Sheniy

Thanks for replying. I like that we can have an honest discussion about ideas here. This sort of thing really gets me thinking about God and really motivates me to study my bible more. I honestly didn't expect to change anyone's mind on this subject. I've only just committed to it, and I've been wrestling with it for fifteen years. And I started with an open mind. There was something posted on this forum a few months ago that sort of stuck with me (wish I could find it again). It was about how in the Jewish culture, parents would train their children to think for themselves by having discussions about subjects. Then they would switch sides, and the children would have to debate from the other perspective. This, in a way, is how I grew up. I also remember reading about how, in the Jewish culture, the rabbis didn't always agree on theological doctrines. Those trained to be rabbis had to choose which rabbi to "follow", and would then adopt and teach those ideas...or something like that. I'm probably explaining it wrong. Anyway, different ideas about God and theology are not wrong and they're not new. The basic theology behind open theism is not a new idea, but has only been called 'heresy' in the last few decades. I plan on replying to Shiloh's posts, but I would like to look into the biblical points he made. There are one or two I hadn't considered. Unfortunately, many of them don't have references, so I will have to search them out on my own. This will take time -- unless you'd like to give me a hand, Shiloh. A large portion of those replies I agree with -- they don't contradict open theism at all. Much of it is just misunderstanding. Some is a bit off topic (or maybe I just didn't understand your point...?). The bit that is left over is where we disagree, and I'll get to that in my next post.

Which is again, what every atheist I have ever encountered who claimed to believe the Bible has attested to. I do appreciate your concern, but by your logic here, I should be an atheist, then? If I'm using their logic and arguments, then why do I still believe Jesus is God? Isn't that illogical? Or is it that you expect my faith to ultimately fail? That already happened, remember? I saw the crash coming and I tied myself to Jesus. That was the only thing that saved me. My faith is being rebuilt completely from the ground up, and Jesus is the foundation. My only foundation. He is the only thing that I am absolutely sure about. This gives me freedom that I never allowed myself before. I am now able to question things that were 'forbidden' to question before. This may appear like I'm rejecting truth, but I am actually just testing it. I want to make sure it is God's Truth and not man's. Ah yes, that postmodern mindset where feelings override facts. You say that like it's a bad thing. My faith isn't dependent on cold, hard facts but on recognizing the truth. (And I know him by name!) What's wrong with putting Jesus first? I am honestly puzzled by this. I'm really sorry if this seems a bit harsh, but this smacks of borderline idolatry in my honest opinion. It doesn't seem harsh at all. But what you're doing is accusing God of making an idol out of His own word. Here is what the Bible says. I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. (Psa 138:2) That's what it says. It is not idolatry and it shows a lack of discernment to accuse God of committing idolatry. What this shows is that God puts far more importance on the Bible than you think it deserves and it demonstrates that your perspective on the Bible is skewed. I didn't accuse God of committing idolatry. That...would be ridiculous. That verse you posted says "for thou hast magnified thy word above thy name." "Thy word" is Jesus, and we know that he has been given the name above every other name. That sounds pretty magnified to me. Also, Jesus is the truth. This verse sounds to me like it's referring to Jesus. Here again, you diminish the value of the Bible by implying that it is not the Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God in the sense that Jesus is the personification of all of the prophecies and foreshadowing and allusions made about Him in the Old Testament. All of the promises and prophecies of the coming Redeemer were met in Jesus Christ. The Bible is the Word of God and it claims to contain the very words of God. You are trying to draw a false dichotomy where the Bible is a testimony of the Word and that is false teaching. The Bible is God's written Word that testifies of the One who is the living Word of God. The problem with your view is that if the Bible isn't really "the Word of God" then it can be subject to error. You made a qualified statement claiming that it is a true and accurate testimony of Jesus, leaving to question whether or not it is a true and accurate testimony of everything it addresses or simply what it says about Jesus. In my previous discussions with you, you have made it clear that you don't believe the Bible needs to be accurate in everything in order to be true (which is an incoherent approach that would never work in any other context of life). It stems from your rather low view of the Bible as not being the Word of God. If we call it the Word of God, then it places an expectation of accuracy that you are not willing accept because that level of absolute accuracy doesn't fit well with theology you adopted after your "shield" was shattered and returning to the place where God's word can be trusted in all matters is something you say you are not interested in. Lot to address in this chunk. Let me break it down: Here again, you diminish the value of the Bible by implying that it is not the Word of God. I merely said that Jesus and the bible are not on the same level. I trust the bible, yes, but I don't worship it as a member of the Trinity. ...it claims to contain the very words of God. I'm not denying this. But a container is not the same thing as the thing it contains. Sort of like an image is not the same thing as the object captured in it. The bible, from Genesis to Revelations, reveals an image of God; who He is, what he's done, and how we can know Him. It is the testimony of Jesus. The problem with your view is that if the Bible isn't really "the Word of God" then it can be subject to error. I see a few false assumptions with this statement. 1) I never said that. I still believe it is "God-breathed". 2) Your definition of "error" seems to indicate that the bible becomes untrustworthy if it contains one. But "error" can mean a lot of things. Would a transcription error mean the bible loses all authority? How about a mistaken fact? If so, why? Because "God's Word must be perfect" in order to be trustworthy? So...do we trust it because it is "error-free" or because it is God-breathed? In my previous discussions with you, you have made it clear that you don't believe the Bible needs to be accurate in everything in order to be true (which is an incoherent approach that would never work in any other context of life). Not really. The opposite is true, actually. Do I use a dictionary as a recipe book? It may contain information about the food I'm making, but it isn't an authority on actually making that food item. Do I look for the meaning of life in a science or history textbook? No? Likewise, I don't look to the bible for science or history lessons. Or recipes. It can be accurate in those things (except maybe recipes...), but it isn't what the book was written for. It's real purpose is far more important. That is ONE purpose of Scripture. You're trying to limit the scope of Scripture and its purposes in order to avoid some of the glaring problems that stick out in your theology. Maybe there are more purposes of Scripture. But revealing Jesus is the primary one. I've provided verses to show this is true, but you seem to ignore them... A low view of Scripture will produce an inaccurate definition of what being "biblical" means. When we talk about something being biblical, we mean that it is in line with all of the doctrines of Scripture, that there are no doctrines that a particular teaching is in contradiction with. Your position denies the authority and inerrancy/accuracy of the Bible and denies that the Bible is God's word. You seem to stand in opposition to God's view that His Word is exalted above His own Name. Low view? I just said it's not on the same level as Jesus (aka God). Maybe that view is lower than yours, but it's still fairly high. I never denied the authority of the Bible. I still believe it's inspired.

Okay, time for examples from Scripture. God will change things to avoid certain outcomes. He often explains exactly why he is making this change. It is usually because something "might" happen. If I don't do this, then this will happen. He sees that the present course is heading to a future that is less than desirable, so he makes a decision to change it, cutting off the undesirable 'branch'. This changes the possible future he foresaw into something that better fit his plans. This all started in the garden of Eden after sin entered the world. God saw the great potential for evil if men were allowed access to the Tree of Life (immortality in a fallen state), so he kicked them out, limiting their lifespan. He limits it further later on because the long lives of mankind at that time (several centuries) contributed to the increase of evil in the world. Then there was the flood. Evil had increased so much in the world that God regretted making mankind. He saw no possibility of good come from the world as it was, so he 'scrapped' his plan for them and decided to try again with Noah. This is akin to a potter scooping up the 'messed up' clay bowl on the wheel and starting over. Not long afterward, the people rebelled again. They started to build a tower to heaven. Whatever that actually meant back then, God didn't like the future that would bring, so he cut off that branch by confusing people with language and scattering them. We are actually given a glimpse into the mind of God and his reasoning behind this. If this happens, then that will happen. It was apparently something that negatively affected his divine plan for humanity, though, because he didn't let it happen. Again, later, after the exodus from Egypt, God makes a decision (lead the Israelites through a different way) based on the possibility of a less desirable outcome (they would be more likely to stray from Him). God is affected by what we do. First example: After the exodus from Egypt, the "stiff-necked" people of Israel are really making God mad. After all he's done for them, they choose to worship a golden calf instead?! God's jealous anger burns against Israel. He should just wipe them out and start over. Moses is a good guy. What do you say, Moses? Want to be the new father of nations? ( How different would our history be had Moses gone along with this?!) But Moses says no, give Israel another chance. Remember the promise you made to Abraham? What would the other nations say? God listens to Moses' plea and overlooks Israel's offense. In this example, God shows that he is able to regret, and also to change his mind. How can he regret a choice if he already knew they would disappoint him? Why would he make up his mind in the first place if he knew he was going to change it? If God knows the future completely but makes choices he later regrets, this indicates that he lacks the wisdom to make good choices. We know that's not true. This leads us to assume that God genuinely did know the outcome of these events until they happened (although he was aware of the possibility). Regret and disappointment both indicate that God had a different expectation for the future. Israel's stubborn rebellion cut off the wrong 'branch'. This example also shows that God listens to his people. We are in a relationship with Him, after all, and communication goes both ways. God respected Moses' plea not to cut off Israel's branch completely. This also shows us God's emotional vulnerability in his frustration with Israel. Why do we assume that God can't feel the things we do? We are made in His image, after all, reflections of the Creator. The concept that God is free of anything remotely human-like and that he is "above" emotion is not biblical, and actually comes from the ancient "absolute perfect being" philosophy. God is perfect, yes, but He is perfect in his character and morals and holiness, not in his perceived "god-power" and divine attributes. He is perfect in who He is, not what he is. (I don't choose to worship God because he can tell me what I'm eating for breakfast tomorrow...) God destroys evil, but he would rather just save people. There is an interesting contrast between the stories of Nineveh and of Sodom and Gomorrah. God saw that the evils of Nineveh were growing, and that soon he would destroy them (cut off their 'branch'). He goes and speaks to Jonah, but Jonah, free agent that he is, flees the presence of God. But God isn't done. Using his cosmic divine God-powers, he chases Jonah with a huge storm, and then causes a fish to swallow Jonah. Jonah finally relents and agrees to go to Nineveh. The people of the city hear the message and repent, and God doesn't do what He said he would do. We know that He desires all men to be saved. When Nineveh repents, it really doesn't seem like it takes a lot of convincing. (Try doing what Jonah did in Las Vegas or any other city, and see how well that works out!) Maybe God had already been working on their hearts, or there were other external events that lead Nineveh to this point. The bible isn't clear on why Nineveh repented so quickly. It seems to me that the people of Nineveh just needed a small push. God knew what it would take to save them (based on his knowledge of possible futures), and did what he needed to do to accomplish this. This shows God making a plan and executing it in spite of opposing free agents, even if His method was a bit unusual. (Maybe He was thinking "This fish thing could be a nice analogy that I could use later..." lol) In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, however, God determines that the evil there is too great. They are too far gone. He admits that he will not destroy it if there were ten righteous men to be found in it, but the only righteous people were those in Lot's household. Instead of saving the city for those few, God sends messengers to warn them to get out. There was, probably, no possible future where the people in that city could have been convinced to repent. In this other example here, God is fed up with Israel's rebellion, but there is nobody willing to intercede, to "stand in the gap". God searched for someone to be a Jonah or a Moses, but there were no free agents available. Israel was melted like dross in the furnace of God's wrath. This biblical example shows that God's desired plans can still fail if other free agents cut off enough branches. God doesn't want to destroy these people, but they're the ones who make the choice. Despite this, the fact that Israel still exists today and that God's plan for redemption still succeeded as he promised shows that God isn't defeated by a little setback. Aaaand this is really long. I'm going to stop there.

Yeah, I'm in way over my head. Thanks for your patience. "What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us." A.W. Tozer The Knowledge of the Holy "There are, of course, an abundance of complex, hotly debated issues that surround the traditional Christian view. For example, is it coherent to affirm that God timelessly knows temporal contingencies without His timeless knowledge being conditioned by the temporal contingencies He knows? Why think that a being who lacks any before or after, existing in a single eternal moment, is more perfect than a being who experiences a 'before' and 'after', especially if it is granted that this perfect being is personal and interactive with agents in history? Is the concept of an atemporal eternity even coherent? Could an atemporal God know what time it is now? And, of course, is God's atemporal mode of knowledge logically compatible with libertarian free will?" G. Boyd, “Two Ancient Motivations for Ascribing Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge to God.” (http://reknew.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/two-motivations.pdf) God can still predict the future even if it doesn't exist. Even we, as finite creatures can do that. A few days ago, I could have predicted the future. I could have told you that some friends and I were going to be sitting in a theater watching a movie. How did I know this? Because we had planned on it the day before. At the time I was writing one of the earlier posts in this thread (my first reply, I think), I could tell you with fair certainty which of us were going, the day we would go, which theater we were going to, and what movie we were going to see. Some things were left up in the air, though. These were unknown variables. Which seats would we be in, and who would be seated next to us? What snacks would we get? Who would pay for who's ticket? And we still hadn't picked a showtime, yet. It turns out that the only available showtimes at the theater we were planning on going to didn't work for all three of us. One of them might have worked for me, but it would have almost definitely made me late for work (had a graveyard shift that night). Going a different day didn't help because we ran into more schedule conflicts. I suggested switching theaters if possible, but that didn't work for someone else, who really liked the big comfy seats at the original theater we chose. I even suggested that they go without me, but they didn't like that idea, either. We decided on a different movie that was showing about 30 minutes earlier. So, even though it didn't happen exactly as I had assumed it would, my prediction of going to the movie with my friends would have been accurate. And if the original movie had been "vital" to my plans, I still could have chosen that one and risked being a bit late for work. My prediction would have been more accurate. And, I'm not even an omnipotent deity! This is an incredibly simple example of how God could still make accurate prophecies without knowing the exact events of the future. I say "incredibly simple" because God is an omnipotent deity. He is also still omniscient in the sense that he would have known all possible variables in my movie plans, and thus would have had far more control over the situation. Basically, what are prophecies, exactly, if not the plans of God? ""I declared the former things long ago And they went forth from My mouth, and I proclaimed them. Suddenly I acted, and they came to pass." - Isaiah 48:3 If I were to look at the entire bible for the original plan of God, it seems to me that the purpose for all of creation is that God desires a relationship with humanity. No matter how it happened, this seems to me to be His ultimate goal. From the very moment that he made the decision to create us, he knew every single possibility that could occur within this creation and every possible ending. He knew that it was very likely that we would rebel and that he would need to save us from ourselves, thus Christ was crucified before the foundation of the world. The decision to die for us was included in the ultimate plan of God. The details didn't need to be worked out at that point since there were many variables that didn't exist, and many details didn't need to be perfect in order for the prophecies to be accurate. God desires relationship with us. However, relationship involves love, which requires risk. We, as 'free agents', can say no and thwart his divine plan for relationship. The potential that He gives us to love can also be used in equal proportion to hate. This is the source of evil. God knows all possible choices we will make with this freedom, but in giving us this freedom, he chooses not to know the specifics, and he chooses not to control us. He doesn't have to give us this freedom. This makes him a wise, benevolent King and not a tyrant, but this also allows things to occur that God didn't intend. It may require him to change his mind and alter his plan or regret a decision. But the fact that he is still able to carry out his plans in spite of our rebellion is a testament to not only his power and wisdom, but also his goodness. From Boyd's book: A wise risk is a risk nonetheless. It may not turn out as one hopes. Classical theologians, however, generally reject the notion that God takes risks of any sort. To them, it undermines his sovereignty. Two further considerations address this charge. First, don't we normally regard someone who refuses to take risks as being insecure? Don't we ordinarily regard a compulsion to meticulously control everything as evidencing weakness, not strength? Of course we do. Everyone who is psychologically healthy knows it is good to risk loving another person, for example. You may, of course, get hurt, for people are free agents. But the risk-free alternatives of not loving or of trying to control another person is evidence of insecurity and weakness, if not sickness. Why should we abandon this insight when we think about God, especially since Scripture clearly depicts God as sometimes taking risks? Second, the only way to deny that God takes risks is to maintain that everything that occurs in world history is exactly what God wanted to occur. If anything is other than what God wanted, to that extent he obviously risked not getting he wanted when he created the world. So, if God is truly "above" taking risks, then we must accept that things such as sin, child mutilations, and people going to hell are all in accordance with God's will. We know those things aren't part of God's will. The bible says God desires all men to be saved. Yet every 'free agent' he creates he has the potential to lose. Doesn't this view of the future limit God's omniscience and sovereignty? Not even a little. "In a variety of forms, the assumption that God's knowledge is conditioned exclusively by the mode of the divine being rather than the nature of what is known continues to be dominant, as is evidenced, for example, by the fact that the debate over the open view of the future continues to usually be construed as a debate about the perfection of God's knowledge rather than as a debate about the content of reality that (all orthodox Christians within this debate agree) God perfectly knows." G. Boyd, “Two Ancient Motivations for Ascribing Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge to God.” (http://reknew.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/two-motivations.pdf) Look at it this way (I hope that I can explain this well...). If the reality of time and the future was that it was a one dimensional straight line, that the end was determined along with the beginning, then we have two ways to view God and his role in the future: 1) The future was determined from the beginning and is immutable, and God is absolutely in control of every detail. The freedom of choice is an illusion, because our decisions were determined already long ago by God. If it was determined that you would murder your neighbor tomorrow, if that was a part of God's divine plan, then you will murder your neighbor tomorrow because you were created to. In this timeline, we have no free will because God is in complete control, but he is then responsible for all evil. 2) The future was determined from the beginning and is immutable and God only knows we are going to do, but he doesn't control it, thereby allowing us free will. The events of time are not determined by God, but by us free agents. He is the omniscient observer, letting the future play out on its own without any interference, either because he cannot interfere or because he chooses not to. If God knows you will murder your neighbor tomorrow, it is because that was your choice. In this timeline, we have freedom of choice are responsible for causing evil, but God has no control. In a completely settled timeline, either God is in complete control of everything and we don't have free will, or we do have free will and God is just the distant observer. Some question if we even have free will if the future is known as settled. There is another option where the future is completely unsettled, God knows nothing of the future. According to the bible, none of these are true. Let's explore other options. "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff." The Doctor Okay, this quote was partially tongue-in-cheek. Sci-fi fans will get it. I thought it was funny. Anyway... So...let's change our perspective of the reality of time. Imagine that time is not a one-dimensional line, but actually three-dimensional. It is...like a tree. Any possibility of choice by any free agent forms a 'branch' in the tree that grows into it's own timeline, which has it's own multitude of branches. As we move through the tree, as we move through time, we cut off entire branches each time we act on a decision. All free agents, us, angels, and even God, move through the tree in the same way. Sometimes our branches intersect. I may make a decision that cuts off one of your branches, limiting your choices. Or maybe my decision connects to one of your branches, giving you more options. The possibilities of every single branching and connection are staggering and impossible for us to fully comprehend, yet God knows them all. He sees all of the possible outcomes that he desires, and he cuts off the branches of the futures that don't meet this criteria. He is only limited by the freedom that he has willingly given to us. He has diminished his own control in proportion to that freedom. This, like I said before, is what distinguishes him as a sovereign, benevolent King. The fact that he doesn't need to control every single event actually speaks volumes of his wisdom and power and goodness. Splitting this into two posts because it is getting too long. The next post will dig more into what the bible says on this subject.

I know you're itching to debate the open theism topic. Believe me, I am, too. I'm sorry I'm not more equipped to discuss that topic, yet, and I appreciate your patience. But can we keep that topic in that thread? This one has been derailed often enough, already. I addressed inerrancy all over the place. I dealt with inerrancy more than I did Open Theism. Boyd's view of inerrancy is tied to his openness views. The two are inseparable. It is impossible to address his views on inerrancy without recognizing and addressing that his views of inerrancy are for the most part informed by his open theistic posture. I understand him and I see where he is coming from because I understand Open Theism. So when you post Boyd's blog about inerrancy, you can't really expect someone who understands his views to not at least address that to some extent I wasn't dismissing your points on inerrancy, but the ones on open theism for a few reasons. 1) You were misrepresenting a few things about open theism to some extent, and I was trying really hard not to counter them. The reminder to stay on topic was just as much for me as it was for you. 2) Boyd's views on inerrancy are not tied to his view on open theism. Open theism is actually very biblical, which I will show in the other thread if I can manage to keep myself from getting distracted by this one...lol It's more likely that your faith wasn't strong enough in the right thing. Lot's of people have the right beliefs but they were never really taught how to answer challenges to their faith. Many former Christians can also testify to the shattered shield analogy. There are many atheists who used to be Christians, on fire for God and their faith was shattered by questions put to them that they could not answer, they didn't have the critical thinking skills available to them to defend what they believed. They believed the right thing, but in the end, the Evolutionists, the skeptics, the atheists finally made more sense to them and they discarded their faith. Having your shield shattered and assuming that your inability to defend what you believe must be evidence that you were putting faith in the wrong thing is not necessarily an indicator that your faith is misplaced. It may be that you believe the right things but needed help defending what you believed. I do agree that many people aren't theologically equipped to deal with the doubts and questions that arise concerning faith and the bible. Discipleship is one of the biggest deficiencies in the Church today, and probably her greatest failing. However, I have yet to hear any argument or logic that would have prevented my "house of cards" from toppling. There was no defense that could have saved it as it was. I am perfectly fine with that. My understanding and love for Jesus has increased exponentially since I let the other stuff go, and I wouldn't go back to the way it was before for anything. I'm really sorry if this seems a bit harsh, but this smacks of borderline idolatry in my honest opinion. The bible is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, etc. It is a true and accurate testimony of His Word, but the Word is Jesus. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men..And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth...For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." - John 1:1-4; 14; 17 "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God." - Revelation 19:11-13 "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father." - Philippians 2:9-11 KJV The purpose of Scripture has always been to lead us to Jesus, who is the full revelation of God. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. Jn 5:39 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6 "Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude. See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form," - Colossians 2:6-9 [example of "tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world"] "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." - 1 Corinthians 3:11 In light of this, can you please show me where what I said is unbiblical? "While I don't put as much emphasis on the importance of the inerrancy of scripture, I don't actually believe it contains any errors. But the reason I believe in Jesus isn't because I trust the inaccuracy of the bible. The opposite is true, actually. I believe the truths of the bible because I know and trust Jesus. He is my foundation, the Cornerstone of my faith, not a need for the bible to be factually accurate in every detail. All truths that matter are found in Him because He is the Truth, and the whole of Scripture is merely His testimony."

I know you're itching to debate the open theism topic. Believe me, I am, too. I'm sorry I'm not more equipped to discuss that topic, yet, and I appreciate your patience. But can we keep that topic in that thread? This one has been derailed often enough, already. On the topic of inerrancy of scripture: “Have you ever seen a really intricate house of cards? They are structures that are erected by leaning playing cards against one another. … The house as a whole depends on each and every card staying in place. If any card is removed, the whole thing collapses. This is quite a bit like the way my early faith was held together, and I’ve found that it’s more or less the way most evangelicals embrace faith. … If any [beliefs] were removed, the whole edifice of our theology flattened out like a pancake. The same thing can be applied to Scripture. … I was taught that if the earth was not created in six literal days and if Adam and Eve were not literal, historical people, then the whole Bible may as well be a book of lies. Flick this one card out, and the whole structure of faith collapses. When I began to question how old the earth was and how humans came into being, I may as well have been calling into question the historical evidence of Jesus. And the same thing applied to every single passage of Scripture. Since we were taught that it had to be absolutely “inerrant” to be God’s Word, our faith in it could be destroyed by one verse being proved to contain a mistake. The Bible was itself a house of cards. …” (157-158) I posted the link to this because it resonated with my own testimony (my shattered shield analogy). During some severe testing of my own faith, I realized this exact thing. How was my faith so weak that a little pressure could shake it so bad?! I realized that I had put my faith in the wrong thing. Years ago, I read this interview of a man who used to be an powerhouse evangelist and a close friend of Billy Graham, but had since become an agnostic. In his case, the thing that toppled his faith "house of cards" wasn't necessarily the inerrancy of Scripture, but the problem of evil. He adamantly declared that a loving God cannot exist. He was then asked about the person of Jesus, and the answer he gave really stuck with me over the years. Templeton's body language softened. It was as if he suddenly felt relaxed and comfortable in talking about an old and dear friend. His voice, which at times had displayed such a sharp and insistent edge, now took on a melancholy and reflective tone. His guard seemingly down, he spoke in an unhurried pace, almost nostalgically, carefully choosing his words as he talked about Jesus. "He was," Templeton began, "the greatest human being who has ever lived. He was a moral genius. His ethical sense was unique. He was the intrinsically wisest person that I've ever encountered in my life or in my readings. His commitment was total and led to his own death, much to the detriment of the world. What could one say about him except that this was a form of greatness?" I was taken aback. "You sound like you really care about him," I said. "Well, yes, he's the most important thing in my life," came his reply. "I...I...I," he stuttered, searching for the right word, "I know it may sound strange, but I have to say...I adore him!" I wasn't sure how to respond. "You say that with some emotion," I said. "Well, yes. Everything good I know, everything decent I know, everything pure I know, I learned from Jesus. Yes...yes. And tough! Just look at Jesus. He castigated people. He was angry. People don't think of him that way, but they don't read the Bible. He had a righteous anger. He cared for the oppressed and exploited. There's no question that he had the highest moral standard, the least duplicity, the greatest compassion, of any human being in history. There have been many other wonderful people, but Jesus is Jesus." "And so the world would do well to emulate him?" "Oh, my goodness, yes! I have tried-- and try is as far as I can go--to act as I have believed he would act. That doesn't mean I could read his mind, because one of the most fascinating things about him was that he often did the opposite thing you'd expect--" Abruptly, Templeton cut short his thoughts. There was a brief pause, almost as if he was uncertain whether he should continue. "Uh...but...no," he said slowly, "he's the most..." He stopped, then started again. "In my view," he declared, "he is the most important human being who has ever existed." That's when Templeton uttered the words I never expected to hear from him. "And if I may put it this way," he said as his voice began to crack, "I...miss...him!" With that, tears flooded his eyes. He turned his head and looked downward, raising his left hand to shield his face from me. His shoulders sobbed as he wept... (Taken from the introduction to Lee Strobel's A Case for Faith) I remember after reading this and recognizing some of the same struggles that Templeton had in my own faith, I was afraid that I would end up the same way. I didn't want to miss Jesus. I prayed at that moment that no matter what happened, He wouldn't let me let Him go. Years later, when my crisis of faith eventually did shatter my shield (or topple my house of cards), I was left with just a single shred that I clung to desperately. It was my love and adoration of the person of Jesus. Everything else was stripped away, but I couldn't let Him go. Rebuilding my faith has been a slow process, and one of the big questions I've had to ask myself is exactly how much emphasis on the literalness of Scripture was actually intended by God? I couldn't put it back on the same level it was since it was the thing that toppled my faith to begin with. I realized that questioning the literalness of parts of Scripture isn't the same thing as denying its accuracy, fallibility, or inspiration. I now look at the bible as HIS story, like an autobiography, which is actually comprised of a number of smaller stories. Many of the stories in the bible are historically accurate, many are complete fiction. In most cases, that distinction isn't relevant, because all of the stories were intended to draw us to Him. While I don't put as much emphasis on the importance of the inerrancy of scripture, I don't actually believe it contains any errors. But the reason I believe in Jesus isn't because I trust the inaccuracy of the bible. The opposite is true, actually. I believe the truths of the bible because I know and trust Jesus. He is my foundation, the Cornerstone of my faith, not a need for the bible to be factually accurate in every detail. All truths that matter are found in Him because He is the Truth, and the whole of Scripture is merely His testimony.

Sorry, I'm not prepared to debate this topic, yet. As I said, I'm still a newbie. I know enough to know that I agree with it, but I'm not able to present it adequately to others. Please allow me some time to gather some information. I was on vacation last week and had more time to spend here (because that's what I do on vacation, apparently...lol), but that ended yesterday, and I have far less free time. Please be patient. Btw, "all of Boyd's remarks" consists of, at the very least, an entire book. I want to include all of his points and arguments, but I need to trim the information down to a manageable level. I don't want my post to get deleted on account of it being too long...

So I was doing some bible study and research for the Open Theism thread when I came across this post on Greg Boyd's blog. I thought it was relevant to this thread regarding the inerrancy of Scripture and our foundation in Christ. I thought it raised some good points.

Wow, this thread is getting entertaining. I'm gonna go get some popcorn. Anyone want popcorn? @inchrist Shiloh and others have already argued this topic into the ground in the Faith vs Science part of the forums, including the arguments you gave. It's nothing really new. Probably why Shiloh doesn't want to get into it with you here. That, and the fact that your wording probably came across as a bit insulting to some people. I agree with some of your points, but I was cringing a bit at the way you presented them. Telling someone their ideas are unreasonable isn't a good way to convince them to consider your side. Also, it's not the topic of the original post. Anyone remember what that was...? *munches popcorn*

I think we can. Glad to hear it. Of course. I have every intention of backing this up with the bible. It's going to take me some time to dig them up, though, so I'm going to start by explaining a few things. I first heard about this view when I was about seventeen. I discovered a new book by a trusted author (God of the Possible by Greg Boyd) at a college visit, and I picked it up eagerly. I could tell it was going to be a controversial subject, but the author's previous book was an excellent lesson in apologetics that really shaped my faith as a young person and helped me answer the tough questions of my friends and peers. I thought I'd give the author a chance to explain his ideas, so I bought the book and skimmed through it on the way home. I made the mistake of trying to explain to my mom and sisters what I was reading when I really didn't understand it well, myself. They immediately jumped on it as heresy. Their reaction sort of freaked me out, and I set the book aside, but the idea of Open Theism stuck in my head. I found the book again several years later and started reading it, prayerfully asking God to protect me from any lies of the enemy. I realized that much of what the book taught I actually already believed about God, and the things that I disagreed with were actually preconceived notions and assumptions that weren't actually specified clearly in the bible. The parts that made me want to scream "heresy!" were actually little heresies of their own added by the church centuries ago, based on the popular philosophies of the day. I've been mostly on the fence about this subject since then, mainly due to my attachment to those assumptions about reality and God ingrained in me since childhood. I've committed to this view only recently, within the last few months, and I'm still working out the details. Much of what I post here comes from Boyd's book, some comes from other sources that I will try to cite if I can remember where I got it. Some of it is my own understanding of the reality of time, God, and Scripture. I will admit that I am a newbie when it comes to debating this topic, so I hope I do it justice. I have a feeling, though, that I'm in way over my head. For clarification in my posts, all scripture quotes will be bold and colored teal (my favorite color). These hold the most weight in any theological argument, and I want them to have the most emphasis. All other quotes will be faded gray. I use these if I feel like they explain a point better than I can, or for purely anecdotal purposes. One thing to clear up real quick: God doesn't need the future to be completely settled in order to make an accurate prophecy. God doesn't need all his prophecies to be fulfilled accurately (see verse I posted about Hezekiah), though most of them are. He can and does change His mind on things, which isn't possible for someone who knows everything about a completely settled future. There are things that he won't change His mind on, like the major redemption promises or things he says we should test Him on, and those things won't change or fail. There is a whole lot more I'd like to say on this, but I have to be somewhere soon. I'll be back online tomorrow. God bless

Aww, you beat me to it! Thanks for getting it started, though. I was out of town for my cousin's baby gender reveal party (it's a girl!), and I didn't get home 'til tonight. Did some digging on the subject since I'm still fairly new to it, but I need to organize my notes, so I'll leave you with this. I'll try to post more tomorrow. Points mentioned in the posts above regarding Open Theism: * OT claims that the future isn't knowable or controllable Not exactly true. The future is not exhaustively settled. Sort of in between completely settled (Classic Theism) and completely open (...process theology?). Those unsettled future events don't actually exist, yet. It's a mind-bender, I know. * OT infringes on the omniscience of God because it claims that there are things that God doesn't know (like the future) Not true. OT suggests that the unwritten parts of the future are unknowable because they don't exist. If God doesn't know something that doesn't exist, that doesn't make him less omniscient. Open Theism is more of a different perspective on the reality of time itself than it is about God, although it does change our understanding of God. * OT infringes on the sovereignty of God by saying he doesn't have control of all things Not true. He chooses to let certain things play out on their own, allowing free agents (us) the ability to use the free will He gave us. Sovereignty doesn't equal complete control. It is the wisdom and grace and character of a good, intelligent leader and a worthy King who is willing to trust some element of control to others. He doesn't need to micromanage in order to make things come out the way He wants. Open Theism, IMHO, allows less control of things but requires far greater intelligence, and it reveals a greater, more sovereign God than Classic Theism. (<--- my opinion) * OT claims that God's prophecies are subject to error Nah, Open Theism suggests that God's prophecies are subject to God changing His mind. Example: In those days Hezekiah became mortally ill. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him and said to him, "Thus says the LORD, 'Set your house in order, for you shall die and not live.'" - 2 Kings 20:1 God changed this prophecy a few verses later and Hezekiah lived fifteen more years. But errors? No. * OT is inconsistent with the rest of Scripture, including prophecies Not true. 'Tis just misunderstood. * OT violates the inerrancy of Scripture Not true. The verses that are commonly used to prove the Classic View are, I believe, taken out of context, or they can be taken another way. Many verses are interpreted already assuming the Classic view, which can be problematic with other verses. Open Theism doesn't go against any of these verses. I will elaborate more on this later. In fact, it could be argued that it's the Classic view that violates the inerrancy of Scripture. I don't like that argument, though, in any situation. Feels like a cheap shot. * OT is at odds with how God has revealed himself in Scripture Opposite, actually. I will definitely elaborate on this more. * OT claims that God doesn't know the thoughts you will have tomorrow Sort of not true? Does God know if you're putting peanut butter or honey on your toast tomorrow? He knows both possibilities, as well as any other you might consider. Sliced bananas are good, too. Eggs and ketchup? Yum. Which one you decide on is up to you, and that future event doesn't exist until you actually make the decision of what to eat on your toast. God knows every thought you could possibly think. Ever. He knows every choice you ever made and every possible path you could have chosen. He opens some doors and he closes others. He also knows you to your deepest core. Will you take the high road or the easy one? He doesn't know until you make the choice, but he knows you well enough to have a pretty good idea. And, while you may (rarely) surprise Him, you can never catch Him off guard. He is just that good. I will elaborate more on each of these. Just throwing this up for now. Hey, Shiloh. I know we have a tendency to get a little snippy with each other. I'll admit my pride rears it's ugly head every so often, and I have a hard time dropping the issue. Can we keep this discussion friendly and save the mods a headache?

I know, right? Sorry for derailing your thread, Peter.

I know that was what you were trying to do. But I didn't judge anyone for gambling so you really didn't accomplish anything by that. Kind of pointless and rather dishonest. So was your accusation against Peter. Pointless and dishonest. No, it wasn't. A lot of people saw what I saw and called him on it too. But I am not going to sit around and ride this merry go round with you. If you have something important to post, the fine. If not, fine. Maybe he misunderstood those who are overweight and made false assumptions. But so did you about those who play slot machines and buy lotto tickets. A lot of people saw what I saw and called you on it, too (mirror again). 'Tis the same thing. I am saying this as someone who doesn't touch slot machines or lotto tickets, but really loves food.

I know that was what you were trying to do. But I didn't judge anyone for gambling so you really didn't accomplish anything by that. Kind of pointless and rather dishonest. So was your accusation against Peter. Pointless and dishonest.

Wrong. I never judged anyone for buying lottery tickets, not one time. I said that I believe gambling is a sin. I did not condemn anyone for participating. You need to be a little more honest. Well you have a lot to learn about why people buy lotto tickets and it isn't all about the love of money. And yes it does come off as judging as evident by how you came off to a number of people in the thread you posted about it. So the hypocrisy is in your camp. Wait...that sounds Yeah, they were mad because I said what they were doing was a sin. I didn't condemn them, I condemned the sin, but when you want to justify your sin, the easiest thing to do is demonize the person calling a sin what it is . Homosexuals do it all the time. But no, I didn't judge anyone at all. No hypocrisy on my part at all. It was just more honest that you and others are willing to face up to. I was just holding up a mirror, Shiloh.