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 Jeremiah 18:7–11?
The Lord states that “if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it.” But if a nation which he has declared he will bless “does evil in my sight…I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it.”
If the Lord exhaustively foreknows what will definitely transpire in the future, it is impossible for him to genuinely intend to curse or bless a nation and then later genuinely reverse his plan. In other words, it’s difficult to avoid denying the premise of this entire passage, and all passages like it. If the classical understanding of God’s foreknowledge is correct, God eternally knows exactly what he will and will not do and what every nation will and will not do. There can be no authentic reversal.
Yet the Bible depicts God’s willingness to change his mind as one of his attributes of greatness (Jonah 4:2; Joel 2:12–13). And, as we have seen, there are a wealth of biblical examples in which the Lord demonstrates this attribute. Dare we hold any view which requires us to conclude that such a magnificent aspect of the biblical portrait of God is merely anthropomorphic and not depicting God as he actually is?
We should also note that the fundamental error in the Israelites’ thinking which Jeremiah is confronting in this passage is their conclusion that since God has prophesied against them, “It is no use!” (vs. 12). Yet this is exactly the conclusion the classical view encourages. If the future is eternally unalterable and known by God as such, then it is appropriate to conclude when he tells us of something coming, “It is no use!” How could we possibly change what is already certain to God?
In contrast to this, if we agree with Scripture that this fatalistic attitude is wrong, then shouldn’t we conclude that the future is not exhaustively settled? Shouldn’t we conclude that it is, to some degree, open to our decisions as free agents? Shouldn’t we conclude that, to some extent, the future is not definitely this way or definitely that way, but rather possibly this way or possibly that way? And since God knows reality perfectly, shouldn’t we conclude that God knows the future as being, in part, a realm of possibilities, not only definite certainties?
Only when we accept this, I submit, can passages like Jeremiah 18:7–11 be cleared of any hint of disingenuousness. The verse speaks about God as he truly is: He plans, he responds, he changes.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Open Theism, Q&A
Topics: Open Theism
Verse: Jeremiah 18
Related Reading
Should churches have armed security guards?
Question: Recently (December, 2007) a security guard at New Life Church in Colorado Springs shot and apparently killed a man who was shooting people in the church parking lot. The pastor (Brady Boyd) hailed her as a “real hero.” Do you think churches should have armed security guards and do you think the pastor was…
How do you respond to Genesis 25:23?
The Lord told Rebekah, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples born of you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger.” (cf. Rom. 9:12–16) Old Testament scholars agree that the author (and later, Paul in Romans 9) has the descendants of Jacob and…
How can I feel secure in my salvation?
Question: I constant worry about whether I’m saved or not. Do I lose my salvation every time I sin? How can I feel secure that I’m saved? Answer: It seems to me you’re framing your “salvation” within a legal paradigm rather than a relational paradigm. It’s like God is an angry judge and your a…
A Calvinist and an Arminian walk into a bar…
Toby Bradbury via Compfight Roger Olson posted A Conversation between a Calvinist and an Arminian about God’s Sovereignty that we thought was dead on. In fact, we kind of wonder if Roger is bugging some of the conversations we’ve had. Déjà vu much? And since Roger has argued that Open Theism should be included under the broader umbrella of…
Prayer and the Open Future
Kurt Willems posted a blog today written by Derek Ouellette regarding why understanding that the future is partially open is the only thing that really makes sense of prayer. Derek addresses his thoughts to your younger self, the self that was more “Open. Teachable. Curious. Adventurous.” Let’s all be willing to respect and freely interact…
Is homosexuality a sin?
There are three passages in the Old Testament (Gen. 19: 1-13; Lev 18:22; 20:13) and three in the New Testament (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; I Tim. 1:10) that have traditionally been read as prohibiting homosexuality. On top of this, the entire biblical narrative presupposes that sex is supposed to take place between a man…