Greg Boyd and The Myth of a Christian Nation

[praise_yeshua]

Boyd isn't a heretic as far as I'm concerned. He simply believes the future doesn't already exist. It's that simple. it drives Calvinist crazy because they know they have no evidence to prove it does.

It's not "Calvinist" to believe in omniscience.

And omnipresence.

Sure.... God is currently equally Present in hell....throughout the endless ages....<<<sarcasm added.

 

[rsc2a]

Pretty much.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Pretty much.

humm.... Bad theology has been the ruin of many a person.
Somehow .... I figured you'd say what you did....pitiful....

 

[rsc2a]

I've been thinking fur several days that it's nice to see the old CU.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I've been thinking fur several days that it's nice to see the old CU.

What exactly do you mean by that? Could you elaborate?

 

[rsc2a]

Read the Job thread. It should be informative.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Read the Job thread. It should be informative.

This from the guy calling me a heretic?
I did get a little argumentative. Don't worry. I won't be bothering you.

 

[Ransom]

Sure it is. You Calvinists have formed your own theology around your own definition of omniscience.

Omniscience: having unlimited understanding or knowledge.

That's not "Calvinist"; that's Merriam-Webster. An Arminian could (and usually does) affirm exactly the same thing.

 

[rsc2a]

Read the Job thread. It should be informative.

This from the guy calling me a heretic?
I did get a little argumentative. Don't worry. I won't be bothering you.

Yes. Claiming that the actions of the Father are the same as the Son is a heretical position.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Sure it is. You Calvinists have formed your own theology around your own definition of omniscience.

Omniscience: having unlimited understanding or knowledge.

That's not "Calvinist"; that's Merriam-Webster. An Arminian could (and usually does) affirm exactly the same thing.

Are you honestly saying that both Arminians and Calvinist have the exact same view of omniscience? You know they take entirely different paths in explaining it. In reality, you can't just throw up a definition found in a dictionary when it matters how you establish its explaination.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Read the Job thread. It should be informative.

This from the guy calling me a heretic?
I did get a little argumentative. Don't worry. I won't be bothering you.

Yes. Claiming that the actions of the Father are the same as the Son is a heretical position.

No it isn't. God will has action. God will is part of the CO-Eternal nature of the Trinity. It's the last I'll say on the matter. Go play with someone else.

 

[Ransom]

Are you honestly saying that both Arminians and Calvinist have the exact same view of omniscience?

The dividing line between open theists and orthodox Calvinists and Arminians is whether or not God has infallible, exhaustive knowledge of the future. The latter affirm it. Open theist heretics do not.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Are you honestly saying that both Arminians and Calvinist have the exact same view of omniscience?

The dividing line between open theists and orthodox Calvinists and Arminians is whether or not God has infallible, exhaustive knowledge of the future. The latter affirm it. Open theist heretics do not.

It depends on how you view the future. In Boyd's case, he believes the future doesn't exist. You might be having a hard time wrapping your head around it but.... if the entirety of the future doesn't currently exist.... then you have to rethink what you're saying. For a Calvinist, I'm sure your absolute Determinism doesn't really require the future exist. Arminians on the other hand.... have a huge problem.

 

[Ransom]

It depends on how you view the future.

No. It depends on how you view God. Boyd's view of God is deficient and heretical.

 

[Just John]

I may be late to the party but I just picked up this book to read it. I find it interesting that a conservative evangelical can have unorthodox beliefs regarding the nature of God and be o.k., but imply that Fox News is not the gospel, and you lose 20% of your church.

If you have read it, what are your thoughts?
If not, what dynamic do you see between the church and politics?

Apart from any views about Fox News (which I personally detest), Greg Boyd is a radical Open-Theist who's "beliefs regarding the nature of God" are anything but orthodox.

Right. I said as much.

To me this reveals much of what is wrong with the church at large today. His unorthodox open theism is no problem, but imply that the church and Fox News are not on the same page and you lose 20% of your church.

The church has become more political and barely doctrinal.

The average church member takes in hours upon hours of Fox News talking points and scarcely picks up a Bible. I really believe, I could more easily get by at my church preaching heresy than disagreeing with Fox News. That is sad, and I have begun to address it, but I also believe it is a larger problem, not confined to my congregation.

I misread your post.  Apologies.

I haven't read the book, but from what I've seen in second-hand reports hasn't been impressive.

I'm of the opinion that the Church should speak to political matters, in declaring what the Scripture has already declared.  But I detest the manner in which Christians have latched onto The Republican Party/Fox News/Tea Party/etc. as the Christian Ideal.

As a conservative, Republican and a FOX-watcher. I couldn't agree more!!!

World News Daily (aka World Nuts Daily) ran an article today criticizing pastor Tullian Tchividjian for not being sufficiently vocal enough in the pulpit about "moral and social"issues although he is willing to do so in other public places.

Tchividjian is the grandson of Billy Graham and is the successor of D. James Kennedy at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church. Of course Kennedy was very political, even teaching about the constitution and founding fathers from the pulpit. Tchividjian however believes that "the pulpit in particular has a very specific and sacred job description. It is reserved to diagnose sinners by preaching God’s law and then to deliver sinners by preaching God’s gospel from every text every week.”  According to the article he doesn't go out of his way to make a major deal about abortion or same-sex marriage in the pulpit but then they acknowledge he has done so in his books. He does state that he believes the view of Christianity has suffered because of being wrapped in politics.

The article was written by one of the men who used to write for Kennedy so I assume some sour grapes. The sad thing is that most people responding to the article are calling him "lukewarm", a bible denier, a liberal, a Joel Osteen, yada yada yada. Sad.


http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/once-fiery-coral-ridge-sermons-hit-new-low-key/

 

[praise_yeshua]

I may be late to the party but I just picked up this book to read it. I find it interesting that a conservative evangelical can have unorthodox beliefs regarding the nature of God and be o.k., but imply that Fox News is not the gospel, and you lose 20% of your church.

If you have read it, what are your thoughts?
If not, what dynamic do you see between the church and politics?

Apart from any views about Fox News (which I personally detest), Greg Boyd is a radical Open-Theist who's "beliefs regarding the nature of God" are anything but orthodox.

Right. I said as much.

To me this reveals much of what is wrong with the church at large today. His unorthodox open theism is no problem, but imply that the church and Fox News are not on the same page and you lose 20% of your church.

The church has become more political and barely doctrinal.

The average church member takes in hours upon hours of Fox News talking points and scarcely picks up a Bible. I really believe, I could more easily get by at my church preaching heresy than disagreeing with Fox News. That is sad, and I have begun to address it, but I also believe it is a larger problem, not confined to my congregation.

I misread your post.  Apologies.

I haven't read the book, but from what I've seen in second-hand reports hasn't been impressive.

I'm of the opinion that the Church should speak to political matters, in declaring what the Scripture has already declared.  But I detest the manner in which Christians have latched onto The Republican Party/Fox News/Tea Party/etc. as the Christian Ideal.

As a conservative, Republican and a FOX-watcher. I couldn't agree more!!!

World News Daily (aka World Nuts Daily) ran an article today criticizing pastor Tullian Tchividjian for not being sufficiently vocal enough in the pulpit about "moral and social"issues although he is willing to do so in other public places.

Tchividjian is the grandson of Billy Graham and is the successor of D. James Kennedy at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church. Of course Kennedy was very political, even teaching about the constitution and founding fathers from the pulpit. Tchividjian however believes that "the pulpit in particular has a very specific and sacred job description. It is reserved to diagnose sinners by preaching God’s law and then to deliver sinners by preaching God’s gospel from every text every week.”  According to the article he doesn't go out of his way to make a major deal about abortion or same-sex marriage in the pulpit but then they acknowledge he has done so in his books. He does state that he believes the view of Christianity has suffered because of being wrapped in politics.

The article was written by one of the men who used to write for Kennedy so I assume some sour grapes. The sad thing is that most people responding to the article are calling him "lukewarm", a bible denier, a liberal, a Joel Osteen, yada yada yada. Sad.


http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/once-fiery-coral-ridge-sermons-hit-new-low-key/

Rewind to the days of the apostles....The Jews of that day..... tried and succeeded in making Christian into a political issue. Christianity has always been part of most anything relevant. You're falling into concerted efforts of others to take Christianity out of the main stream view of the masses. There is nothing wrong with Christianity on display in politics. Nothing. Share your opinion but realize it's nothing more than opinion. You have no Scripture to say otherwise.

In fact, John the Baptist made a political statement when he weighed in the marriage of a king. I imagine you're not going to rebuke John are you??

 

[Recovering IFB]

It depends on how you view the future. In Boyd's case, he believes the future doesn't exist. You might be having a hard time wrapping your head around it but.... if the entirety of the future doesn't currently exist.... then you have to rethink what you're saying. For a Calvinist, I'm sure your absolute Determinism doesn't really require the future exist. Arminians on the other hand.... have a huge problem.

If the future doesn't exist,then how was Revelation penned?

 

[Exell]

I may be late to the party but I just picked up this book to read it. I find it interesting that a conservative evangelical can have unorthodox beliefs regarding the nature of God and be o.k., but imply that Fox News is not the gospel, and you lose 20% of your church.

If you have read it, what are your thoughts?
If not, what dynamic do you see between the church and politics?

Apart from any views about Fox News (which I personally detest), Greg Boyd is a radical Open-Theist who's "beliefs regarding the nature of God" are anything but orthodox.

