the gospel in 6 minutes...

http://www.desiringgod.org/ has placed on its website a free link to john piper giving a gospel presentation in 6 minutes.

they are encouraging the widespread distribution of this video. they want people to download, link to it, email it, etc.

if you have friends, family, or co-workers, etc. who are asking questions about the gospel, then send them this link, or better yet, watch it with them.

click here for the gospel in 6 minutes

you can also read, forward, etc. the manuscript found here

may the spirit of the lord open hearts to receive the good news.

small god??

i just finished reading a book by dr. bruce ware entitled "their god is too small: open theism and the undermining of confidence in god"

the book is a small paperback, less than 130 pages. it is a good introduction to what open theism is, what its proponents have written, and the consequences that such a belief demand.
if you are at all interested in this topic, i recommend it as a starting point. it is a pretty quick read, but covers a lot of ground.

to give you an idea, here is a link to the introduction to the book which, itself, is an excellent statement on why the god of open theism is a much smaller (i.e. different) god than the god of scripture.

read the introduction for free here

purchase the book here. (get a used copy for $6!)

as always, comments are welcome after you read the intro.

more on god's "ignornace"

there has been a good discussion going on in the comments section of the last post. feel free to participate and carry that conversation over to the comments on this post.

as an update on my back, i have disc fragments floating around in my spinal cord which are digging into and pinching nerves in my spine. i am supposed to rest for two weeks, and if there is no marked difference, i willprobably have my second back surgery in less than 10 years. your prayers are appreciated.

i will pick up where i left off re-posting from tim challies blog on open theism .
.......................................................................................................................................

Chief Proponents
The best-known proponents of open theism are:

Clark Pinnock -
Clark Pinnock spent 25 years preaching,
teaching, and writing at McMaster Divinity College after
having served previously at the University of Manchester,
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, Trinity Evangelical
Divinity School, and Regent College in Vancouver. He is best-
known for his contribution to the book The Openness of God:
A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of
God.

Greg Boyd -
Greg Boyd is the Senior Pastor at Woodland Hills
Church in St. Paul, Minnesota and previously served as a
Professor of Theology at Bethel College for sixteen years.
In 2000, Dr. Boyd founded Christus Victor Ministries, a
nonprofit organization that promotes faith which satisfies
the mind and inspires the heart. Dr. Boyd regularly speaks
at academic and religious conferences, college campuses, and
churches throughout the United States and abroad. His most
popular book is God of the Possible which is a popular defense
of open theism.

In Their Own Words
There is no better way of understanding a doctrine than through
the words of those who believe and teach it. So let’s turn to some
of the prominent Open Theists and hear them in their own words.
I[tim challies] will provide brief commentary [in green]where
appropriate.

We must wonder how the Lord could truly experience
regret for making Saul king if he was absolutely certain
that Saul would act the way he did.
Could God genuinely confess, “I regret that I made Saul
king” if he could in the same breath also proclaim, “I was
certain of what Saul would do when I made him king?”
Common sense tells us that we can only regreta decision
we made if the decision resulted in an outcome other than
what we expected or hoped for when the decision was made.
Gregory Boyd – God of the Possible, page 56.

Boyd tells us of a God who regrets - a God who
sorrows over decisions He has made as He is
genuinely saddened by the results of His poor
decision.


God makes a covenant with his creation that never again
will virtually everything be annihilated. The sign of the
rainbow that God gives us a reminder to himself that he
will never again tread this path. It may be the case that
although human evil caused God great pain, the destruction
of what he had made caused him even greater suffering.
Although his judgment was righteous, God decides to try
different courses of action in the future.
John Sanders – The God Who Risks, page 50.

In this quote we are told that God regrets. God
suffered greatly as a result of a decision He made
- a decision that may have been rash.
It may have been an over-reaction.


I suggested to her that God felt as much regret
over the confirmation [of marriage] he had given
Suzanne as he did about his decision to make Saul
king of Israel. Not that it was a bad decision - at the
time, her ex-husband was a good man with a godly
character.
The prospects that he and Suzanne would have a
happy marriage and fruitful ministry were, at the
time, very good. Indeed, I strongly suspect that he
had influenced Suzanne and her ex-husband
[toward] their marriage.

Because her ex-husband was a free agent, however,
even the best decisions have sad results.
Over time…[he] had opened himself up to the enemy’s
influence and became involved in an immoral relationship.
Initially, all was not lost, and God and others tried to restore
him, but he chose to resist the prompting of the Spirit.

By framing the ordeal within the context of an open future,
Suzanne was able to understand the tragedy of her life in a
new way. She didn’t have to abandon all confidence in her
ability to hear God and didn’t have to accept that somehow
God intended this ordeal “for her own good.” … This isn’t a
testimony to [God’s] exhaustive definite foreknowledge; it’s
a testimony to his unfathomable wisdom.
Gregory Boyd – God of the Possible, pages 105-106.

This has become one of the best-known defenses of
open theism and is a story that is told often.
God did the best with the information
He had at the time and confirmed a woman’s choice of
husband. But God was later surprised to see this man
prove himself anything but a good husband. God did His
best to restore this man, but was unable.
God had ultimately made a mistake in confirming
Suzanne’s choice of a spouse.


The overarching structures of creation are purposed
by God, but not every single detail that occurs within
them. Within general providence it makes sense to say
that God intends an overall purpose for the creation and
that God does not specifically intend each and every action
within the creation. Thus God does not have a specific
divine purpose for each and every occurence of evil.
The “greater good” of establishing the conditions of
fellowship between God and creatures does not mean
that gratuitous evil has a point. Rather, the possibility
of gratuitous evil has a point but its actuality does not. …
When a two-month-old child contracts a painful, incurable
bone cancer that means suffering and death, it is pointless
evil. The Holocaust is pointless evil. .. God does not have
a specific purpose in mind of these occurences.
John Sanders – The God Who Risks, pages 261-262.

Quotes like this one were used to comfort a shocked
world during the aftermath of the Tsunami of 2004.
Many professed Christians denied that God had a hand
in this disaster, and that He had foreknowledge of it.
According to Open theology, there is no purpose
in gratutious suffering and evil, and it occurs outside
the will and foreknowledge of God.


It is God’s desire that we enter into a give-and-take
relationship of love, and this is not accomplished by
God’s forcing his blueprint on us. Rather, God wants
us to go through life together with him, making decisions
together.
Together we decide the actual course of my life.
God’s will for my life does not reside in a list of specific
activities but in a personal relationship. As lover and friend,
God works with us wherever we go and whatever we do.
To a large extent our future is open and we are to determine
what it will be in dialogue with God.
John Sanders – The God Who Risks, page 277.

This quote emphasizes the reciprocal nature of the
relationship between men and God espoused by Open
Theists. Humans and God work together
to create, know and understand the future. When it
comes to the future, God is no further ahead we are
and no more responsible for what will happen.


[W]e must acknowledge that divine guidance, from
our perspective, cannot be considered a means of
discovering exactly what will be best in the long run
- as a means of discovering the very best long-term
option. Divine guidance, rather, must be viewed
primarily as a means of determining what is best
for us now.
…
[S]ince God does not necessarily know exactly what
will happen in the future, it is always possible that
even that which God in his unparalleled wisdom
believes to be the best course of action at any given
time may not produce the anticipated results in the
long run.David Basinger – The Openness
of God, pages 163 & 165.

Basinger tells us that God’s guidance is accurate
only for the present - only with a view to the knowledge
God currently posesses. Because God does not know the
future, His guidance cannot extend beyond the
present. Even the best of God’s wisdom can only
anticipate results based on current conditions.

..........................................................................................................................

i hope these quotes were helpful in understanding what it is that open theists believe. i also hope that it helps you to see the consequences of such a belief. that god knows no more about the future than you or i do, that things happen without reason and against god's will, that god can make mistakes, etc.

please feel free to comment..

does god know?

i am having another bout with my back. i am currently unable to sit for longer than a few minutes, and require the assistance of a cane to walk very far. however, i have received by way of phone calls and emails lots of encouragement to pursue the topics in my last post. as always, i welcome any form of communication and dialogue, but encourage them in teh form of comments on this blog.

since i am unable to sit very long, i will just cut and paste from tim challies, who has a reputable blog with a wealth of information. the following is taken from this post from 2005.
.....................................................................................................................................................

Open theism is a relatively new doctrine that has only gained
popular prominence since 1994 with the release of the book
The Openness of God which was written by five evangelical
scholars and edited by Clark Pinnock. What began on the fringes
of scholarship has quickly gained a popular following, in part because
of the publication of entry-level titles such as Gregory Boyd’s
God of the Possible and in part because of the acceptance of the
doctrine by various popular authors.

While many evangelicals do not embrace this doctrine themselves,
they may regard it as an optional doctrine that remains within the
pale of orthodox evangelicalism. This article will define the doctrine,
describe its chief characteristics, introduce its proponents and explain
the challenge to the church.

A Definition
This is a definition I have adapted from Monergism.com.
“open theism is a sub-Christian theological construct which
claims that God’s highest goal is to enter into a reciprocal relationship
with man. In this scheme, the Bible is interpreted without any
anthropomorphisms - that is, all references to God’s feelings, surprise
and lack of knowledge are literal and the result of His choice to create a
world where He can be affected by man’s choices. God’s exhaustive
knowledge does not include future free will choices by mankind because
they have not yet occurred.”

One of the leading spokesmen of open theism, Clark Pinnock,
in describing how libertarian freedom trumps God’s omniscience
says, “Decisions not yet made do not exist anywhere to be known
even by God. They are potential—yet to be realized but not yet
actual. God can predict a great deal of what we will choose to do,
but not all of it, because some of it remains hidden in the mystery
of human freedom … The God of the Bible displays an openness
to the future (i.e. ignorance of the future) that the traditional view
of omniscience simply cannot accommodate.”
(Pinnock, “Augustine to Arminius, ” 25-26)

Defining Characteristics
Open theism is characterized in several ways:
God’s greatest attribute is love. God’s love
so overshadowsHis other characteristics that He
could never allow or condone
evil or suffering to befall mankind.

Man has libertarian free will. Man’s will has not been so effected
by the Fall that he is unable to make a choice to follow God. God
respects man’s freedom of choice and would not infringe upon it.

God does not have exhaustive knowledge of the future. Indeed,
He cannot know certain future events because the future exists
only as possibility. God is unable to see what depends on the choices
of free will agents simply because this future does not yet exist, so
it unknowable. In this way open theists attempt to reconcile this
doctrine with God’s ominiscience.

God takes risks. Because God cannot know the future,
He takes risks in many ways - creating people, giving
them gifts and abilities, and so on. Where possibilities
exist, so does risk.

God learns. Because God does not know the future
exhaustively, He learns, just as we do.

God is reactive. Because He is learning, God is constantly
reacting to the decisions we make.

God makes mistakes. Because He is learning and reacting,
always dealing with limited information, God can and does
make errors in judgment which later require re-evaluation.

God can change His mind. When God realizes He has made
an error in judgment or that things did not unfold as He supposed,
He can change His mind.

The most important thing to note is that God knows the future only
as it is not dependent on human, free-will decisions. God does not
know what any free-will agents (ie humans) will do, because those
decisions do not yet exist and God cannot know what does not exist.
God decided, in Creation, that He would limit Himself in this way in
order to give complete freedom to human beings. Therefore, God does
not know or control the future - He learns from our decisions and
constantly adapts as necessary. He often needs to change His mind
or re-evaluate His options as the future unfolds.

