We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded by your direct support for ReKnew and our vision. Please consider supporting this project.

Dealing With Objections to Open Theism, Part II

Image by Tau Zero via Flickr

Image by Tau Zero via Flickr

There are four major objections to Open Theism. In this post, we are dealing with the third and fourth. (See yesterday’s post to read about the first two.)

Objection #3: God cannot foreknow only some of the future.

It is often argued that for God to be certain of anything about the future, he must be certain of everything about the future. This is an unfounded assumption. Sociologists, biologists, advertisers, and insurance agents accurately predict group behavior all the time without predicting what specific individuals will do.

Moreover, quantum physics, chaos theory, complexity theory, non-equilibrium thermodynamics, and other branches of science are now revealing that all of reality is structured as an interplay between determinism and spontaneity. Our own experience reveals the same thing. With every decision we make we reflect a deep conviction that some of the future is settled while some of it is unsettled, left up for us to decide.

In this light, we should have little trouble accepting that the sovereign God is able to foreordain and foreknow that Jesus would be crucified, for example, without having to foreordain or foreknow exactly who would carry this out (Acts 2:23; 4:27). Nor should we find it hard to accept that God can predestine and foreknow that he would have a beloved church without predestining or foreknowing which individuals will and will not choose to belong to his church (Rom 8:29; Eph 1:4-5).

Objection #4: The supposed “openness passages” in the Bible are merely examples of anthropomorphic language.

Many have argued that the passages to which Open Theists appeal for support can be explained as anthropomorphisms (i.e., depicting God in human terms). There is, however, nothing in any of these passages that suggest they are merely anthropomorphic. None of the texts suggest it is as though God changes his mind, regrets previous decisions, is surprised or disappointed, and so on. Nor is there anything in the rest of Scripture that requires or even warrants that we interpret all passages that depict a partly open future as anthropomorphic. Scripture describes God’s character as unchanging (Mal 3:6), but it never teaches that God is unable to change in any respect (e.g., his intentions, experiences). It teaches that the future is exhaustively settled to the extent that God wills it, but it never teaches that the future is exhaustively settled. And it teaches that God sometimes chooses not to change his mind (Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Ezek. 24:14) but never that he cannot change his mind.

Further, the passages cited in support of the open view do not readily lend themselves to an anthropomorphic interpretation. What does the concept of God “changing” his mind communicate if indeed it is merely an anthropomorphism? If God in fact never changes his mind, saying he does change his mind doesn’t communicate anything truthful: it is simply inaccurate.

Finally, interpreting openness passages as anthropomorphisms sometimes results in undermining the integrity of Scriptures. For example, Scripture says that because of Moses’ intercession, “the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people” (Ex 32:14). If the Lord didn’t really change his mind, then neither did he really plan to bring disaster on his people. If this is merely anthropomorphic, then Scripture misleads us when it explicitly tells us what the Lord was planning before he changed his mind.

—Adapted from Across the Spectrum, pages 67-68.

Related Reading

What is the significance of Exodus 13:17?

The Lord didn’t lead Israel along the shortest route to Canaan because Israel would have had to fight the Philistines. The Lord wanted to avoid this, “Lest the people change their minds when they see war, and they return to Egypt.” [NIV: “If they face war they might change their minds and return to Egypt”].…

Topics:

Warfare Worldview: A Basic Definition

The warfare worldview is based on the conviction that our world is engaged in a cosmic war between a myriad of agents, both human and angelic, that have aligned themselves with either God or Satan. We believe this worldview best reflects the response to evil depicted throughout the Bible. For example, Jesus unequivocally opposed evils…

How do you respond to Matthew 21:1–5?

Jesus commanded his disciples, “Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, just say this: ‘The Lord needs them.’ And he will send them immediately” (vs. 1-4). Though this verse…

Topics:

What is the significance of Judges 2:20–3:5?

The Lord did not provide any assistance in Israel’s battles, “In order to test Israel, whether or not they would take care to walk in the way of the Lord as their ancestors did” (vs. 22). The pagan opponents of Israel “were for the testing of Israel, to know whether Israel would obey the commandments…

Topics:

A Video Introduction to Open Theism

Here’s a video clip on Open Theism from Greg’s sessions with Travis Reed with The Work of the People. What is Open Theism? Open Theists affirm that God knows all of reality perfectly, so Open Theism really is about the nature and content of the future. Does the future contain real possibilities? We have to wrestle with…

What is the significance of Ezekiel 12:1–3?

The Lord has Ezekiel symbolically enact Israel’s exile as a warning and remarks, “Perhaps they will understand, though they are a rebellious house” (vs. 3). Though Israel repeatedly surprised God by their persistent rebellion, he nevertheless continued to hold out hope and thus to strive with them to participate in a covenant relationship with him.…

Topics: