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 Matthew 21:1–5?
Jesus commanded his disciples, “Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, just say this: ‘The Lord needs them.’ And he will send them immediately” (vs. 1-4).
Though this verse is sometimes appealed to by defenders of the classical view, it does not support their view of an exhaustively settled future. For the Father to reveal this to Jesus he need only know all present circumstances: there’s a donkey and a colt tied up right now somewhere in Jerusalem. If the Lord needed to exercise some providential influence to get the owner of the animals to go along with Jesus’ request, that could be easily accomplished. The fact that Jesus speaks in conditional terms—“If anyone says anything to you”—shows that this is not an infallible preview of an unalterable future.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Open Theism, Q&A
Topics: Open Theism
Verse: Matthew 21
Related Reading
What’s the significance of Acts 17:26-27?
This passage is frequently cited by determinists, for Paul here states that God “marked out” the “appointed times in history and the boundaries” of nations (Ac. 17:26). This doesn’t entail omni-control on God’s part, however. It only entails that God is involved in setting temporal and geographical parameters around nations. Moreover, nothing suggests that God…
How do you respond to Ephesians 1:4-5?
Question: Ephesians 1 refers to believers as predestined before the foundation of the world. How do you reconcile this with your view that free actions of people (like choosing to believe in Christ) can’t be predestined or even foreknown ahead of time? Answer: It took three hundred years before anyone in Church history interpreted the…
Does God Change His Mind?
Classical theologians usually argue that texts that attribute change to God describe how he appears to us; they do not depict God as he really is. It looks like God changed his mind, but he really didn’t. Unfortunately for the classical interpretation, there are many texts that do not say, or remotely imply, that it…
The Case for Including Open Theism Within Arminianism
Here is an excellent post by my good friend Roger Olson in which he makes the case that Open Theism should be embraced by Arminians as an orthodox, if somewhat non-traditional, form of their faith. In fact, Roger argues (rightly in my opinion) that Open Theism is much closer to the “heart” of Arminianism than…
To What Extent is the Future Open to Real Possibilities?
We frequently get questions about the extent to which the future is composed of actual possibilities rather than settled or determined. Here’s what Greg has to say in response to these questions: 1. We can be confident the future is settled, to the extent that the Bible depicts the future as settled. This, of course,…
What do you think of the classical view that God is impassible?
The classical view has historically held that God is impassible, meaning he is above pathos (passion or emotions). The main reason the church came to this view was that, following the Hellenistic philosophical tradition, they associated emotions with change while believing God was above all change (immutable). Moreover, experiencing emotions implies that one is affected…