Right. I said as much.

To me this reveals much of what is wrong with the church at large today. His unorthodox open theism is no problem, but imply that the church and Fox News are not on the same page and you lose 20% of your church.

The church has become more political and barely doctrinal.

The average church member takes in hours upon hours of Fox News talking points and scarcely picks up a Bible. I really believe, I could more easily get by at my church preaching heresy than disagreeing with Fox News. That is sad, and I have begun to address it, but I also believe it is a larger problem, not confined to my congregation.

I misread your post.  Apologies.

I haven't read the book, but from what I've seen in second-hand reports hasn't been impressive.

I'm of the opinion that the Church should speak to political matters, in declaring what the Scripture has already declared.  But I detest the manner in which Christians have latched onto The Republican Party/Fox News/Tea Party/etc. as the Christian Ideal.

As a conservative, Republican and a FOX-watcher. I couldn't agree more!!!

World News Daily (aka World Nuts Daily) ran an article today criticizing pastor Tullian Tchividjian for not being sufficiently vocal enough in the pulpit about "moral and social"issues although he is willing to do so in other public places.

Tchividjian is the grandson of Billy Graham and is the successor of D. James Kennedy at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church. Of course Kennedy was very political, even teaching about the constitution and founding fathers from the pulpit. Tchividjian however believes that "the pulpit in particular has a very specific and sacred job description. It is reserved to diagnose sinners by preaching God’s law and then to deliver sinners by preaching God’s gospel from every text every week.”  According to the article he doesn't go out of his way to make a major deal about abortion or same-sex marriage in the pulpit but then they acknowledge he has done so in his books. He does state that he believes the view of Christianity has suffered because of being wrapped in politics.

The article was written by one of the men who used to write for Kennedy so I assume some sour grapes. The sad thing is that most people responding to the article are calling him "lukewarm", a bible denier, a liberal, a Joel Osteen, yada yada yada. Sad.


http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/once-fiery-coral-ridge-sermons-hit-new-low-key/

Rewind to the days of the apostles....The Jews of that day..... tried and succeeded in making Christian into a political issue. Christianity has always been part of most anything relevant. You're falling into concerted efforts of others to take Christianity out of the main stream view of the masses. There is nothing wrong with Christianity on display in politics. Nothing. Share your opinion but realize it's nothing more than opinion. You have no Scripture to say otherwise.

In fact, John the Baptist made a political statement when he weighed in the marriage of a king. I imagine you're not going to rebuke John are you??

My problem is not with Christianity in politics, but with politics in Christianity. To many confuse Republican values with Christian values.

 

[praise_yeshua]

It depends on how you view the future. In Boyd's case, he believes the future doesn't exist. You might be having a hard time wrapping your head around it but.... if the entirety of the future doesn't currently exist.... then you have to rethink what you're saying. For a Calvinist, I'm sure your absolute Determinism doesn't really require the future exist. Arminians on the other hand.... have a huge problem.

If the future doesn't exist,then how was Revelation penned?

Foreknowledge/prophecy is more about God's purpose in the future than it is God actively beholding events that have already taken place. God has the absolute power to bring about His will and purpose in prophecy. This view is really not that much different than the absolute Determinism of Calvinism. Calvinist just hate the affects on man's freewill. That man could possible affect his own destiny.

Boyd, himself, is actually a rather complicated study. If you really want to know what he believes about this.... then you should probably start with his teachings on prayer. In fact, it might just change your life. I've read some very opened minded Calvinists. (Daniel Wallace being one in particular) that have struggled with the ideal of "prayer" in Calvinism. The general consensus view is that prayer in the Calvinist world.... is all about "changing the prayer".... and nothing about actually having an affect on God. You should really spend some time on the matter.

A disclaimer if you will, I am not a follower of Boyd. I have my own view and many parts of that view I believed before I ever read one thing about Boyd. I do agree with Boyd on the overall concept that the future does not currently exist. I disagree with him and other open theism on the overall concept of "possibilities"... though I would technically say they are close but so very far at the same time. I believe there are "hard" boundaries to the foreknowledge of God and God's purpose in humanity. Boundaries that are unchangeable fixed in Eternity past. Yet, there are things that do and can be changed. That this has NO affect on the immutability of God. God character can never change. He has no need of change. He is beyond change.

I do enjoy reading Boyd's work. I think he is extremely intelligent and yet.... reachable.... and relevant at the same time. Something I can't say about many authors in the theological realm.

Well.. let the bashing begin...

 

[praise_yeshua]

My problem is not with Christianity in politics, but with politics in Christianity. To many confuse Republican values with Christian values.

Many Republicans are nothing more than opportunists looking to garner support through coercion....by naming the name of Christ. At the same time, I can't blast a republican that I think is being sincere to his faith.