The advocates of open theism are self-professed
evangelicals affirming the inerrancy and authority of Scripture.
Clark Pinnock and John Sanders hold membership in the Evangelical
Theological Society (ETS), an important scholarly organization
committed to the inerrancy of Scripture. Gregory Boyd is, as far
as I know, committed to the inerrancy of Scripture. In fact, open
theists claim Scripture leads them to a denial of the historic
understanding of God’s knowledge of future events. Open
theists, such as Pinnock, Boyd and Sanders, isolate five types of
Scripture passages that lead them to reformulate their
understanding of God.
First, open theists point to
passages that speak of the future in terms of contingency, that
is, what “may” happen (Ex. 4:1-9; 13:17; Matt.
26:39). For example, in Exodus 4:1-9 Moses questioned his duty if
the Jewish leaders failed to believe in him. God detailed several
miracles which at the hand of Moses “may” lead the
people to believe in Moses as God’s messenger. This passage,
however, does not mean that God did not know how the Jewish
leaders would respond to Moses. God told Moses in advance the
response of the Jewish leaders (Ex. 3:18). Again, some open
theists interpret Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane
in which he requested the removal of the cup of death as meaning
the events of Calvary lacked certainty. According to Sanders,
Jesus could avoid the cross, in spite of the fact that the
Scriptural claims that foreknew the sacrifice of Christ (Acts 2:23;
Rev. 13:8.).
Second, open theists highlight as
most important passages that suggest God tested people to
discover people’s responses. In response to Abraham’s
willingness to offer his son Isaac, God responded, “Now I
know that you fear God” (Gen. 22:12 NKJV). However, if their
interpretation is correct, then God lacked present knowledge of
Abraham’s heart as well as his future decisions. God
previously reckoned Abraham righteous because of his faith and
established an unconditional covenant (Gen. 15; Rom. 4). Hebrew
scholars note that the term translated in Genesis 22:12 as “know”
denotes a confirmation of knowledge.
Third, open theists accentuate
passages which describe God as asking non-rhetorical questions
about the future (Num. 14:11; 1 Kings 22:20; Hosea 8:5).
Yet, to call these questions non-rhetorical is a matter of
interpretation. Scripture frequently records God asking
rhetorical questions. For example, Genesis 3: 9-13 describe God
asking Adam and Eve the following questions: “Where are you?”
“Who told you that you were naked?” “Have you
eaten from the tree?” “What is this you have done?”
A non-rhetorical interpretation of these passages in Genesis
suggests that God lacks knowledge of the past, as well as, the
present and future. In like manner, in Numbers and Hosea God
rhetorically asked “how long” his people would despise
him. God frequently asked rhetorical questions in connection with
the commissioning of a servant (1Kgs. 22:20; Isa. 6: 8) without
implying a lack of knowledge.
Fourth, open theists emphasize
passages in which God expresses regret, indeed repentance, for
his decisions (Gen. 6:6; 1 Sam. 15:11, 35). Genesis 6:6
says, “The Lord repented that He made man on earth, and He
was grieved on earth” (KJV). 1 Samuel 15:11 states, “I
repent that I made Saul king, for he has turned back from
following me” (KJV). Neither of these passages directly
affirms that God does not know the future; rather, open theists
infer that God would have decided on another course of action if
he foreknew the results. To understand Genesis 6:6 as an
expression of divine ignorance insinuates that God did not
foresee the fall of humanity into moral corruption. If the
corruption of sin took God by surprise, how could God establish a
redemptive plan prior to creation? The same chapter in Samuel
affirms, “I repent that I made Saul king” (1 Sam. 15:11,
35) and “the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent, for
He is not a man, that He should repent” (1 Sam. 15:29). The
Hebrew verb translated “repent” (naham) means “relent”
or “grieve” rather than repent. Saul could not
establish a dynasty according to the Word of God; Jacob’s
prophecy stated the royal king would arise from the tribe of
Judah (Gen. 49:8-10). God’s rejection of Saul because of the
king’s disobedience did not violate God’s plan. Because
God is not man, He would neither relent nor lie regarding His
decision to give the kingship to David. Yet, God “grieved”
in the sense that He expressed the appropriate moral response to
the failure of a leader.
Finally, open theists stress
passages in which God expressed surprise or disappointment
(Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 32:35). The passages in Jeremiah appear to
support open theism. God said three times that the idolatrous
abomination of child sacrifices never “entered my mind.”
Yet, the passage does not claim the God never thought about this
specific behavior. Three times God specifically warned Israel of
this particular sin centuries before the sixth-century prophet
Jeremiah (Lev. 18:21; Deut. 12:31; 18:10). Rather, the phrase
“enter my mind” commonly described intention. The act
of child sacrifice unashamedly opposed God’s intention or
will.
Bruce Ware, a professor at the Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary, has written the most helpful book
for laymen addressing the faulty biblical rationale of open
theists: God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open
Theism.
E-Mail To A Friend
Printer-Friendly Article
Share Your Views
