God’s Sovereignty vs. the Open View

Transcript

GRM 701
9/17/2000
God's Sovereignty vs. the Open View
A Book Review
Gil Rugh

I want to do something a little different. Periodically I direct your attention to an issue that I think you need to be aware of that confronts the Church. I want to do such a thing this evening. I'm going to do that in the form of simply walking you through a book that's recently been published, and I will be presupposing some things as we go through this book. That is, I'll be presupposing a certain foundational theology and understanding. I am basically Calvinistic in my understanding of Scripture and for time I will not be taking the time to stop and go to a lot of Scripture to refute what is being said here, but I will be more making you aware by reading what he says so you are alert and making comments perhaps on the error of it. But I'll be presupposing a certain understanding of biblical theology and that's why in recent weeks I spent some time talking about passages that related to the sovereignty of God because that is the issue that is being faced in this book that's come out, God of the Possible by Gregory A. Boyd. He is a professor of theology at Bethel College and the senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church and a member of the Baptist General Conference. My understanding is that the Baptist General Conference recently made adjustment in their statement of faith to exclude the openness of God theology that this man is promoting. Some of you have read some of the writings of John Piper. He has been active within that same conference in opposing this same movement, taking a solid biblical view, I believe.

Let me just direct your attention to one passage of Scripture. In Acts 20 Paul reminds the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:28, "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." Note the elders are to be on guard for themselves and for all the flock. "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves’ men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore, be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears." Remember Paul wrote to Timothy in his final letter, II Timothy 4, and told Timothy “to preach the Word, to be ready in season and out of season, for the time will come when they will not listen to sound doctrine, healthy teaching, but rather they’ll heap to themselves teachers having itching ears. Teachers who say what they want to hear.”

I believe this is a serious matter. It is a matter having a broad influence within the evangelical Church. Let me read to you some things I will be accurately reading. I'll try not to read a portion of a sentence that would indicate he's saying something other than he's saying. But I will skip from place to place just for time.

He says, "I became convinced that the customary view, the view that the future is exhaustively settled, and that God knows it as such, was mistaken." I began to embrace what is now generally called the open view of God. Next to the central doctrines of the Christian faith, the issue of whether the future is exhaustively settled or partially open is relatively unimportant." Now listen to this, "It certainly is not a doctrine Christians should ever divide over." Now I have a serious disagreement with that statement. I have to say after reading his book and the tenor of his evaluation of those who oppose him, he does too. Because he's going to say those of the Calvinistic view demean the character of God, detract from God's glory, are driven by philosophy not the truth of Scripture. Well, I would say then we are talking about a matter that we ought to divide over. What happens when somebody wants to infiltrate the Church with new and false teaching? They try to disarm the Church by saying, "Look, we're all believers. On the major doctrines we agree. We certainly would not want to divide over an issue like we're going to talk about." Which is really a way of saying, "You shouldn't attack me for my teaching." Give them time to what? Infiltrate the Church with it.

"I have discovered a new appreciation and excitement regarding my own responsibility in bringing about the future," and that's important. Now he sees himself responsible in bringing about the future for the future is not settled by God. Then he expresses his deep appreciation to leadership at the college where he is and also at the conference of which he is part of. Appreciation for their leadership through the controversy that has engulfed their denomination over the three years; and you note they have been tolerant of him and what has he done? Infiltrated the kind of teaching into that denomination that has thrown it into three years of controversy and turmoil, but he's disarmed them by oh, it's been nice of you to allow me to do this. What? Throw our whole conference into turmoil.

"With each of you," listen to this statement. "With each of you I pray that our Baptist fellowship and evangelicalism in general will come to see more clearly that the love with which believers debate issues is more important to God than the sides we take." Do you hear what he's saying? Love is more important than doctrine. God is more concerned that we debate these issues in love than He is with what our doctrinal position is. Where in the Bible do you ever get such a teaching.

We aren't going to a lot of Scripture for time but go to Romans 16. He concludes, "To all I offer this humble perspective for your consideration in love." I don't believe it's a humble perspective. Don't bother telling me how humble you are at the beginning of your book. You've been very confident and air superiority in declaring that those disagree with you, not only have misunderstood Scripture they have been controlled by pagan philosophical presupposition not Scripture. He's not submitting this in a submissive way. He is declaring something that he is unalterably committed to. Romans 16:17, "Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting." We have to be careful about somebody telling us about our love is more important than our doctrine. This is certainly not a doctrine that Christians should divide over even though I have succeeded in throwing our conference into three years of turmoil over it. It's good you've been so understanding and considerate of me. I present this humbly. No, what ought to recognize it for what it is and it is doctrine that is unbiblical, that is heretical and needs to be dealt with as such.

He goes on, "Most evangelical Christians take it for granted that God knows everything that is ever going to take place. They have been taught that the future is completely settled in God's mind and has been so from all eternity. Though it has always been the majority view in the church, it is the view I will be arguing against throughout this work." He acknowledges what he calls the classical view, what we would call Calvinism. Even classical Arminianism has always believed God knows the future completely and so it is settled. Even though this has always been the majority view of the Church, I'm going to argue against it.

"I came to believe that the future was indeed partly determined and foreknown by God but partly open and known by God as such." That's the open view of God. The open view of God, let me just give you the summary, is saying that God is omniscient, that He knows everything that is knowable. There's the catch there. The future decisions you will make are not made yet so there is nothing to know. You have to be careful. They are talking about omniscient, but they don't mean the same thing we do. God knows everything that is knowable, but the future decisions that will be made are not knowable. So, whether you will get out of bed in the morning and go to work, God doesn't know because there be nothing to know till you make the decision to do it. That goes on into every area of life. He calls the idea of God has a partner for your life, for you to marry, an evangelical myth because no one including God knows who you are going to marry till you the decision, make your choice. But see he can call omniscient because you can't know the unknowable. There's nothing to know because nothing exists till you decide. That's the open view of God.

"Today, the controversy over the open view of God is one of the hottest topics within evangelical circles and unfortunately some people are beginning to toss around the alarmist label, heresy." He goes on. This is terrible. Can you imagine some people are starting to say that I'm a heretic because I advocate the openness of God view. I think it is heresy. Trevor Craigen referred this man in a tape he had listened to when he was here and said that it's borderline heretical and maybe has crossed the line, and I believe it has.

"I will argue that a God who knows all possibilities experiences novelty and is willing to engage in an appropriate element of risk is more exalted than a God who faces an eternally settled future." What he's saying is the God I'm advocating is a greater God than you have because He knows all the possibilities that could happen, He experiences novelty. He takes risks. What the Openness of God is really doing is recreating and remaking God in the image of God. That comes out again and again and again.

"I arrive at the conclusion that the future is to some degree settled and known by God as such and to some degree open and known by God as such." In other words, he can't get away from the fact the Scripture is clear. Many things have been settled by God. He said this will happen. Jesus Christ is coming again. That has to happen. But also, God knows that much of the future is open and He knows it is such. Now don't get trapped in the language. What he means is he knows there's nothing to know yet. He knows it's open and He'll have to wait to see what happens, and He always got to be ready for a last-minute adjustment. That comes to be part of the excitement of being God - ready to make changes, to deal with risk.

"This is the open view of God. It does not hold that the future is wide open. Much of it is settled ahead of time, but it's not exhaustively settled. To whatever degree the future is open is to be decided by free agents." So, all that is there is possibilities and since God perfectly knows the past, perfectly knows the present, He is the One who has the best grasp of future possibilities. One of you put a card in my box that said a title for the next book that I do maybe on this subject should be "God the Gambler" because He is operating on the basis of possibilities and probabilities.

"If God does not foreknow future free actions, it is not because His knowledge of the future is in any sense incomplete. It is because there nothing definite there for God to know." That's what I just told you in summary. God does not know your decisions tomorrow because there's nothing to know. So, I'm not limiting the omniscience of God. He knows everything there is to know, but until you make your decisions, there is nothing to know.

"One is not ascribing ignorance to God by insisting that He doesn't know free actions if indeed free actions do not exist to be known until agents create them." I think he has a misunderstanding of the biblical concept of freedom and that comes out repeatedly.

"Those who oppose the open view of God on the grounds that it compromises God's omniscience are simply misguided. The debate between the open and classical understandings of divine foreknowledge is completely a debate over the nature of the future. Is it exhaustively settled for all eternity or is it partly open? That is the question at hand and nothing else." That's the question he wants it to be. Let me form the question that will fit the answer I want to get. I think the issue is the omniscience of God and His total sovereignty.

"Humans experience the future as possibly one way and possibly another way only because we are imperfect. This view is misguided. Practically a God of eternally static certainties is incapable of interacting with humans in a relevant way." Did you hear that? If you have a Calvinistic view of the future, believing God is sovereignly determining control, you have a God who is incapable or interacting with humans in a relevant way. Now you tell me this is not a doctrine worth dividing over? Should he not be dividing with people who have made God irrelevant? What kind of audacity do you start out a book and say this is certainly not a doctrine that Christians should divide over but if you hold the Calvinistic view, you understand you have a God who is incapable of interacting with humans in a relevant way. I say we ought to divide over this doctrine. He ought to call me a heretic if I am teaching a doctrine of a God who is incapable of relating to human beings in a relevant way. Everything in my theology collapses. You don't divide over that? What he really wants to do is not have us call him a heretic because he wants time to infiltrate this teaching in among believers. He's had three years to put the conference in Minnesota that he's part of in turmoil by his own admission. That ought not to be.

"Finally, it is vitally important," here we come back, "that we keep this issue and the multitude of other issues that Christians debate in perfect perspective. Jesus final prayer to the Father for His Church was that they may be one as we are one. We are called to exhibit a loving unity among each other." Well, he's said that the doctrine I am teaching is about a God who is incapable of being relevant to human beings. Now you want to say, but you know, we shouldn’t divide over that. In other words, he can say whatever he wants about what I teach, but he ought to be free to promote his without being called a heretic and of course we will swing the umbrella of love and unity here and by the time you realize that what I'm doing is heretical, we will have swung many of the people our way.

"For lovers of truth all theological issues are important but compared to our common faith in the person of Jesus Christ and the importance of our loving unity in Him, this issue and most other theological issues are peripheral." Now which is it? "The God of eternally static certainties is incapable of interacting with humans in a relevant way. This is peripheral." I think it's central. I mean if God can't relate to me, what kind of God do I have? I have an irrelevant God. He'd say that's my very point. Well, then call me a heretic. Don't say we ought to just cover this up so you can continue to promote your doctrine which is heretical.

Then he goes on to talk about the classical view of foreknowledge where God has sovereignty determined the future. Now he differences from Armenians. Calvinists believe God has sovereignty determined the future. Classic Armenians have taught that God knows completely the future because He looked ahead in time to see what would happen. But he does know everything that is going to happen. The Openness of God view says God doesn't know what's going to happen until it happens. So, it's Arminianism gone to seed. Remember bad theology always catches up to you. This is an example.

"Where we disagree with both views [Calvinism and Arminianism] is that we deny that the Scripture teaches that the future is exhaustively settled. We hold that God determined some but not all of the future." Then he goes on to talk about some of these areas and he quotes Scripture. There are scriptures you have to deal with. He talks about what God knows. There are certain things He does know because you can't avoid God did say certain things are going to take place. So, he has to give the point on that, but he wants to leave everything else that hasn't been specifically addressed like that open and thus unknown to God. He tries to explain away the passages in Isaiah 46 and so on where God has sovereignly determined the future and will bring His plans to pass. Well, that's only in a limited realm. Well, you go back and read Isaiah 46. I don't get the same limited sense of that passage that he does.

He says some evangelical authors have wrongly accused open theists of being close to processed thought. Processed theology from Whitehead and so on. I think it is an evangelical version of processed theology and philosophy behind that. Of course, he wouldn't want to say that because it's clearly heretical things. There are some things here that we don't agree with but there is much that is very similar.

"Since freedom is always restricted in certain ways, there's no reason to assume that God would have to control or foreknow all future decisions people would make in order to prophecy that the Jews would be in captivity for a particular period of time. This is simply a matter of the Lord defining perimeters with which human freedom will occur. Many prophecies pertaining to individuals can be understood as examples of the Lord establishing particular perimeters. For example, he prophesied the coming of Josiah hundreds of years before Josiah was born and called him by name. Syrius, the pagan Persian king, the same thing in Isaiah's prophecy. Now no doubt they were selected, they were appointed ahead of time. But that doesn't mean it always happens. These are unique cases." So, you know you just keep wiping out. Well, that's a unique case. That's a unique case. That's a special case because you don't want it to be true.

"Our omniscient Creator knows us perfectly far better than we even know ourselves. Hence, we can assume that He is able to predict our behavior far more extensively and accurately than we could predict it ourselves. This does not mean that everything we will ever do is predictable because our present character doesn't determine our whole future. It does mean our behavior is predictable to the extent that our character is solidified." In other words, God's got a good probability to work with. He can give better guesses about the future. But He's sometimes wrong and we'll get to that.

