Polemics, Open Theism

On the subject of open theism, I have a question. How open-minded should you be about open theism? I'm just going to take a quick look down the road here. In open theism, God only knows what's down the road, only not so much. In open theism, the bottom line is God does not know the future, except for the future that He has predetermined. All other aspects of the future, God does not know.

How about that? That's the thesis of Open Theism. Here's the song, you may have heard it, it's been around for the last several decades, Known Only to Him, by Stuart Hamblin. Known only to him are the hidden secrets. I'll fear not the darkness when my flame shall dim. I know not what the future holds, but I know who holds the future. It's a secret known only to him.

Open theism would say, not so much. That God doesn't know the future. Here's a local church here that holds to open theism. And this is another one that's in this area that is open theist by background. Let's take a look. You have your handout. By the way, we've got some handouts here. You want to make sure that you've got hold on. Just a second before you get by. There we go. Okay, so the idea open theism or it's also called the openness of God free will theism the open view Says that God doesn't know the future except those that he's predetermined.

Okay, that's it So it means that God's gets surprised a lot It means that I've even heard it said God likes surprises How about that? Alongside this idea is that God can change with time. That's another aspect of open theism, that he can vary. And he's subject to the limitations of time. He is, the open theist would say, inside time, as we are.

And there are a number of strange groups who have held to some aspect of open theism. I list down here the Sosinians, this one group from a few centuries back. Unification Church, the Sun Myung Moon, we referred to him a week or so ago. Sun Myung Moon is one of those who holds that God does not know the future. The Mormons hold to open theism. And they actually extend that because they go beyond that and give God other human characteristics, aside from just God doesn't know the future and God can change.

Some within the Church of Christ hold it. Now, before we say, well, that's a really strange, odd group, about five years ago, four and a half, Down in Colorado Springs, they held a meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. Evangelicals are those who hold to some kind of core ideas of Christianity. In that meeting, nearly, and not entirely, but close to 30% of the people who attended were either sympathetic to or believed in open theism in that meeting that took place five years ago. So we're talking not among those who are wildly within, but narrower within Christianity hold to open theism. It's being taught in a number of Bible colleges and seminaries these days. At least as something to consider. Now, anybody's circuits blown so far?

Hi. What's that? Oh, maybe not. Right down the hall. Everybody with us here have a handout? How are we doing so far on this? Nobody is fainting or gasping or anything like that. Yeah, yeah, it pays not to be surprised. Now what's amazing is that we're not surprised, but God is. Okay? Now, the first thing is, here's what happens. It's an approach to an interpretation.

In the Bible, and principally but not exclusively in the Old Testament, there are figures of speech called anthropomorphisms. What do we mean by that? There are things that are stated as if God were a man, but are used as figures of speech, not intended to be taken literally in the sense of God being like a man. We as human beings, though recognizing that there is a fall with Adam and there was a change with Jesus Christ, the human race was initially created in the image of God. God's the reality. We're the analog, if you will. Now, let's look here at Genesis 8-1.

But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the cattle that were with him. Now, does that mean that God said, oh my heavens, I forgot Noah. Is that what that means? No. Ah, yeah, what Rui is focusing on, certainly it does not mean that he forgot. It is a figure of speech, and it's used throughout, especially the Old Testament, to say not that somebody forgot something and then suddenly remembered, like God slapping His forehead up in heaven and saying, oh my heavens, I forgot Noah. He's out down there floating around. It is a figure of speech that means that Noah was the focus of God's attention. It doesn't mean that God was pacing the floors of heaven trying to figure out what he'd do because he'd forgotten Noah, but because his attention was focused upon Noah and he most certainly was concerned for him.

The next one down here is Numbers 11.18.

