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.
Doesn’t the open view demean God’s sovereignty?
The Open view demeans God’s sovereignty only if one assumes that “sovereignty” means “meticulous control.” By why think this is the way God wants to rule the world? The biblical narrative presents a God who gives humans (and apparently angels) free will, who is flexible and creative in running the world, and who relies at least as much on his wisdom as he does his power. (Think about it–if God controlled everything he’d never have to rely on his wisdom at all).
This view of sovereignty, I would argue, is much more exalted than a meticulously controlling view. In the open view, God is free to determine some aspects of the future according to his will and to anticipate and address his creatures’ choices within the parameters he has established for them. He is free to cultivate real, meaningful and transforming relationships with them, to respond to their fervent and effectual prayers, and even to empty himself and become one of them in the person of Jesus Christ so that they could be reconciled to him. God’s sovereignty is not threatened by these things—rather, it is amplified all the more by them. A smaller god would feel threatened if he didn’t meticulously control everything. The confident God of Scripture is not.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Open Theism, Q&A
Topics: Open Theism
Related Reading
The Open View and Predestination
Paul wrote in Ephesians, “For he [God] chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ …” (Eph 1:3-4). Some argue that the particular way Scripture portrays God’s providential plan is incompatible with the…
What is the significance of Amos 7:1–6?
The Lord revealed a judgment he was planning to bring on Israel to Amos in a vision. Amos prayed “O Lord God, forgive, I beg you!” (vs. 2). Scripture declares that, “The Lord relented concerning this; ‘It shall not be,’ said the Lord” (vs. 3). The Lord then showed Amos another fierce judgment he was…
How do you respond to 2 Thessalonians 2:11–12?
Of those who disobey the truth Paul says, “…God sends them powerful delusions, leading them to believe what is false so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned.” This passage is sometimes cited as evidence that the delusions that unbelievers embrace are as much a part…
Seven Lies
hobvias sudoneighm via Compfight Stephen Mattson has contributed for Relevant Magazine, Sojourners (Sojo.net) Redletterchristians.org, and studied Youth Ministry at the Moody Bible Institute. He is now on staff at the University of Northwestern St. Paul, Minn. Follow him on Twitter @mikta. Stephen recently published an article in Sojourners titled Seven Lies About Christianity — Which Christians Believe that we really…
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…