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 Deuteronomy 30:19?
After establishing the terms of the covenant he was entering into with Israel, the Lord says, “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live.”
This passage represents the most fundamental motif of the whole Bible: namely, the Lord seeks to enter into a covenantal relationship with people. He lays before them the terms of the covenant, spells out the consequences of keeping and breaking the covenant, and then lets them choose whether to enter into a covenantal relationship with him. He desires Israel, and ultimately all people (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9), to “choose life.” But precisely because a covenant of love must be chosen rather than coerced, he also gives people the power to choose to reject his love.
World history functions as a probationary period to determine who will and will not enter into an eternal covenantal relationship of love with the Lord. In the end, there will only be those who say “yes” to God’s invitation and therefore participate in his eternal triune love (heaven), and those who say “no” and thereby choose to eternally separate themselves from the Lord (hell).
In passages such as this one, the point of giving people the choice to either accept or reject the terms of the covenant is to determine whether or not they will participate in the covenant (e.g. Deut. 8:2; Judg. 3:4; 2 Chron. 32:31). But if the outcome of the probation is already foreknown an eternity before he ever creates or calls anyone, there is really no point to the probation. Moreover, since the Lord explicitly tells us he wants all people to “choose life,” there is no explanation as to why he would create people whom he was certain would “choose death.”
If we allow that the future is partly open and known by God as such, and if we concede that to some extent it lies in the power of free agents to decide which possibilities will and will not be actualized, then the purpose for every probation the Lord puts us through becomes clear. Love must be chosen; the outcome of free choices does not exist until the free choice is made; hence the Lord is finding out who will and will not choose love.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Open Theism, Q&A
Topics: Open Theism
Verse: Deuteronomy 30
Related Reading
What Unfulfilled Prophesies Say About the Open View
Image by Lori Greig via Flickr Yesterday, we posted about how Messianic prophesies are understood in the open view of the future. Today, this post will look at prophesies that are not fulfilled in the way predicted and what that can tell us about the open view of the future. In John Goldingay’s excellent multi-volume work, Old…
How Calvinism Misses the Point About Salvation
Calvinists sometimes argue that various passages in John teach that the Father chooses and then “draws” certain people to Christ. Those who are “drawn” certainly come to Christ (John 6:37) while all who are not drawn remain in their sin. For example, John portrays Jesus as repeatedly teaching that “no one can come to me…
Process Theology & Open Theism: What’s the Difference?
Question: When ReKnew talks about Open Theism is it a mistake for people to equate it with Process theology, and if so what are the defining differences? I guess I am starting to lean toward Dr. Boyd’s thoughts for all things theologically egg-heady, so I thought I would ask the question. Your ministry has been freeing…
How do you respond to Acts 2:23 and 4:28?
Question: Acts 2:23 and 4:28 tell us that wicked people crucified Jesus just as God predestined them to do. If this wicked act could be predestined, why couldn’t every other wicked act be predestined? Doesn’t this refute your theory that human acts can’t be free if they are either predestined or foreknown? Answer: In Acts…
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…
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…