We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
How do you respond to Galatians 3:8?
“And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.’”
God has never wanted “any to perish”: he’s always desired “all to come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4). God’s goal has always been to reach the entire world with his love. His purpose for electing certain individuals (Abraham, Moses, Jesus) and even a certain nation (Israel) was to eventually raise up a people who would in turn reach the world. So God of course foreknew that the Gentiles would ultimately come to faith through Abraham’s seed. That was part of the reason he called Abraham in the first place. This was noteworthy to some first century Jews only because many had forgotten that the purpose of being “chosen” was to have a vocation of love that was universal in its mission.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Open Theism, Q&A
Topics: Open Theism
Verse: Galatians 3
Related Reading
Greg Boyd Chats with Thomas Jay Oord (podcast)
Greg talks with Thomas Jay Oord about what God can and can’t do. Episode 674 http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0674.mp3
What is the significance of Deuteronomy 13:1–3?
Moses tells the Israelites that God allowed false prophets to sometimes be correct because “the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul.” If God already knows such matters with certainty, Scripture’s inspired description as to why such testings take place…
How do you respond to Joshua 11:19–20?
“There was not a town that made peace with the Israelites, except the Hivites…all were taken to battle. For it was the Lord’s doing to harden their hearts so that they would come against Israel in battle, in order that they might be utterly destroyed…” (cf. Exod. 7:3; 10:1; 14:4; Deut. 2:30) Some compatibilists argue…
Why the 35W Bridge Collapsed – blog post 8/09/2007
As all of you know, I’m sure, a little over a week ago the 35W bridge in Minneapolis collapsed. This is the most traveled bridge in Minnesota. It was a tragedy, though the fact that only 13 people died and/or are presumed dead is really amazing, especially given that this happened at the peak of…
Does your “dispositional” ontology avoid substantival categories?
Question: In Trinity and Process you argue against a “substantival” ontology and instead advocate a “relational,” “process” and/or “dispositional” ontology in which being, being-in-relation and being-in-process are one and the same. In your view, entity x is its relation to entity y (and all other relations) and is the disposition to interact with y (and…
Lighten Up: Underestimated
Frank Viola is at it again. He seems pretty confident that when he and I debate the Open Future this fall that he’ll smear me. That’s his prediction, anyway. The think is, I’ve been underestimated before. It happens all the time. People think I’m this goof who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. That’s OK…