First Question: Warning! Deep Theological Reflection Ahead!

Dear Jonathan,

Greetings. I have a question regarding the sermon notes that you posted today. If I understand you correctly--I might not have--this past Sunday, you preached that the idea that God lacks exhaustive knowledge of the future is un-biblical. (I take it that you have in mind the "Open" view of God?) While I do not wish to drag you into a debate on this point, I would find it helpful if you could provide me with concrete reasons why you hold to this strong claim. In particular, I am wondering if you think that there are exegetical, theological, or perhaps even philosophical reasons to think that the open view is contrary to the Scriptures. Many thanks.

Sincerely,
XXXX


Then I responded with this answer:

Thank you very much for the question.
I certainly had the "Open" view of God's knowledge in mind when writing the sermon.
There are many exegetical reasons to believe the Open View to be error including:
Isaiah 41:21-29- Part of God's "Godness" is dependent upon Him knowing what the future holds and being able to declare exactly what will happen. (See also Isaiah 45:18-25 and 46:9). There is also the issue of Psalm 139 etc. where God is said to have very specific foreknowledge (David's words before they are spoken, his days before they are lived etc) that the "Open" view could not explain. There are many New Testament texts where Jesus makes specific predictions about what will happen in the future- John 13:19. Jesus predicts Peter will deny Him 3 times (not 2, not 4, not 15, but 3)- John 13:38 and 18:19-27. Jesus predicts the kind of death Peter will die John 21:18-19.

The theological reasons would simply be the understanding of these and other texts to teach that God has exhaustive divine foreknowledge and that that type of knowledge is inconsistent with the belief that God doesn't know the actual decisions of His free creatures (even though in the Open view He may know all future possibilities). I would understand the "repentance" texts and the God "changing His mind" texts as anthropomorphic (this word means "attributing human characteristics to God in order to communicate some other truth about God"- for example when the Bible talks about God's arm, or hand) because some of them taken literally would imply a lack of knowledge of present realities (Genesis 22:1-19- In this text God is said to only know Abraham's heart at the point where he raises the knife), and they seem to be much less clear than the exhaustive knowledge texts.

Philosophical reasons would be the Open view's problem with the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture, that is, how could God ensure that the writings of the Bible were exactly what He wanted under this view? Also, how could God ensure that Christ's death would occur exactly as it did?

I know this is oversimplified and short, but I figure that's enough to get the dialogue going.

I appreciate you asking the question.

For reading I would recommend (if you are unaware of the relevant books) God's Lesser Glory by Bruce Ware (where I got most of my Scripture refs). No Other God by John Frame, Beyond the Bounds eds. Piper, and Taylor. I have read (some of) Most Moved Mover by Pinnock, God of the Possible by Boyd, and Is God to Blame? by Boyd on the Open side.

In Christ,

Jonathan

Here was the reply

Dear Jonathan,

Thanks so much for taking time to respond to my question. I have been reading and thinking about these issues for many years, although I have not had the opportunity to do a really in-depth study of the issues. I have worries on both sides. For one thing, I am not convinced that proponents of Open Theism really understand the classical doctrines of impassibility and immutability that they claim to be rejecting. I believe that the classical doctrines allow for responsiveness on God's part even while maintaining that God eternally has exhaustive (fore)knowledge. On the other side, I get worried when classical theists throw around the idea of divine sovereignty as if just mentioning this fact conclusively ends the debate. There seems to be a tendency for classical theists to miss the fact that God could have sovereignly chosen not to micromanage human behavior. Also, unless you are going to go whole hog supralapsarian, the problem of evil seems to be a particularly potent liability for the classical theist position--at least as far as I can tell.

Thanks again for your helpful response.

Sincerely,
XXXX


To which I responded

Thanks for your response.
I agree that some Open proponents may not understand impassibility or immutability, but I think one of the main problems with this view is that they have not thought it all the way through to the end. There are just too many doctrines that are called into question when holding an Open view of God's knowledge and interaction with creatures. They truly believe in libertarian freewill, while compatibilistic freedom is a much more biblical position (Gen 50:20, Acts 2:23, 4:2-28, Phil 2:12-13 etc.). I would much rather err on the side God's freedom than man's freedom.
The debate is certainly more difficult than most people know, and as I've studied the Open view, I have seen that their position is stronger than I thought, but I still am not persuaded. Another problem is the direction that some of the proponents are naturally drifting. John Sanders for instance says that Christ's intention to die on the cross was not set until the garden of Gethsemane. Here is the relevant citation.
As far as God responding to His people, and having real emotional responses (in accord with His nature as a lover of good, hater of evil, comforter of the downtrodden etc.), I don't see God's divine sovereignty, exhaustive knowledge, impassibility and immutability as necessarily contradictory to these activities of God.
Thanks again,
In Christ,
Jonathan

Disclaimer: I realize that this dialogue assumes a basic knowledge of these issues. For more information on the "Open" view of God also known as "Open Theism" please read this article on Wikipedia.

If anyone has any questions please let me know.

Jonathan

Snake Bit

I have heard people respond about the two tragedies that have hit our church in many ways. One such instance that I heard of is someone referring to our church as being “snake bit”. The phrase “snake bit” refers to being cursed or unlucky. Not to be judgmental but this phrase demonstrates a small view of God. My two staff members mean the world to me. They are my brothers in arms. Donny is one of the greatest fathers I have ever known and I have had to watch him bear the loss of his daughter. Scott loved his wife more than anyone I know and I cannot bear to think about the pain he is experiencing and will experience in the coming days. I have been forever changed by these events. It is an odd thing to be both in the middle of the grief and also in another sense watching it from the outside. It is hard to explain the wounds that have been inflicted to my soul through watching my brothers suffer. God draws for us a much more crooked path than I ever imagined. This is not the carefree Christian life that I expected but it is the one that God has graciously given me. If I could not stand on the rock hard foundation of the sovereignty of God I think I would go insane. Is Wyatt snake bit, cursed, or unlucky? I guess that all depends on how big your God is. I guess in one sense we have all been snake bit. The serpent in the garden struck us hard and the suffering is still being experienced through death, sin, and all matter of pain. But, we serve a God that brought his heel down firmly on the snake’s head and redeemed us from the bite. On the cross Christ redeemed both our sin and our pain. Me, Donny, Scott, and Wyatt believe in a God who is working out his plan according to his good and perfect will. Our loss is substantial and our pain is very real, but our God is big. Is there any other type of God worth worshiping? Though he slays Wyatt, yet we hope in Him (Job 13:15). Do you?