Say to the people, consecrate yourselves for tomorrow and you shall eat meat for you have wept in the ears of the Lord. What kind of earlobes does God have? Are they the attached kind or the hanging down kind? Yeah, does He have the pierced kind of ears? Now really, what is this talking about? Yeah, this is referring to God listening and the ear is not a statement. God has these earlobes of one kind or another, but a figure of speech, right? So that's called an anthropomorphism. I will warn you, however, that the Mormons take that literally. Because they see that God was once a man and became deified. Now, another one we have down here.

In Deuteronomy 7, 17-19, in the middle of 19, "...the great trials which your eyes saw, and the signs and wonders, and the mighty hand and the outstretched arm by which the Lord your God brought you out." Brought you out of Egypt, right? Does this mean that God has a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, literally? And if you were there, you would have seen the fingers? How often does He trim His fingernails?

So again, this is an instance where Mormonism would interpret this kind of thing more literally. But as an anthropomorphism, it's to describe God in terms that human beings can understand as a figure of speech. It is not intended, by the original authors, it is not intended to be understood as something literal.

I sat down with my rabbi friend that I told you about some six months ago, Rabbi Yossi. And Rabbi Yossi, I asked him about these. He says, these are figures of speech. And we, among the Jews, have understood that for centuries and thousands of years. These are not intended to be taken literally. They are definitely anthropomorphisms.

Okay, so the approach to scripture on the top of page two, common to the open view, that's the same as open theism and open theology, all those, is to view any passage that has been seen as anthropomorphic that limits God's view of the future as literal.

If it sounds like God doesn't know the future, they take that literally. If it talks about God's ears or God's hand or God's arm or God's eyes, then they take that, they take that anthropomorphically. So what do they do? They arbitrarily take anthropomorphisms and interpret them literally only if it means God doesn't know the future. Otherwise, they take all the other anthropomorphisms and interpret them figuratively. So it is an arbitrary line that they draw. on no basis whatsoever in order to say that God doesn't know the future.

Now, let me ask you, does that make good sense? Yeah. Randy brings up a good point. You can use it as an excuse. It's not that God was being mad or nasty or anything. God just couldn't help it and He didn't know. So does that help? Does that help? It really makes God not God. Ah, this is a problem. This is a serious problem.

Okay, let's continue. Jeremiah 32, 35. Here he's talking about the deities, the false deities that were being built up among the Jews. They build up the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben Hinnom to cause their sons and daughters to pass through the fire to Molech which I had not commanded them nor had it entered my mind that they should do this abomination.

Now how do you think they're taking that? Nor had it entered my mind that they should do this. What do you think? He was surprised. My heavens, they did this! I had no idea they would do this! And this is actually one that they list on their websites as being an example of, see, God didn't know the future. So they actually refer to this. That's how they take it. This passage is taken by open theists as a statement that God did not expect them to carry out this abomination. Because God didn't know the future and was therefore surprised by their actions. Oh, heaven, look what they're doing. I had no idea. Now, they would also look at Jeremiah 26, 19. Did Hezekiah, king of Judah, and all Judah put him to death?

Did he not fear the Lord and entreat the favor of the Lord? And the Lord changed his mind about the misfortune which he had pronounced against them. There are various places in Scripture in the Old Testament where it talks about God changing his mind. Now, the question is, is God changing his mind an anthropomorphism or literal? Anthropomorphism is a proper understanding of it. Let's take a look at some passages here and I think we'll get the point. So, as God opened 24-7. I'm using kind of a figure of speech here.

So what are the problems with the teaching of Open Theism? The primary problems are twofold. One, there's a practical problem in the ability of the believer to trust God. Do I trust God when He's as surprised as I am? Maybe more so. There was a joke that the Open Theists were holding a conference this last spring in order to let God know that this was going to be a bad hurricane season. coming up in this next summer. But the ability of the believer to trust God is threatened. How can I really trust God?

If God says, I most certainly will work all things together for good for those who love the Lord, can you believe it? How can you trust that if he's surprised? If he goes, whoops! Do you want a God that goes, whoops! You want a God that says, oh my heavens, what am I going to do now?

Is that comforting to your heart? Is that something that you want to put confidence in? Not so much. Yes? You know, I've argued this with a person. The problem with changing his mind is the reason you change your mind is because that means you were in error before. That's correct.

That's right, God makes mistakes. Some of the open theists, not all of them, but some of the open theists have argued that certainly God does not know the future and what they will do is try to show how certain prophecies were not perfectly fulfilled. And so they actually argue that scripture is fallible. Scripture has error in order to be able to reach their conclusion. That's a problem.

Don't you think that the majority of people in the United States feel that way about God? They can't trust Him and don't really put their trust in Him? What's interesting is there is that thought, and this is actually getting to be a more popular view, Nancy had read a book by a rabbi, you know, why bad things happen to good people. And he basically, he was a liberal rabbi, but he basically had that kind of view. God's real sorry about the bad things that happened, but he just can't help it. He can't do anything about it. That was the bottom line conclusion of the book.

Yeah? I've got a thesis, and I know Brian has a copy as well, about this thick. The guy says, what does God foreknow? And the bottom line is, he knows the number of the hairs on my head, which I know is not too much of an accomplishment for me. But to think about it, there are... What's that? He knows the hairs on my head, you know. There are expressions of Scripture. To me, it's pushing the realm of logic to think that God knows the number of hairs on my head, but He doesn't know what's happening in the next five minutes. Why does God know all things and then not know the next second?

Next one, there are multiple interpretive problems which upon examination reveal the inconsistencies, and I think it's important, arbitrary, and when you say arbitrary, it's humanly arbitrary, definitions of open theism. We'll focus upon this item first, then return to the first question. Okay, so how do we understand these passages? Number one there. Key principles of Bible interpretation.

1. When scripture makes an explicit universal truth statement, the statement governs whether any other passage is taken as anthropomorphic. Why do we not take it that God has eyes and ears and arms and legs and feet and that sort of thing?

John 4.24 says God is spirit. That is his character.

1 Timothy 1.17, now to the King Eternal, Immortal, Invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. We could take other passages as well, and I give a couple here from John's writings, but these general and universal truth statements are used to guide us to the understanding that any biblical references to God's hands, arms, eyes, ears, etc. are to be taken as anthropomorphic. That's what the Open Theist do. But now, what we'll do, let's look at some passages that guide us here. Numbers 23, 19.

God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should repent, that is, change his mind. Has he said and will he not do it? Or has he spoken and will he not make it good? Can you count on him when he says it's going to happen? Can you trust him?

There's your answer. Yes, Carol. I think there's an important detail here that we can even when he doesn't say. Yes. Okay. We can trust him because he is worthy to fulfill what he says. Yes. Therefore, we can trust him for what he doesn't say also. Yes. Okay. McCale makes the point. We can trust him for what he says. Therefore, we can trust him for what he doesn't say explicitly. Right? Yes.

There are limits, and we went over that earlier on in the study of Revelation. There are places where the Lord says, no, we're not talking about that. He even told John in the book of Revelation in chapter 10, don't write this. Don't write this. Certain limits to what's revealed, but we can trust Him for what's not revealed. We can trust Him for what we don't know. Good point, Carol.

1 Samuel 15, 29, Also the glory of Israel will not lie or change his mind, for he is not a man that he should change his mind. If you think that God can change his mind, what else does that say about his character? Will he lie? If you say, yes, he changes his mind, then what does this mean? How do you take that? Does God lie? Yeah, it's a problem. If you put it, that's God's character And how it's described, he doesn't lie, and he doesn't change his mind. If you said, oh yes, he does change his mind, what does that say about God lying? Not so good, is it? Let's take a look, here's another one. Yes? Yes. Yes, yes. Yes. Doug's point is we use the figure of speech like with the hand and anthropomorphism because that communicates to us what it does. Good point. And when we studied through Colossians, we made this point.

Scripture, and this is a consistent principle you can use throughout, Scripture, whenever God does something in the physical realm, it says, you know, done, made, you know, with hands. With God's hand. Whenever God does something in the spiritual realm, it says made without hands. That's the anthropomorphism and the way it's used. And so there's a consistent pattern in the way it's done. When God does something with hands, it describes him as doing something, you know, with his hands. Now, it doesn't mean he literally has hands, but it means in the physical realm.

Yes? The problem I see here with other things such as Calvinism and Procreationism and all that, Even when it says exactly like Christ died for all men, they change the meaning of the word. That's right. What's interesting is Brian's making the point, when you come up with isms, when you come up with isms where you look at a passage and say, well it doesn't mean what it says, you've got a problem.

That you've got a problem. The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind. This is Psalm 110.4. You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

And this is quoted in Hebrews 7.21. So the Lord has sworn and will not change his mind. It's fixed. It's determined.

Now, another point we make here, and we'll be seeing this as we study through Isaiah in our main service. Six times in Isaiah, and this is from about chapter 42 to chapter 48, the distinction between the pagan gods and the God of scriptures is made on this basis. God knows the future, the pagan gods don't. Therefore, if you say that God doesn't know the future, what kind of a God do you make him?

Unreliable. Good. What else? Yeah, basically you deify him. You make God man-made just like the idols. How about that? I think this reminds me of Mark Twain. God created man in his image and man returned to favor. Yes, people are often wanting to redefine God according to their own likes and preferences. Rather than having God's Word as His personal and direct and complete revelation, inspired throughout, tell us from God Himself, this is what I am like.

Here's Malachi 3.6, For I the Lord do not change, Hmm.

Okay, therefore you O sons of Jacob are not consumed. What does he mean by that? He says look I made a promise to you. I don't change in what I said or in my character. I'm going to keep it and You guys ought to be you deserve to be consumed But I'm going to preserve you because my character and my mind does not change Okay, here's Hebrews 1 10 through 12.

I And I quote from the New King James here especially because I think it puts it well. And you, O Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain. And they will grow old like a garment, like a cloak you will fold them up, and they will be changed, but you are the same, for your years will not fail.

James 1.17 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. How much does God vary? No variation. Point two, this is the top of page four.

When scripture speaks of God in time, we find that God can enter time and interact with it, but is not subject to its limitations. Here's an example of John 58 and 59. Jesus said to them, truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am. Not, I was, but I am. Hmm, now that's interesting. We could bring up all the other places where Christ says, I am, ego, a me, in the Greek.

This is a claim to be self-existing, that's point one, and two, living in the eternal present. That's why he uses the present tense, even to refer to the past. From a human standpoint, it's the past. From God's standpoint, it's all right now. And we give references there to various places where Christ has said, Ego eimi, meaning I am the self-existing one, I live in the eternal present.

And that can be compared to the Greek Old Testament, Exodus 3.14, that's where Moses is speaking to God. in the burning bush, and the Lord answers in response to Moses' question, who should I say has sent me? The Greek Old Testament has ego eimi. So that's when Jesus said, here in this John passage we quote, before Abraham was born I am.

The Jews kind of hummed and hawed and yawned and walked away? No. What did they do? They picked up rocks. This is blasphemy. You're claiming to be God because you're claiming to live in the eternal present. You're claiming to be self-existing. That's exactly what he was doing and they knew it. The open theists don't understand it.

At Holly Hills Bible Church, we regularly refer to the identification truths. We say that a believer has been identified with Christ in his death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and seeding. Scripture makes clear that these truths are true only of believers. So in order for God to identify us with Christ in these truths, which happened historically about 30 A.D., God had to have known that we, about 2,000 years later, would come to believe, that's you and I, and so identify with Christ in the events which took place about 30 A.D., and then make that effective for you 2,000 years later. Is God limited by time? Is God surprised that you came to believe in Him? Yeah, God's not looking at his watch. He's not worried about whether somebody's turned the hourglass over.

