Greg Boyd in General, sermon in particular

Hey all I have not posted for a while here, but I wanted to see what ya'll think of Pastor Greg Boyd.

I believe I first heard of Greg Boyd from a video link from sermonindex.net, the documentary "Jesus of Testimony" which is really good:

Documentary Movie: Jesus Of Testimony - Nesch Bros - SermonIndex Channel
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAMODGaPRE8

Anyway, I didn't realize who most of those theologians were in that documentary, but they were very good.

I did not know who Greg Boyd was, nor that he was controversial in his "open theism"... but I have to say after reading and watching some of his material, he puts a lot of the ideas that had been bouncing around in my head for years into clear thoughts and arguments from the scripture. It feels like a God send. I had also previously been reading some early church fathers to try to understand things better as well, like Irenaeus.

Here's a video by him Greg Boyd.

The Story of Salvation | Greg Boyd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6sl-BorLdA

Anyway, Open Theism seems to make a lot of sense, simply put that not all things are predetermined due to God granting free will to humans and angels. Irenaeus talked about free will too.

Greg in his book "God of The Possible" goes through many scriptures discussing what the Classical View is compared with what an Open Theistic view would be.

Anyone one else read up on Open Theism? Anyone else look into the various scriptures concerning the topic? Thanks

I was involved in another forum that debated open theism for pages and pages and pages.

The basic premise is that the future does not exist now, so God technically does not know the future. But being God He knows every possible future.

"Anyone one else read up on Open Theism? Anyone else look into the various scriptures concerning the topic?"

Yes to both questions.

The false teaching of "Open Theism" certainly does not represent the God which we worship, Who has revealed Himself in Holy Scripture.

Draw near to Him and come to Know Him in His fullness and His Spirit will surely reveal to you that He is not the one that they are presenting, but rather an image of their own finite minds which is much more of a reflection of themselves than the Almighty One Who is from everlasting to everlasting.

Those "ideas that had been bouncing around in my head for years" as you say, have now given birth by a surrogate father of sorts.

And as far as you believing that this all "seems to make a lot of sense", I'd remind you that our God is super-natural and you cannot make sense of much of the christian faith. Not that we have a blind faith. Not at all. But, there's so much that we cannot prove to one who is merely operating by their natural senses.

Think long and hard about these things, and commune much in your closet with this God Who has said, "I Am that I Am."

Hey TMK been a while since I read a post from you. Been a while since I've checked out this forum. Hey Savannah I remember your username as well in the past postings.

So since I am not seminary trained--nor extremely good at gathering my thoughts into coherent arguments--although I do study and I have dug into the Hebrew/Greek and early church fathers some with my Logos software--I am just going to literally paste verbatim a large section of what I am having the "windows reader" read back to me literally right now from the book "God of the Possible" by Greg Boyd.

I would really love to see if you can keep your original views after reading just a few large chunks! haha =)

-------
From:

Book: "God of The Possible" year 2000, by Greg Boyd:

Chapter 2 The God Who Faces a Partially Open Future

...

Further Examples of Divine Mind Changes

This theme is far more pervasive in Scripture than most believers realize. Consider briefly the following small sampling.

Exodus 32:14. Because of Moses’ intercessory prayer, "the LORD changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people.” David later recounts this episode when he notes that the Lord "said he would destroy them””had not Moses, his chosen one, stood in the breach before him, to turn away his wrath from destroying them” (Psalm 106:23). Did God really plan on destroying Israel, and did he really change his mind?

Exodus 33:1”“3, 14. In the light of Moses’ pleading, the Lord reversed his plan not to go with the Israelites into Egypt. Was God simply toying with Moses when he told them he was planning on not going?

Deuteronomy 9:13”“29. The Lord "intended to destroy” the Israelites (v. 25), and was even "ready to destroy” Aaron (v. 20). Moses’ forty-day intercession altered God’s intention (vv. 25”“29). Is Scripture speaking truly when it tells us God intended to do something he later decided not to do? Could God truly intend to do something he was eternally certain he wouldn’t do?

1 Samuel 2:27”“31. Because Eli "scorned” God’s sacrifices and did not punish his sons for their vile behavior, the Lord says, " ‘I promised that your house and your father’s house would minister before me forever.’ But now the LORD declares: ‘Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained. The time is coming when I will cut short your strength and the strength of your father’s house’ ” (vv. 30”“31 NIV). Could God have authentically promised Eli something he eternally knew would never take place?

1 Kings 21:21”“29. The Lord tells Ahab, "I will bring disaster on you” because of his sin (v. 21). Ahab humbles himself before God, and the Lord responds: "Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the disaster in his days” (v. 29). Is not the easiest reading of texts such as these one that simply admits that God truly intended to bring disaster and then changed his mind in response to human repentance?

2 Chronicles 12:5”“8. The Lord was going to allow the Israelites to be conquered because of King Rehoboam’s rebellion. "You abandoned me, so I have abandoned you to the hand of Shishak” (v. 5). The king and his officers repent, so the Lord changes his plan. "They have humbled themselves; I will not destroy them … my wrath shall not be poured out on Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak” (v. 7). Could God really intend to deliver the Israelites over to Shishak if he was eternally certain he wouldn’t?

Jeremiah 26:2”“3. The Lord tells Jeremiah to prophesy to Israel that they should repent, saying, "I may change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on [Israel] because of their evil doings” (v. 3). If in truth God never changes his mind, is he not lying when he tells the Israelites that he might do so? Is there not something odd going on in evangelicalism today when certain believers (open theists) are labeled heretical for taking God’s promise ("I may change my mind”) literally? Indeed, isn’t the point of this and similar passages (see Jer. 18:7”“10; 26:19; Joel 2:12”“13; Jonah 4:2) precisely to encourage people to think about God as one who really is willing to change his mind? Can anyone be faulted for taking this encouragement to heart?

Ezekiel 4:9”“15. As an object lesson, the Lord tells Ezekiel to cook some food using human excrement as fuel (vv. 12”“13). Ezekiel finds this too offensive and objects. So the Lord says, "I will let you use cow’s dung instead of human dung” (v. 15). The passage reveals God’s willingness to adjust his plans in response to the sentiments of his children. What was the point of God’s first command if he was certain he would revise it in the light of Ezekiel’s objection?
Amos 7:1”“6. The Lord revealed two judgments he was planning on bringing upon Israel. Twice Amos intercedes, and twice Scripture says, "The LORD relented concerning this …” (vv. 3, 6). Was the Lord simply toying with Amos when he showed him what he planned on doing to Israel? Is there any other way to view God’s interaction with Amos if we believe that God was certain all along that he wasn’t going to bring these visions about?

Jonah 3:10. God "changed his mind” about the destruction he planned to carry out on Nineveh. Note, neither this nor any other verse says or even remotely suggests that God appeared to change his mind. It simply says, in as plain and straightforward a way as can be imagined, that God "changed his mind.”

The list could be expanded, but the point has been made (see the appendix for further examples). Clearly, the motif that God changes his mind is not an incidental one in Scripture. It runs throughout the biblical narrative and is even exalted as one of his praiseworthy attributes. It is very difficult to see how passages such as these can be fairly interpreted if we assume that the future is exhaustively settled and known by God as such.

If we simply free ourselves from the Hellenistic philosophical assumptions that God must be unchanging in every respect and that time is an illusion, we will be able to embrace the plain meaning of these texts along with the glorious picture of divine sovereignty and openness that they engender. God is not only the God of future certainties; he’s the God of future possibilities.

-------

What Boyd is saying, said another way, is that if God knows with certainty what I will have for lunch tomorrow, then I have no free will in the matter. God’s perfect foreknowledge is not consistent with free will, no matter how you slice it or how free you feel.

I have said before that if God knows with meticulousness everything that will happen, then He must be infinitely bored.

There are other ways of looking at time and how God may exist in or out of time that may solve these problems, but they cannot be solved by simply saying God knows the future and that’s that.

"I would really love to see if you can keep your original views..."

It's no challenge at all. Boyd mars the character of God in his feeble attempt to bring God down to the level of a creature. "Canst thou by searching, find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?” (Job 11:7).

"...although I do study..."

If you do study as you say, I'd recommend
Stephen Charnock, Discourse 8, on God's Knowledge in his book "The Existence and Attributes of God."

It may do you well on this topic. Far better than Boyd in my opinion. I would not recommend him to anyone.

Here's an excerpt from the book by Charnock,

PSALM 147:5.””Great is our Lord, and of great power; his understanding is infinite.

As God is Almighty, so he is omniscient; and as there is no end of his power, so no account can exactly be given of his understanding; his understanding is infinite, no end of his understanding: (Syriac) no measure, no bounds. His essence is infinite, and so is his power and understanding; and so vast is his knowledge, that we can no more comprehend it, than we can measure spaces that are without limits, or tell the minutes or hours of eternity.

In his knowledge, "his understanding is infinite:” His understanding is his eye, and his power is his arm. God hath an infinite knowledge and understanding. All knowledge. Omnipresence respects his essence; omniscience respects his understanding, according to our manner of conception. This is clear in Scripture; hence God is called a God of knowledge (1 Sam. 2:3), "the Lord is a God of knowledge,” (Heb.) knowledges, in the plural number, of all kind of knowledge; He knows what angels know, what man knows, and infinitely more; he knows himself, his own operations, all his creatures, the notions and thoughts of them; he is understanding above understanding, mind above mind, the mind of minds, the light of lights; the Greek word signifies in the etymology of it, to see, to contemplate.The names of God signify a nature, viewing and piercing all things; and the attribution of our senses to God in Scripture, as hearing and seeing, which are the senses whereby knowledge enters into us, signifies God’s knowledge. The Egyptians represented God by an eye on the top of a sceptre, because God is all eye, and can be ignorant of nothing.

The knowledge of God in Scripture hath various names, according to the various relations or objects of it: in respect of present things, it is called knowledge or sight; in respect of things past, remembrance; in respect of things future, or to come, it is called foreknowledge, or prescience (1 Pet. 1:2). God knows all other things, whether they be possible, past, present, or future; whether they be things that he can do, but will never do, or whether they be things that he hath done, but are not now; things that are now in being, or things that are not now existing, that lie in the womb of their proper and immediate causes. If his understanding be infinite, he then knows all things whatsoever that can be known, else his understanding would have bounds, and what hath limits is not infinite, but finite. If he be ignorant of any one thing that is knowable, that is a bound to him, it comes with an exception, a but, God knows all things but this; a bar is then set to his knowledge.

That God knows all things future, consider,

The predictions of future things evidence this. There is not a prophecy of any thing to come, but is a spark of his foreknowledge, and bears witness to the truth of this in the punctual accomplishment of it; this is a thing challenged by God as his own peculiar, wherein he surmounts all the idols that man’s inventions have godded in the world (Isa. 41:21, 22): Let them bring them forth (speaking of the idols) and show us what shall happen, or declare us things to come: show the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods. Such a fore-knowledge of things to come, is here ascribed to God by God Himself, as a distinction of him from all false gods; such a knowledge, that if any could prove that they were possessors of, he would acknowledge them gods as well as himself: "that we may know that you are gods.” He puts his Deity to stand or fall upon this account, and this should be the point which should decide the controversy, whether he or the heathen idols were the true God; the dispute is managed by this medium,””He that knows things to come, is God; I know things to come, ergo, I am God; the idols know not things to come, therefore they are not gods; God submits the being of his Deity to this trial. If God know things to come no more than the heathen idols, which were either devils or men, he would be, in his own account, no more a God than devils or men, no more a God than the pagan idols he doth scoff at for this defect.

How much, then, is God beholden to the Socinians for denying the knowledge of all future things to him, upon which here he puts the trial of his Deity? God asserts His knowledge of things to come, as a manifest evidence of His Godhead; those that deny, therefore, the argument that proves it, deny the conclusion too; for this will necessarily follow, that if he be God, because he knows future things then he that doth not know future things is not God; and if God knows not future things but only by conjecture, then there is no God, because a certain knowledge, so as infallibly to predict things to come, is an inseparable perfection of the Deity: it was, therefore, well said of Augustin, that it was as high a madness to deny God to be, as to deny him the foreknowledge of things to come. The whole prophetic part of Scripture declares this perfection of God; every prophet’s candle was lighted at this torch; they could not have this foreknowledge of themselves. Now prediction is nothing but foretelling, and things foretold are not yet come, and the foretelling of them supposeth them not to be yet, but that they shall be in time; several such predictions we have in Scripture, the event whereof hath been certain.

If God did not know all future things, he would be mutable in his knowledge. If he did not know all things that ever were or are to be, there would be upon the appearance of every new object, an addition of light to his understanding, and therefore such a change in him as every new knowledge causes in the mind of a man. Though this be certain, that God foreknows all things and actions, yet the manner of his knowing all things before they come,is not so easily resolved. We must not, therefore,deny this perfection in God, because we understand not the manner how he hath the knowledge of all things. It were unworthy for us to own no more of God than we can perfectly conceive of him; we should then own no more of him than that he doth exist. "Canst thou,” saith Job, "by searching, find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?” (Job 11:7).

If you are interested in reading more, it's available online.

If there is no future **now**, then it is not an assault on God’s omniscience or omnipotence to say that He does not know it. There is simply nothing to know.

God cannot make square circles. This also is not an assault on his omnipotence.

TMK (Todd) I used to let the idea (I think as I heard from Zac Poonen) roll around in my head about mixing free will with the full foreknowledge of God.. as in:

"God knows everything, even though we still have free will, we humans just can't understand how He has foreknowledge of everything."

Basically that the two mutually coexist, but we just can't understand how that can be since we would have to be God to understand that. Hence the problem.

But honestly that never really felt right. I tried to just accept it.

And as I read scripture, it sure seemed like God deals with people in a very dynamic way, being willing to "change his mind" as seen in the verses quoted above from the book.

If all future possibilities are set and known ahead of time, it would be really weird approaching God. And I have to say, approaching God in a dynamic way, where my prayers can co-work with God for greater good, seems way more enjoyable to God himself, as a father of children, not robots who don't even know they are only doing what he already knows they are going to do.

It just makes more sense to think of God dealing with us in a open dynamic type of way. Of course, God can predetermine/foreknow some things or lots of things, whatever, but as this book talks about, the scriptures seem to indicate that God has not predetermined and foreknown every single exhaustive detail in advance. Not fully open and not fully closed, so to speak. And the verses used to defend full foreknowledge are not necessarily implying "everything" as this book also goes through all those proof texts.

Of course God can analyze humans and events better than anyone else--so he would naturally have extreme predictive power. He can see the heart--the intentions and thoughts of a person, like no one else.

As for sovereignty, Boyd says that its not a blow to God's greatness to see sovereignty within the open theistic view, but that its even more glorious of God to be able to work out his purposes and predetermined plans with free will agents where not all details have been exhaustively settled. For example, God could have used many different Roman soldiers to pierce Jesus in the side, on the cross, for the prophesy to be fulfilled. Right?

Boyd also says that we deal in "openness" every day of our lives. As in, we can all go to the store or the park tomorrow. But not many of us can walk into the White House or fly to the Moon tomorrow. Some things are open, and some things are more closed for each of us. Some people can fly to Tahiti tomorrow and rent a beach house for a couple weeks. Some don't have the money. So his point was that we deal in an "openness" type of way in our everyday lives as well. Some things are more open, some things are more closed, in terms of free will possibilities.

And knowing what it feels like to be "led by the Spirit" or "loving led to do something", I can see it would not be hard for God to work out his will by his Spirit.

I personally have always thought saying "God is in control" is a very bad/weird thing to say (esp in the earshot of someone who went through abuse or war, natural disaster or suffered greatly). Sure God helps, and strengthens in difficulties, sends people to help, and can work out all things for good. But to say God is in control, and predestined all kinds of evil things to happen. Weird.

I used to just accept it, that I "just don't understand".

But hell, Boyd goes through all these verses and shows how God's not even that way! *sigh*

//If all future possibilities are set and known ahead of time, it would be really weird approaching God. And I have to say, approaching God in a dynamic way, where my prayers can co-work with God for greater good, seems way more enjoyable to God himself, as a father of children, not robots who don't even know they are only doing what he already knows they are going to do.//

Bingo.

If we remember that God is infinitely wise, and has all possible knowledge and facts, and as you say can know all peoples thoughts and the way they think, it is not hard to see how God can orchestrate events so as to fulfill certain prophecies.

I know it makes people very squeamish to consider the idea that God does not know the future. But if you start from the premise that the future does not exist now, the squeamishness should disappear.

Exactly.

What's interesting too about this book is that Boyd covers both the texts that show "openness" and also goes over all the "proof texts" for "exhaustively settled foreknowledge/predestination".

He shows they do not prove "all future is exhaustively settled" but that the balance of all these scriptures show "some settled" and "other non-exhaustively settled" future things.

And that God can and does "change his mind" according to his "unchanging holy character" like his holy and loving desire to forgive and not bring previously spoken calamity if true repentance is shown. (Jonah, etc)

I like that. Because its a balance between foreknowledge and free will that makes much more sense to me.

Similar to how I used to think a middle ground view of Calvinism versus Arminianism made more sense.

Hi Todd
Then how did He know that Israel would be in exile for 70 years as prophesied through Jeremiah?

Or how could he say this to Abraham? -
Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years.

Hi JB- I think I answered that in my last post. I am not saying God does not or cannot orchestrate things. If He wanted an exile to last 70 years He could make that happen.

I think its common that "openness theology" is seen right away as "No foreknowledge or predestination at all whatsoever".

That's actually what I also thought at first myself.

But Complete Openness itself also does not square with scripture and prophesies.

And that is not what "openness theology" is in fact.

Openness is just that some things are open and some things are closed.

Where as "Full Foreknowledge and Predestination of an exhaustively settled future" is "Fully Closed", not open at all in terms of possibilities.

Which would also seem like we don't actually have free will. And God would be just watching play out every detail of what He already foreknew. Weird.

So all his words in the prophets dealing with people would seem really strange if he already foreknew everything exhaustively settled. Why tell them to repent if he already knew? He's dealing with a concrete exhaustively settled world as if its not exhaustively settled. (*huh?* face. =) )

And the Boyd goes through all these verses and shows "Fully Closed" as well as "Fully Open", both extremes, do not square with scripture. Hence "Openness Theology", a middle ground.

Here's a sermon from today Woodland Hills Church, Sunday 12/12/2021, by Pastor and Dr. Greg Boyd in case anyone is curious of an up to date message by him.

This is a really helpful message for me to hear personally. Half way through right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFy6XC9KErc

I have listened to some more Dr Pastor Greg Boyd recently.

Specifically his book Cross Vision where he tries to reconcile the OT brutality with the NT love and self sacrifice.

That seemed very interesting to me, since that has been a tough subject for me as well, ever since I went from atheist to theist.

First though, I just want to say that while watching the 2nd or 3rd sermon by him, I had the thought: "he seems like a heretic for some reason".

This was weeks ago, before I started reading this book Cross Vision.

Now contrary to some opinions out there, I actually really respect and regard some of his ideas and insights.

But in the audio Cross Vision book he basically just said ( Chpt 4 maybe, ~2 hrs in) that Jeremiah, for example, was not prophesying the brutality completely from God, but it was clouded by Jeremiah's own humanity, so not completely a prophecy from God.

Now that's totally fine to think about that possibility, to consider these types of possibilities and all, to be analytical and open to whatever the truth may be...

But, I have to say, I don't think the apostles and early church fathers believed such things....

Paul did say in 1 Cor "we prophesy in part, but then we will know in full"

Jesus did say "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so"

I can totally imagine a human prophet of God, letting his/her own humanity into the equation of prophecy.

I just did not think this actually was the case with the Biblical Scriptures.

I've never heard any pastor say this before.

It seems heresy to say this. Not the most dangerous heresy, he still loves and follows Jesus, but still heresy.

Anyway, like I said, I can totally see the humanity come out in certain circumstances even with a true prophet of God... but still...

He does make a good case for this idea in this book, and there are lots of beneficial points... but man... I have NEVER heard anyone teach that.

TMK, have you heard this before?

Yes- but moreso in regard to Moses. Some folks believe some of what Moses wrote in some of the law was from his own head (at least in part) as opposed to 100% from God. I’m not sure what to make of this; there is no way to prove or disprove it.

In regard to the horrible stuff in the OT, my go-to approach is to read everything through the lens of Jesus, as Jesus is the perfect representation of the heart of the Father.

hey TMK thanks for the dialogue here.

So I am actually somewhat OK with seeing the human element come through, say with Moses. And maybe Moses did have some authority, since God seems to give his people some. "Whatever is bound on earth, is bound in heaven" -Jesus

And I totally understand why ANY believer in the gospel would see the logic of trying to re-lens everything as best they can through Jesus/Cross.

However, it seems to go a bit too far when, for example, original doctrines start being dismissed.

Like when hell punishment becomes a "metaphor". I'm okay with eventual annihilation, I've studied the greek word "aion" and "aionios" and "aidios", but a complete "metaphor" when evil people don't actually suffer more than the equivalent evil they have done to other people?

But to your point:

"In regard to the horrible stuff in the OT, my go-to approach is to read everything through the lens of Jesus, as Jesus is the perfect representation of the heart of the Father."

Yes, but I do not believe that Jesus, being the perfect representation of the heart of the father, is void of "long lasting fire punishment/torment for evil", or that it means the father did not command "calamity" on nations/people throughout the history of the world, which is what Boyd seems to be saying.

Boyd is basically saying, "Everything that is not self-sacrificial, is not from God". Like the laws of stoning children for rebellion are not from God, since Boyd's idea of Jesus on the Cross would never put a son to death for rebellion.

I can see "some" human contamination", so to speak. But... um... how can we "lens" so much to get past the "global deluge" which destroyed MANY people, some not as bad as others, which is clearly evidenced in the rocks?

What I mean is, he is taking his picture of "love" and "self-sacrifice" on the cross to mean something that I don't think it means. He has his own version of what he think Jesus means, and applies that to the OT.

The demons said "have you come to torment us before the time?"...

Jesus: "No I would never torment anyone, or put anyone to death by stoning for any reason, I came to show self-sacrificial love on the cross and love everyone with this gummy bear type of love"

This version of Jesus just does not add up for me.

I just see God mixing it up, since all have sinned, God cannot have slightly better sinners put to death worse sinners, since its still hypocrisy. God had to start anew, because God is above it all and divine. Meaning, the OT laws are just right and good, but God made those laws to KEEP people from evil, although imperfect, not because he WANTED to judge people but because he wanted them not go down the downward spiral of destruction, like other nations. But the Laws are just and holy, like Paul said.

Since Israel had fallen so much, God could no longer use Israel as an example to the world, so he did something "else" to "bring in righteousness", which was His whole point of the OT law and Israel in the first place, an example to the world (think King Solomon having nations come to see him).

Obviously Jesus did bring in righteousness, seeing how much more effective Jesus has been over Israel.

I don't see Jesus "love" the same way Boyd does. But I do like Boyd and I am going to see what else I can learn from him.

It also makes sense, with God inaugurating "this new and living way", due to the fact that Israel became so bad/sinful that God had to do something else, since he can't have sinners judging worse sinners, since the point of the OT law was to keep Israel pure, so who's going to be the pure ones to put to death the impure ones, all are impure, so now ALL have to show mercy to others in the NT, there is no more OT judging in the NT, but "love your enemies", "do good to those who hate you". It seems "out of the character of God"... but not if you consider the whole point of the OT law was the keep people from destroying themselves with sin/evil. That IS loving of God to give those laws, and when Israel failed, to start something new based on mercy for all who believe... and those who receive mercy have to give mercy. That makes sense to me. Also a lot of these ideas came from my reading of the early church father Irenaeus Against Heresies. Very helpful father.

I also wanted to add, since Boyd also quotes Irenaeus:

"There is no violence/force/coercion in the character of God"

which I have also read and really benefited from those chapters in Book III and Book IV of Against Heresies:

I believe Boyd has not understood the difference in "controlling" a person "before" they sin (no coercion with God), versus a just judgement "after" they do evil.

"Violence" done to an evil-doer "after" they sin does not mean that God is a violent being, but rather that God is "just", and himself hates violence and only brings violence back upon the head of the violent.

As a holy God, God must uphold justice so He himself will not lose the throne of the Universe, by not upholding "his word".

That's why He Himself had to die a criminal's death in order to forgive "evil/sin" without losing his throne. He can still uphold his word and forgive sin by dying for the sin of the world. However, violence done upon the violent is still "just" and "deserved", but does not mean God has "violence in his character" or wanted any violence whatsoever at all from the beginning.

The Wisdom of Solomon book (Deuterocanon) describes the evil these Canaanites were doing before they were destroyed by Israel: man, woman, child, animal.

Wisdom 12:3-11:

"Those who lived long ago in your holy land you hated for their detestable practices, their works of sorcery and unholy rites, their merciless slaughter of children, and their sacrificial feasting on human flesh and blood. These initiates from the midst of a heathen cult, these parents who murder helpless lives, you willed to destroy by the hands of our ancestors, so that the land most precious of all to you might receive a worthy colony of the servants of God. But even these you spared, since they were but mortals, and sent wasps as forerunners of your army to destroy them little by little, though you were not unable to give the ungodly into the hands of the righteous in battle, or to destroy them at one blow by dread wild animals or your stern word. But judging them little by little you gave them an opportunity to repent, though you were not unaware that their origin was evil and their wickedness inborn, and that their way of thinking would never change. For they were an accursed race from the beginning, and it was not through fear of anyone that you left them unpunished for their sins." NRSV

And that God patiently was trying to convict them to repentance. Until finally "ripe for judgement". Zac Poonen described the Canaanites unrepentance to God's ongoing conviction leading them to be a "cancer that must be cut off or it will corrput the whole body/world". In that sense it was loving of God to stop the corruptions of Sodom/Gomorrah, Cannan, etc. And some cultures were more wicked than others.

That seems to make more sense to me than Boyd basically saying "The Bible is divinely inspired but not historically accurate". Wow. NEVER heard a leading "biblical" pastor say that.

Also, I'm curious what Boyd's commentary on 1 Peter 1:19-21:

"And we have more firm the prophetic word, to which we do well giving heed, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, till day may dawn, and a morning star may arise””in your hearts; this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private exposition, for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake." YLT

"So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." NASB