Greg Boyd (Part 1 of 13)

Greg Boyd delivers his lecture "A Flexible Sovereignty: A Biblical Understanding of Providence and the Nature of the Future" at the Open Theology and Science Conference at Azusa Pacific University, April 11, 2008.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Greg Boyd
• open theology
• openness

[nappyrootzyeah]

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

[cameronversluis]

Says the guy on part one of thirteen...

[joshjeggs]

rap lol

[signpreach]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.