvific will and as a given the total free will of man

Libertarian freedom and all the rest of his argumentations based on that he doesn't even try to establish

That second Peter three nine first in the two four Matthew 23 37 teach the things that it is assumed that they teach

So here you have scholars They assume these things and isn't that exactly what

Adrian Rogers and Dave Hunt and Norm Geisler have done as well Yep Talk about the power of tradition

There it is tradition does not have A need for exegesis tradition takes the place of divine truth that is obtained and understood through exegesis and It's all through all of these books sitting all around me here

You will see over and over again when you start asking any are we gonna get some exegesis? Are we gonna get some biblical discussion here?

No Fundamentally what drives it all is tradition and that tradition may be the the the tradition of of libertarian free will and and Universal salvific will and God and all the rest of stuff.

Whatever it is doesn't really matter that Tradition is what drives the whole thing Well, I hope some of that was useful to you.

I am certainly looking forward to these debates I'm not sure what's going on next week I know we're not going to be here at two o 'clock next week

We got a little something going on a little something important. So we might do something earlier in the week

I just don't know. I know someone said well, you should tell us when it is I don't know where it's gonna be. We got to figure that out, but Come into the chat room find out we normally let folks know

But we'll have something for you next week. And then the week after that man, I'm down at the debates

So that's gonna be something interesting Thanks for listening to dividing line we'll be back with you sometime in the near future

We need a new reformation Lift up your voice

The dividing line has been brought to you by alpha and omega ministries if you'd like to contact us call us at 602 973 0 3 1 8 or write us at PO box 3 7 1 0 6 phoenix, arizona 8 5 0 6 9 you can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m I n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks