. . . that Open Theism is Wrong
As I mentioned, it has been too long since I talked about my Calvinist leanings. It’s time to get back to it. But I will have to go slightly round about.
What do you think when someone says that a certain event is going to happen and then it doesn’t. You think a little less of him, right? And if he does this often, you begin to lose more respect for him. And if he more than once states “I am going to do that” and then doesn’t, you really begin to think, “Hey, guy! You need to start planning ahead. You need to see if you can carry through with what you say you’re going to do before you say it!”
In short, this person is not acting in a wise way. I think most people would agree to this.
So I wouldn’t want you to say that of me.
That Jamsco! He’s always saying he’s going to do this great thing and then it never happens.
If it’s true, tell me. But if it’s not true, it’s insulting.
Also, don’t say that about my Dad. Or my Pastor.
And don’t (here’s the point, finally) say it about my God.
I understand that Greg Boyd is a nice man. Loving, intelligent and all respect him, including those who disagree with him. I wish no ill against him.
But I have this to say against him. He claims that God makes predictions and then they turn out to be false – that God is Untrustworthy.
A while back, a friend of mine, knowing that I was Calvinist, suggested that I read Pastor Boyd’s book God Of The Possible (I finally got to it, Mike!)
This book does a good job outlining his views of Open Theism (simply put, that God doesn’t know the future). It is short read, fairly interesting and it is quite clear. The passages I’m talking about here are in the appendix, but they are also (helpfully) given here.
So, for example, Pastor Boyd takes this passage (from Numbers 11):
11 And the Lord said to Moses, “How long will this people despise me? And how long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them? 12 I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they.”
13 But Moses said to the Lord, “Then the Egyptians will hear of it, for you brought up this people in your might from among them, . . . . Please pardon the iniquity of this people, according to the greatness of your steadfast love, just as you have forgiven this people, from Egypt until now.”
20 Then the Lord said, “I have pardoned, according to your word.”
And says this of it:
In response to Israel’s bickering the Lord says “I will strike them with pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you [Moses] a nation greater and mightier than they” (vs. 12). Moses asks the Lord to forgive the people, and the Lord eventually responds, “I do forgive, just as you have asked” (vs. 20).
Unless the intention the Lord declared to Moses in verse 12 was insincere, we must conclude that he did not at that point intend on forgiving the Israelites. It cannot have been certain at that time (let alone from all eternity) that God would forgive the Israelites. Hence, it seems that either the Lord is insincere, or the classical view of divine foreknowledge is mistaken.
So what Pastor Boyd is saying is that when God made his prediction of what he was going to do, he was wrong. And when Moses pointed out these things, God said “Huh. I hadn’t thought of that. Well then, forget what I said earlier about destroying everyone.”
And then Pastor Boyd takes 1 Kings 21:21-29:
21 Behold, I will bring disaster upon you. I will utterly burn you up, and will cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel. 22 And I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, . . .
27 And when Ahab heard those words, he tore his clothes and put sackcloth on his flesh and fasted and lay in sackcloth and went about dejectedly. 28 And the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, 29 “Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the disaster in his days;
And says this of it:
Because of Ahab’s great sin the Lord tells him, “I will bring disaster on you; I will consume you…” (vs. 21). Ahab repents and the Lord responds by telling his messenger prophet, “Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the disaster in his days…” (vs. 29).
The Lord revoked his prophecy against Ahab and delayed his judgment on his family line because of Ahab’s repentance. If all of this was foreknown to God, his prophecy to Ahab that he was going to bring disaster and consume him could not have been given in earnest. If verse 21 expresses God’s genuine intention, then we must conclude that God’s mind can genuinely change in the light of change in people’s attitudes and action (something the Lord explicitly tells us is true in other passages, e.g. Jer. 18:7–10).
So again Pastor Boyd says that God said “I will destroy you” and has no idea of the possibility that Ahab might repent, so when he does, it is a surprise and God changes his mind and doesn’t carry out his curse.
Really, if I were God, I would be insulted. What, you think I had no idea this might happen?
Over and over as Pastor Boyd looks at these passages, he states that where God makes a prediction and they don’t come true, it is because he changes his mind based on how humans responded. I disagree.
So what are we to do with these threats that don’t come true? The answer is in Jeremiah, and Dr. Boyd should know this, because he quotes it in his book.
From Jeremiah 18
7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it.
People who heard God’s curses knew this. They knew his statements promising destruction were conditional. So when they repented and the predictions didn’t come true, they didn’t think “Aha, we got him there!” No, they thanked God that he was so merciful.
As I say, this is one way that Open Theism is wrong. But only one way.
The Responsible Puppet 
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 10, 2009 at 7:57 am
Chris
I have always thought that passages like this were for our benefit.
The Lord knows who will repent and who will not because he is the author of our faith. He has established that certain things will be done in response to prayer and obedience, and even our prayers and obedience are ordained by him. So he does not have to change his plans when we pray or obey–he knew all along that we would.
Yet passages like these display the realities of sin, repentance, faith, and obedience. Each have their consequences. God uses these passages to accomplish the faith, repentance, and obedience he has ordained for those who will believe. We read and respond to them.
He uses them to display the truth to everyone. No one can say, “I never knew that would happen,” “or Nobody ever told me…” If we disobey, we are without excuse.
At times he used people like Moses to communicate things that he wants us to know. Moses was not telling God how he should respond. God used Moses to tell us things about himself. He used a conversation between Moses and himself to do this.
Perhaps theologians like Greg Boyd arrive at the conclusions they do because, as Peter did in Mark 8: 31-33, they are setting their minds on the things of man, rather than the things of God. Peter did not intend to do this, and many of us do not intentionally do this either. But it is such a danger–Lord, please keep our minds always set on You!
March 10, 2009 at 8:50 am
Mike
Hi Scott, glad to see you got a chance to read the book and i still haven’t decided where I come down with all of this. BTW are you done with jury duty? What became of that?
Here’s a question: Are you implying that God is ‘incapable’ of changing his mind? Could he not be insulted if people thinks he can’t? Or ‘CAN’ he? If we are made in the image of him, I wonder about that. Chew on that and let me know what you think.
March 10, 2009 at 11:30 am
jamsco
Chris – good comments.
“At times he used people like Moses to communicate things that he wants us to know.”
Agreed. Thanks.
March 10, 2009 at 11:35 am
jamsco
Mike, I wondered if you’d stop by. Good question –
“Could he not be insulted if people thinks he can’t? Or ‘CAN’ he? If we are made in the image of him, I wonder about that. ”
The trait of ignorance is not one that we share with God, despite being made in his Image.
Changing one’s mind requires responding to new information that you were previously ignorant of. Since God is not ignorant of anything, he would never have need to change his mind. So yes, I would say that he is incapable of changing his mind, just like he is incapable of not knowing things.
Does that make sense?
March 11, 2009 at 1:43 am
bethyada
Note that Arminianism has a slightly different take than Open Theism. God can and does change his plans in response to our requests. But he knows that we are going to request as such. If Moses hadn’t interceded surely God would’ve destroyed them. Moses did and God didn’t, as per the Jeremiah quote.
But God knew that Moses was going to intercede.
March 11, 2009 at 7:04 am
jamsco
Yes, this is much more reasonable and less insulting to God.
October 24, 2009 at 1:32 am
shoopak
Hi I think you are right, I agree with you! cyprus car
March 11, 2009 at 10:59 am
jamsco
And Mike, I should point out this verse that I just happened to read today in my Read Through The Bible program:
Numbers 3:19
God is not man, that he should lie,
or a son of man, that he should change his mind.
April 11, 2009 at 12:50 am
Steven
Without having read the whole thread, let me do as you suggest. You say:
With an Infinite God, You can have it both ways. Anti-Calvinists say that they don’t like the idea that God is the Universal Puppetmaster. This description implies two ideas: (A) That God is in control of everything that happens, including each person’s choices. (B) That Humans are not responsible for anything they do. I reject one of these. See if you can guess which one.
I say that A implies B, therefore if A, then B. I say this because responsibility implies control. If I cannot control a car, for example, I am not responsible for the damage it does (issues of negligence aside). However, B does not imply A. Since we assume that you reject exactly one of these propositions, I guess it is A, and therefore you believe that humans are not responsible for anything they do.
God is therefore not in control of everything, and humans are not responsible for anything they do.
If you exclude the concept of God, it’s easy to get to (B) by just adopting a pure cause-and-effect view of the world. If all causes must lead to a predictable and knowable effect, then the universe is a machine that is just playing its game, electrons interacting. God might be thought of as the first cause, the causeless cause, or you could adopt a view that time goes back infinitely, therefore not requiring a first cause.
April 11, 2009 at 11:25 pm
jamsco
“I guess it is A”
Are you serious here? You guess wrong. Humans are responsible – hence the name of my blog.
“responsibility implies control” Agreed. But two beings can be in control, especially if one of those beings is God.
April 13, 2009 at 5:31 am
Chris
Actually responsibility does not always imply control. In our state, if your car hits an icy spot and you lose control of your car and hit another car, you are still responsible for the accident. You are at fault even though you could not control your car. If you could have controlled the car, you obviously would have done something to avoid hitting the other car. Yet even though you did not have control, you are still responsible.