OPEN THEISM’S ATTACK ON THE ATONEMENT*
John MacArthur
President and Professor of Pastoral Ministries
Open theism arose in evangelicalism over a decade ago when evangelicals posited a God to whom one can easily relate and who is manageable in place of a God who punishes sinners for their sin. This they did by proposing a model of Christ’s atonement that was not substitutionary. To do so they adopted the model of the 16th-century Socinian heresy, which taught that God could forgive without the payment of a ransom.
The biblical doctrine, however, is that Christ’s atonement was substitutionary, a teaching that was not immediately defined in the early church, but which Anselm stated clearly during the 16th century. Open theists on the other hand tend to vacillate between the inadequate positions of Abelard and Grotius in their views of the atonement.
Because of their distorted views of the atonement, open theists do not belong in the ranks of evangelicalism.
* * * * *
https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj12a.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Popular opponents
- John MacArthur
- R.C. Sproul
- Josh McDowell
- D.A. Carson
- A.B.Caneday
- Al Mohler
- Charles Stanley
- Charles Swindoll
- Alistair Begg
- Alister McGrath
- Norman Geisler
- Hank Hanegraaff
- Adrian Rogers
- Millard Erickson
- Douglas Moo
- John Feinberg
- Ken Ham
- D.James Kennedy
- David Jeremiah
- John Maxwell
- Max Lucado
- Tom Schreiner
- John Stott
- Ravi Zacharias
- Charles Colson
- Os Guinness
- J.I. Packer
- Bruce Ware
- John Piper
- John Frame
- William Lane Craig
http://www.theopedia.com/open-theism
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is an excerpt from "The Dangers of Open Theism" by Tim Chaffey
A person’s view of God is extremely important. After all, if one misses the mark on the person and/or work of God, the rest of his theology will likely be askew.[14] Robert Brow, a staunch supporter of open theology, wrote an article inChristianity Today in which he proposed “new explanations for biblical concepts such as divine wrath, God’s righteousness, judgment, the atonement – and just about every aspect of evangelical theology.”[15] If this wasn’t bad enough ponder the following statement by Brow: “‘the cross was not a judicial payment,’ but merely a visible, space-time expression of how Christ has always suffered because of our sin.”[16] This is a classic example of how a warped view of God distorts the rest of one’s doctrines.
We would all benefit from Paul’s exhortation to the young evangelist Timothy.
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness…But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.” (2 Timothy 2: 15 – 16, 23 – 26).
This passage instructs Christians to avoid foolish disputes. Unfortunately, far too many Christians have been led to believe that this exhortation means that we should not ever attempt to debate or correct those who are in error. However, this is not the case for Paul told Timothy to humbly correct those who are in error. This critique of open theism is offered in that spirit. It is not meant to attack the character or faith of any open theist but is designed to show them the error of their thinking so that they may “escape the snare of the devil.”[17]
No comments:
Post a Comment