Theology Today; Princeton; Apr 1996;

Volume: 53

Issue: 1

Start Page: 15

ISSN: 00405736

Abstract: Pinnock dicusses the sovereignty of God and the many challenges to it. Given the atrocities in the Holocaust and Cambodia, it is difficult to say that God rules over and controls history.

Full Text: © Theology Today Apr 1996

Divine sovereignty is a central theme of Christian worship. We exalt God as our creator and ruler: “The Lord is king, he is robed in majesty; the Lord is robed, he is girded in strength. He has established the world; it shall never be moved; your throne is established from old; you are from everlasting” (Ps. 93:1-2). Islam, Judaism, and Christianity unite in pointing to the glory and rule of God. During periods of renewal, testimony only increases about the greatness of our God. The majesty of God’s rule is deeply biblical. The prophet has a vision of the Lord, seated upon a throne, high and lifted up, his robe filling the temple (Isa. 6:1). Paul praises God as “the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,” who alone “has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see” (1 Tim. 6:15). The elders fall down before God’s throne, saying: “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created” (Rev. 4:11). We confess in the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth.” The God we serve is the Lord, sovereign and free, the adorable mystery that transcends the world and empowers creation. The world’s existence is an expression of God’s purposes, as Paul says: “From him and through him and to him are all things” (Rom. 11:36). Everything depends on God-nothing is too hard for God (Jer. 32:17).

St. Theresa of Avila writes: “My sovereign Lord, your power is infinite and you are supremely good and wise. There is no limit to your works which are beyond time and understanding. You are a fathomless ocean of wonders and your beauty encompasses all other forms of beauty, You are strength itself” (The Way of Perfection).

The theme of sovereignty is not universally popular, however. The psalmist declares that the rulers of this world take counsel against the Lord and his anointed, saying: “Let us burst their bonds asunder and cast their cords from us” (Ps. 2:2-3). Even more than in the modern world, there is rebellion against divine transcendent rule. Nietzsche declared God dead, and secularists vow to take no account of any divine reality. Even in the churches, some say God is becoming weightless as people are assigning God to the periphery, creating, in effect, an easy-going deity whose reality is little different from our own. The culture is pressing us to worship a God who will satisfy our needs, not the Lord God almighty.^[1] But sovereignty can be a genuine puzzle for faithful people as well. Given our experience of such evils as the Holocaust and Cambodia, how can one say that God rules over and controls history? What divine purpose can be detected in death camps and killing fields? History itself seems to call the sovereignty of God into question and to require us to rethink it.

Defining Sovereignty

The definition of sovereignty is important if people are going to be able to receive it. In politics (whence the term originates) sovereignty is understood in various ways. We distinguish among the sovereignty of the tyrant, the rule of a constitutional monarch, the authority of an elected president, and the like. Political sovereignty may include respect for the governed or it may not.

Sovereignty has various meanings in theology also. It may mean total control or some less coercive influence. In Western theology since Augustine, the definition of sovereignty that has been preferred is one at the power end of the spectrum. Our theologians have taught that God predestines everything that happens in detail. Although employing a free-will defense in relation to the problem of evil, Augustine held a view of sovereignty in considerable tension with it. While (on the one hand) blaming Adam for sin and the fall, he did not believe that God’s will could be thwarted or God’s purposes be successfully resisted. He writes: “He is not truly called almighty if he cannot do whatsoever he pleases, or if the power of his almighty will is hindered by the will of any creature” (Enchiridion, 96). Furthermore, Augustine held that God knows everything that will happen and that all future choices are fixed and certain before they have been made (City of God, 11.21).

Calvin held to a similar concept of sovereignty as an all-determining power. He declared that all creatures “are governed by God’s secret plan in such a way that nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.16.3). Sovereignty then refers to the power by which God controls everything and is able to bring every event into conformity with the divine will. Calvin’s view gained ever wider influence through the Canons of Dort, the theology of John Knox, and the Westminster Confession.

The Confession states: “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass” (3.1). This includes the final destiny of everyone whether in heaven or in hell (3.3). God is said to govern all creatures according to his free and immutable will (5.1). In a classic phrase, B. B. Warfield stated that God’s rule is “broad enough to embrace the whole universe, minute enough to be concerned with the smallest details, and actualizes itself with inevitable certainty in every event that comes to pass.” ^[2]

There is no denying the appeal in such a position. What a magnificent portrait of divine majesty, enthroned above the rough-and-tumble of history, perfectly serene and in complete control of everything! It is comforting to know that everything that happens has meaning and reassuring to deny any element of risk or chance. But there are severe difficulties with this position as well. The Bible seems to portray more genuine interaction and relationality in God’s dealings with creatures than theological determinism allows. A sovereignty of control seems to deny that human beings possess the kind of (libertarian) freedom with which they are able either to obey God’s will or to move against God’s purposes. It certainly aggravates the problem of evil in requiring God to bear sole responsibility for evil. It would seem that we need a better model of divine sovereignty than that of total control.

An Open View Of Sovereignty

Another way to look at sovereignty is to think of it as open and flexible, placing the emphasis more on the resourcefulness than on the domination of God. An open view would cohere better with the dynamic God-world relationship implied by the Bible and be less theoretically and practically problematic. The Scriptures tell us that God is a loving Parent (abba), who is sensitive and responsive. They depict a relationship with “give and take” not just control. We are not given the impression that history is decided unilaterally by God but that our decisions also contribute to it. God is not responsible for everything that happens. Many outcomes are conditional upon human decisions, and the relationship between God and the creature is personal and interactive.

Open sovereignty, in distinction from process thinking, agrees with the traditional view that God is the superior power who depends on nothing outside of God’s self in order to exist and who is (therefore) free in a most fundamental way. God’s freedom even includes the power to create a world whose details God does not completely determine. If God could not do so, a certain freedom would be lacking in the deity. We cannot limit God in this way. We agree with determinists that God could actualize a determined world but deny that this world is like that. The world we experience and the world the Bible describes is not a wholly determined world. God has evidently chosen to actualize a world with significantly free agents and to exercise sovereignty in an open manner.

God decided not to keep a monopoly on power but to give some away to the creature. In making responsible creaturely agents, God willed not to exercise domination and control over the world but to establish an order of real significance and genuine autonomy. Wishing to interact with significant creatures rather than to dominate the world, God willed a dynamic history that would flow from the decisions of finite persons. One could say that, in creating such a world, God accepted certain limitations on the divine power. In effect, God rejected sovereignty in the form of domination and control, at least in this creation. Open sovereignty would make possible what was wanted.

What God values and desires in this creation is genuine relationship with creatures able to respond to God’s love. The gift of freedom made that possible, since love is not something that can be forced. Human beings are different from animals in the way they can respond to God and the environment. They are open to the future, and the future is open to them. This is something God wanted to actualize. One might put it in terms of God’s resting on the seventh day. This was a rest not of weariness but of delight. In effect, God was pausing to delight in the flourishing of the creature and in the anticipation of all that could happen in a dynamic world. In the work of creation, God was sharing power with us. In summoning us to have dominion over the world, God made us partners, letting us participate in God’s own rule. It is the difference between watching a video and experiencing live interaction. Endowed with freedom, the world is a fruitful and delightful creation. It has a genuine life of its own and is a source of value and delight both to God and to us.

By delegating power to the creature, God chooses to become vulnerable. Had God actualized a determined world, everything would have been controlled. But as it is, God took the risk that freedom might be abused and that the creature might decide to work against God’s purposes. In such a universe, God’s plans can be adversely affected by perversity and disobedience. God accepts the risks that accompany genuine relationship. Though ontologically strong, God chooses to become “weak” by the decision to create a significant world God would not control. God decided to work within a history whose outcome is not predetermined and to rule over a world that is able to resist.

This view helps us deal with the problem of evil. God made a world where evil was possible but not inevitable. We can say that God did not ordain moral evil but that it arose from the misuse of freedom. Ours is a world in which God does not normally override human decisions but lets them play out, because God regards them as significant. God may be responsible for creating a world with moral agents capable of rebelling, but God is not to blame for what human beings do with their freedom. The gift of freedom is costly and carries precariousness with it. But to make a world with free beings is surely a worthwhile thing to do.

Is not open sovereignty implied in Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom? He said that God’s kingdom (sovereignty) was near but not yet fully present. It was breaking into history but not with full effect. At present, God’s sovereignty is actually being resisted by the powers of darkness. There are rival powers with which Jesus has to struggle. He asks us to pray that God’s will be done on earth because it is not happening. Prayer itself is a powerful indicator of how God draws us up into God’s own sovereignty over the world. Paul speaks of the creation groaning as it awaits full redemption (Rom. 8:23). He agrees that God is not wholly sovereign over the world at the present time. The Son has not yet handed the kingdom over to the Father as all in all (1 Cor. 15:28).

God does not rule everything according to blueprint. The present situation involves a struggle between the forces of good and the forces of evil. Though much neglected by theology, spiritual warfare is a reality. God is not now in control-we anticipate complete victory over evil only in the future. This orientation to the future allows us to clarify a point about open sovereignty. Up to a point and in certain areas, we can resist God’s will. But the coming of the Lord tells us that not everything can be thwarted by human freedom. The Lord will come; what we do may affect its timing but not its reality. It is something God intends to do and will certainly do. What we decide may affect when but not whether God does it. The apostle says that we both hasten and delay the return of Christ (2 Pet. 3:9,12). If the parousia appears slow in coming, this is because God wants more sinners to repent that God’s house may be full. God delays the coming to give them more time to respond to divine grace.

A Subtler Deployment Of Power

Because the world is dynamic and capable of producing novelty, God’s power in relation to the world is deployed in subtle ways. In creation, God made room for creatures to exist, and, in providence, God makes room for them to use the finite self-determination that has been given to them. A sovereignty of control would be impressive, but the sovereignty required to rule over a free and dynamic world is even more marvelous. What is needed to rule in this universe is infinite resourcefulness in the subtle use of power; what is required is a style of sovereignty that is open to the world and can respond to the unexpected. The sovereignty requisite to ruling over a world with powers of self-determination is surely more admirable than the sovereignty of manipulation.

Perhaps we should not speak of divine “weakness” just because God (in a sense) accepts defeat at the hands of creatures not wholly under divine control. After all, if God wanted them to be able to decide for or against God, it is not a defeat if some of them decide against. Open sovereignty surely reveals God’s strength not weakness. It requires considerable power to rule over an undetermined world. How marvelous to be able to respond to the unexpected and to deal with new situations as they arise! Open sovereignty requires omnipotence in its own way. The power of love, the power that wills genuine relationships, is certainly not a diminished or inferior form of power.

Perhaps we admire too highly power to force others to do our will. God’s power is greater than the power of coercion. It is the power to make agents who are creators in their own right and the power to continue to rule even when they work against God. We are wrong to measure the greatness of power by a standard of compulsion. This is to confuse sovereignty with the excessive omnipotence of tyranny, which deploys itself against other powers, never alongside them. We have to realize that God wills and loves the existence of free creatures and delights in all their possibilities.

By the grace of creation, God wills to be “God for us” and alongside us. Rather than standing aloof, God is willing to be affected by the world. We celebrate the sovereignty of a heavenly father, not the power of an autocrat. Human fathers have authority over their children and set guidelines for them, but they should not do so as tyrants. They want their offspring to choose to live by right values not by compulsion. God is like that. Jesus likens God to a father who lets his son leave home and learn for himself that sin leads to destruction. When the son repents and returns, the father is thankful and calls for celebration. Our God, who rules over the world, is grieved when we refuse the divine love and rejoices when we embrace it. God’s true power is revealed in the cross of Jesus Christ. In this act of self-sacrificing, God deploys power in the mode of servanthood, overcoming enemies not by annihilating them but by loving them. What an unexpected form of power! Is it not a subtler and higher form of power than coercion? It is a power that respects the mutuality and reciprocity of love.

Growing In Understanding

Despite the appeal of an open view of sovereignty, it is an idea that will take getting used to, for tradition has taught us to think of God’s rule in the mode of control. We are not used to thinking of God as responding flexibly to situations and taking risks. Fortunately, however, our experience of God is in tune with such a view. Not only do the Scriptures speak in these terms but we as God’s children personally know the give and take of relationship. We experience risks and perils and know that we are being taken seriously when God invites us to pray. We experience God interacting without overruling.

If divine sovereignty is to be recovered as a meaningful category, we need to think of it as open and flexible. God created a universe with a degree of self-determination, a world in which things can go wrong, even terribly wrong. God does not rule over it in a way that would render everything cut and dried. God limits divine power and chooses not to control history or even (I would add) to foreknow every outcome that depends on creaturely choices. Sovereignty does not mean that God controls everything, since God gives power to other agents. It means that God is omnicompetent in relation to any circumstance that arises and is unable to be defeated in any ultimate sense. God delights in an open creation precisely because God does not completely control it. The open model of sovereignty does not diminish but augments the glory of God’s rule.

Reformed theology has been a tradition most insistent on seeing sovereignty as total control. It is therefore pleasing to read this conclusion about the matter from a Scottish theologian: “Rather than presiding over a plan immutable in every detail, providence might better be conceived of as the infinite resourcefulness of God in dealing with human creatures in a manner that is in accordance with the purpose disclosed and fulfilled in Christ.” ^[3]

^[1] On the weightlessness of God, see David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1994), chapter 5.

^[2] B. Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1952), p. 276.

^[3] David A. S. Fergusson, “Predestination: A Scottish Perspective,” Scottish Journal of Theology, 46 (1993), p. 477. For further reflection along these lines, see Clark H. Pinnock et al., The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994).

Author note: Clark H. Pinnock is Professor of Theology at McMaster Divinity College and author of A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (1992) and the forthcoming Living Flame of Love: Overcoming our Forgetfulness of the Spirit.

* Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.

The post God’s Sovereignty in Today’s World appeared first on OpenTheism.info.

Preliminary Considerations

1. All Bible Believers Hold that God IS Omniscient.

• God sees everything in creation simultaneously (Job 28:24; Ps. 33:13-15).
• God knows the number of the stars and angels (Ps. 147:4; Isa. 40:26) and hairs on your head (Mt. 10:29-30).
• God knows everything about the deeds, the thoughts, even the innermost intentions of all people (e.g., I Chr. 28:9; Job 24:23; 31:4; 34:21; Psl. 119:168; 139:23-24; Jere. 16:17; 17:9-10; Lk. 16:15; Acts 1:24; Rom. 8:27; 1 Cor. 4:5; 1 Jn. 3:19-20).

2. What The Issue About the “Open Future” Is and Is Not About

It is Not Over Whether or Not God Perfectly Knows All of Reality: But WHAT IS THE REALITY, which God Perfectly Knows.

• The “Open” View holds that the future now is partly composed of indefinite possibilities as opposed to the view that it is exclusively composed of definite realities. It is in part constituted as a “maybe this or maybe that,” not exclusively as a “certainly this and certainly not that.”
• The view does not qualify God’s omniscience. The “Chairs in a Room” analogy

3. The Exegetical Methodology

• Many passages teach or imply that the future is determined and/or foreknown.
• Many passages teach or imply that the future is undetermined and not foreknown.

The Traditional Approach: Affirm the obvious meaning of the first set of passages but denies the obvious meaning of the second (they are figurative/anthropomorphic. etc.).

The Alternative Approach: Affirm the obvious meaning of both sets of passages. Some of the future is determined and foreknown, some is not.

The Bible and the Open View

I. God Changes His Mind

The Ninevites Change God’s Mind

John. 3:10: “When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it.”

Hezekiah’s Prayer Changes God’s Mind

God prophecies to Hezekiah through Isaiah: “Set your house in order, for you shall die; you shall not recover” (Isa. 38: 1, cf. 2 K. 20: 1). Hezekiah earnestly prays for God to spare him. The Lord responds:

Turn back and say to Hezekiah prince of my people, Thus says the Lord, the god of your ancestor David: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; indeed, I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord. I will add fifteen years to your life. I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria(2 Kg. 20: 5-6; cf. Isa. 33:4-5)

Jeremiah later encourages the Israelites not to be fatalistic by recalling the ordeal:

“Did (Hezekiah) not fear the Lord and entreat the favor of the Lord, and did not the Lord change his mind about the disaster that he had pronounced against them?” (Jere. 26:19).

God’s Flexible Policy About Prophecy

At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, but 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. And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to itThus says the Lord: Look I am a potter shaping evil against you and devising a plan against you. Turn now, all of you from your evil way, and amend your ways and your doings. (Jere. 18: 7-11).

• Note the “potter/clay” analogy of divine sovereignty (Jere. 18: 1-6). The potter is so sovereign he has the right to change his mind if chooses to!
• Note, the error the Israelites were making was in concluding that since God had prophesied against them, “It is no use!” (vs.12).

Stand in the court of the Lords house, and speak to all the cities of Judah that come to worship in the house of the LORD; speak to them all the words that I command you…It may be that they will listen… and will turn from their evil way, that I may change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on them because of their evil doings (Jere. 26:2-3).

Now therefore amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your god, and the Lord will change his mind about the disaster that he has pronounced against you (Jere. 26:13).

Return to the Lordfor he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and relents from punishing. Who knows whether he will not turn and relent, and leave a blessing behind him…(Joel 2:13-14, cf. Jon. 4:2).

Moses’ Prayer Changes God’s Mind

The Lord had planned on destroying Israel, but after Moses prayer “the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people.” (Ex. 32:14).

Warning to Backsliders

God threatens to “blot [their] name out of the book of life” (Rev. 3:5, cf. Ex. 32:33).

Question: How can the orthodoxy of saying that God truly “changes his mind” be questionable when one is simply quoting the Bible verbatim in doing so.

II. Other Evidences of a Partly Open Future

A Destruction That Wasn’t Called Off

The people have oppressed the poor and needy, and have extorted from the alien without redress. And I sought for anyone among them who would repair the wall and stand in the breach before me on behalf of the land, so that I would not destroy it, but I found no one. Therefore I have poured out my indignation upon them…(Ezek. 22: 29-3 Ia.)

The Openness of the Second Coming

Peter suggests that God has delayed the Second Coming because he is “patient with you, not wanting any to perish” (2 Pet. 3:9). Peter then encourages believers to be “looking for and hastening (speudo) the coming of the day of god” (2 Pet. 3:12, NIV “speed its coming”).

God’s Disappointment

Yahweh expresses his amazement at the stubbornness of Israel:

The Lord said to me in the days of King Josiah: Have you seen what she [Israel] did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and played the whore there? And I thought, “After she has done all this she will return to me”; but she did not return…(Jere. 3:6-7).

And again:

I thought how I would set you among my children, and give you a pleasant and, the most beautiful heritage of all the -nations. And I thought you would call me, My Father, and would not turn from following me. Instead, as a faithless wife leaves her husband, so you have been faithless to me, O house of Israel. (Jere. 3:19-20)

God Sometimes Thinks In Terms of Possibilities

Now it came about when pharaoh had let the people go, that God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, even though it was near, for God said, “Lest the people change their minds when they see war, and they return to Egypt.” (NIV: “if they face war they might change their minds and return to Egypt.”) (Exodus 13:17)

Exodus 3:18- 4:9

In Exodus 3 the Lord assures Moses, “They [the elders] will listen to your voice…” (vs. 18). Moses (clearly not interpreting Yahweh’s statements as unalterable previews into the future) quickly asks, “suppose they do not believe me or listen to me…? (4:1). The Lord performs the miracle of turning his staff into a snake (vss. 2-4) “so that they may believe that the Lord, the god of their ancestors, the God of Abraham, The God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you” (vs.5).

Moses isn’t convinced this miracle will suffice, so the Lord shows Moses how he can make a whole hand leprous and then whole again (vs. 7). Then the Lord adds,

If they will not believe you or heed the first sign, they may believe the second sign. But if they will not believe even these two signs or heed you, you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground, and the water that you shall take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground ” (vs. 8-9).

God Finds Things Out

After Abraham’s passing his test: “…now I know that you fear God, since you have not with held your son…“(Gen. 22:12).

God Regrets Certain Outcomes.

After Saul’s failure as king the Lord confesses: “I regret that I made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me…” (I Sam. 15: 11). And the author adds at the end of his narrative, “And the Lord was sorry that he had made Saul king over Israel” (I Sam. 15:35).

So too, just prior to the flood: “The Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.” (Gen. 6:6).

God Gives Alternatives

To King Zedikiah:

Thus says the Lord, the God of hosts, the God of Israel, If you will only surrender to the officials of the king of Babylon, then your life shall be spared, and this city shall not be burned with fire and you and your house shall live. But if you do not surrender to the officials of the king of Babylon, then this city shall be handed over to the Chaldeans, and they shall burn it with fire, and you yourself shall not escape from their hand…obey the voice of the Lord in what I say to you, and it shall go well with you But if you are determined not to surrender, this is what the Lord has shown me. All your wives and your children shall be led out to the Chaldeans, and you yourself shall not escape from their hand…(Jere. 38:17-18, 20-21, 23).

Conclusion: While much of the future is settled, some of the future is not. God perfectly knows it as such.

III. Responding to Objections

1. Couldn’t These Passages Be “Phenomenological Anthropomorphisms “?
2. • Nothing in the texts suggests this. They read as literal reports.
   • What are they anthropomorphic expressions of? If God doesn’t really change his mind, aren’t all the verses which explicitly say he does change his mind simply misleading?
   • If God doesn’t really change his minds, aren’t the prophecies he revokes disingenuous?
   • How can reports about what God was thinking (Jere. 3:6-7, 19-20; Ex. 13:17) be phenomenological?
   • At the very least, can one’s orthodoxy be impugned for taking such verses literally?
3. What About Passages Which Strongly Affirm Divine Foreknowledge?
   

   The former things I declare long ago,

   they went out from my mouth and I made them known;

   then suddenly I did them and they came to pass.

   Because I know that you are obstinate

   I declared them to you from long ago,

   before they came to pass I announced them to you,

   so that you would not say, “My idol did them…”(Isa. 48:3-5)

   I am God, and there is no other.

   I am God, and there is no one like me,

   declaring the end from the beginning

   and from ancient times things not yet done,

   saying “My purpose shall stand,

   and I will fulfill my intention”…

   I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;

   I have planned, and I will do it (Isa. 46:9-11).

   The point: To demonstrate that the one true God is Lord of history, not some dead idol.

   What These Verses Don’t Say: Everything about the future is definite and is known as such.

   What They Do Say: Whatever Yahweh (as opposed to dead idols) decides to do in history he can most certainly carry out. “The former things I declared long ago…then suddenly I did them and they came to pass so that you would not say, ‘my idol did them”‘ (Isa. 48:3, 5). “My purpose shall stand, and I will fulfill my intention I have planned, and I will do it” (Isa. 46: 10,).

4. Doesn’t God predestine and thus foreknow free decisions, even wicked deeds (Acts 2:23; 4:27-28)?
5. • Whatever difficulties these verses have for the Open View they have for all Arminians.
   • God can override freedom or solidify character whenever he chooses (e.g., “hardening hearts”). He just doesn’t do this all the time.
   • Acts 2:23 and 4:27-28 teaches that the event of Christ’s crucifixion was predestined and foreknown, not who would carry it out.
6. Doesn’t This View Imply That God is Not In Control?
   • The “Choose Your Own Adventure” Model of Providence
   • The Interplay of Openness and Determinateness in all of reality.
     • Quantum Indeterminacy and Phenomenological Wholes
     • Chaoes theory: reality is structured but meticulously unpredictable
     • The behavior of insects and animals
     • Human behavior
7. What About Biblical Prophecies?
8. Many (if not most) are conditional.
9. “Forty days more, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” (Jon.3:4b).
10. “Set your house in order, for you shall die, you shall not recover” (Isa. 38:1, cf. 2 Kg. 20:1).
11. Jere. 18: 6-10: If you change. I’ll change…
12. David to Yahweh:
    

    O Lord, the God of Israel, your servant has heard that Saul seeks to come to Keliah, to destroy the city on my account. And now, will Saul come down as your servant has heard? The Lord said, “He will come down.” Then David said, “‘Will the men of Keliah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” The Lord said, “They will surrender you, Then David and his men… set out and left Keliah.” (I Sam. 23:10-12).

    Other Prophecies Concern What God Insures Will Transpire.

13. Messianic Prophesies
14. Destruction of Cities (?)
15. Exceptional details in history (e.g. Peter’s threefold denial, Jn. 20:25-27, cf. his later threefold affirmation of love, Jn. 21:15-17) and his death (Jn.21:18)Other Prophecies Are Based On Inevitable or Likely Consequences of The Present (I Sam. 23:10-12; Jere. 38:17-18, 20-21, 23)
16. What about the Bible’s teaching that God does not change his mind?I Sam. 15:29 “…the glory of Israel will not lie or change his mind, for this not a man that He should change his mind.
17. Affirming this passage as literal at the expense of literalness of the 39 passages that teach that God does change his mind is arbitrary.
18. There is no problem in affirming that sometimes God is willing to change his mind (as in Jere. 18:7-11) and sometimes not (as in response to Saul’s pleading in I Sam. 15:27).
19. God never changes his mind in the way humans often change their minds — e.g., deceitfully, arbitrarily, etc. “God is not a man that He should change His mind.”
20. Doesn’t This View Demean God’s Sovereignty?
21. The Bible exalts God’s openness to change as part of his sovereignty (Joel 2:13-14; Jon. 4:2; Jere. 18:7-11).
22. Primary models of God in Scripture are responsive (shepherd, husband, compassionate king, hen)
23. The Interpersonal/Responsive model is more, not less, sovereign. Analogy of a master at chess.
24. Doesn’t Psalms 139 teach that God foreknows all the days of our life?Psalms 139:16 “Your eyes be held my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed.“
25. Poetry calls for hermeneutical caution.
26. The Hebrew is very ambiguous. It lacks “all my days”. What exactly is “written” is uncertain. (NKJV supplies “members”).
27. Supplying “members” instead of “days” fits the motif of the passage best since the whole verse concerns the growing fetus in the womb.
28. Implications of yasar (“formed,” “planned,” “ordained”) are uncertain. The phrase need not entail inalterability.
29. Even on the NRSV and NIV reading, the verse doesn’t say “all my days were written” but “all the days that were formed…”
30. Doesn’t Romans 9, teach that God controls the salvation and damnation of each individual?Rom. 9:18: “So then God has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom desires.”
31. Whatever problems this passages poses for the Open View, it poses for all Arminians.
32. The passage must be read in the context of the New Testaments teaching about the need and responsibility to choose to believe and God’s desire to save all (Jn. 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4; 4: 10; 2 Pet. 3:9)
33. No one interpreted this passage in a Calvinistic fashion until Augustine.
34. The passage isn’t about the salvation or damnation of individuals but about God’s fidelity to Israel and his right to define who is the true Israel (cf 9:6, 11:1). (Note: God blesses Ishmael and Esau, though they are excluded from God’s chosen lineage).
35. The potter/clay analogy doesn’t entail absolute determinism (cf. Jere. 18). Nor is the clay “primordial humanity.”
36. Paul sums up his line of argumentation in this passage in vss 30-32 (“what shall we say then…”) by stating that Israel has temporarily stumbled Because they did not pursue [righteousness] by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone… In short; Paul appeals to their free will.
37. The Open View of the Future is Untraditional and “Socinian” It should thus be rejected by orthodox Believers.
38. Socinius denied the Trinity, Deity of Christ and the atonement. Calling the Open View “Socinian” is like calling Calvinists “Muslim” because the Koran teaches absolute predestination! (The view would perhaps better be called “M’Cabian” or “Clarkian” after two of the most prominent orthodox promoters of this view in the 19th century, the Methodist professor L.D. M’Cabe and the great biblical commentator Adam Clarke).
39. There is a long standing philosophical debate regarding the content of God’s omniscience in the Church tradition in which new views have been accepted with some frequency.
40. The “open” issue was discussed among 19th century Methodists, but never as an orthodox/heresy issue. Others in Church history have qualified the content of God’s omniscience more radically than the Open View (e.g. St. Jerome) and have not been judged as unorthodox.
41. Luther, Calvin, the Anabaptists and other Reformers all taught things which were very untraditional at the time but which we Protestants now follow as true. Many of us also follow some of the insights of modern day Pentecostalism, though the use of the “charismata” was dormant throughout most of church history. We do this because for Protestants Scripture alone is the final court of appeal. Any other line of reasoning is anti-Protestant.

The post The “Open” View of the Future appeared first on OpenTheism.info.

In this essay I shall briefly state the Open view of God’s relationship to the future with the scriptural grounds on which it is based. I shall then briefly address the most common objections raised against it.

The Open View

It goes without saying that there are many passages of Scripture which depict God as foreknowing and/or predestining certain things about the future. What is not so often recognized is that there are also many passages of Scripture which suggest that some of the future is open (not settled) and is known by God as such. For example,

• The Lord frequently changes his mind in the light of changing circumstances or in the light of prayer (Exod. 32:14; Num. 14:12-20; Deut. 9:13-14, 18-20, 25; 1 Sam. 2:27-36; 2 Kings 20:1-7; 1 Chron. 21:15; Jer. 26:19; Ezek. 20:5-22; Amos 7:1-6; Jon. 1:2; 3:2, 4-10). Other times he explicitly tells us he will change his mind if circumstances change (Jer. 18:7-11; 26:2-3; Ezek. 33:13-15). This willingness to change is portrayed as one of God’s attributes of greatness (Joel 2:13-14; Jon. 4:2).
• A number of times he expresses regret and disappointment over how things have turned out – even over previous decisions he has made which went array because of human free will (Gen. 6:5-6; 1 Sam 15:10,35; Ezek. 22:29-31).
• Other times he tells us he’s surprised at how things turned out, for he expected a different outcome (Isa. 5:3-7; Jer. 3:6-7; 19-20).
• In several passages the Lord explicitly tells us that he did not know that humans would behave the way they did (Jer. 7:3 1; 19:5; 3 2:3 5).
• The Lord frequently tests his people to find out whether or not they’ll remain faithful to him (Gen. 22:12; Exod. 16:4; Deut. 8:2; 13:1-3; Judg. 2:20-3:5; 2 Chron. 3 2:3 1).
• The Lord sometimes asks non-rhetorical questions about the future (Num. 14:11; Hos. 8:5) and speaks to people in terms of what may or may not happen (Exod. 3:18-4:9; 13:17; Jer. 3 8:17-18, 20-21, 23; Ezek. 12:1-3).

Traditionally, theologians have taken all the passages that demonstrate that the future is settled either in God’s mind (foreknowledge) or in God’s will (predestination) as revealing the whole truth about God’s relationship to the future. They therefore interpret all passages (such as the above) which suggest that God faces a partly open future as being figurative. On exegetical and theological grounds I do not see this approach as warranted. I am therefore compelled to take both sets of passages as literal and thus to draw the conclusion that the future which God faces is partly open and partly settled.

Objections

1. The Open view undermines God’s omniscience.
   I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that God is absolutely all knowing. There is no difference in my understanding of God’s omniscience and any other orthodox theologian. But I hold that part of the reality which God perfectly knows consists of possibilities. The difference is in our understanding of creation, not in our understanding of God’s omniscience.
2. The Open view undermines God’s omnipotence.
   I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that God is omnipotent. He is the Creator of all things and thus all power comes from him. But with all Arminians, I also hold that God limits the exercise of his own power by giving free will to creatures (humans and angels).
3. The Open view undermines our confidence in God’s ability to accomplish his purposes.
   I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that God can and has guaranteed whatever he wants to about the future, for he is omnipotent. But I also affirm (because I believe Scripture teaches) that part of God’s purpose in creation is to have free agents who decide some matters for themselves (e.g. their own eternal destiny). Within the parameters set by the Creator, parameters which guarantee whatever God wants to guarantee about the future, humans have some degree of selfdetermination. This means that concerning the fate of particular individuals things may not turn out as God desires. If we deny this, we must accept that God actually desires some people to go to hell. But Scripture unequivocally denies this. (I Tim. 2-4; 2 Pet. 3:9)
4. The Open view undermines God’s perfection.
   I affirm (because Scripture teaches) the absolute perfection of God. But I do not see that Scripture teaches that the future must be exhaustively settled either in God’s mind or in God’s will for God to be perfect. Rather, I believe that God’s perfection is more exalted when we understand him to be so self-confident in his power that he genuinely gives free will to creatures.
5. This Open view undermines the power of prayer.
   I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that petitionary prayer is our most powerful tool in bringing about the Father’s will “on earth as it is in heaven.” Indeed, because my view allows for the future to be somewhat open, I believe it makes the best sense out of the urgency and efficaciousness which Scripture attaches to prayer.
6. The Open view cannot account for biblical prophecy.
   I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that God can and does determine and predict the future whenever it suits his sovereign purposes to do so. But I deny that this logically entails, or that Scripture teaches, that all of the future is determined and predictable. God is wise enough to be able to achieve his purposes while allowing his creatures a significant element of freedom.
7. The Open View is Incoherent
   Some argue that it is logically impossible for God to guarantee some aspects of the future without controlling everything about the future. This objection has been raised by Calvinists against Arminians for centuries and is no more forceful against the Open view than it is against classical Arminians. Everything in life, from our own personal experience down to quantum particles, points to the truth that predictable stability does not rule out an element of unpredictability.

The post God and the Future appeared first on OpenTheism.info.