Category Archives: Bible Study

Books Read in 2012: No. 6 – Their God is Too Small

By Clark Goble | February 19, 2012

Title: Their God is Too Small: Open Theism and the Undermining of Confidence in God
Author: Bruce Ware
Completed on January 25, 2012

This short book by Bruce Ware is easily read in a day and is a wonderful primer on the topic of Open Theism. Ware expertly examines the arguments of the Open Theist and then tears them down in an expert and expedient fashion. As the title of this book suggests, Ware argues that God, as seen through the lens of Open Theism, is too small to be the God of the Bible. Inevitably, if one buys Open Theism, their confidence in God will eventually be eroded.

This is an excellent book for anyone who wants to learn more about Open Theism or the God of the Bible. I would recommend that the reader check out some articles or websites written by Open Theists prior to reading this book so they can enter into is more informed. Ware approaches the subject using Scripture and common sense to refute Open Theology. Having read other of his books, I have come to respect Ware’s knowledge of Scripture. I highly recommend this book.

 

 

TwitterWordPressFacebookMySpaceStumbleUponEmailGoogle GmailShare

Open Theology Part 2: Scripture and God’s Knowledge of the Future

By Clark Goble | February 17, 2012

A cursory examination of Scripture seems to lend credence to Open Theology. For the purposes of this post one such passage, Jeremiah 19:4-6, will be examined:

4 Because they have forsaken Me and have made this an alien place and have burned sacrifices in it to other gods, that neither they nor their forefathers nor the kings of Judah had ever known, and because they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent 5 and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind; 6 therefore, behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when this place will no longer be called Topheth or the valley of Ben-hinnom, but rather the valley of Slaughter (NASB, emphasis added).

In this often cited passage, proponents of Open Theology claim that God exhibits surprise concerning the actions of the Israelites. While God certainly recognized that, in their free will, the Israelites might do something contrary to His desires, it never entered His mind that they may do something as evil and wicked as sacrificing innocent lives to other Gods. As a result, God responds to their behavior by changing the name of Topeth to the valley of Slaughter. It must be conceded that when taken by itself, a reading of the above passage does seem to suggest that God can be taken by surprise when His creation takes advantage of their freewill. Furthermore, it seems to suggest that God is reactive rather than proactive in response to our actions. However, I believe Open Theology fails to place passages such as Jeremiah 19:4-6 within proper context.

The overall scheme of Scripture presents a God who is omniscient and immutable. Furthermore the prevalence given to prophecy throughout the Bible suggests that God has a precise and accurate knowledge of future events. Passages such as Jeremiah 19:4-6 seem to contradict this big picture. This problem of interpretation is caused by the fact that the Bible is both human and divine at the same time. Scholars Fee and Stuart suggest, “it is this dual nature of the Bible that demands of us the task of interpretation” (Fee & Stuart, 2003, p. 21). The Bible is the divine message of God written to us in human language. As such, it often becomes necessary for God to reveal Himself in human terms. As such, passages such as Jeremiah 19:4-6 are traditionally understood as anthropomorphic. In other words, Biblical writers are attributing human qualities to God so that readers may understand His message. An understanding of anthropomorphism is essential to satisfy the tension between passages such as Jeremiah 19:4-6 and John 13:19 where Christ tells His disciples that He is revealing the future to them so that they may have confidence that He is God. In fact, if the student of the Bible ignores anthropomorphism to satisfy a belief in Open Theology, he will inevitably be forced to compromise a multitude of passages that stand in stark contrast. For instance, the moment God declares in the Garden of Eden that Christ will crush Satan under His heel (Genesis 3:15) believers are invited to have confidence in His plan for our future. To consider that God is basing His plan on anything other than a concrete knowledge of future events is unthinkably frightening.

TwitterWordPressFacebookMySpaceStumbleUponEmailGoogle GmailShare

What is Open Theology?

By Clark Goble | February 4, 2012

This post is the first in a series that examines Open Theology. My hope is to examine the subject in a tone that is productive and amicable.

What is Open Theology?

David Woodruff defines Open Theology as “a form of relational theology” that starts “with the belief that God desires to be in a relationship with creation, and uses that belief as a basis for interpretation and explanation of other aspects of the divine nature” (Woodruff, 2008, p. 53). It is in light of this desire for relationship with His creation that Open Theists believe that God voluntarily self-limits His sovereign control over mankind and grants mankind genuine freedom of will. As a result of the freewill God’s creation possesses, Open Theology posits that while God has a perfect knowledge of the past and the present, His knowledge of the future is limited. God’s limitations in regards to future-knowledge is not attributed to any weakness of His own; rather, it is impossible for God to know the future because “the future free acts of human beings are not yet reality [because they have not yet happened] and, therefore, cannot be known” (Pinnock, 2005, p. 238). Thus, Open Theology concludes that while God’s knowledge of the future is limited, it is still perfect because He knows everything about the future that can be known. Even though God knows as much as can be known, the future is still open as a result of freewill. According to Open Theology, mankind’s freewill and God’s limited knowledge of the future work together to create a relationship between Creator and creation that is real and genuine. It is a relationship that mirrors all others and includes risk and faith on the part of Deity and man.

