Across the Spectrum Quotes

“Most importantly, if we approach the passage with the assumption that the author was concerned with chronology, we miss the profound thematic point the author is making throughout this passage, namely, that God brings order out of chaos. 4.”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“Genesis 1 and the scientific evidence. The literary framework interpretation can easily be reconciled with any contemporary scientific theory of origin one chooses to embrace. Yet at the same time, reconciliation is not necessary. Genesis 1 has no bearing on science, for it is strictly interested in theology, not science. Responding”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“The literary framework view not only avoids this problem but actually explains it. The order of the days is not meant to reflect the chronology of creation. It is rather meant to express thematically the problems of darkness, watery abyss, formlessness, and void expressed in Genesis 1:2. 4.”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“The “days” of Genesis 1 are part of a literary structure that serves to support the theological claim that Yahweh-God alone is Creator-King! They are not meant to satisfy modern curiosity as to how long it took God to create the world. 3.”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“The ancient Near Eastern background. A number of considerations support the literary framework interpretation of Genesis 1. To begin with, an examination of ancient Near Eastern creation literature seems to confirm this view. Over the last century a number of ancient Near Eastern texts have been found that deal with creation and that to some degree parallel Genesis 1. There is often a “six plus one” literary structure to these texts, expressed as the seven “days” of creation. (This is found, for example, in the Enuma Elish as well as in several Ugaritic texts such as Keret, Aqhat, and Baal.) The general pattern of presenting creation in the form of a weeklong period has cultural precedent. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Genesis author was following this cultural pattern to communicate his own view of creation. 2.”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“expresses how the Creator solves the problems he needs to solve in order to bring creation out of chaos. Therefore, we have every reason to suppose that the succession of days was not meant to refer to a chronological succession but to a logical, thematic, and literary succession. In”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“The following chart summarizes the findings. Problem Solution: Stage 1 Solution: Stage 2 Formless void Forming place (days 1-3) Filling void (days 4-6) Darkness Day 1: light/separate darkness Day 4: lights The deep Day 2: heavens/separate waters Day 5: birds/fish Formless earth Day 3: earth/vegetation Day 6: animals/humans Genesis”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“We can appreciate the thematic organization of this chapter best if we step back from the various issues related to particular terms and look at the structure of the chapter as a whole. The first verse (Gen. 1:1) functions as a general introductory statement. The second verse (v. 2) sets forth a problem that the rest of the chapter is going to solve. The problem is one with which ancient Near Eastern people would have been familiar: The world is engulfed in a primordial chaos. More specifically, the earth is enveloped in “darkness,” covered by “the deep,” and in a state that is “formless” and “void” (tohu wabohu). The author’s goal was to show how Yahweh solved each of these problems and thus succeeded in bringing order out of chaos. The creation week is divided into two groups of three days (days 1–3 and 4–6) with the seventh day acting as a capstone. Within each three-day grouping, four creative acts of God are identified by the phrase “Let there be . . .” Most significantly, the creative acts in the second group mirror the creative acts in the first group. That is, day four mirrors day one; day five mirrors day two; and day six mirrors day three. The first set of three days addresses the problems of the darkness, the deep, and the formlessness of the earth as spelled out in v. 2. God addresses these problems by creating spaces within which things may exist. The second set of three days addresses the voidness problem of v. 2. God solves this problem by creating things to fill the spaces he created in the first three days. More specifically, on day one God created light (which addressed the darkness problem) and separated it from the darkness (vv. 3–5). On day two God created the heavens (which addressed the watery abyss problem) and used it to separate the waters above from the waters below (vv. 6–8). On day three God created dry land and vegetation (addressing the formless earth problem) and separated the earth from the waters below (vv. 9–13). Thus, by the end of day three the first three problems had been addressed: darkness, water, formlessness. The second set of three days addresses the final problem of voidness— the lack of things to fill the spaces God has created. This is how the second set mirrors the first set of days. Day four fills the space created on day one. Day five fills the space created on day two. And day six fills the space created on day three. More”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“Rather, it provided a literary framework within which the author could effectively express the Hebraic conviction that one God created the world by bringing order out of chaos. He was interested in thematic rather than chronological organization. The”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“Young earth creationists try to force modern science into a literal reading of Genesis 1. Day-age theorists try to fit Genesis 1 into modern science. Proponents of the restoration view try to have their cake and eat it too by inserting a speculative gap between verses 1 and 2 of this chapter. All three views are fundamentally misguided and are rooted in contradictory opinions about the meaning and significance of various words and phrases in Genesis 1 (e.g., “day,” “formless void”). None of them have seriously considered the more fundamental question concerning the kind of literature we are dealing with in Genesis 1. More”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“1. This view is not traditional. Opponents of the restoration view of creation often object that this view has few representatives in the church tradition. This is true, but two observations qualify its force as an objection. First, evangelicals, and Protestants in general, look to Scripture as their sole authority in matters of doctrine. Therefore, while the absence of precedent for a view should make us cautious, it cannot itself constitute a decisive objection. Second,”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“significant that with the exception of animals and humans (Gen. 1:21, 26–27), Genesis 1 does not use the word “create” (bara ') but “make” ( ' asah). God fashions things out of preexisting material. This observation fits well with the view that Genesis 1 and 2 are talking about the restoration of the world, not its original creation from nothing. Finally, certain otherwise puzzling features of the Genesis narrative become clear in light of the restoration interpretation. For example, God’s command to humankind to “have dominion” seems to suggest that humankind would be met with resistance. The Hebrew term kabash (“dominion”) usually suggests suppression, conquering, or enslaving hostile forces (e.g., Num. 32:22, 29; Josh. 18:1; Neh. 5:5; Jer. 34:16; Mic. 7:19; Zech. 9:15). Along the same lines, God’s command to Adam to “keep” (shamar) the Garden (Gen. 2:15) conveys a sense of “guarding” it from something hostile. It is the same term used to describe the role of the cherubim in keeping Adam and Eve from reentering the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:24). But”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“As a result of the rebellion, ensuing battle, and ultimately God’s judgment, God’s original creation became a “formless void” characterized by “darkness” and covered by “the deep.” Since this concept of a pre-creation battle was widely known among ancient Near Eastern people and among the Jews, as evidenced by the other creation passages that involve conflict, the Genesis author picked up his account where these other accounts left off. He began his narrative with the earth in its destroyed state. He then emphasized the ease with which God re-created his world, thus expressing the victory and sovereignty of the Creator over all forces that oppose him. No other reading of Genesis 1 and 2 can as easily harmonize itself with the biblical data about God’s conflict with forces of evil prior to creation. Fourth,”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“Genesis 1 and 2 are not the only passages of Scripture that refer to creation. Though evangelicals often overlook them, there are in fact a number of other creation passages in the Bible. Interestingly enough, many of these depict God doing battle with hostile forces (e.g., “waters,” “the deep,” “Leviathan”) in order to bring the world into being (Ps. 74:12–17; 89:8–18; 104:1–9). Ancient Near Eastern people generally believed that a war of some sort preceded the creation of the world. These biblical passages appear to express this perspective but attribute the victory over hostile forces to Yahweh rather than to the pagan gods in whom other Near Eastern people believed. The”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“This view is supported by the fact that Isaiah 45:18 says explicitly that the Lord “did not create [the world] a chaos [tohu].” Yet this is precisely how Genesis 1:2 describes the world. Some Old Testament scholars also argue that the verb “was” in Genesis 1:2 can be and perhaps should be translated “became.” If so, Genesis 1:2 suggests that God did not originally create the world a chaos but that it eventually became one. The chaos is the result of God’s judgment. Second,”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“Disagreements over the interpretation of Genesis 1 are not new. Early church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine wrestled with this issue hundreds of years ago. However, the debate within Christian circles over the age of creation has intensified during the last 150 years, largely in response to the Darwinian theory of evolution.”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“If God in fact never changes his mind, saying he does change his mind doesn’t communicate anything truthful: it is simply inaccurate. This observation is especially important when we consider that some passages of Scripture were written for the expressed purpose of encouraging us to believe God is capable of changing his mind (Jer. 18:1–10; 26:2–3, 13) while others depict God’s willingness to change as one of his praiseworthy attributes (Joel 2:13–14; Jon. 4:2). Finally,”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“Scripture describes God’s character as unchanging (Mal. 3:6), but it never teaches that God is unable to change in any respect (e.g., his intentions, experiences). It teaches that the future is settled to the extent God wills it, but it never teaches that the future is exhaustively settled. And it teaches that God sometimes chooses not to change his mind (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Ezek. 24:14; Zech. 8:14) but never that he cannot change his mind. Indeed, passages that reveal God choosing not to change his mind only make sense if God can change his mind when he chooses. Further,”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“non-equilibrium thermodynamics, and other branches of science are now revealing that all of reality is structured as an interplay between determinism and spontaneity. Our own experience reveals the same thing. With every decision we make we reflect a deep conviction that some of the future is settled while some of it is unsettled, left up to us to decide. Far from being problematic, therefore, the balance Open Theists find in Scripture between predestined and foreknown aspects of the future, on the one hand, and open aspects of the future, on the other, is consistent with both modern science and our own experience. In this light, we should have little trouble accepting that the sovereign God is able to foreordain and foreknow that Jesus would be crucified, for example, without having to foreordain or foreknow exactly who would carry this out (Acts 2:23; 4:27). Nor should we find it hard to accept that God can predestine and foreknow that he will have a beloved church without predestining or foreknowing which individuals will and will not choose to belong to his church (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:4–5). 4.”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“Open Theists unequivocally affirm that God is omniscient—that is, God perfectly knows everything there is to know! The disagreement is not about the scope or perfection of God’s knowledge but rather about the content of reality that God perfectly knows. Open Theists simply believe that possibilities are real and that God knows them as such. Some”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“The open view of the future is the most plausible view because it squares with our everyday life. Whatever philosophy we might embrace, we all live as though the open view were true. With every decision we make we assume that much of our immediate future is settled (e.g., we take for granted the ongoing reality of our world and the laws of physics) but that some of it is up to us to decide. The open view simply says that this common-sense assumption is accurate. Responding”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“2. The problem of evil. One has to wonder why God would create beings like Satan and Hitler if he was certain they’d turn out as evil as they did and certain they would end up in hell. We can easily understand why God must allow free agents to do evil and eventually go to hell once he gives them free will, for to revoke this gift once it is given is disingenuous. But why would God give this gift in the first place if he were certain ahead of time that the agent would misuse it to destroy themselves and others? 3”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“1. The nature of freedom. How can we be free and morally responsible for what we do if our future has been settled in God’s mind from all eternity, as both Arminians and Calvinists teach? No one holds that we are morally responsible for events that occurred before we were born, for we have no power to influence the past, and we can’t be morally responsible for events we cannot influence. If God has known from all eternity everything I shall choose to do in the future, however, then the fact that I shall choose something in the future has been settled in God’s mind at every moment in the past. Hence, it seems I have no more power to alter the past-settled fact of what I shall choose than I have to alter any past fact. And it therefore seems I cannot be free to make, or morally responsible for, choices God has eternally known I shall make. For me to be free and morally responsible, the possibility of my choosing otherwise must be real. And since God is omniscient and knows reality exactly as it is, God must know my free future choice as a possibility, not as an eternally settled fact. 2.”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“And Scripture often says that God changes his mind in response to new circumstances or the prayers of his people (e.g., Exod. 32:14; Num. 11:1–2; 14:12–20; 16:20–35, 41–48; Deut. 9:13–14, 18–20, 25; Judg. 10:13–15; 2 Sam. 24:17–25; 1 Kings 21:27–29; 2 Kings 13:3–5; 20:1–6; 1 Chron. 