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.

Is the open view the only view that is compatible with the Incarnation?

Question: You have said that the Open view of God is the only view that squares with the Incarnation and the only view that truly exalts God’s greatness. On what basis do you say this?

Answer: The revelation of God in the Incarnation is the ultimate expression of God’s willingness and ability to change that is depicted throughout Scripture. In the Incarnation, God is portrayed as the One who, out of love for a lost and enslaved race, altered his state of being to become human (Phil. 2). The incarnation reveals that God is not, as the classical tradition held, “immutable,” “impassible” are “devoid of potentiality.”

This is confirmed throughout the rest of Scripture. Because of God’s love for humanity, Scripture portrays God as continually adapting and responding to the ever-changing human situation. God changes his plans, revises decisions, expresses emotions, implements new strategies, and so on, in response to the flow of human history. Rather than portraying change as a defect, as classical theism tends to do, Scripture portrays change as a facet of God’s greatness, supremacy and sovereign beauty!

In Jeremiah, for example, Yahweh portrays himself as the master potter, exercising control over the clay (creation in general, and Israel in particular), precisely because he is willing and able to change his plans for a nation in response to its character (Jere. 18:5–10). He is God and has the right to change—even after he has prophetically declared a certain coarse of action.

For example, in response to the Ninevites’ repentence, God changed his mind about destroying them (Jonah 3–4). In response to Moses’ intercession, God changed his mind about judging Israel harshly (Exod. 32:12–14). And in response to Hezekiah’s prayers, God graciously altered his prophecy concerning his death (Isa. 38:1–5). For good reason, then, the prophets Jonah and Joel proclaim that God’s willingness to change his plans is one of his gracious attributes (Jon. 4:2, Joel 2:13)!

An inferior deity would carry out his sovereign plans regardless of any change on the part of human subjects—viz. he would behave just as Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas and much of the classical tradition concluded God must behave! But Scripture portrays God as “gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love,” and that he is “a God who relents from sending calamities” (Jonah 4:2).

These biblical depictions of God changing his plans are not isolated. Scripture generally depicts God as One who is unchanging in character and perfectly resourceful in adapting his character to the changing situations of world history. For this reason God is exalted as being a “wise” God. God doesn’t ordinarily choose to control all things (which would require power, but no wisdom). Instead, God is infinitely resourceful in working toward his desired ends in the midst of a cosmos that is populated with free, self-determining agents.

The Incarnation is at home in the biblical narrative because the entire narrative portrays God as being genuinely responsive to his creation and open to change. By contrast, the Incarnation is not at all at home in the Hellenistic and Classical Traditions that describe God as being “above” such things.

Related Reading

Jesus and Democracy

Question: I’ve heard that the reason Jesus didn’t speak up on political issues was because he didn’t have the benefit of living in a democracy. Since we do, don’t we have a duty both to God and our country to be involved in politics? Answer: If the reason Jesus didn’t speak up on political issues…

Did Jesus Have Two Minds?

As I laid out in the previous post, I believe Jesus is fully God and fully human. The question is: How is this possible? How do we talk about the way that Jesus was fully God and fully man? The Creed of Chalcedon (451) tries to answer the question this way: We, then, following the…

Topics:

What is the significance of Revelation 22:18?

“If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city…” For God to “take away” something he must have given it first. But, as with the previous verse, if God foreknew from whom he would…

Topics:

Smack Talk on the Idolatry of the Family

Ben Ponder doesn’t pull any punches in his article Idolatry of the Family. He argues that, contrary to some evangelical claims, “Jesus didn’t die on a God-forsaken cross to preserve your horn-rimmed vision of 1950s Americana.” Can a marriage or a family become an idol? Ben thinks so. What do you think? From the article:…

Support for Open Theism from Science and Experience

I have discussed the scriptural support that depicts the future as partially open and that God knows it as such. I do this in God of the Possible. If a position is true, every avenue of reflection ought to point in its direction, including science. What follows are two more “pointers” to the view that the…

What is the significance of Jeremiah 3:19–20?

“I thought how I would set you among my children…And I thought you would call me, My Father, and would not turn from following me. Instead, as a faithless wife…you have been faithless to me…” If the future is eternally and exhaustively settled, and if God therefore knows it as such, he could not have…

Topics: