Open Theism: How Big is Your God (2)

First, I want to apologize for my delay in posting this second article on this subject. Nonetheless, a topic of this proportion and magnitude is definitely one that deserves much attention.

In my first post, I mentioned that a new theological fad has surfaced; namely open theism. This second post is mainly geared towards revealing Open theism proponents agenda and their misconceptions.

It is my firm belief that persons who hold to this theology have a twofold purpose. They try to present God as a God of love (which He is) and to answer the fundamental problem of suffering. Therefore, in order to adequately present a loving God, it is much easier for an Open theist to say that God didn't know that a fire would have engulf the house resulting in the death of an infant. Because a loving God simply would not allow stuff like that to happen under his watch. To further solidify my point, an open theist may say, "If God knew that Hitler would kill 6 million Jews, why create him?' Or they might ask, 'Why would God create condemned people if He knew they would never be saved?" "Why would a loving God who knows what the future holds allows perverts, pedophiles and pagans to do whatever they chose?" To many, God would not do such things, but the Bible states in Romans 1:18-32 that God has turned some people over to fulfill their nefarious desires. Therefore, mankind's actions never have and never will catch God by surprise! God has complete knowledge about the future and He never says Oops. However, many advocate of open theism are probably genuinely trying to distant God from any wrong doing but they only achieve in belittling Him.

Does Love means an absence of pain and suffering? There is a plethora of scripture that seems to suggest that love is coupled with suffering and chastistement (Heb 12:6; Prov. 3:12; Phil. 1:29). In fact, pain and suffering is one of the best and most effective tools that God has in His arsenal (Psa. 119:71). God is definitely a loving God. He displayed his love by sending His Son to this sin polluted world to die for sinners. The problem with this view is that it emphasizes one aspect of God's attribute; namely love over the fact that God is also just. In other words, the mere fact that God is love should not negate that He allows and is aware of people who do and can potentially do wrong.

There are two major misconceptions that govern open theists thoughts. The first misconception is that man is free to do whatever he chooses. While man is free to choose, man is not free from the consequences of his choices. Also God can and does choose to intervene at some point (Jonah). Therefore man's freedom does not transcend God's sovereignty. The second Misconception is more of semantics than theology. Open Theists claims that God is omniscience while they propose He doesn't know everything. Omniscience as quoted by Oxford American Dictionary means "knowing everything." Therefore a God with a limited knowledge cannot be called Omniscience and if He is not Omniscience, He is not God. Therefore the implication of this theology is far reaching because it
degrades the nature of God.

Dexter Kirby

Is Christ the King of the Church?

Hymns and praise songs are filled with theology. Sometimes the theology is good, and other times the theology is bad. It seems like a common trend in current praise songs is to refer to Christ as “my king.” Some might say that this is splitting hairs, but one lesson I learned in grad school was that words have meanings. Christians should not just say things because they make for a good rhyme or they feel good to sing. Every word that comes from a Christian’s mouth should be based on the Word of God. The same is true of Christ being referred to as “my king” or “your king” or even the “king of the church.” These regal themes in Scripture need to be examined in light of what Scriptures reveals about the Church.[1] As a side note, this topic deals not only with Christ kingship, it also deals with His Kingdom. A parallel issue that could be raised is the idea of a present Kingdom of God. To stay focused, the subject of Christ’s kingship will only be dealt with.

To understand this issue better, one must understand Christ’s relationship to the Church. Did Christ enter a covenant relationship with the Church? No mention of one is made like the covenantal relationship that God enacted with Abraham and Israel. The Church has a unique relationship with Christ. He is the Head of the Church, the Bridegroom of the Church, and the Chief Shepherd of the Church. He is said to be our Advocate, Mediator, and High Priest. He is referred to as Lord, Christ, and God. But not one time is He called King in reference to the Church. This is not to say that Christ is not a king. On the contrary, Christ is referred to the King of the Jews, the King of Israel, and the King of kings. Yet these references all deal with a future eschatological kingship consummated in the Kingdom Age. So the issue in referring to Christ as King is to say that He is now reigning, that His Kingdom has been established, and that the present age is a realized form of eschatological events.

One needs only to read the New Testament to see that Christ is never said to have ascended to a throne in heaven. On the contrary, Christ has ascended to the right hand of the Father and is awaiting the time where He will come back to reign. Psalm 110:1 makes this plain by saying “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” Verse 2 follows the “until” and speaks of the time when the Messiah will begin His reign. Yet so often, the plain language of this text is ignored and scholars refer to Acts 2 to try to group this text with others.

To use Acts 2 to show how Peter equated the right hand of God as a throne (Davidic or not) one must ignore the main purpose of the Pentecost sermon. The apostles did not preach to proclaim that Jesus was now reigning. The apostolic preaching was centered around the death and resurrection of Christ. Some try to show how Acts 2:30-36 speaks of Christ’s reign on a throne in heaven due to the Davidic Covenant texts quoted by Peter. But if the emphasis of his preaching is the resurrection of Christ, then that must always be kept in mind. Peter mentions the Davidic Covenant to prove the resurrection because only by the resurrection of Christ could the Davidic Covenant be fulfilled (vs. 29-31). Peter even says that he is showing the “resurrection of the Christ” (vs. 31) and not the enthronement of Christ as king.

Some also play word games by matching one word with another word in a different context and allow that to drive their interpretation. Verses 30 & 34 of Acts 2 is a prime example. Verse 30 quotes from Psalm 132:11 speaking of the Davidic throne and uses the word “sit” (καθίζω). Verse 34 quotes from Psalm 110:1 speaking of the position of the right hand of God and uses the word “sit” (κάθημαι). The logic in this word matching is that Peter was using similar terminology to say that the seat in verse 30 is equal to the seat in verse 34. Thus, the position of the right hand of God is a reference to the Davidic throne or at least Davidic rule. This is the position maintained by Progressive Dispensationalism as well as most if not all Covenant Pre-millennialists. Yet the hermeneutical principle of this word matching is sketchy at best. Also, since the words are not exactly the same, it would seem more likely that Peter was making a point by not using the same word. Had he meant to emphasize the word match, it would be more likely that he would use the same word.[2]

Am I splitting hairs? Maybe, but our words have meaning. If we are singing songs about Christ that are not theologically accurate, can we actually be worshipping God in spirit and truth? This subject of the Kingdom is highly debated and this has only been a condensed look – a smaller issue within a much larger one. I want to see discussion on this, but given the topic of the article it would be best to restrict the comments to Christ’s kingship only and not necessarily the Kingdom (although it is difficult to split the two subjects since one is predicated on the other). If we can come to a consensus on Christ’s kingship, then maybe a consensus can be made on His Kingdom.

Timothy L. Decker

[1] The organism of the Church is defined as the body of believers from Pentecost in Acts 2, where Spirit Baptism (which places one into the Body of Christ-the Church, cf. 1 Cor. 12:13) began (Acts 1:5 &Acts 11:15-16), until the Rapture of the Church (1 Thess. 4:13-18) where this dispensation of the Church will end.
[2] While it could be raised that the words are very similar in meaning, their lexical form are obviously different. Also, καθίζω can be transitive or intransitive while κάθημαι can only be transitive. This sets the 2 words apart even farther than their lexical forms.