Open Theology is an attempt to make sense of Scriptures that seem to suggest that the God of the Bible does not have an exhaustive knowledge of the future. As a system, Open Theology offers the believer a lens through which to understand why there is so much evil in the world and the impact of Christian prayer. Additionally, Open Theology makes certain assumptions concerning the nature of time. Future posts in this series will offer an examination of Open Theology as it relates to each of these issues.

Sources

Pinnock, C. H. (2005). Open theism: An answer to my critics. Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 44:3, 237-245.

Woodruff, D. M. (2008). Examining problems and assumptions: An update on criticisms of open theism. Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 47:1, 53-63. 

TwitterWordPressFacebookMySpaceStumbleUponEmailGoogle GmailShare

What is the Proper Bible Translation for Study Purposes?

By Clark Goble | January 18, 2012

If you are beginning a Bible study you may be wondering what translation you should use. If you ask your Christian friends you will probably get a wide range of responses. Most Christians place a high value on the Bible and are incredible loyal to their preferred translation. In truth, you should probably aim to find a reliable translation that will inspire you to read it more often; however, if your goal is to select the translation(s) that will best help you in your studies, I offer the following advice:

When choosing a translation it helps to be familiar with the methods translators use; basically, there are two methods – formal equivalence (word for word) and functional equivalence (thought for thought). Formal translations are accurate in that they translate word for word from the original, but they are difficult to read because they follow the sentence structure of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Functional translations increase reader comprehension because they translate the thoughts of the original text into a form that can be easily read.

Here is a list prominent (and reliable) translations:

Formal Translations: King James, New American Standard, English Standard.

Functional Translations: The Message, Contemporary English Version, New International Version and the New Living Translation.

The best advice I can offer is to have several translations at hand. For my studies I like to have one of each type. I prefer using the New American Standard along with the New International. While I listed the NIV as a functional translation, its editors made an attempt to strike a balance between formal and functional. Having access to both types will help with your comprehension. I frequently consult various translations and you may find that you prefer to read from different translations than your friends – that’s okay. The important thing is that you are reading the Bible.

TwitterWordPressFacebookMySpaceStumbleUponEmailGoogle GmailShare

Eliminating the Ands

By Clark Goble | January 3, 2012

A.W. Tozer

In his book Pursuing God, A.W. Tozer challenges readers to identify what it is in addition to God they are seeking. Tozer puts it this way, “The evil habit of seeking God-and effectively prevents us from finding God in full revelation. In the ‘and’ lies our greatest woe. If we omit the ‘and’ we shall soon find God, and in Him we shall find that for which we have all our lives been secretly longing.”

As I read Tozer’s words for the first time the other day, I couldn’t help but fill in the ‘and’. What I discovered was frightening. It seems there has always been an ‘and’ in my life. Rather than seeking God alone, I have tended to attach other desires to Him and elevate them to equal status. Financial security, doctrine, influence, recognition, love of the world … I could probably fill this page with my list of ‘ands’.

Ironically, not all ‘ands’ are bad. For instance, there is nothing wrong with praying for and striving to achieve financial security for your family. The danger, however, is when we elevate the ‘ands’ to equal status with God. It turns us into fair-weathered Christians who recognize and praise God only when our ‘ands’ are being attended to.  Our love for God becomes contingent upon the fulfillment of those sacred desires we have attached to Him.

When our ands suffer, we find ourselves turning away from God.

God promises that He is all we need. The Bible suggests that that if we seek God first all our other needs will fall into place (Matthew 6:33). I’ve reached a point in my life where all I want is God. I want to let go of my ands and allow Him to sustain my life.

I’m not confident I can do it. But my deepest desire is to seek Him first. I want to elevate God to the proper station in my life. I want Him set above and beyond all other desires of my heart. I’m confident that if God comes first I can survive the loss of everything else.

You may ask how I plan to achieve the elimination of my ands. As I write this, I only have the vaguest of plans. I hope to begin by taking the advice of 1 Thessalonians 5:18 and offering praise to God in all circumstances. Too often, I praise God when things go well for me and curse Him when things go awry. By praising God in all things, I hope to blur the line between the secular and the sacred. I want every moment of my life, even the mundane moments, to be cast in His shadow.

I have come to realize that nothing but God will ever truly satisfy me. And my prayer is that this is the year I put things in their proper order.

How about you? What are your ands? Is there anything in your life you have placed on equal status with God? If so, pick up a copy of Tozer’s Pursuit of God and join me in eliminating them.

TwitterWordPressFacebookMySpaceStumbleUponEmailGoogle GmailShare