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 Genesis 22:12 ?
Abraham passed God’s “test” (vs. 1) by being willing to sacrifice his son. The Lord says “…now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son…”
If the classical understanding of foreknowledge is true, God’s statement “now I know” seems disingenuous. The meaning of God’s explanation for this knowledge — “since you have…” — is also obscured. Indeed, if the future is exhaustively settled there would be no point in his test of Abraham, because God would never have to find out anything.
Defenders of the classical view of foreknowledge usually argue that God’s testings were not for his sake, but for the sake of the person being tested. God eternally foreknew whether or not the person(s) would pass the test, but he wanted the person’s character to be manifested to them. This explanation sounds plausible except this verse explicitly records God proclaiming “now I know…” Other verses contain similar statements (e.g. Deut. 8:2, 13:1–3). The only reason I can see as to why someone would insist that the testings were for the people, not God, is because they bring to the text a theology which will not allow them to accept the straightforward meaning of the text: God tests people to find out how they shall resolve their character.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Open Theism, Q&A
Topics: Open Theism
Verse: Genesis 22
Related Reading
5 Ways the Bible Supports Open Theism
Open Theism refers to the belief that God created a world in which possibilities are real. It contrasts with Classical Theism which holds that all the facts of world history are eternally settled, either by God willing them so (as in Calvinism) or simply in God’s knowledge (as in Arminianism). Open Theists believe God created humans and…
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…
Lighten Up: Oh my… I am so very very scared…
Well, my dear friend Frankie V. once again has a bad case of verbal diarrhea (explains his breath lately), running off about how he’s going to smack me down in our “all-out, no holds barred, ring-side seat, verbal wrestling match” on the open view of the future. I’m supposed to shutter in my boots at…
Q&A: If Salvation Depends on our Free Choice, How are we Saved by Grace?
As a companion to today’s testimony and the link to Greg’s thoughts on Romans 9, we thought it would be helpful to post this Q&A on salvation by grace within the Open View of the future. Enjoy! Question: I’m an Arminian-turned-Calvinist, and the thing that turned me was the realization that if salvation hinges on whether…
What is the significance of Jeremiah 26:2–3?
The Lord tells Jeremiah to prophesy to Israel that they should repent, for “I may change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on [Israel] because of their evil doings.” It is difficult to discern what God intended to reveal about himself by claiming he is willing to change his mind if…
What is the right way to interpret Revelation?
Few biblical topics have captured the imagination of contemporary evangelicals like the book of Revelation. The recent unprecedented success of the Left Behind series is evidence of this popular fascination. Many evangelicals don’t realize that the futuristic interpretation of Revelation advocated in this popular series is only one of several interpretations evangelicals espouse. Here’s the…