A Review of Gregory Boyd’s Trinity and Process
(Peter Lang, N.Y., 1992) by Dr. Gregory Boyd
Reviewed by Dr. Robert A. Morey
Introduction
In 1992, a friend of mine handed me a copy of Boyd’s doctoral thesis from Princeton and asked me to read it. I had never heard of him and thus had no preconceived prejudices against him whatsoever. As I read his thesis, it was clear that he had bought into most of Process Theology, a revival of Platonic religion by Alfred North Whitehead.
Boyd’s mentor was an antichrist by the name of Charles Hartshorne, whose works I had studied when writing Battle of the Gods. Hartshorne is a well-known enemy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The following review first appeared in 1992. I sent Boyd a preview copy in the hope of converting him to Christ, but to no avail. He threatened to sue me if I printed it! (Letter on file) I would have enjoyed the court trial, as it would make public what he preached in secret. But his threats were as empty as his arguments. Since that time, John Piper and many others have taken up pen to refute Boyd’s heresies. Even his own denomination has finally condemned his theology as erroneous. We were the first to sound the warning about Boyd and we are glad that so many people now see how dangerous his doctrines are.
Our Foundational Principles
We have been writing book reviews for Christian magazines and theological journals for many years. Our reviews are based upon the following principles:
1. God has revealed in Scripture propositional truths concerning His nature and attributes.
2. Our views of God and Christ must arise from a careful exegesis of Scripture and not from a priori philosophic speculations.
3. Historical, classical, traditional, confessional, orthodox theology as expressed in the great creeds of the Church for nearly two thousand years is the Biblical position set forth in confessional form.
4. Any theology that denies the historical, classical, traditional, confessional, orthodox understanding of the nature and attributes of God and the two natures of Christ is heretical.
5. We are not deceived by heretics when they use orthodox terms such as God, omniscience, Trinity, etc., but give them an unorthodox meaning. For example, the Socinians pretended that they believed in the “omniscience” of God while denying that God knew the future!
The liberal theology created by Karl Barth is called “neo-orthodoxy” even though it is not orthodox Christianity. Just because someone uses the same religious terms we use does not mean that he is orthodox in his definition of those terms.
As Francis Schaeffer pointed out, our beliefs about God and the world must conform to the “orthodoxy of history” as well as to the “orthodoxy of Scripture.” The moment someone denies the historical, classical, traditional, confessional, orthodox definition of God and Christ, they have opened the door to the relativism of modern liberal theology and the cults.
This is what cultists such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses have always done as well as Liberal theologians. They all dismiss historical, classical, traditional, confessional, orthodox theology as being Platonic, or Aristotelian, etc. In its place, they substitute their own views of God as being more “biblical” than the orthodox creeds!
This book review focuses on Boyd’s book Trinity and Process and its implications for orthodox Christian doctrine. The first rough draft was sent to Dr. Boyd for his comments in the hopes that he would clarify some of his remarks. Since he has not seen fit to send us a detailed response to the doctrinal issues we raised, we are forced to proceed without his input.
According to the back of the book, Dr. Boyd is a minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and teaches theology at Bethel College in St. Paul, Minnesota. The cultic Campbellite movement of the 19th Century spawned many other cults such as the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. That Boyd was a product of one of the cultic offspring of Campbell is no surprise.
In order to avoid the charge that we have taken Boyd “out of context” and thus “misrepresented” his position, we reproduced the entire page from which the citations are taken and sent them to such well-known scholars as Gleason Archer and Ronald Nash. Thus each statement was read in its full context. We received many positive letters from those who checked the review for accuracy.
Boyd’s Goal
It is clear from his book that Dr. Boyd attempted to construct a concept of a “three-fold” deity that process thinkers such as Hartshorne might accept. But this attempt ended in abject failure as Hartshorne did not accept Boyd’s views.
Why He Failed
Boyd’s attempt was doomed from the beginning for a very good reason. He started out by announcing that he accepted the fundamental principles of Hartshorne’s process philosophy as correct.
It is our conviction that the fundamental vision
of the process worldview, especially as
espoused by Charles Hartshorne, is correct.
(Preface, i)
And, even when he disagreed with Hartshorne, he praised Hartshorne as his greatest mentor.
My warmest appreciation must also be
expressed to Charles Hartshorne. Though I
disagree with him on a great many points,
he has influenced my own thinking more
than any other single philosopher, living
and dead. (Preface, ii)
Since Boyd states that the “fundamental vision of the process worldview, as espoused by Charles Hartshorne is correct,” and that Hartshorne influenced his thinking “more than any other philosopher, living or dead,” we can describe Boyd’s theology as being “neo-Hartshornian” Process thought.
Once Boyd admits that Hartshorne’s process worldview is fundamentally correct, why should Hartshorne change any of it? No wonder Boyd’s attempt failed.
The Implications
Boyd points out that Hartshorne’s process philosophy has great implications for Christian theology. First, he states,
The paradigmatic shift taking place in our
contemporary culture, the “death of
substantialist philosophy,” requires
contemporary theology to rethink its
classical dogmatic structure. (p.7)
Now, this does not just mean that Christians should try to be “relevant.” Boyd states, “The classical structure of our confessions must be reworked” (p.7).
Evidently, Boyd believes that The Apostle’s Creed, The Nicene creed and indeed all the great creeds “must be reworked” to conform to Hartshorne’s process thought! But Boyd is not yet finished.
There is another reason why Hartshorne’s
thought is centrally significant to Christian
theology. Norris Clark has argued, quite rightly,
that Process thought is not only one of
the most compelling contemporary metaphysical
systems of our time. It also represents one of
the “principal challenges to traditional theism”
at the present time. In the course of arriving
at a view of God and the world which is
consistent with the modern proclivity to think
in dynamic and relational categories, Process
philosophy and theology has sacrificed a great
deal of what has traditionally been thought to
be central to the Christian proclamation. Much
of this, we shall argue, is actually advantageous
to the Christian Church, for a good deal of its
traditional view of God, being significantly
influenced in an adverse way by Platonic and
Aristotlian philosophy, has little resemblance
to the God revealed in the person of Jesus
Christ, It needed to be attacked and rejected.
In my estimation, therefore, Process thought
has the Church a great service. (pgs.9-1O)
Boyd states that the “traditional view of God” found in the confessions of the Church “needed to be attacked and rejected.”
Did you understand what he is saying? The Church’s traditional view of the nature and attributes of God as found in the creeds needs to be “attacked and rejected” according to Boyd because the Christian Church has been wrong all these years’ The historic orthodox view of God is actually pagan in origin and came from Plato and Aristotle!
Can you imagine that! All the creeds, all the Fathers and all the hymns were pagan in their view of God! For two thousand years, the Church has been worshiping a pagan god!
The traditional view of an “Almighty God” is reduced to a “god” that must die to set men free. Notice that Boyd not only quotes with approval Migliori who spoke of the “omnipotent god” but he himself uses the small “g” for the God of the creeds in the following two passages.
As a number of recent theologians
have argued, the classical ideal
of God’s power, imported into the
Church from extra-biblical sources,
has had significant personal and
political repercussions. This too
constitutes part of the difficulty of
the classical view of omnipotence
we are presently concerned with.
Migliori, for example, speaks of the
repercussion of the view of God
as “sheer almightiness” when he
writes,
The image of the
domineering God
breeds fear,
resentment, arid
rebellion, If God’s
rule over us takes
the form of
unlimited control
over impotent
subjects, then the
master-slave
relationship in
human society finds
justification in
religious belief.
The only way to be
free from coercive
power exercised by
the omnipotent god
and earthly tyrants
is to repudiate
their authority and actually or
symbolically to
destroy them.
The only possible response to
such despotic authority is
revolt- against the “earthly
tyrants,” and then against the
“omnipotent god” which grounds
such views. Revolting atheism, in
other words, is the inevitable
response, and indeed, to the
extent that atheism has declared
this god of “sheer almightiness”
dead, it has done Christian
theology a great service.
(p.264-265)
Boyd is not finished yet. At the bottom of the page he gives us the following footnote.
This is what has been called
“the truth of atheism.” The god
which made human life unlivable
must be proclaimed dead that free
humanity may live.
Boyd states that not only have the atheists done the Church a “great service” by declaring that “Almighty God” is “dead” but the radical feminists have also helped the Church by attacking and rejecting God as “the Father.” (n. 76, p. 265)
How To Rework The Creeds
Now we see how the creeds can be “reworked.” Instead of saying,
I believe in God the
Father Almighty.
we should say,
I believe in God the
Parent who is not almighty.
The Traditional God
Boyd gives a definition of the “traditional” or “classic” view of God, which needed to be “attacked and rejected.”
The dominant motif of this
classical tradition, as we arm
here defining it, is that God is
conceived of as an actus purus, as
embodying no potentiality for
change, Hence, to state the
matter most generally, God is
here conceived of to be
nontemporal, immutable,
impassible, simple, all-knowing
(even of future events, and all
determinative. (p.179, n.3)
Boyd singles out Church Fathers such as Augustine, medieval theologians such as Aquinas and modern theologians such as Gruenler, Craig, and Geisler as representing the view of God take he must “attack and reject.” Boyd must have had a special dislike of Dr. Norman Geisler because he singled him out for attack on pages 197, 254, 314, 328, and 360.
The Christian God
The historic orthodox view of the nature and attributes of God as found in the creeds of the Christian Church is as follows: There exists only one triune Being of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who by permanent nature is an eternal, timeless, immutable, perfect Spirit who is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient of all things including the future, all wise, all good, all holy, righteous, true and sovereign.
The bulk of Boyd’s book is an attack and rejection of the traditional view of God given above. The game plan of his book is quite simple. Boyd first sets forth Hartshorne’s arguments against the historic Christian view of God and then agrees with him that the Church has been wrong all these years.
Boyd’s “god”
What kind of god does Boyd want us to adopt after he has successfully “attacked and rejected” the God of Christian orthodoxy? I can only guess that Boyd’s creed might be as follows:
There exists in a non-substantialist
sense a contingent event who not having
any fixed or permanent nature is eternal
along with Time (with God being eternally
“in” Time and not Time “in” God).
This contingent event is temporal,
mutable, imperfect, limited in power and
limited in knowledge because it is
incapable of knowing the future. It is
neither good or sovereign in the traditional
sense. This contingent event is eternally
triune in a social or relational sense.
But we should not use such terms as
“persons,” “Father,” or “Son” lest the gays
and the feminists get upset.
Now, while I was obviously poking fun at Boyd’s pathetic deity, I believe it does substantially reflect what he said in his book.
What of Christ?
Does Boyd support the traditional orthodox view of Christ as having two natures in one person? No. Boyd rejects the “one person - two natures” doctrine. He argues,
As has been frequently pointed
out in recent times, the most
fundamental difficulty which the
traditional understanding of
Christ poses for the modern mind
concerns its substantialist
categories: Christ is said to be
two natures” in “one person.” if
the concept of an “enduring
substance” as the ground of an
entity’s actual attributes has
become problematic to the
categories of modernity, how
much more problematic is the
concept of ~p such realities
“crammed” into one person…
“without division,” and “without
confusion?” (pgs. 399-400)
Instead of Christ having two natures, Boyd believes that,
Christ may be said to be distinct
from all other humans in that in
this one person the disposition
which defines God as God, and the
disposition which defines
humanity as human, converged.
Thus, we might say that the
dynamic essence of Jesus was
wholly taken up into the dynamic
essence of God so that God now
“aims” at Godself — as God
eternally does — but now God
does so through this one man. in
this one man, God achieves
Godself anew. p.400)
It is clear that Boyd is as heretical in his views of Christ as he is of the nature and attributes of God. The man Jesus was not “taken up” into God. Christ had a divine nature and a human nature without division or confusion as the orthodox creeds state.
Conclusion
Boyd’s attempt to “attack and reject” the orthodox view of the nature and attributes of God, the Trinity and the two natures of Christ failed to convince us. His views are offensive as well as heretical. He has been “weighed and found wanting.”
We agree with Carl F. Henry, Francis Schaeffer, Walter Martin, Cornelius Van Til, Gordon Clark, James Kennedy, John Ankerberg, Norman Geisler, Ronald Nash, R. C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, Gleason Archer, Calvin Beisner, and many other orthodox apologists, that there is only one true God who has revealed Himself in Holy Scripture. He has repeatedly warned us that He is a jealous God who will not tolerate idolatry. To believe in and worship any other God than the One revealed in the pages of Holy Scripture is idolatry. This means that the “event-god” of Process Theology is Idolatry!
64 Comments, Comment or Ping
Brian James Shanley, Minneapolis, MN
Up here in The Twin Cities, MN, Greg Boyd has a church in St. Paul. He was on a guest on a local radio shoocal show one day, and was fielding live questions from callers. The host was kissing his behind, as though he was an orthodox apologist of historic Christiainity. Every caller was way too friendly. They must’ve thought he was the most knowledgeable, well-read scholar alive.
I was driving in my car. I had no cell phone at the time. I literally pulled my car over and got onto a pay phone.
I called and got on the line with him. I had to lie to the call screener and say that my question was about something else. Sorry.
I asked him, “Do you believe in the omniscience of God?”. I was trying to draw him out.
He responded, “Of course I do.”
I asked, “So you believe He is all-knowing?”
He responded, “Yes”.
It was live. I think someone on the show’s staff knew where my line of questioning was headed, so they quickly cut to commercial, and then dropped my call.
But since he actually rejects an all-knowing, omniscient God, he was willing to lie to the listening audience on that day rather than admit what he really believes. Pretty slick.
Mar 26th, 2008
Brian James Shanley, Minneapolis, MN
Up here in The Twin Cities, MN, Greg Boyd has a church in St. Paul. He was on a guest on a local radio show one day, and was fielding live questions from callers. The host was kissing his behind, as though he was an orthodox apologist of historic Christiainity. Every caller was way too friendly. They must’ve thought he was the most knowledgeable, well-read scholar alive.
I was driving in my car. I had no cell phone at the time. I literally pulled my car over and got onto a pay phone.
I called and got on the line with him. I had to lie to the call screener and say that my question was about something else. Sorry.
I asked him, “Do you believe in the omniscience of God?”. I was trying to draw him out.
He responded, “Of course I do.”
I asked, “So you believe He is all-knowing?”
He responded, “Yes”.
It was live. I think someone on the show’s staff knew where my line of questioning was headed, so they quickly cut to commercial, and then dropped my call.
But since he actually rejects an all-knowing, omniscient God, he was willing to lie to the listening audience on that day rather than admit what he really believes. Pretty slick.
Mar 26th, 2008
Chad
“Every caller was way too friendly” - God forbid that Christians should be “friendly,” even if you perceive someone to be an enemy,as you obviously find Mr. Boyd.
” I had to lie to the call screener and say that my question was about something else.”
I suppose the ends justifies the means, right?
Mar 26th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Mr. Shanley,
You need to be sweet, loving and nice to God’s enemies. You need to be like Paul:
6 When they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they came upon a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet named Bar-Jesus. 7 He was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. 8 But Elymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name) opposed them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. 9 But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him 10 and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? 11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and unable to see the sun for a time.” Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand. 12 Then the proconsul believed, when he saw what had occurred, for he was astonished at the teaching of the Lord. (Acts 13:6-12)
Mar 26th, 2008
Chad
Stephen,
Your sarcasm is noted. Throughout all of history people have taken passages and used them just as you have to justify their Crusades, slavery, racism, and any number of other ills towards others. I’m sure you all will win all the converts you can handle by being hateful to your “enemies.” Why not just call fire down from heaven on them? Oh wait, Jesus already addressed that one.
grace and peace,
Chad
Mar 26th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
“I’m sure you all will win all the converts you can handle by being hateful to your “enemies.”
Chad, *hateful* is your word. Jesus warned us of the world and their hate, so it is no surprise that you would choose to use such colorful rhetoric. You may want to read the passage again and take note of the result. You may also want to take note of Paul being filled with the Holy Spirit. “Filled with the Holy Spirit” never yielded malakosis in Scripture. It yields anger, boldness, strength, and virtue. Many Sergius Paulus’ are out there, many “Boyd the magicians” are out there too. How will you engage the spiritual warfare? Like a sissy? Or like a Christ-ian?
Mar 26th, 2008
Travis
Chad
You give the problem but dont give a proper interpretation to the text.
I agree we have to love our enemies, but is that all scripture says we are to do to our enemies, for example the text above. He is speaking of a false prophet/magician, acording to the Jewish law should be put to death, but Paul is stern with him, correcting him harshly and causing blindness to fall upon him, and it results in the proconsul believing.
This type of speaking is not for winning, as you say (all the converts), but is affective, sometimes, for the spreading of the teaching of the Lord, and for people to believe..
Mar 26th, 2008
Chad
Stephen,
Grace and peace to you. What do you mean by saying, “it is no surprise that you would use such colorful rhetoric”? It sounds as though you, not knowing me from Adam, are already lumping me in with those you no longer have to love because God doesn’t (I just stumbled onto this site and have been appalled by that common theme running through all the posts here).
You and Travis: As for Acts 13 there are far too many layers to get into with what is going on there to do it justice here. For starters, Luke is a telling a complex narrative throughout Acts and in chapter 13 is once again confronting the economic issues surrounding sorcery/magic (a culturally pervasive worldview at the time). Furthermore, there is a point being made in this sorceror going blind, losing his sight, and Paul whom we are just getting to know received his sight just a few chapters earlier.
But besides all of that, each case is different. Paul talks very differently to others as he meets them - Acts 17 in Athens is just one example. To lift this from the pages of Acts and then act as if you or any Christian has free license to be combative towards everyone you disagree with is to be careless with Scripture.
Furthermore, you might want to read the first chapter of Philippians where Paul is asked what to do about all the people teaching with false motives. Paul says, “as long as Christ is proclaimed” let em be. He’ll rejoice whether they preach Christ in pretense or in truth, from envy and strife or goodwill - rejoice!
Paul, rather than looking for a heretic under every rock was content to see Christ proclaimed.
As for Boyd, I’ve read his stuff and heard him speak. He is not as far out there as the Bob wishes him to be. He proclaims Christ and he proclaims him boldly - and I would say, rightly. Christ loves all the world and all Creation and as the one with all authority in heaven and earth has set the captives free and truly won victory over death by what he did on the cross. Boyd is a passionate proponent of the Christus Victor, the far more ancient and orthodox understanding of atonement than the Reformed position ever was or could be.
So if this site is really interested in truth and conforming to orthodoxy and historic confessions of faith then you all may want to take Boyd and others like him more seriously. At the very least, give him a fair reading (as oppossed to getting all your information from someone so obviously biased).
Grace and peace,
Chad
Mar 26th, 2008
Travis
Chad
“appalled by that common theme,” I thought you liked discussion on modern issues, such as things that affect the church and society.
I think all we are saying is SOMETIMES you have to be harsh, but always in Love. If you notice when Jesus and Paul spoke harshly a lot of the time it was toward the people in authority, and that is one of the reasons Boyd is not left alone.
What type of teaching would you correct someone for, or label them heritics, or apostate? Can you explain why and how you would handel the situation, of false teachers?
Mar 26th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Hey…we didn’t get our Macasil fix tonight at Apologetics class…sigh…
Mar 26th, 2008
Chad
Travis,
Yes, I do like discussion on many topics, but what I see here is far from “discussion.” It is more like gossip.
One of the first lessons I learned getting a theology degree was that before you can even begin to criticize a person you must give them a sympathetic read What that means is, you have to fully understand the issues and where they are coming from before you can offer a valid, intelligible critique of their position. But even once you do that, there is such a virtue that one of my profs called “intellectual humility.” A humble spirit is completely absent on most of the comments and posts I see here. That is troubling.
An example: Bob in the opening post thinks he is speaking for Mr. Boyd when he says:
“But we should not use such terms as
“persons,” “Father,” or “Son” lest the gays
and the feminists get upset.
Now, while I was obviously poking fun at Boyd’s pathetic deity, I believe it does substantially reflect what he said in his book.”
OR:
“we should say,
I believe in God the
Parent who is not almighty.”
That is just absurd, and anyone who has taken the time to critically engage Boyd would know how absurd this charicature is. What I don’t like is someone publically flaming a guy who so obviously doesn’t understand and thus coloring everyone else’s perception of a person, one created in God’s image no less, and then watching everyone take cheap shots at him like it is their duty to stone him.
So to answer your question about how I would deal with someone I felt was a false teacher I wouldn’t be here. I would first be doing an awful lot of praying for that person. I would try to get to know them and talk to them privately.
I remember a story of a pastor who once stood up and told the congregation how they were all sinners and going to hell. After the sermon, he asked his preacher friend what he thought of the message and his friend just sort of shrugged. “What’s wrong?” the guy who just preached asked. “Don’t you think what I said was true?” His friend replied, “It may be true. But if it is, I would have hoped you’d say it with tears streaming down your face rather than with a sneer and a smile.”
It is pitiful to see brothers and sisters in Christ damning people left and right on this site with an attitude that reflects sneers and smiles more than pray-filled tears.
grace and peace,
Chad
Mar 27th, 2008
Denise
Chad, consider the following passages:
1Ki 18:27 And at noon Elijah MOCKED them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.”
Was Elijah then, being hateful?
Jesus and John called the Pharisees names, and rightly this is what they were. But is that considered “hateful”?
Mat 23:28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of HYPOCRISYand LAWLESSNESS. 29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, HYPOCRITS! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous,
Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You BROOD OF VIPERS! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Paul used sarcasm with the Corinthians–should he have been more nice? Would you have corrected him with his “tone”?:
2Co 11:1 I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me!
2Co 11:5 Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. 6 Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not so in knowledge; indeed, in every way we have made this plain to you in all things.
2Co 11:7 Or DID I COMMIT A SIN IN HUMBLING MYSELF so that you might be exalted, because I preached God’s gospel to you free of charge?
God laughs at the wicked:
Psa 2:4 He who sits in the heavens LAUGHS; the Lord holds them in derision.
How did Peter deal with Simon the the sorcerer? Was he “nice”? Did he pump him with warm words and good feelings? Did Peter tolerate his sin?
Act 8:21 You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. 23 For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.”
Mar 27th, 2008
Chad
Denise,
One key difference between the examples you cite and you(and the others) on here is this: they (Elijah, Jesus, Paul, Peter) were living in community with those they rebuked
Are you living in community with Greg Boyd? Have you read all his books and listened to his sermons to truly get to know him? Or do you only know what the “blog world” and his critics have said? Lets see - if I had every move you made on tape and took only the 3 worse mistakes you ever made and turned THAT into your entire witness and pasted it on the web, would that represent truly who you were? Would it show your heart? Would I have that right to do that having never really met you but only knowing the 3 clips I saw on You Tube or a blog?
Like I said, you can find any passage you want that supports your own agenda. The KKK even does that. The hard part is actually living out the greatest commandments Jesus gave us: love God and neighbor as ourselves. Who is your neighbor, Denise? Only those that you “like” and “agree” with? How are you showing them love when you would rather damn them to hell on a website rather than pray for them? How are you showing them love when you would rather gossip about them here rather than getting to know who they are and where they are coming from?
I speak passionately about these things because I used to be one of you. I used to think it my “duty” to tear people down so that the “good guys and gals” won’t be swayed by these “wolves in sheeps clothing.” And I know exactly how you and others will respond to this post, because you’ll say whaat I used to say in response to such people. Thank God though at some point it got through to me, that because I have received much grace I should be the bearer and giver of grace to others.
I leave you with Paul’s words to the Colossians:
4:2-6
2 Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful. 3 And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains. 4 Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should.
5 Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. 6 Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.
grace and peace,
Chad
Mar 27th, 2008
Denise
II hate Open Theism. I HATE IT.
It is blasphemy. It is wicked. It is a lie. It mocks. It destroys. One of the elders at my last church believes that a person can be a Christian and an Open Theist. This elder is an Old Testament professor at a seminary here in Southern California. I told him he’s wrong and that his friend is lost because he is worshipping an idol. (We are not talking about a novice here, either. These are seasoned men.) Said elder refuses to believe this and so his friend is earning hell thinking he’s going to heaven. That’s hardly loving the soul of his friend. I find it pathetic. Our family had to leave that church and that was one reason why.
Psa 147:5 Our Lord is great and of great might; THERE IS NO LIMIT to HIS UNDERSTANDING.
Isa 46:8 “Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, 9 remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is NONE LIKE ME, 10 DECLARING THE END FROM THE BEGINNING and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘MY counsel shall stand, and I WILL accomplish all MY purpose,’ 11 calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I HAVE SPOKEN, and I WILL BRING IT TO PASS; I HAVE PURPOSED, and I WILL DO IT.
Isa 45:21 Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who DECLARED IT OF OLD? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.
Isa 44: 8 Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not TOLD YOU FROM OLD and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”
To make God unknowing in any degree, is to make the Creator like His creation; it makes Him powerless to do anything, let alone be faithful to Himself, His Word, and His children. This is a total rejection of the God of Scripture and anyone who follows such a false god is not saved and needs to repent and turn to the True God who knows all things past, present, and future, and causes all things to work out according to His will and pleasure (Eph. 1:11). This includes all details and all individuals of all time. Open Theism has a god that is impotent and thus unable to be faithful to any promise He has made, which in turn makes His Word unfaithful. Rubbish! HIS name is “FAITHFUL AND TRUE”!
Open Theism has a god that reacts to men, waiting for men to make decisions or take actions. They say that God is learning and that the future is “open” because of this, however Scripture says:
Is 40: ?13? Who has understood the mind ?of the LORD, or INSTRUCTED HIM AS HIS COUNSELOR? 14? WHOM did the LORD CONSULT TO ENLIGHTEN HIM, and WHO TAUGHT HIM THE RIGHT WAY? WHO WAS IT THAT TAUGHT HIM KNOWLEDGE OR SHOWED HIM THE PATH OF UNDERSTANDING?
Rom. 11: 34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or WHO HAS BEEN HIS COUNSELOR?”35 “Or who has given a gift to Him that He might be repaid?” 36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen.
Isa 29:16 You turn things upside down! SHALL THE POTTER BE REGARDED AS THE CLAY, that the thing made should say of its maker, “He did not make me”; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?
*Caps for emphasis–I can’t do bold or underline here. So just know I’m not yelling! =)
BTW, considering Boyd was first a Oneness Pentecostal, this is no surprise that he denies the biblical notion of the Trinity, Christ, and the Omnicience of God. He merely went back to the vomit from which he came and never really left.
Mar 27th, 2008
Dr. Morey
Chad,
You wrote: “As for Boyd, I’ve read his stuff and heard him speak. He is not as far out there as the Bob wishes him to be. He proclaims Christ and he proclaims him boldly - and I would say, rightly.”
I do not believe that a true Christian could read Boyd’s book that I am reviewing and agree with his theology. I must ask you:
Before God, have you read Boyd’s book that I was reviewing?
Yes___ No___
When did you read it?
If you say that you have read that book, I will ask you a question based on a particular page of that book so all on the blog will know if you read it.
I am not asking you to run out NOW and find a copy of the book and read it NOW. I am asking you if you have read that book BEFORE coming on this blog and defending Boyd.
Why am I am questioning if you read his book?
When my review came out, three things happened:
1. Boyd threatened to sue me in court. I welcomed him to do so. I challenged him to a public debate on the nature and extent of God’s knowledge, particularly if God knew of me and my sins, although I and my sins were in the future, and if Christ died for my sins on the cross, even I and my sins were in the future. He refused to discuss or debate that issue. Some of his friends did respond and stated that God did not know of me or my sins and Christ did not die for me or my sins because I and my sins were in the future.
2. All the people who immediately rushed to Boyd’s defense did so without reading his book. They even refused my kind offer to loan them my copy of his book so they could read it. They defended a book they had not read!
3. After scholars such as Geisler finally read the book of Boyd that I reviewed, they all agreed with me that he was a heretic. He was condemned by his denomination, admonished at ETS, and many books and articles took him to task. Even the CRI Journal, which at first rushed to defend him without anyone at CRI bothering to read his book, eventually wrote an article against his aberrational theology.
In this light, I do not assume that you have read the book in question.
If you are worthy to be on this blog, you have to be honest and answer the question. When did you read Boyd’s book that I reviewed? If you do not answer this question, we will assume you defended a book you never read. This will reveal your true character and spiritual destiny.
Mar 27th, 2008
Chad
Denise,
I would say, based on your post, that you haven’t fully grasped the nuances of Open Theism. I am not an open theist, yet I can appreciate what they are attempting to do. They (Boyd, Pinnock et.al) take scripture very seriously. They do not claim to have it all figured out (as you and others on this site seem to claim). They are wrestling with some serious textual questions and they are doing the work of a theologian in that regard.
You can’t just throw around the word “heretic” and damn someone to hell and say they are not saved because they have intellectually not assented to some dogma or doctrine that you have elevated to be of the most importance. I’m sorry, but you just can’t do it (I know it feels good and makes one feel powerful when they have “ins” vs. “outs”, but that is not how the Kingdom of God is meant to operate).
It is fair to say you disagree with Open Theism. Fine. Like I said, I don’t agree with all their conclusions either. It is another thing, however, to say because someone who is chasing after Jesus Christ with all their heart, soul, MIND and strength and yet because they are human they may have reached a conclusion that doesn’t fit with the cookie cutter model you have does NOT mean they are doomed to hell. Is not God’s grace sufficient? Do you really and truly believe that salvation is solely and utterly tied to how well or how poorly one mentally assents to a list of doctrines? Is that all that salvation is to you? I (and Boyd) would argue that salvation is far more robust than that and emposseses a whole host of things.
So in short, yes, you can be an open theist and be a Christian. Greg Boyd, as much as you might hate it, will be praising God next to you in Heaven one day. It might be a good idea to start using “grace filled” conversation with him and other in the here and now.
grace and peace,
Chad
Mar 27th, 2008
Denise
Chad,
I’m not feeling the love, man! Are you praying for me? Are you not judging my heart? Are you not juding me for being judgmental?
Let me give further examples of how those in error are dealt with:
2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers have GONE OUT INTO THE WORLD, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward.
1Jo 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have GONE OUT INTO THE WORLD.
Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Mat 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
So here’s the thing: Boyd is publicaly spewing his vomit by books, radio, conferences, and for a while via the Evanagelical Theological Society (which by the way is a sham…they didn’t have enough votes to throw him out) he needs to be dealt with publically.
Naming names is appropriate for those with wider influence. But Chad, would you even dare to come out swinging against a heretic IN your church (or as you Emergents like to call it, “community”)? Or was Paul too harsh and unloving and just plain judgmental too in Acts:
Acts 13: ?8? But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul from the faith. ?9? Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, ?10? “You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?
2 Tim. 2: ?16? Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 2Tim 2: ?17? Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, ?18? who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.
2Tim. 4: ?14? Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done. ?15? You too should be on your guard against him, because he strongly opposed our message.
I’m sure some would have corrected Paul if he were alive today, saying, “Dear Paul, your Second Letter to Timothy was too gossipy. Can’t you just be unified with Alexander? After all, God knows his heart. You are judging and you should repent. And you claim to be an apostle! Love, Modern Christians who know better.”
2Ti 3:8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. 9 But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.
3 John ?9? I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. ?10? So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church. 3John 11? Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good.
Today’s post-modern, wishy-washy, Rodney King theologians would correct John saying, “Dear Apostle John, your letter was too gossipy. Did you even talk personally with Diotrophes? Did you get HIS side of the story? You need to stop naming names and cause divisions. Love Diotrophes and be united. Love, modern Christians .”
Boyd has been dealt with by those who know him and those who don’t. He’s a heretic, a false brother, and should be exposed for the vomit he spews under the banner of “Christianity” so that young or uninformed believers don’t follow his heresy. If you are a public person making public statements, you are accountable publically.
Mar 27th, 2008
Chad
Grace and peace, Denise. You take care.
Bob,
Never once did I say I read the book (its a dissertation by the way) and is 16 years old. I don’t hold (thankfully) to have the stuff I held to 16 years ago - thank God he continues to teach us and lead us into truth.
What I was defending is Boyd in general, as I have read his more recent stuff and heard him speak on several occassions. He’s spot on in many areas, and is doing theological work and reflection that has long been overdue.
Bob, to be honest, after reading your post to me I can’t blame Greg or anyone for that matter from turning down your offer to talk. You don’t appear to be a guy seeking truth, only to be right. You end your post to me with: “If you do not answer this question, we will assume you defended a book you never read.This will reveal your true character and spiritual destiny” That’s manipulation, Bob. Who are you to lay claims to anyone’s “spiritual destiny” based on whether they have read a book or not? As a pastor let alone a Christian I find your lack of humility troubling, and not a very good representationi of the Jesus Christ you, I and Greg Boyd all strive to serve and emulate.
grace and peace,
Chad
Mar 27th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Chad~
Have you read Dr.Bob’s books and journals, or listened to his CD’s? Have you “gotten to know him”?
The KKK comment was not appropriate. You should apologize for that.
If anyone here spoke of thier prayers,tears or fasts for these false teachers, people such as yourself probably, either wouldn’t believe them or would call it boasting.
Personally knowing Dr. Bob I KNOW he mourns over professing Christians who do wicked things…he does not “sneer” or “smile”.
Mar 27th, 2008
Chad
Bob,
Wanting to be fair to this particular line of thought on this blog, I picked up Greg’s book “Trinity and Process” and have begun reading it. After the first few chapters I have to say I like it thus far.
I will make you a deal. If upon reading this book I can show that your charicatures of Boyd (including where you admittedly “poke fun” at him) as well as your interpretation of what he is attempting to do is misplaced and misunderstood, you make an apology to Greg on this site. If, however, upon reading this book I discover that your representation in the opening post is accurate, I will happily apologize for defending a man who had no right being defended.
I assume you’d be happy to do this as one who does not seek only to be right but wishes to know the truth.
On that score, you quote Boyd in your opening as saying this:
. Much
of this, we shall argue, is actually advantageous
to the Christian Church, for a good deal of its
traditional view of God, being significantly
influenced in an adverse way by Platonic and
Aristotlian philosophy, has little resemblance
to the God revealed in the person of Jesus
Christ, It needed to be attacked and rejected.
In my estimation, therefore, Process thought
has the Church a great service. (pgs.9-1O)
You then go on to say in your own words as a way of summarizeing what Boyd believes, saying:
“Did you understand what he is saying? The Church’s traditional view of the nature and attributes of God as found in the creeds needs to be “attacked and rejected” according to Boyd because the Christian Church has been wrong all these years’ ”
Here you are being intellectually dishonest, for you leave out the very next thing Greg writes which is this:
But there are other crucial elements of the traditional Christians proclamation which, we shall argue, should not and must not be rejected, but which are necessarily precluded by this school of thought. Chief among these is the doctrine of the Trinity which, we believe, alone grounds the Christian understanding of creation and salvation as gracious, hence unnecessary, acts of God.
Boyd is merely setting the table in the opening pages for the thesis he is going to prove. Chief among those is that there are some very useful things we can learn from Process philosophy/theology, as he did from Hartshorne. However, to deny the triunity of God does violence to who God is, and Boyd wants to synthesize the BEST ideas from Process thought with the most robust view of Trinitarian theology.
I hope you accept my proposal and I look forward to reading this book, hopefully showing how a Christian can read and accept the underlying premise Boyd puts forward.
grace and peace,
Chad
Mar 27th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Chad~
Not to be rude…who are you? Boyd himself did not care to discuss his own book with Dr. Bob…he instead responded to him with a threat! Why would Dr. Bob accept a proposal from you or care what you have to say about this book? You are an emergent and he doesn’t know you…have you written any books? He usually only “accepts proposals” from those who have written their beliefs and theology out in book form…you understand…so they can’t wriggle out of their arguements!
Mar 27th, 2008
Chad
I could ask the same question of you, RM. Are you his secretary? You say, “you are an emergent and he doesn’t know you.” Besides that coming accross like you think it is a bad thing to be emergent (which I have never before been called, but thanks), I have no idea how you can say that when your first question to me is, “who are you?”
If Bob doesn’t want to accept my proposal than that is entirely up to him - he can make that decision himself, can he not? If I am right in my defense of Greg, than it would be obvious why Greg refused to speak with Bob.
Have all of you read this book in question? Or do you all without question jump on the band wagon and speak against a fellow Christian whenever Bob does a book review - one that may turn out to be full of error and misunderstandings?
grace and peace,
Chad
Mar 27th, 2008
Chad
Bob sites Greg’s goal as such:
Boyd’s Goal
It is clear from his book that Dr. Boyd attempted to construct a concept of a “three-fold” deity that process thinkers such as Hartshorne might accept. But this attempt ended in abject failure as Hartshorne did not accept Boyd’s views.
This, in fact, is not true. Boyd’s goal was never to construst a “three-fold” deity that might be accepted by process theinkers such as Hartshorne. Here is Boyd in his own words:
We shall demonstrate that Hartshorne’s metaphysics, when revised at a fundamental level reveals that the doctrine of the Trinity is actually necessitated….Hence, we shall in this work be arguing that, while there is a great deal about Hartshorne’s metaphysics (including his view of God) which is sound, there are aspects of his system which are not. When this misconstrued elements of his system are revised, however, his system becomes not only open to a trinitarian conception of God - it actually requires some such conception. (pg. 2,3)
Moreover, Boyd insists that the good theology “is faithful theology when its content, and therefore its final standard of judgment, is given by the Word of God, and not by theories from other disciplines. Theology must not derive its content or ultimate standard from any other source.” (pg. 13).
In light of this, Christian theology must always examine itself and it’s “philosophical presuppositions in the light of the on-going life of the revelation of the Word to see to what extent these presuppositions are helpful, or are hindrances, to the faithful hearing and articulating of the content of this revelation.” (pg. 14).
Are we starting to see a more clear picture now? Bob doesn’t tell you any of this in his review above, only that Boyd wishes to “reject” and “attack” our faith and confessions and creeds. Nothing could be further from the truth. Boyd is saying what needs to be examined is the language and philosophies that shape us (which we cannot help but be influenced by in some form or another if we are breathing) to insist that they are faithful to the Word of God - and by that he means both Scripture and Jesus Christ as the Word revealed in human flesh, the 2nd person of the Trinity.
And all this just in the first half of the book! I have already read the other passages Bob cites above and I disagree with his conclusions. I will get to those later when I can give them a fuller treatment.
grace and peace,
Chad
Mar 27th, 2008
Denise
Wait a second! Hold on a minute! Chad you chastized me saying:
“Are you living in community with Greg Boyd? Have you read all his books and listened to his sermons to truly get to know him? Or do you only know what the “blog world” and his critics have said? ”
Then you just today went and got the book, saying “Wanting to be fair to this particular line of thought on this blog, I picked up Greg’s book “Trinity and Process” and have begun reading it. After the first few chapters I have to say I like it thus far.”
Now you admit YOU didn’t read ALL of Boyd’s books yet you defend the man? You camed down on me for not reading “all” his books, but neither did you. Why are you holding me to a standard you clearly won’t hold yourself to?
That’s blatant hypocrisy.
Mar 27th, 2008
Chad
Dear Denise,
Please point out exactly where I said I ever read ALL of Boyd’s books. I think you would agree that a Christian could defend their faith in Christ without having first read all 66 books of the Bible, correct? Yet if you are going to go and start calling Isaiah a liar and a heretic I would suspect you’d ask such a person if they have at least read the prophets, wouldn’t you?
Now, I have read enough of Boyd to be familiar enough to defend him. How many of his books have you read? Have you read the book in question or do you just believe whatever a writer on this blog tells you to believe? The funny thing is, everything I already knew about Boyd is only being further confirmed by reading this book, one I assume you have not read (it’s not all that accessible which is probably why it was chosen as the whipping post). Have you even read any of my arguments that support the book so far? If so, why not comment on that instead of trying to make ad hominum attacks?
peace,
Chad
Mar 27th, 2008
Reformed Mama
I agree with Denise…double standard Chad…I think that’s what we’ll call you!
I haven’t read the book and THEREFORE haven’t commented on it! I am not Dr. Bob’s secretary…just don’t appreciate comments like the KKK reference or the general insults you’ve lobbed.
While none of us knows you personally…your blog tells all!
Mar 27th, 2008
Chad
Hi RM,
I am not surprised in the least that you would agree with Denise. I would hope that in the spirit of Christian charity (you all do believe in that around here, right?) that you would at least consider whether your accusations are true or not and even show some evidence. Perhaps you posted your thoughts before you got a chance to read my reply to Denise?
What is it about the KKK reference you don’t like? Do you DENY that the KKK has used the Bible to advance their own agenda? So what exactly don’t you agree with or like about me simply stating the TRUTH? From what I have seen on this site, it must not be true if it doesn’t make someone angry and upset, right?
I’m only kidding. Could you please point out the “general insults” I’ve “lobbed’?
Would you or anyone else care to actually discuss the specifics of the BOOK or are you and others just going to berate a person to hide the fact that you can’t refute the facts?
I’m glad you came over and saw my blog. If by “tells all!” I assume you mean that I am a lover of Christ, a pastor and student and one who seeks to love God and neighbor as myself. Feel free to drop in anytime.
grace and peace,
Chad
Mar 27th, 2008
Reformed Mama
I’m not going to play games with you Chad…you’re a smart man…you know what you said and why.
Nope…I won’t discuss the book either because I haven’t read it. Dr. Bob is a hardcore intellectual and he is very good at what he does. I don’t really care about the book. Prayerfully, Boyd will bow the knee to Scripture/God in all that he does in this life.
God’s Grace…
Mar 27th, 2008
Denise
Ok, I’m going here only because I think its beneficial to see how the Pomo thinking is hypcritical and is incapabable to sort out in their minds what the Truth is.
Chad you said, “Please point out exactly where I said I ever read ALL of Boyd’s books. I think you would agree that a Christian could defend their faith in Christ without having first read all 66 books of the Bible, correct?” “Now, I have read enough of Boyd to be familiar enough to defend him. How many of his books have you read? Have you read the book in question or do you just believe whatever a writer on this blog tells you to believe? ”
Chad, are you not reading what I write and what YOU write? You said to me (caps for emphasis only–I’m not yelling):
“Are you living in community with Greg Boyd? HAVE YOU READ ALL HIS BOOKS and listened to his sermons to truly get to know him? Or do you only know what the “blog world” and his critics have said? ”
You accused me of not reading ALL Boyd’s books and therefore you relegated my view as illegitimate.
What exactly is your magic number of books to read that would cause you to admit I know what I’m talking about? Two? Three? How many sermons is enough?
Your post-modern thinking has gotten you into a conundrum. Listen Chad, you can’t hold others to a standard you won’t hold to for yourself.
And do *you* live in community with Boyd to know him? Do you live in my community to criticize me?
Your inconsistancy is stunningly clear.
*I have to read all Boyd’s books. But not you.
*I have to live in Boyd’s community. But not you.
*I have to personally know Boyd. But not you.
*I have to hear tons of his sermons. But not you.
I get it.
Well as I say, “there’s never enough evidence for a skeptic.” And certainly Scripture isn’t enough for you Chad. God has revealed Himself in His Word, by His creation, and in the Son. Yet you think its ok to reject Him and His very proclaimation of Who He is.
No one here has told me what to think. I think all by myself, thank you very much (yes, why, I do believe that was an ad hom you just threw my way, but then you have the double standard). I have known of Boyd’s heresy for YEARS. I have been well informed on the Open Theism heresy for years.
The ONLY standard I use to test all people, authors, books, songs, teachers, pastors, and me, is Scripture. It ALONE is my sole authority for it alone is without error, perfect, eternal, living, and God holds it and His name above all else.
Mar 27th, 2008
Travis
I think this would cut to chase as to what I think one of Chads questions are , (Im not going to defend his theology) So as a human is there any common ground to stand on, between Boyd, Chad, Rick, Joel etc? Or do we cast aside all unbelievers?
From what I see in scripture and have learned from Dr. Bob, the use of sarcasm and mockery is used mostly for those in authority. Do we continue in this mockery when we deal with those outside of the authority?
Authority= those who influence a group of people to think or do.
Outside authroity= any unbeliever
Mar 27th, 2008
Brian James Shanley, Minneapolis, MN
CHAD: God forbid that Christians should be “friendly,” even if you perceive someone to be an enemy,as you obviously find Mr. Boyd.
BRIAN: I never said that all the callers were Christians. There is no way to determine that. The context in which I was using the term “friendly” was referring to the fact that they (the callers) never pressed him about his doctrine. They presupposed that he was an orthodox Christian and proceeded under that assumption, asking him Bible questions. I never called Boyd an enemy. I challenge you to point out in the original text of my post where I used this terminology. Put up or shut up. I guess anyone who has a problem with the theological system of Islam thinks Muslims are their enemies? I guess anyone who has a problem with slavery thinks that the slaves trapped in it are their enemies? I have a problem with the theology of Boyd. But this in no way implies that I think he is my enemy. Get a life, please.
CHAD: I suppose the ends justifies the means, right?
BRIAN: Would they have let me through if I told them that I wanted to question Boyd about the finite knowledge of his concept of God? Probably not.
Mar 27th, 2008
Travis
I would add after unbelievers(in the previous post) “and those who dont profess the historic Christ as”
Another question from me, I know this is not going to be the right question to ask but I cant think of any way to put it, “are there going to be some who enter heaven that teach strange doctrines, but profess Christ, the Christ of scripture?”
Mar 27th, 2008
Chad
*sigh* and once again, not a single person can have address the facts presented about the book.
Denise, I have no idea where you get off on saying to me “Scripture isn’t enough for you.” If you choose to have a real conversation with a fellow believer I’ll be around. Your ranting is tiresome and unproductive.
peace,
Chad
Mar 27th, 2008
Chad
Shane,
If Boyd is not an “enemy” that who do you say he is? Your opening post sure painted him out to be one. Forgive me if my choice of words did not accurately describe your sentiments - I’m glad to hear it, actually.
CHAD: I suppose the ends justifies the means, right?
BRIAN: Would they have let me through if I told them that I wanted to question Boyd about the finite knowledge of his concept of God? Probably not.
You are right, they may not have let you through, but at least you would have been honest and ethical. Imagine for a second had you been let through because of your lie, gave a wonderful argument and were “right” through and through and then everyone listening learned that you had lied to even get there. Your witness would have been shot.
Any thoughts on this book?
peace,
Chad
Mar 27th, 2008
Chad
RM: I’m not going to play games with you Chad…you’re a smart man…you know what you said and why.
Chad: If had known what I said that was so insulting I would have apologized for it.
RM: Nope…I won’t discuss the book either because I haven’t read it. Dr. Bob is a hardcore intellectual and he is very good at what he does. I don’t really care about the book. Prayerfully, Boyd will bow the knee to Scripture/God in all that he does in this life.
Chad: Then I suppose you were rejoicing when you read the quotes I listed above by Greg where he writes of his attentiveness and groundedness with Scripture as the final word. Praise God!
peace,
Chad
Mar 27th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Chad said: “Now, I have read enough of Boyd to be familiar enough to defend him. How many of his books have you read?”
Personally, I think Greg Boyd is a very nice and polite person. In the past he has demonstrated kindness towards me. In email discussions with me he has made it clear that he was not trying to be hostile in any way.
That being said, it never for a moment changed the fact that theologically I have judged him to be a heretic. I’m sure that he enjoys iced cream, fragrant shampoo, romantic walks on the beach, a good tear-jerking movie, hot mocha’s with his wife during winter, etc. This isn’t about him as a person. Even Tom Wright is a nice person, and he’s far more vicious that little ole Boyd!
He is a heretic based on his teaching and its violation of what God has revealed in Scripture. It is not a demonstration of loving God or loving others (Jesus Creed) if one just lets heresy run rampant among God’s people under the banner of being nice. Christians are commanded to earnestly contend for the “delivered once to the saints” faith (Jude 3), not simply “faith.”
As an empty virtue, faith is meaningless. It is the object of that faith that gives meaning to faith. Before I am charged with equivocation, let me say that the “faith” in Jude 3 is what we are to earnestly contend for, not simply what someone believes or believes in.
Revealed Religion is given in Scripture which is the origin of theology. In Scripture alone, God tells us who He is, why we’re here, what our purpose is, where we’re going, how to worship Him, how to treat others, and so on. We believe in what God has said and we are commanded to defend it and earnestly contend for it.
When a heathen philosophy student (Boyd) enamored with pagan philosophy comes on to the scene with destructive heresies, like hounds for Jesus we sniff the danger and go on guard! Then some professing Christian like you Chad wants to rise up and defend him, quoting the Jesus Creed, telling us to behave and treat the heretic among us like a brother rather than a Gentile tax collector. Don’t be surprised if you get blended in with him. If you are concerned with your innocence, then put your concern into action by disassociating with the enemy. You either live to the glory of God or to the glory of man. Both can’t be served…
Since we are Faith Defenders and you want to be a Boyd defender, defend this:
“Open Theism is the view that God knows the future partly as a realm of what might and might not come to pass. Since God sovereignly chose to give angels and humans free will, this view holds, the future is partly “open.” Defenders of this view, such as myself, argue that this view is biblically, philosophically and practically superior to the more traditional view that holds that the future has been exhaustively settled (in God’s knowledge if not by God’s will) from all eternity.”
and,
“If God is certain from all eternity of all that is going to happen throughout history, as the traditional view teaches, there’s nothing he can do about it. It’s certain. Only if the future is partly comprised of possibilities is God in a position to intervene and work to change it.”
Mar 27th, 2008
Chad
Stephen,
First, let me say a hearty “thank you” for being the first and so far only one who wants to talk about the issue of this thread rather than attack character.
You said:
That being said, it never for a moment changed the fact that theologically I have judged him to be a heretic. I’m sure that he enjoys iced cream, fragrant shampoo, romantic walks on the beach, a good tear-jerking movie, hot mocha’s with his wife during winter, etc. This isn’t about him as a person. Even Tom Wright is a nice person, and he’s far more vicious that little ole Boyd!
Me: By this am I supposed to understand that you have labeled Tom Wright as a heretic as well? Oh, brother.
So you have judged Boyd to be a heretic on theological grounds. At least now we are getting somewhere. I disagree with your judgment, but we can get to that in a bit…
Here is where it gets sticky. You say:
As an empty virtue, faith is meaningless. It is the object of that faith that gives meaning to faith. Before I am charged with equivocation, let me say that the “faith” in Jude 3 is what we are to earnestly contend for, not simply what someone believes or believes in.
So define this “faith” for us as it is envisioned in Jude 3. Explain how Boyd or anyone else you have labeled a heretic is “turning the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.” The Greek word for “lewdness” here is “aselgeia” which means “sensuality, indecency and vice.” The same word is used by Paul and others in the NT (see Gal. 5:19, Eph. 4:19, 2 Cor. 12:21..) to describe wantoness, lustfulness or greedy behavior. This understanding of the word in Jude is further supported Jude 16-19, where the predicted apostates will come as grumblers, complainers and walking according to their own lusts.
With that said, what is the “faith” that Jude is speaking of that Boyd is violating? How is Boyd turning the grace of God into lust or lewdness and exactly WHERE did he DENY Christ as Lord? If you can show that, then you will most certainly be carrying out the hope in Jude that Christians “defend the faith.” If you cannot show that, then perhaps you are guilty of being the very people Jude is warning Christians of.
STEPHEN: Revealed Religion is given in Scripture which is the origin of theology.
Chad: You realize, don’t you, that Boyd says the exact same thing in the book under discussion. I already quoted it in an earlier post.
STEPHEN: In Scripture alone, God tells us who He is, why we’re here, what our purpose is, where we’re going, how to worship Him, how to treat others, and so on. We believe in what God has said and we are commanded to defend it and earnestly contend for it.
CHAD: I’m not a sola scriptura guy, and I don’t know that Boyd would be either, although I do know both of us would defend and contend for scripture and give it the highest authority (under Christ, that is). Scripture is a “witness” to Christ, not synonomous (like MacArthur claims).
STEPHEN: When a heathen philosophy student (Boyd) enamored with pagan philosophy comes on to the scene with destructive heresies, like hounds for Jesus we sniff the danger and go on guard!
CHAD: Heathen? Where did that come from? Pagan philosophy? What are you getting at? Surely you are not suggesting that you are (and your band of dogs) are the lone, completely objective, perfectly impartial, articulators of Scripture we have today, are you? If you read Boyd’s book (or any author worth their salt on this subject) you would see that theology is about “words” about GOD. It is about constantly scrubbing those words so that they accurately portray God as revealed through Scripture and most importantly in the person and work of Christ. Why scrub our language of God? Because as humans it is impossible for us to be unaffected by the “pagan philosophies” (your word, not mine) that surround us. The authors of our creeds were influenced by Plato, the Medievalists were influenced by Aristotle, Moderns are influenced by Kant or Hegel or any number of other, etc, etc. GOOD theology recognizes that we are fallible human beings and that our language tends to get coopted by these competing philosophies.
Boyd’s goal in this book is to recognize how philosophy has affected our theological understanding of God (particularly the Trinity, which he FULLY espouses) in the past and present and help us articulate a more chastened and accurate picture of who God is so that we can speak that language in todays world to the lost. That’s Boyd’s goal in this book. And he does a heck of a job at it.
You conclude your last post asking me to defend a few dictums that Open Theists have put forth. I don’t know why you would ask me to defend that since if you read my previous posts you would have seen that I am not an open theist, so why should I?
What I will say is this though: I am sympathetic to their cause and don’t brand them as heretics. If ANYTHING you might call it heterodoxy - but a lot of things fall in that category. What Boyd and Pinnock and others are doing is devoting a life time of wrestling with scripture and trying to make some sense of difficult passages which certain evangelical/conservative circles either give simple Sunday school answers to or ignore altogether.
You guys seem to think theologoy is a dead science. That is to say, it was all figured out 2000 years ago and God no longer speaks, nor is there anything left to learn. I admire Boyd because he understands that theology is eternal, as our God is, and we will never get to the bottom of our queries, at least this side of Heaven. Boyd is at least willing to step out on a limb and ask the tough questions about God and how God is given witness to through scripture and how that is articulated through our modern philosophies and speech.
You don’t have to agree with his conclusions, but he is our brother and you are called to learn to live together under the lordship of Christ in unity, not division, so long as all parties continue to confess that Christ is Lord, lived among us in the flesh, died and rose again to give us life. That is the “faith” we are to contend for.
Grace and peace,
Chad
Mar 27th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Yeah, Wright is a heretic. This can be understood by reading “The Challenge of Jesus” by N.T. Wright, especially chapter 5, in particular pgs. 111-125 on the vocation and self-understanding of Jesus. After a long line of arguments leading to Wright’s understanding of Jesus and God (I will argue elsewhere that from an ontological basis Wright’s Christology is thoroughly destructive), Wright admits that he still recites the historic Christian creeds ex animo, which means “from the heart,” but says “I now mean something very different by them.” (pg.124).
First of all, critical realism is humanism (sola ratione). Tom Wright adopts a form of CR. His retroductive hermeneutical method and narrative substructural-exegesis yields grossly eisegetical interpretations, the very thing he is accusing Luther (and those after) of doing. In addition to his damnable heresies (NPP,FPP), his book “Evil and the Justice of God” is a classic fairy-tale novel, as Sproul put it “He simply makes new stuff up!” It’s a great read though, just very false.
I’ll be away till Monday, we’ll pick this up then.
Mar 27th, 2008
Chad
I’ll look forward to your response on Boyd. As a side note, it must be nice to have God and faith so fully figured out that when anyone says anything you disagree with you can just judge them a heretic, tell everyone in your camp to ignore them, and then go back to sleep.
Tell me, what use do we have for the Bible any more since you Faith Defenders have faith so thoroghly figured out (in fact, perhaps your knowledge is as complete or more so than the Author?) Why not just give us all the propositional truths that your reason has led you to beleive the Bible teaches, put them in a systematic book, and we’ll all read that as our “bible” from here on out. In your Bible you can even include an appendix with all the people you declare as heretics (we can be like the Catholics and their book list or like the Puritans in Salem).
Have a good weekend.
Chad
Mar 28th, 2008
Chad
Bob,
Since you are the one who wrote the above review, if you are still around, I’d like to hear your response to my comments above. I have clearly demonstrated in at least 2 cases where you were unfair in quoting Boyd by not giving the full context. Care to address that?
peace,
Chad
Mar 28th, 2008
Dr. Morey
Chad,
You did not answer my straightforward questions with straightforward answers. You were clearly evasive. But, in the end, you finally admitted that you had not in fact read the book that I reviewed. Thus you were defending a book you had not read!
