I came about this series by apparent happenstance, but we all know that it is not mere happenstance, but by the sovereignty of Almighty God. While waiting to eat at a restaurant recently, I went into a nearby Christian bookstore, and there found a book at 40% off retail, which had been recommended by Ken Hanna, one of my Dallas Seminary professors. The book’s name is “What Does God Know and When Does He know it,” by Millard J. Erickson. I read the first 60 pages that very night, and the subject matter of Open Theism so stirred me that I decided to make it my preaching ministry project for Hanna’s course on Old Testament Prophets. Why? One of Erickson’s conclusions is that, “It should be apparent that prophecy is perhaps the most difficult single element in Scripture for open theism to account for, as some of them acknowledge.” Therefore, I deemed it most fitting to choose this topic for my project on the prophets, and I have included a number of examples from the prophets, which can be used to find Open Theism most wanting.

The concepts of this new theology of Open Theism are so foreign to my way of thinking that I was at first inclined to view them as rather ridiculous. But since these views are coming from within evangelicalism, we must take them as most serious, and therefore treat the material wisely, and I believe that I must make you all aware of this rather new theology, along with its dangers. Although Erickson tries to give Open Theism a fair hearing in his analysis, he comes down on the side of the Traditional Approach to the theology of the foreknowledge of God. Much of the non-biblical material that I have used in this series of sermons has been drawn from the aforementioned particular book by Millard J. Erickson.

THE SUBJECT IS GOD’S FOREKNOWLEDGE AND HOW DOES GOD KNOW THE FUTURE?

Virtually all evangelicals (except Open Theists) believe in a “real” foreknowledge of God, but they may differ on how God comes about knowing that future. By a “real” foreknowledge, I mean that God’s foreknowledge is both certain and complete in content. But foreknowledge according to the Open Theist means that God does not know the future, since it has not happened yet! They reason that, God knows all things that are “knowable,” but since future events have no existence, then they are not “knowable.” Therefore, God’s knowledge of what may happen is based on the “calculations” of “possibilities” based on God’s complete knowledge of the past and present. The particular impediment to God’s full knowledge of the future is the uncertainty yet in the “free will” choices of man. The Open Theists do give God the capacity of knowing for certain those particular future events that do not depend upon the “free will” of man, such as the deterministic movement of planets, stars, and the like.

Allow me first to mention the three common views of the foreknowledge of God among evangelicals. These three views are “Simple Foreknowledge, Middle Knowledge” and the Calvinistic approach.

Simple Foreknowledge is the view of foreknowledge in which God is atemporal in that He, as it were, sees the entire parade, not in timely succession, or as a sequence of events that pass one by, but rather from a standpoint standing outside of time. From that point of view, as from the very throne room of God, He sees the parade (and everything else in the past, present and future) as happening simultaneously.

Middle knowledge is the view of foreknowledge in which God sees all possible worlds that He could create wherein man is free to choose, and He chooses to actuate, or bring into existence, just the one world that God desires, and in that world man is free to choose. The motivation is to defend the “free will” of man, but for God to be able to have the freedom to choose what He wants man to do.

Calvinism (or combatibilistic freedom) is the view of foreknowledge in which God knows what will happen, because He has chosen beforehand what is to occur, and directly brings about what He wants by His power. But this is not by placing man’s will under any external compulsion. God in this view does not have to twist man’s arm, or “force” man to do what He wants against man’s will. Rather, God designs the person’s will in creation and develops man so that the person freely chooses without external force what God has willed.

Open theism is the view of foreknowledge wherein God has complete knowledge of the past, and present, along with knowing for certain only some parts of the future. But there are some future events that God does not know ahead of time, and these “unknowable” events necessarily involve the “free will” of man. So, God does not know with absolute certainty what a man is going to do until that man actually decides what to do and does it. The Open Theist would say that God knows exhaustively everything that is knowable, but that the events in the future are not real things that exist, so there is nothing existing there yet to be known. God to them is, indeed, “omniscient” with respect to all things that can be known.

Their central starting point and thinking process proceeds as follows: “God is love” (1Jo 4:8, 16), and He is a God who desires that man freely love Him. Therefore, God must have created man with a real freedom to love Him, but man can also disobey Him. God will not force man to love Him. So, the Open Theists have a God that has sacrificed His knowledge of the future with respect to man’s decisions in order to have a people that is free to love Him.

SOME FAVORITE BIBLICAL PASSAGES OF THE OPEN THEISTS

Keep in mind that the people having all of the above views of the foreknowledge of God genuinely believe and will contend that their views conform well to the Bible. I will now bring to the fore several Bible passages, which are the favorites of the Open Theists, and they will give you some indications concerning their thought processes. That will provide you with some interesting content to think through for next time. You might take this as an opportunity to ask yourself, in the meanwhile, how you would reply to the Open Theist with regard to these passages. In the ensuing messages, I will first deal with what I believe to be the basic error in the Open Theist philosophy, then expand somewhat more upon some similar favorite passages of theirs. Then to conclude this series of sermons, I will deal with some prophetic passages that are particularly difficult for them to reconcile with their Open Theism.

PASSAGES WHEREIN GOD “REPENTS” OF HIS FORMER ACTIONS

One of the types of biblical passages that the Open Theist all point to is like:

Ge 6:6-7 ”And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.”

The Open Theist thinks along the following lines and questions himself with, How can God genuinely “grieve” at this circumstance if He had already planned it to turn out that way? So, they conclude that God had hoped for some different result, but that it did not “pan out” the way He had hoped. God must genuinely be disappointed at the results, because God does not lie in His inspired Word about His grief. So, God cannot have known beforehand what would happen. They conclude that the Lord regretted His former action, and now in realizing the terrible mistake He had made, that He must now correct His former mistake. This terrible result would also seem to have in it an element of surprise to God.

The Classical Theist typically will view the passage as merely an expression of the anguish or pain in God (anthropomorphically – expressed in man’s way of thinking) due to the sin of man. And he will interpret the passage in a manner whereby God did not actually change His mind due to a surprising result, nor was God ignorant of the future. Rather, God’s true will concerning the rebellion in man comes to the fore, and has now been revealed to man by revelation.

PASSAGES WHEREIN GOD “TESTS” MAN TO DISCOVER WHAT HE WILL DO

Another type of biblical passage that the Open Theist point to is like:

Ge 22:1 “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.” 12 ”And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.”

The word “tempt” in verse 1 is even more often translated “prove” in the King James Version, and basically means “test.” Open Theists notice that testing action by God, and conclude that God must have tested Abraham to find out information about the future. God genuinely did not know beforehand how the heart of Abraham would act in the test, nor did God know whether or not Abraham would fear God in that test. So, God set up this experimental “test” in order to “discover” previously unknown information about Abraham.

It is interesting to note at this juncture that the term “special revelation” is most often used to refer to the inspired Holy Scriptures, which God has provided as a revelation concerning Himself for His chosen people. But the Open Theist has the very opposite process taking place. Through such a “test” by God, man is providing Almighty God with “special revelation” concerning man’s own heart. God cannot obtain that knowledge of man even through means of His own general revelation of nature. This is almost like the charismatic gifts of knowledge or wisdom operating in reverse, whereby the special gift of knowledge is given by men to a God who is lacking that knowledge!

These concepts are very important to Open Theists, who believe that God fully knows presently the heart of people at any point in time, but cannot know the future heart of man, because of the “free will” of man, which God certainly would never “violate.” They believe that God can take His knowledge of both the past and present (which are exhaustive), and “calculate” what the person likely would do in a circumstance in order to make “predictions” concerning the future. Erickson quotes Gregory Boyd, an Open Theist who believes that God calculates probabilities and who has said that God has “perfect knowledge of probabilities.” Methinks that the Open Theists are a bit enamored with man’s recent development of the electronic computer along with its very impressive calculating capabilities. But there is no biblical text that even remotely suggests that God calculates such “probabilities.” The Open Theist is particularly interested in passages such as the following that seem to indicate that God “tests” a man in order to obtain the revelation of what will be in man’s heart.

2Ch 32:31 “Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent unto him to enquire of the wonder that was done in the land, God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart.” The word “try” in 2Ch 32:31 is the same Hebrew word meaning to test or prove that we have already seen in Ge 22:1.

Hopefully, this paper has introduced you to Open Theism, briefed you as to how they view the foreknowledge of God, along with some of their peculiar ideas and thought processes.

I will now deal with what I consider to be the basic error in the Open Theist philosophy, which concerns the Free Will of man and the Inferior Love that man has for God prior to the resurrection. In part three, I plan to return to prophecy, and according to Erickson, how that is a great problem for the Open Theists.

If you will recall, we were dealing with Open Theism, and you were learning what concepts are very important to them. Let us review some of the main points that were made. The three more common views of the foreknowledge of God among evangelicals had been mentioned. These three views are “Simple Foreknowledge, Middle Knowledge” and the Calvinistic approach.

On the other hand, Open Theism is the view of God’s foreknowledge wherein God has complete knowledge of the past, and He knows for certain some parts of the future. But there are some future events that God does not know ahead of time, and these “unknowable” events necessarily involve the “free will” of man. So, God does not know with absolute certainty what a man is going to do until that man actually decides what to do and does it.

Open Theism’s central “controlling metaphor” is that God is love, and since He desires that man freely love Him, then God must have created man with a real freedom to love Him, but man can also disobey Him. They believe that God fully knows presently the heart of a man at any point in time, but He cannot know the future heart of man, because of the “free will” of man, which God certainly would never “violate.”

CONCERNING THE FREE WILL OF MAN AND THE INFERIOR LOVE MAN HAS PRIOR TO THE RESURRECTION

Erickson has given a fine definition of freedom. “The definition of freedom is rather simple: it is the capacity to do otherwise than what is ultimately done, or more generally, to be able to choose and actually do more than one option. Freedom is a genuine possibility of choosing more than one course of action. It is not to be understood as mere freedom from external constraint. It must include internal freedom and capacity as well” (emphasis mine).

THE FREE WILL OF MAN AND THE LOVE OF MAN BEFORE THE FALL

Adam and Eve had genuine freedom and a genuine free will before their fall into sin. Presented with circumstances that offered a choice, in that pre-fallen state, they were both able to desire to walk with the Lord in the cool of the day, and also able to desire the fruit of a tree known to be forbidden of them (Ge 3:6). When the fruit was before them in that state to choose freely, the result of that particular exercise of their free wills was a fall into sin that made all men sinners. Obviously, their love for the Lord was lacking in that it was shared with the desire for the forbidden fruit. Had their love been perfect and exclusive for the Lord, the fall of Adam would never have happened.

THE LOVE OF FALLEN MAN

As you well know, since the fall of Adam and Eve, all men are totally depraved. That state of depravity has left man with the continued capacity to make choices, and it now results in manifold sins, and the lack of an ability to love God perfectly. Ro 8:7-8 “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” Fallen man has, indeed, retained an ability to choose, but the ability to choose properly is of a lower quality compared to the ability Adam possessed. Now the depraved will, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit is naturally inclined to sin. Man’s love for the Lord has been flawed by the fall of Adam, therefore the natural man is inclined to desire and love the things of this world. Even though fallen man is able to choose to disobey God, the Lord still demands obedience, and God has never blessed man’s willful expressions of independence from Him that defy the will of God.

The Christian has had the quality of his love for the Lord greatly improved by regeneration. However, that love for God is yet compromised. We as Christians still struggle with sin, and sometimes exercise our will in a sinful manner, despite our love for the Lord (Ro 7). This love by the Christian is by no means the best form of love, and although it is very important, it ought not be the object of our veneration or the basis for an entire theology. God is not satisfied with the present state of man’s love for Him. Open Theists come very close to making fallen man’s love for God (along with God’s alleged intense desire to find man displaying that love) their highest ideal. They further exalt the choosing ability of fallen man by associating it with the philosophy that God Himself seeks for that particular love of Him (even though it is compromising) that comes as a result of being freely chosen in a way that is independent of God’s interference. I do not find these Open Theist foundations to be biblical.

THE PERFECTED WILL AND LOVE OF THE RESURRECTED MAN

We only need to look at the end of the matter in order to find the correct and particular form of love that the Lord would prefer that a man have. In the resurrection, the character of the man will be perfect, and man will not even desire to have a choice not to love God. Furthermore, he will not desire to have a “freedom” whereby men (as Erickson says in his freedom definition) “actually do” other than the will of God. Instead, resurrected man will love God with a perfect love, always go about doing God’s will, and will be found following His directives as man continuously worships God. So, the particular type of love that God prefers is not that love of fallen man that shares the love of God with other things of this world. Rather, it will be a perfect love that eschews choice of actually doing otherwise than the will of God.

THE BASIC ERROR IN THE OPEN THEIST PHILOSOPHY

An exercise of man’s free will resulted in rebellion and the fall of Adam. The intense desire of contemporary man for a freedom of the will to be able to “actually do” other than God’s will in this present life is a form of rebellion against the end game of God, and ought not be exalted at all. The philosophy that God intensely desires of man the flawed form of shared love resulting from a freedom of choice is an often-cited presupposition of the Open Theists, and seems to be their “controlling metaphor.” I am not saying that the Lord does not desire our flawed love. But what I am denying is that God so desires that flawed level of love from fallen man who is able to choose, that He is willing to sacrifice His influence upon man by His mighty power, in order to obtain that particular form of flawed love.

The fundamental error of the Open Theists is their implied presupposition that their theology of the foreknowledge of God must start with:

• The “free will” of fallen man, must be there to support man’s ability to chose to love God freely or “actually do” otherwise than God’s will.
• God so desires that flawed love that He restrains His power in order to obtain it. As a result, the love by man must not be constrained by God or anyone else.

 

I find the above basis for Open Theism to be an unwarranted focus on flawed man with his flawed will and his flawed love.

On the contrary, the type of love that God is going to prefer in man in the resurrection is a love that never even desires to have the freedom to choose and “actually do” other than God’s will. That love of God in the resurrection by men who have been completely reformed by the almighty power and wonderfully constraining influence of God is far, far superior to the present fickle love of God by fallen man. The superior and unfailing love that hates every evil choice is a far better consideration when forming a theology about the foreknowledge of God. If we instead consider the love perfected in the resurrected man, who has had his former desire for the freedom of actually doing evil choices removed by God Himself, then we come to the correct type of will and love in a created being with which God is perfectly and supremely happy and pleased.

The Sovereign Lord Almighty is not going to hold back the necessary divine power to make a radical change in the character of man at the resurrection. Furthermore, God is going to force great changes in the will of man to effectively limit man’s choosing inclinations. When the Sovereign imposes those mighty improvements upon fallen man in the resurrection, then and only then, will He receive from man the magnificent and correct type of love that God actually desires. God’s mighty power will be exercised in order to obtain that perfect love from man. I believe that with this starting point, we have a better understanding of the foreknowledge of God, and thereby better know what God knows, and when he knows it.

The Open Theists seem ever so focused on man’s “freedom” in this life. But Erickson makes the observation that man apparently will lose this highly-touted “freedom” in heaven, where instead, man will be such that “our characters will be so fixed that we will always do God’s will.” It seems to me that the “free will” of man as we know and experience it, is a characteristic peculiar to the nature of fallen man.

Erickson says that, “The open theists frequently assert that God’s love can only be expressed if the humans he creates are genuinely free, in the sense of libertarian freedom.” But if man loses this highly touted “freedom” in heaven, then are those in heaven suffering a form of bondage to God or slavery? Erickson commented a second time that humans will not have that sort of “freedom” in the life to come.

The “freedom” of fallen man is a perversion of the true freedom in heaven. How so? If I in my fallen nature “freely” choose to “actually do” that which is contrary to the will of God, then I sin, and that sin is bondage, and not a true “freedom” at all. When resurrected man always does God’s will and does not even have the desire to do otherwise, then that is a true freedom, which is also free of the bondages to sin. The fallen nature, and especially the independent individualism of the Western culture of today, intensely wants the choice to do other than the will of God, and this philosophy tends to find its way into man’s theology. But the so-called “freedom” that fallen man can take advantage of now contains the bondage to sin.

Finally, the Triune God’s very essence is love (1Jo 4:8, 16), and was such even prior to the creation. However, unlike the flawed love in fallen man, that perfect love in God has no desire for a “freedom” and will to “actually do” otherwise than His own will! Therefore, God Himself does not have the “free will” and flawed type of love that is sought in fallen man by the Open Theists. In the end, God is going to have the types of will and love in man that are reflections of Himself. Obviously, God, who is perfectly and supremely happy and pleased with Himself, is going to have the will and perfect love of the resurrected man.

Rather than the Open Theist approach to foreknowledge, I would encourage you as follows: First, consider God’s total and certain knowledge of all future events to include the perfect love that will be exhibited by resurrected man. And consider how glorious will be the will of the resurrected man, who has no desire to have the “freedom” to “actually do” other than the will of God. And lastly, in contrast to that, consider that God does not have such an intense interest in preserving man’s “free will” and flawed love, which would result in a God who does not know with absolute certainty what a man is going to do until that man actually decides what to do and does it. That God refrains from “tampering” with the heart of man.

Consider instead the verse: Pro 21:1 ”The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.”

I look forward to the resurrection, wherein I will have a perfect love for God, and will be set free of this present fallen “free will” to “actually do” other than God’s will. I hope that you have the same expectation.

THE TOPIC OF PREDICTIVE PROPHECY

In the previous section, I mentioned the book by Erickson that I bought, and which triggered this series on Open Theism. One of Erickson’s conclusions is that, “It should be apparent that prophecy is perhaps the most difficult single element in Scripture for open theism to account for, as some of them acknowledge.” (Erickson further points out that the Open Theist, when trying to deal with predictive prophecy, have that “…God on the basis of his complete knowledge of the past and of the present, is able to calculate what will happen in the future.” But this is particularly inadequate when it is a predictive prophecy about a person long before that person is born, when God (according to Open Theism) does not know the future actions of men due to their “free will.” The question arises, How does God know that the person’s parents will even get married, or if that matter, even conceive a child at all? Certainly these actions are a result of man’s “free will” also. Besides all that, there are innumerable actions in any one person’s life that take place with dependencies upon the “free will” of other persons.

TWO CASES OF PROPHECIES ABOUT THE ACTIONS BY PEOPLE NOT YET BORN

1Ki 13:1-3 ”And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the LORD unto Bethel: and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense. And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men’s bones shall be burnt upon thee. And he gave a sign the same day, saying, This is the sign which the LORD hath spoken; Behold, the altar shall be rent, and the ashes that are upon it shall be poured out.”

Here we have a yet unborn Josiah who was prophesied to perform a specific act in the future. Certainly the “free will” and actions of Josiah’s parents (and many other persons related to the story) had to be known by God before Josiah’s birth for this prophecy to be given.

The prophet Isaiah, long before King Cyrus was born, prophesied that Cyrus would be instrumental in allowing the Jews to return to Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity and rebuild the temple. Isa 44:28 “That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.” Cyrus was raised up by the Lord to facilitate the Jews’ return to Jerusalem, and there is no reason to suppose that Cyrus was at all of a mind to fulfill prophecy. The Almighty did not have to wait until Cyrus was a grown man, and then “test” Cyrus’ “free will” in order to see if he were willing to abide with God’s future desires. Obviously, Cyrus was raised up by God to freely choose what God wanted to get done in terms of fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy. Furthermore, Cyrus’ parents too were raised up by God to give him that particular name. Recognizing that these things pose them difficulties, the Open Theists make such cases “exceptions” to their general philosophy, and say that those prophecies do not prove that all people and all people’s names are known ahead of time by God. This does not seem to dissuade them from believing that future human actions are, in general, unknowable by God. One would be inclined to ask them, If God can have knowledge of the future wills and actions of these exceptions, what exactly keeps God from doing it in all cases? The Open Theists do not seem to have a formula developed yet with regard to circumstances when God can, or cannot, have a prophet predict with certainty about the future “free will” actions of man.

THE HERMENEUTICS OF THE OPEN THEISTS

I believe that the hermeneutics of the Open Theists have greatly contributed to their rather strange beliefs. They have adopted a simplistic literalism that often ignores the analogy of faith, and that tends to neglect the more traditional hermeneutic that makes appropriate use of anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms.

I will give you three of the examples put forth by Erickson.

1. Ge 9:13-16 “I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.”I am fairly certain that you would not interpret that passage as teaching that God’s memory is so very bad that He could not recall His promise unless He spots a rainbow. Yet the Open Theists tend to interpret such passages in a way that God’s memory or knowledge is found sorely lacking. Erickson also cited the following two.
2. Ge 3:8-9 “And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?”A very superficial reading would seem to have God, in ignorance of their location, calling for Adam and Eve in order to find out where they are. Were we to take it that way, would this not make God lacking in both omniscience and in omnipresence? Might we be advised to interpret this as a parent speaking to a child as we often do? How often have you as a parent, knowing full well where your young child is, but desiring a response asked, “Billy, where are you?”
3. Jer 7:31 ”And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.”Erickson rightly says that manner of speaking is often a way that we indicate a rebuke and our outrageous response, but not about an impossible thought. However, Erickson says that one of the Open Theists considers it as evidence that God was “unable to know what was to happen.”

 

A Standard Passage for the Traditional View of God’s Foreknowledge (Isa 41-48) Ericksonpointed to Isa 41-48 as being the biblical passage that has become the standard for the elucidation of God’s divine foreknowledge (locus classicus) according to the traditional view. Just prior to the prediction of King Cyrus in chapter 41 God challenges Israel to hear from their idols (the alleged gods or deity) that predict the future, but who are unable to do so.

Isa 41:21-24 “Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together. Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you.”

The lord points out that, unlike the idols, He has done that very thing. He will raise up a king by the name of Cyrus, and He did that without gaining knowledge from anyone else. According to Erickson, the open theists have not addressed this passage.

Isa 41:25-29 “I have raised up one from the north, and he shall come: from the rising of the sun shall he call upon my name: and he shall come upon princes as upon morter, and as the potter treadeth clay. Who hath declared from the beginning, that we may know? and beforetime, that we may say, He is righteous? yea, there is none that sheweth, yea, there is none that declareth, yea, there is none that heareth your words. The first shall say to Zion, Behold, behold them: and I will give to Jerusalem one that bringeth good tidings. For I beheld, and there was no man; even among them, and there was no counsellor, that, when I asked of them, could answer a word. Behold, they are all vanity; their works are nothing: their molten images are wind and confusion.”

God then continues to add to the former evidence concerning His declarations about the future, based clearly on His divine and certain foreknowledge. Isa 42:8-9 “I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.”

Then in Isa 46 God continues with more foretelling of events, and adds that He planned the future the way it happened.

Isa 46:8-11 ”Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors. Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.”

SEVERAL PREDICTIVE PROPHESIES FROM JEREMIAH AGAINST OPEN THEISM

Payne lists 812 verses of Jeremiah that make 90 predictive prophecies, and in my opinion, every one of those prophecies disprove the presuppositions of Open Theism. Nevertheless, I will treat just a few of those 90 that I would think cause the most trouble for the Open Theist. Payne has them listed by number from 1 to 90 as they appear sequentially in the book of Jeremiah.

(50) Jer 25:11-12a “And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon…”

Jer 29:10 “For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.”

Here the open theist would have God, without knowing the future, at the time of the Jeremiah’s prophecy “calculating the probabilities” concerning the behavior of the Babylonian army. Furthermore, those calculations presumably would not allow for any violation of the “free will” of those soldiers by any undue influence directly from God (unless of course the Open Theist conveniently labels this passage as one of those nebulous “exceptions.”). Based on His “calculations” the God of the Open Theists would have Jeremiah prophesy the 70-year figure, and then “anticipate” that His estimate would be accurate. However, in truth, the LORD Himself takes credit for being the very cause of the return of the Jews. And we know that the LORD accomplished this, at least in part, by anointing Cyrus, the king of Persia (Isa 45:1), and accomplished His purpose through a man known to God long before he was born and raised up as king.

(60) Jer 28:15-17 “Then said the prophet Jeremiah unto Hananiah the prophet, Hear now, Hananiah; The LORD hath not sent thee; but thou makest this people to trust in a lie. Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will cast thee from off the face of the earth: this year thou shalt die, because thou hast taught rebellion against the LORD. So Hananiah the prophet died the same year in the seventh month.”

Payne said that this death of Hananiah took place in September of 593 B.C. and Stigers has this death taking place about 2 months after the prophecy. The Open Theist would have the LORD able to have full knowledge of Hananiah at the time of the prophecy, and also have the ability to “calculate the probabilities” concerning the future on that basis, but unable actually to “know” the future for certain. In this case, the future concern is the time of the death of Hananiah and the means by which that death was caused. We are not told how he died. One of the items most strongly defended by the Open Theist is the free will of man. But the free will of the natural man would dictate that the man desire to continue living. It is not likely that Hananiah died of his own “free will” and by a freedom of choice, since the listed cause of death is because he “taught rebellion against the LORD.” This death was caused by God Himself, and that condemnation and death would have had to come as a surprise to Hananiah in order for the passage to have any proper meaning. It would seem that the LORD either killed him outright by some supernatural means, or God designed into the man a fatal natural illness. But either way he died, it is a shot across the bow for people who are so ardently trying to defend a loving God who limits the exercise of His own power in order not to interfere with the highly-touted “free will” of man. The most obvious reading of the text teaches that God planned the just death and the time of the death of Hananiah, and then had it announced publicly in a prophecy by Jeremiah.

(76) Jer 34:4-6 “Yet hear the word of the LORD, O Zedekiah king of Judah; Thus saith the LORD of thee, Thou shalt not die by the sword: But thou shalt die in peace: and with the burnings of thy fathers, the former kings which were before thee, so shall they burn odours for thee; and they will lament thee, saying, Ah lord! for I have pronounced the word, saith the LORD. Then Jeremiah the prophet spake all these words unto Zedekiah king of Judah in Jerusalem.”

Payne says, “Zedekiah seems to have died, without violence, in prison.”

Here the Open Theist would somehow have God, without having certain knowledge of the future, at the time of the prophecy “calculating the probabilities” concerning the behavior of all of the Babylonian soldiers who were ever in the presence of this captive, and conclude that they would all refrain from killing Zedekiah for those several years. This would, indeed, be a most prodigious calculation involving much of the Babylonian army. The most obvious reading of the text teaches that God issued a sure promise (not merely a probability estimate of the likelihood) to Zedekiah based on a God’s most certain full knowledge of the future.

THE OPEN THEIST “DREAD” OF COERCION BY A SOVEREIGN GOD

Erickson remarks twice in his book that the Open Theists seem to have a certain “dread” of a God who might use some sort of coercion, and thus are defenders of a coercion-free self-determination of man. I would ask the Open Theist, if our characters in heaven will be perfectly formed by the power of God to always do His will, why do you so dread the power of God in the operation of your choices today. As for me, Lord bring your power upon me!

And is this not a New Covenant promise to the Jew also? A heart and spirit “transplant” performed by Almighty God certainly does not agree with the philosophy about a coercion-free self-determination of man.

Eze 36:22 “Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.”

Eze 36:25-28 “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.”

CONCLUSION

I would conclude that the Open Theists have a certain “dread” of a Sovereign God, which is a common characteristic of fallen man, and they have allowed it to creep into their view of the divine foreknowledge of God. The natural man desires to exalt his freedom to make choices, and intensely desires to promote his flawed love for the Lord. Therefore, there is this strong tendency to assign that great worth of man’s love to the mind of God also. The Open Theists, having given themselves over to this common temptation, have adjusted their hermeneutics in order to support this hypothetical reverence in God for man’s fallen will and flawed love for the Lord, and as a consequence they have reduced the omniscience of God. Unwittingly, the Open Theists now have placed man in the role of giving “special revelation” to God, who must now “discover” the heart of man through a process of experimental testing. During this process of discovery, God at times must repent of His mistakes and make adjustments to His plan.

Be vigilant brothers and sisters, and may the Almighty bless you and keep you, amen!