Sunday, September 23, 2007

"a god who cannot know the future cannot control the future"

here is the final segment of the interview with dr. ron nash on open theism.
after this post, i will wrap up our discussion on open theism with one or two more posts. feel free to make comments or ask questions to regarding ideas or issues that have or have not been addressed so far.

...........................................................................................................
Open Theism: An Interview with Dr. Ronald Nash
part 3

Michael Collender: Thank you Dr. Nash. I have a
few final questions for you. Now Greg Boyd, in his book
God of the Possible writes,

"Next to the central doctrines of the Christian faith,
the issue of whether the future is exhaustibly settled
or partially open, is relatively unimportant. It is
certainly not a doctrine that Christians should ever
divide over."


Now, Dr. Nash, is open theism merely an intra-church debate
about the future, and thus, in the words of Dr. Boyd, relatively
unimportant, or is more at stake?

Ron Nash: With all due respect to Dr. Boyd, this
is a move that has been made by every heretic in the
history of the church.
When the Jehovah's witnesses or other Unitarians have said
the deity of Christ is not something that we should fight about.
Or the substitutionary atonement. This is a classic move.

Now I'm not imputing heresy to my friends who are open theists
in any kind of straightforward way, but once we know where the
church has always stood on these issues, when someone comes
along with what amounts to a new way of understanding these
things and says "now this is nothing to really get excited about,
don't split churches over this, don't leave my church" , then I'm
sorry, this is a matter where we have to take a stand. The last
group of people who's advice we follow on this matter are the
people who are deviating and departing from the church's
long-held position on this.

MC: What exactly is at stake in this issue?

RN: Good question. What is at stake is, number one, our
understanding of God and the kind of God upon whom our
faith is based. What's also at stake here is our firm belief,
or what is the belief of people who are not open theists, that
God is sovereign, and that God is in control of all of human
history, and God will bring His will to pass. One of the points
that I argue in my book Life's Ultimate Questions is that a God
who cannot know the future cannot control the future. And thus,
if we follow the open theist very far down his road, we end up
with a God who cannot give us the confidence that we need to
believe that His will will prevail in human history.

We're dealing, frankly, as I sometimes say to audiences; when
I understand with the God of open theism, I want to pray for that
God because He needs help. Right now the world series starts this
week. The God of open theism has no idea which team is going to
win the world series. The God of open theism who's going to win
the battle against terrorism. That is not my God. That is a different
God. And it is not the God of the Christian worldview.

The very integrity, the heart of our faith is at stake with this
issue, and this is not a minor, trivial matter that says "well, you can
continue to go to this church and worship this alternate God and so on".

MC: You said before that you didn't want to call this heresy.
But is sounds like you're being very kind to your friends who
would hold this position as well.

RN: There are two kinds of heresy. One kind of heresy is illustrated
by a serious error called "Socinianism". And many of the beliefs of
Socinianism are actually taught by these open theists. Their position
is not new. The Socinians lived during the years of the Reformation
and they denied God's knowledge of future contingent events, but
they also then followed that belief down the road to other beliefs
that were specifically heretical.
So one kind of heresy is where you really are out to change the nature
of the Christian faith in to a totally different religion. I'm not accusing
open theists of that.

But there is a second kind of heresy where, without knowing it,
without thinking it, maybe because they're afraid to think through
thing to their end, good people, honorable people, say things that
entail conclusions that are utterly inconsistent with the historic
Christian faith. And that's where I think the open theists are.

MC: What should we as a church do then?

RN: Well, in about a month the Evangelical Theological Society
is going to meet in Colorado Springs and the members of the
ETS are going to debate the question of whether people who
believe this way are holding beliefs that are inconsistent with
the doctrinal stance of the Evangelical Theological Society. And
if their beliefs are inconsistent with the doctrinal stance of the
Evangelical Theological Society, then they should leave.

If the ETS does not reach the proper conclusion here, I think it's
time for a whole lot of people to leave the ETS because it clearly
will no longer stand for the theological foundation upon which it
was based. If that means there is a battle within the church, well,
that's hardly new. The reason the church got to this point is that
when errors crept into the church over the centuries, brave and
honorable people stood up and said "God help me, I can
do no other",to quote Martin Luther there.
Every time the church - Christians, leaders, thinkers - have failed
to take a stand against error, one error multiplies into another.

During the 18th century, people who claimed to believe in the
inerrancy of the Bible in New England began to deny the Deity
of Christ and they did so on the basis of a spurious of false
interpretations of Scripture. That heresy was not rooted out,
and before you knew it all of those congregational churches in
New England that had failed to take a stand decades earlier
were committed to a full blown Unitarian and Universalist
position. You nip it in the bud and if you don't, then the errors
that are implied in this position will eventually creep in and take
over, and then we've lost a serious battle.

5 comments:

AndrewRocks said...

How is open theism different from Armenianism? To me, the free willer thought is akin to open theism. Is there much of a difference?

Worship Leader Ron said...

Andrew,

The most important difference is that Arminians affirm the complete, perfect and exhaustive knowledge of God, Past, Present and Future.

It may be too simplistic to say that they just don't affirm God's sovereignty because I've read open theists who argue that we have just misunderstand God's sovereignty. They say that eventually, somehow, He'll accomplish what He wants while never ever violating the autonomy of every single person. They would argue that that is the way that He's sovereign. (of course, as Mr. Nash points out, he argues that if you don't know the future, how can you control the future...there are many glaring philosophical inconsistancies, much less scriptural ones, that are created when one tries to solve the problem of evil this way)

Also, since Open theism is primarily a theology designed to answer the appearent contradiction between God's essential goodness and his allowing or willing of evil and suffering(a.k.a. theodicy), it is much less systematic than than Arminianism. Arminiasm is (like calvinism) a formulation of many doctrines, but Open theism basically explains one doctrine and is silent on many other issues. That is why there can be Baptist Open theists and Methodist Open theists who affirm the same understanding of God's foreknowledge, but may differ on their understanding of the rest of salvation or atonement or sanctification.

Also, true arminians, in the methodist and pentecostal mode, believe that because of human libertarian free will, we can lose our salvation anytime we choose to deny the truth of the gospel or various types of blatant disobedience. Open theism doesn't necessarily address this question. There are writing baptist open theists who believe in the perseverence of the believer. While some may consider this logically inconsistant, they believe that God is lovingly working for the salvation of every sinner, to bring about (only in the present) man's salvation. The Sanctification of the believer is seen in the same way, an active present work of the spirit to perfect the christian to the likeness of Christ.

Maybe that will help?

stephen lee cavness said...

dear andrew,
what ron said.

-stephen (thanks ron..that was well said)

JJones said...

Anyone who even hints that Jehovah's Witnesses do not wish to argue over the issue of the Deity of Jesus Christ has just indicated that they know NOTHING about the JWs.

JWs preach that the Trinity Doctrine comes straight from Satan The Devil, and that believers in such will be destroyed by GOD.

...

SUMMARIES OF NEARLY 600 JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES LAWSUITS & COURT CASES


The following website summarizes 310 U.S. court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including 100+ cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children:

DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com


The following website summarizes over 275 lawsuits filed by Jehovah's Witnesses against their Employers, and/or incidents involving problem JW Employees:

EMPLOYMENT ISSUES UNIQUE TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESS EMPLOYEES

http://jwemployees.bravehost.com

stephen lee cavness said...

jjones,
thanks for dropping by.
i think you missed the point that dr. nash was making.
he was not saying that the beliefs of jehovah's witness' dont deny the trinity or diety of christ.
he was commenting on how there are some who will seek to say "oh, that we disagree on this doesnt mean we dont basically believe teh same way" in order to gain a wider hearing.

i have encountered mormons and jehovah's witness' who *initially* will want to gloss over differences in order to be trusted more to gain a better hearing.
that is teh point dr. nash was making.

-stephen