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 Daniel 2:31–45?

Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s dream to the effect that he possesses a kingdom of “gold” (vs. 38). After this there shall arise “another kingdom inferior to yours, and yet a third kingdom of bronze which shall rule over the whole earth. And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron…it shall crush and shatter all these” (vs. 39–40).

There is a good deal of scholarly debate about which kingdoms Daniel is referring to, complicated by the fact that scholars even disagree over the dating and authorship of this work. This need not concern us, however. For the purposes of our present investigation we may grant that the text presupposes that God foreknows the succession and relative strength of several future kingdoms. Does this mean that everything about the future is settled and known by God as such? I don’t see why we should conclude this.

The Lord in his infinite wisdom is able to providentially determine the general duration and parameters of national powers without thereby determining or foreknowing what every free agent within those nations will do. God sovereignly outlines the skeletal structure of his providential plan and allows the decisions of free agents to flesh it out. A ship that is bound for the coast of Italy is in this sense predestined, though the people on the ship are free to move around as they please.

Perhaps a better analogy is to be found in a children’s “Choose Your Own Adventure” book. In these books an author writes a number of possible story lines and allows the reader to create their own story by choosing between them. The author provides a structure to the book as a whole as well as to each possible story line within the overall structure. But there is also room for freedom on the part of the reader to create their own story by choosing between the alternatives that the author has given.

This is a model (albeit, radically simplified) of how we may understand God’s sovereign design allowing for some openness in the future. The “God of the possible” is the author and governor of the whole story line of creation as well as the one who offers various possible alternatives to his human creations. The rise and fall of nations, it seems, is usually providentially guided according to God’s plans for world history (cf. Dan. 2:20). But within this general guidance there is plenty of room for individuals to exercise free will.

Along these lines, Paul proclaims that God “made all the nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live” (Acts 17:26). This is part of the structural outline of God’s plan for world history. These providential parameters certainly condition the scope of human freedom, but they do not destroy it—just as our genes and environment condition our individual freedom without destroying it.

Paul himself says that God sets up these times and boundaries for nations with the hope “that they [the nations] would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him” (Acts 17:27). There is, we see, ordained structure balanced by freedom. God determines whatever he sees fit and leaves as much of the future open to a “perhaps” as he sees fit. The “God of the possible” creates the “Choose Your Own Adventure” skeletal outline of world history within which the possibilities of human free choice are actualized.

Category:
Tags: ,
Topics: ,
Verse:

Related Reading

What is the significance of Jeremiah 3:19–20?

“I thought how I would set you among my children…And I thought you would call me, My Father, and would not turn from following me. Instead, as a faithless wife…you have been faithless to me…” If the future is eternally and exhaustively settled, and if God therefore knows it as such, he could not have…

Topics:

Who Rules Governments? God or Satan? Part 2

In the previous post, I raised the question of how we reconcile the fact that the Bible depicts both God and Satan as the ruler of nations, and I discussed some classical ways this has been understood. In this post I want to offer a cross-centered approach to this classical conundrum that provides us with…

How do you respond to Proverbs 21:1?

“The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he wills.” Calvinists sometimes argue that this passage teaches that everything every government official ever does is the result of the Lord turning their heart. In light of the hideous things many government officials have done (e.g.…

Why do you claim that everybody, whether they know it or not, believes that the future is partly open?

Whatever a person may theoretically believe, they act like the future is partly open. For, as a matter of fact, there’s no other way to act. Think about it. Every time we deliberate between options on the way toward making a decision, we assume (and we have to assume) that a) the future consists of…

Revelation 17:8 refers to people whose names haven’t been written in “the book of life from the creation of the world.” Doesn’t this conflict with open theism?

As in Revelation 13:8, the clause “from the foundation” (apo kataboleis) need not mean “from before the foundation” but simply “from the foundation” (= since the foundation). It’s not that names either were or were not written in the “book of life” before they were ever born. Rather, throughout history, in response to the choices…

The Future of Theology

Chris Moore via Compfight Roger Olson recently published a blog arguing that there really are no new ideas out there in the realm of theology. Everything has pretty much been thought of or proposed. That idea or book that’s causing such a stir? Rewarmed material that someone else already thought of. So what is there…