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.

Doesn’t the open view demean God’s sovereignty?

The Open view demeans God’s sovereignty only if one assumes that “sovereignty” means “meticulous control.” By why think this is the way God wants to rule the world? The biblical narrative presents a God who gives humans (and apparently angels) free will, who is flexible and creative in running the world, and who relies at least as much on his wisdom as he does his power. (Think about it–if God controlled everything he’d never have to rely on his wisdom at all).

This view of sovereignty, I would argue, is much more exalted than a meticulously controlling view. In the open view, God is free to determine some aspects of the future according to his will and to anticipate and address his creatures’ choices within the parameters he has established for them. He is free to cultivate real, meaningful and transforming relationships with them, to respond to their fervent and effectual prayers, and even to empty himself and become one of them in the person of Jesus Christ so that they could be reconciled to him. God’s sovereignty is not threatened by these things—rather, it is amplified all the more by them. A smaller god would feel threatened if he didn’t meticulously control everything. The confident God of Scripture is not.

Category:
Tags: ,
Topics:

Related Reading

Love and Free Will

God could have easily created a world in which nothing evil could ever happen. But this world would not have been capable of love. God could have preprogrammed agents to say loving things and to act in loving ways. He could even have preprogrammed these automatons to believe they were choosing to love. But these…

Did Free Will Evolve? (podcast)

Greg considers how free will emerged from the churning chaos of evolution..  Episode 613 http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0613.mp3

Does your “dispositional” ontology avoid substantival categories?

Question: In Trinity and Process you argue against a “substantival” ontology and instead advocate a “relational,” “process” and/or “dispositional” ontology in which being, being-in-relation and being-in-process are one and the same. In your view, entity x is its relation to entity y (and all other relations) and is the disposition to interact with y (and…

God Clearly Can, So Why Doesn’t He? (podcast)

Leah expects more from God. Should she? Greg confronts God’s inactivity and underperformance.  Episode 510 http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0510.mp3

A Very Brief History of Open Theism

While the open view of the future has always been a very minor perspective, it has had its defenders throughout Church history and it has never been called “heresy” (until in mid 1990s when some started using this label). According to some African American church leaders, it has been the predominant view in the African…

Podcast: Does the Cruciform Hermeneutic Sabotage Open Theism?

Greg plays Peek-a-Boo with God and considers whether those verses Open Theists use to support Open Theism might simply be times when God is accommodating for us. http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0236.mp3