The Open Future

[stlouissymphaud]

I'm confused as to why the description says this is a scriptural defense. I don't remember anything in the Bible talking about God knowing "future possibilities." On the contrary, I do read about God "Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure.'"

[NealMcCrispy]

I'm glad this guy isn't in a church.

[CBALLEN]

Open theism teaches that scripture contradicts it's self,the Bible is foulable and man helps God decide what the future will be.The Bible makes it quite plain,Man cannot thwart God's will,open theism teaches that man thwarts God's will all the time.So how in the world can anyone believing in the OT god be sure that God won't change his mind and throw everyone in the Hell they deserve.It's just Satanism with a different name.

[CBALLEN]

@CBALLEN PS 139:4 Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all.

This one verse proves that God knows ALL THINGS INCLUDING THE FUTURE WORDS OF MEN,this proves O.T.completely wrong.

[mickynbryan4god]

@CBALLEN I think that we cannot take the Psalms litterally. They were poems and songs written from the heart. When David says, "before there is a word on my tongue, Behold O LORD, You know it all." I think He is saying that the LORD knows our hearts. He knows how we sway, He knows what we are inclined to. I don't think He is saying that God knows exactly all our decisions and moves before they occur...I don't know a whole lot however and this is just a guess. Good discussion. :)

[CBALLEN]

@mickynbryan4god Of course God knows everything,everything we'll do or say is not a surprise to God,who knows all our thoughts words and deed before we even do.

Proverbs 20:24 A man's steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand his own way?

[CBALLEN]

@mickynbryan4god Proverbs 16:1 To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue.

Everything we say is directed by the Lord.

[mickynbryan4god]

@CBALLEN I think that the verse in Proverbs is saying that man my wish as he pleases, may ask the LORD as he pleases, but the LORD will respond or not respond as He sees fitting. The "reply" belongs to the LORD in this verse, not to man. Does that make sense? It's hard to explain and again I am not a theologian. Just giving it a go. :)

[CBALLEN]

@mickynbryan4god Proverbs 19:21 Many are the plans in a man's heart, but it is the LORD's purpose that prevails.

Proverbs 20:24 A man's steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand his own way?

Jeremiah 10:23 I know, O LORD, that a man's life is not his own; it is not for man to direct his steps.

The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.

Notice,there is not one verse that says man does what he wants,God is in control of every man ,all the time.

[mickynbryan4god]

@CBALLEN I guess I just read it differently. I see that man can make choices AND God will prevail (Prov. 19:21), Also many of these verses are talking to the people of God, who have already inclned themselves to God? There are verses that suggest that man made a choice that God was not expecting, and there are times when the plea of man causes God to change His mind. God had intended for one plan and because man turned, God changed His mind. Also God presents Israel with choices all over the OT.

[CBALLEN]

@mickynbryan4god Prayer does not change God,prayer changes man.God has planned all the future and He calls it to be.Much of what Open Theists believe is attributed to man's evolving understanding of God,God is not a man,however He is described in anthropomorphic terms and how God seems from man's perspective.Is God omnipresent?He is,the Bible says He inhabits eternity,so the future is just as plain to God as the past and no one can thwart His will.

[CBALLEN]

@CBALLEN Did you know that God predestined all that happened to Jesus and even Jesus' betrayer and killers were chosen before time began? Didn't Jesus tell Peter that He would deny Him 3x before the cock crowed,how did Jesus know this?Even with that knowledge Peter could not help himself,he had to say what he did.If God doesn't know all things and is subject to mistakes,how could you trust him to save you?Some person may do something to cause Him to change all His plans?Don't trust him.

[mickynbryan4god]

@CBALLEN I did not say that God does not know all things. I do believe He knows all that is to be known. Yes Jesus knew that Peter would deny him 3 times, but I do not think that is evidence for Him knowing ALL future things. I think there are many things we don't agree on and it comes down to how we view and interpret scripture. I am very new to Theology and do not have a lot of experience.

[mickynbryan4god]

@mickynbryan4god I do not believe in predestination and we can discuss Romans 9 if you want. I believe that there are fixed events that have been predestined, but not everything. I expecially do not believe that salvation is predestined only for some.

[CBALLEN]

@mickynbryan4god If God can only guess at the future then all future prophecies aren't certain and neither is salvation.I never believed in predestination before either until God opened my eyes after 14 yrs,so I know how emotional it is.To say that God does not know all of men's future thoughts words and deeds would mean that we have to ignore all those scriptures that I gave and true believers can't ignore any scripture to justify their own doctrines,we must glean our Doctrines from scripture.

[CBALLEN]

@mickynbryan4god Did you know that God predestined all that happened to Jesus and even Jesus' betrayer and killers were chosen before time began? Didn't Jesus tell Peter that He would deny Him 3x before the cock crowed,how did Jesus know this?Even with that knowledge Peter could not help himself,he had to say what he did.If God doesn't know all things and is subject to mistakes,how could you trust him to save you?Some person may do something to cause Him to change all His plans?Don't trust him.

[mickynbryan4god]

I can look up some passages. I would love to hear your take on all of this...

[LeaningTowardsPisa]

So if I were to ask God, "what am I going to eat for breakfast tomorrow, cereal of a donut", what would he say?

That he doesn't know? Or would he be profoundly confused by the terms of my question? In any case, God is certainly not omniscient. You can't redefine "all things" to mean "all things...'cept this one".

[mickynbryan4god]

@LeaningTowardsPisa I think God might answer, "You are going to eat either cereal or a donut." In other words, He knows all of the possibilities and has a plan in place as if the choice you made were the only possibility. I hope that makes sense.

[vladdy3]

Where is any scripture to back this up? Omniscence is the knowledge of all things, including our future events. There is in fact no future events for God, as He's outside of time. In the classical/correct view God sees all possibilities of choices, but He also sees what those choices will be, thus knowing the future exaughstively.

[fractalfires]

A God who foresees multiple foreseeable outcomes knows MORE than a god who absolutely foresees only one possible future.

[rkg62976]

My friends, the fundamental assertion made by Open Theists is that their view upholds man's responsibility, but that Predestination (in Reformed theology, ie., Calvinism) does not. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Generally, when people (like Dr. Boyd) make these assertions, it is because they don't have (or, at least, don't give) a proper definition of the term "responsibility".

Responsibility and Predestination are distinct issues, not synonymous ones.

[rkg62976]

@2:50, Dr. Boyd makes his fundamental assertion, albeit in a very subtle way.

His assertion is this: If God has decreed in Himself whatsoever comes to pass (1689 Baptist Confession, ch.3, sec.1), then this takes away from man's responsibility. Unfortunately, Dr. Boyd doesn't define what "responsibility" actually means (at least not in this clip).

I would suggest that anyone interested in the "Open Theist/Calvinist" debate, seek to understand the definition of 'responsibility'.

[razputin34]

@rkg62976 Why not help enlighten us to what responsibilty actually means? I agree that defining words is very important for all of us to be on the same page and truly understand God's Word.

[rkg62976]

@razputin34 Thank you, my friend, for your sincere inquiry.

The term "responsibility" implies two things: 1) "the giving of a response", and, 2) a higher authority passing judgment upon the respondent with either reward or punishment.

In defining our terms this way, we see that:

1) Only creatures are responsible (as there is no higher authority than God Himself), and,

2) God is not responsible 'to' anyone, or 'for' anything (including the creation itself--He simply spoke, and it was so).

[razputin34]

@rkg62976 It is sincere. I enjoy these types of dialogi\ue and while I do believe the open view is correct, I am certainly open to exploring other possibilities. I am in no way saying I am right and you are wrong.

Thank you for posting this response. If my boss gives me a task and holds me responsible for the outcome, then I must have the ability to finish. God puts us here in this world and then holds us accountable for our actions. If I am going to be held responsible for my tasks,

[razputin34]

@razputin34 then I must have the ability to carry them out of my own free will. I have to stand before God and give an account of my decisions and the choices that I made in life. I just don't see how those ideas can be compatible with God controlling all events and bringing what He wants to pass at every turn.

[rkg62976]

@razputin34 "I just don't see how those ideas can be compatible with God controlling all events and bringing what He wants to pass at every turn". In Is.10 we have an excellent example of "compatibilism". God is going to bring the Assyrians against the idolatrous Israelites to Judge them. They are doing their own will (destruction), but God is using them as an "axe in his hand". Then, God is going to judge the Assyrians for their "haughty heart".

God ordains; and they are responsible ;)

[razputin34]

@rkg62976 I think there is an alternative way of reading Isaiah 10. It appears to me that God is judging them for not seeing their own pride and arrogance. He used them for a purpose, but he isn't juding them for what they did to the Israelites. He isn't juding them for the destruction they wrought on His behalf. he is judging them for their own issues of not following what He asked them to do and boasting abotu their false Gods. This implies even when God calls us to a specific task, we

[razputin34]

@razputin34 can actually go against His will. The other example you cite from Acts contains a stronger argument for compatibilism. I stil would argue their is an alternate way of reading and understanding the text. While I have enjoyed this discussion and will contiinue to respond, I just have to get some other work accomplished. This has been great and I can't wait to read and respond to your other posts. Thank you for entering into this dialogue and helping me to understand the Calvinist

[rkg62976]

@razputin34 All of your arguments are sound up until this point: "he is judging them for their own issues of not following what He asked them to do.." But God never asked the Assyrians to do anything. He simply told His prophet (Isaiah) what would be. The Assyrians were completely clueless as to God's decree, they were just doing what they willed (destruction); and yet God had decreed it nonetheless (Is.10).

"Shall the axe [Assyria] boast over him who hews with it [God]?" (v.15).

[rkg62976]

@razputin34 "If my boss gives me a task and holds me responsible for the outcome, then I must have the ability to finish". Your assertion seems to be that "responsibility" implies "ability". But this is an error.

The commands of God, for example, are not meant to show us our ability, but our inability (our impotence).

The commands of God tells us what man "ought" to do, not what man has the "ability" to do. They reveal the very nature, and extent of our sinfulness.

[razputin34]

@rkg62976 Isn't God going to hold me accountable for my actions? Is he going to hold everyone accountable? The law shows me that I need Christ, but I can't even know that if He doesn't open my mind to understand it.

[rkg62976]

@razputin34 "Isn't God going to hold me accountable for my actions? Is he going to hold everyone accountable?"

Absolutely! This is where the cross-work of Christ enters the fray. The substitutionary atonement imputed my (and all believers') sin to Christ upon the cross; and His perfect works of righteousness were imputed to me. This is the basis of the doctrine of Justification.

The unbeliever has no atonement for his sin; hence, he will receive God's wrath and condemnation.

[rkg62976]

@razputin34 "The law shows me that I need Christ, but I can't even know that if He doesn't open my mind to understand it." Don't tell me you're turning into a Calvinist, now...lol ;) But that's exactly what Reformed theology (and the Bible) teaches.

Unless God miraculously opens our hearts/minds to our own sinfulness, we will never (and 'can never') understand the necessity of our Lord, King, God, Savior, Brother, and friend...Jesus Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria!

[razputin34]

@rkg62976 I did have to take a moment and respond to this one. :) I came to work to get some things done and here I am in a wonderful dialogue that I know I have to end for the moment. You say the Bible teaches, but that is from a reformed view. God is choosing not open the hearts of some people, who are born helpless with this broken spiritual DNA and then holds them accountable for what they do. God is akin to a parent that watches a child drown, even though the parent could have easily

[razputin34]

@razputin34 given the child a way to survive. If I have the ability to choose other than God, then I can decide that my way of getting out is better and I am going to save myself. I would love and will continue this dialogue sometime tomorrow or maybe we can have this through email. It starts to get confusing among the posts in this youtube channel.

[rkg62976]

@razputin34 "God is akin to a parent that watches a child drown, even though the parent could have easily given the child a way to survive."

We must be very careful with analogies, my friend. In your analogy, sinful man is like a child drowning. But a drowning child is still struggling to stay afloat.

The biblical presentation is that sinful man is tagged-on-the-toe-in-the-morgu­e...dead (Eph.2:1). Not only this, but the sinful man enjoys his sin, and approves others' sin (Rom.1:32).

[rkg62976]

@rkg62976 In other words, no sinful rebel against God is drowning, and struggling to stay afloat. The sinner loves and cherishes his sin. He is not looking for redemption. In fact, he is ever-approving others in their sinfulness as well.

So, notice that God is not obligated by any higher authority (as there is no higher authority than God) to save any rebel sinner. The choice He makes to save anyone, is only by extension of His divine mercy (Grace).

Sola Gratia!

[razputin34]

@rkg62976 Also, if me and someone else are arguing about something and I stab the other person because they don't agree, I can't blame him. I am responsible for what I did to this man. I can stand there and says that he provoked me, but ultimately that is false. I am responsible for killing that man. If God hasn't chosen me to be saved, then how can He hold me responsible for something I have no power over?

[rkg62976]

@razputin34 Another example of "compatibilism" is found in Acts 4:27-28. God decreed that the Son be crucified.  Wicked men preformed the act of crucifying Christ. God's decree is fulfilled, and wicked men are still held responsible for their utter sinful act.

Indeed, God's predestinating decree is always compatible with human responsibility. God is not subject to any law, but is a law unto Himself. He is the law-giver, not a law "receiver".

[oldno74]

"For God is greater than our heats and he knows everything." (1 Jn 3:20)

"for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done" (Is 46:9-10 c.f. Is 42:8-9) [4] Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether. (Psalm 139:4 ESV)

Boyd should of remained a Calvinist or better yet, a Biblical Christian. This is what happens when a man can't handle the truth.

[razputin34]

@oldno74 Can't handle the truth? Even in these snippets of scripture you quote, there is nothing definitive being said at all. Let's work backwards. Take the passage you cite from Psalms. God can know my mind well enough to know what is about to come out of my mouth. How does tell you what God knows about next week? The passage quoted from Isaiah is another oft quoted scripture about God's knowledge. This is a statement about God declaring something and making it come to pass.

[razputin34]

@oldno74 Just as Calvinists love to argue that the word doesn't always mean everyone who has ever lived, your quote from John doesn't prove anything. God knows everything that can be known. What I like is how Calvinists just dismiss Genesis 22:12 and God coming into knowledge of an event. Are you saying there is no scripture that lends itself to be read in light of an open view of the future? Psalm 139 tells us nothing about God's knowledge of future events, but you quote it as a refutation.

[rkg62976]

@razputin34 Gen.22:12--

"And this is said, not as though he was ignorant before how things would issue; for he knew from all eternity what Abraham would be, and what he would do...but this is said after the manner of men, who know things with certainty when they come to pass, and appear plain and evident...God by trying Abraham made it manifest to others, to all the world, to all that should hear of or read this account of things, that he was a man that feared God" [John Gill, Gen.22:12].

[razputin34]

@rkg62976 This is a wonderful way to try an explain the passage, but it ignores much of the life of Abraham. The point of the chapter is God testing Abraham. Why is God testing Abraham? When Abraham raises the knife, God says that He NOW knows that Abraham truly fears Him. He didn't say "Hey, Abraham is a faithful man." God could have said any number of things to simply illustrate faith, but that isn't what the passage says. It clearly says that God now learned something for certain that

[razputin34]

@razputin34 was uncertain prior to the testing. I have seen all sorts of ways to try an explain the passage, but it ignores the text itself and the fact of Abraham's life. The Bible is full of these interactions with man and God.

[rkg62976]

@razputin34 said, "The point of the chapter (Gen.22) is God testing Abraham.." Yes, indeed, and to recall Abraham's faithfulness to Moses, who then recorded it for all of God's people to read and understand.

The purpose of the text is not to tell us something about the attributes of God (ie., His "foreknowledge", a noun in Acts 2:23, 1Pet.1:2, but a verb in Rom.8:29), but about the faithfulness of Abraham. Any proper reading of the text must recognize this fact.

[2live4hisglory]

ok so God knows that i can choose this way or that way but does he know which way i will choose before i do it? For example he knows that i will either agree with open future or stick to classical view but does he know exactly which view i will choose?

[RMCDisciple]

If a person can only be saved by his or her own freewill, why do we even pray to God for the salvation of any person in particular?

God cannot touch that individual, because in the end, its all up to his/her freewill. Why do we even pray to a God who doesnt have control over EVERYTHING.

He didn't provide a single scripture to support his position. Perhaps in his book he does.

[razputin34]

@RMCDisciple I do not pray for God to save people or to force them to believe. I pray that God will open their minds to His truth, but I don't ask God to bully them into believing. God can touch them and in fact He did this to Paul to get his attention, but did Paul HAVE to accept this? Could Paul have opted out of what God wanted for him? Why not. God created a particular kind of world and in the world He created, He has allowed a give and take relationship with His creatures.

[rkg62976]

@razputin34 "I do not pray for God to save people or to force them to believe. I pray that God will open their minds to His truth, but I don't ask God to bully them into believing..." As if Calvinists are asserting that God "bullies" people into faith. Calvinists also pray that God would open people's minds/hearts to Christ, because we recognize that apart from an act of God (a miraculously effectual act), no one has the ability to come to Christ (Jn.6:44,65).

[razputin34]

@rkg62976 If God chose you before He ever began creating anything, then you are inevitably going to come to Him. He is forcing Himself on you. You are going to be saved, no matter what. The ones that He doesn't choose to regenerate are not going to come to Him. How is that not bullying? If a man forced a woman to love him, would that not be bullying? How does it glorify God to see a cosmic control freak make sure everything works out how He wants it to be? Why is that great?

[LawrenceKennard]

I just finished "God of the Possible" and found it to biblically document his point very well. But the indoctrination of Plato/Socretes is too deep for this age of apostacy.

[poostancer]

The open view won me over for its strong biblical argument (the passages outlines in Boyd's "God of the Possible"). While the philosophical arguments behind the open view make a lot of sense to me (without getting too deep for my understanding), it is the Bible itself that swung me over.

[wbman1]

This is a really disturbing, non-Biblical, heretical view of the nature of God. The Openness view has been adequately refuted (see, for example, Beyond the Bounds) and it is NOT a legitimate orthodox position. I find it very interesting that his first argument (at approx 3 minutes in) is based on pragmatism... for someone who claims that Historical orthodoxy is held captive to Hellenistic thought, he is surprising blind to the "American" captivity of his own thinking.

[LawrenceKennard]

Wow! I used to believe in arminianism, never believed in Calvinism, and was won over BIBLICALLY with the open view. You call this unbiblical, and as one who has taught the Bible for 15 years, can tell you it's got exegetical proof.

[wbman1]

Lawrence, you might consider the rebutting of the so-called Biblical arguments for this heresy nicely summarized in Beyond The Bounds, edited by Piper, Taylor and Helseth. One thing we could agree on, though, based on Boyd's testimony, is that my view (the "Traditional" view) is antithetical with yours. This is not an "in house argument" as Boyd suggests, but a another Gospel - one of us is a heretic. I'd also remind you that even historical Arminian theologians reject the Openness view.

[LawrenceKennard]

@wbman1 Hey dude. I give Biblical arguments, and you point to a book by Piper, Taylor. hmm... Now you say I'm lost because of my open view. Why don't you give BIBLICAL arguments rather than someone else's book. I point out Boyd. You point out Piper. I may point out Sanders. Then you'd point out Ryrie and so on. Just give me the Bible baby!

[razputin34]

@wbman1 How is this another gospel? Please tell me what you believe Paul is warning us about as "another gospel." Galatians is clear on this very issue. Paul is talking about a gospel of works righteousness over and against the truth of grace by faith. Why do you find the open view so dramatically different. Do you believe in that God is triune? Do you believe in the resurrection? Do you believe that people are saved by faith? What is the heresy?

[newjdk7]

I find no contradiction with the Trinity in Scripture.

Apparent contradictions that prove out to be true are paradoxes. Truth is free from real contradiction.

To say God is in total control is a contradiction to man having the capacity to make choices between existing options free from outside control. Man has Sovereignly been given a right to choose for or against Gods will by God as a part of His sovereign plan and design.

[newjdk7]

Deut 30:19, --- I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life,

Joshua 24:15, --- choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served --- or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

1 Kings 18:21, And Elijah came to all the people, and said, "How long will you falter between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him."

[newjdk7]

Luke 7:30, But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

Many people miss this truth because of their definition of Sovereignty.

Sovereignty in this sense does not mean all controlling but the Supreme Authority to which all of creation is accountable.

Heb 4:13, there is no creature hidden from His (Gods) sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.

[newjdk7]

bmogie

If God is in total or absolute control then He and He alone is influencing every thing that happens.

Your analysis is not a paradox but a contradiction and anything that leads to a contradiction cannot be true. 

Reevaluate your postion. I have many times. Look at what Scripture says as a whole not at the limited perspective so many theologians have taken in the past by stating their "proof texts" to the exclusion of so many other Scriptures that invalidate their position.

[bmogie]

I continually reevaluate. Looking at scripture as a whole is exactly what I'm doing- and I see two things: God is absolutely sovereign and yet He can be influenced by us. Of course this APPEARS contradictory which admittedly makes me uneasy, but that's what Scripture teaches. When you ignore this reality, you end up with positions like open theism or hyper calvinism.

By your reasoning the trinity would be false b/c it's an apparent contradiction. Do you deny the trinity? Why/why not?

[LawrenceKennard]

The Trinity is not a contradiction. It is not 1 who = 3 whos. It is 1 what = 3 whos. Only Jehovah's Whitnesess, Muslims, and skeptics make that claim.

[bmogie]

There is another, more balanced biblical view than the hyper Calvinism Boyd argues against & the open theism he defends. The "reformed" view holds the strengths of each without the glaring weaknesses. God knows EVERYTHING about the future, not just possibilities; he is in TOTAL control. AND he can be influenced by our prayers and our actions effect history. It's a paradox that many can't handle but it's biblical. Same as the trinity. Don't base your theology on what you're "comfortable" with.

[Cr4zylem0ns]

That was very well put. I started out as an open theist and then became a hyper calvinist and now i am right where you are and it is a hard place to be but it is where i have found God and where Scripture has come to make sense to me

[newjdk7]

Matt 7:6-7, "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

Prov 2:4-6, If you seek her (wisdom, understanding, discernment) as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, And find the knowledge of God. For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding;

[destine4hope]

Continued...

So the choices are: 1. A God who is deistic and monadic in nature--he sees above us and sets His sights on higher things than us. Our worship is solely a static act of obedience.

Or

2. A God who is love, and, because of His nature, involves Himself in the lives of His creation, making our worship something that extends from our lives because we are partakers in His divine nature.

Which one seems more Biblical?

I want to see what yall think.

[destine4hope]

I keep seeing people say that this makes God powerless (strong word) or impotent. And I have yet to see how this is so. That He wants to be involved with our lives? That makes Him powerless? Is that relationship?

I see the comparison here:

Praise a God who couldn't care less of who worships Him because we are to small anyways.

Or

Worship a God who is moved by our earnest desires; a God who does indeed feel as we feel and is immanently (by choice--His omnipotence) involved in our lives.

[nickma71]

I have a question for those who say the future is settled.

Can God write a new song if he wants to?

[maytruthabound]

not a fan of open theism but do respect Greg Boyd as a defender of the historical Jesus.

[1timothy215]

Dr Norman Geisler work destroys the open theists arguments

---The battle for God--

[gtrjunky]

What a small god they worship. All in the name of man's will

[HeavenlyMan3]

I hope that you don't believe that we worship different gods?

[gtrjunky]

Yes I do.

[KingdomUploader]

Please upload the other sessions in this teaching!

[brent696139]

wow look a humanist at work!

[KingdomUploader]

how is Boyd a humanist? explain please.

[brent696139]

my friend i appologize for taking so long to reply to your question, please forgive me as i have been busy. Mr Boyd has exalted man, his power and decision above God. God has to react to our decisions and actions? This renders Him as powerless and impotent. Mr Boyd has too low a view of God and His magnificent power. Im not going to try to persuade you to my side on the issue. Keep on studying the Word and following after Christ! God bless u sir

[superdoG12271980]

Please explain how this view renders God powerless and impotent?

[HeavenlyMan3]

The fact that prayer effects God is evidence enough that God chooses to react to our actions.

[Supdude1964]

Jer. 19:5, Jer. 32:35, Jer. 7:31 KJV . . . The children of Israel were killing their kids to these made up gods. God saw what they were doing and did not have forknowledge that they were doing it nor did He command it. Imagine that one.

[Supdude1964]

Can an observer collapse the wave function simply by observing?

[diligentile]

How can Jesus say He will build His church if what happens is out of His control and can be overthrown by man's free will?

What a foolish theology.

[gomitch2]

Excellent and easy to understand! He's right on! Where was this filmed? In a YWAM school somewhere?

[godmakessense]

Great clip. Thanks for posting it!