John Sanders, a proponent of open theism, believes that believers will not fall away in heaven:
“All free will theists face the question as to whether our free will implies that we might fall away in heaven. A brief response is that we will freely ask God to confirm our characters in such a way that we never choose to sin.”[1]
Note from the above, the nature of his claim:
1.) He is making a claim about the future (“will”).
2.) He is making a claim about many people (believers), and what they will do with their libertarian “free will”.
Yet, in light of Sander’s Open Theism, it is epistemologically impossible for him to know the above claims.
For one reason, Sanders himself is a finite human being, who cannot know the future (and same with other human beings).
Secondly, the only other person that can know this might be God, and from His knowledge He then revealed it to Sanders. But Sander’s Open Theism denies the doctrine of divine foreknowledge, thereby undermining this possibility. Sanders denies God’s foreknowledge on the metaphysical basis that the future does not exists:
“If the future already ontologically exists (is real), then God must know it’ but if it is not real, then God is not ignorant of some reality, for there is nothing ‘there’ to be known.”[2]
If what is future can not be known, and the decision of people and God interacting with one another in heaven is still in the future, then it follows then that the decisions of people and God cannot be known.[3]
Thirdly, while an appeal can be made that God “knows” because of His decision of what He will do in the future for the occasion believers enter heaven, this attempt fails because it has to account for Open Theism’s doctrine of human libertarian free will. According to Sanders, he explains God’s relationship to man’s libertarian free will:
“Furthermore, free will theists, in contrast to proponents of meticulous providence, can say that one reason for God’s not intervening in a particular situation is his unwillingness to interfere with the libertarian freedom of the people involved.”[4]
Note that the God of Open Theism is unwillingness to interfere with people’s freedom. Libertarian freewill supposes that the will is “free” when it has the ability to make contrary choices. If God “confirm our characters in such a way that we never choose to sin”[1], then Liberterian free will ceases in Heaven. Yet, Open Theism has stressed that libertarian free will is necessary for a relationship with God.[2] Apparently, relationship with God and man is possible apart from libertarian freedom, or man has no relationship with God in heaven. Either way, there is incoherence with Open Theism in terms of it’s doctrinal relationship of believer’s eternal security in heaven, libertarian free will, the precondition for relationship with God, and God’s lack of divine foreknowledge.
[1]Ibid, 206-207 n.10.
[2] Ibid, 233-235.
[1]John Sanders, “Divine Providence and the Openness of God,” in Perspectives on the Doctrine of God, edited by Bruce Ware (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2008), 206-207 n.10.
[2] Ibid, 228.
[3] This argument is a valid argument. The structure is Modus Tollens.
[4] Ibid, p. 212.
[5]Ibid, 206-207 n.10.
I don’t know about Sanders’ assertion about “freely ask God to confirm our characters in such a way that we never choose to sin”. I won’t try to defend that. However, regarding your comments on Open Theism in general – I think there is a flaw in your logic:
“Secondly, the only other person that can know this might be God, and from His knowledge He then revealed it to Sanders. But Open Theism denies the doctrine of divine foreknowledge, thereby undermining this possibility. ”
Open Theism doesn’t deny God’s foreknowledge. I haven’t read much of Sanders – but Greg Boyd repeatedly says that the future is only Open Partially. Some how Open Theists differ from some others is that they believe that God’s foreknowledge doesn’t cover all possible events. His foreknowledge can cover those things He has made up His mind in advance about – to make sure take place. Some examples? The second coming of Christ, the eternal salvation of the believer, the final defeat of evil etc. Many other things fall into the box of ‘possibilities’ based on the free will choice of individuals.
So to round this out, Open Theist christians can be assured of some things in the future because God has promised that they will be so. (And therefore in His power will make happen when the time comes).
I do not believe there is a flaw in my logic. If so, I’d like to know what kind of fallacy I’ve committed, and open to correct it.
I think this post was critiquing Sanders open theism, not someone else. That was the context and has been suggested in the title.
However, to make it clear, I will edit the portion of my post that you quoted to refer to Sander’s Open Theism. It would be fallacious to attribute that I was discussing Boyd’s theism when I was discussing Sander’s theism.
Does not Sanders believe that the future is partially open and partially determined? For instance does he believe that God has promised that Christ will come again? (a determined portion of the future).
I shouldn’t have relied on Boyd. From what I have read about Open Theism – many Open Theists would believe that the future is only partially open.
My prime issue was your statement “If what is future can not be known, and the decision of people and God interacting with one another in heaven is still in the future, then it follows then that the decisions of people and God cannot be known”
Some of the future can be known, but by God due to His omnipotence and His living everlasting. When the time comes around for God to act according to something He said He will do in the past – who can stop him? But that is a different story with God seeing all the detail in advance (the Classical Theist view of the future).
God Bless. I hope you know that I am not trying to be difficult, I just want people to understand what Open Theism is actually trying to express.
Hey Tim,
Hopefully I’m not rubbing you the wrong way or being unnecessarily offensive with my post or with my comments.
I do appreciate these two excerpts from your comment,
“My prime issue was your statement “If what is future can not be known, and the decision of people and God interacting with one another in heaven is still in the future, then it follows then that the decisions of people and God cannot be known”
and,
“Does not Sanders believe that the future is partially open and partially determined? For instance does he believe that God has promised that Christ will come again? (a determined portion of the future).”
I appreciate it because you identified what is the prime issue you have with my statement. If I understood it correctly, your contention is that my claim is probably not true: John Sanders believe “what is future can not be known” by God.