Art? You of the many heirs of the open theist, what about their salvation? Art asks, what about their salvation? That is an excellent question, and it's one I'd like to hold off on. And if I bypass it, remind me, would you? Because it's too important to forget. I've got a place for it that I'm hoping will drop in.

Psalm 90 verse 2, Before the mountains were born, and you gave birth to the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. Is God God in the future right now? Yeah. Yeah. He is God in the future, far distant from us now, right now. He's God there. He's not waiting to get there. Yes it is, but on the other hand, sure. That's right, and that's what this is saying, isn't it? That's right. God is not limited by the time that we are limited. unless you believe in open theism.

And God's waiting to see what happens next. Will you be resurrected? Will you actually be raptured? Maybe you won't remember at the right time. Remember, the apostles asked Jesus, just before Jesus ascended, is now the time you're going to establish His kingdom? Jesus' response is, the Father knows these things. It's not for you to know the time that He has established. Let's hope He remembers. Let's hope He thinks of it at the right moment. Point three, careful examination of the passages are often given as references in support of open theism, so that these passages are not intended as the open theist claims. Here are some passages in Jeremiah 731. They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters with fire.

This is with Molech, which I did not command, and it did not come to my mind. Oh, surprise, right? Well, they've also got similar passages, Jeremiah 19, 4 and 5. Similarly spoken, they burn their sons in the fires, burn offerings to Baal, a thing I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it enter my mind. God surprised! Oh no! How about the next one, Jeremiah 32, 35? They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor had it entered my mind that they should do this. Oh my heavens, I had no idea, right? God is shocked and surprised. Now, there are significant problems with this, and it comes this way.

The Lord wanted Israel not to do these things, even specifically mentioning Molech worship. Here's the passages in Leviticus 18 and 20, Deuteronomy 18. And even told Moses that the people of Israel would do these things when they got into the land. So has God surprised? Let's look at this Deuteronomy 31 here. The Lord said to Moses, Behold, you are about to lie down with your fathers, and this people will arise, and play the harlot with strange gods in the land, into the midst of which they are going, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them. 20 For when I bring them into the land flowing with milk and honey, which I swore to their fathers, and they have eaten and are satisfied and become prosperous, then they will turn to other gods and serve them, and spurn me, and break my covenant.

Is God surprised? That's exactly what he told them. And how long ahead? Something coming up close to a thousand years ahead of time? Was God surprised? No. He not only warned them, don't do it. He told Moses, they're going to do it. The idea that God's surprised is ludicrous.

Yes. because this is so confusing, why they would state stuff like, I mean, why the scripture would say it did not come into my mind. What's it trying to tell us? Isn't it saying it was never, to make another figure of speech almost, wouldn't it be like saying it never even was a passing thought that I would want you to do that. Okay, here's how we have to look at it. Remember we've, in our main service, continued to see Hebrew poetry crop up in the book of Isaiah? Same thing here. Look at what's down below. Just past the halfway point you see Jeremiah 32-35.

They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-Hinnom to cause their sons and daughters to pass through the fire of Molech, which I had not commanded them, and restated in the Hebraistic pattern, nor had it entered my mind that they should do. In the Hebrew way of saying it, nor had it entered my mind is not a statement of surprise. It is a statement of what I had commanded and what I had in mind is that they would obey. Okay? Let me show you the confirmation of that.

1 Samuel 2.35 at the bottom of the page. I will raise up for myself a faithful priest who will do according to what is in my heart.

That word heart there is the same word as mind in Jeremiah. What God has in mind and in his heart is that they would do exactly as he commands. That's what was in his mind. So when he makes that statement, it's not a heaven sakes, I'm surprised. It's a statement I have in my mind and in my heart, God says. that they would live out My commandments. That they disobeyed that is not in my mind and in my heart. It is my mind and heart that they live it out.

