NEW LEAVEN

Boyd is clearly an evangelical, and his form of open-theism is not one based on philosophy as some espouse, but one based on his interpretations of the Bible as God’s Word. Whereas I’ve gone back and forth on the issue, I’ve always respected Boyd.

From my reading of the Open Theists (Boyd, Pinnock and Sanders) I have found them to be somewhat “immature” (the correct adjective is escaping me at the moment) in how they understand Scripture. They don’t seem to have much depth and too often ignore anthropomorphisms.

I think the desired adjective is “shallow”.

They definitely don’t ignore anthropomorphisms, they infact go to great lengths to explain what they are and how they are used and how they are so often misinterpreted by blue print theologians.

tc – glad you’re enjoying his messages. I find him extremely practically challenging and I am eternally grateful for that.

Shallow? Immature? Take it easy Richard! ; )

Bryan

I have Boyd’s God of the Possible. A good example is his take on Isaiah 5, “Surprise at ‘Wild Grapes’”. Boyd asks, “If everything is eternally certain to God…how could the Lord twice say that he ‘expected’ one thing to occur, only to have something different occur?”

Now that is a valid question but the problem with Boyd’s analysis is that it is less than a page and is not true analysis. The basic method of analysis not followed.

1. Form
2. Setting in life
3. Exegesis
4. Application

I am not saying that this is a formula he must follow in presentation but it certainly needs to have been done in the background but the level of argument indicates that it hasn’t.

Isaiah 5:1-7 is a parable where Israel is compared to a vineyard whose owner has lavished a great deal of care upon it only to have the vineyard produce wild grapes. Isaiah is explaining (through song) that Yahweh is justified in punishing Israel. For a good analysis try Oswalt’s NICOT volume on Isaiah 1-39.

This is one example of poor exegetical work (or rather the complete lack of any serious exegesis at all) but it is characteristic of his God of the Possible.

Richard:

So your point is that God never expected Israel to act a certain way in response to love, generosity and care for them? And even though he chose to communicate in the form of a song or parable that he did expect some “fruit” from his people we know he really didn’t because…?

BTW I think you are expecting a bit too much out of God of the Possible. Try his two big books on theodicy (if you already haven’t): “God at War” and “Satan and the Problem of Evil”.

I’m gonna be leaving soon for work so if there is a discussion that ensues here unfortunately I won’t be able to take part in it.

Bryan L

Bryan, God indeed expected Israel to act a certain way in response to love, generosity and care for them. He gave them his Torah and explained what would happen if they failed to live in obedience to the covenant.But this in no way negates the fact that Yahweh knew that they would not live in obedience to the covenant.

So you’re saying you can expect someone to do something but still know they won’t? Hmmm…

I expect that you won’t reply any more.
; )

Bryan L

So you’re saying you can expect someone to do something but still know they won’t?

God is infinite and we are finite so often things seem paradoxical to us. It also depends upon what you mean by expect. When Nelson said “England expects every man to do his duty” he meant “England demands every man to do his duty”. Hence we need to delve into linguistics. It is notable that Oswalt translates the verses as “Then he waited [for it] to produce grapes; but it produced wild grapes…He waited for justice and, behold, oppression; for righteusness and, behold, a cry.”

In Isaiah 5, the context is important and it is lost in the English translation hence the need to consult some good commentaries and learn Ancient Hebrew. Isaiah is rebuking the nation, he uses the simple analogy of the vineyard. The Jews would know that if they tended the vineyard as God had tended Israel they would have a good crop of fantastic fruit, why then had Israel not produced a good crop of fruit? The fault lay with Israel themselves and their stubborn heart. Hence, Isaiah says, Yahweh is fully justified in punishing them.

Isaiah is not writing a treatise on the omniscience of God and so to treat Isaiah 5 as such is a category mistake.

NB: Theologians have distinguished between God’s will of decree and his will of command. We should distinguish between what is our duty and what has decreed to happen.

I expect you not to reply but I actually knew you would. Wait… how does that work?
; )

It also depends upon what you mean by expect.

I meant “expect” in the sense that you believe something will happen a certain way (or at the least you have a strong hope it will). The question is whether qā∙wā(h) in 5:2 and 5:4 is closer to your meaning of “expect” or my meaning.

It is notable that Oswalt translates the verses as “Then he waited [for it] to produce grapes; but it produced wild grapes…He waited for justice and, behold, oppression; for righteousness and, behold, a cry.”

I have Oswalt’s commentary and it’s also notable that he says in commenting on v.2 “He has done all this back-breaking work in the expectation (qāwa, “wait expectantly, hope”) of receiving a crop of good grapes.

It seems like he believes the word is closer to my usage of expect. When Isaiah says “he waited [for it] to produce grapes” it’s communicating the idea that the vineyard owner believed or at least hoped he would see fruit and when Isaiah parallels this in v.7 with God and Israel, God “waited for justice and, behold, oppression; for righteousness and, behold, a cry.” it’s communicating that believed or at least hoped Israel would produce justice and righteousness, however they didn’t.

I have a hard time figuring out what your strategy is for interpreting this verse. On one level you seem to indicate that you believe it’s really important to know what the idea is behind qā∙wā(h) and in fact you think I should even go so far as to learn “Ancient Hebrew” so I can interpret this passage. You believe that somehow we are unable to grasp the context of the passage in English translations but then don’t explain how knowledge of Hebrew is crucial for grasping the context but just explain what the context is in a way that’s pretty straightforward and seems easily grasped from an English translation and without any knowledge of Hebrew.

The Jews would know that if they tended the vineyard as God had tended Israel they would have a good crop of fantastic fruit, why then had Israel not produced a good crop of fruit? The fault lay with Israel themselves and their stubborn heart. Hence, Isaiah says, Yahweh is fully justified in punishing them.

An open theists can agree with everything you just said.

Isaiah is not writing a treatise on the omniscience of God and so to treat Isaiah 5 as such is a category mistake.

Nobody said Isaiah was. The question is whether Isaiah is revealing something about the nature of God–just like we question whether other passages in the Bible that speak of God reveal something about his nature. God said he expected or waited to see justice and righteousness from Israel, hoping that he would, but instead he didn’t. The question then is whether God really did wait, expect or hope. You say no. I say yes. My question then is why when the passage says one thing you are willing to reject it as not really saying that. Why if God says he hoped or expected do you believe he really didn’t? Obviously the answer is going to come down to whatever theological commitment we bring to the text which we believe that it must be interpreted through. That’s fine we all have those theological commitments but then you have to realize that when we begin arguing what passages must mean based on those theological commitments we are no longer talking about exegesis, which is your main beef with Boyd and company, but with systematic theology and that’s a different discussion.

Bryan L

Isaiah is not “revealing something about the nature of God” in any systematic way and that is really my point, we can translate it as ‘expect’ but it is saying nothing about the omniscience of God which is the way in which Boyd takes it. All it is saying is that the failure of Israel is the cause of their punishment. It is a simple parable where Isaiah is using a rhetorical device. To read any more out of it is illegitimate.

The question then is whether God really did wait, expect or hope.

No, the question is whether God really did wait, expect or hope and did not know what would eventually happen. That is the crux of the matter, and this parabolic song does not speak upon this issue.

Richard:

“It is a simple parable where Isaiah is using a rhetorical device. To read any more out of it is illegitimate”

and

“That is the crux of the matter, and this parabolic song does not speak upon this issue.”

Sorry Richard but those are interpretive presuppositions that you bring to the text that it doesn’t automatically support. There’s nothing that says that a parable can not teach us anything about the attributes of God.

Now you might have a case if it weren’t for the fact that God tells the “parable” and then speaks about how that parable actually relates to him by saying what he waited, expected or hoped for but didn’t find with Israel.

“No, the question is whether God really did wait, expect or hope and did not know what would eventually happen.

And if he already knew what would happen then it is disingenuous to say he waited, expected or hoped for something that he had perfect knowledge that it would not happen.

Your original gripe with Boyd was his exegesis which you said was shallow, however you seem to mean it was shallow in the sense that you just didn’t like his conclusion which disagreed with your theological commitments since you haven’t shown how deep exegesis makes the passage say anything else. Instead your strategy is to disqualify this passage from being able to speak about certain topics just because you don’t think it should be allowed to. However I wonder if it instead was a parable that seemed to speak against an open theism view with God specifically relating himself to the situation of the parable by saying his knowledge was such that it was incompatible with open theism, if you would be then appealing to the passage as evidence?

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

Bryan L

Bryan,

I have to confess that Open Theism is not on my radar so I have not thought through a full critique of the position, however in reading Boyd it seems as if the arguments he makes are built on sandcastles. I don’t like his conclusions for the simple reason that I don’t agree with the way he gets there.

Anyway, I am in the process of catching up with my ancient Hebrew lessons and that takes my priority at the moment.

I have been quite impressed by the FOTL volume on Isaiah (pp. 114ff.)

God bless!

Speaking of Isaiah commentaries Ive really been wanting to get the new ICC ones but they’re so expensive. I’ve also wanted the theological commentary by Goldingay on the 3rd part of Isaiah but it too is really expensive. Oh well.

Bryan

I have the Hermeneia volune on Deutero-Isiah on order, (see).

Bryan,
Can’t those pricey commentaries be borrow through inter-library loan? Just a thought. BTW, I’m an Open Theist and I also believe in Realized Eschatology. If anyone would like to continue the discussion I would gladly participate.

I’ve read a couple of Boyd’s books. I’m not too familiar with his view on open theism, am still studying it. However, in reading and listening to Boyd, he is passionate for the gospel.
I like his stand against what he calls “civil religion” in America. There is a fusion of the Evangelical church and politics in America which disfigures the true picture of the living Christ.

For me, I don’t get the same passion from Piper or McArthur. I say Right On to Boyd

Boyd’s God of the Possible is an introductory work, and does not deal with open theism in-depth. I think Boyd lays out some good initial arguments, but a few of them are weak.

For a detailed treatment of Open Theism, including treatment of methodology, exegesis, and language, see John Sanders’ The God Who Risks, 2nd edition. Currently, this is the definitive work for open theism. Clark Pinnock’s Most Moved Mover also addresses many critiques of open theism. From a Biblical Studies perspective, Terrance Fretheim’s The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective is a classic.