........................................................................................................................................

i hope you have found tim's summary helpful... and appalling.
next post we'll pick up with some of the chief proponents of this view and what they say about it.. do you see any troubling implications if this doctrine is true? do you know of any biblical support for it?

but before we get there, i would love to get your initial reactions to this doctrine that is taught in pulpits and written about in books sold in your local christian churches and bookstores.

current issues...

do you know anything about...

open theism?

what about the emergent church movement?

the "new perspective" on paul?

all of these are hot button theological issues swirling around the church today.

one teaches that god does not know the future and does not have total control over the universe.

another teaches that the traditional understanding of "justification by faith alone" has been misunderstood for over 500 years.

sound unbelievable? surely no true christian would believe these... much less teach these things, right?

well... be careful what you buy in your local christian bookstore. if you're not careful you could be buying a book written by a proponent of open theism, the new perspective, the emergent church, etc.

the term "christian" has become so broad that i literally shudder to think of what people may purchase in a bookstore that they think is safe.

i intend to devote my next few posts to these issues and others. if you have any topics you would like to discuss or to understand a little better, please feel free to leave it in the comment section.
(by the way.. leaving comments does *not* require you to sign up for anything or cause you to start getting spam. you do not have to register to leave comments... i know some have had that concern)

dead dogs and dead babies...

justin taylor makes a very brief yet stunning post over at his blog (which i read every day)

read it here

the nfl suspends indefinitely, michael vick for participating in the deaths of dogs.

yet the nfl team, jacksonville jaguars just donated $30,000 to planned parenthood, which supports and encourages aborting human babies.

america is a very confused and sad nation.

our willingness to overlook such glaring inconsistencies is worse..

gun control??...

now those are two things id never put together...blowguns and incense...

god's name is *NOT* "allah"

this story hit the news today...
Roman Catholic Bishop Wants Everyone to Call God 'Allah'
A proposal by a Roman Catholic bishop in the Netherlands that people of all faiths refer to God as "Allah" is not sitting well with the Catholic community. Tiny Muskens, an outgoing bishop who is retiring in a few weeks from the southern diocese of Breda, said God doesn't care what he is called. "Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? ... What does God care what we call him? It is our problem," Muskens told Dutch television.....
...Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington, D.C.-based Islamic civil liberties and advocacy group, backs the idea as a way to help interfaith understanding...."It reinforces the fact that Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the same God," Hooper told FOXNews.com. "I don't think the name is as important as the belief in God and following God's moral principles. I think that's true for all faiths."

read the entire story here
here it is, folks. this is what happens when we are not clear and intentional about who we worship. the object of worship for islam, "allah" is *NOT* the same god that christians worship. the god of islam is not triune, nor did he send his son, jesus christ, to provide salvation for all who would believe.
they are NOT the same god. we must be clear about this. it is imperative to getting the gospel right.
i was actually going to blog about a slogan that has been made increasingly popular by U2 singer bono. in case you havent seen it on a t-shirt or bumper sticker, here it is.

the signs of islam, judaism, and christianity put together to form the word "coexist".

insofar as the sentiment is that among diasgreement, we should still strive to live among each other with love, i agree. but where i vehemently disagree is the notion, as it is often presented, that it doesnt matter which faith is yours, they are all equal.

this is simply not true. and the thing is, not one of these three religions, if taken from their orthodox and historic positions, would agree that any other religion is valid. each one claims that it is the only true way to god.

the words of the apostle paul in galations 1 serve us well here...

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (gal. 1:6-9)

let us refuse to further this nonsense that all religions are equal as long as they are sincerely believed. of course we should point these truths out in a spirit of love and with patience. but we are not loving anyone by letting them believe a lie that will send them to hell to endure the wrath of god for eternity.

i would rather offend someone's sense of "tolerance" than further this lie.

i'm not "reverend"

my ordination council meeting was this past sunday afternoon.
for over 90 minutes i was questioned and examined by laymen, local ministers and renowned theologians who were attempting to discern whether or not i am truly called by the lord to be a minister of the gospel. it was a most humbling experience. by the grace of god and by his calling the council approved me and recommended me for ordination.

some may wonder why such scrutiny? why such examination? if someone feels called by the lord to be a pastor, shouldn't we just be thankful and send them on their way?

well, if the large and ever growing list of people who "used" to be a pastor is any indication, we should worry less about being too careful and be much more concerned that we are too quick to affirm that someone is indeed called. also long is the list of those who introduce themselves with a title denoting ministry, yet live live marked by other things.

i was reading a news story earlier and two names that are frequently in the news appeared. they are both designated as christian leaders/preachers with the title "reverend" in front of their name. but i would venture to say that what these men are known for is far removed from the gospel of christ. that is not to say that ministers cannot be involved in causes of human and equal rights.. our own nation's history, indeed world history, is a testament that they have been and should be. but in the cases of these two men (and there are others), though they have "rev." in front of their name, what they are known for is not the gospel.

the difficulty is that examination must not stop with public figures.

i have been and will continue to go to great lengths to emphasize that after my ordination this week that i will be no more special or loved by god than those to whom i preach every week. but as a minister, my reputation should be first and foremost "one who is a minister of the gospel of jesus christ". but even if i were not a pastor, simply by being a christian, one who "is a follower of jesus christ", i should be known as one who promotes the gospel of my namesake.
ministers aren't the only ones who should be known as those who point to christ.

if we are known by anyone as "christian", when they observe our lives what are we pointing them to? if they were to give a description of us, would "love of god with heart soul mind and strength" be mentioned as what makes us who we are?

are we known more for the causes we are against, the things we hate, issues that make us angry, or our favorite sports team, music, movies, tv shows? or are we known as people who love and strive to obey christ?

we need to stop compartmentalizing our lives. "christian" is not part of who we are.. it *is* who we are. it is not one item on a list of our hobbies or interests.

we are not doctors, teachers, students, school board members, office employees, athletes, or musicians who are christians.

rather, we are christians who are doctors, teachers, students, school board members, office employees, athletes, and musicians.

there is a difference, and that difference is what changes lives.

may god grant us this grace...


by this my father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so
prove to be my disciples- john 15:8

rest...

i have received emails inquiring about my lack of posting recently. there are several answers to the question, so i thought i would answer them all at once.

#1- i have a 10 week old baby boy....enough said

#2 - this summer i took a class that required over 1,500 pages of reading in addition to a lengthy position paper that has consumed the bulk of any free time i have had since may.

#3 - i had to finish another writing assignment for a lifeway publication

#4 - i have degenerative disc disease. i had surgery in 1999, and from time to time have flare ups. for the first couple of weeks of july i was in bed due to a major flare up in the form of a herniated disc that was/is rubbing against nerve endings in my spine that cause burning and numbness in my leg. i start 12 weeks of physical therapy tomorrow. i would appreciate your prayers that the lord would see fit to heal me totally so that i may return to a "normal" lifestyle, despite my undeservingness.

i appreciate all of the emails and other contacts i regularly receive because of this blog. what began as an attempt to cure a bout with insomnia has become a regular part of my life. though i rarely (if ever) have any original thoughts, i am amazed that so many people read this blog. since july of last year, this blog has been visited over 7,500 times and from all across the globe. (some of these were surely lost travelers on the information superhighway!) it is a humble reminder to me that if i am to speak with confidence, to speak the truths of god's word. i am sure i may have failed at times, but i pray that my intentions are always to honor the lord with the content of this blog.

my final year of seminary begins one week from today. i will be taking the rest of this week off in order to just rest and continue to recover from this back injury. lord willing, i am also being ordained in two weeks (assuming that i pass my ordination council this week!), so i need to study and prepare for that as well.

that said, i do intend to begin posting regularly soon. in 2005 (starting in june) i posted only 24 times. last year, 36 times. already this year i am over 50. i have no number that i am shooting for, but it has been a good exercise for ordering my thoughts and thinking through certain issues. thank you for thinking through them with me. please continue to send feedback. i get quite a bit through email, but please feel free to leave a comment on the blog itself.

since i will be taking an intentional break from posting for the next week, i wanted to leave you with some links of blogs that i have found to be very informative without feeling like i am doing homework.

justin taylor

desiring god

al mohler

enjoy these sites, and i hope that you will return here in a week or so. in the meantime, i ask that you pray for my back, as well that colossians 1:9-10 would be true in my life as i strive to be a better follower of christ, and a better husband, father, pastor, teacher, writer, and friend.

in christ alone,
stephen