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.
How do you respond to Jeremiah 29:10–11?
The Lord says to Israel, “Only when Babylon’s seventy years are completed will I visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place [Jerusalem]. For surely I know the plans I have for you, says he Lord, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope.”
The Lord brought Israel back, as he had intended from the start, once Babylon’s ordained seventy year reign over them was complete. This is the Lord’s doing and requires no appeal to exhaustive definite foreknowledge to explain.
As for God’s plans for Israel’s welfare, the fact that Israel continued to struggle and suffer even after this declaration was made shows that God’s plans can be thwarted: they are rarely unalterable decrees. In a creation filled with free creatures, God’s will is not the only variable that counts in deciding how things unfold, either on a national or on an individual level. The Bible is full of examples of God having plans which, to his great disappointment, do not come to pass, for they require the cooperation of free moral agents (e.g. Jer. 3:6–7, 19–20; 2 Pet. 3:9–10). This does not undermine God’s sovereignty in the least, however, for it was God’s own decision to graciously grant people the ability to choose for or against him.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Open Theism, Q&A
Topics: Open Theism, Responding to Objections
Verse: Jeremiah 29
Related Reading
What is the significance of Joel 2:13–14?
“Return to the Lord your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and relents from punishing. Who knows whether he will not turn and relent, and leave a blessing behind him…?” As we have seen, God’s willingness to alter his course of action—even after he’s prophetically announced…
God’s Moral Immutability
Classical theologians from the fourth and fifth centuries on were very concerned with protecting their understanding of the metaphysical attributes of God—like timelessness, immutability, impassibility—by assessing biblical portraits that conflicted with these attributes to be accommodations. However, once we resolve that all our thinking about God must be anchored in the cross, our primary concern…
Podcast: Is an Open Future World a Logically Possible World?
Greg gets technical in this abstract, yet profound, introduction to an open theist’s interpretation of the square of opposition. http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0217.mp3
Good From Evil
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” (Hab. 1:13). All evil, therefore, must be ultimately traced back to decisions made by free agents other than…
What is the significance of 1 Samuel 2:27–31?
Because Eli “scorned” God’s sacrifices and did not punish his sons for their vile behavior, the Lord says, “‘I promised that your house and your father’s house would minister before me forever.’ But now the Lord declares, ‘Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will…
What is the “classical view of God” and what about it do you find objectionable?
The “classical view of God” refers to the view of God that has dominated Christian theology since the earliest Church fathers. According to this theology, God is completely “immutable.” This means that God’s being and experience never change in any respect. God is therefore pure actuality (actus purus), having no potentiality whatsoever, for potentiality is…