#opentheism

[azspot]

I enjoyed my time at Bethel (1984-1999) very much until John Piper and a group of pastors began to put pressure on the college to fire my friend and colleague Greg Boyd. For defending him I got caught up in that witch hunt and my own position was made tenuous. Because I said open theism is not heresy I was publicly called a “major promoter of open theism” by a leading evangelical New Testament scholar. I challenged that in two letters to him. He responded to neither one. I discovered through numerous conversations that very few people even knew what open theism really is. Most had only secondary knowledge of it from critics who I knew were actually misrepresenting it as, for example, belief in an “ignorant God.” (Note to would-be commenters: Don’t argue that’s valid as I know it is not and am not open to your persuasion otherwise and I won’t allow my blog to be used to misrepresent open theism.)

Evangelicalism: Duplicity And Dissimulation?

[eli-kittim]

Will Time End? Will We Become Immortal? William Lane Craig says, No!

Eli Kittim

Time, as we understand it, is deeply tied to the universe's existence, and its "end" has been predicted by Albert Einstein’s General Relativity: it might cease if the universe collapses (Big Crunch) or rips apart (Big Rip). The New Testament also teaches that worldly time will end with Christ's coming, ushering in an eternal state. While the current "age" passes away, believers will enter an everlasting spiritual reality where time as we know it will cease to exist. In the New Testament, there are key passages that signify the end of time and the beginning of eternity, as well as a transformation from mortality to immortality, marking a transition from fleeting worldly existence to eternal life with God.

But the well-known apologist William Lane Craig denies all this! He claims that time will never end and that we will never become immortal. As will be shown, he is clearly contradicting scripture. Furthermore, he seems to be advocating a form of panentheism (theistic personalism), which is similar to open theism, in his view of God as coexisting with the universe in time. Readers should therefore exercise caution with this apologist, as some of his teachings may contain misinformation.

For example, in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul uses the term “imperishable” to refer to the state of the resurrected body. The term imperishable means not subject to decay, death, or time. Imperishable means “eternal” and “indestructible.” It's the opposite of perishable, meaning “temporary” or subject to decay, entropy, or death, all of which presuppose the element of time. In this way, Paul contrasts the earthly (perishable/Gk. φθορᾷ) with the heavenly (imperishable/Gk. ἀφθαρσίᾳ). As a matter of fact, he explains that when we (the elect) will rise from the dead, we will not only be glorified (theosis) but our bodies will be transformed from the perishable to the imperishable, and from mortality (θνητὸν) to immortality (ἀθανασίαν). First Corinthians 15:50-53 reads thusly:

“I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. … For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.”

Yet, William Lane Craig says, “We are not going to be immortal souls.”

What is more, Revelation 21 says that “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away,” signifying the end of temporal suffering and existence. Similarly, Revelation 22 signals a complete renewal of creation replacing temporary earthly life with eternal reality. In fact, Revelation 22 suggests that the regular, observable cycles that govern time on Earth will be absent. Day and night are absent. The sun and light, which act as markers of time, are also missing. It’s important to note that the earth’s rotation relative to the sun is the basis for our 24-hour cycle of day and night. This cycle is a fundamental element of how we perceive and measure time. Thus, Revelation 22 suggests a timeless or eternal state where the physical constraints of our current temporal experience are no longer present. Revelation 22:5 says:

“There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.”

Moreover, in Revelation 10:6, it is explicitly stated that after the mystery of God is finished "there will be no more time.” The Greek text says “χρόνος οὐκέτι ἔσται,” meaning “time will be no more” or “time will no longer exist," marking the transition from earthly time to eternity. Certain misleading translations render χρόνος as “delay.” But chronos means “time,” not delay.

Yet, once again, William Lane Craig contradicts scripture by saying, “time will definitely go on forever.” Craig also seems to think that God is not entirely outside the universe (transcendent) but that he co-exists with the universe (having entered into time), which can be characterized as a form of panentheism, at worst, or open theism, at best. In fact, Craig's view is not that different from the anthropomorphic view of the Mormon God as an exalted man! When asked “Will Time Ever End?,” he responded by saying that it will definitely not end because “He [God] once existed with the universe. And so It seems to me that this is an irrevocable decision on God’s part to enter into time.” William Lane Craig doesn’t believe in the rapture either, even though it is clearly stated in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17:

“The dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who remain, will be caught up [ἁρπαγησόμεθα] together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.”

In essence, the New Testament portrays Christ's coming as the definitive end of the current age, bringing about a transformed existence in a renewed creation, completely free from time's limitations and sin's effects. So, I’m surprised that a philosopher of his caliber would make such a mistake confusing time with eternity.

Incidentally, everything that was mentioned about William Lane Craig’s claims (except for the rapture, which he explains away elsewhere) can be confirmed by watching this short, 1-minute, video clip:

Will Time Ever End? (William Lane Craig)

[donveinot]

Tim Mackie and Greg Boyd: The God Who is Not Who He Is

Destruction of SodomTim Mackie and Jon Collins founded The Bible Project in 2014. The stated mission was, to “help people experience the Bible as a unified story that leads to Jesus.” They describe the project this way:We believe the Bible is a profound and very beautiful book that's telling one complete story from beginning to end. But it's also a very long book, and that means it's often confusing, and it's just intimidating overall. So this project is all about exploring the entire Biblical narrative but breaking them up into short 5-minute animated videos that help you understand the structure and themes of the Bible. And we're going to do this in two ways. So first, we're going to go through book by book because we believe each book of the Bible has been given a unique design; that is, the author has given it a structure and a flow of thought by placing in key stories or poems and so on. So, before you dive into the details of any book of the Bible, which is really easy to get lost, we're gonna help you back up and get a picture of the design and how it fits into the overall story. Secondly, we're going to take major themes in the Bible, and we're going to trace those themes from the beginning to the end of scripture. So these are things like sacrifices, the messiah, heaven and earth.((Tim Mackie & Jon Collins, What is The Bible Project?; Apr 7, 2014; timeline 0:16 -1:14))Early on, it was quite good and helpful. In just under ten years, they have grown to having over five million subscribers worldwide in over 200 countries.((Statistics from “Our Story” on the About Us page of The Bible Project website)) However, in recent years there have been some very troubling things in Tim Mackie’s public teaching and interviews which I have commented on in A Subversion of Reality and the Contemplative Subversion of Mind and Summary of Concerns with Tim Mackie (as of August 2023).There also seems to be an attempt to mitigate the violence in the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation as we find in Book of Revelation and the Old Testament Tim Mackie and Non-Violence Interviews/With Dr. Tim Mackie, John Mark Comer, & Josh Porter. John Mark Comer, former pastor of Bridgetown Church in Portland, Oregon, hosts the program with Josh Porter, a pastor at a Vancouver, Washington church, and the guest is Tim Mackie of The Bible Project.Open Theist Gregory Boyd also comes up in this discussion. I will mainly examine statements from Tim Mackie that seem to reflect some of Boyd’s views as well as other troubling ideas expressed by Mackie.Warlike Imagery is SubversionFrom about minute 10 through minute 45 of the Book of Revelation and the Old Testament, Mackie proposes that the warlike imagery in the Book of Revelation is about how Jesus conquers by giving up his life on the cross; therefore, the blood imagery in Revelation chapter 19 is the blood from the cross. So, Revelation is actually non-violent.Mackie continues with the idea that the book of Revelation, in reality, is subverting the warlike stories in the Old Testament. Porter asks Mackie if the imagery in Revelation is a subversion of violence, then how do we deal with the violence in the Old Testament? Most of the following content is how Mackie addresses it.After a discussion of events before the Flood, around minute 46:45, Mackie states that the Flood did not change man (which is true), but according to him, it does show a change in God. So, God decides not to destroy the world, but instead, he will set a plan of redemption in motion. Though Mackie does not say that this is a Plan B, it is strongly implied.However, we see from Scripture that from eternity, God had a plan of redemption, “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8). The idea that God had to switch plans is implied (the aftermath of the Flood “changed” God, and implied in other statements from Mackie and Comer). This idea would line up with Boyd’s view.However, God is immutable; that is, God does not move from moment to moment in time and does not change. He is not static because he is the dynamic “I AM” but his will and knowledge are who God is, they are his nature (as are all his divine attributes), and therefore are eternal and without change since God is perfect (complete and lacking and needing nothing).The “subversion of violence” idea undermines God’s wrath on sin. More on that later.God CompromisesIn discussing the military campaigns against Canaan in the Old Testament, Mackie states several times that God “compromises.” When God sends Joshua or others to conquer the pagan lands, he is “making a compromise” in doing this, according to Mackie.Mackie then refers to the latest book by Greg Boyd and how Boyd makes these points. Mackie makes this startling statement around minute 55:“God is allowing himself to be depicted as a kind of God that he actually isn’t by the Old Testament authors because of their limited horizons and point of view.”This idea is apparently found in Boyd’s book and reveals some alarming ideas about God and how Scripture was written.Recasting God as a compromiser undermines his character and power. God does things out of mercy and shows compassion, but that is not because he must make concessions in order to make his plan work.The warfare in Canaan was God’s judgment. He used Joshua to bring this about, but it was God’s judgment (wrath) on sin. It is true that not all actions of violence in the Old Testament are sanctioned by God because God did not command all of those acts. But the ones God did commission were not a compromise. He was revealing and unleashing his judgment.God does not allow himself to be viewed as something he is not; that would go against God’s nature. In fact, God is always clear on who he is in his revelations to men. If what Mackie and Comer claim is true, that would mean that God is deceptive and chooses to allow Israel to see him as a warlike tribal god (that phrase is used) instead of who he really is.The account of the Exodus refutes Mackie’s and Boyd’s idea that God lets himself be seen as a type of god he is not. God states several times that what he is doing to Egypt is so that the Pharaoh and Israel will know who he is (Exodus 7:5, 17; 8:10, 14:4, 18, 25). Either God is lying in these Exodus accounts and pretending to be someone he is not to suit the “limited views” of the OT author/s, or he is revealing who he really is.The “limited point of view” of the OT authors would not affect what they wrote for the biblical account since their words were God-breathed. Whether personally limited or not, when writing words from God, their views did not “limit” or affect them. This idea is reminiscent of people like Peter Enns, who claims that the biblical authors were writing about God as they viewed him (as opposed to writing revelation from God about who he is). This matter relates to the Holy Spirit's inspiration of the biblical text. Mackie states in another video that the words are from God, but that claim sounds hollow in light of statements from Mackie like those in this interview.Although Mackie brings out some good points about Jesus as the lion and the lamb and points out other interesting themes in Revelation from Old Testament books, this is overshadowed by his other statements.Troubling StatementsStarting at minute 50, Mackie makes these comments (unless I note any from Comer):- God gives up his “ideal” in order to “accommodate.” - In order to bring redemption to the world, God must “put up” with humans. This principle governs the accounts of violence where God commissions Israel to go into Canaan and fight. - The Israelites, most of the time, “just think that He is their national tribal god.” - Comer states we need to apply this hermeneutic to the violence and war stories in the Bible and Mackie agrees. - Mackie (at minute 52:36) refers to Greg Boyd’s “recent book” (I think this is Cross Vision) and that it is helpful in explaining these views. From what I know of Boyd’s book, what Mackie has been expressing about Revelation is what Boyd believes. As an Open Theist, Boyd believes that God has to work things out with man because he cannot always carry out his will (due to man’s free will). Boyd also does not have the view that Scripture is God’s direct revelation to the authors. - Mackie: “We need to learn this category: Just because God was with David and David did violence doesn’t mean that this was God’s perfect will” (Mackie starts this line of thinking earlier, around minute 10). - Mackie states that God would not let David build his Temple due to the blood David had spilled in wars. This shows, according to Mackie, that God was not sanctioning David’s battles. - “God will allow himself to engage in things that are not becoming of his ideal purpose or character because he is committed to this person,” states Mackie in relation to David. - In addressing the account of God’s directive to Saul to kill the Amalekites, Mackie states that one could view this as “God exacting vengeance.” Or, offers Mackie, one could apply Boyd’s belief and consider this as God allowing himself to be “viewed as a kind of god that he actually isn’t because of the limited horizons and point of view” of the OT authors. - Mackie says he is reconsidering these violent narratives in light of ideas from Boyd about how God accommodated himself and compromised on his will, voicing that Boyd has good points.Does God not allowing David to build his Temple mean that God did not direct David to wage those battles? No! It means that God himself said that he wanted a man of peace to build his Temple. David was a man of war, and God used him for that, but for his Temple, God desired a man of peace (Solomon) to build it.Moreover, David had committed murder when he gave his directive that Bathsheba’s husband be put in the front lines of battle so he would die (2 Samuel 11:13-15). When David explains why he is not going to build the Temple, he seems to point to both factors – that David was a warrior and that David had shed blood (in having Bathsheba’s husband killed):But God said to me, `You are not to build a house for my Name, because you are a warrior and have shed blood.’ (1 Chronicles 28:3 NIV)To imply that God was not actually willing for David (or Joshua) to wage any battles goes against the plain meaning of the text when it states that God directed Joshua and David to do these things. God does this as well with Moses, Gideon, and others. It also goes against God’s character to claim God was making “concessions” so he could get what he wanted. That idea portrays a weak God.The so-called “limited viewpoint of the OT authors” was addressed in the previous section. A biblical author is not limited when writing God-breathed words because the author of those words, God, is not limited. God is more than able to communicate truths to his people, whom he created, no matter what their limitations might be.Boyd’s God in the Old TestamentGreg Boyd’s book Cross Vision, which appears to be what Mackie was referencing, is a follow-up to his book, Crucifixion of the Warrior God. Boyd is not only an Open Theist but tries to explain the violence in the Old Testament by saying that God “accommodated” the culture because the Jews could not grasp who God was.In My Disappointed Review of Greg Boyd’s “Cross Vision” | A Pilgrim in Narnia, Boyd’s book is reviewed by a fan of Boyd’s who, although he does not agree with Open Theism, finds Boyd interesting and stated he has learned a lot from him. However, he is very disappointed with Cross Vision and points out views Boyd holds that he finds alarming:But it is not twisting Boyd to say that God lies about who God is to a people that can’t bear the full reality of God. It isn’t just that we don’t see God fully in the Exodus or the giving of the law or a particular prophetic or worship moment. Do we ever? But that God pulls on a cloak of evil in order to, ultimately, show good. The Bible is intentionally misleading when picturing God as a violent God, not just limited or foggy or that something else is going on textually (though he uses each of these solutions at times).Boyd’s “Open Future”The fact that Mackie thinks Boyd has good ideas on interpreting the Old Testament (and the book of Revelation) is a serious issue. God is “risk-taking” and “adventurous,” according to Boyd. For God to take risks would mean that he does not know what will happen, which is what Open Theists claim. Boyd states God knows all that is logically possible to know. However, the future is not settled and known yet; it is still “open,” so God cannot know the future, only the possibilities, according to Boyd.Answering the objection that God cannot keep his promises if he does not know the future as a certainty, Boyd states:“Whatever happens, God has been anticipating that very possibility from the foundation of the world…God is so smart he does not need to foreknow it as a certainty in order to anticipate it as though it is a certainty.”To say God is “smart” misses the point of who God is. God just is; he is the dynamic and eternal “I AM,” and his knowledge and who he is are one. God, as the creator of time and the universe, is distinct from both time and the universe. God acts in time but is not in time, so there is no “future” for God as there is for time-bound creatures. All time is one for God, a concept probably impossible for humans to grasp totally since we are creatures of time. The future is just part of God’s eternal knowledge, just as the past is.However one may desire to explain God and time, God’s revelation is clear that he knows all the future and has known it from eternity, and we know from many fulfilled prophesies (over 300 alone predicting the Messiah) that God knows the future as a certainty because for him it is not an unknown, unsettled, or “open” future.Boyd’s theology and hermeneutics should not be imitated or applied by a teacher in the church, especially one with such influence.ΩAdditional Recommended Resources((“The Immutability of God,“ Video with Dr. James Dolezal “Divine Immutability,” by Brian Huffling “Neotheism: Orthodox or Neoorthodox? A Theological Response to Greg Boyd” by Norman Geisler (A good article if you cannot read the book listed below, The Battle for God) CANA article, Summary of Concerns with Tim Mackie CANA article, A Subversion of Reality and the Contemplative Subversion of Mind Recommended Books The Battle For God, by Norman Geisler and H. Wayne House The Doctrine of God (NGIM Guide to the Bible) by Norman Geisler and Douglas Potter (The Doctrine of God is a short but meaty book for less than $6 and presents the classic attributes of God with scriptural explanations; there are many books with this title so it’s important to put the authors’ names in the search) All That is In God, by James Dolezal God Without Parts, by James Dolezal is a more philosophical approach and explanation)) Before trusting Christ, Marcia Montenegro was a professional astrologer and was involved in Eastern and New Age practices for many years. Through her ministry, Christian Answers for the New Age, Marcia speaks around the country and on radio and writes on New Age and occult topics. She has a Masters in Religion from Southern Evangelical Seminary, Charlotte, NC, and serves as a missionary with Fellowship International Mission, Allentown, PA. Based in Arlington, VA, she is the mother of an adult son and the author of SpellBound: The Paranormal Seduction of Today’s Kids (Cook, 2006). She is also co-author of Richard Rohr and the Enneagram Secret (MCOI Publishing, 2020) with Don and Joy Veinot You can find her online at: CANA or on Facebook at

[eli-kittim]

Is Open Theism Biblical?

By Bible researcher Eli Kittim

Open Theism

“Open theism” (aka openness theology) is a theological movement which holds that God doesn’t exercise complete sovereignty over the universe but allows it to be “open” to the contribution of human free will. Put differently, because God cannot possibly know the future in an exhaustive sense, the future is not predetermined by him. Paradoxically, even though open theists seem to affirm God’s omniscience, they nevertheless deny God’s foreknowledge and claim that he doesn’t know everything that will occur. In his book “The Grace of God, The Will of Man,” Clark Pinnock, a Christian theologian and proponent of open theism, writes:

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 … God too faces

possibilities in the future, and not only

certainties. God too moves into a future not

wholly known …

Similarly, in his book “Letters from a Skeptic,” author Greg Boyd, a leading advocate of open theism, explains it thusly:

In the Christian view God knows all of reality

—everything there is to know. But to assume

He knows ahead of time how every person

is going to freely act assumes that each

person’s free activity is already there to

know—even before he freely does it! But it’s

not. If we have been given freedom, we

create the reality of our decisions by

making them. And until we make them, they

don’t exist. Thus, in my view at least, there

simply isn’t anything to know until we make

it there to know. So God can’t foreknow the

good or bad decisions of the people He

creates until He creates these people and

they, in turn, create their decisions.

Open theism is basically a new model through which scholars have tried to explain the relation of God’s foreknowledge to the free will of human beings. Their argument runs as follows: humankind could not really be free if God knew absolutely everything pertaining to the future. And since open theists believe that human beings are completely free, it follows that God cannot absolutely know all there is to know about the future. This argument would carry over to our understanding of Biblical eschatology and would suggest not only that the future is unknowable, but also that God doesn’t know the future.

Invalid Arguments

However, it seems to me that open theists are committing a logical fallacy, namely, equating the foreknowledge of God with determinism. If that were the case, their conclusion would be correct, to wit, that a deterministic foreknowledge of God would necessarily be incompatible with human free will. But the premise is misconceived. Foreknowledge in and of itself doesn’t necessarily presuppose determinism. Just because God can foresee the future doesn’t mean that he causes it. Calvinism, of course, is the other extreme which maintains that God is the cause of all events, thereby postulating hard determinism without apologies. However, If we, as free agents, were to act in whichever way we chose, and God could foresee our decision, God’s foreknowledge and human free will would be perfectly compatible!

What is more, Open Theism asserts that although God knows all truths, there are certain possibilities which cannot yet be established about the “open” and undetermined future, and thus even God himself doesn’t know their outcome. But this, too, seems to be a logical fallacy. They create a strawman argument in which they falsely equate foreknowledge with logical impossibilities. Once again, the premise is invalid. Just because the “truth” of what will happen is based on many complex, contingent factors, and is unknowable to human beings, doesn’t necessarily imply that it’s equally impossible for God to know it. On the contrary, it wouldn’t be considered illogical for God to know the outcome of any given event. Yet Open theists claim that it’s as logically impossible for God to create squared circles or make 2 + 2 = 5 as it is for him to know the future. But foreknowledge is not a logical impossibility like a squared circle or a married bachelor.

This, of course, can take the form of a very deep and protracted philosophical discussion about the nature of free will and the essence of God’s sovereignty, namely, to what extent are we free agents, and so on. According to open theism, instead of God exhaustively knowing the course of history in toto, God gradually gains knowledge of events as they occur. This is viewed as the “open view of God” since it considers God as open and receptive to new realities. Thus, in contradistinction to classical theism, open theism suggests that God is, in some sense, dependent on the material world to enhance his knowledge.

There is, however, a contradiction in this premise. How could one compare God’s learning curve from the point of view of time if God is said to be timeless? And how could a transcendent God possibly be dependent upon an “inferior reality” (as both Paul and Plato put it) to gain knowledge?

Bible Proofs of God’s Immutability

Opponents of open theism accuse the latter of employing anthropopathisms (i.e. the practice of ascribing human emotions to God). Moreover, Open theist interpretations of the Bible comprise anthropomorphic characterizations of God as “changing His mind” or “seeming to gain knowledge” or even “being surprised” (see Gen. 6.6; 22.12; Exod. 32.14; Jon. 3.10). But these passages should not be read out of context. God is simply trying to describe himself in ways that we can relate to. God’s language of being disappointed with humanity doesn’t mean their actions caught him by surprise. The idea that he “changes His mind” is to illustrate in human terms that he responds to human behavior and allows our free will to make an impact, especially through prayer, not that he literally is unaware of future events. In fact, the immutability of God can be demonstrated Biblically. For example, in Malachi 3.6 (NRSV), God declares “For I the Lord do not change.” In Numbers 23.19, Scripture reads:

God is not a human being, that he should

lie, or a mortal, that he should change his

mind. Has he promised, and will he not do

it? Has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it.

1 Samuel 15.29 says:

the Glory of Israel will not recant or change

his mind; for he is not a mortal, that he

should change his mind.

Bible Proofs of Future Prophecies

Not a few scholars think that in dismissing classical theism’s doctrine of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, open theism is dangerously reinterpreting the God of the Bible. In this radical re-envisioning of the God of Scripture, how can a clueless God, concerning the future, guarantee the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies? Yet contrary to this position, Psalm 139 verses 4 & 16 read:

Even before a word is on my tongue, O Lord,

you know it completely … Your eyes beheld

my unformed substance. In your book were

written all the days that were formed for

me, when none of them as yet existed.

How could God predict explicit details about Jesus Christ in the Hebrew Bible if he doesn’t even know what the future holds? And, more importantly, how could God possibly guarantee our salvation if he doesn’t have the slightest clue about the future? Furthermore, did God lie in Isaiah 46.9-10 where he declared that he can see the future?:

I am God, and there is no one like me,

declaring the end from the beginning and

from ancient times things not yet done,

saying, ‘My purpose shall stand, and I will

fulfil my intention.’

Conclusion

Open Theism is an attempt to balance God’s foreknowledge and humanity’s free will. Open theism’s conclusion is that God doesn’t possess an infallible knowledge of the future. But just as Calvinism is an extreme form of “theological determinism,” turning humans into pre-programmed robots, so open theism goes to the opposite extreme by turning God into a human being who hasn’t the foggiest idea of what the future looks like. Besides rejecting the credible evidence of eschatology and Bible prophecy, on which our faith and hope depend, open theism ultimately fails to demonstrate its key points both scripturally and philosophically!

—

[rajrichard]

Holding To An Inaccurate View Of God Could Endanger Our Faith

Blogs / short essays on Christian living, Christian apologetics, and theology covering contemporary and practical challenges of life.

Proper knowledge of God is a fundamental, yet the most significant pursuit of a Christian. But Satan is active and he does everything to wreck the spiritual life of a Christian. This post contains an excerpt from Norman Geisler’s description of the fallacies of the Open Theists. For instance, Open Theists believe that God cannot know the future. If so, how could we trust the prophecies in the Bible? Many familiar denominations (Anglicans, Assemblies of God, Baptists etc.) subscribe to Open Theism. Members of these denominations may hold to an inaccurate view of God. Believing in an inaccurate view of God could be detrimental to the Christian life. Read more to know more about ‘Open Theism’…

[wcatradio]

Episode 29: The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge: The Open Theist Perspective from Alan Rhoda, Part 2 (May 31, 2019)

[cliftonwcarterjr]

@gregboydb @woodlandhillschurch photo by @madikuder #aspensoma #opentheism #anabaptist #crucifixionofthewarriorgod (at Jordan, Minneapolis) https://www.instagram.com/p/BoNCv3bnIc0/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=v3jrhawcqcav

[biblewordstudy]