I must respond to your position on open theism. All open theists do not believe alike. As it regards the future Open Theism is as valid an idea as any of classical theologys teachings that attempt to reconcile mans free will and the concept of foreknowledge. You state and rightly so that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient and open theism does not undermine these attributes at all. The issue isn’t Gods attributes, the issue is our understanding of past and future. I contend that the past is unchangeable and the future does not exist. I believe God is God precisely because he has control in the present of whatever he desires, and in the present his will cannot be restrained. No one can thwart Gods intentions and God is never subject to any authority. I do not believe as you suggest that God can fail or make mistakes. Opponents of Open Theism contend that our doctrine renders Gods prophecies undependable. Nothing could be further from the truth. God is God because whatever he determines at present to happen he is complete in his ability to bring it to pass. If God decrees that Hezekiah will live another 15 years who can resist God in the matter. God is perfect and all he created he created perfect and good. Nobody can argue that the Man and Woman God created remained good. The inherent ability to deviate from Gods will that rests in man is not itself a mistake or flaw. In fact it is the most wonderful gift God gave to man. Gods desire to commune with his creation demands that he give that creation the ability to choose that communion. Where opponents of Open Theism go wrong is in their understanding of the true nature of past and future. Both are non-existent in nature and are the product of two God given qualities. The first is Memory and the second is Imagination. Past is Memory and future is Imagination. In Genesis 2:19 God brings all of the animals to Adam to see what he would name them. Here we see these two faculties at work. Adam used his imagination to name them and of course he had to have the ability to remember them. These God given qualities unfortunately create the illusion of past and future. As one moment moves to the next the human never occupies any other position than the present and God works all his mighty works in the present. Even Christ in Matthew 6:34 says ” Take therefore no thought for the morrow…” declaring rather clearly that we must concern ourselves with the present because the present is all we can affect. We will never know the fullness of God. He is unsearchable, there is noone beside him. I am but an unworthy servant and recipient of unmerited grace. Let us reason together.
God Bless
Robert Clark

Hi Robert,

Welcome to the site and thanks for your feedback.

Yes, Open Theists vary widely on their understanding and you have articulated probably the most common perspective. While we could bat around Scripture all day, let me focus on just that you mention - God’s decree in 2 Kings 20:1-20 that Hezekiah will live another 15 years. On openness grounds, how could God possibly make such a statment since you profess the future unknowable, even by God? Over a 15 year time span, the contingencies are simply staggering. The number of freewill choices, made not just by Hezekiah, by by all those that relate to his life and well-being for those 15 years …. none of which God knows in the openness view! … is fantastically enormous. To say that Hezekiah will live 15 more years simply because God “decrees it”, ignores an almost incalculable number of future free-will choices that are mind-boggling. (If true, then there is no such thing as “free will” as the open theist defines it.)

It must also be pointed out that the church has traditionally held the classical view of God’s omniscience. This fact alone - that open theism is a relatively new view that contradicts the historial, traditional understanding of the church - mandates extreme caution I believe.

I’d encourage you to read Millard Erickon’s What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? He presents a fair and exhaustive survey of the Openness argument and the traditional understanding. I’d be interested in your response to the arguments he raises.

peace,

Bob
Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Bob Pratico
Fides Quaerens Intellectum
(my Sojourn blog)

Hi Bob,

Thanks for your response. I will definitley read Ericksons book and get back with you. As far as Hezekiah is concerned you are right. The number of free will choices are staggering and to go even further, Does Hezekiah remain free to take his own life in that period of time. On the surface this seems puzzling. But again we are not really looking at it right. In verse 1 God tells Hezekiah in no uncertain terms he is about to die. In verse 6 he tells Hezekiah he is going to add 15 years to his life. The interesting choice of the word ” add ” reveals the fact that Hezekiahs life was about to end and that God would have to Sovereignly intervene in order to change this fact. If God knew beforehand that he was going to add the fifteen years to Hezekiahs life than this whole event is simply a waste of time. As for the actual bringing to pass of fifteen year extension who can argue that God is not up to the task of preserving Hezekiahs life at any given moment. The ability to make free choices does not entitle one to determine or even know consequences. All of those related to Hezekiah remain free to make any choice at any time they want, however, this never usurps God sovereign power to effect any result he desires. David obviously believed this when he fasted and prayed for the life of his son. If Gods judgement was not changeable then we must wonder what David believed could be the result of his praying and fasting. He declares what I believe is true and supports the open theism viewpoint, ” Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live “. David obviously believes God can change his mind. If God already knows the outcome beforehand then all biblical references to God repenting, sparing, forgiving are pure nonsense.
I will get the book today and get back with you.
Regarding the reverence of longstanding, classical views of the church I would say more caution is needed when anyone states that they actually know what these views really are. Outside of the Nicene Creed on which most agree I am not sure how representative the church as it is constituted today reflects the Church forged in the fire of real persecution and revolutionary changes that the first Apostles so aptly lead.
Let us agree on this -In all things may the Lord Jesus Christ be Glorified.

God Bless
Robert Clark

Hi Robert,

Actually Erickson devotes quite a bit of the book to the historical development - on both sides. Would appreciate your views on the book after you read it. thanks,

Bob
Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Bob Pratico
Fides Quaerens Intellectum
(my Sojourn blog)