Greg Boyd (Part 1 of 13)

[joshjeggs]

rap lol

[signpreach]

Thanks, never thought of it that way but I have suspected.

[fractalfires]

A God who forsees many possible outcomes knows MORE than a god who foresees only one possible outcome of what will happen.

[DanPrinMan]

@fractalfires

Dead on my friend.

He knows the possible outcomes and precisely what to sovereignly do.

[WesleyPeacockChannel]

This is by far the best, most practical explanation of Open Theism. I don't see how anyone could watch this with an open mind and not get it. It's just common sense!

[hillisew]

Excellent presentation! I had the exact same experience at almost the exact same time regarding Hezekiah .. for me it was 1985, and I've tried "reasoning" these views with people ever since, and find few and far between that get the point.

[nomiddleofwhere]

...and by the way, Aristotle (another Greek philosopher) said that no one, not even God, could know the future, but that it was possible for some being to know exhaustively the past and present. So, is it the case that both classical theism AND open theism is based on Greek philosophy??? Open theism obviously came AFTER Aristotle, but belief in an ALL-KNOWING GOD (I include exhaustive future knowledge in that phrase) came before Plato. Wow, another winner argument from open theists

[nomiddleofwhere]

I find Greg Boyd's presentation of "classical theism" either misinformed or purposefully deceitful. He excuses away this type of presentation under "i know i'm making things simple but i have to for the sake of time." he's said that in every book and every lecture I've read or seen. if he's unwilling to present the FACT that many classical theists DO NOT see God as beyond emotion but rather very much a part of our experience in time, then he's simply being deceitful

[nomiddleofwhere]

If you have not read a book by someone defending classical theism (such as Bruce Ware's "God's Lesser Glory"), then you aren't taking all sides of the debate into account. Too many (on both sides!!!) have only read critics who've read the opposing party! I've read both Boyd and Ware, and I come down closer to Ware. Nevertheless, one has to be willing to hear the critics of what you believe.

[BearBarton53]

Change... I change my underwear every day yet I'm the same person (height, weight, hair color) don't change every day. Obviously God can change His mind if He wants but that doesn't change Him. God can be angry and merciful in two different moments and not be changed. The problem with these kinds of debates is that finite man cannot grasp infinite God... Maybe the answer is that God is not either-or, but both. No matter what your view, strife and anomosity should not arise among us.

[Hyenashowl]

How about we ask God if He changes when we get to heaven

[DreamsofMajesty]

scribd (dot) com/nb812

[BennyMetal7]

I love how anyone who disagrees with him gets a big thumbs down, even though nobody cares to reply.

[BennyMetal7]

@massliberal1 I completely disagree, The Bible is the Living Word of God and the place he chooses to reveal Himself. 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

[BennyMetal7]

I love how you can explain what god is and tell me how he works all without opening a Bible and reading a single verse, this guy's theology is totally wrong.

[MassLiberal1]

@BennyMetal7 The Bible tells us nothing about God so who cares? The god of the Bible is a figment of the imagination. In reality God is too big to be recorded in the writings of fallible humans.

[cameronversluis]

Says the guy on part one of thirteen...

[BennyMetal7]

I watched all the way up to pt. 8 and I had to turn it off because of the complete Heresy he was teaching. His view is based upon what he wants God to be instead of what the Bible actually says about God. it's a complete self centered teaching.

[LawrenceKennard]

@BennyMetal7 Wow, that's funny. I read the Bible where God canges, where He expected one thing and got another, where He gave prophecy and had to change, etc. And you see none of this? Interesting...

[BennyMetal7]

@LawrenceKennard I'm not sure I understand what you wrote completely, Can you specify what you meant and provide evidence for your claims?

[LawrenceKennard]

@BennyMetal7 Ok, let me explain my keyboard and "canges" in stead of "changes". I need a new one :) There are many calvinistic types who, when I refer to say, Jer. 18, they say the Bible doesn't really mean what it says. If it says God 'changes', it really meant God knew all along. If God says, "Now I know you fear God" to ole Abe, it meant He always knew and so on. It's frustrating dealing with so called Bible believers that don't really believe in the Bible.

[BennyMetal7]

God does not Change, God exists outside of time, this is common sense that by definition an infinite being must exist outside of time, therefore seeing every point of (our time) always. The Bible was written in human terms to humans by the hands of humans, it was meant to relate to us and to explain God in our own finite minds. God cannot change but He can bring things into perspective at a certain point in (our time).

[LawrenceKennard]

@BennyMetal7 God SAYS that He changes. The word, "repent" means change. I cited bible passages to prove the point, and you gave YOUR opinion. You did not refute the verses, but just went on with your programmed thinking. God does not change His character, attributes, or any of His intrensic qualities. He can however, change some actions depending on our free will.

[BennyMetal7]

@LawrenceKennard No, God does not change, the word "Repent" is "Nacham" In Hebrew, it means to turn away from, I assume your referring to Gen. 6:6 where God repented from his anger, which simply means to turn away from His anger. God cannot change, He is not affected by time, He exists outside of time. He is an infinite being, eternal, He does not change.

[LawrenceKennard]

@BennyMetal7 Please take your Calvinist glasses off. Yes, it does mean to "turn away", Get out your Thayers, Strongs, Englishman's, and every other reputable lexicon, and you will see "change" as well. When you read Jeremiah 18 for instance, it is clear as the nose on my face, (without a cold) that it means CHANGE. He can change His plans like in Jonah and so many other passages. Read your posts. You have been indoctrinated; God doesn't change. God doesn't change...

[BennyMetal7]

@LawrenceKennard God cannot change by definition, He is an Eternal being with no beginning and no end, If what YOU call God can change then he is not god by definition. He is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. This is not coming from a Calvinist view, every Christian I know believes this about God, it is completely illogical and ignorant to say that an Eternal infinite being changes (He is outside of time, he cannot change)

[LawrenceKennard]

@BennyMetal7 This is crazy. I'm giving biblical documentation, and you KEEP giving YOUR opinion. Refute the passage in Jeremiah and we can go on. Otherwise, you sound like a robot and I wil stop.

[BennyMetal7]

@LawrenceKennard I'm not denying that passage at all, I think you are taking it out of context. In my understand of it God is basically saying that If they will turn from their ways and repent He will bless them, if they do not, he will not bless them.

[BennyMetal7]

@LawrenceKennard And you can't honestly be inferring that because a word has more than one definition that every single definition must apply every time the word is used, I won't even begin to argue that, it is complete nonsense.

[Teshonn]

@BennyMetal7 in Gen. 6:6 God is not angry, but is grieved. it doesn't say he was angry, but that he was grieved. and in the Hebrew for the word grieved it means "to be without breath". and when it says repented it doesn't say the he repented from his anger, it says the the sin and wickedness of man grieved God's heart and he repented for ever creating man. Genesis 6:6 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

6 the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, (A) and He was grieved in His heart.

[BennyMetal7]

@Teshonn So your saying that God is not omniscient and espousing middle knowledge, what a heresy, Isaiah 46:10, Titus 1, Rev. 13:8..ect...You deny the Truth of God's word and strip Him of His Sovereignty. Take another look at the Hebrew definition "nacham" You position on middle knowledge is a Roman Catholic, Jesuit Heresy.

[buxtonenterprises]

Does this argument make us love God any more....that the only question that is important.

[adambomb312]

However, the II Kings 20 passage of Hezekiah among others- like i.e. when it seems that God changes His mind about killing Moses in Exodus or the many times God seems to present counterfactuals [If my people do a...then b will occur but if they do c...then d will occur], makes for good discussion. The openness view is a legitamte, Bible-based view that is worthy of consideration and not to be dismissed, much less deemed heretical.

[adambomb312]

I like Greg Boyd. He is a great Christian and pastor/theologian. While I can agree with him that God shows emotions and that the Calvinist view of God's sovreignty is nothing praiseworthy or admirable, I cannot, right now anyway it may change, go with Dr. Boyd that God is subject to change in the way we are. It is written, for example that Jesus [God the Son] is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in I Samuel that God is not like us that He can change His mind.

[Sandermatt87]

I think the problem is that time isn't rgid. You have to describe the state in an inertial System. As how the time goes on is dependant of the inertial system you chooe (theory of relativity). It seems impossible to combine omniresence with not having full knowledge about the future.

English isn't my native language so it is a little hard for me to explain it.

[KalElohim]

Bart is not a true Calvinist but a neo orthodox theologian. God is immutable. He is without body, parts, or passions. What will you be next? You've tried Oneness, and now you are into this. Supposedly you were a Calvinist. Hmmmm? So God is going to learn stuff huh?

[KalElohim]

Karl Barth is neo orthodox not really Calvinist

[victor77281488]

what's a matter "fract." You don't want to admit your a Pelagian.

[victor77281488]

One question "Frac" Do you believe you are saved by the imputed righteousness of Christ, or by your own righteousness?

[victor77281488]

One question "Frac" Do you believe you are saved by the imputed righteousness of Christ, or by your own righteousness?

[victor77281488]

"Frac," it seems to me as though you are studying men like Boyd to figuer out what actual Christian theologians teach about the Sovereignty of God. Men like Boyd misrepresent Reformed and Arminian theologians.

I see you value the Bible, good. Search the Scriptures, and do not be decieved!! If you search the Scriptures you will save yourself and others, if you do not the opposite will happen.

[victor77281488]

To fractalfires, If you think that because the God of Scripture is free and Sovereign, therefore he is a capricious greek god you are wrong

The God of Scripture is Sovereign. God acts in accordance with his nature, he is perfect, and he ordains whatsoever comes to pass. The greek gods did not act according to any nature, meaning they could lie. The God of Scripture cannot do certain things, like lie.

[fractalfires]

What? Zeus was perfectly sovereign and acted in accordance with his own sovereign will in that system of belief. Rex was Lex and hence he claimed the right to determine what was right and wrong and was 'right' if he chose to reverse the order. This power constituted his right to be 'supreme god'. How many examples do you want where you pit the Bible against itself to make God into a liar? Do you think there was a time when moral law never existed?

[victor77281488]

What do you mean "stop." The God this man is preaching is not the God of Scripture.

[fractalfires]

No, Boyd is teaching the God of the Bible and distinguishes him from the god (s) of the Greeks which you hold to be sovereign. The Greek oracles held the future to be fixed and their seers were like those who turned to page 95 to reveal 'spoilers' to characters on page 5. It is utterly moronic and blasphemous to confound both theologies with each other. Study more. Without the sunglasses.

[victor77281488]

I have watched this entire presentation, all 13 parts, and I am saddened, I actually shed a tear in rage and dissapointment at the fact that a Christian can deny the Sovereignty of God.

 This man is teaching outright heresy, and I pray to God that He would open this man's eyes to see that what he is teaching is nonsense and blasphemous.

To strip God of his Sovereignty is to rob his of his glory, may God have mercy on all who believe this filth known as "open theism."

[leviglenyo]

stop.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Christopher,

RE: let me get this straight/1 Sam.13:13

Ok, then please restate your position because you have both said God would have (established Saul's kingdom over Israel forever) AND that He could have, but (implied) He knew He would not.

(as I read it)

Remember, the Scripture is God revealing what He is like to us and our only source from which to base doctrine. I'm assuming you hold to this.

[fractalfires]

The Scripture is our only source to base doctrine that is not available to us from general revelation.  The Bible contains 'revealed theology' and does not contradict general revelation, but builds on it.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Doug,

It looks to me we are in agreement.

Am I right in thinking you have read up on the god/s of the greeks which the calvis picture the God of the bible like?

[fractalfires]

You are on the money. Calvies think Zeus is Jehovah, because any 'god' that transcends all thought, conception, and expression must be superior to a God that communicates rationally and can be understood by the human mind. Their god can only be known 'spiritual adepts'. I think I'll do a vid showing all the points of agreement they have with gnosticism. The writings of Justin and Irenaeus are important to establish that moral government is not something new, but is apostolic doctrine.

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Doug (frac),

Cool! let me know when you've done the video.

Why not do one with quotes from Justin and Ireneus too, to show the moral government they taught.

Augustine is the beginning of Calvinism in the church: a 5th century heresy

cf. my video:

"Augustine began 'Calvinism' - Jacques More"

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Christopher,

So let me get this straight.

You believe God would have established Saul's kingdom over Israel forever as per 1 Sam.13:13 and yet He knew He would not?

You are saying God is telling us and Saul a lie: since God cannot know Saul could not possibly go on to rule and his dynasty and say that 'He would have' at the same time.

Nor can God tell Saul he lost out on something, if Saul was never going to get it. God cannot tell someone is a loss to them when it never was.

[gracetruthguy]

If your objection is the nature of what can be known, how is that unconnected with omniscience?

God knows the hearts of man in the measure mentioned (in the context) of that passage only. Others shows He needs to know more about what is in the heart, so it follows that to fully know the heart God tests us. Its contents are not fully knowable until revealed

My definition for anthrop.. is checkable in a dic.. as true

In 1 Sam.13:13 would God have established Saul's kingdom forever?

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Christophr,

Part 3

Anthropomorphic language: making use of hands, feet, and other human parts

What part of the body was being mentioned in 2 Chronicles 32:31

Are we not made in God's image unlike the animals? And is that not why WE have a mind like God has a mind?

So, again who wants to know in 2 Chron.32:31?

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Christopher,

Part 2

Read 1 Sam.13:13 and answer:

Would God have established Sauls kingdom over Israel forever?

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Christopher

Part 1

I agree you could support atheism by there is no God in Ps.14:1, but out of context

But you cant support omniscience as MORE THAN God knowing all that is knowable for He clearly says He does not know

If sola scriptura is your true source for doctrine that is?

It is in 2 Chron.32:31 and many places:

Nor did it come into My mind Jer.19:5 & 32:35

Now I know Gen. 22:12

Test to know Deut. 8:2, 13:3 et al

[gracetruthguy]

Hi Christopher,

The Scripture is the foundation for open theism.

. . . God withdrew from him, in order to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart.

2 Chronicles 32:31

Please tell us, who wants to know?

[nappyrootzyeah]

Thanks for posting this! Dr. Boyd is exceptionally bright and perceptive. And his theological perspective has been long overdue. Good stuff.