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.
What is the significance of 2 Kings 20:1–7?
The Lord tells Hezekiah “[Y]ou shall die: you shall not recover” (vs. 1). Hezekiah pleads with God and God says, “I will add fifteen years to your life” (vs. 6).
If everything about the future was exhaustively settled and known by God as such, his prophecy to Hezekiah that he was going to die would have been manipulative and his declaration that he was now adding years to his life inaccurate. The prophecy is straightforward only if it expresses God’s true intention at the time he gave it. And for this to be possible it could not have been an eternally foregone conclusion that he was going to spare Hezekiah’s life.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Open Theism, Q&A
Topics: Open Theism
Verse: 2 Kings 20
Related Reading
How do you respond to Romans 11:36?
“For from him [God] and through him and to him are all things.” Calvinists sometimes cite this doxology as evidence that Paul believed that every single event in world history was from, through and for God. In light of the fact that the verses leading up to this doxology address God’s genuine frustration with Israel’s…
Is exhaustively settled foreknowledge essential to God’s identity
In this episode Greg discusses several passages in Isaiah that imply God’s foreknowledge is a primary differentiator between Isaiah’s God and all other gods. Links: Greg’s book: “God of the Possible“ http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0023.mp3
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,…
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…
What is the significance of Jonah 1:2; 3:2, 4–10; 4:2?
God “changed his mind” (3:10) about the destruction he planned to carry out on Nineveh. If all events in history are eternally settled and known by God as such, his word to Jonah that he planned to destroy Nineveh in forty days was insincere as was his inspired testimony that he in fact changed his…
Isn’t Open Theism outside of historic orthodoxy?
The Church has never used one’s view of divine foreknowledge as a test for orthodoxy. And while the open view 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…