21:15; Jer. 18:7–10; 26:2–3, 19). Indeed, God’s willingness to adjust his plans in light of new circumstances is described as one of God’s attributes of greatness (Joel 2:12–13; Jon. 3:10). It’s hard to understand what these passages mean if God faces an exhaustively settled future. The”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“One final example of the Lord treating the future as a “maybe” must suffice. In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus “threw himself on the ground and prayed, ‘My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me’” (Matt. 26:39, emphasis added). If anything was predestined and foreknown from the creation of the world it was that the Son of God was going to be killed (Acts 2:23; 4:28; Rev. 13:8 NIV). Indeed, Jesus himself had been teaching this very truth to his disciples (Matt. 12:40; 16:21; John 2:19). Yet here we find Jesus making one last attempt to change his Father’s plan, “if it is possible.” Does this prayer not reveal Jesus’ conviction that there was at least a theoretical possibility that another course of action could be taken at the last moment? Of course, in this instance it was not possible. There were other times in Scripture when God was unwilling to change his mind (cf. Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Ezek. 24:14; Zech. 8:14). Yet this doesn’t negate the fact that Jesus’ prayer presupposes that divine plans and possible future events are in principle alterable. And this means that the future is partly open, even if in this instance Jesus’ own fate was not. Other”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“How are humans free and morally responsible if their actions are predetermined? Arminians and Open Theists argue that if God predetermines what humans choose to do, then they aren’t free and morally responsible for their actions. Calvinists offer three responses to this. First, while Calvinists grant that there is an element of mystery here, Scripture teaches both that God determines all that comes to pass and that humans are free and morally responsible. For example, Pilate, Herod, and many others are judged to be “wicked” for crucifying Jesus, yet everything they did was according to “the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23; cf. 4:27–28). Mystery or not, therefore, out of fidelity to Scripture Calvinists feel compelled to affirm that God predetermines the actions of agents in such a way that the agents themselves remain free and are morally responsible for their actions (this view is called “compatibilistic freedom,”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“If God does not know with certainty all that will come to pass, as Open Theism argues, believers cannot have the assurance that God has a purpose for every event of their life. Tragedies may occur that God did not specifically ordain or allow, for he did not even know for certain that they would come about. Against such a notion, Scripture encourages believers to look for the hand of God in the midst of their hardships (Exod. 4:11; Heb. 12:3–13). 2.”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“Most Christians throughout history have believed that God knows everything that is to come. This is often referred to as the “classical” view of divine foreknowledge, and it is still what the majority of evangelicals believe. There are, however, a number of variations within the classical view. Some, called Calvinists, believe that God foreknows all that shall come to pass because he has predestined it. Others, called Arminians, believe God foreknows all things simply because they shall come to pass, though humans to some extent determine it by their free will.”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“Does God already know if you’re going to marry and, if so, who your spouse will be? If this were known with certainty by God before you were even born, do you and your future spouse actually choose each other of your own free will? And what if your spouse tragically ends up cheating on you or turns out to be physically abusive? Did God foreknow this as well? If he did, why didn’t he warn you and steer you toward a spouse with whom he knew you’d “live happily ever after”? In fact, if God foreknows everything ahead of time, why does he create people he knows will abuse others and even people he is certain will go to hell? Doesn’t he want everyone to go to heaven? If,”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology

“Ancient Jews often stated general principles in unequivocal terms for emphasis. We misinterpret them if we understand them as literal, universal laws. For example, Proverbs 12:21 states, “No harm happens to the righteous, but the wicked are filled with trouble” (cf. Prov. 13:21, 25). If read as an absolute universal law, this passage is obvious nonsense. History and our own experience demonstrate that righteous people frequently suffer great harm, while wicked people often live in peace and prosperity. Indeed, Scripture itself repeatedly makes this observation (Job; Ps. 73). As a general principle, however, righteous living helps one avoid harm, while wicked living will lead to trouble. In Proverbs 21:1, therefore, the author is not suggesting that every decision made by every king throughout history was orchestrated by God. He is simply emphasizing God’s general sovereignty over kings. Fourth,”
― Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology