Open Theism: Foreknowledge and Divine Decree
Open Theism’s Definition of Decree and Foreknowledge
Since this paper speaks much about foreknowledge and decree, let’s first define foreknowledge according to the open theist. Gregory Boyd who is big a open theist proponent states,
“…while the Bible certainly celebrates God’s foreknowledge and control of the future, it does not warrant the conclusion that the future is exhaustively controlled or foreknown as settled by God.”[1]
In regards to decree, the openness view believes that there is no official declaration or proclamation set in stone. No divine blue print or decree can determine human actions beforehand because at the heart of the openness view, God desires to uphold real relationships.[2]
It must be noted that open theism is a branch of Arminianism. However, open theism and Arminianism do have points of agreements and disagreements. What makes open theism and Arminianism sync to some degree, are the two major cardinal points they believe: the impartial universal love that God has for all humanity and His true desire that all be saved; and God’s giving of genuine or significant freedom of the will (i.e., libertarian freedom) to His creatures.[3] But one major area of disagreement that open theism has with Arminianism is God’s omniscience. The openness view does not believe that God has comprehensive knowledge of the future, but has comprehensive knowledge of the past and present only.[4] According to Dr. Bruce A. Ware, the stark contrast between Arminians and open theism is this,
While embracing wholly these Arminian commitments, open theists are also disturbed with other aspects of the Arminian theological tradition. Particularly they object to the notion that the divine omniscience includes comprehensive knowledge of the future. Omniscience (i.e., in its most general sense, the doctrine that God knows all that can be known or is knowable) must be defined, they say, as God’s comprehensive knowledge of the past and present only. All of the future that is undetermined by God (which includes all future free choices and actions), since it has not happened and hence is not real, cannot be an object of knowledge. This future, they say, is logically unknowable, and as such not even God can rightly be said to know what cannot in principle be known” [5].
In nutshell, what changes the tide between these two is that open theist do not believe God has comprehensive knowledge of the future, while Arminians do.
Open Theism Description of Divine Decree and Foreknowledge
Since open theism has redefined God’s omniscience and foreknowledge, there are implications concerning God’s divine decrees. The implication is that God’s divine decrees means that His decrees are subject to mutability. They are mutable because moral creatures can frustrate God’s plan or change His plans because of their libertarian free will. Some will ask, “What are the differences between the open theist and the Arminian regarding God’s Decrees?” The Arminian believes that God changed (adapted) them once before the foundation of the world, while the open theist believes that God’s divine decrees cannot change before the foundation of the world, but changes when things are real (real actions take place).[6] In other words, God decrees are dependent on our real actions that take place. This makes sense to the open theist because in their mind, God is not omniscient or immutable.
When it comes to the similarities, open theist and Arminians believe that God has predetermined the decree, but He predetermined it under the umbrella of the “means” not the ends.[7] But the difference between this concept of the means versus the ends is that Arminians believe God has at least foreknown the ends, which is certain, while the open theist, on the other hand, rejects this notion because the end is uncertain and undetermined because God does not know the future, because He can only know what exists or existed[8].
Please stay tune for the next installment. For part one, please see this link:
[1] Gregory A. Boyd, Dave Hunt, William Lane Craig, and Paul Helm, Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 14.
[2] Ware, God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism, 43.
[3] Ware, God’s lesser Glory, 32.
[4] Ibid, 32.
[5] Ware, God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism, 32.
[6] Prokopenko, “The Relationship Between the Divine Decree and the Human Will in Exodus 1-14.”
[7] Prokopenko, “The Relationship Between the Divine Decree and the Human Will in Exodus 1-14.”
[8] Ibid, 57.
Here is part II.
I like this section working on defining Open Theism’s view of Forknowledge and decree in light in light of the foil of Arminianism. Will the next section also offer a Calvinistic definition of those two terms? Just curious of the direction…
Part III will supply open theism’s defense and charge. I plan to supply the Calvinism’s defense and charge on part IV concerning God’s foreknowledge and decree.
Thank you SlimJim.
Quoting Greg Boyd “…while the Bible certainly celebrates God’s foreknowledge and control of the future, it does not warrant the conclusion that the future is exhaustively controlled or foreknown as settled by God.”[1]
In regards to decree, the openness view believes that there is no official declaration or proclamation set in stone. No divine blue print or decree can determine human actions beforehand because at the heart of the openness view, God desires to uphold real relationships.[2]
————————————————————–
I’m sorry, but that is a completely wrong interpretation of what Boyd is saying. What he is saying is that some of the future is determined by God and His decrees and some of it is not. Your take on it is that you interpret him as saying that nothing is determined. I’m not sure how you get your interpretation from that.
To state again, Boyd is saying that some of the future is free and some of it is not. Example of what events will definitely happen – the second coming of Christ.
Hey Tim,
I know this is not the first time you have been here on Veritas Domain asserting that Gregory Boyd believes that some of the future is free and some of is not. I would have to admit that I am not so familiar with Gregory Boyd’s position, so I’m going to have to rely on you for this answer: Is there any quote plus it’s proper citation where Gregory Boyd teaches that the future is partly open and partly not? Just curious if that could be fleshed out and documented. Thanks ahead of time.
Tim,
Maybe I should be more clearer, but please note that I used the term “comprehensive.”
Open theism according to my studies believes that God does not comprehensively know everything about the future. I never said that open theism denies God’s partial knowledge of the future.
It appears that you have a wrong interpretation of me.
“The openness view does not believe that God has comprehensive knowledge of the future, but has comprehensive knowledge of the past and present only”
————————————————————–
Sorry to write a second comment. But this is just a straw man. It doesn’t represent the Open Theist position at all. Open Theists absolutely believe in God’s omniscience. They believe in God’s knowledge of the future. What they disagree with other Christians over is the nature of the future. They believe that the future that God knows is partially open to the free choices of free creatures. They believe that God’s omniscience corresponds to reality. And the reality is that a lot of the future can’t be known in fixed terms in the future because it hasn’t happened yet and those free choices (and they are truly free) haven’t been made yet. Because of that, Open Theists such as Boyd say that a better term for Open Theism would be Open Futurism – because the disagreement isn’t over God’s omniscience but rather the nature of the future.
Bless you
Tim,
Can you provide a quote from Gregory Boyd, along with the proper citations, that states that the future is partially open to the free choices of free creatures?
Hello Tim,
Just for clarification sake, are you a proponent or opponent of the openness view? Also can you define for us what your view on God’s omniscience is? Thank you.
Hello EvangelZ,
I am a proponent (though I am a little concerned about being asked because it shouldn’t matter either way – surely the strength of the arguments should count rather than the position of the person making the argument).
My take on the Open Theist view of God’s omniscience. God knows everything that can be known as these known things correspond to reality. He knows the past and present and also the future. With regard to the future, He knows it as it really is. That is the future is made of both possibilities and also certainties. Because of His omniscience He knows every possible scenerio of those possibilities – so nothing could take Him by surprise.
Regarding the subset of the future that contains certainties – He can be sure of the things that he has decreed with happen in the future for 2 reasons.
1/ He is everlasting – meaning He will be around when the time comes to execute his plan on the ground
2/ He is almighty – who is going to stop Him when the time comes.
Hence, things such as prophesy are more about God’s omnipotence than His omniscience (though I am sure that comes into play too).
Hope that helps.
Tim,
Citations and quotes from Boyd are important (though I am a little concerned about having to ask for it – surely conjectures ought to be avoided).
Sorry about the lack of the Boyd quote. His site is down for re-furbishment at the moment. I can assure you that he wrote what I have described about ‘Open Futurism’ ie that Open Theism isn’t about God, it is about ones view of the nature of the future.
Tim,
“Sorry about the lack of the Boyd quote. His site is down for re-furbishment at the moment.”
I understand; hopefully when it’s up again, you can substantiate it.
“I can assure you that he wrote what I have described about ‘Open Futurism’ ie that Open Theism isn’t about God, it is about ones view of the nature of the future.”
Isn’t not a case of either/or: that it is about the issue of the nature of the future, which will determine whether or not it’s knowable, and therefore God’s omniscience being an issue (and therefore still about God)? But I shall be patient.
Tim,
I understand that the site is down and I can wait too.
Your comment: “I can assure you that he wrote what I have described about ‘Open Futurism’ ie that Open Theism isn’t about God, it is about ones view of the nature of the future.”
Response: How can one’s view of the nature of the future, not have direct bearing on this topic, concerning God’s omniscience? By what authority do you account for this?
From EvangelZ “How can one’s view of the nature of the future, not have direct bearing on this topic, concerning God’s omniscience? By what authority do you account for this?”
“”How can one’s view of the nature of the future, not have direct bearing on this topic, concerning God’s omniscience?” – Not sure what you mean by this question. As I have explained – many people view that Open Theists are saying that God is not omniscient. I am stating that this is not a correct view at all because Open Theists themselves belief that God is omniscient. What they disagree with other evangelical Christians on, is the nature of the future. Is it fixed or is it open to real possibilities. Those are quesitons about the future not God.
Re. Authority – I post by the same authority by which you post on this blog – we are expressing our views.
“As I have explained – many people view that Open Theists are saying that God is not omniscient. I am stating that this is not a correct view at all because Open Theists themselves belief that God is omniscient. What they disagree with other evangelical Christians on, is the nature of the future. Is it fixed or is it open to real possibilities. Those are quesitons about the future not God.”
I don’t know if their can be a sharp break from the nature of the future and God’s omniscience; I do think they are inter-related, especially if were to expplore the nature of how God knows everything (that is, how God is omniscience), it will touch on the theology proper.
By the way, I do look forward to your citation of Boyd.
Tim,
We are treading on sacred ground since this relates to Theology Proper.
Your response: “How can one’s view of the nature of the future, not have direct bearing on this topic, concerning God’s omniscience?” – Not sure what you mean by this question. As I have explained – many people view that Open Theists are saying that God is not omniscient. I am stating that this is not a correct view at all because Open Theists themselves belief that God is omniscient. What they disagree with other evangelical Christians on, is the nature of the future. Is it fixed or is it open to real possibilities. Those are quesitons about the future not God.”
My response: You simply assert your position, but how do you account for this? What standard are you using to give credence to your assertion that the nature of the future does not deal with God’s omniscience?
Please answer the questions that SLIMJIM and I posed to you.
Hopefully I am replying to what you want from me
“You simply assert your position, but how do you account for this? What standard are you using to give credence to your assertion that the nature of the future does not deal with God’s omniscience?”
SLIMJIM refers to ‘ nature of how God knows everything’.
My account is that all of us do our best to construct arguments based on what we perceive to be the rules of logic. The key word from my quote of SLIMJIM sentence above is ‘everything’. What is everything? My logical definition of the word is ‘all that corresponds to reality’. So ‘everything’ doesn’t include God knowing the names of married single men or knowing the colour of my daughters hair when I don’t have a daughter. Hence, if the future hasn’t happen yet and is open to the future choices of free creatures then God couldn’t possibly know what isn’t real yet – hence it doesn’t obey the rules of logic to say that God knows the future completely in a fixed comprehensive way.
Hope that helps
Regards
Tim
Hey Tim,
I do sense that something is rather incoherent when it comes to Open Theism. I’m writing this on the fly before Bible study.
From our previous conversation at http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/a-swift-refutation-of-sander%E2%80%99s-open-theism-eternal-security-in-heaven-in-light-of-libertarian-free-will-and-epistemic-justification-of-future-events/, you held that certain things in the future is known by God for certain, including the eternal salvation of believers.
Your latest comment mention, “Hence, if the future hasn’t happen yet and is open to the future choices of free creatures then God couldn’t possibly know what isn’t real yet ”
If eternity (which includes the future) has not happen yet and are not “real yet” (to use your language), then the god of Open Theism cannot know the eternal salvation of believers according to the metaphysical status of knowledge that you hold to. I do think that we can broaden the possibility of God knowing something on other basis too–such as His Divine plan, predestination, decree, etc. But to say that God’s knowledge of the future is impossible because it has not happen yet (and what is “real” is only if it happened or is happening), then it end up destroying the possibility of God’s knowledge of the future categorically (or anybody’s knowledge of the future for that matter).
Moreover, I do see from what you wrote here that one might be able to attempt to salvage a limited knowledge on the part of God of the future by bringing two additional tenets you subscribe to, to bear: God as everlasting and God as almighty. In your own words, “Regarding the subset of the future that contains certainties – He can be sure of the things that he has decreed with happen in the future for 2 reasons. 1/ He is everlasting – meaning He will be around when the time comes to execute his plan on the ground. 2/ He is almighty – who is going to stop Him when the time comes.” But it seems that these two doctrines of God ends up being unhelpful as the ground for God’s certain knowledge of a subset of events in the future due to the fact that it is undermined by other key beliefs in Open Theism.
For instance, God being almighty does have it’s limitation in relations to the liberterian free will you subscribe to. It is limited by the creatures’ liberterian free will (LFW), which undermine God or anyone else being able to know that believers will eternal life–because the door is open for it to be otherwise on the part of the creature. You stated that God being almighty determines something in the future because “who is going to stop Him when the time comes,” and I would say that in open theism it would have to be God Himself who is the respecter of LFW.
Secondly, it would also seem that in light of the metaphysical status of knowledge that we discussed earlier (that what is known must first have happened), to even talk about God as everlasting is non-sensical and thereby irrelevant as the basis for grounding certainty of some things known in the future. You described God as everlasting has the “meaning He will be around when the time comes to execute his plan on the ground,” but you have no grounds to say that God is everlasting: You and God cannot **know** that God will be around in the future, since the future is not real yet. Moreover, one cannot know that God will in the future execute His plan because (once again) it’s still future and not “real.” The epistemic status of God’s attribute as everlasting according to the Open Theism you articulated has been undermined, and is not helpful as the doctrinal ground for the certainty of somethings God know for certain in the future.
Hi SLIMJIM,
Thanks for your comments. To confess I have no idea why I wrote ‘the enternal salvation of the believer’ in that context. When I look at it, it was unclear in the context I was explaining it in the time. So sorry you have had to spend the time developing an argument on that – when I am detracting that piece of the examples of things that will certainly happen in the future. What I perhaps meant at the time was once a believer has passed away their eternal security is guaranteed. Anyway, I take it away from the list of ‘certain things’. I still stand by my point still stands however – given the other examples given.
What I was trying to illustrate was that God has indeed decreed that certain things will happen in the future. And because of this everlasting state and His omnipotence we can have certain confidence that they will occur. And an example of that is Christ’s second coming. (Though it is interesting – and fits well with Open Theism – that in the new testament it says that we can hasten the Lord’s coming – implying that God doesn’t have a specific date in mind so much as specific conditions being met).
Regarding God being able to get things done when he wants but still having to do it is the context of limited free will. It is similar to a novice playing a Grand Master at Chess. The Novice makes his moves according to free will – but is there ever any doubt as to the outcome? And given the example of the second coming – perhaps with some of God’s determinations of what will certainly happen in the future – maybe with at least some of them, He doesn’t have a particular date in mind – but certain conditions being met. But, either way, His infinite knowledge and resources are more than enough to assure His ultimate will being achieved. Keep in mind I don’t believe that everything that happens is God’s will. Otherwise to believe that means that sin is God’s will. Hence, God to some degree is frustrated (at least temporarily) by the choice of men and angels.
Hope that clarifies – and again apologies for quoting the wrong example in my list.
[...] Part 2 [...]
[...] Part 2 [...]