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.
When God Discovers
Scripture consistently portrays God’s knowledge as conforming to the ways things really are, and part of the way things really are is temporally conditioned. Scripture never expresses the commonly-held sentiment that time is somewhat illusory. God “remembers” the past and anticipates the future. Insofar as he empowers humans to freely determine the future, this means that God waits “to see” what shall come to pass.
In Gen 2:19, after God created the animals, he brought them before Adam “to see what he would call them.” This word “to see” means something like “to discover.” God’s sovereign control of the world does not rule out an element of uncertainty about the future. God empowers humans to be genuine partners in bringing about the future, and this means that the future is, to some extent, dependent on what we do. God waits to see how humans will choose.
Another example is found when the Lord forbids the Israelites from gathering more than a day’s ration of bread from heaven when they were in the wilderness because he wants to “test them, whether they will follow my instruction or not” (Ex 16:4). By the Lord’s own admission, there would have been no point for this testing if the Lord was already certain how they would behave.
God tested Abraham to see how he would respond when asked to sacrifice Isaac (Gen 22). Moses tells the Israelites that they wandered in the wilderness for 40 years so that they Lord would know their heart (Deut 8:2). The Lord temporarily withdrew support from Israel to “find out if they would obey the command of the Lord” (Judg 3:4). God leaves Hezekiah “to himself” at one point “in order to test him and to know all that was in his heart” (2 Chron 32:31).
If we take these passages at face value, they suggest that God was not certain how they would respond to his tests before he gave them. He tested them to find this out.
Opponents of the open view often argue that God tests people not for his sake but for ours. This interpretation would be possible except that each of the verses we just examined explicitly tells us that the testing was for God, not the people being tested. An interpretation that reverses what a text explicitly says is not a viable interpretation. Others argue that if we took these verses literally we would have to deny that God possesses exhaustive present knowledge, for the passages say God wanted to know “their heart.” Since Scripture informs us that God knows all things while teaching us that God tests people to know their heart, the understanding of “heart” which this objection presupposes cannot be correct. The two teachings are easily rendered compatible by recognizing that the heart is the seat of the person’s will. To discover a person’s “heart” is to discover what their decision will be. Each of these passages, if read in context, makes this clear. The Lord tests people “to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commandments” (Deut 8:2). Since people are free agents, God wants to find out “whether they will follow my instructions or not” (Ex 16:4).
—Adapted from Satan and the Problem of Evil, pages 105-107
Photo Credit: Claudel Rheault via Unsplash
Category: General
Tags: Divine Foreknowledge, Free Will, Open Theism
Topics: Open Theism
Related Reading
What is the significance of Ezekiel 22:29–31?
The Lord says he “sought for” someone to stand in the breech for Israel “but I found none.” Hence Israel experienced the wrath of God. If everything that shall ever come to pass is eternally fixed in the divine mind, God would have foreknown that no one would respond to his call for a Moses-like…
What is your perspective on the classical view that God is above time?
In a major strand of hellenistic (Greek) philosophy, change was seen as being an imperfection. This idea was adopted by many early Church fathers and eventually became almost an assumed dogma of the Church. It was thus assumed that, since God is perfect, he must be above all change. Not only does his character and…
What is the significance of Jeremiah 32:35?
As in Jeremiah 19:5, the Lord expresses his dismay over Israel’s paganism by saying they did this “though I did not command them, nor did it enter my mind that they should do this abomination.” If this abomination was eternally foreknown to God, it’s impossible to attribute any clear meaning to his confession that this…
God of Sense and Traditions of Non-Sense
As the title suggests, in his book, God’s Problem: How The Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question – Why We Suffer, Bart Ehrman argues that the Bible has nothing compelling to say about the problem of evil. Well, I just put down a beautifully written four-hundred and fifty page book that compellingly argues…
Free Will: The origin of evil
In this continuing series on free will, Greg discusses how evil can only be accounted for if we acknowledge free will. This is especially true if you believe that God is good.
Romans 8:28: What Does It Mean?
The Bible is very clear that God has nothing to do with evil. There is “no darkness” in God. (I Jn 1:5). Far from intentionally bringing about evil, God’s “eyes are too pure to look on evil” (Heb. 1:13). All evil, therefore, must be ultimately traced back to decisions made by free agents other than…