Sanders holds to a certain metaphysics of the future that leads his epistemology to deny categorically the “knowability” of the future for God (or anyone else’ knowledge of the future, for that manner).
I believe that I demonstrated Sander’s position with the second quote in the post above, in which I will reference it here again:
“If the future already ontologically exists (is real), then God must know it’ but if it is not real, then God is not ignorant of some reality, for there is nothing ‘there’ to be known.”[2]
I realize I might have to provide addition citation to demonstrate Sander’s position. I went through the book again, and found there might be a better more fuller quote from Sanders to prove my point that he does deny God’s knowability of the future, given Sander’s belief of the metaphysical status of the future. In his response to Roger Olson’s Arminianism, Sanders provide a summary of a key difference between the two of them was concerning God’s knowledge of the future:
“Olson and I agree that God is fully omniscient in the sense that if something is real then God knows it. Where we disagree is over which proposition have truth value and what has ontological reality. In my essay I argue that the future does not have a present reality, it is not a thing, and it does not exist. If assertions about what creatures with libertarian freedom will do in the future have no determinate truth value then there is nothing to be known. God cannot be held at fault for not knowing what it is logically impossible to know.” (Ibid, p.183).
Note especially is second to the last sentence here: “If assertions about what creatures with libertarian freedom will do in the future have no determinate truth value then there is nothing to be known” (Ibid).
Unfortunately, Sander’s own claim that believers in heaven “will freely ask God to confirm our characters” is to make a claim about what individuals with libertarian freedom will do in the future, in which case there is no truth value to that assertion and “there is nothing to be known”. Epistemologically, Sander’s ontology of the future undermine his very claim about the believer’s eternal security in heaven.
Thankyou for the spirit that your reply was given.
I do see your point. If the future is not known then how can Sanders assert what will happen to believers in the future.
I just find it hard to believe that Sanders doesn’t believe that some items in the future aren’t determined eg the Second Coming. Hence, his statements about the future that you have quoted would be restricted to only those portions of the future that are ‘open’. However, you have read his book and I haven’t so I bow to your analysis.
BTW I completely agree with his proposition (with respect to the open portion of the future):
“…In my essay I argue that the future does not have a present reality, it is not a thing, and it does not exist. If assertions about what creatures with libertarian freedom will do in the future have no determinate truth value then there is nothing to be known. God cannot be held at fault for not knowing what it is logically impossible to know.”
Essentially if the future doesn’t already exist in a fixed form then he is right to say that you can’t know what is logically impossible to know. God can’t make square circles and He can’t know what is unknowable.
Many Open Theists believe that many prophesies are essentially a matter of God saying what He will bring to pass in the future, not, what is often thought, God seeing the future in advance. Hence, it is more a statement of God’s omnipotence than His omniscience.
Again, thanks for the way you conducted your reply.
Thank you as well Tim.
I hope that even if we still agree with this issue, there was more light than heat in our discussion.
[…] 5.) A Swift Refutation of Sander’s Open Theism: Eternal Security in Heaven in light of Liberta… Refuting John Sander’s Open Theism by exploring his perspective on Libertarian Free Will, God’s knowledge of the future and his view of the believer’s eternal security. […]
I HAVE CONTEMPLATED THIS VERY POSSIBILITY MYSELF.GOD WOULD NEVER LET ANYONE INTO HIS HEAVEN WHO WAS NOT MEANT TO STAY.LUCIFER I FEEL WAS A CREATED BEING NOT IN THE IMAGE OF GOD LIKE WE ARE.IT IS MY OPINION SATAN HAD NO FREE WILL BUT WAS FOREORDAINED TO FALL. IF ANYONE WOULD KNOW FIRST HAND THE DESTRUCTIVENESS OF SIN THAT WOULD BE THE REDEEMED SAINTS-ANOTHER REASON WE CAN NEVER FALL FROM HEAVEN.BESIDES WE ARE GONNA BE BUISY GRATEFULLY PRAISING GOD FOR THE FORMER THINGS ARE PASSED AWAY. THE BOOK OF REVELATIONS SAYS LET HIM WHO IS RIGHTEOUS STILL-LET HIM OR HER CONTINUE THAT WAY THROUGHOUT ETERNITY.MY PERSONAL BELIEF IS THAT THE THIEF ON THE CROSS TO WHOM JESUS SAID-THIS DAY WILT THOU BE WITH ME IN PARADISE -IS STILL ENJOYING EACH AND EVERY DELIGHT IN HEAVEN WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING OUSTED.MY SOUL IS CONTINUALLY IN MY HANDS YET DO I NOT SIN. IF KING DAVID SAID THIS ON EARTH HOW MUCH MORE IN HEAVEN. FEAR NOT LITTLE FLOCK. IT IS THE FATHERS GOOD PLEASURE TO GIVE YOU THE KINGDOM.THAT IS GLORIFICATION!
“Either way, there is incoherence with Open Theism in terms of it’s doctrinal relationship of believer’s eternal security in heaven, libertarian free will, the precondition for relationship with God, and God’s lack of divine foreknowledge.” Wow
This is still good even though the post is nearly seven years old
Swift and brutal
Agreed JamesBal. That was a switft kick in the nuts.
Joshua your last comment was funny!
I agree Brandon, Josh’s comments was “nuts.” LOL.
I can’t believe I read Joshua’s comment above…
Good way of thinking and arguing against Open Theism. God bless you.