My childhood home had been a place of tension and some violence for most of my childhood. I was eight years old when my brother began raping me several times a week. Every time, I would stare at the walls that were partially painted black and detach myself from what was happening to my body. It was the only way to survive. Decades later, as I began to heal from the trauma of what happened, questions haunted me: If God was in control, why did this happen? If He foreknew it, why did He not prevent it?
THE CLASSICAL VIEW
This question is one that is asked by many. Classical theology is divided into two camps on the issue of divine foreknowledge. Those who are of a Augustine/Calvin view believe God foreknows the future because He ordains it to be so. This is discomfiting to those who have experienced painful trauma. One cannot draw close to God if He is the one who ordained their trauma. Arminians believe God foreknows the future simply because He knows the future. This is still discomfiting because it means God knowingly permitted their trauma. The classical view of divine foreknowledge, despite in which camp one falls, plants a seed of distrust in the heart of His children.
According to Paul Helm, the Augustine/Calvin view holds that there are three different senses in which God may be said to foreknow. The first is a straight causal sense. This sense tells us that God’s knowledge is the cause of all things. According to Thomas Aquinas, since God foreknows all events, he must cause all events. A second sense of divine foreknowledge is that His foreknowledge is subsequent to His decree. His foreknowledge is simply His knowledge of what He has decreed. A third sense is that divine foreknowledge is prior to His decree; He knows therefore He decrees.(1) Believed to be the weakest sense to the Calvinist mindset, this third sense is similar to the Arminian view.
While some argue that the development of the classical view of divine foreknowledge was decisively influenced by Greek philosophy, proponents maintain there is strong biblical support for their view. The book of Isaiah repeatedly demonstrates that God is the Lord of history and distinct from other gods. “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done.”(Is. 46:9-10 ESV) If God declares the end from the beginning, what could possibly be unknown or uncertain to him?
The Bible also reveals that God has particular foreknowledge. He has remarkable knowledge about the future of His chosen people, the Israelites. He told Abraham of the slavery, the length thereof, and the eventual delivery of his descendants hundreds of years before it took place. The Bible also demonstrates God’s foreknowledge of particular individuals. He names several individuals before they are born and gives some detail about their lives or personalities. Jesus tells Peter that he would deny him three times and that he would die a martyr’s death. This is not an exhaustive list of Biblical examples of God’s foreknowledge of individuals. He prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem with remarkable accuracy. Many passages make it clear that God foreknew and even foreordained certain aspects of Christ’s life, ministry and death.
No discussion of the classical view would be complete with considering the issue of compatabilism. When one adheres to the one of the first two senses of foreknowledge, there is an inevitable tension between God’s foreknowledge and the concept of free will. If God foreordains an event, or decrees it, do those involved still have the freedom to choose? To incompatabilists, the answer to that question is a resounding, “NO!” But, that would implicate God as the author of evil. We cannot implicate God as the author of evil, so there is a mystery as to how God’s foreknowledge also allows for free will. Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.
Both the Calvinist and Arminian view on foreknowledge leave some with lingering doubts as to the safety of God. If He foreknew of my abuse, even if He didn’t foreordain it, He is still somewhat culpable. I cannot stomach the Calvinist thought that God orchestrated or planned it. But, the Arminian thought was nauseous as well. What father would knowingly allow his daughter to be repeatedly raped? To cause it is cruel; to allow it is negligent. Either way, I find myself with a theodicy that is inconsistent with intimacy. If He causes or allows evil, He is not safe.
OPEN THEIST VIEW
There is a third option. “Open Theists agree with Augustine and Calvin that future events cannot cause God to know them. We agree that if God foreknows a future event, it must either be because he determined it or because it is an inevitable effect of past or present causes. However, we also agree with Arminians that if all future events are determined by God, then he must be ultimately responsible for everything about the future, including evil. Where we disagree with both views is that we deny that Scripture teaches that the future is exhaustively settled.”(2) Open theism believes the future consists of both actuality and potentiality.
Some open theists affirm God’s omniscience, differing with classical theism about the reality of what is known. The future consists of settled events which are knowable, and therefore known by God, as well as possibilities which are unknowable, and therefore unknown by God. Other open theists see that as disingenuous in that it defies the accepted understanding of omniscience. The Bible speaks of God’s knowledge, not as omniscient, but as infinite. “His understanding is infinite.”(Ps. 147:5b NASB) There is a difference between infinite knowledge and omniscience. The attribute of omniscience has developed not from the Bible, but from Augustine’s interpretation of Greek philosophy; the attribute of infinite knowledge comes from the Bible. Furthermore, infinite minus one is still infinite; omniscience minus one is no longer omniscience. God does not need to know everything that will happen in the future for His knowledge to be infinite; but to maintain omniscience, there can be nothing unknown.
Classical theists maintain that the future consists of events that will or will not be; open theists do not believe those two choices exhaust the possibilities. The future also consists of what might and what might not be. The logical contradictory to “X will be” is not “X will not be” but “X might not be.” We must allow for possibilities because the future does not exist as reality or actuality. It remains open to possibilities. “The future does not yet exist and God cannot exist in something that does not exist. Therefore, God cannot fill the future. Since He does not fill the future, it is possible that there are some things about the future that He does not know.”(3)
BIBLICAL SUPPORT FOR OPEN THEISM
The Bible speaks of a God who changes His mind and expresses regret and surprise. Twice in 1 Samuel 15, it is said that God regrets having made Saul king. It is also in this chapter that we read that God “is not a man, that he should have regret.”(1 Sam. 15:29 ESV). Is this a contradiction? More likely, Saul was not genuine in his repentance and God was saying, “I cannot be sweet-talked or fooled with feigned remorse into changing my mind like a man could.”
In Genesis 22, we read the story of Abraham’s sacrifice of his son, Isaac. The purpose of this request was to test Abraham. Then in verse 12 we read, “….now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”(ESV) God was testing Abraham so that He Himself would know of Abraham’s faithfulness. The implication is that He did not not before the testing.
God sent an angel to Sodom and Gomorrah because of the outcry against them. He wanted to know if their sin was very serious. “I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.”(Gen. 18:21 ESV) The angel reveals this to Abraham and they enter into a bargaining session. Abraham repeatedly asks if God will sweep away the righteous with the wicked until he whittles down the number of righteous to ten. It appears as if God is neither certain of the evil, nor of the number of righteous that live in Sodom and Gomorrah.
The prophet Jeremiah tells us of God’s surprise at the sin the Israelites were capable of committing. They were sacrificing their infants to the god Molech and God says that it didn’t even enter His mind that they would do such a thing.(Jeremiah 32:35) Elsewhere in Jeremiah, we read that God had thought that Israel would return but she didn’t.(Jeremiah 3:6-7)
A popular passage that classical theists use to affirm God’s foreknowledge is found in Jeremiah 18. Jeremiah goes to a potter’s house and watches him working. The vessel he was working on was ruined so he reworked it into another vessel. God then speaks to Jeremiah saying, “Can I not do with you as this potter has done?”(Jer. 18:5 ESV) Classic theists see this passage as affirming that God, as the Potter, both knows and decides what is done with us, the clay. But, the passage clearly says that the potter reworked the clay. Why would the potter rework the clay into a second vessel if he foreknew the first vessel would spoil? This passage is showing us that when things don’t go as planned, God can rework it for good.
Could God truly regret making Saul king if he foreknew that Saul would turn from His ways? Would God send a fact-finding team if He already knew what He would find? Would He experience surprise at the actions of Israel if He foreknew of those actions? Classical theology would explain these passages as being anthropomorphic. If they were, they should reveal something true about God. What do they reveal about God?
Classical theism points to the fulfillment of numerous prophecies as indicative of divine foreknowledge. But, the question remains as to whether these prophecies were based upon His foreknowledge of future events, or His declaration of His intentions that He would fulfill. Many prophecies are conditional. The prophecy Jonah delivered to Ninevah is one such example. Jonah prophesied to the city of Ninevah that it would be destroyed in forty days. They repented and God had mercy and did not do as He had originally declared. “If God knows the future exhaustively, then conditional prophecies loses their integrity. They do not express a genuine divine intention. They are nothing more than hypothetical assertions that God fully knows will never be realized.”(4)
OPEN THEISM EXALTS GOD
Some would fear that Open Theism undermines God’s glory or power. Consider a chess tournament between two undefeated players. One player has only ever played a computer for which he had designed the software. He knew each move the computer would make and when. The second player had only played human opponents. He could only anticipate what moves would be made and when. Which player would be favored to win? Which player would be deemed the better chess player? The better player would be the one who could anticipate, but not know his opponent’s moves, nor had designed them. The fact that God doesn’t know or need to know the future exalts His glory and power because whatever choices we make, whatever the enemy throws our way, whatever other men may do, God can always work it for our good and for His glory.
Open Theism has the potential to eliminate any doubts as to God’s safety and trustworthiness. It exalts Him and magnifies His power. My brother’s choices were neither planned nor permitted by God; He did not foreknow it. But, He can take that event and, in His sovereignty and power, use it so thoroughly for my good that it becomes part of my testimony. The enemy thought he had me in checkmate, or at least a stalemate. But, God can redeem that event so that it is the enemy who is checkmated. What he meant for my destruction will be used for my good, God’s glory, and the enemy’s destruction. Open Theism provides a more beautiful theodicy and allows for a more intimate relationship with the Father.
Endnotes:
1. G. Boyd, D. Hunt, W. L. Craig, P. Helm, Four Views: Divine Foreknowledge(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001) p. 63.
2. Gregory Boyd, God of the Possible(Baker Books, n.d.), p. 23.
3. Harold Eberle, Father-Son Theology(Yakima, WA: Worldcast Publishing, 2015), p. 169.
4. Pinnock, C., Rice, R., Sanders, J., Hasker, W., & Basinger, D., The Openness of God(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), p. 52.