You have now rushed out and purchased or borrowed a copy of the book in question and now say that you agree with it. Thus you are not only a fool according to Proverbs, but a heretic and anti-Christ.
You have finnaly thrown off the sheep’s skin and revealed that you are a wolf.
In reviewing all of your blogs, it is clear that you are stranger to truth. Since you have been admonished more than twice, Titus 3:10 directly applies to you:
hereticum hominem
post unam et secundam correptionem
devita
I hereby renounce you as a heretic and an anti-Christ. You are a false brother who preaches a false gospel with a false Jesus. It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of an angry God even if you do not believe in Him. You have trampled underfoot the Son of God, insulted the Spirit of grace, and crucified the Son of God afresh.
Mar 28th, 2008
Brian James Shanley, Minneapolis, MN
Boyd’s concept of God did not know yesterday that I was going to write this post. He is learning it right now as I write it.
Pathetic.
Mar 28th, 2008
Chad
Bob,
I feel sorry for you and everyone who holds you to be some great teacher of “truth.” Your words and posture towards other are little different from cultic leaders.
All you have proven with your slander is that you are afraid of truth and only wish to be right. You have chosen to review a book that you knew none of “sheep” would read let alone probably find, and then when you run into someone who actually can engage you in the merits of the book you call them an “anti Christ.” That’s pathetic, Bob.
It is NO WONDER Boyd turned down any sort of interview with you. Any respectable person who has a love for truth would do the same.
My prayer is that anyone reading this who has to this point thought Bob was some child of God can see through his charade and hate speech. My comments about the KKK were, as it turns out, not so far off the mark.
grace and peace, Bob.
Chad
Mar 28th, 2008
Chad
On last comment, Bob -
To be called a heretic and anti Christ from you is the greatest compliment. To be so removed and distanced from the sort of God you worship is something to rejoice about. So, thank you for confirming the grace of Jesus Christ in my life once again.
peace,
Chad
Mar 28th, 2008
Brian James Shanley, Minneapolis, MN
Hello, Chad:
Boyd is up here in the Twin Cities, MN. But so is John Piper. Piper fought Boyd strongly up here. Boyd was teaching at a Bible College. Piper drew him out, and confronted Boyd publicly. Boyd was first removed from all teaching duties. Later, he was allowed to teach but he is closely watched and it not to teach his Open Theism to Bible students.
Boyd is dishonest, and sometimes does not come out and admit his positions. I am living proof, because I questioned him on live radio and he lied to the audience rather than admit his Open Theology position. If it is the truth, then why cower and run from it? What does he have to hide?
Doc stands alongside the majority of the evangelical church world in his condemnation of Open Theism. If you want to defend that position, you are not just figthing Dr. Morey. He is not the only one that thinks Boyd is a heretic. You are fighting John Piper. You are fighting R.C. Sproul. You are fighting John MacArthur. And, most importantly, you are fighting Scripture. Are you willing to stand against all of this in defense of an obvious lie?
Read his “God At War” or his “God of the Possible”. I own them both. If you can stand in line next to that and call it Christianity, then the Doc has correctly identified you as a heretic and an anti-Christ.
Mar 28th, 2008
Brian James Shanley, Minneapolis, MN
CHAD: “Here’s a newsflash: Evangelical conservative thelogy is not the only kid on the block, nor does it have the corner market on truth. To think so is intellectual arrogance.”
BRIAN: Okay, Chadster. The more you post, the more revealing you become. I think it is time for you to tell us to what school of thought you subscribe. I am curious to know what kind of church you attend, if any.
Mar 28th, 2008
Chad
“school of thought I subscribe to?” See Brian, this is the problem with you people. You are so busy trying to figure out who is “in” and who is “out” and spend all your time pointing fingers that you can’t see the forest for the trees. You completely miss the Gospel.
I subscribe to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, Brian. Not to any man or “system” or “school of thought.” And as far as church goes, I am a pastor, so I guess you could say I am blessed to be able to go quite often. If you are ever in NC let me know and I’ll invite you to attend - it sounds like you could use a reintroduction to the God of grace and peace.
Take care,
Chad
Mar 28th, 2008
Brian James Shanley, Minneapolis, MN
Chad:
Does your church have a web site? Statement of doctrine? Would you please be so kind as to provide a link here? Thanks, sir.
Mar 28th, 2008
Chad
Brian,
You have been nothing but antagonistic and spiteful since I got here and the first post I read from you shows you to be a liar and willing to say anything in order to prove you are more right than someone else. This thread is about a book review done on one of Boyd’s books and I have posted several quotes from that book with commentary about how your “doc” is wrong - dead wrong - in his review. To top it all off, instead of engaging me on any of these points you and Bob just label me as antichrist (do you guys even KNOW what that means???) and a heretic (same question).
And NOW, to top it all off, you who call someone a heretic and antichrist hasn’t even reviewed, or even KNOW, the statement of faith I live by!! Now how on earth, Brian, do you sleep at night after damning someone to hell you don’t even know??? You and your buddies here will one day have a lot of explaining to do regarding your lies, gossip and slander of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
Lucky for you I believe in a God who’s love and grace is BIG enough to forgive even the likes of you in your ignorance and arrogance. I just pray you and your friends here don’t turn genuine seekers away from the God who is revealed in Christ, because you guys surely don’t imitate the Christ of the gospels.
I am a pastor in the United Methodist Church. http://www.umc.org
grace and peace,
Chad
Mar 28th, 2008
Chad
Brian and Bob,
This caught my eye on Wikepedia:
Jon Nelson also has criticized Morey for incorrect quotes.[13] Nelson notes that in Morey’s The New Atheism (1986) he quoted Nicholas Capaldi’s book The Art of Deception as an example of atheist deception, but the “problem is that Capaldi never says this (or anything like it) on this or on any other page. Morey has numerous other false quotes attributed to Capaldi, such as: ‘Refuse to be convinced. Even if you feel that he has a good argument and that your case is weaker, refuse to be convinced of your opponent’s case’. Nowhere does Capaldi advocate, as Morey accuses him of doing, that atheists should ‘use any invalid or deceptive argument as long as it helps him (to) win his case.’”[13] Nelson goes on to say that, “However, Morey has an ‘out’. There are no actual quotation marks on these alleged quotes.”[13]
(emphasis mine)
It seems that the very thing Bob attacked the atheists of doing (again, he incorrectly quotes someone as I have shown he does with Boyd) is the thing his “students” are actually guilty of doing. Bob, perhaps you should look at how many fingers are pointing back at you when you point one at someone else.
Chad
Mar 28th, 2008
Brian James Shanley, Minneapolis, MN
Chad,
Flattery will get you nowhere.
So are you the Methodist that ordains homosexuals and women (like Spong)? Sorry. Just asking.
Mar 28th, 2008
Chad
You have your denominations mixed up, Brian, along with every other fact and comment you have made towards me. I checked out your blog and can see why - your thelogical training amounts to nothing more than your blogs and your “doc.”
I’m done with you guys. Not one of you is a defender of anything but your own ideaologies
God speed.
Mar 28th, 2008
Brian James Shanley, Minneapolis, MN
Chadster:
I wasn’t saying Spong was a Methodist. I was saying that he is of a liberal group, and I was trying to see if you were from a similar background or not. I was respectfully trying to see where you are coming from. You have posted some weird and wild stuff, both on this thread on on the Liberation Theology thread. I wanted to know where it was coming from, that is all.
If I run into Boyd, I will tell him how much of a fan you are. Take care.
Mar 28th, 2008
Travis
I have a question?
Though we label someone a heritic and an Anti-Christ, which needs to be done, can we not have friendship or conversation with these people. What do we do with the rest of the unbelievers? Or is there a distinction between unbeliever and heritic/apostate/anti-Christ?
Mar 28th, 2008
agogley
Travis:
The Bible has much to say on the issue…
Mar 29th, 2008
Denise
Scripture clearly tells us how to deal with heretics :
Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
Tit 3:10 As for a person who stirs up division, AFTER WARNING HIM ONCE AND THEN TWICE, HAVE NOTHING MORE TO DO WITH HIM, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.
Jas 4:4 You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship FRIENDSHIP WITH THE WORLD IS EMNITY WITH GOD? Therefore whoev