Should open theist be allowed as members of N.A.E.?

What is "open theism"? I have not heard of this.

I consider all Christians to be theists, as this is one who believes in God. What is the difference?

Thanks.

 

Yup - its international - The Association of Evangelicals of Ireland took the same stand.

 

Open theism is a theological view that says that the future is open even to God. IT says that God does not know the future because the future is unknowable.

Open theism is heresy and outside hte bounds of Christian orthodoxy, IMO. It is a form of process theology that teaches that God is changing. It denies the biblical teaching that God is omniscient.

To read about open theism, you can read Greg Boyd, such as "The God Who Risks" (I think the name is) or some of his other books. Many men have written great refutations of open theism such as Bruce Ware, "God's Lesser Glory."

 

Here is a good link to this heresy, which is even taught by so-called "Evangelicals" like Clarke Pinnock

http://www.carm.org/open/intro.htm

 

I am disgusted with this blatent heresy and with its rapid growth.

 

I agree. What makes it worse, is that many who call themselves "Evangelicals" and "Orthodox" are now spouting this demonic nonsense, which in effect reduces Almighty God to a mere human being, who is as ignorant of the future as we are. It also makes God into a liar, as He has promised us eternal life in Jesus Christ, something that He cannot do if He Himself does not know the future.

 

You can see more of this "doctrine of demons" here

http://www.homileticsonline.com/subscriber/interviews/Pinnock.asp

 

I see Open Theists like I see KJVO #3,4&5, Landmarkists, hypercalvinists, ultradispensationalists, etc. Sincerely wrong Christians on some serious issues.

I agree that they shouldn't be kicked out of the NAE any more than those I listed above should get kicked out if they ever joined.

 

Belizekian is his name. Bilizekian (however you spell it) was a major influence on Hybels in the formative years of Son Light (I think they called it) that later became Willow Creek.

 

What are you on about? None of the list you have provided deny the absolute attributes of God, like Omniscience, etc, or that He is in any way limited. Why should blatant heretics continue to call themselves "Evangelicals" when they deny that God is indeed God? You response appears like the many liberal one that I see all too often today, by those who are not usually liberal themselves. You cannot argue for anyone inclusion in the NAE, based on what others who might already be in it, believe. No, two wrongs certainly do not make a right.

 

Just an fyi that Open Theists would not deny that God is omniscient or that He is Almighty.

I'm not sure if I am allowed to post from sites that support Open Theism but pm me if you are interested in their positions on this.

If you say so.

And neither have Open Theists

Good luck finding Open Theists who do so as well.

I reiterate that I am not an Open Theist and I believe they are wrong. But most criticisms of Open Theism that I've seen are completely missing the point of what they believe and why they are wrong.

 

This is a very good link and does a good job of describing Open Theism "straight from the horses' mouth" while addressing many of the common criticisms.

 

Dr. Norman Geisler, the president of my seminary, resigned from the ETS when they decided not to make the Open Theist views of John Sanders and Pinnock grounds for expulsion by not declaring Open Theism at odds with inerrancy of scripture. To read about this, see
http://tinyurl.com/u37n

For Dr. Geisler's statement on why he resigned from the ETS, see
http://www.ses.edu/NormGeisler/etsresign.htm

Pinnock has been suggesting that God has a body.

Yes, true, but that's because they re-define "omniscience" to mean that God knows all that it is possible to know. This is a distinction without a difference because, in the end, it is still saying God does not know know all.

This page has links to articles refuting Open Theism
http://tinyurl.com/a2exu

John Piper's response to Greg Boyd's views
http://www.ondoctrine.com/2pip1201.htm

 

I am not an open theist. Yet I am not as quick to toss around the word "heretic" as some. I would like to see some of the critics here interact with the Pinnock interview cited earlier:

http://www.homileticsonline.com/subscriber/interviews/Pinnock.asp

It is easy to attack what one thinks others believe. It is more difficult to confront the actual beliefs. Here is your opportunity.

 

Pinnock no only denies and teaches that God does not know the future, which makes God an equal with His creation. But, he also has written against the Inerrancy of the Original Scriptures. His teachings are in clear contradiction with the Word of God, and must therefore be regarded as a "heretic", as opposed to "Orthodox". Would you call Pinnock or others like him, "Orthodox"?