Reply:

This is not such a difficult problem. If the writers of Scripture were willing to be led by God (and one would assume that they were), then God could direct their thoughts without violating their wills, since following God's direction was what they wanted to do.

William Hasker
Huntington College

Reply to Hasker:

Here is a response to Hasker's response on inerrancy and Open Theism. Bill Hasker's response is accurate, but I'm not sure it completely answers the question posed by Howard Donahoe. If the question is whether the existence of a plenary and verbally inspired and inerrant Scripture is compatible with Open Theism, then the answer is clearly yes because as Hasker points we can assume that the "writers of Scripture were willing to be led by God." However, if the question is whether God can "ensure" (unilaterally guarantee) that Scripture is plenary and verbally inspired and inerrant, the answer is not as clear. Whether the biblical writers would actually be willing to be led by God is not something that God could guarantee, assuming libertarian freedom. In short, the Scripture can turn out to be fully inspired and inerrant within Open Theism. However, it is not clear that an Open Theist can say God "ensured" (unilaterally guaranteed) that this is the case.

Randy Basinger

Reply to Basinger:

Dr. Basinger, I see the point of your response and thought to mention one item. Your position assumes that God did not, or would not, use scriptural authors other than the ones we have. I would suggest that God may well have had the option to be picky about who wrote the canon.

If, for instance, the apostle Paul turned out to be a poor listener, and did not allow himself to be easily lead by the Holy Spirit, perhaps we would be reading about the apostle Fred, a guy who was more "in touch" with what the Lord was doing. There is scriptural precedence for this in the form of King Saul. Chosen as the patriarch of "the line," Saul proved inadequate to the task and a replacement was chosen (the much lauded David.) I would argue that, had Saul done better, we would read of Jesus Christ, of the line of Saul.

Again, the point is that God is not against alternate plans. The scriptural writers we have may simply be the ones who passed muster. There may have been others that were called, and failed.

Joseph S. Holt

Reply to Holt:

I agree with much of what you say. You are right to point out that the open God has a lot of resources at God's disposal for achieving his ends. As you point out, God could have used different authors "those more open to God's leading" to produce Scripture. I don't think, however, that my position rules this out. In short, granting your insight, my original point still seems to stand: As long as God is using authors " any human authors" who are free in a libertarian sense, then God cannot ensure (unilaterally guarantee) that the results will be exactly what God wants (though the results may very well turn out to be exactly what God wants). I'm not sure my point " assuming it is sound" has any negative implications for Open Theism. It would be interesting to know whether Howard Donahoe " who posed the original question" finds this point to be in any way a "threat" to verbal inspiration or inerrancy.

Randy Basinger

Reply to all:

Regarding the question and answers about the compatibility of Open Theism with a doctrine of inerrant inspiration, let me add the following. First, I agree with the possibilities offered by William, Joe, and Randall, and further, that these plausible scenarios do not exclude other possible means by which God accomplished the composition of a trustworthy Bible. So, I would like to add what I believe to be another significant possibility which may aid our articulation of a more comprehensive response, and close a door to a misconception which I have heard, of late, (wrongly) generally attributed to us (we have enough misconceptions being articulated by our opponents).

I am as confident as can be that Open Theism, particularly libertarian freedom, is fully compatible with inerrant inspiration, because human liberty, in my understanding of revelation, is neither absolute nor completely autonomous. John Sanders made something of this in GWR's discussion of creation within divinely established boundaries. A sister is free to jump up and down until muscular exhaustion, but the divinely-established boundaries of physics make it clear that she cannot exit the earth's atmosphere by a good flex of her quadriceps--her freedom is real and libertarian, but within God ordained contextual limits. I believe this physical analogy has a spiritual counterpart as well. This same sister is free to jump in and out of good works until Pelagius himself is awed--and, I might add, free to believe anything she wants about their efficacy. However, divinely-established boundaries of soteriology make it clear that she cannot enter heaven by the flex of her good works--again, her freedom is real and libertarian, but within God-ordained contextual limits. I know my analogies are limited; I remain open to refinement. However, perhaps they will accomplish something.

Furthermore, I see biblical evidence that God remains sovereignly free to intervene as he determines necessary, and on occasion, can and does violate human liberty to accomplish his ends. E.g., He made Adam and Eve leave the Garden and he prevented Baalam from cursing Israel, and it seems these humans had no choice in these particular matters. He has seen fit to sentence some guilty people to an irreversible hard heartedness, strong delusions, depraved minds, degrading passions, in which the gift of contra-causal freedom is completely or partially removed. The resurrected Jesus also prevented his disciples from recognizing him until he was ready to reveal himself--a recognition they seem likely to have freely made had not God altered their abilities to perceive in some way.

Therefore, I see biblical doctrines of inspiration remaining secure in Open Theism, for (1) God may have established particular boundaries to preserve the trustworthiness of scripture; (2) he may have occasionally violated, or been willing to violate, the human liberty of his chosen scribes in order to keep their work from misrepresenting divine intentions; or (3) some combination of 1 & 2 here, and those contributed by William, Joe, and Randall.

Kevin James Gilbert
South Fork Church of Christ
Elizabethtown, KY