This is why the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 7, the law is spiritual. Why? It comes from the mind and heart of God. It is reflecting God's fundamental and unchangeable moral character. That's why it's from His mind and His heart. And so when they make this statement, it's not a statement of what did God expect in terms of was He aware that they would do this or not. It's a statement of, I have in my heart and in my mind that they will obey my commandments because they come from my heart. That's what it's about. It's not God being surprised. Does that help? Yeah, think of that. That's a good point, Marilyn.

As a parent, what you have in your mind and in your heart is that they would do this. That they would do something else. You may not even be surprised as a parent. You may say, oh, I didn't know that they were going to do this. But what you have in your mind and in your heart is that they would obey. What you have in your mind and in your heart is that they would understand.

What he had in his mind and heart was that they would not cause their daughters to pass through the fire. That's right. His mind and his heart was that they would obey, that they would not pass their sons and daughters through the fire. That's what he had in his mind and his heart.

By saying this means God was surprised is failing to understand the pattern of Scripture. I've looked through and this is consistent. I'd give you quick examples. I've looked through and through this thing. The whole pattern of Scripture is very consistent.

You have to, by arbitrary interpretation, understand it as a surprise. But studying Scripture does not bear that out. God does not have a mind or a heart. What do you mean by that? That's right. God doesn't have a beating heart. Here's an anthropomorphism again, right? He doesn't have grey matter sitting up there with blood flowing in it. That's correct.

Let's look at the last page and I think this is an important point. What is the character of open theism? Here are some, it's not exhaustive, I'll admit that. Here are some aspects of God's character. Does God have infinite knowledge? I would say that scripture says yes. That God has infinite knowledge. God was not surprised that Hal would come up with this disease. God will not be surprised when believers are raptured. He won't say, whoa, for heaven's sake, look what happened.

What a nice surprise. That's cool when that comes off, isn't it? I had to try three times, I'm glad the third time worked. Infinite wisdom. Is God infinitely wise or is his wisdom somehow limited? It's sort of God's best shot. The old college try. Yes, all of our days. Good point. He knew that ahead of time.

His infallible Scripture says that God is infallible. God does not make crusty, rusty, failed prophecies. God does not think one thing is going to happen and then find out another thing happens. God is not thinking error and then have to be corrected by the future that takes place in the next second. Unchanging character. Scripture says, I, the Lord, do not change. The universe, it comes and goes. You, the Lord, are the same. No shadow of changing. No variation. Right? Changes his mind.

Scripture says, no, God is not a man that he should lie or change his mind. Subject to the physical world. Jesus is resurrected. Here's eleven disciples sitting in the room. He tries to walk through the wall and goes, whoop! And then he knocks on the door and says, man, that hurt! Is that what happened?

No. He is not subject to the physical world. Jesus wasn't on the shores of the Sea of Galilee after His resurrection. And on the side there, He says, Would you guys hurry up? I'm starving over here. He was not just really hungry and pankering for a meal.

Infinite holiness is described. and only one God. Now notice what I've done in this little box here is I've said the God of open theism and I've compared the gods of paganism to the example that I have is the gods of paganism were the Greek and Roman gods that Paul walked into.

Paul walked into Ephesus and what was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world? Temple of Artemis. Right? So here's the Temple of Artemis, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. You get out of the harbor and here's this ominous thing with with well over a hundred columns in it and a massive structure. But it was a god goddess temple to Artemis.

Now what you find is the descriptions of open theism for these first six characteristics also fit the gods of paganism. Gods and goddesses of paganism. Open theism is a definite, and notice there's six points here, is a definite move in the direction of paganism. Am I saying that he's exactly like the pagan gods? No, but I'm just saying it is a clear and definite move in the direction of paganism.

It is almost as if Paul walked into Ephesus and said, well, you guys aren't too far off. Is that what he said? You guys got pretty close, I just got to tweak it a little bit. Is that what happened? No. Not at all. Not at all. He walked in there and proclaimed something that they had not heard. He walked into Athens and what did he tell them? He told them something new. That was what they were interested in. It was definitely new. It wasn't just, hey, take what you've got and just sweep it a bit and you're there.

Definitely different. So open theism is a distinct move in the direction of paganism. is a move away from something that is described in scripture. And I would suggest to you that it is a serious, serious error on that count. That if open theism is true, God shouldn't have bothered to send Paul. Because they weren't that far off. He shouldn't have bothered to send Jesus. He shouldn't have bothered to send Jesus anyway. Besides that, I'm not so sure he knew everything about what was going to happen with Jesus.

How could they believe that God is infinitely holy and yet not believe that he has infinite qualities and infinite wisdom? It is a problem of consistency, isn't it? Cheryl asked the question, how can they believe that God is infinitely holy and yet have these other infinite characteristics? or not have them. It is a consistency problem.

Part of the problem is once you start poking holes in it, it's kind of like a balloon. You ever stick a pin in a balloon? How does it come out? If you take a piece of scotch tape and put it on the outside of the balloon and poke it, it won't pop, but it will still just deflate.

And that's the problem. You've broken the dam, so to speak. The integrity of who God is, is massively threatened and challenged. And I would suggest to you that it's not a theoretical point, but it is a very practical point. Take someone like Hal. He's at a point, obviously he's going through the chemo, because the odds are that that will help. But notice when he talks to the people there, he can say, I know exactly what God's doing. And God knows what he's doing. And God understands everything about what's happening here. And he knows the future.

Why do I have any reason to do anything but trust him? If it's the God of open theism, not so fast. Not so fast. You don't know that you can trust him. You don't know that he knows what's happening next. their reaction is to cling on to other positive aspects of God, that God is holy and He is loving. Even if He's not in control, He's still loving. Many would say, even if God's not in control, He's still loving.

The difficulty is that God has made statements in Scripture that you're undermining the ability to trust. Can he work all things together for good when he is surprised one second to the next? I think that Romans 8 passage really is a really critical passage to look at because it requires absolutely for God to be in control, to work things out there. That's probably one of the more critical passages.

Other than, you know, Genesis 1-1. Does he know it was the beginning? Was he sure? It wasn't his beginning. O'Byrne, isn't this kind of an illustration of the watering down of Christianity? Christianity being changed. Yeah, Doug brings up a good point that there's a watering down of Christian faith that takes place here.

And one of the words that I brought up early on was the word arbitrary. And this also gets to some of the points that Randy was bringing up as well. Once you say, I'm going to move this line, and I'm going to move it this far, and you've made an arbitrary definition of it's all anthropomorphic except for this. Well, why do you decide that? Well, I just decided.

And in fact, that decision is contrary to revealed points of Scripture. God doesn't change His mind, but I say that He does. God doesn't change, but I say that He does. So you have to go against explicit and specific statements of Scripture in order to make that interpretive arbitrary line in the first place. Now, who's to say that that arbitrary line is going to stay there? What changes next? What changes next?

Anything can. That's right. Anything can. Because who decided the arbitrary line? Who decided that? Human beings. Human beings. Is there any reason for us not to move that line over a tad next week or next month or next year? Start to raise your hand. Well, I'm just coming back to Art's question. Yes. Because when you look at this, you wonder who and what are they believing in? So then are they, can they, of course they can be, but are they saved? Yeah.

Here's, in John 10, 28, Jesus says, and I'm giving a more full, you know, expansion of the Greek here, I am constantly giving them eternal life. Constantly giving them eternal life. No one can, and the words you use are ume in the Greek, which means not the slightest chance. There is not the slightest chance that anyone will lose their salvation of their own doing, it's middle voice. And no one can take them out of my hand and my father gave them to me and no one will take them out of his hand either.

Can you make those kinds of absolute statements? about salvation, unless you're sure. If Jesus isn't sure, and He's making those kinds of statements, is He telling us the truth? If we cannot trust God to know those things that He has said, to get to Art's point, what can we trust about anything in salvation? He changes his mind. It seems that these people are tearing God down, so how can they accept what He says about salvation?

