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
The Hexagon of Opposition
Throughout the western philosophical and theological tradition, scholars have assumed that the future can be adequately described in terms of what will and will not happen. In this essay I, Alan Rhoda and Tom Belt argue that this assumption is mistaken, for the logical contradictory of will is not will not but might not. Conversely,…
What is the significance of Esther 4:14?
The wise Mordecai encourages Esther to bravely risk her life by pleading the case of the Jews before King Xerxes, saying, “…if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish. And who knows but that you have come…
Open Theism and the Nature of the Future
In this philosophical essay Alan Rhoda, Tom Belt and I argue that the future cannot be exhaustively described in terms of what will and will not happen, but must also be described in terms of what may and may not happen. The future, in other words, is partly open. The thesis is defended against a…
How do you respond to Proverbs 21:1?
“The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he wills.” Calvinists sometimes argue that this passage teaches that everything every government official ever does is the result of the Lord turning their heart. In light of the hideous things many government officials have done (e.g.…
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…
If God is already doing the most he can do, how does prayer increase his influence?
Question: If God always does the most that he can in every tragic situation, as you claim in Satan and the Problem of Evil, how can you believe that prayer increases his influence, as you also claim? It seems if you grant that prayer increases God’s influence, you have to deny God was previously doing…