Responding to the claims made by those in the know. Many verses have been presented in various polemic arguments pro and con regarding the open view or partially open view. This debate has been raging within theological circles, but mainstream Christianity seems to be hesitant or even resistant to explore the theological consequences openly before their congregations. It seems that an open discussion about the open view is not as open as the view itself.
"It was determined before the foundation of the world that it was not determined at the foundation of the world."
Daniel K. Hedrick Jr.Anyone that has made the effort to know more about this debate has likely read articles and opinions delivered by leading apologists like Norman Geisler, John Piper, Bruce Ware, John Sanders, William Hasker and Greg Boyd. Troublesome declarations like these that follow prove that this issue is worth very careful consideration.
"While claiming to offer meaningfulness to Christian living, open theism strips the believer of the one thing needed most for a meaningful and vibrant life of faith: absolute confidence in God's character, wisdom, word, promise, and the sure fulfillment of his will."
Bruce Ware"Open theism dishonors God, distorts Scripture, damages faith, and would, if left unchecked, destroy churches and lives."
John PiperI have read a majority of the published content regarding this topic, but as of the writing of this article and as I respond to this debate, I would like it to be clear that I am not critiquing the views held by Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders, Piper, or Geisler, nor am I directly responding to any of the issues that have been raised by the Evangelical Theological Society. I mention these believers because they have authority within scholastic circles and have the ability to influence many more than I ever will. However, I am the only one that will offer a totally unique foundation for the open view based on a number of composite points from philosophy and dispensationalism. I coined the phrase open-dispensationalism as a reference for describing presuppositions that contribute to a holistically consistent biblical interpretation.
I think that a distinctive and challenging perspective that can quickly drive the truth seeker to key elements of the debate is worth considering. It is my hope that a rational and reasonable approach to solving this apparently very controversial subject be made available to those new to the debate and to those that have already placed their theological stake in the ground.
As an evangelical minister and founder of a very unique ministry named GODISNOWHERE, it is common for me to debate and discuss issues from the realms of philosophy all the way through eschatology. This ministry engages the painter, postman, preacher, teacher and lawyer. My colleagues and I have spent hundreds of hours studying this and many other topics while reaching out to anyone that is a truth seeker and is willing to be challenged. The early morning diner is the testing ground for the apologetics effort we have engaged in across the Front Range since 1995. These morning deliberations are a think tank of Christian centered theo-philosophical discussions dedicated for the purpose of street evangelism.
We have had the pleasure of sinking our faith into the greatest depths of understanding that a few committed men can harvest when bound to a common goal of investigating every creative truth claim made by sage or prophet. In grace we raise the Cross of Christ and know that His Truth is the only truth.
In fifteen years of ministry the open view debate remains the single topic that has generated the most amount of controversy. This divisive issue shakes the foundation of everyone involved. The critics of the open view come from traditional or orthodox backgrounds and are interested in making certain that the champions of the open view receive as limited and as brief exposure as possible. Their fear is that the open view distorts the historically established character of God engraved throughout the creeds of Christendom. And there are those that believe that the open view demands the view that God is "mistaken" or even worse that the bible is errant. Some have made this debate an issue worth dividing over, to the point of calling the advocate of the open view unorthodox, heretical and anathema. I suppose the most frustrating aspect of the criticism levied against the open view is that there are many straw man arguments and red herrings employed that significantly change the direction and relevance of the open view debate.
The advocates of the open view drive towards biblical relevancy, which in turn leads towards inerrancy. This conclusion is exactly opposite of the results that opponents of the view wish to cast upon those that defend the open view.
And in all of this there is no small dispute.
Ontological Presuppositions
I will begin this paper by discussing a philosophical position within Christian Theology that has extreme metaphysical ramifications. The purpose for defining these presuppositions is so that critiques of the open view can be properly addressed. Most critics have a faulty understanding of the ontology and metaphysics that make the open view preferable.
The open view presupposes that the future cannot exist to be known, and attempts to understand the Word of God within the real ontology that God and man co-exist within. A commitment to a common ontology is a promise of consistency, but not completeness. The designing of a theo-philosophical ontology for the purpose of enabling knowledge and building a comprehensive hermeneutic would be helpful to the effort of examining the open view. The value of specificity is in the acknowledgement of term usage. In that context, the following specification for the character of God is used for making ontological commitments. Practically, an ontological commitment is an agreement to use vocabulary in a way that is consistent. It is my purpose to explore the open view with this ontology in mind.
The divine attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence are not reduced or limited in the open view as typically characterized by those that think the open view is heretical. It is necessary to clarify terms and demonstrate that the common definitions of these attributes are indeed inaccurate and not supported by scripture. If the proper definitions of these terms are stated below, then the open view is a more preferable and consistent method for understanding divine attributes, characteristics, actions and reactions recorded in scripture. I will spend the time declaring what my presuppositions are by building a holistic ontology around the omni attributes.
Omnipresent · present everywhere simultaneously
The definition commonly accepted is that God is in all places at all times. This definition is overstated, illogical, and is not within biblical boundaries. God is not "in" creation. God made all things. God is not in my coffee or in the byte it took to make the period in this sentence. God by definition and purpose is not in the Lake of Fire. It would also be inaccurate to assume that God is in the pedophile or the reprobate.
I offer the following definition: the ability for God to be wherever He wants to be, whenever He wants to be. God in the Old Testament makes several references to movement from one location to another. God is free to disengage from His creation and remove Himself temporarily, or in the case of eternal judgment of the damned, permanently. God is not bound by this divine attribute to the point where God must be where He desires not to be.
Is it an orthodox belief to accept that God is literally present everywhere at all times? If you affirm this view, then must God be in the presence of sin? Perhaps there is a metaphysical reaction to sin that by God's design and will prevents Him from having to be continually bombarded by sin. A Holy God can and does separate Himself.
Omnipotent · having unlimited power
The common definition "God can do all things" seems to be reasonable for the Creator of the Universe, but this simple definition totally excludes common logic and reason. Most are aware of the supposed conundrum "Can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?" There are many others: "Can God create a round square?" or "Can God sin?"
It is important to limit the scope of omnipotence to one that is bound by logical limitations and does not require the inclusion of logical fallacies. Omnipotence is not revealed in fulfilling the logically impossible, but more in His power to do the miraculously unbelievable, such as the creation of the Universe and the salvation of mankind. Again ask yourself the question: "Can God save an unrepentant reprobate?"
Omniscient · having total knowledge
And now to the divine attribute that the open view believes needs to be re-defined and re-thought. There are logical limits to the divine attribute of omnipresence, in that God is not in the Ebola Virus, and God is not limited in power because He cannot smell the number nine. It should be equally obvious that God cannot know that which is unknowable. To restate: the future has not ever existed to be known; therefore it is illogical to assume that God can know that which is unknowable.
Let me restate that these are presuppositions, and I am not attempting to define or defend this position to the point of examining Schwartzchild Time, Absolute Time, Relativity, or Time Travel, although each of these would be valid points of discussion for further study.
I propose a new definition for the omniscient attribute: God knows all that which can be known and that which He desires to know.
Considering the proper definitions of these divine attributes makes it easier to understand how the following verse can convey the literal meaning it was intended to reveal.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
God wanted Adam to do a work. This work was orchestrated by God but ultimately determined by Adam. Since God has these omni attributes, He has the ability to determine what He does not want to know, where He does not want to go, and what He does not want to do. It is not necessary to hold to the traditional definitions of these attributes, especially when the biblical text does not holistically support such views.
The Lord learned what Adam wanted to call these creatures. If I allow the bible to define the character of God and His response to His creation, then I must accept that God did not know what the names were until Adam named them. The very purpose of creation is realized with every new sound from Adam's breath. Giraffe.
As you read the following verses, know that God actively engages His creation and offers us the freedom to respond in faith or to reject the commands of our creator. An open creation is the true state in which we live. It is not necessary nor is it reasonable to accept that God knew the continually failing outcome of His creation, His Kings, and His chosen Nation before He created, or after He first called all that He created very good. The Word of the Lord shows authentic reactions to the deplorable response of that which He called into existence. The authenticity of the Lord's response is best understood with the literal acceptance of these passages.
And the LORD repented that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved to His heart. And the LORD said, I will wipe off man whom I have created from the face of the earth, from man to beast, to the creeping thing and to the birds of the heavens; for I repent that I made them.
Only hyperbole can make these verses declare the Lord's repentance to be anthropopathic rather than literal. When God uses figurative language, it is for the purpose of illustrating a truth that can be understood. If repentance is figurative, then what meaning are we to take away from these verses? What is the exact method used to determine when verses are supposed to be taken figuratively rather than literally? Most of the time the context is clear, and when the Lord chooses to use analogies or parables it is very obvious. Do these two verses above appear to be literal or figurative?
Repentance, Human and Divine
This investigation should reap the benefits of recognizing the difference between divine and human repentance. To suggest that God does not repent logically leads to a belief that God doesn't do a lot of things that the Bible declares that He does do. It is my purpose to expose the truth about divine repentance. It is the genuineness of God's reaction that I am most determined to accept and understand. As a mortal I accept that God can effectively and efficiently communicate to man. It would be unnecessary and inefficient if God communicates specific attributes to man that have no literal or legitimate grounding in reality.
Several orthodox educators have declared "open theism" heretical. Why is there such a negative response to this theological position? There is a strong historical foundation for this call to heresy. The use of the word repent was so abhorrent to Augustine that he wrote about it in his book, On the Morals of the Catholic Church. Augustine explained away doctrines that he thought were absurd:
"We do not worship a God who repents, or is envious, or needy. These and such like are the silly notions, the fancies of old women or of children, and those by whom these passages are literally understood. And should any one suppose that anything in God's substance or nature can suffer change or conversion, he will be held guilty of wild profanity."
Augustine, On the Morals of the Catholic ChurchMuch more could be said as to why traditional orthodoxy transformed what is obvious in the scriptures to something unknowable or even unbelievable. A radical belief in divine immutability is most certainly one of the greatest contributors to the currently incoherent view of what is commonly called traditional orthodoxy. For anyone to claim that God never changes should consider the incarnation. Obviously God was not always a man, yet throughout eternity Jesus Christ will reveal His divine and human nature perfectly.
The content of this document attempts to expose the genuine interactions that God has with His creation, and that God does literally repent. The early Creeds and Confessions of the Faith typically embraced by classical theism, which apparently are denied by the open view (such as eternality, immutability, and infallible foreknowledge of all events, including future freely chosen ones) are apparently the keys to orthodoxy. The teachings of the Fathers behind these creeds and confessions are unequivocally on the side of classical theism and opposed to open theism. If this conclusion is accurate, and immutability and infallible foreknowledge are necessary attributes of God's being, then any progression through the open view must consider how traditional orthodoxy handles these seemingly complex issues. I would go as far as saying that traditional orthodoxy cannot handle the complexity without minimizing the relevance and meaning of scripture.
Scriptural use of Godly Repentance
The mistake made by many is that of equivocating the meanings of two totally separate and distinct descriptions of God's character represented in the scriptures by anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms. Their individual and combined descriptive natures communicate the attributes of the one, true, living God. Since man is made in His image, it is logical that we would use the image He gave us as a mirror to know Him. We know many things about God's nature and character before we even look into the mirror. He is sovereign. He is not culpable for the existence of sin. He is the creator of all. What is the traditional reason to interpret that God's emotions and behaviors of repentance are anthropopathic?
We are culpable. We are not sovereign. We did not create. These are eternal distinctions. It is disingenuous for critics of the open view to assume that a consistent hermeneutic demands blind wooden literalism. For anyone to propel the open view into absurdity endangers what has already been held to be true as potentially inaccurate, for example, that God is love. Knowing the distinction about anthropopathisms and anthropomorphisms doesn't make God literally either a door or love.
Are you able to rightly draw the line and know that Love is not a tangible materialistic object? Neither is repentance, or faith, or joy. Is God these things? Or does God reveal these in His character? When the Bible declares that God is love, it must be interpreted that He is the only One capable of divine and pure love. God is deeply affected by sin to the point that He believes that He should repent of doing good. God is also deeply moved by love and human repentance. His divine reactions are revealed multiple times in the scriptures.
At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy it; if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if they do that which is evil in my sight, that they obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
A Warning
In Jeremiah the twenty-sixth chapter there is an interesting warning and a very open ended statement made by God. First is the warning to declare exactly, without error, the words of the Lord. Then follows what appears to be the divine belief that God is unsure if the cities of Judah will repent, even though it is clearly His desire that they do so.
Thus saith the LORD: Stand in the court of the LORD's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word. It may be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way; that I may repent me of the evil which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings.
The above warning is enclosed within God's expressed will. In preparation for a clear example of how God does not repent, I present a verse to you out of the book of Ezekiel.
In thy filthiness is lewdness: because I have cleansed thee and thou wast not cleansed, thou shalt not be cleansed from thy filthiness any more, till I have caused my wrath toward thee to rest. I, the LORD, have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it: I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent; according to thy ways, and according to thy doings, shall they judge thee, saith the LORD.
Obviously these two verses must be read in context. Scripture contains the Lord's reaction to His will being received, rejected and ignored.
God Repents. Not.
God's repentance is as alive as God Himself, and as real as His love. The open view claims there is no conflict between the two seemingly opposing scriptural views we see in the following passages.
And the LORD repented that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved to His heart.
God is not a man that He should lie, or a son of man that He should repent. Has He said, and shall He not do it? And has He spoken, and shall He not make it good?
First Mention Principle is the notion that the very first description of literally any biblical topic is either the most complete and/or most purposeful. Looking at the passage from Genesis 6, based on this rule alone it appears that God does repent. It is this internal struggle that causes those that claim orthodoxy for themselves to be uneasy and concerned that the open view is chipping away at more than just divine attributes. This should be a strong indication that properly defining ontology necessarily leads to systematic definitions. If the open view corresponds to reality, then many great works prepared to offer the bible student a systematic approach to biblical interpretation would have to be scrapped or greatly rethought.
Saul, or not to be Saul
Most would agree that God is not one to submit to the will of man. His sovereignty is beyond majestic and nearly incomprehensible. It would be blasphemous to accept that man was able to convince God to do something which was contrary to His will. Is it possible that man can convince God to do something that is contrary to His declared resolve?
"Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations," was the cry from Israel. God had already made it perfectly clear what His will was, and Samuel was not pleased with Israel's response. Chapter Eight of the 1st Book of Samuel seems to be an illustration of a parent to a child, explaining why their will is contrary, yet the child continues to whine and declare his individual will over the will of the wise parent.
But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." So Samuel prayed to the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day, with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods, so they are doing to you also. Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them."
There doesn't appear to be any determination on the part of Israel to listen to the Lord's will and to the words of God's anointed prophet. It is obvious that God is not in favor of Israel's desire, but still allows them to have a corporate will that is in direct conflict with His own. He tells Samuel to inform Israel that they will and can have their way. After the specific warning, God selects His King for Israel. He selects a man that has a strong outward appearance.
The Lord elects Saul to be the King over all of Israel. We only have to read four chapters to know that Saul fails miserably, and that David is elected to take his place and inherit the Kingdom that was intended to be Saul's forever. How is it possible for the Lord to suggest to Saul that he could have kept the Kingdom forever if he had simply obeyed the commands given to him?
And Samuel said to Saul, You have acted foolishly, that you have not kept the command of the LORD your God which He commanded you. For now the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever.
From now on, until the completion of this article, every effort will be made to show that the orthodox view is deficient in explaining how God can offer something to Saul that, according to the traditional view, God already knew in eternity past that Saul would fail and that King David would take from him. The story of King Saul in its completeness reveals how God reacts to a disobedient and unrepentant fool. In all of His promises God is not bound to keep a covenant or a promise to the unrepentant.
Once God selected Saul to be King, it doesn't take long before Saul disobeys the Lord's will. It is Saul's disobedience and lack of humility that provides the foundation for changes that occur. These changes were significant enough that the Lord repents for making Saul King.
And the Word of the LORD was to Samuel, saying, I repent that I made Saul reign as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and he has not risen to do My Words. And Samuel was angry, and he cried to the LORD all night.
God makes the decision to take the throne from Saul. He changes His mind about the king that He Himself chose. Saul has realized that he is in trouble and tries to squirm his way out of it. He says, "I did what God told me to do!" He lies right to Samuel's face. Then he tries to blame the people for his disobedience. Saul has a false repentance and begs the Lord to restore the kingdom to him.
And Samuel turned around to go. And he took hold on the skirt of his robe, and it tore. And Samuel said to him, the LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to your neighbor who is better than you. And also the Glory of Israel will not lie nor repent, for He is not a man that He should repent.
To accurately consider the scripture that tells us God does not repent, we must look at the context of that scripture. And the context shows us that, immediately before verse twenty-seven, God did repent. How do we resolve this apparent contradiction? By understanding that verse twenty-seven in 1st Samuel is revealing that God doesn't repent as a man does. He is not vacillating and hypocritical, and does not change His mind as a man would. It is undeniable that God does repent of decisions He has made, and we learn this from one of the same passages that detractors of the open view like to use to show that God doesn't repent.
The greatest difficulty here is in our understanding about divine attributes, ontology, and the content of the Holy Scripture. The story of Saul provides the foundation for understanding how the One and only True Living God reacts to His creation. The rise and fall of Saul is a historical and obvious illustration of how God deals with the unrepentant, even if it is His own election. This is a grand example where election does not necessitate an eternal predetermination.
The traditional or orthodox view is impotent to accurately describe the events that occurred in the early formation of the Lord's Kingdom. If the future is exhaustively known by the Lord, then the above passage is meaningless. Remember that the Lord originally didn't want a King when Israel demanded it. God honored the selfish request with a handsome King. King Saul disobeyed the Lord. The Lord sought after a man that was after His own heart and would do all the will of the Lord. His elect. King David.
Manasseh
God will not change His mind about taking the kingdom from Saul. He made His decision and will stick with it. Perhaps, if Saul had been truly repentant, God would have restored Saul to the throne. Manasseh is an intriguing example of how God responded to a king that was truly repentant.
And Manasseh caused Judah and the people of Jerusalem to sin, to do evil above the nations that the LORD destroyed before the sons of Israel. And the LORD spoke to Manasseh and to his people, and they did not listen. And the LORD brought against them the king of Assyria's army commanders, and they captured Manasseh with hooks, and bound him with bronze fetters, and made him go to Babylon. And when he was distressed, he sought the face of the LORD his God, and was humbled exceedingly before the face of the God of his fathers; and prayed to Him, and He was entreated of him and heard his supplication, and returned him to Jerusalem to his kingdom; and Manasseh knew that the LORD, He is God.
Jeremiah adds clarity and a final conclusion to the sin of Manasseh. God warns us that not even Moses or Samuel would be able to offer supplications sufficient to blot out Manasseh's sin. Manasseh held and dropped his faith as a leader and a man. It should also be noted that Manasseh's son was as equally wicked as Manasseh himself. This is reason to believe that at the time of Manasseh's repentance, God believed the best for Manasseh and Israel.
Then the LORD said to me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before Me, My soul could not be toward this people. Send them out from before My face; yea, let them go out. You have forsaken Me, says the LORD. You have gone backward, so I will stretch out My hand against you and destroy you; I am weary of repenting.
Does it make sense that God would, on more than one occasion, allow a son to be born that would become more wicked than the Father that repented before him? In Jeremiah we see that God is weary of repenting. His weariness results in wrath, since the times of the Flood, Manasseh, and now Saul. If you are not convinced that God is angry in the most real sense possible, then the threat of destroying Israel will not convince you either.
God could be weary of something He doesn't literally do, and the veiled threats are empty and without truth, because in a future that is known, these words are slightly more than a play where the opening curtain and the credits are continuously played out before the Lord. We are just living actors on the stage of life eternal, where our first breath and our last is equally known before the knowledge of God. While the above necessity may be valid for traditional orthodoxy, it doesn't do anything to illustrate the living truth of the scriptures, and cannot adequately explain a Living God that repents.
Weariness and Wrath
Hezekiah was a righteous King who was sick unto death. He pleaded to God to extend his life. Manasseh subsequently became King, and Israel had never before experienced such a treacherous and evil King. After Manasseh's treachery and repentance, his son Amon did evil in God's sight, similarly to Manasseh. God healed Hezekiah and extended his life long enough that Manasseh would rule. God forgives Manasseh, which gives Manasseh the opportunity to father Amon. Amon leads and becomes just as evil as those before him. God, weary of repenting with Manasseh, did not even give Amon a chance to repent. Amon, refusing to humble himself, resulted in his premature death. Jeremiah's words from the Lord were fulfilled exactly. God did not repent.
God's perfect character is revealed in divine repentance. There is no biblical mandate or requirement that God must know beforehand what will happen in order to respond appropriately. And if God did literally know beforehand that Manasseh and Amon would be evil and wicked, then what explicit purpose did their reign serve? The standard response to this question from orthodoxy is that it is a mystery, and that only God knows why he predetermined or did not prevent such wickedness. All God had to do was allow Hezekiah to die the natural death he was already near, and Israel would have been spared the wickedness of two selfish and rarely humbled kings.
God Repents
Those that are vehemently opposed to open theism face the problem of relevance, or, even worse, breaking the law of correspondence. The scriptures are replete with emotions divine and carnal. Let's get back to Saul.
And Samuel cut Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal. And Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went to his house, to Gibeah of Saul. And Samuel never again saw Saul until the day of his death, for Samuel mourned for Saul. And the LORD repented that He had caused Saul to reign over Israel.
King of Israel, Master of the entire known world, and yet he couldn't find the passion that it takes to do the Lord's will. Samuel did what Saul should've done. God changed His mind and was even grieved that He set Saul as king over Israel. If Saul had obeyed God, he would've remained king. Israel herself was elected by God, and yet is lost today, cut off. Jesus spoke of Israel successfully resisting God's will.
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!
If we choose to have faith in God, then there will never be a reason for God to repent. Our will must line up with His will. It is that same faith, or lack of faith, that will cause God to react in ways He did not initially expect that He would have to. Fortunately God is able to manage the chaos of free will alongside His own purposes, and even to incorporate them into His plan.
Repentance is a literal characteristic of God that is best explained with the ontology that reveals the openness of an unknown yet wonderfully planned future. This debate has generated a significant amount of expository content as it relates to divine foreknowledge, but any exposition that requires man to ignore meaning or context should be scrutinized. Saul is one of many examples where God intimately partakes in a relationship that didn't turn out too successful. There is no need to communicate to man anything at all if the case of repentance is not revealed in the Word as a literal emotive response to His creation's failure. We can take the Bible at its word when it says God repented of His decision to create man and making Saul King.
Conclusion
The open view seamlessly handles the events that occurred during the time of the Prophet Samuel. After examining Saul's life, 1 Samuel 13:13 can be easily understood to mean that God repents when men disobey the Lord's will. The Lord gives into his creation what they desire, even when it is to their own destruction. Freewill is powerful. True repentance in the hands of a Living God is an awesome and dreadful reality. It is not necessary to believe that God knows the future perfectly to understand that divine power exceeds anything human.
The drive towards the infallibility of the Word of God is critical, and the open view provides much of the necessary framework to build a systematic approach to biblical interpretation that explores as deeply as possible into the Word to reveal the highest degree of correspondence. Theistic evolution is just one example of the result of compromising God's word when it doesn't seem to correspond to known (modern empirical science) facts. This scholarly reaction to the Lord's Word can be devastating to building faith in the One True God. Compromising the direct communication of God to man masks the truth that corresponds with the reality of heaven and earth impossible to comprehend. As we can see from the evidence related to Saul as a short-lived king, we can extrapolate and recognize why God both wrestles with and caresses His bride.
If God does not repent, then the discussion about the open view is irrelevant. I think it is implausible to believe that in Genesis, what God called "good" wasn't literally good. If our meaning for "good" is actually "not good," then we have lost the ability to communicate amongst ourselves, and God has lost the ability to communicate to man that which is good. God did not repent because He knew what he made would become bad; He repented because He believed it to be "good." Obviously, as each day passes the Lord learns more and more how evil and unrepentant men are. By grace I know the truth, and I am thankful that I will make the effort so that the Lord will never have to repent because of me. I suggest you do the same.
Thank you for taking the time to consider the omni-ontological presuppositions that I have declared, and for examining the events of Saul's rise and fall. It is my hope that from this topic paper, information has been presented to establish the necessity of the open view to explain what traditional orthodoxy has failed or neglected to explain.
Terms
- Epistemology
- The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.
- Anthropomorphic
- Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.
- Anthropopathy
- The ascription of human feelings or passions to God, or to a polytheistic deity.
- Ontology
- That department of the science of metaphysics which investigates and explains the nature and essential properties and relations of all beings, as such, or the principles and causes of being.
Open View Exegetical Study
As we all saw in the Sanders vs. White debate, it pays to be prepared in a debate. John Sanders was not prepared for the "cross examination" portion of his debate. James White was able to recite a number of verses to back his position Biblically, and even when James White gave John Sanders the opportunity to cite specific verses to back his position, John Sanders was dead silent, and I believe this killed his position (sorry for the pun on words).
If we hold the Openview as a viable Biblical view, and we claim that we came to understand this view by reading and studying the Bible, then we better be able to proclaim it by using the Bible. James White mentioned the principles of "Sola Scriptura" and "Tota Scriptura." These principles are defined as:
Sola Scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is one of five important slogans of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. It meant that Scripture is the Church's only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines. The intention of the Reformation was to correct the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible's authority, and to reject Christian tradition as a source of original authority alongside the Bible or in addition to the Bible.
Tota Scriptura is the Reformation doctrine that all of Scripture is inspired of God, His inerrant word, and, as the only extant revelation of the Lord, the basis for Christian faith and practice.
We also hold to these principles, and we cannot let the Calvinist steal these away from the Openview, as to say we do not proclaim "The Bible as the ultimate authority" or "That the Bible is divinely inspired." Of course we hold to both of these principles, and the Openview does not require us to ignore them.
Yes, we can make arguments from a philosophical position, and we can represent a proper framework for understanding the belief in Time. But above all, we first and foremost must be able to lay a solid groundwork of Biblical argumentation for the Openview. After we do this, then we can ice up the Biblical cake with our philosophical arguments.
So, let us begin to build on the work done by Daniel, Bob Enyart, Jeremy, Bob Hill and other strong Biblical Opentheists, and lay a solid Biblical foundation for the Openview. Let us make our argument from scripture; let us let scripture speak for itself. I would like to put together an outline of scriptures which solidly make the case for the Openview. I want to apply the following Biblical hermeneutic principles in this outline:
Principle #1 · The First Mention Principle
This rule simply states that when we are presented with a new doctrinal statement in the Bible, we should put the proper weight of interpretation upon the "first mention" of the said doctrine. Later scriptural presentations of this same doctrine must be properly interpreted in light of the "first mention."
Principle #2 · The Literal Interpretation Principle
We take the Bible at face value. We generally take everyday things in life as literal or at face value. This is a common sense approach. Even symbols and allegories in the Bible are based on the literal meaning of the scripture; thus the literal meaning is foundational to any symbolic or allegorical meaning. The golden rule of interpretation is: "When the plain sense of the scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense." Therefore, take every word at its primary, usual meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and fundamental truths, clearly indicate otherwise.
Principle #3 · The Contextual Principle
D.A. Carson has been quoted as saying, "A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text." By "proof text," of course, Carson means the abuse of a single verse or phrase taken out of context to "prove" a particular view. The word "text" is derived from the Latin word which means to "weave." The context is that which accompanies the text. The Word of God is a perfect unit. The scriptures cannot be broken; they all hang together, a perfect unity. We must look and consider the verses immediately before, after, and around the passage. We must consider the book of the Bible and the section of the Bible in which the passage occurs. The Bible must be interpreted within the framework of the Bible.
Principle #4 · The Scripture Interprets Scripture Principle
We may rest assured that God did not reveal an important doctrine in a single, ambiguous passage. All essential doctrines are fully and clearly explained, either in the immediate context, or somewhere else in the Bible. This principle is best illustrated by what is known as "topical Bible study." There are two essential rules for applying this principle: 1) The context of the two passages must be the same; and 2) The plain passage must be used to guide our interpretation of a less clear passage, not the other way around.
Principle #5 · The Progressive Revelation Principle
The Word of God is to be understood from the Old Testament to the New Testament as a flower unfolding its petals to the morning sun. God initiated revelation, but He did not reveal His truths all at one time. It was a long and progressive process. Therefore, we must take into account the then-current state of revelation to properly understand a particular passage. For example, an interpretation of a passage in Genesis which assumed a fully delineated view of the "new Covenant" would not be sound. As the saying goes, "The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed."
Principle #6 · Rightly Divided Principle
(I have added this principle.) A dispensationalist is a Bible student who seeks to follow 2 Timothy 2:15, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." We understand "rightly dividing the word of truth" to mean dividing the Scriptures according to the dispensation that God has established and given to the different stewards He has chosen.
Let's get rolling on this. As you complete a commentary, please email it out to the team for a quick review, and then I will include it in the master document.
Be blessed,
Chris
Related Elsewhere
Reference material cited in the original papers, preserved for the record.