163
" Similarly, as God “is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked” (Luke 6:35), and as he allows the blessings of nature to come “on the evil and on the good” (Matt. 5:45), so our love must be given without consideration to the relative merits or faults of the person we encounter. We are to love like the sun shines and like the rain falls: indiscriminately. We are to “be merciful, just as [our] Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). We are to give to beggars, lend to those in need, not resist evildoers, and give without expecting anything in return (e.g., Matt. 5:39–42; Luke 6:31–36). In other words, we are to love without strings attached, without conditions, without any consideration whatsoever of the apparent worthiness of the person we encounter. "
― Gregory A. Boyd , Repenting of Religion: Turning from Judgment to the Love of God
166
" 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
173
" Compare the following Synoptic (see Synoptic Gospels) accounts of Jesus’ command to his seventy missionaries. • “Take . . . no bag for your journey, or two tunics, or sandals, or a staff; for laborers deserve their food” (Matt. 10:9–10). • “Take nothing for [your] journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in [your] belts; but to wear sandals and not to put on two tunics” (Mark 6:8–9). • “Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money—not even an extra tunic” (Luke 9:3). The three accounts obviously do not completely agree. Did Jesus say to take a staff, as Mark reports, or not to take a staff, as Matthew and Luke report? Did Jesus say to wear sandals, as Mark’s account says, or not to wear sandals, as Matthew’s account suggests? Such disagreements clearly do not affect the basic teaching all three accounts seek to relay—namely, that disciples were to trust God the Father, not their own provisions, as they carried out the work of expanding God’s kingdom. But just as clearly, the three accounts do disagree and thus cannot in any literal sense be labeled “inerrant.” As a matter of fact, minor inconsistencies such as these occur throughout the Bible. Sometimes they can be explained away; other times they cannot. Even when they cannot be explained, however, they never affect anything important. Minor contradictions in the Bible become a concern only when someone embraces a theory of inspiration that stipulates that such contradictions should not occur—namely, that the Bible is inerrant. If we focus our attention on the infallible teaching of Scripture on matters of faith and practice, however, rather than on whether the Bible is meticulously accurate and consistent in matters of history or science, we are free to see that these inconsistencies and scientific or historical inaccuracies are irrelevant to our faith. Supporting "
― Gregory A. Boyd , Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology
