A BIBLICAL EXAMINATION OF THE OPENNESS VIEW OF PREDICTIVE PROPHECY

Transcription

1 A BIBLICAL EXAMINATION OF THE OPENNESS VIEW OF PREDICTIVE PROPHECY John Fast November 28, 2007

2 OUTLINE I. Introduction: What is Open Theism?...1 II. The Openness View of Omniscience.1 A. Redefining Terms...2 B. Nothing New..3 C. Omniscience, Foreknowledge, Prophecy, and Scripture 4 III. Three Categories of Prophecy A. Unilateral Prophecies.9 B. God s Best Guess Prophecies 10 C. Conditional Prophecies.11 IV. Conclusion.12 V. Bibliography...1

3 Introduction Open Theism is an innovative theological system that has raised quite a lot of dust within the theological community in recent years in its attempt to create a more user-friendly God. 1 The proponents of this system argue for a radical change in evangelicalisms understanding of God s nature. In opposition to classical theism s understanding of God s nature, open theism views a God whose will can be thwarted by man s free choices and who took a great risk in creating a world in which he is ignorant of many, if not most of these free choices. It is open theism s commitment to unrestrained, libertarian human free will that has caused its defenders to deny or redefine many of God s attributes, particularly His omniscience and foreknowledge. This paper will examine open theism s view of omniscience and how it affects our understanding of Scripture, especially how the openness view of omniscience and foreknowledge affects the interpretation of biblical prophecy, and its inadequacy for the task. The Openness View of Omniscience When an open theist speaks of God s omniscience, they do not mean that God possesses exhaustive knowledge of all future events. 2 They have understood that to affirm God s exhausttive foreknowledge of the future is to also affirm that God has determined that future. But if God knows all that will occur in the future, then mankind is not truly free in the libertarian sense, because we can only do what God has foreknown. In order to preserve their view of libertarian free will, open theists point to various biblical texts which they claim support their view that God is limited in His foreknowledge, and is even surprised by certain events. The fall of man in the Timothy George, Has God Been Held Hostage By Philosophy?, Christianity Today, January 9, 1995, 2 Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994),

4 2 Garden of Eden is one example given by open theists to illustrate how God is genuinely surprised when something totally unexpected happens. 3 Redefining Terms But if God does not know the future exhaustively, can He truly be omniscient? Are there different types of omniscience, as John Sanders would suggest? 4 Is there such a thing as partial omniscience? Webster defines omniscient as having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight: possessed of universal or complete knowledge. 5 Partial or limited omniscience is an oxymoron. Thus, when open theists restrict God s exhaustive knowledge to the past and present, and limit His knowledge of the future; 6 they are attributing to God a limited omniscience. Robert Thomas has observed that open theists have retained traditional terminology, but have attached their own definitions to these words because of the contradictory nature of their system in saying all these attributes (i.e. sovereignty, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence) are only partial. 7 For an open theist to maintain that they hold to the doctrine of God s omniscience, they must change the definition of omniscience to fit their belief system. This is a clear example of one s preconceived doctrinal assumptions dictating one s interpretation of Scripture. This contradicts open theism s own claims of adhering to an unbiased, literal hermeneutic. 8 3 John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), Ibid., Webster s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, s.v. Omniscient. 6 Sanders, The God Who Risks, Robert L. Thomas, The Hermeneutics of Open Theism, The Master s Seminary Journal 12 no. 2 (Fall 2001): Bruce Ware, God s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000),

5 3 Nothing New Open theists have portrayed their model of God as something new, a fresh look at the doctrine of God, and a paradigm shift based on a new understanding of biblical passages dealing with God s knowledge of the future. 9 However, as Robert Strimple has pointed out, open theism s view of omniscience is the ancient heresy of Socinianism reincarnate. 10 A form of Antitrinitarianism and considered to be an ancient form of Unitarianism, Socinainism is the namesake of its founders Laelius Socinus (d.1562) and his nephew Faustus Socinus (d.1604). While it is better known for its heretical views concerning the person and work of Christ, Socinianism also held to a heretical doctrine of God. They, like open theists today, believed that God s omniscience and knowledge of the future was limited. Strimple has observed: the Socinians insisted that it was a contradiction of human freedom to believe in the sovereign foreordination of God. So they went all the way (logically) and denied not only that God has foreordained the free decisions of free agents but also that God foreknows what those decisions will be. That is precisely the teaching of the free-will theism of Pinnock, Rice, and other like minded new model evangelicals. 11 More recently, L.D. M Cabe in his book The Foreknowledge of God published in 1878, in a chapter entitled Where is the Necessity for Absolute Foreknowledge?, stated: To affirm that God s feelings, purposes, and conduct can change just as the free volitions of the subject do actually change, when He has perfect knowledge of all the future volitions of that free subject, is to assert a manifest impossibility. It is not possible, in the nature of things, for any being to foreknow all the doings of others, and to foreread in all particulars their character and conduct for ages to come, and yet change in His own feelings and thoughts and purposes toward them, 12 9 Pinnock et. al., The Openness of God, Robert B. Strimple, What Does God Know?, in The Coming Evangelical Crisis: Current Challenges to the Authority of Scripture and the Gospel, ed. John H. Armstrong (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996), Ibid., L.D. M Cabe, The Foreknowledge of God and Cognate Themes in Theology and Philosophy (Cincinnati: Hitchcock & Walden, 1878), (emphasis added)

6 4 Open theisms assertion that it is a new doctrine of God, based upon an understanding of Scripture that was overlooked by the reformers, is a hollow claim. The Reformation fathers were well aware of the Socinian doctrine of God s omniscience and rejected it as heretical, and God s unrestricted foreknowledge of the future was being denied by M Cabe as recently as Omniscience, Foreknowledge, Prophecy, and Scripture Knowledge of the future is not only the test of a true prophet. It is also the test of a true God. 13 God s exhaustive foreknowledge of the future is the foundation for all prophecy, especially predictive prophecy. While the role of the prophet was not limited to predictive prophecy; they also interpreted history, called God s people to repentance and faithfulness, and announced God s standards and promises, one crucial role of the prophet was the prediction of future events. Warfield refers to the account of God s commissioning of Moses and Aaron in Exodus 4:10-16; 7:1-4 as the fundamental passage for determining what it meant to be a true prophet of God. 14 These passages reveal that a true prophet did not speak his own words or speak out of his own heart but that he was an appointed regular speaker for a divine superior, whose speech carries the authority of the latter. 15 The biblical standard for a true God or a true prophet is their accurate knowledge of the future, imparted to them by God, and the fulfillment of their predictions (Isaiah 41:21-24; Deuteronomy 18:22). Besides being a test for the authenticity of a prophet, one of the greatest apologetics for the inspiration of Scripture is its predictive prophecy. The Bible, unlike any other book, contains hundreds of specific predictive prophecies, many of which have been fulfilled, some hundreds of 13 John Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2002), Benjamin B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Revelation and Inspiration (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003), Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 210.

7 5 years after they were first given, and some which await a future fulfillment. The Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecies lists 1817 predictions in the Bible, 1239 in the Old Testament and 578 in the New, and has calculated that 27 percent of the entire Bible contains predictive prophecy. 16 As Norman Geisler has pointed out: The argument from prophecy is the argument from omniscience. Limited human beings know the future only if it is told to them by an omniscient Being If an omniscient God exists who knows the future, then predictive prophecy is possible. And if the Bible contains such predictions, then they are a sign of the Bible s divine origins. 17 To deny God s comprehensive foreknowledge, as open theism does, is to rob Christianity of the role which predictive prophecy plays as one of the most powerful apologetics for the inspiration of Scripture. But even more serious is the ramifications of open theism s doctrine of omniscience to the Scripture s claim of inspiration and infallibility. prophecy: 18 Habakkuk 2:2-3 is a significant passage dealing with the inspired nature of biblical Then the LORD answered me and said, Record the vision And inscribe it on tablets, That the one who reads it may run. For the vision is yet for the appointed time; It hastens toward the goal, and it will not fail. Though it tarries, wait for it; For it will certainly come, it will not delay. (NASB) In this passage, the content of Habakkuk 2 is twice referred to as vision, underscoring the fact that true prophecy is revelation, 19 and as revelation it must be included as 16 J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecies (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1973), Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 609. (emphasis original) 18 Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2 nd ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), Ibid., 29. (emphasis original)

8 6 part of the God-breathed, inspired Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16). We also see from this passage that true prophecy involves the foreknowledge and foretelling of future events because the vision is yet for the appointed time and it hastens toward the goal and what it is foretelling will certainly come. The certainty of the prophecies fulfillment, and thereby its inspired nature, is declared by the fact that it will not fail, and it will certainly come. God will perform that which He has promised. As we have seen, the test of a true God and a true prophet is whether or not what they predict comes to pass. Only an omniscient God could speak of future events with any certitude. And if highly improbable predictions are made which come to pass without fail, then the one making the prediction must have been divinely inspired. To deny God s omniscience is to seriously undermine the inspired nature of predictive prophecy, which, as we have seen, comprises up to 27 percent of Scripture. Not only does open theism s doctrine of omniscience undermine the inspired nature of Scripture, it also calls into question the infallibility of Scripture. Advocates of open theism claim that God is sometimes mistaken as to what He has declared about future events. John Sanders writes: Finally, even if we affirm that God is sometimes mistaken in the sense that God believed something would happen when, in fact, it does not come about, there is a question as to how often this happens. The biblical record gives a few occasions, but we are in no position to judge just how many times this occurs with God. 20 One must ask, how often does one have to be mistaken before they are no longer infallible? To attribute mistakes to God, no matter how one wishes to define mistake, 21 is to seriously call into question the infallibility and reliability of Scripture. 20 Sanders, The God Who Risks, (emphasis added) 21 Ibid., 132.

9 7 Another claim of open theism regarding prophecy is that prophecies undergo multiple fulfillments and are not stated with a high degree of specificity. 22 It is true that some prophecies have a two part fulfillment with a gap of time between the fulfillments of each part. There are a number of passages which indicate a parenthesis in God s program. This is seen in Isaiah 9:6 where, in v.6a we see a prophecy of Jesus birth, For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and in v.6b where the millennial Messianic kingdom is in view, And the government will rest on His shoulders. Jesus himself alluded to this principle when He quoted Isaiah 61:1-2a (cf. Luke 4:16-18), where a parentheses of almost two-thousand years exists between the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of vengeance for our God (v.2b). But a two-part prophecy is not a prophecy that has multiple fulfillments. Sanders supplies no examples of prophecies that have multiple fulfillment. To open theism s assertion that predictive prophecies lack specificity, one need only point to the multitude of predictive prophecies which contain very specific details. In 1 Samuel 10:1-7, Samuel, after anointing Saul king, tells King Saul that after he leaves he will meet two men near Rachel s tomb and what these men will say to him, then three men and what each one is carrying, then a group of musical prophets. Notice that this prophecy requires God to know countless free decisions of all the people involved before the events occurred. 23 Other prophecies in this vein include: 1) The piercing of Jesus hands and feet (Ps.22:16; cf. Luke 23:33) 2) The piercing of Jesus side (Zech. 12:10; cf. John 19:34) 3) The amount of money for which Jesus would be betrayed (Zech. 11:12; cf. Matt. 27:3) 22 Ibid., John Frame, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2001),

10 8 4) The casting of lots for His garment (Ps. 22:18; cf. John 19:23-24) One of the most precise prophecies in Scripture is the seventy-weeks of Daniel recorded in Daniel 9: It predicts the decree of Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem (Dan. 9:25; cf. Neh. 2:5-8), and gives the precise time from the issuing of this decree until the very year Christ would die. God told Daniel that it would be 7 x 70 years from the issuing of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem until the Messiah would be cut off (i.e. die). Without getting into all the calculations and chronology (the writer would refer the reader to Dwight Pentecost s excellent treatment of this in his book, Things to Come 24 ), the precision of this prophecy, and given the fact that it was given hundreds of years before the events took place, excludes the possibility that Daniel (or God) was reading the trends of the times or making intelligent guesses. The number of free choices which must have taken place in order for this prophecy to be fulfilled is mind boggling. From Artaxerxes decree, to the reconstruction of Jerusalem, until the ultimate fulfillment hundreds of years later; all must have been foreknown by an omniscient Being. If God is omniscient, he must have exhaustive foreknowledge of his own omnipotent plan. 25 The Three Openness Categories of Biblical Prophecy Open theists agree that prophecy does contain a predictive element, but they insist that this predictive element does not necessitate or imply that God has exhaustive foreknowledge. 26 To show this, advocates of open theism assert that all biblical prophecy fits into one of three categories, and once these categories are understood it will be realized that there is nothing contradictory about open theism s doctrine of omniscience. Rice enumerates these as follows: 24 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958), R.K. McGregor Wright, No Place for Sovereignty: What s Wrong with Freewill Theism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), Frame, No Other God, 199.

11 9 A prophecy may express God s intention to do something in the future irrespective of creaturely decision. If God s will is the only condition required for something to happen, if human cooperation is not involved, then God can unilaterally guarantee its fulfillment, and he can announce it ahead of time A prophecy may also express God s knowledge that something will happen because the necessary conditions for it have been fulfilled and nothing could conceivably prevent it. By the time God foretold Pharaoh s behavior to Moses, the ruler s character may have been so rigid that it was entirely predictable A prophecy many also express what God intends to do if certain conditions obtain. 27 While the Bible does contain prophecies of these three types, as Ware has pointed out none of these categories fits the type of prophecies just discussed in this paper, namely, unconditional and exact predictions that involve specific future choices or actions of free creatures. 28 Unilateral Prophecies The first openness category of prophecy may be classified as God s unilateral decisions to act independently of creaturely decisions. Ware asks: How much prophecy is accounted for by category one? What prophecies are there whose fulfillment involves absolutely no future creaturely free choice or action over which, then, God would have perfect foreknowledge due to having absolute regulative control? 29 God s decisions are always independent of man s actions, whereas creaturely decisions are themselves a result of God s decisions. Open theism sees many of God s decisions as responses to free human decisions. But if God does not know what those decisions will be, how can He respond to them? Ware concludes: So, as one ponders what prophecies might apply to the first of these three categories suggested by open theists, one realizes that precious few, if any, fit. It appears, in fact, that every biblical prophecy one might consider involves, for its fulfillment, either 27 Pinnock, et. al., The Openness of God, Ware, God s Lesser Glory, 130. (emphasis original) 29 Ibid., 130.

12 10 directly or indirectly, some aspect of creaturely free choice. Perhaps there are some that would fit (although I haven t seen any clear, undisputable examples offered in openness literature) 30 Open theists seem to concur with Ware s assessment, for neither Rice nor Sanders offer any examples of such prophecy. 31 Instead, they quote Isaiah 46:10-11 as illustrative of this category, which, as Ware has shown, is a misguided application. 32 God s Best Guess Prophecies The second category of prophecy mentioned by Rice might be thought of as highly educated guesses on the part of God. Given libertarian freewill, this is the most that they can be. Sanders articulates the open theist position this way: [Another] way of explaining some predictions according to presentism is to see them as statements about what will happen based on God s exhaustive knowledge of the past and present. In other words, given the depth and breadth of God s knowledge of the present situation, God forecasts what he thinks will happen. In this regard God is the ultimate social scientist predicting what will happen. God s ability to predict the future in this way is far more accurate than any human forecaster s, however, since God has exhaustive access to all past and present knowledge Nonetheless, this does leave open the possibility that God might be mistaken about some points, as the biblical record acknowledges. 33 This group of prophecies should be a cause for concern to open theists since it implies that some decisions (for instance, Pharaoh s in the quote from Rice) are morally responsible, even though they are not free in the libertarian sense. For when Rice speaks of necessary conditions in regard to someone s behavior and uses terms such as rigid and entirely predictable, he is using deterministic language to describe deterministic knowledge on the part of God. But since such deterministic knowledge would violate libertarian freewill, these prophecies cannot 30 Ibid., 132. (emphasis original) 31 John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2001), Ware, God s Lesser Glory, Sanders, The God Who Risks, (emphasis mine)

13 11 guarantee that any prophecy in this category will happen, as Sanders asserts, and God puts Himself in the position of being a false prophet. 34 Ware s conclusion for this type of prophecy is similar to the first in that, [it] may not be empty, as it appears category one is, but it will be close to bare, even on openness grounds. 35 Conditional Prophecies Since the open theist s cupboard is virtually bare concerning their first two categories of prophecy, this leaves only category three to account for all the rest of biblical prophecy. But can the vast majority of biblical prophecy be pigeon-holed into this last category of conditional prophecy? Conditional prophecies express what God will do if the specified conditions are met. It is undeniable that the Bible contains conditional prophecies. The conditions attached to a prophecy may be either explicit (Jer. 18:5-10) or tacit (Jonah 3:4). The question remains whether the overwhelming majority of prophecy can be squeezed into this mold. Not all prophecy is conditional, as has been seen from 1 Samuel 10:1-7. Samuel simply tells Saul of some events that would occur on his journey to Gilgal, and they happened just as he said. There were no conditions to be satisfied. The same may be said of numerous other prophecies where God speaks with certainty that what He has predicted will come to pass. In Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 13; 2:1, 4, 6, God announces certain, irrevocable judgment. Yet it is this one category of unconditional prophecy that open theism fails to address, because it is precisely at this point where the shoe begins to pinch the open theist s doctrine of omniscience, foreknowledge, and libertarian freewill. The problem with the open theist s handling of biblical prophecy 34 Feinberg, No One Like Him, Ware, God s Lesser Glory, 132.

14 12 is that there are just too many prophecies that fall into none of these categories. 36 Many of these predictions are so extensive and are foretold so far in advance of their eventual fulfillment that nothing short of God s exhaustive foreknowledge could possibly offer a plausible explanation. Conclusion Clark Pinnock has recognized that no doctrine is more central than the nature of God. It deeply affects our understanding of the incarnation, grace, creation, election, sovereignty and salvation. 37 What is at stake in the debate with open theism goes deeper than whether one views God as foreknowing all things, or whether God s omniscience is limited or not. Rather, a biblical doctrine of salvation is dependent upon a biblical doctrine of God. People do not usually embrace heresy all at once, but in incremental stages. Toleration of small errors soon turn into full blown apostasy. Once one has grafted the bud of Socinianism into the rootstock of Arminianism, the inevitable fruit will be a works based Socinian doctrine of salvation. If one has adopted a Socinian doctrine of God, it is inevitable that it will lead to a Socinain doctrine of salvation. What is at stake is the gospel. 36 Feinberg, No One Like Him, Pinnock,et. al., The Openness of God, 8.

15 1 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adkins, Allen, God s Eternal Purpose. Texarkana, AR-TX: Baptist Sunday School Committee of the American Baptist Association, Armstrong, John H., ed. The Coming Evangelical Crisis: Current Challenges to the Authority of Scripture and the Gospel. Chicago: Moody Press, Arndt, W., Does the Bible Contradict Itself? A Discussion of Alleged Contradictions in the Bible. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, Basinger, David, Can an Evangelical Christian Justifiably Deny God s Exhaustive Knowledge of the Future? Christian Scholar s Review 25, no. 2 (December 1995): Beale, G. K., An Exegetical and Theological Consideration of the Hardening of Pharaoh s Heart. Trinity Journal 5 NS, no. 2 (Autumn 1984): Beilby, James K. and Paul R. Eddy, ed. Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, Boyd, Gregory A., God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, Farley, Benjamin Wirt, The Providence of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, Forbes, Christopher, Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its Hellenistic Environment. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Feinberg, John S., No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, Frame, John M., No Other God: A Response to Open Theism. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2001., The Doctrine of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, Geisler, Norman L., Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, George, Timothy, Has God Been Held Hostage By Philosophy?, Christianity Today, January 9,1995. Grisanti, Michael A. The Relationship of Israel and the Nations in Isaiah PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 199.

16 Hall, Christopher A. and John Sanders, Does God Have a Future? A Debate on Divine Providence. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, Hill, Clifford, Prophecy Past and Present: An Exploration of the Prophetic Ministry in the Bible and in the Church Today. Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, House, Wayne H., Charts on Open Theism and Orthodoxy. Grand Rapids: Kregel, M Cabe, L.D., The Foreknowledge of God and Cognate Themes in Theology and Philosophy. Cincinnati: Hitchcock & Walden, Payne, J. Barton, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecies. London: Hodder & Stoughton, Pentecost, J. Dwight, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Pinnock, Clark, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker and David Basinger, The Openness of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, Reisinger, John G., The Sovereignty of God in Providence. Southbridge, MA: Crowne Publications, Reymond, Robert L., A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith 2 nd ed. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Sanders, John, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, Thomas, Robert L., The Hermeneutics of Open Theism. The Master s Seminary Journal 12 no. 2 (Fall 2001): Vos, Geerhardus, Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Ware, Bruce A., God s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, Warfield, Benjamin B., The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Inspiration and Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, Wiersbe, Warren W. ed. Classic Sermons on the Sovereignty of God. Grand Rapids: Kregel, Wright, R. K. McGregor, No Place for Sovereignty: What s Wrong with Freewill Theism. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,