When I see men like Ware respond, they treat it as if when someone doesn’t agree with them, that person is headed to Hell. That’s just foolishness. There are arguments to be made on both side, and in the end it comes down to which ones a particular person finds most convincing. Personally, I do lean toward the open view, because I find it fits in with the whole of Scripture better. I don’t say that those who disagree with me are heretics, though.

Well, so says you. But if it’s all the same to you, I’ll go with the research of men like Dr. Gilley and Dr. John Frame in “No Other God”, his excellent refutation of the non-existant god of open theism.

Traditional or classical theism has dominated not only most of church history but Jewish history as well.

Actually, this isn’t true. A typical Jewish understanding of God was not really like the Greek understanding that Plato introduced. Plato surmised that God was impassable and could not experience any type of change such as emotions. Scriptures present God as experiencing emotions, and describe Him as being living and active.

There was some debate among Jewish scholars as to what was predestined and foreordained also. When it came down to it, Jewish theologians tended to lean more to free-will theism, and were content to live with the tension that foreknowledge and free will created. Most would be very wary of doing anything that diminished human responsibility.

Well then, here’s some research from my good friend Dr. Gary Gilley. From Part One of his four part expose on the heresy of Open Theism:

“Open theism (also known as free-will theism, open theology and openness of God) was, until recently, a little-known stirring on the fringes of the evangelical camp… Traditional or classical theism has dominated not only most of church history but Jewish history as well.”

…some people actually spend hours upon hours every day researching his research.

Hardly. An informed person really doesn’t need spend much time at all doing “research” to see that Ken’s attacks are more fiction than reality. I don’t even think Ken has read most of the books he regularly pans on his site. The fact that he associates himself with Walter Martin, who actually did do a lot of good, is shameful.

Phil, Nicole, clearly, Rick, I enjoyed the conversation. Thanks for your thoughts.

The fact is that free-will theism is in many ways more prevalent in church history than a view that points specific sovereignty, meaning God planned everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen. This didn’t come about until Augustine, and later Calvin expanded on it.

The fact is that, are choices and actions matter. We can and do impact the future. That is both a freeing and scary thought. It is much easier to blame everything on determinism.

Phil Miller believes in the heresy of open theism. He’s coming from that warped perspective. So he’s quite right, he doesn’t serve the God of the Bible.

I don’t believe God is responsible for sin. Sorry if it sounded like I do…

I find it really hard to articulate what I feel on this sometimes, you know? I know that God is holy, fully without sin, and that while He is sovereign, He is not responsible for my actions. I don’t sit around waiting for the Lord to do something in my life either, as though His being sovereign somehow negates my responsibility….. that makes sense,right?

I absolutely abhor language that makes it sound like a part of the Godhead excercises faith or takes risks. I believe that, definitionally, both fall outside God’s character. Statements like that make it sound like God has somehow lost control of his creation, or that somehow he has needs. In my opinion, it’s the gospel in reverse, and consequently a foundation for a false gospel. God’s using humans is an act of grace — if we were silent, I’m fairly sure He would replace us with rocks. For those who weren’t here at the time, we have been round and around on this issue on this blog before (this summer when Joe Martino, his wife, one other guy, and I discussed it for about a week).

In brief, I see free-will in the text; I see complete sovereignty and control in the text. Interestingly, the Scripture attributes sin, wickedness, etc. only to people, while attributing that which is truly good ultimately wholly to God. In other words, if someone is a sinner and therefore condemned, it is his/her fault, not God’s. If someone is a believer and in Christ, it’s all of Christ and his grace.

I’m comfortable with God allowing sin in the world because he is and has always been completely in control; sin is not a threat to his existence or to his strength. He destroyed the power of sin at the cross — He allowed sin because in eternity past, He decreed that there would be a lamb slain before the foundation of the world — that it would be necessary that Christ would suffer, etc.

I am not comfortable with God decreeing sin in the world, because it directly condradicts how I read “God is not the author of sin.”

This goes back to above statements, in the Scripture, sin is attributed to man. Good is ultimately attributed to God.

When we say God is responsible for sin or that God is somehow not control, in both cases, we have completely bought into the corresponding system and forced the various texts into our system.