That's right. And think of all the things we've read in Ephesians 1-3. We've been blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Are you so sure? Not so fast. All of a sudden, any explicit and absolute and total statement of Scripture begins to erode. You've just poked a hole in the balloon.

Randy? I think it's important to state that if somebody becomes a believer, they're saved. And so, it's possible for one to be saved and then be corrupted for a time with their theology. I mean, I know in my own life, I can, there's a trail of funky theology I've embraced over time as different people have influenced me without me having discernment. the scriptures.

Right. And so you could, you know, here I'm a new believer, I'm hungry, and the church that I'm going to isn't teaching me anything other than the gospel every week, because that's what the church's purpose is, right? Uh-huh. So they teach the gospel every week, and then they come in contact with a buddy who's going to the whatever church or whatever, and they start learning about this stuff. Yeah.

That means they've lost their salvation, but it certainly doesn't mean Yeah, in other words, one of the things Randy's pointing out here is that even if you were to take salvation, there's still a growth issue that is from that point of salvation on. Spiritual growth, if I am not getting the character of God straight, spiritual growth is also threatened, even if I assume that salvation is certain. It's kind of a radical departure from biblical Christianity. Yeah, it is another place where you have arbitrary lines of interpretation.

The Amillennial view that Brian brings up here is one where, here's Gabriel talking to Mary, you shall have a son and you shall call his name Jesus, right? And he'll save his people from sins. Literal. The Amillennialist suddenly shifts from that literal interpretation to an allegorical interpretation of, and he shall have the house and the throne and the kingdom of David.

All of a sudden it's allegorized. Why is that line put there? It's arbitrary. Anytime we start establishing humanly defined, arbitrary lines, we run into the question, where will it shift next? And we have to instead, I think, look at the scripture and say, what is God saying? And take it directly, including the direct inference of figures of speech. And we have guidance on these issues.

Randy? One last comment, I guess, on this for me is that Postmodernism really fits in with this mindset. Yes, good point. I remember at seminary that actually said he considered Clark Pinnock to be a postmodernist within the realms of Christendom, even though he's written books about postmodernism in a somewhat negative slant. Randy's point is that postmodernism, which is the idea that truth is rather subjective and culturally defined, and for me as an individual to state that this or that is the absolute truth, is highly suspect in the view of postmodernism.

That this fits well with open theism because what it does is you don't have an objective God anyway. You don't have a God that is over all and knows all and objectively knows everything and can state things absolutely. So the postmodern drift easily fits together with open theism, the loss of absolute truth. Real easy to say there is no absolute truth when you've got a God that doesn't know what's going to happen the next second, that is surprised by what you just ate for breakfast. that doesn't know the details.

Yeah, Andy? And you also said that it was a joke about them having that conference. Yes. They literally did have that conference, where they wanted to pray and let God know that there was going to be a strong hurricane season this year in Illinois. It literally did happen. We joked about it, but there literally was a conference in the Midwest. I think it was in Illinois. to pray and let God know that there were probably going to be hurricanes, just in case he didn't have access to the newspaper or the weather channel or something.

Yeah, how about that? So this is pretty sad. Yeah, no, I haven't figured out how do I get the cable hooked up to the heavenly system. Nancy? Let me just say that 30 years ago I worked for a company that did weather forecasting and they knew that they couldn't always tell the weather that someone else was in control. Yeah, but we need to call this to a close.

Because unless the Lord is as surprised as we are, we need to move into the next service here pretty soon. So let's pray. Lord, pray for believers and even those that are considering the faith that are holding this view. We're deeply concerned, Lord, that this seriously undermines the understanding of who you are and what you have revealed about who you are. And we pray in our own thinking and minds that we have an understanding based on the truth. And to you, we can give thanks for that. You have revealed by your intent and you've given us your Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. We pray for minds that are open to what you have revealed out of your heart of love for us. In Jesus' name, Amen.