1

What Does OmniscienceMean?

Using Hermeneutics to Understand theAttributes of God

By Bruce MoylanOctober 31, 2006

2

Table of Contents

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………… 5

Definition of Terms …………………………………………………………………… 7Omniscience ………………………………………………………………….. 7Foreknowledge ………………………………………………………………… 8Prognosis ……………………………………………………………………… 9Open View …………………………………………………………………….. 10Contingent ……………………………………………………………………… 10Law of Non-Contradiction …………………………………………………….. 11What the Open View Doesn’t Mean ………………………………………….. 12Determinism …………………………………………………………………… 13Simple Foreknowledge ………………………………………………………… 14Absurdity ………………………………………………………………………. 15

Anthropomorphism ……………………………………………………………. 16Theanthropism ………………………………………………………………… 16Equivocation…………………………………………………………………… 16Prevarication …………………………………………………………………… 17Tergiversation …………………………………………………………………… 17

Answers to the Most Common Questions about the Open View ……………………… 18What is the Open View About ………………………………………………… 18Doesn’t the Open View Diminish God ………………………………………… 19Doesn’t’ the Open View Make God in Our Image and Finite …………………… 19If God Didn’t Know the Future Exhaustively He Couldn’t Predict the Future … 20Doesn’t the Open View Destroy God’s Sovereignty …………………………… 22Aren’t the Verses that Seem to Indicate an Open View Just Anthropomorphisms 23Isn’t the Open View Just Reworked Process Theology ………………………… 24Isn’t God Above Time …………………………………………………………… 25Can’t God Simply Know Your Future Choices Without Causing Them ………… 28

Is the Open View True to Scripture …………………………………………………… 31Theological Filters ……………………………………………………………… 31Biblical Passages Seemingly Supportive of the Open View …………………… 31

Genesis 2:19 …………………………………………………………… 32Genesis 18:20-21 ……………………………………………………… 32Genesis 22:12, 15-17 ………………………………………………….. 33Exodus 4:8 ……………………………………………………………… 35Exodus 13:17 …………………………………………………………… 36

3

Exodus 16:4 ……………………………………………………………… 36Exodus 33:4-5 …………………………………………………………… 36Numbers 14:11-12 ……………………………………………………… 37Numbers 14:30 …………………………………………………………… 38Deuteronomy 8:2 ………………………………………………………… 38Deuteronomy 13:3 ……………………………………………………… 39Judges 2:22 ……………………………………………………………… 39Judges 3:4 ……………………………………………………………… 39I Samuel 23:10-13 ……………………………………………………… 40I Kings 20:42 …………………………………………………………… 40II Chronicles 32:31……………………………………………………… 40Jeremiah 3:7 ……………………………………………………………… 41Jeremiah 3:19 …………………………………………………………… 41

Jeremiah 7:31 …………………………………………………………… 42Jeremiah 19:5 …………………………………………………………… 42Jeremiah 32:35 …………………………………………………………… 42Jeremiah 26:2-3 ………………………………………………………… 43Ezekiel 20:6 & 15 ……………………………………………………… 43Ezekiel 22:30 …………………………………………………………… 44Ezekiel 33:13 …………………………………………………………… 44Psalms 69:28, Exodus 33:32 …………………………………………… 44

Interesting Stories ……………………………………………………………………… 46Exodus 32:9-14 ……………………………………………………………….. 46Amos 7:1-8 …………………………………………………………………… 47Ezekiel 4:9-15 ………………………………………………………………… 48II Samuel 12:13-23 ……………………………………………………………… 48

Harmonization Of Other Passages ………….…………………………………………… 50Romans 8:29 …………………………………………………………………… 50Romans 11:2 …………………………………………………………………… 51Acts 2:23 ………………………………………………………………………… 51I Peter 1:2 ……………………………………………………………………… 52I Peter 1:20 ……………………………………………………………………… 52Jeremiah 1:5 …………………………………………………………………… 52Psalm 139:15-16 ……………………………………………………………… 53Genesis 18:20 ………………………………………………………………… 54John 21:19 ……………………………………………………………………… 58Matthew 26:34 ………………………………………………………………… 58Acts 1:16 ………………………………………………………………………… 60Ephesians 1:4 …………………………………………………………………… 61

Is the Open View True to Reason ……………………………………………………… 62Can God Trust Us ……………………………………………………………… 63God Can Change His Course, But He Cannot Change His Mind ……………… 63God Cannot Know of Contingency ……………………………………………… 64

4

God Cannot Sincerely Strive for the Salvation of Everyone …………………… 65God Cannot Have Free Will …………………………………………………… 65God Cannot Experience “ “ ……………………………………………………… 66God Cannot Truly Answer Prayers ……………………………………………… 66God Outside of Time …………………………………………………………… 67Prophecy and Foreknowledge …………………………………………………… 68Foreknowledge and Freewill …………………………………………………… 69Logic Test ……………………………………………………………………… 70The Oddities of Psalms ………………………………………………………… 71Summary: True to Reason ……………………………………………………… 72

Is the Open View True to Life ………………………………………………………… 74Petitionary Prayer ……………………………………………………………… 75The Desirability of Foreknowledge …………………………………………… 76Moral Responsibility …………………………………………………………… 76The Incognoscibility of God …………………………………………………… 77

Summary ………………………………………………………………………….…… 80

Appendix: Verses Supportive of the Open View ……………………………………… 83

5

INTRODUCTION

Theologians use many uncommon and typically large words to describe various concepts. It hasbeen a real learning experience for me to understand what hermeneutics are, how absolutelyindispensable they are to any believer and how to apply them in my search for truth. In addition,there are many such “frightening” words that theologians employ that truly scares most honestinquirers. This really isn’t done to elicit this response but in all fairness it is done to bettercommunicate among themselves without misunderstanding each other’s views. The end resulthowever is that most lay Christians feel that they have nothing to say when topics such assupralapsarianism, infralapsarianism, retributive justice, soteriology, and eschatology are putforth as discussion topics. Many Christians probably don’t have any idea of what these wordsmean, and many probably do not care to learn. However, while you may not know what theofficial titles are of many church doctrines, you most likely know these doctrines and yourconcept of God is formed from these doctrines. Basically, you may not know what is in thewater you are drinking, but when you drink it, it really doesn’t matter if you know it or not; youare getting it anyway. While knowing these theological terms is not important, knowing howthese concepts can affect your concept of God is crucial. It is with this thought in mind that Iwill address omniscience. Now some readers may understand what this word means or at leasthave an idea, but rare is the person who has researched this concept and come to an informed andreasoned opinion. Usually one has an intuitive opinion greatly influenced by whatever churchyou attend. In the end, few ever look further into this topic.

So the answer that must be presented here is why should the average everyday Christian care toeven read this far in this paper? What will they gain? Why take time out of their busyschedules? The reason is that your understanding of this word is a literal theological atomicbomb. Your view here affects every area of your Christian thought. You may find this claim tobe wildly unsupported and at this point it is, but please take this at face value for the moment. Iwill endeavor to supply the needed proof for this assertion throughout this paper. Throughreading this, you may find yourself realizing answers to questions that you have had about Godand his Kingdom for years. Or on the other hand, you may find yourself screaming “heresy!”and searching for firewood and a match. However, I don’t think that many will find a middleground. Yes, these concepts are that important and they can bring forth a whole host of intenseemotions.

The bottom line reason to continue reading however is that how we respond to God is dependenton what we think about God. If we believe something about God that is not correct, we willgreatly hamper our relationship with God. This possibility should be untenable for anyChristian. So how do we know if this is our situation or not? I always suggest a basic test. Ifyou sin, you have bad theology somewhere. I do not say this to rile anyone, but only to suggestthat those declared by God to be righteous and holy where those who knew God best. The closerwe are to God, the more like Christ we become. Surely Moses was more pleasing to God thanthe general Israelite of his day. David, Abraham, Paul, John, Peter, all walked closer with Godthan I would claim anyone alive today does. Why? I feel that this is due in large measurebecause they knew and understood more about God than we do. God is not a respecter ofpeople. Remember what Scripture says:

6

Hosea 4:6My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. "Because you have rejected knowledge,I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also willignore your children.

Another more basic test that can be used to determine if we have any bad seeds in our thinking isto ask; “Have I ever been mad or upset at God?” If the answer is yes, then you have a problemsomewhere. If you have ever asked, “Why did God do that?”, “Why did God let that happen?”,or “Why didn’t God stop that from happening?”, you also have a problem hidden somewhere.Now I am not saying that this topic will clear everything up, but I do believe that it will be amajor stepping-stone for many. I know it was for me.

Through the years, I have found that a misunderstanding of the nature of omniscience is the rootcause of each of these questions. While this may appear to be quite a bold statement, read thispaper, think and pray about it, and in the end you can tell me if you too agree with this statement.

Throughout this paper I will attempt to use sound hermeneutical principles to dig into this issue.I will attempt to be as open as possible to let the reader decide for their self if my contentions orconclusions on each section are valid.

7

DEFINITION OF TERMS

When beginning any dialog it is absolutely essential to first define the terms. I have includedwords here that may be new to some, but will be used and referenced elsewhere in this paper.This section will aid the reader in understanding what the common definitions are for thesewords. These definitions were typically obtained from Dictionary.com. First we will simplystate the dictionary definition to the word under study and at times comments may follow.

Omniscience1. Universal or infinite knowledge2. Infinite awareness, insight, or understanding3. Knowing all things

So do we need to go any farther? Doesn’t this fully address the issue? Why continue?

Well, this definition simply moves the bar back one notch. Now we must understand whatinfinite knowledge means, or knowing all things. Are these terms simple and unequivocal? Thesurprising answer to some is no. Does infinite knowledge mean that God knows everything thatthere is to know, or does it mean that God knows everything that I can imagine? As an example:does God know any married bachelors? You see, just because I can conceive of somethingdoesn’t make it real, and if it isn’t real, does it have to be known by someone with infiniteknowledge?

To be perfectly clear let me use an example from another attribute of God. I believe that it isalmost universally understood that God is all-powerful (omnipotent). So what does this mean?Can He make a rock so big that He cannot pick it up? This question poses a logical absurdityand therefore no rational answer is possible. You cannot rationally answer an absurd question.Put another way, you cannot use logic to answer an illogical question. Basically this is a nothingquestion as it has as a premise a logical contradiction. Therefore this is a non-question andsimply cannot be answered.

In addition, can God make someone love Him? Well, if love is a voluntary action, then bydefinition it cannot be forced. Therefore a God of infinite power still cannot move one to loveHim. Love is not a matter of force, power, or strength. Therefore while there are things thatGod cannot “do” because of their very nature, one does not claim that this then makes God weakand impotent. On the contrary, God can do anything that is possible. This is what omnipotencemeans to quite a wide range of theologians. Not the ability to do anything imaginable no matterhow abstract and absurd, but the ability to do all things that are possible (not self-contradictory).

So how does all this related to omniscience? The question is then: if omnipotence means havingthe ability to do all possible things, does it not follow that omniscience may mean the ability toknow all possible things? If so, then the real question that needs to be answered becomes notwhat is the definition of omniscience, but what are and are not proper objects of knowledge. Or,stated another way: does God know the weight of the rock that he can make, but not pick up? If

8

the related argument is absurd in relation to omnipotence, knowing the weigh of such a logicalcontradiction is likewise silly and not an object of rational knowledge.

So with all of this said, we haven’t moved too far yet. However we now have identified the paththat we need to travel. What are legitimate and illegitimate objects of universal and infiniteknowledge?

Foreknowledge

It is probably no shock to anyone that omniscience is not a biblical term. Nowhere in the Bibleis God stated to be Omniscient. This word was created to describe concepts that people thoughtwere reasonably attributed to God from the Holy Scriptures. The main Biblical words used inthe Bible are “foreknow”, and “foreknowledge”.

The English words “foreknow”, “foreknew”, and “foreknowledge” come from the same Greekroot word which is used only five times in the Bible. Therefore these five verses are the primarypassages where people derive the concept of absolute omniscience of all things including futureevents. (To be fair, there are others, but these are the main ones that people focus on whendiscussing this topic area.) The Biblical references are:

Romans 8:29For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image ofHis Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren

Romans 11:2God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew or do you not know what theScripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?

Acts 2:23This Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, younailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

I Peter 1:2According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit,to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours inthe fullest measure.

I Peter 1:20For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these lasttimes for the sake of you

However, these very same Greek words are also used elsewhere in the Bible but they aretranslated differently. These references are:

9

Acts 26:5Since they have known about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I livedas a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion

II Peter 3:17You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are notcarried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,

One may find it interesting that these two different renderings of the same Greek word are foundin two of the same books that use the other translation. Such happenstances make one wonder ifdoctrinal ideas were not infused in the translation process.

The clear translation of this word is one of simple past knowledge of something. Therefore,when this word is used in reference to man it is knowledge obtained sometime in the past, andwhen referenced to God, it is taken to mean absolute knowledge of all future acts. Such adistinction in definitions cannot be drawn from the text. It appears that the translators may havebeen influenced by their theology when translating these passages, as the original languages donot demand such a rendering.

The issue here is that if this is the case, then all of these primary texts cannot be used to supportthe doctrine at hand. This would indeed be a major problem to the adherents of absoluteforeknowledge of all future contingencies. However, one may feel that these verses should notbe swept aside so quickly and I would certainly understand that sentiment, but when developingdoctrine, we need to be very careful and information such as this cannot be simply discounted bysincere students of God. In addition to this however, one can even develop alternative views tothese verses (see “True to Scripture” section) that do not require absolute foreknowledge. Thenext concept that needs to be investigated is the original language. Here the specific Greekwords used in these verses are:

Προγινωσκω (proginosko)

And

Προγωσιζ (prognosis)

If you notice, these words have also been adopted into the English language.

Prognosis1. A prediction of the probable course and outcome of a disease.2. The likelihood of recovery from a disease.3. A forecast or prediction: a gloomy prognosis for economic recovery.

It should be duly noted that when the Greek word was brought into our language, that the feelingof absolute certainty is not included. This is quite telling. When divorced from any theologicalpresuppositions, the word as translated by the experts no longer carries absolute certainty. Whatwe see is that when a doctor looking at all of the test results and being familiar with the most

10

common outcomes in other cases can pronounce a “prognosis”. This is not a guarantee of futureresults, but because of the historical precedent and a complete understanding of the presentcondition of the patient, the “prognosis” is usually quite accurate. However, we all can attest totimes when the “prognosis” was never realized.

Therefore, is it possible to view God’s foreknowledge in this same way? While it is too early toconclude this one way or another, we should ponder this for a moment. Could it be possible thatwhen God states things about future events that He is uttering more of a “prognosis” of the futurelikelihood of an event and not a stating an absolute certainty? Does the story of Jonah makesense with this understanding? Here God makes an absolute and unqualified declaration thatNineveh will be destroyed in 40 days; yet it doesn’t happen. Could we not understand this storyin the light that God looked at the current situation and reasonably concluded that if thingscontinued on course that the outcome would be destruction at his hand in 40 days? Was not themessage that if things did not change, that his words would be fulfilled? This appears to be themindset of both the Ninevites and Jonah. Yes it appears logical to conclude this as thedestruction never happened; however, could there be cases in the Biblical record whereby similardeclarative statements were made but because history did not deviate from its course that thewords spoken in “prognosis” were fulfilled? How could we tell the difference? We can clearly“see” this when the “prognosis” is not fulfilled, but how about the other times? Aren’t evenhuman doctors correct most of the time when they “predict” future outcomes? If this is the case,why would we be surprise when God has a far superior average?

Open ViewBefore we get too far along, it would be good to explain here what the theological communitymeans when they discuss what has become known as the Open View (OV). When definingterms it is always good to say what you mean by the term and also what you don’t mean. Thishelps clarify things in the minds of the reader and hopefully cuts down on any misunderstandingsor misperceptions. As there is no formal definition of this view, I will attempt to define it as Ihave come to know it.

The OV is a theological construct about omniscience that states that God knows all things. Thedifference between the OV and other positions such as determinism (found in Calvinism –seedefinition below) and simple foreknowledge (found in Arminianism – see definition below) iswhat are proper objects of knowledge? Referring back to the example about omnipotence, theOV states that God knows all things, but does not believe that God’s knowledge must extend toillogical constructs. To Open Theists, the future is not an object of knowledge because it has notyet been created and therefore is not an actual “thing” to know. To better understand this, it isuseful to first understand the definition of a contingent event.

Contingent1. Possible but not certain to occur2. Determined by conditions or circumstances not yet established3. Uncertain because of uncontrollable circumstances

11

Stated another way, the OV would state that God knows reality as it truly is. If to God a futureevent is fixed, then God knows it as fixed and certain. Open theists believe that some biblicalprophecy falls into this region. If a future event to God is contingent, then God knows it ascontingent and uncertain. In all aspects, God knows the future as it truly is. The OV does notagree that an event can be contingent while simultaneously being fixed and absolutelyforeknown. This position clearly violates the law on non-contradiction, which is the inviolatestandard of all rational thought. Without the law of non-contradiction, we can no longer haveany rational discourse or exchange of ideas. Open theists therefore maintain that holding anyother stance imperils rational discourse and therefore creates an untenable roadblock toevangelism. Attempting to convert sinners from self-indulgence to selfless benevolence bydemanding logical contradictions to simply be accepted as true is fraught with pitfalls. Belowwill be a short section to highlight this very important point.

The Law of Non-ContradictionThe earliest recorded statement of this “law” is found in Plato's Politeia (The Republic)where the character Socrates states, "It's plain that the same thing won't be willing at thesame time to do or suffer opposites with respect to the same part and in relation to thesame thing" (436 BC). According to Aristotle, this fundamental principle of thought, canonly be proved by showing detractors of it that they themselves believe it to be true.Charles Finney stated that these concepts were fundamental truths of reason.

Example:

Tom: I believe that the Law of Non-Contradiction is not always true.

Bill: I’m in complete agreement with you Tom; I believe that it is absolutely true in allcases.

Tom: But you do not agree with me. We would need to believe the same thing in orderto be in agreement.

Bill: Why do I need to believe the same thing you believe in order to believe the samething?

Tom: Well that is the only thing that makes any sense. We cannot believe the same thingunless we believe the same thing!

Bill: Exactly! Then we agree.

Tom: Agree on what!

Bill: That the Law of Non-Contradiction is indeed a law after all!

I hope that the reader can see from this rather absurd dialog that to deny this Law wouldbe absolute folly. All sane discussion would cease and any hope to evangelize the worldwould vaporize into absurdity. If we deny this, then we can claim that Jesus is the only

12

way to the Father, and that all paths lead to Him. Without this “law” we cannotdemonstrate why these two competing concepts cannot both be true.

The OV asks a very basic question: did God create mankind is such a way that he sovereignlydecided to limit His knowledge of their future actions and decisions? I find it interesting thatthose who attack the OV on the basis that it limits God’s sovereignty do not understand that theyare not only limiting His sovereignty, but also His power. How is this so? Well first does Godnot have the power to do such a thing? If so, then there is no problem. If not, then He cannot beomnipotent. Could He not choose to create such a world? If not, then He is not sovereign. If so,then He is. Therefore based on omnipotence and sovereignty, God could both decide and carryout creating a world exactly like Open theists believe currently exists. The issue then becomes;did He? With this, one could ask, how would a world whereby God did limit His knowledgediffer from the one we are in?

So does this view even make sense? If we understand that libertarian freewill is true, then wecan see that the future is conditioned upon our responses. If the future truly is conditioned uponour responses then God would know this and then this must be a contingent event to Him. Ifhowever the outcome of the event was foreknown before our birth, then it can no longer becontingent, uncertain, or dependent on circumstances to God. We may believe that the futureevent is contingent, but God must know that it is not contingent at all. Absolute foreknowledgedefines a fixed future to God. To Him, it is as fixed as the past is to us. In this scenario, it wouldappear that God would know the truth that the event is fated, and we would be the ones under adelusion. So is real libertarian free will true or not? This goes to the heart of the matter. Thereal question is not if God is omniscient, as every theological view believes that; the realquestion to be investigated is if God knows any future event as contingent. More will bediscussed later on the logical conclusions of believing that God can somehow know an event tobe fated (absolute foreknowledge) while simultaneously believing that the event is not fated(freewill*).

*Note: I am not addressing compatibilistic free will in this paper.

Finally, the OV tends to take the Biblical language as more literal than most other approaches.When viewing the words of God, open theists tend to believe the meaning of the simple wordsand usually do not attribute God’s words to metaphors, similes, or anthropomorphisms unless thecontext of the passages warrants such a treatment. Not that open theists would deny that theseliterary devices are used, but that if there is no indication that they are employed except foragreement with our pre-supposed theological doctrines, then the open theist would modify hisdoctrine to agree with the plain meaning of Scripture. Several examples of this will behighlighted below.

What the Open View Doesn’t Mean

By believing that God has allowed man to create his own eternal destiny, it is not assumed thatGod cannot know certain future events. At times, God may speak in absolute terms prior to the

13

event because God has decided to bring an event to pass universally without input from man’sfree will. Sometimes God accomplishes things without man’s involvement, other times he mayactually suspend his moral free agency in order to make us perform certain acts. If these acts arevirtuous but not free, the moral agent does not get “credit” for doing things under causation. ACalvinist believes that all things we do are under causation, whereby Open theists believe only afew rare cases fit such a mold. Ezra 1:1 appears to be such an example.

In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spokenby Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamationthroughout his realm and to put it in writing.

As God has the power to do whatever He so wills, nothing can stop His plan. Therefore, if Goddecided to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, no force in the universe could thwart His plan. Hetherefore knows the future act absolutely because He has determined to cause the event to occurwhen the time has been fulfilled. However, according to the OV, any such determined eventcannot be simultaneously free and contingent.

One additional early sticking point to some is the concept of Biblical prophecy. How can Godspeak prophetically if He isn’t certain that it will not come to pass? This issue is more aboutunderstanding the differences between ecbatic and telic prophetic statements and not as much asa foreknowledge issue. If this were a foreknowledge issue, one would not see any instances inthe Bible where God spoke in absolute terms about a future event that didn’t ever occur.However the entire book of Jonah is a rather clear example that this case cannot be made. Thereare also several other clear examples that will be highlighted in a later section.

Here are a couple of more words that are needed later in the discussion.

Determinism1. The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act,

and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.2. A philosophical theory holding that all events are inevitable consequences of antecedent

sufficient causes; often understood as denying the possibility of free will

Determinists believe that God foreknows the future not by any special power, but throughexhaustive present knowledge and the intellectual brainpower to “run the numbers”. A goodexample of this would be a billiards table. Here, if we know where each ball lay, the friction ofthe table and the exact way to strike the cue ball, we could infallibly predict the final restingplace of each ball. Strict or “hard” determinists do not believe in free will. “Soft” deterministsbelieve in a modified version of what most people understand as free will.

The problem with this understanding of foreknowledge is that it has no place for free will.Adding free will into this scenario would allow the ball to see the cue coming and roll out of theway to avoid being struck. This would surely alter the final outcome. Determinism requires thatwe all will respond in rigid pre-known ways to certain stimuli. Therefore if we know the stimuli,we can predict the outcome. This view is how everyone views inanimate matter. This is wherewe derived laws of motion and matter. In fact, as the field of quantum mechanics becomes more

14

understood, some are looking at this as a model for man. All of science is based upon thispremise. The problem appears to be that free will is not conditioned upon known stimuli.Somehow I think that reducing mankind to the same laws as atoms misses the point.

If this view were true, then one could conclude that God would have known that the perfectsinless people that He created would indeed sin. If so, then why didn’t He make themdifferently? This would be akin to changing the friction on the table, or the original positions ofthe balls. The fact that God did indeed choose to make the first humans the way He did and thenallowed the stimulus of Satan to tempt them, would seem to lead to God setting up the fall ofMan. These are the more difficult issues that determinists need to work through. My view isthat we were made in God’s image not the image of sub-atomic particles. Therefore we shouldbehave more like God not like tops or strange quarks.

Compatibilists or “soft” determinists believe that determinism is not inconsistent with free will.Their solution to this apparent dilemma is that Man is free to choose whatever he desires. Therequirement here however is that Man will always choose to do what he most desires. Thereforeif God knows our desires, then He can know what we will freely choose to do. Both of theseviews are found in Calvinism. The one point however most do not understand is thatCompatibilists believe that God is the one who gives us our desires. Therefore we areconstrained to freely choose whatever desire God gives us to desire.

Libertarian free will advocates would strongly deny this. Libertarian freewill (incompatibility) isthe free will that most people think of when they talk about “free will”. Here we are absolutelyfree of any strings or hidden abilities that make us move one way or the other. We can stronglydesire to do something yet still choose on a whim to do something else. We are not completelyconditioned by any external force and we choose our own destiny. The problem here however ishow can such a free will exist simultaneously with absolute foreknowledge? This has been theproblem of the ages. May people have come up with all sorts of ways, but in the end, each wayis not Biblically derived, but instead derived from logic trying to put two seemingly illogicalthoughts together. It appears that failure is inevitable when we try to wrestle logical coherencefrom illogical presuppositions.

This discussion on free will is included, because what one believes here greatly effects how oneviews other things. As I stated earlier, your thoughts on omniscience spread to every corner ofyour theology. Few theological constructs are not impacted by your view of omniscience. Asyou read on, I believe that you will get a better sense of just how far reaching these beliefs trulyare.

Simple ForeknowledgeSimple foreknowledge is the view that God has absolute knowledge of all future events, but thisin no way causes these events to happen. This is probably the most common belief offoreknowledge in American Christianity today. Those who believe in simple foreknowledge arethe only group which believes that God has a special ability to see the future. Open theists, hard-determinists, and compatibilists reject the concept that God has this special ability. While it isquite easy to state that God knows but does not determine the future, the difficulty arises whenone tries to work out the details. While one may not believe in determinism, this is just one

15

logical attempt to try and work out these difficult issues. It is my conclusion that the only soundview of omniscience is that of determinism or the Open View. Simple Foreknowledge tries tostraddle both views and the in end simply cannot bridge the chasm.

How can an event be known by God to be necessary, yet also be free? How can my eternal fatebe known prior to my birth yet I determine it? Why does the Holy Spirit strive for me to repentif He already knows I will burn in Hell? If every small detail of my life was infallibly knownprior to my creation, how did I have a part in creating it? No matter how hard you try, there hasyet been a single rational explanation to any of these questions. That is why some have come toabandon this view. It is wonderful on the surface, but it cannot be shown to be logicallycoherent. When pushed hard, this view simply collapses back into determinism. One may notlike this conclusion, but these conclusions are inescapable. These are not my opinions but thoseof many theologians.

Before I move on, I would like to address one example that this view uses to demonstrate its ownlogic in order to show that it really isn’t an answer at all.

We can understand this view by simply looking at a parade. We stand by at ground leveland can only see the part of the parade right in front of us. This would represent thepresent. The part of the parade that we had already seen represents the past and the partyet to arrive, the future. God on the other hand is not constrained to the street view, butinstead is in the air where He can partake of the entire parade in one view. He sees whatyou see, have seen, and will see. He doesn’t influence what comes next into your view,but He knows because He has a different viewing point.

The problem here is that the parade that has not yet reached us does in fact exist. God can onlysee what exists. Therefore if He sees it, it in fact exists whether we can see it or not. So are weto believe that our lives exist before we do? This view simply cannot withstand detailed scrutiny.It sounds good, and will convince people who look no farther, but in the end, we still mustmaintain that the future exists to God.

Absurdity1. A message whose content is at variance with reason

Understanding that all absurd constructs are not real is a very important thing to comprehend.Once one accepts as true and construct that which is at variance to reason, then any hope to findtruth has been lost. This is the foundation of the law of non-contradiction as detailed earlier inthis paper. If something can be true that is self-contradictory, then we can know nothing. I raisethis point because I have seen many people in the past try to disparage reason in order not tohave to change their doctrines. If we do this, then any hope of Christian evangelism goes rightout the door.

If we ever say that this law can be violated anywhere, then on what basis do we claim that itcannot be violated when it is inconvenient for us? Why cannot Jesus be the only way and yetIslam also be another way? Why cannot Jesus be lying when He is telling the truth? You see,

16

that once we abandon this law, it cannot be a law. A law is always in place even when it isinconvenient for us. So we either accept it everywhere or reject it everywhere.

Anthropomorphism1. The attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to nonhuman organisms

or inanimate objects.2. the representation of objects (especially a god) as having human form or traits [syn:

theanthropism]

Theanthropism1. (theology) the doctrine that Jesus was a union of the human and the divine2. The representation of objects (especially a god) as having human form or traits

Equivocation1. A statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth [syn:

evasion]2. Intentionally vague or ambiguous [syn: prevarication, evasiveness]3. Falsification by means of vague or ambiguous language [syn: tergiversation]

This term is very important to the discussion at hand. Here we must realize a couple of keypoints. First, God understands the message that He is trying to communicate. Secondly, thatGod is the greatest linguist in the universe. Therefore, from these two statements we canconclude that when God speaks to us (as recorded in the Bible) that the words used (originallanguage) are the best words that anyone could choose to communicate the thought that Goddesires to communicate. Any other words that could be substituted for the words found inScripture could be no better than second best.

A fundamental understanding of God is that He is not playing games. He is not stating thingsone way knowing that we will be misled into going off into a direction more to His pleasing.Take for example Nineveh. God stated that in 40 days it would be destroyed. They repented andit didn’t happen. Some may say that God only said this so that they would repent. That Healways knew that He wasn’t going to destroy them. Basically the threat of death and destructionserved an end, but it wasn’t ever going to be a reality and God has known this from all eternity.Does this not fit the definition of prevarication below? Wouldn’t God be stating a falsehood sothat good may result? Do we accept the ends justifying the means? One may say that God isallowed to lie if the end result is good. Clearly this should be seen as a place that we shouldnever go to. God is light and in Him there is not darkness at all. Such an explanation to the storyfound in Jonah should be disregarded as it impugns God’s character. Nothing in the entireuniverse is more precious than the character of God.

Why is this important? Because if we see that God is saying things that disagree with ourtheology, then we must not try and reinterpret the words to get a meaning that agrees with our

17

theology, instead we need to adjust our doctrines. The reader will see this more clearly in the“True to Scripture” section.

Prevarication1. A statement that deviates from or perverts the truth [syn: lie]2. Intentionally vague or ambiguous [syn: equivocation, evasiveness]3. The deliberate act of deviating from the truth [syn: lying, fabrication]

Tergiversation1. Falsification by means of vague or ambiguous language [syn: equivocation]

AF – Absolute Foreknowledge

18

ANSWERS TO THE MOST COMMON QUESTIONS ABOUTTHE OPEN VIEW

Before proceeding too much farther, it would be good to give the reader the “walk a mile insomeone else’s shoes” experience. This is important because I have found that a person mayrightly or wrongly have one reason to reject a view and no matter what is written, as long as thesole objection is not addressed, nothing can be said to convince the reader. Therefore, I feel thatit is vitally important for the reader at this stage to understand how others may think.

The newest doctrine on omniscience on the theological scene these days is called the Open View.Books on this topic are being written with increasing frequency along with books decrying itsfalsity. Many of the books that disagree with the Open View often misrepresent ormisunderstand its actual tenants. While this section may not be exhaustive, I do hope to covermany of the often-heard objections to this view. As input comes in, I hope to continually add tothis paper making it a work in progress. If you as a reader have questions concerning the OpenView, I would be honored if you asked. Remember, if you have a question, probably thousandsmore do also.

What is the Open View About?

Many think that the Open View focuses on the redaction of God’s attributes. Specifically, Opentheists are accused of denying that God knows everything. Such is not the case. All classicaland open theists believe that God knows everything. The real focus of discussion howevershould be what is the nature of reality?

All theists state that God knows all reality as it truly is. God is not mistaken about anything.The difference here is that a contingent event can go one way or another, therefore God mustknow that it can go either one way or another. It cannot be conclusively known by God prior tothe event which way will be chosen. If it were absolutely known by God, then God would haveit placed in His known event category. Therefore the question boils down to: Is there such athing as a contingent event?

Here we are not concerned about how we might categorize an event, only how God does. If toGod nothing is conditional (He knows all future actions absolutely), then all future events havebeen settled in the Divine mind and all is fated for us. Contingency cannot truly exist in theuniverse if it doesn’t first exist in God’s mind. Truth does not depend on what we may think. Tosay that an event can be conditional to us and at the same time absolutely determined (or known)to God is incoherent. Clearly if it is determined in the Divine mind, that is the truth. God knowsall truth, not us. If we say conditional, and he says absolute, who do you think would be correct?Stated in a different way: If to God there are no “ifs”, “maybes”, ”perhaps”, or “could be”concerning future activity, then reality is that there are none. It does not matter if we think andact as if there were. We are deceived, not God. If God’s view of the future is absolutely knownand cannot change, then the future is fixed in God’s mind and everything is fated (must go alongwith this plan).

19

Open theists believe that God created the world in such a way as to fix some things, and to leaveother things open for future determination by His creation. Leaving everything open orconditional would cause absolute gridlock, and leaving nothing conditional would lead to fate. Itwas not that God could not have fixed everything, but that He decided not to walk this path.This decision forms the sufficient cause for our free will.

Doesn’t the Open View Diminish God?

The Open View has been accused of diminishing God’s omniscience. However, as stated above,the debate isn’t about God’s attributes at all. It is all about how God made the world. If Hedecided to leave some decisions up to us (like our eternal destiny), this cannot be seen asdiminishing anything. God freely chose to do it this way. If you say that God couldn’t choose tocreate the world in such a manner, you are the one in fact limiting God. An all-powerful Godcan do anything including making a world where His children make some of their own choices.

One must ask, “How can God be letting us make some of the choices diminish Him in any way?”Isn’t this the sign of a stable personality and the sign of a healthy relationship when one partneris not unsettled over the potential actions of the other? Is God so weak that He must prearrangeor pre-know everything lest something might go out of control? If God is truly God, He shouldbe able to work around any decision that I might come up with. Somehow, I don’t think thatGod is all too worried about me messing up His plans for the Second Coming. Regardless ofwhat I do, at some point in the future, Christ will return. This doesn’t mean that I am notimportant and cannot advance or retard God’s progress, but that He isn’t dependent on me toaccomplish His ultimate goals. This however doesn’t mean that I cannot thwart God’s goals formy eternal destiny as He has left that up to my hands. Here I have ultimate control over God’sdesires that I should not perish but have everlasting life.

Doesn’t the Open View Make God in Our Image and Finite?

While I hear this charge frequently, it really is a stretch. How can God deciding to give uslibertarian free will cause one to think we have diminished God in any way? If God sovereignlychose to do something, this means that He is unlimited in His freedom, not restricted.

The charge of Open theism making God in our image is due to the fact that with the Open View,we can understand God to a greater degree than with any other theism. Some feel that anunknowable mysterious God is attractive and “maximizes” the concept that God is greater thanMan, therefore anything that makes God understandable is “diminishing”. The most oftenmisquoted verse in Scripture (Is. 55:8) ”God’s thoughts are not our thoughts” is usually broughtto bear as a proof text of Divine inexplicability. The Open View shows how all of the sameattributes associated with God are understandable using our God given minds and reason. If weare truly made in His image, isn’t it possible that we should be able to understand at leastsomething of the Divine nature? Are we not to be imitators of God? To proponents of classicaltheism, this is seen as a negative. As the Open View doesn’t have a mysterious fog surrounding

20

the Godhead, I would suggest that this view is far superior for evangelism than any other theism.Campus preachers will attest that the Open View can answer objections concerning the goodnessof God and address the problems of Satan and the origins of evil like no other. This is not to saythat practicality is the sole litmus test of correct doctrine, but it isn’t a disqualifier either.

The charge of a finite God is raised because an infinite God must not be able to learn anything.The argument goes that if God doesn’t know something until it happens then there is informationbeing added to the Godhead. Basically God learns something. If information is being added,then God cannot be infinite. Therefore, the Open View is charged with creating a finite God.This concept of the immutable changeless God was derived straight from Greek philosophicthought and has tainted our understanding of God for centuries.

This concept is flawed in many ways. First, the Open View theists believe that God has existedfrom eternity past and will continue into the eternal future. This is the sole requirement for aneternal God. God is also unlimited in His power, and is omnipresent. The Open View places norestrictions on God whatsoever. However, if God wanted to limit Himself in some way, (likeJesus becoming flesh) He is also free to do that too.

Secondly, let’s look at mathematics. What is infinity plus one? If you answered infinity you arecorrect. What is infinity plus a billion? Yep, you guessed it, infinity again. Infinity does notmean that nothing can be added; it simply means that it cannot be counted. God is infinitely old.How old will God be tomorrow? INFINITE!

If you believe that God cannot learn anything, then who is limiting God? While Open Viewtheists believe that God’s knowledge is perfect, they do not believe that God cannot add to hisknowledge. This belief would prohibit God even from having a new thought. Is this the God ofthe Bible? Isn’t saying God cannot learn anything nor have a new thought limiting him?

If God Didn’t Know the Future Exhaustively He Couldn’t Predict the Future?

Strangely enough, this question diminishes God and makes Him in our image. (Just what theOpen View is attributed with doing.) First, why would anyone conclude that an all-powerfulGod needed to know the future to bring about anything? Do you think that God needs thiscrutch? Doesn’t this view mean that His knowledge can limit His power? (If He doesn’t alreadyknow something He cannot do it?) Quite the opposite is true. If God couldn’t create a worldwhere events were contingent, then He wouldn’t be omnipotent.

Many mistakenly view prophecies as simply fortune telling. God had no hand in bringing theevent to pass, He was only telling us what was in the divine mind and fated to occur. I believe amore Biblical view however is that prophecy is God announcing His future intentions for action.When the time is ripe for the prophetic fulfillment, God acts and the prophecy is fulfilled. Againwe see:

21

Ezra 1:1 and II Chronicles 36:22In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spokenby Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamationthroughout his realm and to put it in writing:

This verse clearly shows God as actively moving in order that the words that He had spokenyears before would be fulfilled. This verse demonstrates that the Open View concept ofScripture is valid. While this does not prove that every fulfillment of Scripture must occur inlike manner, it does prove that not all prophecy is simple fortune telling on the part of God. Atleast on some occasions, God must do something or the prophecy would not be fulfilled. Let’slook at another interesting passage found in Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 35:17"Therefore, this is what the LORD God Almighty, the God of Israel, says: 'Listen! I am going tobring on Judah and on everyone living in Jerusalem every disaster I pronounced against them. Ispoke to them, but they did not listen; I called to them, but they did not answer.' "It just strikes me a bit odd that God would say such a thing. When looking at the context of thisverse we see that because they did not answer God in righteousness but in wickedness, God didwhat He said He would do. So what else would God do? If God always does what Heproclaims, then this verse appears quite strange. So does this verse seem to indicate that whenGod proclaims judgment, that they are conditional even when not stated as such? The Openview states that God only pre-warns the people in such a way exactly because He wishes not tobring it to pass. This is exactly how the story of Jonah is viewed. God spoke an unconditionallysounding judgment, all the while hoping that this ominous and dire future would cause thepeople to repent. When they do, God gladly suspends the action of judgment that He wasplanning. If they do not, then the seemingly unconditional proclamation of God comes to pass.

Now, nothing can thwart the plans of an omnipotent God. If God desires to do something in thefuture, He can announce it to us in the present. When the time for the event comes to pass, Godcan simply perform the action that He decided to perform earlier. Is anyone really concernedthat something could stop God from performing something He intends to do?

As an example, say today I declare that tomorrow I am going to eat lunch at Wendy’s at 11:30. Isay this because I want to go there tomorrow. I further up the ante by stating that my wife willbe there also (we have already made plans). An outside observer hears this and decides to checkup on it. The next day he shows up at the local Wendy’s at the appointed time and he cannotbelieve his eyes. There I am eating lunch with my wife. He then goes away convinced that Ihave absolute foreknowledge of all future events, if not, how could I have said that this wouldhappen? Now if the reader thinks that the observer would be a lunatic for coming to such anidiotic conclusion, you have just agreed with the Open View. If we understand that I cangenerally accomplish many of the things that I plan to do, why would it be a stretch to believethat an omnipotent God can do ALL He plans to do?

Another mistaken view concerning the Open View deals with divine causation. While OpenTheists believe that God granted us free will so that we could choose our own destiny, they donot believe that at any moment God is incapable of suspending our free will and cause us to do

22

anything He desired (Pharaoh and the Exodus). The only point here however is that God rarelydoes such a thing, and because the actions of the free moral agent under these conditions are nolonger free, there are no moral consequences attached to the person during such behavior.Basically we would not receive a reward/consequence in Heaven or Hell for performing an actunder causation.

Finally, the classical view seems to have a faulty understanding of the nature of prophecy. Ingeneral, when God pronounces that He is going to bring calamity among the people, it is notproclaimed so that they know before hand that they are doomed. It is not to give them justenough time to rend their garments and put ashes on their heads, but to give them one last chanceto repent. Several “prophecies” in the Bible NEVER came true because the people did just whatGod hoped that they would do, repent. Isn’t this the entire point of the book of Jonah? This“word of the Lord” had no conditionality in it; however, Jonah and the heathen people ofNineveh knew, or acted as if they believe it was conditional. How about Hezekiah and hisforetold death? Again, this didn’t happen. Therefore, are we limited only to conclude that theabsolutely stated prophecies that didn’t come to pass were really conditional, and all the otherswere not? This appears to be a bit arbitrary. Therefore, the reader must understand that not allBiblical prophecies came true much to the happiness of God. Many divine pronouncements ofimpending divine retribution are made precisely because God desires for them NOT to happen.He is telling the people included in the pronouncement merely what WILL happen if eventsremain unchanged. Does this make God any less of a God? It only diminishes God ifcompassion, mercy, long suffering and a reluctance to cause harm are not laudable andpraiseworthy attributes.

There are times however when God says He will bring judgment and His mind cannot be altered.Clearly, the death of David’s first son from Bathsheba, and Samuel’s prayers for Saul isexamples of this category. However, while God was not willing to change His mind in thesepronouncements, the most telling thing was that these mighty men of God knew that prayermight still alter them. They in fact demonstrated that they believed all divinely pronouncedjudgments were not de facto set in stone. Where would the nation of Israel be today if Moseshad the same view of divine proclamations as many do today?

Doesn’t the Open View Destroys God’s Sovereignty?

This question assumes that God must know everything deterministically in order to be sovereign.This objection comes mainly from the Calvinistic community. This may be someone’s thesis,but it is far from being a proven fact. If God sovereignly decided to create a world with choice,how can this destroy His sovereignty? Quite the opposite is true. Who can dictate what type ofworld God can create?

This also brings up a rather interesting point. On earth, anyone who needs or desires tometiculously control another person’s behavior is deemed to have a personality disorder. Theyare too controlling and often times are dangerous. This is not a sign of strength but one ofweakness and signs of a significant mental illness. Such a person is not deemed to be virtuous orin any way praiseworthy. We usually would suggest therapy and possibly medication for such

23

an individual. However, this is exactly the God of classical theism. They state that God mustcontrol every single molecule in the universe, or He couldn’t guarantee any future outcome.This view is highlighted in R.C. Sproul’s rogue molecule theory. However, if one single roguemolecule can hold God hostage and thwart His plan, the question must be asked; doesn’t thismake the molecule God?

Finally, this point is really a non-starter for any Calvinist even those 1 and 2 pointers. Calvinismstates that God ordains all things for His glory. Now if God ordains all things, then He musthave ordained the Open View. If he ordained the Open View, then far from diminishing God,somehow the Open View must bring God glory. Now there is a real theological conundrum.

Aren’t the Verses that Seem to Indicate an Open View Just Anthropomorphisms?

Anthropomorphisms are attributing the aspects of one species to that of another. We use thesenearly every day. If you say that someone is a snail, you are not suggesting that they have ashell, but you are rather slow. If you say someone is an ox, you mean that they are strong and ofgood size not that they pull a cart for a living and graze on the lawn. Scripture also usesanthropomorphisms.

Psalms 7:8Keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the shadow of your wings from the wickedwho assail me….

This verse is poetic and uses clear metaphoric language to paint a picture of God. This passageis not trying to say that God has literal wings, but is suggestive of a mother bird protecting heroffspring. The problem with attributing the verses indicating an Open View as anthropomorphic,are that words mean things. The anthropomorphic phrase is meant to convey an idea, not theexact opposite of what has been said. The above verse is showing us that God is our refuge.Let’s consider another verse that Open View opponents say is anthropomorphic.

Genesis 22:12“Do not lay a hand on the boy”, he said, “Do not do anything to him. Now I know thatyou fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

Here we see the words of God spoken through the mouth of an angel to Abraham just before hewas to make a sacrifice of Isaac. When God says, “Now I know” this is taken by the Open theistat face value. If God says something, we believe He meant what He said. Nothing in this verseseems to indicate poetic or figurative language. God appears to state something quite plainly.Open theists ask: If God didn’t know before hand, how could He have stated it any more clearly?Opponents of the Open View claim that this verse is anthropomorphic. They say that Godcannot learn anything new (a theological presupposition); therefore He must be speaking as aman would speak.

The problem here is that if God said, “Now I know”, what message did He really want toconvey? Anthropomorphisms cannot mean the exact opposite of what they say, but are to show

24

a correlation to the “other” species. If God said, “Now I know” to convey the message of “Nowyou know”, or “I have known from eternity”, why didn’t He just say that? This verse appears tobe quite straightforward and there are no hints in it that it is anthropomorphic. The danger hereis to introduce a paradigm that we can use this device anywhere that Scripture doesn’t agree withour theology. Opening this Pandora’s box is quite dangerous. If this device can be employedanywhere regardless of context, then we can develop any aberrant doctrine imaginable. If weassume that God is talking like a human and the phrase means the exact opposite (not evenconsidering what this would do to His integrity). Where else should we apply this methodology?How about when God says,

Jeremiah 29:11“For I know the plans I have for you”, declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and notto harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

Using the above approach, God could actually mean that He has absolutely no clue what Heplans to do for you. But if He did know, His plans would be to strip you of all your earthlypossessions just before He crushes you in to the ground. You have no hope and you have nofuture. All is lost.

Here I simply employed the device as used by the opponents of the OV to demonstrate theviolence this would do to any sound interpretive method. This approach causes absolutemayhem to any sane Biblical interpretation. How would we know when God was speaking likeGod to convey a message, and when God was speaking like man so that we need to imply thedirect opposite meaning? The only tool one could muster would be our theology. The problemis however that we are trying to develop our theology from understanding the Bible. We cannotturn around and use our theology to understand the Bible without capricious tail chasing.

It is somewhat amusing as the critics of the Open View accuse it as being a “liberal” doctrinewhen Open Theists take the Bible more literally than the Fundamentalist Evangelicals. WhileOpen Theists certainly believe that the Bible contains metaphors, figures of speech, andanthropomorphisms, it believes that these literary devices should be apparent in the context ofthe passage and does not require prior theology in order to discern it. Using the example fromabove, (Psalms 7) Open theists do not believe that God has an apple in His eye.

Isn’t the Open View Just Reworked Process Theology?

This charge against the Open View is totally without merit. Process Theology says that God isconnected with the creation and is growing or “in process” along with it. It teaches that God ispart of creation and that He is not omnipotent. It is a view that Open Theists completely rejects,as do most others. But by painting the Open View with this brush, many will be dissuaded fromeven considering it’s views or realize that this accusation is false and not even intellectuallyhonest. From what I have seen and experienced, if the opponents of the Open View thought thatit would help sway people’s beliefs against this view, they would toss out the proverbial kitchensink.

25

In reality, the Open View used to be called Neo-Arminianism or Free Will Theism. As such, theOpen View is identical to Arminianism except for the debate over the nature of reality.Arminianists don’t believe that God foreordains our actions, and that we have libertarian freewill just like Open Theists. The only difference is that Arminianists believe in SimpleForeknowledge, and Open Theists do not. Apart from this difference, Open Theism collapsesright back into Arminianism, which vast numbers of Christians profess to believe even if theydon’t know the theological term.

Isn’t God Above Time?

It depends on what you mean by “above time”. If you mean that God is not bound by time or inany way constrained by it, then the answer would be yes. God can do countless things in onesecond. God is eternal. Therefore, the clock does not limit God. But if by “above time” youmean some form of the Eternal Now concept where God does not experience any form ofduration or that He can “pop” in and out of time at will, the Open View would deny it.

These concepts while seemingly useful in attempting to explain how God might absolutely knowthe future outcome of a contingent event only causes more problems than it is worth. The firstpoint here is that these concepts are completely bereft of any Scriptural backing. While someEnglish translations of the Bible talk about “before time began”, this phrase is formed more fromthe translator’s theology than the actual Greek words. The phrase translated as such carries thethought of “from ages past”, “from long ago”, or “from ancient times”.

Secondly, most people have a misunderstanding of what the word “time” represents. Time isbest described in terms of duration (or succession of events), one moment followed by another.Here we are not interested in how you measure duration, but that successive events must exist.The concept of God outside duration is impossible to comprehend. Clearly God existing beforeand after the world was created shows God in successive moments. Likewise, God experienceda moment before He created the angels and one after. Jesus was with the Father, then born of avirgin, then crucified, then rose from the dead, and now is seated at the right hand of the Father.All of this requires one event followed by another. Most people get confused and divorce theconcept of “time” from duration. How you subdivide successive moments or events is arbitraryand to miss the point completely. Duration is a quality of being and as such is uncreated.

Some may have never before thought of some things as being uncreated. However, the Godheadis uncreated and therefore any attribute of the Godhead must also be uncreated. As and example,the Trinity didn’t sit around one day and decide to create the concept of love. Love is an integralpart of the Godhead and if the Godhead is uncreated so must the concept of love. Therefore wesee that any attribute or concept that is essential to the functioning of the Trinity must be aseternal as the Trinity itself. For the Trinity to communicate, it would require that ideas weretransferred from one member to another. This very process defines succession of moments. (I’llstop here as this topic can lead to another paper altogether.)

Can God have one thought and then another? (If not, who’s limiting whom?) How did Jesus getthe “time” to enter duration? Afterwards, did he then go back to non-duration? Can God speak,

26

as one word must follow another? Can God change His mind as one thought follows another?Can God believe that the Creation was good and regret that He ever made it at the samemoment? Does God see us as non-existent, in our mother’s womb, living our lives on Earth, andin Heaven or Hell at the same eternal moment? To God is Jesus pre-incarnate, on the cross, andsitting at his right hand right now? How does Jesus view this, is he pre- or post-incarnate? Thisbrings up the rather funny notion of God not knowing what time it is. For a God of the “eternalmoment”, He could not possibly know this simple detail. Doesn’t divine timelessness therefore“limit” God? Going back to our basic principle that God knows all reality as it truly is, if theEternally Frozen God is true, then we lose all comprehension. Are we in Heaven right now, oron Earth? If God knows us absolutely to be in Heaven right now, how can we be both here andthere? Since God knows all reality, if He knows we are in heaven right NOW, we must be.Kind of makes you think? If the movie “Matrix” played with your head, you haven’texperienced anything until you have really thought about the “Eternal Now” God. In summary,if the eternal non-duration God is true reality, we have no basis to know anything and I wouldsubmit we couldn’t even know if we exist.

The second problem with this concept is that without exception, the Bible shows God induration. The Bible shows God thinking, changing His mind, remembering, hearing our prayers,and searching the Earth. In Genesis, God walked with Adam, talked with Abraham and Moses,and Noah. God experiences changes in emotions and God repents (Gen 6:6, Ex 32:14, I Sam15:11 KJ wording). From all of this, it should be clear that there is no Biblical basis for thebelief of non-duration. We can even point to Biblical evidence that runs contrary to this view.

Psalm 102:24, 27-28So I said: "Do not take me away, O my God, in the midst of my days; your years go onthrough all generations.

But you remain the same, and your years will never end. The children of your servantswill live in your presence; their descendants will be established before you."

These two verses link a time word to God’s existence. It is indeed true that these verses are inpoetic writings, but again they are trying to convey a concept. What concept are they trying toconvey if it isn’t God in duration? The second quotation is interesting in the fact that it says,“your servants will live in your presence”. What does this mean? Can we be in duration andGod outside of duration in eternity? Will we be in the “eternal now” in eternity or will God be induration?

Psalm 90:4For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch inthe night.

II Peter 3:8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousandyears, and a thousand years are like a day.

27

These two verses are expressing the same basic idea. Some claim that these verses require Godto be outside of time. However, this case cannot be made. These verses state that God is notlimited by time, and not that He doesn’t have one moment following the other. God is so ablethat He can accomplish what would appear to take a thousand years in a single day. On the otherhand, as God has experienced eternal days, one day to Him would be like a thousand years to us.These are not to be understood of exact mathematical equivalencies, but to demonstrate that Godis not constrained to what He can do in “time”, and God views things on a much larger time scalethan men do. To God, a thousand year wait would be “short!”

The belief in an “eternally now” God simply arises because it is the only pseudo-logical way ofbelieving that God absolutely knows contingent future actions without causing them. I wouldsubmit that if someone handed a Bible to a person who was totally ignorant about God, theywould never come way from reading the Word with the concept of a “timeless” God.

The Eternal Now concept of God cannot be derived from Natural Law (observations of theuniverse) or special revelation (the Bible). If true, the Eternal Now God cannot becomprehended by man. If man cannot comprehend it, and God didn’t tell us that this is His truecondition, then how did this concept develop?

Some say that because God is the great “I AM”, that this shows that He is in some eternalpresent. Nothing is past or future to Him. While no open theist would deny that God is indeedthe great I AM, developing a doctrine of divine frozenness from this passage is a great stretchindeed. Is this the only Scripture that one supporting the “eternal now” can allude to supportsuch a doctrine? Hopefully one can see that developing a characteristic of the Godhead frominterpreting one Biblical concept is neither prudent nor exercising sound hermeneuticalprinciples.

While God also doesn’t explicitly state that He is in duration, we can intuit this from NaturalLaw (everything that God created is in duration) and we can see the logical consequences of itthroughout every page of the Bible. Therefore, if your theology causes you to ignore and denyeverything we know as a human without substantial Biblical support, I would suggest that youmight want to check the presupposition that got you there.

As this point is usually a sticking point to people, let me review. The Bible everywhere showsGod in duration from start to finish. God thinks, deliberates (sometimes with us), chooses, acts,repents, changes His mind, and experiences real emotions. If the Bible is the revealed will ofGod, and God reveals Himself as experiencing duration, then why do we find it so hard tobelieve it? If God was in duration, how could He show it to us any plainer? Here is a simpleexample of how the “eternal now” God cannot do anything, including the answering of prayers.

A godly woman is courting two men. In the same period of time, both men ask the woman tomarry them. As a godly woman, she takes all things to God in prayer and asks Him which wouldbe the man she should marry.

Now what is God to do? If He has exhaustive foreknowledge and exists in an eternal moment,He already knows infallibly that she would pray, His own reply, and whom she is going to marry

28

along with the outcome. Say He knows that the one she did marry is a wife beater, and the oneshe didn’t pick is a wonderfully godly man. If God instructs her to marry the other man, Heviolates His knowledge, changes the future, and destroys His own absolute foreknowledge. IfHe says to marry the man He knows she will marry, as this is what He knows to be the future, Hehas just consigned His faithful daughter to a life of hell. What is this god to do? As all of Histhoughts are in the same eternal moment, He knows the prayer, His answer, and the outcome inthe same instant and is powerless to change any of it. God is a slave to His own knowledge.This answers the age old question of why did God create Satan? Answer: He had to do it, as Heeternally knew He would. The open theist would say however that God could at that verymoment deliberate on the question and give her the best answer possible. Can things laterchange? Sure they can. For an example of an exact parallel of this story look at the story ofSaul. Therefore a strong case can be made that an eternal now God is powerless to change thefuture so why pray? The “eternal now” God is a slave and cannot be all-powerful. Hisknowledge trumps His power. I believe this to be quite a sad portrait of God.

Can’t God Simply Know Your Future Choices Without Causing Them?

This view is standard for any person with an Arminian background. They maintain the orthodoxposition of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, but deny the orthodox mechanism of how Godacquired this knowledge. Orthodoxy says that God doesn’t have any innate ability to foresee thefuture; He simply determines all future activity. Since God obviously knows all that He hasforeordained, it is only sensible that He foreknows it. Arminianists deny that God foreordainseverything, yet they try to maintain foreknowledge. To do this they need to develop a newattribute of God that has no Biblical support. Even supporters of this view such as C. S. Lewisadmit the lack of Biblical support for the view. Calvinists routinely castigate the Arminians onthis very point, and I would have to agree. Calvinists would say that Foreknowledge equalsForeordination. Basically, if the future is fixed in God’s mind (both Calvinists and Arminianistsagree on this point) then it was fixed prior to the creation of any moral agent. Since only Godexisted at the time, (another example of how we cannot comprehend anything without successiveevents) only He could have fixed it. Basically God Himself is the first and only cause.Therefore, whether you have the stomach for it or not, God must have foreordained every actioneven those who would be sent to Hell. There is basically no way around this unless you throwall reason to the wind. This understanding is the basis for Calvinism’s theory of doublepredestination.

Strangely enough, this is exactly what Arminianists who ascribe to Simple Foreknowledge mustdo. They have developed what I have labeled the “death theology”. This is where a doctrinemakes no earthly sense, but because it is deemed to be true, we must accept it. We are told that itwill all somehow make sense when we are dead and in heaven. As Ricky Ricardo might say,“God, you have a lot of explaining to do!” Until then however, our minds are simply not fit tounderstand this, so we must ignore reason.

The problem here is that Calvinism’s strict determinism leaves many people cold. Clearly this isnot proper for a God of love, so they reject this cold calculated reality. Some hold to what iscalled soft-determinism which isn’t much better than the hard variety. How can God know every

29

future action and not cause it? While I believe that they have correctly identified a problem inCalvinism, they have not completely left the camp. By maintaining absolute foreknowledge,they have unwittingly required themselves to logically deduce Biblically unsupportable conceptsof God that defies logic to justify their presuppositions. The need to use logic to reason that youcannot use logic seems to escape many as a problem. Rational thought must be rejected in orderto maintain their presuppositional positions. Is this the only solution?

The problem here is that when you introduce into the debate the hermeneutical principle that“our” logic does not always pertain to God; then we open a literal Pandora’s box. Arminianistsuse rationality to talk about all other matters concerning God and the Scriptures except on thisone point. They would agree with:

All unrepentant sinners go to HellI will die and refuse to repentTherefore, I am going to Hell

Or they would also agree with:

God is loveLove seeks the best for othersGod seeks the best for others

But they use the “Death theology” when they assert:

God knows all truthGod knows the future as fixed

The truth is the future is NOT fixed

Applying this method in other areas, one could just as likely assert:

God is LoveLove is Kind

God is unkind but we will be able to harmonize this contradiction in heaven

God has established logic and reason as our only method of understanding truth. To reject logicin any form when establishing doctrine can lead to any perversion, or justify any cultic practice.This tactic needs to be avoided at all costs and not embraced! The concept that mutuallyexclusive statements can both be true comes from Buddhism and should not be used as a basisfor establishing Christian doctrine. As a Buddhist would say, “It is the beautiful sound of onehanded clapping!”

God deals with us on a rational basis. Jesus was at all times logical and He established that ourguilt before God was demonstrated by our denial of the logical method through His speaking inparables. This was the reason Jesus refused to do miracles for the Pharisee’s in Matthew 16:3.Romans 1:18-20 states that we all are guilty before God because they refuse to use logicobjectively or honestly.

30

I will close here with one more point from Dr. Greg Boyd.

The past cannot be changedGod’s knowledge of our future actions is known in the past

Our future actions cannot be changed

This obviously leads one to fatalism. If our future actions are fixed and known in the past, theyare unalterable and we cannot have libertarian free will. All is fate; you cannot “have your cakeand eat it too”, unless of course you happen to fall into either a Buddhist or “death theology”camp.

31

IS THE OPEN VIEW TRUE TO SCRIPTURE?

For any theological proposition to be true, it must be true to Scripture. There will likely be littlecontroversy on this point. However what may be new is that finding a handful of proof texts issimply not enough. One must harmonize the entire biblical record. This goes far beyond the“proof text” approach. Yes you must have passages positively asserting your view, but you alsomust provide logical and reasonable understandings of those passages that are in seemingcontradiction to your premise. This last step is where most concepts hit the mat. Many cults findsolace in Scripture, but none can be logically consistent with the whole of Scripture. Thisseparates the truth from a distorted lie.

Theological Filters

Before we move on, we should first discuss theological filters. Theological filters are naturallyin place for everyone and will only be removed through effort. When you read and think,theological filters will be there and will only allow in what your theological paradigms accepts astruth. An interesting example of this is a simple card trick that was used in a psychology class.In this exercise a person will quickly flip up and hide five playing cards. The other person mustview them and remember each one. After all five cards have been shown the dealer asks theperson to tell him what cards were shown. In the experiment, most could only remember four.Very few if any could remember all five. At the end, the dealer revealed the reason. One of thecards was a red ace of spades. As the brain is accustomed to only a black ace of spades, thebrain would not store that information when the card was quickly flashed up. Our brains havefilters pre-installed. This is simply the way our brain works. Therefore when we do goinvestigate something, we must be very careful to avoid these pre-installed filters. It is for thisreason that as we read the Bible (quickly moving across the text) that no theological problemsever surface. However, when one person focuses our attention on a verse, it is like we havenever seen it before.

So how does one go about eliminated these filters? One simple way is to read the passage slowlyand to ask yourself what explanation would develop if a person was speaking these words. Thenread them as God was speaking. If your explanations are different, then you have a theologicalfilter in place. This is the only reason for the variance as the words are exactly the same. Thepoint here is to let the words of the Bible speak clearly to us and to avoid our filters. We need tounderstand what the Bible says, and not only what our filters will accept.

The passages below are listed in Biblical order and not in the order of primary to secondary texts.

Biblical Passages Seemingly Supportive of the Open View

The reader should understand that this section is the easy part. All doctrines believed by largegroups of Christians would have no problem filling such a section up with convincing prooftexts. The section was written for completeness and to demonstrate that the OV does have agood amount of Biblical support. The more difficult work is in harmonizing the passages in

32

seeming opposition to your stated position. This is the part that most people trying to support adoctrine leave off. No one can determine truth by hearing one side of the debate. Therefore ifyou have never heard the opposing side of any doctrine, be very careful. The position that canharmonize all texts is the truth. Please keep in mind that if these verses cannot be harmonized inyour view, then do not attempt to judge this view until you properly understand your own. Ihave had many people read one of my position papers filled with dozens of Scriptures, only tohave the person come back with a single text and declare victory. They never addressed a singlepassage that I quoted, and many times their proof text was used out of context. Seeking truth isno easy thing. You probably believe this or you wouldn’t have gotten this far. Truth isexpensive and we all need to count the cost.

In reading these passages look at the contingent language that God routinely uses, and paycareful attention when God gives His reasons for doing something. If God uses contingentlanguage, would this lead you to believe that God believes that the matter is contingent?

Genesis 2:19Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of theair. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them;

This passage is one of my personal favorites. Here we see that God has the animalsbrought to Adam to see what he will name them. This brings to mind my experience as afather on Christmas morning. I have shopped (well maybe my wife did most of that),bought and wrapped gifts for my children and my enjoyment is seeing their facesdiscover what I have done.

However if God has absolute foreknowledge then this interpretation is no longeravailable to the reader. God had to know precisely what Adam was going to name eachanimal. He knew this even before He created the world. So why use this wording?

I hope that through these examples you will realize that the OV simply believes thosethat are the most straightforward explanations to many of these Old Testament passages.

Genesis 18:20-21The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will godown and see if what they gave done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I willknow.

Here again the OV simply believes what this verse seems to say. God himself states quiteopenly that He will do something (go down) in order for Him to know something.Simple as that- if you are an Open Theist. The meaning of this verse however is not soeasy if one ascribes to any form of absolute foreknowledge. The point to be made here isthat God knew the current state of their hearts. He knew that they were wicked. Hewasn’t coming down to learn that. However, what did He need to know? Here comesthe test. We even see the goal line for the test being moved by Abraham before the test

33

started. Before God brings judgment, He always exhausts all avenues. Yes they werevile, but when faced with holy angels what would they do? They had not been tested likethis before. Would they break and realize their sin, or would they want to savage evenholy beings?

Realize that all of the righteous people in this story (Abraham and Lot) saw immediatelythat these men were holy. Lot so understood that violating such beings would be a crimeof unprecedented magnitude against God that he was willing to sacrifice his own child.Some have asked why didn’t Lot sacrifice himself instead of his child? Was thiscowardice? I don’t think so. Violating these holy beings was obviously quite appealingto the crowd. Lot was trying to think of any way to stop this horrific tragedy. If heoffered his own body would they feel this to be as appealing? Probably not. How aboutLot and his wife? Simply not good enough. Lot offered the most alluring thing he had,his precious virgin daughter. Maybe her innocence would satiate the crowd’s animalisticdesires? Lot did everything in his power to stop the violation of these holy beings. Itwas only when his efforts failed, and God could not find ten or more people to pass thistest that the end was sealed for these towns.

So we are left with how can God use the future tense when addressing His knowledge?To say that, “God already knew,” can lead to the understanding that God is equivocating.If God is trying to communicate to man, wouldn’t He use language as we do? To doanything else would be quite counterproductive. If God’s word usage is different thatours is, we have a massive communication dilemma.

Even though this verse is listed as a supporting proof text, detractors to this view use italso as a proof text to debunk this idea. I will address this further in the next section.

Genesis 22:12, 15-17“Do not lay a hand on the boy“, he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fearGod, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, “I swear bymyself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, youronly son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the skyand as the sand on the shore.

Here again God states that He has just learned something. It seems simple enough tounderstand unless one thinks theologically. God “now” knows something because ofwhat Abraham did. The logical inference here is that God didn’t know infallibly beforethe action was decided in Abraham’s mind, that it was contingent until the final moment.

Now some scholars have resorted to various interpretations so as not to have to acceptthis seemingly obvious conclusion. Some say that the angel who delivered this messagewas interjecting his own opinion; that it was the angel who learned something not God.However as the word “angel” simply means a “messenger of God”, it can refer to anyone

34

bringing a message from God. The suggestion that an angel was interjecting his opinionseems a bit improbable as nowhere else in Scripture do we find messengers of Godsaying anything but what God told them to say. In fact, even if he did say this of his ownvolition while on a mission to deliver God’s message to Abraham, why did God allowthese words to be placed in to the Scriptural record? Surely these words must have beendeemed important by God to have them placed in the historical record for all eternity.Stating that a run-of-the-mill angel didn’t know what Abraham would do, would hardlyseem news worthy of that magnitude.

This alternate explanation is further diminished when we consider that this was verylikely a theophany (the “angel” was God himself). We see from Genesis concerningJacob.

Genesis 32:24-30So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man sawthat he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip waswrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, "Let me go, for it isdaybreak."

But Jacob replied, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." The man asked him, "Whatis your name?" "Jacob," he answered.

Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you havestruggled with God and with men and have overcome."

Jacob said, "Please tell me your name." But he replied, "Why do you ask my name?"Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I sawGod face to face, and yet my life was spared."

Here we see that Jacob was wrestling with someone. Who was it? Was it a man, anangel, or the Lord? The passage says that it was a man. However, why would Jacob sodesperately want his blessing? Clearly as the person simply touched his hip and it wasinjured shows us that the “man” wasn’t struggling, only Jacob was. Next we see that the“man” officially changed his name. Now who has the authority to do this? Who but GodHimself does this? Just as God changed both his grandparents’ names, so He does herealso. So we see that although the Bible says that it was “a man”, it must be more thanjust a man. (See Genesis 18:1-2) It must either be an angel or God himself. The clincheris when he states plainly that he saw God “face to face”. This leads one to believe thatJacob was not wrestling with any mere supernatural being, he was wresting with Jesushimself. This is why he wanted to know his name and to receive a blessing from him. Infact, the name Peniel means, “face of God”.

We can see this also in Hosea.

Hosea 12:3-5

35

In the womb he grasped his brother's heel; as a man he struggled with God. He struggledwith the angel and overcame him; he wept and begged for his favor. He found him atBethel and talked with him there- the LORD God Almighty, the LORD is his name ofrenown!

Here “Bethel” refers to Jacob’s first encounter with God in Genesis 28:10. So here wesee that Jacob actually sees God prior to the encounter being investigated, therefore itmakes sense why he struggles so hard with this person and wept and begged for ablessing. This passage says that the “angel” he overcame, the one who he asked for ablessing, the one he talked to, was none other then God. Jacob knew who this personwas, and he wanted to know the name of God. However we see that the “person” neverdoes say his name.

All of this is a rather long way of showing that other theophanies in the Old Testamentreferred to God by the title of a man and an angel. So would it be so strange that the“person” whom addressed Abraham was Christ himself? The reader will have to decidethis on his or her own, but as this action prefigured the actual atonement of Christcenturies before the actual event, it wouldn’t seem strange at all that the one who wouldbe sacrificed, stopped Isaac from being sacrificed. The fact that the personal pronoun “I”is used (verses 15-17) seems to suggest that the person speaking is God Himself. If thisis the case, the words spoken by God here carry immense weight.

If one instead believes that this “person” was an angel and not Jesus, then we have anissue with Abraham not withholding his only son from the angel. If we allow suchhermeneutics into our interpretation of Scripture, then we will suffer greatly in otherplaces. Remember the old saying, “What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander!”If the “I” in verse 12 refers to the angel and the “me” refers to God, then we have doneviolence to grammar. If a switch of the subject inside a single sentence is required tojustify your belief, I would suggest that we have just opened up Pandora’s Box. Whenproper grammar is not mandatory to establish sound doctrine, all sorts of perversions arepossible. Biblical hermeneutics requires that this approach not be taken. However, if thisroad is blocked, how can we interpret this verse any differently then the seeminglyobvious?

Exodus 4:8Then the Lord said, “If they do not believe you or pay attention to the first miraculous sign, theymay believe the second. But if they don not believe these two signs or listen to you, take somewater from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground.

Here is should be noted by the reader that God Himself is using contingent language.Now we must ask that how can a God of absolute foreknowledge use contingentlanguage, as nothing can be contingent to Him? Do we have a problem with the wordsGod chose to use? One may say that God was trying to keep us believing in contingencylike parents try to get their children to keep believing in Santa Claus.

36

What would God motivation be for giving Moses all of these contingencies? Did Mosesunderstand these as contingencies? Could he have understood anything differently? IfGod knew exactly how the Egyptians were going to react, then these instructions makelittle sense and appear misleading. As God’s language would be sure to give Moses thefalse belief that He didn’t know exactly how things were going to turn out, would this bean equivocation? Here the OV simply believes that God knows that they may not believethe first sign, but after a series of signs they will eventually believe. Maybe they’ll listenthe first time, maybe the second, maybe the third. God knows that they will pay attentioneventually, but He just isn’t absolutely sure which time it will be.

Exodus 13:17Now when Pharaoh had let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of thePhilistines, even though it was near; for God said, "The people might change their minds whenthey see war, and return to Egypt."

Again, this passage is quite easy to understand from the OV perspective. God states thatHe needs to be careful in these early stages with Israel because they might change theirminds. The use of contingent language in this passage leads Open Theists to concludethat to God the situation is contingent. If God had absolute foreknowledge then He knewbefore He created the world that He wasn’t ever going to lead them this way. So if thisweren’t the real reason, why did God choose this path, and why would God tell us this?How can we maintain absolute foreknowledge and avoid the charge of God lying? Whatdoes this passage mean if it doesn’t mean what it appears to say?

Exodus 16:4In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions.

Why does God test us? The OV would say that while God has a very good idea on whatwe will do, God does not move on probabilities. Again, we see more contingentlanguage from the mouth of God. God first tests us to determine exactly what we aregoing to do before He has the final say. This is similar to Sodom. Theologians say that itis for our sakes and not God’s. However that is not what the simple message of thesewords would lead one to believe. These interpretations are needed because the simpleinterpretation disagrees with our theology. However the Bible is supposed to develop ourtheology, not our theology determining what the Biblical language means.

Exodus 33:4-5Go up to a land flowing with milk and honey; for I will not go up in your midst, because you arean obstinate people, and I might destroy you on the way." For the LORD had said to Moses,"Tell the Israelites, 'You are a stiff-necked people. If I were to go with you even for a moment, Imight destroy you. Now take off your ornaments and I will decide what to do with you.' "

37

Here is another example of God getting ready to destroy the entire nation of Israel.Again we see conditional language being used by God and also duration in His existence(I will decide). The obvious explanation for this is that it is actually conditional to God.If not, wouldn’t He be lying by saying it? If God knows that the hearer will believe theopposite of the truth by using certain words and He uses them anyway, then He is clearlytrying to deceive. This is the definition of equivocation (see definition section).

This would be lying. I would submit that when God states something as conditional, thatit must in fact be conditional. This would mean that it would be conditional to God also.

The power in this verse however is not the conditionality of it all, but the clear statementthat God “will decide”. This must mean that He has not already decided or this is anothing verse. God is telling them to do something and that He will then decide what todo with them. The simple understanding of this phrase is that God did not anticipate thatthey would have rebelled so soon, and that He needed to teach them a lesson, but Hehadn’t decided on what was the best way to teach them. This not only shows a Godwithout everything pre-known, but also a God in time.

Numbers 14:11-12The Lord said to Moses, “How long will these people that me with contempt? How long willthey refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the miraculous signs I have performed among them?”I will strike them down with a plague and destroy them, but I will make you into a nation greaterand stronger then they.

Here we have God asking rhetorical questions. Why? Clearly Moses didn’t have theanswer. The OV simply believes that God was frustrated that the people kept rebuffingall of His advances. In a moment of emotion He asked rhetorically what else could bedone for these people. We see this same sentiment in Isaiah.

Isaiah 5:1-7I will sing for the one I love a song about his vineyard: My loved one had a vineyard on afertile hillside. He dug it up and cleared it of stones and planted it with the choicest vines.He built a watchtower in it and cut out a winepress as well. Then he looked for a crop ofgood grapes, but it yielded only bad fruit. "Now you dwellers in Jerusalem and men ofJudah, judge between me and my vineyard. What more could have been done for myvineyard than I have done for it? When I looked for good grapes, why did it yield onlybad? Now I will tell you what I am going to do to my vineyard: I will take away itshedge, and it will be destroyed; I will break down its wall, and it will be trampled. I willmake it a wasteland, neither pruned nor cultivated, and briers and thorns will growthere. I will command the clouds not to rain on it." The vineyard of the LORD Almightyis the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are the garden of his delight. And he lookedfor justice, but saw bloodshed; for righteousness, but heard cries of distress.

Here the OV allows one to see and feel the broken heart of God. When it says that Godlooked for good grapes, He really did. However He only found bad ones. We see God’s

38

frustration that He did everything possible to produce a good crop, but in the end onlyharvested trash. However this interpretation is not available if God has absoluteforeknowledge. God would have known from before the creation of the world that Hisefforts and search would prove fruitless. Is God really frustrated and bewildered as theOV would believe, or does He just appear that way for some reason?

Now I could see the Israelites start to think that these empty threats are getting a bit old.This is the third time that God has threatened annihilation and so far nothing. Here wesee God asking questions of Moses that we can confidently conclude that Moses didn’thave the answers to. Clearly God knew that Moses didn’t have the answers. Why thenwas God making these comments? Could it be to show His breaking heart? Why wouldGod ask these questions when He already knew the answer? The final point is even morecurious. God states emphatically that He will do something that He knew that He wouldnever do. God didn’t strike them down with a plague, and He didn’t make Moses’descendants greater and stronger than Abraham’s. So, if a God with absoluteforeknowledge would know that these were all false statements, where do the se lead us?Did God mislead, lie to, and manipulate Moses? If you cling to absolute foreknowledge,are you in fact leveling this charge whether you want to or not? As an Open theist thisweighs strongly on me. If we cannot show the world how our Lord could utter suchcomments without lying or misleading, then we have a real evangelism problem. Such abesmirchment on His character cannot be allowed to go unanswered. If we cannotanswer this charge, then we have real problems, as we cannot in our own minds alwaysdemonstrate the goodness of God.

Numbers 14:30Not one of you will enter the land I swore with uplifted hand to make your home, exceptCaleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun.

How are we to take this message? God swore to people that He would do something butthen took it back. Now the simple way to understand this is to say that because theyviolated God’s commands that they lost the right to the promise. This is exactly how theOV sees this passage. However, a God of AF would have known their actions prior toever speaking the promise in the first place. He would have to know that He was nevergoing to fulfill it. Was this then a promise? Did God give them false hope? When Heswore with an uplifted hand to do something that He knew He wouldn’t ever do, wouldthis be a lie? Where does this leave us? If this is true, how could we ever trust in apromise of God? How would we know that it wasn’t only temporary?

Deuteronomy 8:2Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humbleyou and to test you in order to know what was in you heart, whether or not you would keep hiscommands.

Here again the testing issue is raised. This appears to be quite plainly stated. Why didGod test the people? The reason given by God is hard to understand with AF. A forty

39

yearlong test appears to be a bit severe if God already knew the outcome. If this verseonly said that He did it to humble them then either view would work. However, “in orderto know” cannot be ignored. God told us this for a reason. I cannot find a way toharmonize AF with the reason God stated.

Deuteronomy 13:3The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and withall your soul.

Again, we have more testing. This verse simply says that God is doing something to findsomething out. This seems like an easy passage to understand if you are an Open theist.However, this makes little sense with AF. This cannot be the reason for the action.However if one takes this view, then do you call God a liar? AF demands that this cannotbe the reason. How can these words be taken to mean the exact opposite of the moreobvious meaning?

Judges 2:22I will use them to test Israel and see whether they will keep the way of the Lord and walk in it astheir forefathers did.

God again uses testing to “see” what they will do. If AF is true, then this cannot be thereal reason. The problem that keeps arising is that God Himself is saying these things.How can God say this, mean something completely different, yet be using the correctwords to get his message across? Remember, God, the best linguist in the universe,selected these words to communicate with us an idea. What is the most obvious meaningof such words? We would only seek an alternate view because of our protestingtheology. So should we change our theology to conform to the Biblical text, or somehowchange the apparent meaning of the words 180 degrees in the opposite direction?

Judges 3:4They were left to test the Israelites to see whether they would obey the Lord’s commands, whichhe had given their forefathers through Moses.

Again we see a test is imposed on the people to observe their reaction, however in thispassage it is not for observation purposes only. For completeness, Judges 3 is stated tohave a dual purpose. The first was to train the Israelites for battle (v2), and the secondwas to “see” what they would do as far as obeying God’s command (v4). One may saythat maybe there are other “unstated” reasons for the other passages quoted here, and thismay be the case. However, additional reasons cannot negate the stated reason. They canadd, but they cannot nullify.

40

I Samuel 23:10-13David said, ”O Lord, God of Israel, your servant has heard DEFINITELY that Saul plans tocome to Keilah and destroy the town on account of me. Will the citizens of Keilah surrender meto him? Will Saul come down as your servant has heard? O Lord, God of Israel, tell yourservant.” And the Lord said, “He will.” Again David asked, “Will the citizens of Keilahsurrender me and my men to Saul?” And the Lord said, “They will.” So David and his men,about six hundred in number, left Keilah and kept moving from place to place. When Saul wastold that David had escaped from Keilah, he did not go there.

This passage of Scripture is very interesting. David asks God two very direct questionsand got two direct answers. David asked would the town be destroyed. God said ‘Yes’.David also asked would the people of the town give him over to Saul. God again said‘Yes’. However, neither of these things happened. So what can we make of this?

According to AF, God had to know when David asked that Saul was never going to go tothat town. How could God state something that He knew to be false without lying? Onemight say that if He didn’t say what He did then David would have stayed in the townand the word of God would have been fulfilled. As God didn’t want David to die, He toldhim what he needed to hear to do what he needed to do. To be honest, I cannot squarethis story without tarnishing the character of God.

Another interesting aspect of this story is that David didn’t believe that what God toldhim was a fated event. David seemed to take it to mean that what God said wouldhappen if the future remained unchanged. This is exactly how an Open Theist wouldview this.

I Kings 20:42“This is what the Lord says: ‘You have set free a man that I had determined should die,therefore, it is your life for his life, your people for his people.’”

Did God determine something knowing that there was no possible way of it happening?Didn’t’ God know from all eternity that the second person wasn’t going to die all along?“Therefore” is a contingent word, but if God knew absolutely that He would spare theking, then there is no contingency about this or any other act. God simply determinedthat he should die, and made up this scenario to justify His actions. This is clearly a falsestatement, but what else could this mean?

II Chronicles 32:31But when the envoys were sent by the rulers of Babylon to ask him about the miraculous sign thathad occurred in the land, God left him to test him and to know everything that was in his heart.

How can we take this seemingly clear declaration of intent by God? How do theproponents of AF understand this passage? If God already knew everything in his heart,then what can these words chosen by God to convey a specific idea mean? Rememberthat God is trying to convey a specific idea and He has carefully chosen those words and

41

included them into Scripture for the entire history of mankind to witness. This being thecase, AF appears to require the exact opposite of these words to be true. This appears tobe a problem that I have been unable to resolve.

It is important at this point however to expound on the Open View. It has been a tactic ofthe Open View detractors to say that if we take this verse as being literal, then it “clearly”says that God doesn’t currently know what is in his heart. Therefore the only logicalthing to do, as everyone believes that God has exhaustive knowledge of the present, is tosimply discount this verse. The problem is that this verse must mean something. This ishow the Open View understands this verse:

Certainly God knows every detail of a person’s heart. However, when the Bible usessuch language, present knowledge is not the focus. We see this language used when Godis about to test someone. You see, if libertarian free will is true, then God can certainlypredict which way a person will go, but because there is always a chance that they maychoose differently, God always makes sure. Basically, God does not act on probabilities,but actualities. When the final choice is made, then God acts. We see this same type ofscenario with Sodom and Gomorrah.

Jeremiah 3:7I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not, and herunfaithful sister Judah saw it.

This passage appears to have God admitting to a mistake in His knowledge. Was Godmistaken about the future? If AF is true, can we make sense of this verse? How can Godthink one thing about the future, state that He was indeed incorrect, and still haveabsolute foreknowledge of all future events?

This verse however doesn’t cause any problems for the OV and actually states thingsquite in favor of this view. Here God is saying that all things considered, that the logicaloutcome of the future event should have been that Judah would have returned. However,the “probable” didn’t occur, and God is lamenting this horrible outcome. This dovetailsquite nicely into II Chronicles 32 above. Here we see that even with exhaustive presentknowledge, the outcome can still surprise God. This is the reason that God never sendsjudgment until the people have failed a given test. Again for this we can referenceSodom and Gomorrah. God sent the angels there as a final test. Only after their sinfuldesires were manifest was the outcome certain. Until this time, things were still onlyprobable. This is how God could change the required number of righteous people neededto stay the judgment.

Jeremiah 3:19I thought you would call me ‘Father’ and not turn away from following me. But like a womanunfaithful to her husband, so you have been unfaithful to me, O house of Israel, declares theLord.

42

Again we see the very same message. God is saying that He “thought” that a particularoutcome would be actualized, but in the end it was not. Viewed the same way as above,this seems to be a strong OV verse. Again, if AF is true, we have to perform a significantdegree of linguistic juggling to have this verse mean something without impugning thecharacter of God.

Jeremiah 7:31They have build the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons anddaughters in the fire – something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind.

This verse appears to say that man’s penchant for evil can even surprise God. It cannotbe that God was unaware that this outcome was possible, but that it was so remote as tohardly register. This verse seems to have significant free will overtones. Man is able todo unspeakably evil things given time.

Jeremiah 19:5They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal –something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.

Here again we see the same saying. Since God saw fit to record the same exact phrasetwice in Scripture, one should not sweep it aside lightly. What does this mean? Must itbe taken literally? The OV would say no as would most others. The difference howevercomes in not stating what it cannot mean, but what it does mean. The OV sees this verseas God’s astonishment that man would have ever gotten that evil and vile. Evil yes, butsacrificing their own children to a god of stone is simply beyond the pale!

Jeremiah 32:35They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughtersto Molech, though I never commanded, nor did it enter my mind, that they should do such adetestable thing and so make Judah sin.

All of these verses state the same thing. What can this mean except God did not thinkthat man would stoop to such a level as to do this horrendous thing? Can you acceptwhat God says about Himself in His Word? Remember that the only concept of God thatis correct is one that can be determined through the Scriptures. Omniscience is not foundin the Bible. God knowing the future exhaustively is never stated, but instead is aninferred theological concept (not necessarily a bad thing). Some passages may seem toimply this attribute, but an implied attribute must square with all Scripture. If it does not,the implication of God’s character or essence is incorrect. If your logical conclusionsderived from selected Scriptures do not harmonize with other Scriptures, then you need toreconsider your theology.

43

Jeremiah 26:2-3Tell them everything I command you do not omit a word. Perhaps they will listen and each onewill turn from his evil way.

Is “perhaps” a very strange word for God to be using? This passage again appears toallude to a contingent event, but AF theology states that God knows absolutely what theoutcome of the event will be. To a god with absolute foreknowledge no event iscontingent; all events are absolute. If this is indeed the case, why does God address manwith contingent language? Is God trying to portray an idea that is false? Would theprophet think that with such language that it was vitally important to not omit a word? Inthe end, the people did not listen, so why did God have Jeremiah do this? We must findreasonable answers to all of these questions if we are to hope to show the perishing worldthe glory of our Lord.

Let me make one additional point here. God knows absolute reality. If to God there areno contingent events (a mandatory conclusion if absolute foreknowledge is true), theabsolute eternal truth is that there are no contingent events. If you believe that yourfuture is contingent, then you must be mistaken. It matters only how God knows thefuture and who determined it. If God knows the outcome, then that outcome must occur.Therefore the concept of contingency would appear to be invalid. Everything is fated. Ifyou think that the future is open, then you simply cannot believe in absoluteforeknowledge. Likewise, if you believe in libertarian free will, then AF must likewisebe false. For centuries, theologians have been arguing if we are free to determine ourfuture or if God decree it. This is unimportant for the discussion at hand. If the future isfixed (absolutely foreknown) from all eternity, then regardless of how it was fixed, it isfixed. Your future has been determined absolutely, and you have no other choice exceptto walk those steps. Your future has been known, and therefore cannot be altered if Godknows it unchangeably.

Ezekiel 20:6 & 15On that day I swore to them that I would bring them out of Egypt into a land I had searched outfor them, a land flowing with milk and honey, the most beautiful of all lands.

Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the desert that I should not bring them into the land Ihad given them – a land flowing with milk and honey, most beautiful of all lands.

These passages reiterate one listed earlier, but they are listed here for more clarity. HereGod stated He searched out an area for the people knowing before the search which areait would be, and that the people would never see it. These appear to be rather strangeactions. He then swore to them with an uplifted hand that He would do something, andthen later raised His hand again and swore the opposite. Now did God mean it when Heswore the first time or just the second? How could He be sincere the first time if Heknew inevitably that He could never do it? Do we start to have a credibility problem withGod? How do we know when He tells us something that He will indeed do it and notrenege? These are not simple or trite questions. These questions go to the integrity of

44

God and are therefore of paramount importance. How can God swear to do somethingknowing all along that He will never do it?

Ezekiel 22:30I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap onbehalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found none.

Unless God told us, there would be no way to know that He searched anything.Therefore God wanted us to know this. Why? Why did God perform a search if Heknew absolutely that the search would have been unfruitful? Was God’s heart in thesearch, since before He commenced searching He knew what the outcome would be?Was He constrained to search to prove some other point? The question is: Why did Goddo this seemingly futile thing and then tell us about it?

Ezekiel 33:13If I tell the righteous man that he will surely live, but then he trusts in his righteousness and doesevil, none of the righteous things he has done will be remembered, he will die for the evil he hasdone.

Again, we have more possible credibility problems with God. He states emphatically thatsomeone will live, but all along He knows what He just stated to be false. A god of AFwould have to know at this pronouncement that the statement was false. Then if theperson takes God at His word (that he will live) and lets his guard down, he then risksdeath. What kind of message is this? If God tells you something, should you believe it?The clear answer is yes, but how do we square these things? The OV understands thatGod views some future events as contingent therefore this isn’t a problem. At themoment that God made this pronouncement the person was indeed righteous andreasonably expected to finish well. However, if that person became complacent, then thesituation could change. Isn’t this the message that is being put forth? That we are not“eternally secure”? That we must continue to walk in righteousness and not trust our“past performance”?

Psalms 69:28, Exodus 33:32May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with the righteous.

But now, please forgive their sin – but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written. TheLord replied to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book.”

In the first verse we see that David has a notion that God will write someone’s name inthe book of life, and at some later date, that person might be removed. Now if Godknows absolutely who is going to be saved before He created the world, then what is thepoint of a holy eraser? Where did David get such an idea? Well one place might havebeen Moses. Somehow, Moses had the same idea. Here God’s response is quiteinstructive. God didn’t just let Moses’ concept stand, but He even amplified it. The finalclause of this theology is found in Revelation 3:5 when John the Apostle reiterated thisidea thousands of years later.

45

Revelation 3:5He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his namefrom the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.

The obvious converse of this passage is that non-overcomers will be blotted out.Interesting! This concept appears to be odd if AF is true. Does God add people to theBook of Life while knowing that He will remove them later? From the Exodus passagewe see that this appears to be the case from the very mouth of God.

46

INTERESTING STORIES

I think that it would be instructive to see how the Open View might work its way out inScripture. Do we see Biblical characters acting in a way that would be consistent with the OpenView? If not, then this would be a major deficiency in the view. However, if we do, then wetruly need to consider it as a Biblically based concept. Below are some stories that I wouldsubmit make complete sense when viewed with OV glasses. However, these same passagesseem to make little sense when viewed through an AF filter.

Exodus 32:9-14"I have seen these people," the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people. Nowleave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I willmake you into a great nation."

But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. "O LORD," he said, "why should your angerburn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand?Why should the Egyptians say, 'It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in themountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth'? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and donot bring disaster on your people. Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whomyou swore by your own self: 'I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the skyand I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritanceforever.' " Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he hadthreatened.

Here we have a fantastic dynamic relationship going on between Moses and God. Godmakes a declarative statement to Moses about His intention. God gives Moses acommand to “leave him alone”. Moses however decides that to do this would surelyconsign every person to death. As a friend, Moses cries out to God to reconsider what Hehas said His plans were. Because of God’s relationship with Moses, He decides to granthis request. Now we can see that there are several times in the Bible where God changesHis pre-spoken course because of man. From first principles we can deduce that, as Godis all-wise that whatever He is planning to do must be the wisest plan possible. AllowingLot to go to Zoar is another such example. Therefore any deviation from this plan will beat most second best. However, because of God’s relationship with man, He is open tonew avenues just because we ask. God can handle the consequences of any suchdeviation. Therefore we can see that His stated intent is to eliminate these people and tostart over, but God is willing to continue to put up with these people because of Moses.Remember, because of God’s willingness to change His mind, He has also agreed toaccept the grief upon His heart of every sin and rebellious act that each of these peoplewill commit from this point forward. This is no small thing to God, but it shows us howfar God is willing to go to listen to our prayers.

We also have to deal with the fact that God threatened to do something. If God hasabsolute foreknowledge then this threat was hollow. He knew all along what Moses wasgoing to do. So does this passage then lose its meaning? Did Moses really save thepeople? None of these questions exist for Open theists. To them this simply means that

47

God was angry, was going to destroy the evil people, but because He loved Moses, Hedecided that He would rather suffer the pain of their continued sin than see Moses suffergrief over the loss of the entire nation that he was part of. This is a true God of love.Moses appears to be operating with an Open View mindset as he doesn’t take God’semphatic command as the final word but realizes that the future may yet be changed byhis actions.

Amos 7:1-8This is what the Sovereign LORD showed me: He was preparing swarms of locusts after theking's share had been harvested and just as the second crop was coming up. When they hadstripped the land clean, I cried out, "Sovereign LORD, forgive! How can Jacob survive? He is sosmall!"

So the LORD relented. "This will not happen," the LORD said.

This is what the Sovereign LORD showed me: The Sovereign LORD was calling for judgment byfire; it dried up the great deep and devoured the land. Then I cried out, "Sovereign LORD, I begyou, stop! How can Jacob survive? He is so small!"

So the LORD relented. "This will not happen either," the Sovereign LORD said.

This is what he showed me: The Lord was standing by a wall that had been built true to plumb,with a plumb line in his hand. And the LORD asked me, "What do you see, Amos?" "A plumbline," I replied.

Then the Lord said, "Look, I am setting a plumb line among my people Israel; I will spare themno longer.

If we are to take the words of Scripture as being literal unless there are sufficient reasonsnot to do so, we have an interesting case study here. When combined with the OV, thesepassages seem to indicate the amazing power of Petitionary prayer.

In Amos we see that God has just given him a vision of things that God is planning onbringing about. Was God really preparing these things? If God was not intending to dowhat He was saying to Amos, does this bring into question God’s truthfulness, andsincerity of word? Does it appear that God is manipulating Amos?

Amos recoils at the very thought of the punishment about to be inflicted. He cries outand God “relents”. God then shows Amos the next plan that was not as severe as the firstone. Amos again cannot fathom how anyone in Judah could survive such a thing andagain cries out. God again considers his pleas and again adjusts what he would do. Thefinal plan was at least fathomable to Amos so God proceeds.

Again, using logic and reason the first two plans were justifiable and more in line withwhat would have been wise. God, being all-wise is not in the habit of doing questionableor excessive acts. Everything that God does is just and loving. Therefore, we can

48

understand that the punishment that the people deserved for their monstrous sins against aholy God, were mitigated by the entreaties of a single man. So did God know that Hewould never do His first two plans? If they were never to be actualized, could they evenbe considered as “plans”? Here Amos appears to operate consistently with the OV. Hedoes not believe that the very words of God spoke to him by God Himself are yetunalterable. He believes that God is open to the suggestions, desires, and the input ofgodly men. Not that God has to, but that God desires it. In the end, the total sufferingthat was deserved was not handed down.

Ezekiel 4:9-15"Take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, millet and spelt; put them in a storage jar and usethem to make bread for yourself. You are to eat it during the 390 days you lie on your side.Weigh out twenty shekels of food to eat each day and eat it at set times. Also measure out a sixthof a hin of water and drink it at set times. Eat the food as you would a barley cake; bake it in thesight of the people, using human excrement for fuel." The LORD said, "In this way the people ofIsrael will eat defiled food among the nations where I will drive them."

Then I said, "Not so, Sovereign LORD! I have never defiled myself. From my youth until now Ihave never eaten anything found dead or torn by wild animals. No unclean meat has everentered my mouth."

"Very well," he said, "I will let you bake your bread over cow manure instead of humanexcrement."

Here in Ezekiel we see the same thing. God tells Ezekiel what He wants him to do andGod even tells him the reason. However, Ezekiel recoils at the commands of God andasks for an alteration. Note that he didn’t ask not to lie on his side for over a year, heonly asks to be released from the mode of cooking his food. This clearly demonstratesthat Ezekiel was in submission to God. God decides to lessen the moral impact of themessage on the people (the entire reason to do this in the first place) just because Ezekielasked. So, was God intending on Ezekiel cooking this way, or not? Ezekiel appears notto consider God’s spoken word as the final say in the matter. He knows that God is opento suggestions regarding the future.

Here we see how gentle God is when dealing with us. God is willing to get second bestbecause He loves us. God’s ways are always the wisest method to accomplish His goals,but He is open to our suggestions, and if Scripture means what it seems to say, God willchange His mind and not do what He was planning. So, how can this story harmonizewith AF? Does God planning a course of action knowing that He will never do it makeany sense? It appears here that Ezekiel operates in a way consistent with the OV.

II Samuel 12:13-23Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." Nathan replied, "The LORD hastaken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have made theenemies of the LORD show utter contempt, the son born to you will die."

49

After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David,and he became ill. David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house andspent the nights lying on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him upfrom the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.

On the seventh day the child died. David's servants were afraid to tell him that the child wasdead, for they thought, "While the child was still living, we spoke to David but he would notlisten to us. How can we tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate."

David noticed that his servants were whispering among themselves and he realized the childwas dead. "Is the child dead?" he asked. "Yes," they replied, "he is dead."

Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions and changed hisclothes, he went into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, andat his request they served him food, and he ate.

His servants asked him, "Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted andwept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!"

He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? TheLORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' But now that he is dead, why should I fast?Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

This will represent the final story in this section. Others could be added, but these shouldbe sufficient to demonstrate that several major characters it the Old Testament operatedin a fashion that is very consistent with the OV, and which bring into question how onecould understand these stories with an AF bent.

Here the prophet Nathan clearly tells David that his son will die. There is not questionabout this judgment. However we see that the man who is described as a man afterGod’s own heart doesn’t’ take the clear declaration as a final word. Here we see Davidfasted and prayed for an entire week all the while believing that the solemn decree wasalterable. Who knows? God may yet let the child live! So why did David have thismentality? One can see that David’s actions and beliefs are consistent with the OV.How can these passages be viewed if AF is true? Was David completely mistaken abouthow God operates? I would suggest that if it is between David and us, we would be theones confused on this issue. However, David appears to understand that Gods’ decreesare not unalterable. The future is not fixed in God’s mind. God can still change Hiscourse and be gracious to David.

In the end the answer was no, however this does not lessen the impact of David’s actions.David did not believe that the words of the prophet represented the absolute future eventhough God spoke them. This is also similar to the story of David at Keilah as previouslyreferenced in I Samuel 23.

50

HARMONIZATION OF OTHER PASSAGES

This is a very key section. The reader will have to decide based on the explanations below if thesupplied responses are reasonable. The issue is not if they are “right”, or “correct” but are theyreasonable; do they violate any rules of sound hermeneutics? You see, one cannot show theseexplanations to be in error unless they are either unreasonable or they can provide reasonableexplanations for all of the passages listed above. The intent here is not to get into a passage duelwith someone, but to honestly but forth my views on various passages that are in seemingcontradiction to the premise put forth in this paper.

While this section will not be exhaustive, I will attempt to show enough of a record so that thereader will understand that the Open View paradigm is not only consistent with Scripture, butalso address passages that are in seeming contradiction.

First I will start with the “foreknow” verses in the New Testament that would seem like the mostlikely verses to cause people pause about accepting the OV as true.

Romans 8:29For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of HisSon, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.

At first glance, the reader may believe that this verse addresses foreknowledge. Howeveris this true? Doesn’t God know everyone? If this is true, then God foreknows everyoneand this verse doesn’t mean very much but simply states the obvious. This thereforecannot be the meaning. “Foreknew” must mean something else. Let’s look for otherpassages that might shed some light on this.

Galatians 4:8-9Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are notgods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you areturning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved bythem all over again?

I Corinthians 8:2-3The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But theman who loves God is known by God.

Here we see that the phrase “known by God” is an expression for someone who is incovenant relationship with God. Please refer back to the Definitions of Terms section forwhat this Greek word meant to a first century believer. “Foreknown” then doesn’t haveto mean anything more than someone who had a past experience with God. This verseappears to be saying that it was God’s plan that everyone who was in a covenantrelationship with Him would be conformed to the image of Jesus. God’s plan was that allwho would come to Him would conform to the pattern of Christ. This is a requirement of

51

salvation. This interpretation does not require or imply that the “foreknow” isindividualistic but more likely corporate in nature. Whoever comes will be conformed.The intent of this verse from the OV is to state that God’s plan was not new, but was theoriginal concept from the creation of the world.

Romans 11:2I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant ofAbraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.

Here we see that the context of this verse is not that God foreknows all people, but thatHe would not reject the people that He “knew before”. Again refer back to the section onthe definition of this word to see that this word means to have prior knowledge ofsomething. The subject of this verse is Israel. Here Paul is telling his audience that eventhough God is currently using the Gentiles to “provoke them” He will not forget aboutthem. Please read the last part of Chapter 10 to get a better feeling of the flow of Paul’sthoughts. Trying to wrestle this verse out of its immediate context to prove that God hasexhaustive foreknowledge of all future events is questionable. Even if the understandingof this verse is granted a strong AF bent, it can only be a secondary proof text, as it doesnot address everyone, only a small subset of the world. In addition, it says that He knewthese people, not every future decision these people would ever make. This is a muchlonger reach in interpretation, and one that is not warranted by the text.

Acts 2:23This Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to across by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

While this passage may seem to be a rather strong statement for foreknowledge, one mustremember the previous sections. Foreknowledge means “to know before”. How muchbefore is the question that is before us to answer, not assume. The context of this verse isto show that the crucifixion and death of Jesus was not serendipitous. There was apredetermined plan that God was working to bring this about. What this verse isn’tsaying is that anything else is foreknown. The subject of this verse is the plan. The planwas foreknown. Now this plan may have included some actions of man, but if this istrue, how many are not stated. Surely one cannot take this verse to prove that AF is truefor all individuals for all times. Therefore, this passage may be taken as a secondarypassage to indicate AF, but it is hardly a primary proof text.

Please remember that no one is saying that God doesn’t have foreknowledge only thatthis does not extend to the future free will acts of man. While this verse does tell us thatGod knew something before it happened, this is not a proof text for AF.

In actuality, the OV states that God does know all future actions that He in fact willproduce. Understanding that the Atonement of all mankind was something that God wasplanning on accomplishing is obvious; therefore both AF and the OV offer possibleexplanations.

52

I Peter 1:2who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through thesanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:

This is another interesting verse. Here we see that God has “previous knowledge” ofsomething. How does God know this event? God’s foreknowledge is linked to the workof the Holy Spirit in the person’s life. From the OV perspective this verse seemsstraightforward. God has knowledge that the Holy Spirit has been at work within anindividual bringing them to a full understanding of God’s Kingdom. God has knowledgeof this past event. Because of their willingness to learn from Him, God has includedthem into the fellowship of the saints. The subjects of this verse are saints, and Peter isreminding them of how they became included as God’s people. We see this concept inJohn.

John 6:45It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to theFather and learns from him comes to me.

Those advocating an AF perspective would seem to like this verse except for this verypoint of the operation of the Holy Spirit. When did the Holy Spirit first operate on us?Could it be from all eternity? If God’s knowledge is not preconditioned upon anything,then this verse seems to present us with a dilemma. It can no longer be “knowledgethrough”. This is simply to say that you may not like the OV understanding of this verse,but the AF view has issues also.

I Peter 1:20For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last timesfor the sake of you

This verse tells us that Jesus was known before the world began. Not that this should betoo much of a surprise. This verse doesn’t say that everyone else was know, only Jesus.As Jesus is quite a singular figure, it does not logically follow that this must beinterpreted to prove AF. Please remember that these verses here are the only ones thatmention “foreknowledge” in the entire Bible. If these cannot be shown to provide clearunequivocal statements of the doctrine, then few verses will. Each one of these versestells us that God knew something about the present in the past. However, these passagesdo not require or demand that we take this any farther. It is only when we marry Greekphilosophical thought with Christianity that we come to the conclusion that God musthave exhaustive foreknowledge. This concept is nowhere clearly stated or stronglyinferred in Scripture. For more information on the Greek influences in Christianity readthe book “The Openness of God”. Chapter 2 deals with this quite extensively.

Jeremiah 1:5Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointedyou as a prophet to the nations.

53

At first this verse is taken to affirm foreknowledge of future actions, but when examinedit really cannot be used as a primary support passage. Here we have an example of thecommon literary method used in the Bible of restating the same thought multiple times toreinforce its meaning. In both the Hebrew and Greek languages, there were noexclamation points, so emphasis was obtained through repetition. Each time the phrase isrepeated it is changed, but each repetition is meant to reinforce the same idea. The basicidea here is that Jeremiah was selected prior to his birth for a very special mission.

Even not knowing this, the first phase “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you”,still begs the question of what did God know? If we are trying to establish that He knewevery action Jeremiah would ever take, every thought he would ever have, we cannot usethis passage. This passage states that before he was fully formed (ie. born) God knewhim. Exactly what God knew is not stated. The AF requirement that God knew this priorto the creation of the world also cannot be supported with this verse. As we know nowfrom genetics, God would certainly know all his physical attributes, his personality andtemperament, as well as his talents and abilities. This is quite a lot of information aboutan individual but no foreknowledge of future choices is required to obtain it. Inconclusion, one cannot read much more into this statement without resorting to usingtheir theology to determine its meaning.

The second and third parts of this passage simply state God’s intention and selection ofJeremiah. While this is an unusual thing for God to do, no Open Theist has a problemwith this action. God certainly has the authority to make this selection and the power tobring it about. Therefore, while this passage does say that God knew something aboutJeremiah before his birth, one cannot automatically jump to the point that God frometernity past knew all of Jeremiah’s future actions. And even if it could be establishedthat God did in fact know all of this, it still doesn’t automatically follow that God didn’tapply a special case here that is not applied globally to all mankind. If God wanted toabsolutely control Jeremiah then He had the ability to do this. (However, this verse doesnot support this contention.)

Psalm 139:15-16 (NIV)My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woventogether in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained forme were written in your book before one of them came to be.

This is another passage that at first glance appears to be an open and shut case for theproponents of divine prescience. The main part to examine is the part that states “All thedays ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be”. Again,it does not state that God knows all future actions absolutely. It says that all of his dayswere ordained. From this verse, something was ordained and written down. Even if thispassage refers to one’s days being numbered, God could ordain your time on earthwithout having to know what you would do with it. He could also ordain these days justprior to your birth (or conception for that matter) without having to have known you fromall eternity. This concept however cannot be shown to be a general statement if the caseof King Hezekiah having years added to his life is to be taken at face value. Finally, this

54

verse is further weakened as a proof text when you investigate the theology of thetranslators. Let’s look at how the King James Version translates this same verse.

(KJ)Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my memberswere written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Here the King James translators say that it was not your days that were numbered, butthat before the members of your body were formed, He wrote them down. Now thistranslation is completely different than the NIV passage and I would submit it wasbecause of transnational bias. Why should I draw this conclusion? First, the King Jamestranslators maintained the context of the verse without teleporting over to “our days”.Secondly, the meaning of the passage becomes even cloudier when we look at theoriginal Hebrew words. Below are the actual translated Hebrew words in this passage asshown in the King James Bible.

Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all were written, incontinuance were fashioned, when none of them.

Here it can be seen that this verse starts with stating that God saw him in the womb.Something was written down before it happened but where and what was written is notstated. With such a cryptically written verse, it is no wonder why Biblical translationscould vary so widely. However; from the actual words, it does appear that “members” ismore consistent than “days”. Is it your days, your actions, your members, or anythingelse? Who really knows? In conclusion, to use this cryptic poetic passage as a primarypassage to establish doctrine would be quite unadvisable.

Genesis 18:20Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin sogrievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that hasreached me. If not, I will know.

Now at first glance this verse would seemingly be in support of the Open View. It showsthat God will obtain knowledge in the future. In fact, it is used as a rather strong primaryverse to establish this doctrine. However, proponents of classical theism use this verse tosay that we can determine that this must be an anthropomorphic statement because iftaken literally this would deny God has exhaustive present knowledge. Therefore, thisverse forms the litmus test for all other verses that suggest the same concept. If we candeny the Open View interpretation here, we can casually sweep all of the other versesaway without much additional thought. Consequently, any verse that suggests the OpenView must be anthropomorphic and therefore we know that it must mean the exactopposite of what is clearly stated. Case closed!

All Open theists believe that God has exhaustive present knowledge. However, dealingwith this passage in such a manner does it a disservice. Clearly the Lord was trying tocommunicate something with these words. What could His intended message be? I

55

would submit the only rational interpretation of the Sodom and Gomorrah story comesfrom the Open View. According to the Open View, this verse is not anthropomorphicand it means exactly what it says. However, non-Open theists might not see this pointimmediately.

First words must mean something. You cannot just eliminate all meaning in this versewith the sword of anthropomorphism. If the “Lord” said that He was going to know orlearn something, then this must mean just that. It cannot be shown that the exact oppositeis actually true. If you say something and the exact opposite is true and you know it, youare lying. If the “Lord” was trying to communicate to us that He knew from eternity pastwhat would be done, then His word usage here is totally obfuscating and less thanhelpful. Here divine foreknowledge makes God out to be a liar. Any doctrine or idea thatleads one logically to this conclusion must be abandoned.

As an aside, if one says that it this verse doesn’t mean what it clearly says, then one isplacing himself above God. The only being in the universe that absolutely knows themessage God wanted to communicate, is God himself. I think that the case can be madethat God is the best linguist in the universe, so that we can boldly say that the wordsselected by God to transmit the message that only he knows, are the best words to do thejob. Therefore, if you disagree with the clear meaning of the passage, you cannot simplesay, “well it means such and such”. You are using other words that were available toGod but that he chose not to use, to clearly communicate what God wanted to say.Inherent in your statement is that God’s word selection was less than perfect to conveyhis idea. If God wanted us to know that what he really meant was that he already knewwhat was going to happen, then why didn’t he just clearly say so? So where are we at?You can only say that it doesn’t mean what the Open Theists claim, but you cannot useany other words to describe it. To claim that you know that the words spoken by Godmust be understood as opposite to what God stated is a very dangerous approach toScripture. With this hermeneutic introduced into the process, one could develop anydoctrine that one could imagine. We could then say that when God says that He is love,we know that he “really” means that he is a God of hate. I hope that the point is clearthat such a approach to Biblical exegesis is a very slippery slope and one that I wouldavoid at all costs.

Now let’s look at the story from and Open perspective. The story begins with threebeings (the Lord (Pre-Incarnate Jesus) and two angles) coming to Earth to see if things inSodom were as bad as they looked. Now the passage does not say that they didn’t knowwhat was going on, but that they came down to determine if the matter was as bad as theoutcry. Now clearly we have here a vastly important moment in human history if the pre-incarnate Jesus deems it necessary to leave Heaven to check into matters. The Open Viewsays that Jesus was fully aware of the actions, thoughts and desires of the people, but Hewas going to find out if they were so given over to moral decay that they would fail afinal unprecedented test. Basically, what wasn’t known was if they had hardened theirheart to the extent that when presented with angelic beings would they still only seek evil.This scenario is highlighted in

56

Deuteronomy 8:2Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the dessert these forty years, tohumble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not youwould keep his commands.

Here we have the two phrases (know what is in your heart) and (whether or not youwould keep his commands) coupled together. This verse gives us insight on how Godviews “to know what is in your heart”. This phrase has nothing to do with presentknowledge. This does not mean that God does not perceive your thoughts from afar, thatHe doesn’t know every last molecule of your being, or that He is unable to know yourwords before you speak. God is also not ignorant of our character or unable to accuratelypredict how we might act in a given situation, but God is not going to act on probabilities.The Open View does not doubt that God was quite aware of the probable outcome, butGod is not going to bring destruction until every avenue of repentance has beenexhausted and every ounce of His mercy has been depleted. When one sees the phrase,“to know” applied to Divine knowledge, it does not concern present knowledge at all, itis a key word telling you that there is a test coming and based on the results, God is goingto act. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah were going to be put to a test ofunprecedented proportions. Only if they failed this final test would God bringdestruction. The outcome of the test is what the Lord was referring to when He said, “Ifnot I will know”. No other theism can show this dynamic portrait of our loving Fatherexhausting all paths of mercy before reluctantly bringing on the destruction of Hischildren.

Following the story further, if words mean things and if the conversation of Abraham andhis Lord were legitimate, the destruction of the two towns (or more) was not apredetermined certainty. (This conversation occurred before the angels reached the town.)If the fate of the cities were predetermined, then this conversation was completelymeaningless and I would submit rather disingenuous on the Lord’s part. ClearlyAbraham thought that he was in real dialog with the Lord. The Open View interpretationdemonstrates the powerful influence of our intercession, God’s desire to fellowship withus, His willingness to let us enter His deliberations, and His great mercy and compassionfor lowering the bar far below what justice may have dictated. I would submit that if allwere a foregone conclusion before Abraham’s birth, this awesome dynamic picture ofGod’s interaction with man is lost at best, and it disparages God’s sincerity at worst.

The view that the whole scenario was to test the people before bringing the most radicaldivine judgment to pass is further buttressed by:

Matthew 11:23b-24If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would haveremained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the Day ofJudgment than for you.

Here Jesus is saying that the people of Sodom did not repent when angels were in theirpresence, but they “would have” if the additional moral light as presented by Him would

57

have been displayed in their presence. Remember, the “Lord” did not go with the anglesto Sodom but He stayed behind with Abraham. The test put to the people of Sodom wasso obvious to Lot, (a righteous man - see II Peter 2:7) that he intuited that the violation ofthese two “people” would have been so horrendously wrong, that he offered up hischildren to be gang raped instead. Clearly the holy nature of these angels was obvious toboth Lot and Abraham, but the Sodomites just wanted debauchery. Clearly a bad idea!

This story even brings out God’s interaction, mercy and changes in plans further whenwe look at Lot.

Genesis 19:17bFlee to the mountains or you will be swept away!

This doesn’t sound like a conditional statement to me. However, Lot was not of thatmindset. Lot acted just like Abraham, Moses, David, Amos and Jonah when they showedby their actions that God’s decrees were not unalterable. They were functional Opentheists! As the story continues, Lot requested a change in plans and it was granted.

Genesis 19:21Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. Butflee there quickly because I cannot do anything until you reach it.

What a phenomenal event! It appears that the town of Zoar was going to be overthrownalso, but instead it was spared so that Lot and his family could flee to it. Every person inthat town was ripe for destruction, but because a covenant partner with God didn’t wantto go to the mountains, God spared every one in that town! This shows God’s desire toaccommodate even our less than perfect wishes just because we ask. Now did God knowfrom eternity past that the town would never have been overthrown, and that the angel’sstatement in Genesis 19:17 was false, or does this show that God can modify His plans asHe sees fit?

As an interesting aside, the town of Zoar was so wicked that Lot feared the people andthen finally went to the mountains where the angel said to go originally. This obviouslydemonstrates that God knows best, but is willing to let us choose less and to let usdiscover His wisdom on our own. The point however remains, because of Lot an entiretown was spared, even though he didn’t stay there very long.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, as seen from the Open perspective, shows a forgivingand merciful God willing to extend an unprecedented amount of mercy because Hischildren simply ask. We see a God who will bring one final test to people clearly givenover to evil. As Jeremiah stated:

Jeremiah 26:2-3Tell them everything I command you do not omit a word. Perhaps they will listen andeach one will turn from his evil way.

58

(Isn’t “perhaps” an interesting word selection by God?)

What a praiseworthy portrait of our Father! The classical theists say that we diminishGod when we say that God can modify His plans if He desires. They retain a God ofexhaustive foreknowledge, but lose the God of compassion and mercy.

John 21: 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God.

Here we have a statement predicting the future mode of death for Peter. If you noticed inthe preceding verse, the actual mode of death was quite cryptic.

John 21:18bBut when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress youand lead you where you do not want to go.

Actually, just reading verse 18 sounds like Peter might have been put in a nursing home.Only from verse 19 do we see that this is supposed to represent how he is to die.However, even if it was stated in exhaustive detail, the Open View does not bind themouth of God from stating a future event. However, it simply means that God hasdecided to bring this event about through the exercise of His power. If God was notintending to influence the event, an alternate view could be that God knew that as theykilled Jesus they would try to kill Peter also. Peter was going to be assigned to Jerusalemby God as his main ministry field, and the primary form of execution in that arena wasstoning and crucifixion. It isn’t too hard to see how Jesus could have made thisproclamation knowing how much the Gospel was going to incite these very same people.

Matthew 26:34“I tell you the truth”, Jesus answered, “this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disownme three times.”

This passage is an interesting one, as it appears to show Christ knew beforehand Peter’sfree will actions. While this is quite understandable, one must view it in light of what theOpen View states. Before I proceed, please remember all of the times detailed in thispaper that God stated things absolutely that didn’t happen. It is interesting if one takesthe view that this verse may be conditional also. Sure it is stated in absolute terms, but sowere a great number of other events that didn’t come to pass. Why must this bedifferent?

Here we have an interesting dynamic going on between Jesus and Peter. Peter wasexhibiting a prideful attitude that was unfit for apostolic leadership. Something needed tobe done to address this situation. Open Theism believes that God intimately knew Peter’scharacter and what he would most likely do given the situation. We see in Luke 22:31that Satan has specifically asked to sift Peter like wheat. We also see Jesus praying forPeter that his faith “may not fail” (a conditional phrase). We even see Jesus concerned

59

about this in the Garden when he tells Peter “Watch and pray so that you will not fall intotemptation” (Mark 14:38). So we see Jesus trying to warn Peter about something andJesus is trying to prepare him. Jesus has already told Peter that Satan was gunning forhim, but Peter does nothing.

It is also interesting to note Peter’s response to Jesus’ statement.

Matthew 26:31-35Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it iswritten:

'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'

But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee." Peter replied, "Even if all fallaway on account of you, I never will." "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "this verynight, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." But Peter declared,"Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples saidthe same.

Here we see that Peter was so prideful that he didn’t even believe it when Jesus told him.The Open view would state that the words of Jesus were intended to shock Peter so thathe would reconsider his ways. Such a statement should have shocked Peter into silenceand repentance. This was not the case. The love of Jesus was so great as to issue Peter adire warning, but Peter would not listen. When people do not alter their course after aconditional statement of God of judgment, then judgment always follows.

In the end, all that was needed for this prophecy to be fulfilled was God’s knowledge ofPeter’s condition, what he was up against spiritually, and to realize that Peter had ashortfall. It would be clear to God that Peter was going to fall under this temptation dueto his unprepared state; however, it is also clear that God would not let Satan take itfarther. Therefore, by knowing one’s character and spiritual condition, God could haveeasily known that Satan would push his button until he fell. Also, with God’s unlimitedknowledge of the present and His ability to predict events based on this, it isn’t much of astretch to believe that God could predict what someone would do in a certain test lessthan 12 hours away. Even for Open theists, this isn’t much of a stretch. However, toextrapolate this from eternity past for every individual ever born is going quite a bitfarther than the text requires.

As an Open Theist, I don’t believe that Peter’s fall was inevitable. I believe that it was aconditional prophesy just like most that predict disaster or a fall. God perceived hischaracter was wanting. This was not acceptable for the future leader of the church soGod needed to amend this. Satan provided a way to accomplish this, but God would haverather Peter not have walked this path. This is in my mind why Jesus told Peter about theupcoming test, and why He warned him in the Garden. He was saying, pray, Peter, pray,or you will not be able to withstand what is coming. The fact that Peter napped duringthis crucial time sealed his fate as far as taking the test was concerned. This test so

60

radically humbled Peter that Jesus in His post-resurrection state had to restore him inJohn 21. As far as predicting the number of times Peter would deny Christ, I look at it asnot God knowing, but that God decided to limit the number to three. It doesn’t appear tobe a stretch that Satan wanted to utterly destroy Peter as he did Judas. God knew what itwould take for Peter to change and how much it would take to utterly destroy him. I seeit as God saying three times is enough, and that after that, God would protect Peter fromany additional attacks. Therefore Peter freely chose the path of “hard knocks” by notheeding Jesus’ pleas, so he picked his course. However, God could still accomplish theneeded transformation in Peter by his chosen path, but in doing so He also protected Peterfrom his decision by not allowing Satan total free reign. Three times, and no more!

Acts 1:16Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Sprit spoke long ago through the mouthof David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus…

This verse really opens up a theological “wicket”. Was Judas preordained to betrayChrist? Did he need to play his part for a successful atonement? Was he damned to Hellfor a role he had no choice in? To answer these questions requires one to understand thefirst century Jewish mind and how they viewed Scripture.

To the Jews, the Scriptures contained such applications to life that when they sawsomething occur that was similar to a past fulfilled prophesy in the Scriptures or whereGod intervened in an earlier time, they would use the expression “it was fulfilled”. Thisdid not mean that the Old Testament passage was a telic prophetic prediction (a definiteprediction of a future event), but that it was an ecbatic prophesy. Ecbatic prophecieswould be like us saying, “History has repeated itself.” To better understand this literarydevice, let’s look at the book of Acts to see what Peter said about Judas.

Acts 1:20For, said Peter, “It is written in the Psalms, “May his place be deserted let there be noone to dwell in it, and, “May another take his place of leadership.”

Here Peter actually quotes two Old Testament passages. From this example, a telicprophecy would lead us to believe that the OT passages actually referred to Judas, butthey do not. Please read the OT passages to see this clearly.

Psalm 69:24-25Pour out your wrath on them. Let you fierce anger overtake them. May their place bedeserted; let there be no one to dwell in their tents.

In this verse, one can see that Peter changed whom the verse was addressing. The OTverse says “their” as representing a group of people and Peter uses it as representing anindividual and changes the wording to match the situation. Therefore this passage cannotbe a telic-style prophecy specifically addressing Judas. Something else must be at workhere.

61

Psalm 109:8-12May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership. May his children befatherless and his wife be a widow. May his children be wandering beggars; may they bedriven from their ruined homes. May a creditor seize all he has; may strangers plunderthe fruits of his labor. May no one extend kindness to him or take pity on his fatherlesschildren.

Here I have quoted a longer passage to show that while the passage in Acts is quotedverbatim, the OT passage does not point to Judas at all. It was already fulfilled in thepast. Here the person has children and a wife, Judas had neither.

I hope that this singular example is sufficient to show the point. The Gospel of John isfilled with such devices. Therefore, while this literary device really has nothing to dowith the Open View, it is addressed here so that the reader may see that not all propheciesare telic (foretelling of specific events in the future), but many are ecbatic (history isrepeated, God is again doing something similar to what He did in the past.)

Ephesians 1:4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. Inlove he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ…

The assumption here is that the “us” is an individual “us” and not an all mankind type of“us”. There really isn’t anything in the verse that would force us to conclude that herePaul isn’t describing God’s salvific plan for mankind, not individual souls. An Opentheist would paraphrase this verse to mean:

God’s eternal plan was that man would be holy. After the Fall, God’s method ofachieving this goal was to adopt us as sons through the atonement of Christ.

While this concept of corporate election/predestination may seem new to some, it is not aradical concept. The “chosen people” were not individual Israelites, but anyone who wasan Israelite. As election in the Old Testament was corporate, why would oneautomatically conclude that in the New Testament it must be individualistic? But forArminians, understanding this verse in a corporate sense helps us to evade the Calvinisticleanings of this verse towards sovereign election as this verse shows God doing the“choosing” and the “predestining”. If this verse is referencing individual election asopposed to corporate election, then both Arminianists and Open theists have a problem.

62

IS THE OPEN VIEW TRUE TO REASON?

Here we will address a very important hermeneutical point. Any doctrine must be true to reason.Mainline Christianity has developed many doctrines that require one to “leave reason at thedoor”. Such doctrines have created a major impediment to the unbelieving world as Christianshave been described as unthinking. This is one of the kinder adjectives used to describe us. Ithas always stymied me when we use logic and reason to elucidate many of our core beliefs; weuse it to clearly identify cultic beliefs, and we stand on it when using apologetic arguments toclearly demonstrate the undeniable claims of the Gospel. However, when reason contradicts aparticular doctrinal view, we quickly jettison it and claim that the Law of non-Contradiction nolonger applies. It is my core belief that such “having your cake and eating it to” approach cannotbe accepted if we are going to search God’s word for truth. We need to live and die on rightreason in all matters. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t things that we cannot fully appreciateabout God, but they do not violate reason. When two opposing propositions are deemed correcteven though they violate the Law of Non-Contradiction, we have left Western thought anddelved into the pool of Eastern philosophy and Buddhist teaching.

This problem is at the core of the issue under consideration. How can God absolutely know acontingent event? Theologians and philosophers have been debating this for centuries without asatisfactory conclusion. There are various models and opinions, but few have ever sat back tosee if what they are attempting to do is futile. If we violate the Law of Non-Contradiction, itceases to be a Law. If we destroy this, then the entire basis of rational Western thought getsflushed down the sewer. We now lose all ability to preach the Gospel.

How can I say this one might ask? As an example, we preach that Jesus is the only way to theFather. False religions teach that there are other ways. Without this law, one could correctlyclaim that both are correct. How can this be? These statements are mutually exclusive! Wellonly if the Law of Non-Contradiction applies. They cannot both be true because they contradictone another. However, remove this Law, and no problems exist.

Take another example: Christians say that God is love. Can God also be a God of maliciousness,hatred, and selfishly vindictive? If you say no, you again validate the Law of Non-Contradiction.Therefore, before I would ever suggest that we violate this Law, I would strongly implore one tosearch for alternatives. This is what the OV does. The OV can be shown to harmonizeScripture, and gives us an understanding of God that simultaneously satisfies reason.

In this section, I will explore various aspects of how absolute foreknowledge has issues whenviewed from “reason”.

While at lunch one day (2/13/04) a fellow brother in the Lord made a comment that I would notdisagree with, but it just hit me a bit odd. He talked about God trusting us. The curious pointcame to my mind was: If God knows all future events exhaustively; can He “trust” anything?

This question set my mind going and I came up with a couple of assertions that I believe are true.One may question the validity of one or more of them and I would expect no less. However,

63

think about each one and see if we don’t have an incongruity in our thinking about God’somniscience and His actions.

Can God Trust Us?

Trust: (Dictionary.com)〈 A dependence on something future or contingent〈 Confident expectation〈 Hope

Syn: Faith

Trust implies an assured attitude toward another, which rests on blended evidence ofexperience, and more subjective grounds such as knowledge, affection, admiration,respect, or reverence.

PointsGod cannot have a dependence on something contingent; as ultimate reality (God’sknowledge) must be that nothing is contingent if AF is true.

Trust is based on subjective knowledge not absolute knowledge.

God cannot have faith. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of thingsnot seen. To God, nothing is unseen, and God cannot hope. God simply knows.

If God cannot “trust”, hope, or have faith in us, than is He “limited” in what He can do?Absolute foreknowledge seems to limit God.

It also seems curious that the grounds of our salvation (Faith), is impossible for God tohave. Faith is essential in our continued walk with God. However, if God cannot havefaith, could Jesus? If Jesus had faith, why can’t the Godhead? As this doesn’t seem trueto reason, I question the validity of AF.

God Can Change His Course, But He Cannot Change His Mind

Change: (Dictionary)〈 To make different〈 Alter〈 Modify〈 Transform〈 Correct〈 To give a different position, status, course, or direction〈 To shift or transfer position

Points

64

While God may appear to take a different course or alter or modify His plans based onthe prayers of His people, this must be an illusion if AF is true. The God of absoluteforeknowledge cannot change His mind. God’s plans are eternal and a momentary“change” is impossible. God always knew that He would alter His course at a givenmoment and merely waited for that moment to arrive to perform the action that wasforeknown. Now how God can absolutely believe one course of action up to a point andthen alter this course and now believe this one absolutely is a complete mystery. Howcan God say that He will do something that He knows that He will not do without lying?Again, a complete mystery seems to surround us.

God cannot deliberate on a new idea or concept. As God is eternally aware of all actions,He cannot create in His own mind new thoughts that He didn’t have from all eternity.God cannot think, meditate on something, or deliberate on a matter. This brings us to theEternal Now God or the “frozen” God concept. This will be addressed later in thissection. See the “The Oddities of Psalms” section below as indication that God doesindeed think, and deliberate.

As God cannot change His mind, deliberate, or even think a new thought, is God not“limited”? Absolute foreknowledge seems to limit God.

God Cannot Know of Contingency

Contingent: (Dictionary.com)〈 Chance occurrence〈 Accident〈 Likely but not certain to happen〈 Affected by unforeseen causes or conditions〈 Unpredictable in occurrence or outcome〈 Not necessitated (free: used of human volition, action or existence)

Points

If God cannot know of a contingent event, then there can be no such thing as a contingentevent. If God cannot know it, then certainly it cannot exist. Therefore, there can be noaccidents, or chance occurrences. All events are foreknown and nothing can beunpredictable. If you believe that there are contingent events, then you believe that youknow about things of which God is ignorant. Clearly this is an untenable proposition.

Everything in this universe will play out exactly as God knows. Therefore the eternaldestiny of your great-great-great-grandson is already known as an established fact inGod’s mind and cannot be altered. Nothing can alter this known fact even God Himselffor He cannot alter His knowledge of the future. This would constitute a change in Hismind.

What you will do tomorrow is already certain. You may not know what you will do, butyou will act tomorrow exactly as God knew a billion years ago. A free and open future is

65

a mere illusion. You are simply ignorant of established facts. Free will is a manmadefallacy. It doesn’t matter if you freely choose it or not, it is already established. Whoactually makes the choice doesn’t enter into the fact that the choice is destined to happen.If God knows it, it simply doesn’t matter who chooses it, it will still happen. To Godyour future is already fixed in His mind, so it matters little what you believe on thismatter.

If God cannot know a contingency, then He is “limited”. Absolute foreknowledgeappears to limit God and destroy any notion of free will.

God cannot sincerely strive for the salvation of everyone

Sincere: (Dictionary.com)〈 Motivated by genuineness〈 Honest〈 Marked by truth〈 Suggests the absence of hypocrisy

Syn: Wholehearted

PointsAs God is aware of our eternal fate prior to our birth, He cannot sincerely strive withthose pre-known to damnation so that they might repent and live. They are eternally lostprior to their births and God is unable to change their destiny unless He changes Hisknowledge. Changes in the divine mind are impossible (see above).

God is powerless to change His knowledge, even if that knowledge contains things thatare contrary to the divine will or heart. Absolute foreknowledge seems to limit God.

If God cannot sovereignly choose to not know the outcome of a future event, than He is“limited”. Absolute foreknowledge limits God.

If God could not have created us without knowing our future choices, then He is “limited”.Absolute foreknowledge limits God.

God cannot have freewill

Freewill: (Dictionary.com)〈 The ability to choose between alternative possibilities in such a way that the

choice and action are to some extent creatively determined by the consciencesubject at that time.

〈 The power asserted by moral beings of willing or choosing within certainlimitations or with respect or certain matters without the restraints of physical ordivinely imposed necessity.

〈 Points

66

As God knows all actions from eternity, God never chose His actions. They could nothave been creatively determined, or then God would have had part of His existenceignorant of the future acts that He just determined.

As God knows everything by the necessity of being God, then He cannot choose outsidethose bounds. Everything is and must be as God knows.

God is bounded by the necessity of knowing all future actions and is therefore “limited”.Absolute foreknowledge limits God.

(The way that theologians try to circumvent this point is to claim that God is not“in time”. Such a concept may seem useful in the context of this area, but itsimply moves the problem. If God is “outside of time” then a good manyScriptures lose their meaning. In addition, we also loose any concept ofunderstanding God. We lose God in the fog of “timelessness”. If God wanted tohave a true and meaningful relationship with us, creating us in “time” when He isoutside of it seems rather counterproductive. (See the “God outside of Time”section below.))

God Cannot Experience:

〈 Anticipation〈 Surprise〈 Hope〈 The joy of discovery〈 Choice〈 Change〈 Anything new〈 Disappointment

God Cannot Truly Answer Prayers

〈 God knows your prayers as well as the final outcome of the event that you are praying forprior to your prayer.

〈 Prayers, by the most common understanding, are entreaties to God to “change” or“assure” a particular future outcome. We act as though the future is not fixed.

〈 As the outcome is already fixed in the Divine mind, then if your prayer is in line with theknown outcome, your prayer is “answered”. If it is not, you get a “no” answer. All thewhile God is incapable of responding to your petition when you pray. To alter the futurewould require God to change what He has eternally known of the future to be true. Sucha prayer would be to ask God to alter His absolute foreknowledge.

〈 Absolute foreknowledge prohibits God from answering prayer the way we believe Hedoes. The future cannot be changed in God’s mind. Absolute foreknowledge limits God.

God Outside of Time

67

A very common approach when confronted with these issues is for one to claim that God is“outside of time”. By this they mean that God experiences all things in an eternal present. ToGod, the past, present, and future are all before Him at any moment. A common example of thisis the circus parade analogy. Here we are on the street seeing the parade move by us. We havelimited view of what is coming and what happens to the floats that have passed us by. God onthe other hand is in the Goodyear blimp where He is viewing the parade from start to finish.

The problem with this analogy is that it presupposes that the parade is there to view. Do peoplebelieve that the future really exists in some altered state? If the future isn’t there to view, itdoesn’t matter what view a person has, they cannot see anything. If they see the future, then thefuture must be somewhere to view.

The Eternal Now concept has been in Christian thought since the time of Augustine. Augustinebrought this concept with him from the Greek philosophy of Plato. There are several bookswritten about this, so I will not attempt a detailed evaluation of this point.

I will however ask some questions to see if the Eternal Now concept is true.

1. If God is in some parallel universe of “time” how did we come to know this? Where arethe Scriptures where God reveals this to us? One will find no primary proof textssupporting this assertion.

2. As God desires a personal relationship with us, would this be hindered or helped by Himcreating us in “time” whereby we cannot even comprehend how He can think, move, ordo anything?

3. As Jesus is the exact representation of the Father, did Jesus ever hint that God wasoutside of time?

4. Was Jesus outside of time? If not, then God can be in time. If He can be in time forthirty three years, why not all the “time”?

5. If being “outside of time” is the reason for God’s foreknowledge, then if He created us inthe same physical sphere, would we have absolute foreknowledge also? If not, thenbeing outside of time has nothing to do with God’s foreknowledge. If this is the case,why do we need to say that He is outside of “time”? If anyone in an Eternal Now statepossesses AF, and AF is an attribute of God, then God couldn’t create us in His state orwe would also be gods. Therefore does the Eternal Now concept state that God couldn’tcreate us in His state? If so, doesn’t this limit God’s power, or bring into question whyHe is a God at all? (This reminds me of the Wizard of Oz. “Don’t pay any attention tothe man behind the curtain!”)

6. Time is simply a measurement of successive events. We cannot perceive of anythingwhereby one event isn’t preceded by another. Cause and effect thinking requires this.Whoever doesn’t Eternal Now destroy cause and effect? How can the effect becoexistent with its cause?

68

7. Does the Eternal Now impugn God’s integrity? We are told that the Holy Spirit isstriving with all men so that everyone can be saved. However, God already knows whowill be saved and who is eternally lost from before their birth. So is this striving sincere?

Prophecy and Foreknowledge

Many people hold to the belief that God requires AF or He would be unable to fulfill prophecy.Here the concept is not that God is proclaiming something now that He intends to fulfill in thefuture, but that He is merely telling us something that He already knows will occur.

This is interesting, as Scripture seems to say that God says something all the while planning onperforming it at the proper time. Here are just a couple of passages from Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 1:12Then said the LORD unto me, Thou hast well seen: for I will hasten my word to performit.

Jeremiah 11:5That I may perform the oath which I have sworn unto your fathers, to give them a landflowing with milk and honey, as it is this day. Then answered I, and said, So be it, OLORD.

Jeremiah 23:20The anger of the LORD shall not return, until he have executed, and till he haveperformed the thoughts of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it perfectly

Jeremiah 33:14Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I havepromised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.

This is how we see that some things that God states never take place. God was planning to do itif things didn’t change. Things changed, and therefore God didn’t do it. Few have problemswith this concept, but have difficulty when God says something will happen and it actually does.The only issue here is that the conditions that God was seeking to change didn’t change, andtherefore He had to bring upon the people what was foretold.

This also goes to the character of God. People tell us that God’s AF does not impact the futurebecause He simply knows it but doesn’t cause it to happen. However, if God ever told us whatHe knew in the future (i.e. prophecy), then would we lose our free wills? Say that God told metoday that He absolutely knows that I will have a car accident tomorrow. I then take thisinformation and don’t drive therefore avoiding the accident. However we now have a seriousproblem. If God told me what He knew to be true, and I exercised my free will to alter it, I havejust destroyed God’s AF. So does that make this attribute of God “contingent” on my free willdecision? If God tells me and I have to do it to maintain this attribute, then I lose my free willbecause I will not freely chose to be in a car accident. On the other hand, maybe God lied to meso that I would stay home and the whole “accident” thing was a mere ruse. Well this destroysGod’s established character and makes Him out to be a liar.

69

So here we have some real problems when it comes to prophecy. If God tells me that I will bedestroyed in the future, do I have a choice in the matter? If so, then it must be a contingentutterance. If not, I am fated to be destroyed and I have no say in the matter (I lose my free will.)So what do we have here? So how does the OV look at Biblical prophecy? One type is whereGod “warns” someone of what will occur if the future course is not altered. The intent of this isso the person will act wisely and avoid destruction. The other reason is that God is telling ussomething that He plans to do in the future. He tells us this so that we can witness that He isindeed active in the affairs of men, and that we can see His governance and guidance in ourworld. The OV does not ascribe prophecy as mere fortune telling, as AF seems to indicate.

Foreknowledge and Free Will

This issue was addressed earlier, but it needs to be highlighted again in a more direct way.Those who ascribe to simple foreknowledge (God knows but this knowledge does not impact ourfree wills) have a problem with prophecy. Most believe as stated earlier that God needs AFspecifically because of prophecy, but it was shown not to be mandatory to an omnipotent God.An omnipotent God can state anything He desires and when the “time” comes, He can simply doit. No moral agent in all creation could stop it.

Because of this, some may think that we are at an impasse. Who is right? First let us understandthat the only way that simple foreknowledge would seem to work is if God never told us what Heknew. If He told us, and we maintain free will, then we could be obstinate, exercise our free willand utterly demonstrate to the entire universe that His foreknowledge doesn’t mean a thing. Godtells me that I will wear my blue shirt tomorrow, and so I get up and deliberately put on my redshirt. Am I not free to do so?

So the proponents of Simple Foreknowledge must maintain that God cannot communicate Hisknowledge to us or “risk” being “wrong”. Now such a scenario would demonstrate that such“foreknowledge” would be useless as uttering a prophecy would be impossible without riskinglosing AF. The only way around such a problem would be that God would need to mandate anyaction whenever He told us. This would deny libertarian free will and prove that SimpleForeknowledge is incorrect.

So now let’s look at prophecy. Can a God of Simple Foreknowledge tell us anything? Can Heeven utter a prophecy without risking His infallibility? In reality, Simple Foreknowledge (whatmost Arminianist believers ascribe to.) would prohibit God from ever telling us a thing about thefuture. The fact that the Bible contains prophecy is in actuality a severe weak point to SimpleForeknowledge.

Now I am not going to address determinists because a determinist believes that God only knowsthe future because He decided it and is actively making it happen. Basically, a determinist doesnot believe that God has any inherent quality that enables Him to “see” the future. In this regard,determinists and OV theists are in agreement. This paper is to address if God does or does nothave this “ability”.

70

Let us look at one example that was used previously.

I Samuel 23:10-13David said, ”O Lord, God of Israel, your servant has heard DEFINITELY that Saulplans to come to Keilah and destroy the town on account of me. Will the citizens ofKeilah surrender me to him? Will Saul come down as your servant has heard? O Lord,God of Israel, tell your servant.” And the Lord said, “He will.” Again David asked,“Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me and my men to Saul?” And the Lord said,“They will.” So David and his men, about six hundred in number, left Keilah and keptmoving from place to place. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, hedid not go there.

Here we see things unfold exactly how the OV states. God tells David what will happen if thingsdo not change. David didn’t like the “forecast” so he left town. The forecast was no longeraccurate as the situation changed. So was God wrong? Did God lie to get David to leave?Please note that David never believed that what God was telling him was fate. God truthfullystated what would happen if David stayed, and if he would have stayed, these things would havehappened. However, what God stated never happened. How can this be? If AF is true, God hadto know all along that David would not stay, and that Saul would not go down. However, Godemphatically states twice the exact opposite. How can we claim that AF is true and that God didnot lie or deceive David?

This is the reason why contrary to many people’s belief about AF and prophecy, prophecy is areal problem if AF is true.

Logic Test

It is sometimes helps to boil all this down into small logical statements. When you do this, onecan find out quickly where the issues lie. Before I continue, I want to be sure that we allunderstand the definition of contingency.

〈 Liable to occur but not with certainty; possible.〈 Dependent on conditions or occurrences not yet established; conditional〈 Happening by chance or accident; fortuitous.〈 True only under certain conditions; not necessarily or universally true: a contingent

proposition.

Statements:

1. God knows all truth. (True)

2. God’s knows that no future event is contingent. (True)

3. (Then) The truth must be that no future event is contingent.

71

The consequence of no contingency in the universe is fate. If God knows something to be fixed,it cannot be contingent. To say so would be to ascribe error to God. We may think it iscontingent but because we do not know all truth, we would be in error. AF requires the universeto be fated.

The Oddities of Psalms

Now this point could have been placed in the “True to Scripture” section, but I think it fits betterhere. In this section, we will ask why the Psalmist states things about God the way he does.Does it make sense to believe that these statements were being uttered by someone who believesthat God has either absolute foreknowledge from all eternity or was “outside of time”? Many ofthese passages ascribe “time” to God’s existence and one must ask; why does God search ourhearts and minds?

Psalm 1:6For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.

Psalm 7:9O righteous God, who searches minds and hearts, bring to an end the violence of the wickedand make the righteous secure.

Psalm 11:4-5The LORD is in his holy temple; the LORD is on his heavenly throne. He observes the sons ofmen; his eyes examine them. The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those wholove violence his soul hates.

Psalm 14:2The LORD looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand,any who seek God.

Psalm 17:2-3May my vindication come from you; may your eyes see what is right. Though you probe my heartand examine me at night, though you test me, you will find nothing; I have resolved that mymouth will not sin.

Psalm 26:2-3Test me, O LORD, and try me, examine my heart and my mind; for your love is ever before me,and I walk continually in your truth.

Psalm 33:13-15From heaven the LORD looks down and sees all mankind; from his dwelling place he watchesall who live on earth- he who forms the hearts of all, who considers everything they do.

Psalm 53:2God looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any whoseek God.

72

Psalm 78:40-41How often they rebelled against him in the desert and grieved him in the wasteland! Again andagain they put God to the test; they vexed the Holy One of Israel.

Psalm 78:59When God heard them, he was very angry; he rejected Israel completely.

Psalm 121:3-4He will not let your foot slip— he who watches over you will not slumber; indeed, he whowatches over Israel will neither slumber nor sleep.

Psalm 121:7-8The LORD will keep you from all harm— he will watch over your life; the LORD will watch overyour coming and going both now and forevermore.

Psalm 127:1The LORD will keep you from all harm— he will watch over your life; the LORD will watch overyour coming and going both now and forevermore.

Psalm 139:1-4O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; youperceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiarwith all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD.

Note that it doesn’t say that God knows our words from all eternity, but before we can speakthem. This passage strongly indicates that God knows our thoughts. God doesn’t need to hearus speak; he is privy to all our thoughts and meditations.

Psalm 139:23-24Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there isany offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

Psalm 145:20The LORD watches over all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy.

Summary: True to Reason

It has been reasoned that a God of absolute foreknowledge is so limited as to make you questionwhat kind of God He could be. The God of absolute foreknowledge is powerless to accomplisha great number of things and His knowledge would appear to limit His actions. An omniscientGod of all future actions cannot be an omnipotent God and vice versa. He can never hope thatthings might change and turn out better that than they currently are. He would view this world ofpain realizing that He cannot change what He already knows.

73

Could Adam and Eve not have eaten the forbidden fruit? AF would say no. Before they werecreated, did God know absolutely that the “fruit-eating incident” was a done deal? They mayhave somehow freely chosen it, but the end result didn’t matter; they still had to do it or Goddoesn’t have foreknowledge.

We have also addressed why the AF view has a real problem with prophecy and free will, andfinally it has been shown that AF requires a denial of the Law of Non-Contradiction. These areall serious issues to overcome if AF is indeed true.

74

IS THE OPEN VIEW TRUE TO LIFE?

The next area that needs to be addresses is if AF is true to life. God created this world and everyparable of Jesus indicates that He created it in such a way as to have it shout spiritual truths inour ears. Examples are numerous.

1. Earthly Government clearly demonstrates the functionality of God’s government.

2. Marriage shows us the inseparable union of two beings as one.

3. Child rearing highlights the correctness of self-sacrifice, and true benevolent love.

4. Nature speaks to the order, power, magnificence and beauty of God.

5. Animal husbandry and farming clearly demonstrate diverse spiritual concepts.

These areas only reflect just a few of the spiritual metaphors that God placed in our createdworld. This is the basis of Natural Law that will acquit us or condemn us on our day ofjudgment. So with such a witness, it should not be a surprise that we cannot rely on this area as agood filter for spiritual truth in the same way that Jesus did.

With this in mind, I will ask several questions to see if the reader is a functioning Open Theist ordo they live consistent with their theology. Any true proposition must be livable. For atheological construct to be unlivable is to announce its falsity.

True or False?

1. In grace, God grants humans significant freedom to accept or reject His desires and plansfor their life.

2. God enters into authentic, give and take relationships with us.

3. The Christian life involves genuine interaction between God and human beings.

4. We are free to respond to God's gracious initiatives and God responds to our responses.

5. God is endlessly resourceful and competent in working toward His ultimate goals.Nothing can thwart His plans.

6. Sometimes God alone decides how to accomplish His goals. On most occasions however,God works with human decisions, adapting His own plans in response to our free will.

7. God does not control everything that happens. Rather, He is open to receiving input fromHis creatures. In loving dialogue, God invites us to participate with Him to bring thefuture into being.

75

8. God can alter His course, and at times, does so in response to our prayers and actions.

9. It is God’s desire that we know and love Him, and He has created us, and this world, tofacilitate this desire.

10. God desires all to be saved, but our eternal destiny is up to us.

If you responded positively to all or most of these questions, you are living your life consistentlywith the beliefs of Open Theism.

Petitionary PrayerTo see if our theology is consistent with our own lives, let’s look at prayer. When you petitionGod in prayer, what is your intent? Do you look at what may happen in the future and ask Godto coordinate, change, or alter things such that “bad” events do not occur? Do you pray thatpeople may choose against their current way of life and accept God’s pardon of forgiveness? Doyou pray:

“Dear Heavenly Father, I ask that You place a hedge of protection around my children,and to speak to their hearts so that they will come to know You as their Lord and Savior.”

Or do you pray:

“Dear Heavenly Father, I know that You have known about this prayer from all eternity.You know not only this prayer, but also its answer in one eternal moment. Even thoughYou do not exist in time, and to you there is no future, I pray that in Your eternalknowledge that the answer to what I understand in this time driven world as the future isyes. However I understand that if your reply has been “no” from before the foundationsof the world, I humbly accept that and will continue to praise Your name in this timedriven world that You have placed me in.

Now obviously the above “prayer” is a bit ludicrous, but it would be consistent with a believer inAF. The bottom line is that no matter your theology, I have never met an individual that doesn’tbelieve that when they pray they are asking God to change something about the future. Theyintuitively understand that the future isn’t fixed, and that God can “hear” their prayer, and “act”in a certain way to change what might be. As an aside, we all believe that the past is indeedfixed. That is why it would be insanity to pray for God to change the past. Who does this? Butif the future is just as fixed as the past in God’s mind (a consequence of an Eternal Now), it isjust as ludicrous to pray that the future is altered as the past.

However, I haven’t met any person that actually believes that the future is fixed andunchangeable. Yes, there are fatalists, but they are not many in number. So, when you pray, ifyou believe that God may “alter” the future then you live consistently with the OV, and not AF.

76

The God of AF cannot alter the future. He has known what the future will be for all eternity, andHe cannot alter what He knows to be true.

The Desirability of ForeknowledgeWould you want to know everything you will ever do or experience for all eternity? Would youconsider such a trait a wonder or a disaster? Could you ever be happy even for a moment if youknew that your eternity would be spent in Hell, or would your present moments be haunted bythis unalterable terror? Could you ever be happy knowing that your loved ones would spendeternity separated from you burning in unquenchable torment? When you looked at them, couldyour mind dwell on anything else but their impending doom? Could you derive any comfortfrom the fact that no action you can ever take can alter this future reality? Could you have amoment’s peace if you knew that on a certain day your daughter would be abducted, mutilatedand killed? Or would you consider your ignorance of the future a blessing?

Would you desire an existence where your future was known and you were unable to alter itscourse? Foreknowledge would trap us in a world of crushing future realities. You would haveno hope that the future might be different. Your fate would be to wait until the future blessingsor curses eventually caught up to you.

Maybe I’m just different, but I would consider absolute foreknowledge of my future a curse fromHell. I can revel in the discovery of things, have hopeful anticipation, and can experience the joyof being surprised by others love for me being worked out daily. While I can see the wonder ofbeing omnipotent, the benefits of having foreknowledge of all future actions is highlyquestionable. How God could sincerely (see definition above) say the world He created wasvery good, all the while knowing that He would be grieved that He ever made man and destroynearly every one of them in anger, is a true conundrum.

Moral ResponsibilityIn our world, if you know that people are planning evil and do nothing, you become an accessoryto the crime. The Law does not require that you participate in the crime, to be guilty of a crime.Moral law dictates that if it is in your power to stop evil and do not, society will hold youaccountable. Now when we consider that we claim that God knows all future actions, how canwe avoid leveling a charge of complicity at God? Not only does God know every horrendous actof evil, but He also has the power to stop it. Therefore is God the ultimate accessory to the worstcrimes imaginable?

Here we have a moral dilemma of the first order. Somehow we can say that it is right toimprison people for not doing all they can to avoid the society being assaulted by evil doers, buton the other hand we claim that a loving God knew every evil act and intent before creating theworld, still created it, and did nothing to stop the unholy slaughter of innocent victims of evil.Can you see why the perishing world scratches their heads when we claim this “truth”?

77

This in theological circles is called the “Problem of Evil”. How can a good and holy God createa world knowing that billions of people would spend eternity in torment? Now theologians haveconstructed all sorts of views, but in the end, we are still left with a sour feeling.

One must ask this simple question. Say you overheard people talking about torturing,sodomizing, and eventually killing a small child. Would you not call the police? What wouldsociety think of you if they discovered that you found out about this plot in time to stop it, butyou chose not to get involved? Would you be celebrated? Would be you honored as the citizenof the year? If not, then why should we honor God if He does the same exact thing?

The answer must be simply that He DOESN’T do this! God knew that there was a probabilitythat Adam and Eve would sin, but He did not know absolutely. God gave them everything theyneeded to live a life of holiness and expected them to do it. Sure sin was a possibility that is whythe Tree of Knowledge was there in the first place. It was a test; a test to prove that they wouldchoose holiness. When they acted contrary to all reason, all of mankind was impacted by theirchoice. The OV states that the fall of man was not inevitable, and that in no way did God plan,ordain, or even know that such a tragedy was a certainty when He created the world that Hedeclared “very good”. Those who believe in AF must address how a holy, loving God couldcreate such a world where the vast majority of its inhabitants will suffer greatly in this life andsuffer for eternity in Hell.

The Incognoscibility of GodIn case you are unfamiliar with “Incognoscibility”, I use this word somewhat in jest. Here is apicture of an old time preacher being asked very uncomfortable questions about His views onScripture. His last bastion of retort is to ascribe all such “unknowable” things to the“Incognoscibility of God”. This simply means that we cannot even fathom the things of God.Basically you throw out a 50-cent word to assert to all that you know more in this area than all ofthe questioners combined. Properly kowtowed, they all walk away and you won the argumentusing nothing more than vocabulary. I hope that this doesn’t offend anyone, but if you askenough preachers penetrating questions about the reasonableness of their doctrines, you mightexpect to get this type of reply sooner or later.

Here we understand that we can only truly love and relate to something we understand. Saysomeone has a pet of some sort. We ascribe to this animal human behaviors and attitudes. Why?We do so because we relate to things on our own experiential level. Now dogs and cats aresomewhat easy as they have personalities, have some sort of cognitive ability, and they are socialcreatures (well at least dogs are. )

Well how about a cockroach? Can we relate to a cockroach? Would you want to? I am surethat one some level, one cockroach socializes with another, but we do not identify with them,and we would be a strange person indeed if we did. However, even if we did, I wouldn’t besurprised if the person did ascribe some sort of human personality to it.

78

I am sure that the reader is wondering where I am going with this. Well this all relates to howwe are and what we are like. We are like this because God made us that way. Now Scripturetells us that God desires to have fellowship with us. Now that could be fine from God’sperspective, but we cannot truly love God back if we cannot relate to Him. As God is all-wiseand He made us like Him, it is only sensible to conclude that He must be somewhat like us orhow could He expect us to relate to Him?

Take the pet analogy as an example. Dogs are pack animals with certain behavioral do’s anddon’ts. When we relate to the animal, it must be the higher form of intelligence that acquiescesto the lower form. It would make no sense for us to expect the dog to conform to our socialnorms. So for us to relate to a dog, we must relate to it as God made it. Therefore, when Godrelates to us He must relate to us consistent with how He made us. Therefore, if God truly wantsa deep and abiding relationship with us, it only makes sense that He would make us so that wecan fully appreciate His qualities. To do anything else would require Him to “filter down” Hispersonality so that we could relate. Such a reduction would hamper our understanding of whoHe really is and would therefore be counterproductive. Basically, when Scripture states that weare made in God’s image, this means something.

Therefore, if our doctrines almost completely remove God from any mental cognition, then Godmaking us like this makes little sense. God creates us for relationship, establishes how we relate,and then puts us in a sphere where we cannot accomplish what He is supposed to want. This isthe result of many of our doctrines.

Let us look at foreknowledge. Many say that God is outside of time. Can anyone even attemptto grasp what this could possibly mean? Can you conceive of a being that doesn’t have a future?How He doesn’t think one thought followed by another? Who can somehow move without everexperiencing a change? How can God speak as one word must come after another thereforeshowing succession in His existence? How can God repent, remember, grieve, and rejoicewithout one event following another? How can God tell the past from the future?

Therefore the Eternal Now God cannot even be talked about. If we do, we misrepresent what Heis like. God cannot change. God doesn’t know one thing and then another as this would showHim in “time”. At no time did God not know every action that both we and He would evermake, yet He is free to do anything. How can He “do” anything without time? So we are tobelieve that an Eternal Now God who desired an intimate relation with mankind made man intime. For what reason one may ask; does this not seem counterproductive?

Now let’s look at a God possessing AF. Here we have a God that must know all of our futureactions and also His own. He must act as His “foreknowledge” dictates or it isn’t AF. So whydid God create Satan? Did God have to create Satan because of His foreknowledge? If Godthrough His foreknowledge knew what Satan would do, but had to create Him anyway or risk

79

destroying His foreknowledge, what a pitiful God He would be. However, I have never beenable to logically reconcile how God can know all that He will do for all eternity and yetsomehow not fate Himself. If God knows that in 100 years He will answer my great-grandson’sprayer, then when the time comes God must do it. So how can a God of AF have free will?

The conclusion that I have come up with is that God is eternal simply because He has alwaysbeen, and will always be. There is no end to His days and therefore He is eternal. Isn’t thisconsistent with how we view ourselves and how the Psalmist viewed God?

Psalm 102:26-27They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you willchange them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.

Yes we had a beginning, but we do not consider our eternal future state to exist in one frozenmoment, but in an endless succession of days. This therefore makes God knowable. In addition,the OV makes God understandable and doesn’t have to resort to creating and thinking up all sortsof ways of how AF and free will co-exist. The reader will have to decide for themselves if sucha simple understanding of God that is seamlessly consistent with the way God made us is thetruth or not.

80

SUMMARY

As stated in the beginning, while this paper may seem long, it is not exhaustive, and I do notclaim to be the world’s authority on this matter. Many people in the Christian faith may debatethis issue, but after more than 17 years of study on this issue, I have seen far more problems witha belief in AF than in the Open View. It is for this reason why I currently believe it to be true. Iwould be more than happy to entertain any questions, comments or even rebuttals on anythingwritten here. I have diligently searched the Scriptures and can find no primary Biblical prooftext requiring, and in most cases even strongly implying, divine prescience. Below I willbulletize my contentions in absolute terms to make future dialogue a bit more focused. If youdisagree with anything listed below, I will seriously consider your views.

〈 From an Arminianist perspective, God does not require exhaustive foreknowledge (thisdoesn’t mean that he may or may not have it, but that it is not required).

〈 There is no primary Scripture passage that requires exhaustive foreknowledge forunderstanding.

〈 God does not require exhaustive foreknowledge for prophecy.

〈 Everywhere in Jesus’ ministry he used reason, logic, and cause and effect thinking tobring forth spiritual truths.

〈 Logic and reason are required and must be utilized to develop any Biblical doctrine.Illogical positions can be used to develop and support any aberrant doctrine and byopening Pandora’s Box, one has lost the high ground to refute such doctrine. (What’sgood for the goose….)

〈 Everywhere the Bible shows God experiencing duration (i.e. God is in time).

〈 God outside, along side, or popping in and out of time is without any Biblical support.Such a position is only seen as needed after one’s theology breaks the “logic only” rule.

〈 Anthropomorphic statements cannot mean the exact opposite of the written word. Wordsmean things and God is the ultimate linguist. Only He truly knows the message that hewas trying to send. Therefore, the words used must be the best words available totransmit his message to the human mind. If you believe that you can use words to betterdescribe what God intended, then you ultimately believe you are a better linguist.

〈 One has to be careful in developing doctrine. Occasionally, the translator’s doctrine cansubtly lead us to a different conclusion than the one we would have drawn from theoriginal language.

81

The unique feature of the Open View is that most Christians will not have to change anything intheir daily practice to believe in it. Basically, most Christians function as Open theists whetherthey believe it or not. Let me explain.

The Open View says that God can change his mind, that God can truly experience emotions suchas regret, sorrow, joy and happiness. God can change his plans if circumstances allow. Godhears our prayers and they really can influence the future. God strives with us on a moment-by-moment basis, not willing that any should perish and that His striving is genuine. God is notresponsible for the evil inflicted by His children’s free will actions.

Most everyone who is an Arminianist will ascribe all of the exact same qualities to God;however, they just cannot explain (this side of heaven) how it works. The Open View showshow all of these qualities of the Godhead are true and that our logic and reason can show it to betrue. No calls to illogical thinking or “heaven reasoning” are needed, and no non-Biblicaltheories of Divine timelessness need to be invented. The Open View also has a strong defense ofGod’s loving character in the face of intense and unbelievable suffering on this Earth. As theBible admonishes us to love God with our whole mind, the Open View is the first Biblicallyrooted theology that enables us to fully comply with God’s desires.

It is my opinion that the Open View can retake the ethical high ground away from the non-believer. God is love, and the Open View can show this like no other theology. WhileArminianism requires a Kierkegaardian “leap of faith”, the Open View gets to the same place bycoupling a more literal understanding of Scripture with the reasoning and thinking abilities Godgave us to understand him. I personally feel that this is an advantage.

In conclusion, the reader must decide if the doctrine of absolute foreknowledge of all futureevents can be harmonized with logical and straightforward interpretations of all Biblical. Nowthis is not to say that God couldn’t have created a world in which he did know the future, but thathe did not. One could ask themselves, if in this world God knows all future free actions, howwould a world where he didn’t know differ from it? How would the Bible be wordeddifferently?

Now the seeker of truth will not immediately jump to a passage that seems contrary to thisposition until he/she has developed answers to the passages listed above. People who can satisfytheir doctrine with a passage in apparent opposition to this position without addressing thevolume of Scriptures in this paper are not being honest. This may sound harsh, but it is not. Iam more than happy to address any questions from anyone seeking truth not searching formastery over my viewpoint. I can state without exception that this viewpoint is fully consistentwith all Scripture. If after understanding and studying my viewpoint the reader thinks I amincorrect, the reader will do me a valuable service by helping me see my error. However, if youcannot logically answer the above listed Scriptures, you need go no further in questioning mytheology until you can justify yours. As Charles Finney once said, “You cannot attempt tochange someone’s mind unless you fully understand it.” If you got to this point in the paper,then you at least have a good head start understanding my views! At one time I believed in a“God outside of time”, absolute foreknowledge and other concepts related to this subject. I nolonger do. Therefore, I understand all to well the current orthodox viewpoint. Whether in the

82

end you agree or disagree with me, the search for truth will do you good. May God bless oursearch for truth, and may we all have the courage to believe it.

83

Christians Promoting Revival

83

Appendix: Verses Supportive of the Open View

1. Genesis 2:19 (secondary)2. Genesis 18:20-21 (primary)3. Genesis 22:12 (primary)4. Exodus 4:8 (primary)5. Exodus 4:24-26 (secondary)6. Exodus 13: 17-18 (primary)7. Exodus 16:4 (primary)8. Numbers 14:11-12 (secondary)9. Numbers 14:30 (secondary)10. Deuteronomy 8:2 (primary)11. Deuteronomy 13:3 (primary)12. Judges 2:22 (primary)13. Judges 3:4 (secondary)14. I Samuel 2:20 (secondary)15. I Samuel 13:13-14 (secondary)16. I Samuel 15:11, 35 (secondary)17. I Samuel 23:10-13 (secondary)18. I Kings 20:42 (secondary)19. II Chronicles 32:31 (primary)20. Isaiah 38:1-9 (secondary)21. Jeremiah 3:7 (primary)22. Jeremiah 3:19 (primary)23. Jeremiah 7:31 (primary)24. Jeremiah 18:1-11 (secondary)25. Jeremiah 19:5 (primary)26. Jeremiah 26:2-3 (secondary)27. Jeremiah 32:35 (primary)28. Ezekiel 20:6 & 15 (secondary)29. Ezekiel 22:30 (secondary)30. Ezekiel 33:13 (secondary)31. Psalms 69:28, Exodus 33:32, Revelation 3:5 (secondary)32. Jonah 3:1-4 (secondary)