Open Theism and Divine Foreknowledge, a musing

I was reading through Greg Boyd's superb essay in Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views and again was impressed by the biblical case put forth. I've covered multiple verses and themes before here, so I won't dive back into that.

However, what bothered me were the other essays by Dave Hunt, William Lane Craig and Paul Helm. I am not opposed to philosophy and find the entire realm fascinating, like a kid watching a magician perform card tricks. However, this is where I find the open view of God far more compelling.

Frankly, it starts in Scripture. The text itself seems to speak in ways that suggest God being not only flexible but also willing to change His mind. The charge of anthropomorphisms is a side charge, even though the same folks that would make this charge would happily prescribe attributes and actions of God said in anthropomorphic terms ie God is mad, God punished etc.

I end this with a response Boyd made to R.C. Sproul, who famously claimed that "if there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose...then we have no gurantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled" (1).

Boyd said: "there is, I submit, no conceivably weaker view of divine sovereignty than one that is threatened by a single maverick molecule" (2).

--Nick

1. Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, pg43 n.23.

2. ibid.

Musings, Open Theism and the "Openness" of God

I finished reading Greg Boyd's "God of the Possible" in an attempt to learn what the fuss was about regarding open theism. After reading Boyd's slim but intriguing book, I was a bit hungry for more. I glanced through articles by Bruce Ware and other critics and didn't find them compelling. That isn't to say that I found the positive case for open theism particularly persuasive, but I don't think the criticism are particularly strong.

I was particularly struck by T. Richard Rice's (professor of theology and philosophy of religion at Loma Linda University in California) arguments displaying the biblical evidence for such a position of God's openness. They fall into roughly three categories:

1. God's feelings. 

God experiences "regret" over creation and making Saul king. (Gen 6:6 and I Sam 15:35). Another example appealed to is the book of Jonah, specifically chapter three verse four. The proclamation of judgment is instead relented and replaced with verse ten, asserting that God would not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened (based off NIV translation).

Scripture offers multiple poignant instances of God being portrayed as a jilted lover, as His chosen people refuse His love. Especially see the description within the book of Hosea, with emphasis on chapter 2. He is also described as a "jealous God" in Exodus 20:5 and as a "husband desiring reconciliation" with his wife, Israel (Jer 3).

2. God's intentions.

Another example is found in Exodus 32:14, where God relents from bringing the threatened disaster against the Israelites for their idolatry. To add another concept, God listened to a human mediator, Moses, who reminded God of the promises made to the patriarchs (v11-13). According to George A.F. Knight in his commentary on Exodus, when Moses urges God to repent, he uses the very same word that the prophets used when appealing to Israel to stop from sinning.

God is slow to anger (Num 14:18, Ex 34:6) and this is shown in His 'judgment' over Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18:16-33. Apparently, God 'listened' to Moses and like a pro, Moses got the count down to ten. I'm uncertain how this all fits together, but I did find the raw evidence compelling.

Some of these passages have even prompted well-known Fuller Theological Seminary OT professor at John Goldingay to say that much of this does indeed sound like open theism.

3. God's actions. 

Dr. Rice notes that, "...the very concept of an act involves change." The biblical support for these are impressive. We see creation (Gen 1-2), turning hatred to salvation (Gen 45:4-7) and ultimately turning from Saul to David (I Samuel 15:35, 16:1-13). These are but a few examples.

I am not an open theist, but I've found the case far more compelling as of late. I think these are worthy of some serious consideration.

--Nick

Recommended reading:

Greg Boyd, "The God of the Possible"
Clark Pinnock and Richard Rice, "The Openness of God"
John Sanders, "The God who Risks"

Greg Boyd, "Prayer and God Changing His Mind?

Kinda funny.

As primer for diving into open theism, this is a question I've often asked of myself. Greg's response is intriguing.

READER:  You’ve argued that since God is all-good, he’s always doing the most he can do in every situation to bring about good. But you have also argued that prayer can change God’s mind. How are these two beliefs compatible?

GREG: The beliefs aren’t incompatible if you believe, as I do, that God wants humans to have significant “say-so” in affecting what comes to pass. As such he created a world in which we have “say-so” on a physical level, making decisions that affect what comes to pass through our physical activity. We also have “say-so” on a spiritual level, affecting what comes to pass through prayer. By God’s own sovereign will, he bound himself to be affected by whether or not humans engage with him in prayer.

For the rest of Greg's answer, go to ReKnew and enjoy.

--Nick

The Open Future, The 1000 Year Reign & The Inclusive Nature of Book Reading

Well, several topics have come up on my radar, and I finally have the preliminary resources to research them. I'm more or less done discussing women in ministry (though I have a year long discussion with a friend that I hope ends with one of us converting) and I'm simply weary of the debate.

So, I've decided to hop onto a train that has already set sail. Open theism. I'm currently staring at a copy of The Openness of God by Richard Rice, Clark Pinnock, John Sanders and others. I'm told, as far as anthologies go, this is the best (maybe only?) one. This also includes Greg Boyd's The Openness of God, which I'm excited for.

I'm also working through Allah by Miroslav Volf and finding it quite compelling. I'm also planning a review of Matt Chandler's The Explicit Gospel. The "gospel" as a nebulous term is something I'm interested in. I want to grab Scot McKnight's The King Jesus Gospel as another perspective.

So, expect wrestling over open theism, gospel and perhaps universalism. I wish I could afford Tom Greggs' book Origen, Barth and Universal Salvation, All Shall be Well by Robin Parry and Eric Reitan's God's Final Victory. But, I shall make do. I have Robin Parry's The Evangelical Universalist 2nd Edition and The One Purpose of God by Jan Bonda.

I'm also curious about the debate amongst amillenialists and others. Any (cheapish) books anyone can recommend would be cool. I lean amil, but not in any strong sense.

Open Theism. Universalism. Gospel. Amillenialism. In this is included the perennial debate amongst restrictivists, exclusivists, inclusivists, pluralists and universalists.

So it should be fun. And that is rooibus tea with a base of carved whole limes and chamomile. I wish it was beer. Almost.

--Nick

John Sanders, Free Will Theism & Universalism

Open Theist John Sanders engaged with Universalist Thomas Talbott in Universal Salvation? The Current Debate. I think it was a decent response to Talbott, though I wasn't necessarily convinced in regards to Sanders. Still a most able response.

Does Talbott’s view of being fully rational respect human choice adequately? Do you consider free will essential to how God made us? Does God “risk” when God makes humans and gives them free will? Or, does a libertarian sense of free will entail that God had to take risks when God made humans? Why do you think God made a world in which humans could rebel against God? Is that the best of all possible worlds? Why?


Followers of this academic debate will not be surprised to learn that Sanders doesn’t think Talbott takes freewill theory seriously enough. In the end, Sanders thinks Talbott robs choice of power because God makes conditions that virtually require, or at least necessarily entail, a choice for God.

He begins with a smaller point: Talbott’s belief that humans in heaven can’t be happy knowing the suffering of those in hell. Sanders’ big point is that we don’t know the heavenly condition or ourselves well enough to render such a judgment.

Sanders argues for a libertarian free will and that means humans could have chosen otherwise when they chose to do something. His point here is that God gives humans that kind of free will and that entails humans choosing not to respond to God. So God risks non-love and rejection when God gives humans libertarian free will. Talbott finally argues that such a libertarian free will does not describe God’s redemptive plan.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick