Predestination and Free Will - Part 5
Objections to Open Theism
As many readers know, we are in the midst of a series of
articles dealing with the question of predestination versus free
will. (For those new to this series, you can read all the
previous issues online at http://www.comereason.org/newsletters/).
Last month we looked at a view called Open Theism. This month,
I'd like to take some time and list the main objections to this position.
The Knowability Of The Future
One of the main tenets of Open Theism is that God cannot know
future free actions, since those actions do not yet exist in
reality. They are merely possibilities; and if an agent is truly
free, that agent cannot be bound in any way to one possibility
over another. However, this viewpoint has problems both
philosophically and theologically.
In looking at claims about future free acts philosophically,
William Lane Craig says there is no good reason to deny the
truth or falsity of such statements. "Why should we accept
the view that future-tense statements about free acts are neither
true nor false?...About the only answer given to this question
goes something like this: Future events, unlike present events,
do not exist. That is to say, the future is not 'out there'
somewhere."
Craig answers this charge by showing that statements dealing
in past-tense events can be and are considered true or false
even though the events of the past, like those of the future do
not exist in our present reality. "For example, [the
statement] 'Reagan won the 1980 presidential election' is true
if and only if Reagan won the 1980 presidential election... Long
after the election is over... this statement will still be true.
A future-tense statement is true if matters turn out as the
statement predicts, and false if matters fail to turn out as the
statement predicts."
God's Claim To Know The Future
The other problem here is God does claim to know future
events (ref. Isaiah 46:10.) There are many examples of God
knowing the future choices of individuals within the pages of
Scripture as well. One of the examples that Gregory Boyd tries
to explain is Peter's denial of Jesus. Boyd writes "we only
need to believe that God the Father knew and revealed to Jesus
one very predictable aspect of Peter's character. Anyone who
knew Peter's character perfectly could have predicted that under
certain highly pressured circumstances (that God could easily
orchestrate), he would act just the way he did."
I find this explanation wanting. We must remember that Jesus'
words weren't just "you are going to deny me" which
would be predictable, but "you will deny me three times
before the cock crows". In order to "orchestrate"
such an event, God would have had to make sure Peter would wind
up in a place where he would be forced to deny the Lord, and
that his accusers would ask him three times within a defined
time period. How Boyd can reconcile the free choices of all
these individuals with all these events being destined to take
place, he doesn't discuss. Needless to say, it would take more
than just perfectly knowing a person's makeup to have the
specifics of this prophecy fulfilled.
The Claim Of God Being In Time
Open theism proposes that since the only reality is the
present, God also exists and acts within our experience of time.
However, Dr. Norman Geisler states that since God created time,
it would be an error to attribute a created property to His
nature. He writes, "God created the entire spatio-temporal
universe out of nothing. But time is an essential part of the
cosmos. If so, then God must have created time. But if time is
something that is the essence of creation, then it cannot be the
attribute of the uncreated - that is of God."
Indeed, 2 Timothy 1:9 states that we were saved according to
God's purposes "from all eternity". And 1
Corinthians 2:7 speaks of God's wisdom being " predestined
before the ages to our glory". Also, Titus 1:2 shows God as
being "before the beginning of time "(NIV).
The Biblical Concept Of Predestination
Of course, the main focus of the Open position is to answer
the problems a hard determinist view raises regarding fatalism
and man's freedom (see http://www.comereason.org/newsletters/mar02.htm).
However, in denying that God in some way determines the actions
of man, the open theist is also denying a Biblical concept -
that God has indeed predestined some to salvation before the
beginning of the world. Romans 8:29 is the pivotal verse. It
states "Those whom God foreknew, He predestined to be
conformed to the image of His Son." Boyd tries to explain
this to mean "Paul had [spiritual] Israel as a corporate whole in mind,
not individual Jews…" In other words, the church as a
group. He uses this same reasoning regarding Ephesians 1:4 and 2
Timothy 1:9.
But we must remember that Romans 8:28 explicitly states that
those who belong to the church are referred to as "the
called". In the same chapter, Paul states that Christ is at
the right hand of the Father "who makes intercession for us"
(v.34). If we are to be consistent in this approach, we would
have to say that Jesus' intersession only applies to the church
as a corporate entity and not to individual Christians. But this
doesn't make sense in light of the preceding verses where Paul
talks about his individual suffering and how we (as individuals)
eagerly await the redemption of our bodies.
There are other problems raised by the open view - how God
sometimes changes His mind, for example. But in focusing on our
discussion, I think you can see how the open view is a less than
satisfying answer to the problems raised by hard determinism.
Next month, we'll introduce the idea that I find most
appealing - the concept of Middle Knowledge - to resolve the
tension of predestination and free will. If you would like to
respond to this or any other article, be sure to write us at newsletter@comereason.org.
I pray God will bless you until then. |
