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.
An Omni-Resourceful God
It is quite common for us to talk about the attributes of God as omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing) and omni-present (present everywhere), but what about God’s unlimited resourcefulness? Consider the story of Moses’ commission in Exodus 3 and 4. Here the Lord instructs Moses to tell the elders of Israel that the Lord has heard their prayers and intends to deliver them from Egypt. (Ex 3:7-17). He assures Moses saying, “They will listen to your voice (Ex 3:18).
However, Moses does not interpret this as an infallible prediction of the future. Instead, he counters, “Suppose they do not believe me or listen to me (Ex 4:1). The Lord does not respond by assuring Moses that he knows every detail of what is going to take place before it comes about, as one might expect if he in fact possesses such knowledge. He rather shows Moses how he can turn a staff into a serpent and then back into a staff again (Ex 4:2-4). This miracle, the Lord tells him is to prove to them that the Lord sent Moses (Ex 4:5).
Moses is not convinced, though, that the first miracle will suffice. So the Lord adds a second miracle: making a hand leprous and then whole again (Ex 4:6-7). Then the Lord states, “If they will not believe you or heed the first sign, they may believe the second sign. But the Lord quickly acknowledges the possibility that even this second miracle might not convince them. He continues:
If they will not believe even these two signs or heed you, you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground; and the water that you shall take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground (Ex 4:9).
If we set aside the assumption that the future is exhaustively settled, the text clearly suggests that God is not certain how many miracles it will take to convince the elders that the has sent Moses. If we rather insist that the Lord knew all along that it would take exactly three miracles, then he seems disingenuous in telling Moses they may believe after the first or the second miracle. How can the Lord tell Moses that something might happen if he knows for certain it will not happen?
This lack of certainty regarding some aspects of the future is no defect on God’s part. It’s just that the only reality that exists for God to know is that the elders may believe after one, two or perhaps three miracles. That is what is real, and so that is what God perfectly knows as real. Until the elders resolve the issue by responding to Moses’ miracles, there’s nothing other than possibilities for God to know. God can hardly be faulted for not knowing something that does not exist.
However, this passage also makes it clear that God is absolutely confident that he can convince the elders of Israel to follow Moses and escape Egypt. This much of the future is settled, for God has resolved it to be so. This episode is intended to teach Moses that God has more than enough resources to accomplish whatever he sets out to accomplish. He is an omni-resourceful God. It’s just that within the parameters of the future that God has already settled, there are unsettled features. The elders will become convinced. But it may take one, two or three miracles to bring this about.
—Adapted from Satan and the Problem of Evil, pages 109-111
Photo via Visual Hunt
Category: General
Tags: Attributes of God, Open Future, Open Theism
Topics: Defending the Open View
Related Reading
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…
How do you respond to 1 Timothy 4:1–3?
“…in the later times some will renounce the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared with a hot iron. They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods…” New Testament authors considered themselves to be living “in the later times” (e.g. Acts 2:17;…
Response to Bruce Ware’s “Defining Evangelicalism’s Boundaries: Is Open Theism Evangelical?”
The following essay was written in response to Bruce Ware’s article, “Defining Evangelicalism’s Boundaries: Is Open Theism Evangelical?” Published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 2002. Introduction I want to begin by expressing my utmost respect for the high value placed on academic fairness and integrity by the editorial board of JETS.…
Free Will: Are studies that demonstrate genetic determinism a threat to free will?
Greg shares his continuing thoughts on free will with a thought experiment (and a hand-drawn graph!) granting that we are largely determined by forces outside of our control. If we grant this presupposition, does that mean that free will is an illusion or insignificant? Find out!
Molinism and Open Theism – Part I
I’ve been asked for the umpteenth time on Twitter lately about the difference between “Molinism” and “Open Theism,” and for some reason, today seemed like a good day to begin addressing this question. I’ll do this in two parts. Today I’ll outline and critique Molinism, and in a subsequent post I’ll raise yet another critique as…
Open2013
As I’m sure many of you know, the understanding of the Christian faith and the model of the Christian church is in the process of being transformed. All around the globe, and in a multitude of different ways, we are seeing new wine being poured out and old wine skins bursting apart. Many of us…