"Here's an example - Peter's denial. What about Christ telling Peter you will deny Me three times before the cock crows and so on? 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 he would act just the way he did." In other words, it was just a good probability given the circumstances that on three specific occasions before the cock crows Peter would deny him. So, it wasn't a settled event. It just was pretty much settled probability. Just like you might say, well, I could be sure that tomorrow at 10 o'clock you are going to back your car out of your garage because I know you, I know your pattern and you've done that pretty much in the past. So, it's predictable. But tomorrow I sleep in, and I don't back out till 11. You were wrong and God was too. But the beautiful thing about God He can adjust when He's caught off guard. We'll get to that.

I mean, does that sound like the God of the Bible to you? This is a doctrine we shouldn't divide over. I think I've accurately represented him. I read his book three times because I forgot over vacation what he said. In any event, it seems evident that we do not need to believe that the future exhaustively settled in God's mind and make sense of Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial. We need only believe that God possessed a perfect knowledge of the past and present and revealed some of it to Jesus and from that Jesus could make a good probability prediction of Peter's future action.

Then what about the betrayal of Judas that was prophesied in the Old Testament? He goes on to explain that away. "Jesus tells us that Judas fulfilled Scripture, not that Judas was the one who had to fulfill Scripture. If he had made himself into a different kind of person, he would not have been a candidate for fulfilling the prophecy of the Lord's betrayal. In this case, the Lord would simply have found someone else to fill this role." In other words, God had established something and then he had to wait and see who would fit the role. Certain things he determined. Jesus would have to be betrayed. Now I've got to wait and get a likely prospect; and if Judas had changed his mind, God would have had to come up with someone else because He already said this would happen. So, it's not settled until it's done.

Then he deals with Paul set apart from the womb and Jeremiah as well. "It's clear from these verses that God had a plan for Jeremiah and Paul before they were born. This is evidence of exhaustively settled foreknowledge only if Jeremiah and Paul had no choice but to carry out God's plan. Why should we assume this, however." It just happened to work out that they did. "The reality in sin and damnation in other words demonstrates that God's purposes do not always come about. Hence, the fact that God intended a course of action for Jeremiah and Paul didn't guarantee it would come about." Now you read Jeremiah 1 and read what Paul said about his call as an apostle in Galatians 1 and you get the sense that wasn't guaranteed that would happen? God intended it would. But Jeremiah and Paul could have changed the course then God would have had to do something else.

Then he deals with Psalm 139. That's one of the passages you come, you know, "All the days were written for me before there was any of them." "God can at some point predetermine or foreknow some things about the future without eternally predetermining or foreknowing everything about the future. Then he goes on to talk about this whole matter to decide that really our days aren't written ahead of time.

"God determines whatever He sees fit and leaves as much of the future open to possibilities as He sees fit. The God of the possible creates 'the choose your own adventure structure of world history." You see what made God in our own image and he's used an example of where, you know, the children's game "Choose Your Own Adventure" where you write the details of the story. I mean, you create God in your own image. You take this children's story, and the way humans would do this one here and now God has just choose your own adventure. So, there are certain things to find and then you just choose within, and He can't wait to see what you're going to do.

"Thus, even when the Lord announces that some aspect of the future is settled, it may still be alterable. What this shows us that not only is part of the future open but also some aspects of the future God has announced settled are to some extent open. God's mind can be changed." Now I begin to wonder how much of the settled future is settled because some parts of the settled future can be unsettled because God may change His mind; and now I feel like I'm out on a limb that's half sawn. I wonder what God might change His mind about the future. He's made some promises I stake my hope for eternity on. I stake the fact that God will not change His mind. But now I find out some things that God has announced as settled for the future are to some extent open. You see what happens. You talk about things that are settled but the open view of unsettled begins to eat up everything else. Pretty soon you are eating away at the foundation because less and less is really settled. Even the settled is not really settled. We move toward man being more God than God is God.

"Since God determines whatever, He wants about world history, we should not find it surprising that the central defining event in world history, the crucifixion, included a number of predestined aspects." Note this. Listen. "It seems that the incarnation and crucifixion were part of God's plan from before the plan of the world." It seems that? He quotes from a couple of passages of Scripture. No, it doesn't seem that way. It is that way. The Scripture couldn't be any clearer.

"While Scripture betrays the crucifixion as a predestined event, it never suggests that individuals who participated in this event were predestined to do so or foreknown as doing so." So, you see what happens? God determined that His Son would be crucified, but now He is going with the flow, adjusting all along the way right down. Will it be Herod? I don't know. Will it be Pilate? I don't know. Will it be Judas? I don't know. We'll see. It depends on the choices they make, the decisions they make. Nothing is settled. That's why he believes his God is greater than our God. Why? Just think about it. The God he is presenting is constantly adjusting on the spur of the moment to the unexpected, finding out a decision he made was not the best one in light of the way things have developed. He made a mistake. He's got to make a change, but He's a God who can do it. You know, one thing you are saying this is a great God and that would be a great God that, you know, some pagan in Hinduism or someplace might come up with it, but that's not the great God of the Bible. Jumping around up here like a master chess player which is one of the illustrations he uses of the God who is working with all the potential moves and responding to whatever one's made.

"Some scholars have suggested it's not possible for God to predestine an event without predestining or at least foreknowing the people who would carry out the event. There's no justification for limiting God in this way." Now here we go to percentages. "It should not be difficult to understand how God should predestine the crucifixion without predestining or foreknowing who would carry it out. Put the matter crudely. God would simply have to possess a perfect version of what insurance and advertising agencies possess. He would have to know that a certain percentage of people in authoritative positions would act in certain ways under certain circumstances." I mean, you ought to appreciate me. I read this three times and you're only listening once. That's what we have. We are like an advertising agency? God's operating like an advertising agency? Or like a polling agency? He knew under certain circumstances a certain percentage of people would act this way and that would guarantee the crucifixion would happen. He had settled events (?) the crucifixion. But you know you got to have a lot of other settled things in that too because the Jews had to then to firmly reject Christ. According to prophecies the leadership and the Jews had to reject Him; and on it goes and the Romans had to crucify Him because Daniel specified that and on we go.

"Scripture elsewhere tells us that if it were up to God alone, He would save everyone. But it is not up to God alone. God gave humans free will and so God doesn't know who's going to get saved and who doesn't. Whether particular individuals receive Christ and thus acquire this predestined image depends on their free will." In other words, God's predestined that all who believe in Christ will get saved, but who is going to part of that group, He doesn't have any more idea than anyone else.

What about the prophecies of end times? Well, what he ends up being is a pederast. He deals with some passages mostly from the book of Revelation and what he concludes is the book of Revelation was fulfilled in history. John was not really prophesying under the inspiration of the Spirit about future events. He's talking about events in his present time. So, it all took place in the first century around 70 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem. We can write off the book of Revelation. So don't think that there is a lot of future things detailed because lots all passed, and we've alluded to some of that.

"If this interpretation is accepted, there is no difficulty reconciling this book with the view that the future is partly open." Well, you know, a lot happens. If Revelation is not written about the future, as a literal understanding of it would be, it's written about history. Well, that is a lot of future things that are determined now are not determined because John was just writing about the history of his day in symbolic form, which is the view that he takes.

One thing leads to another and bad theology spreads. Now it's not just the theology of God, it's your theology of future things and everything, the doctrine of salvation and everything is intertwined. What do I have in common with this man. He gives verbal offense to the facts of the Gospel and then proceeds to dig away the foundation of all that God is and He has revealed Himself in Scripture to work in the world and we should accept Him in love and unity and work on our harmony while He throws the Church into turmoil. But some have the audacity to use the title heretic for him. We have to remember our love and our unity supersedes everything and He continues to hammer away and create turmoil and undermine the foundation. Believers think our hands are tied. He's a believer. We have to act in love. Unity is important. Don't call him a heretic. That's unkind. The Scriptures tells us how these things have to be dealt with.

"To confess that God can control whatever He wants to control leaves open the question how much God actually does want to control." The question is open how much does God want to control. My reading of the Bible is everything. Isn't that what Nebuchadnezzar had to come to understand when we read in Daniel 4 when he was driven insane. He had to come to understand that God rules over all. He sets up who He wants. He takes down who He wants and on we go. Read Isaiah's prophecies. Overall, He is and He controls all even the sin of man.

Then he goes on to try then to show that God's face is a partially open future. "To begin one aspect of the portrait of God in Scripture suggests the future is partly open is that God sometimes regrets how things turns out. Even prior decisions that He Himself made." God regrets His own decisions. Now there's anthropomorphic language used in Scripture. Is God up there like I would be. I made a bad decision. It wasn't the best decision. He's going to give a clear example in a marriage here where God has acted to bring two people together and then the marriage broke up and His counsel will be God Himself regrets having given you the confirmation. It was a bad choice. I mean that is an attack on the character of God.

"God made a wise decision because it has the greatest possibility of yielding the best result." Do you see how He's operating? He's doing His best. With the knowledge He has of the past, the knowledge of the present, He is doing His best to make the right decision for the future. But the future is unsettled. So sometimes He has to regret.

"A wise risk is a risk, nonetheless. It may not turn out as one hopes. First, don't we normally regard someone who refuses to take risks as being insecure?" Now we are going to psychoanalyze God. Bring psychology in. I mean, a person who has to control everything is an insecure person. If God has to control everything, that means God is . . . insecure. Are we not crossing the line to blasphemy here? I mean who should control everything. It's not a matter of security and insecurity.

"Don't we ordinarily regard a compulsion to meticulously control everything as evidencing weakness, not strength? Of course, we do. A psychologically healthy person knows you have to take risks. Secondly, the only way to deny that God takes risks is to maintain that everything that occurs in world history is exactly what God wanted to occur." Well, I thought that's the way it was. "If anything is other than God wanted it, to that extent He's obvious risked not getting what He wanted when He created the world. God doesn't always get His way. In a cosmos populated by free agents, the outcome of things," listen to this, "in a cosmos populated by free agents, the outcome of things even divine decisions, is often uncertain." Even God's decisions are often uncertain. We've got some serious problems here.

"A second aspect of the portrait of God in Scripture that may suggest the future is partially open is that God sometimes expresses uncertainty about it." In other words, He's not sure Himself what's going to happen. "Since God is omniscient, He always knew that it was remotely possible for His people to be this stubborn [referring to Israel] for example. But He genuinely did not expect them to actualize this remote possibility. He authentically expected that they would be won over by His grace." Now we really have a serious matter. He knew it was remotely possibly that Israel would stubbornly rebel against Him and reject Him, but He genuinely did not expect them to do it. What does God control? Very little. Amazing.

"The fourth aspect of the motif of future openness is that throughout Scripture we find God being frustrated as people stubbornly resist His plans for their lives and all the doubt. He wasn't sure He was looking for someone to intercede for Israel, but He didn't know whether He'd find one or not."

"Except in cases in which a solidified character or God's predestining plan makes something predictable. Scripture teaches us that God literally finds out how people will choose when they choose." God finds out how people will choose when they choose. That's his statement. "God literally finds out how people will choose when they choose." He doesn't know. Did God know for sure I'd come and preach tonight? Well, probability pointed that. What if on the way here I said to Marilyn, "I'm not going to do it tonight." You go on over and tell Todd to sing the whole evening." God would have been shocked. I never expected that possibility. I had plans for something else cause I thought He was going to speak about this. Now I've got to make adjustments. If I could work in the hearts of the people that are there with this change in plans. But He's such a great God. He makes that adjustment on the run and doesn't miss a beat. That's the kind of God I have? I'm constantly surprising Him, catching Him off guard. You know, I don't know that I can trust a God like that with my future. Especially since even part of the settled future now I found out is unsettled.

"The fact that God tested people to know their behavior suggests he didn't know what they'd choose ahead of time. In my view every other understanding of divine providence to some extent diminishes the sovereignty and glory of God." In other words, if you don't hold His view, you have diminished the sovereignty and glory of God. Why? Because in my view I have a God who is reacting to millions of decisions, surprised decisions, on the spur of the moment. That's a lot of greater than an insecure God who had to determine everything ahead of time. My God is great enough to be constantly on the move and on the adjustment. So, a Calvinistic is diminishing the sovereignty and glory of God.

You see, how he can undermine anybody's confidence in the other view while at the same time he's saying we ought to have our arm around one another and we shouldn't divide. Yet he's telling the people that sit under my ministry that you know; he's diminishing the sovereignty of God. He's diminishing the glory of God. He's detracting from the character of God. He's teaching you about an insecure God. He comes from philosophical and psychological presuppositions, not biblical texts. But we're friends. "Beware of the one who flatters with his lips when his heart is not with you."

"God's glory is displayed in His allowing Himself to be affected by us and God's sovereignty partly consists in His openness to us and to the future we help create." Now do you see what we've done, how we've elevated man. Now God and I. You know, it's not like the song, "My God and I, we walk together." No, now it's God and I created the future, and we are in the process of working on it today together. Remember, He is God, and we are not.

"Jesus prayed, 'Father, if it's Your will, let this cup pass from Me.' Jesus was recognizing there are alternatives. The future is not settled." I don't think that's the point of that prayer, but that's what he gets out of it. "Jesus’ prayer presupposes that divine plans and possible future events are in principle alterable." Turns out to be a real problem. Could He not have gone to the cross at that point? What about all the Old Testament prophecies that said He would? Was there any possibility of anything other than what had been prophesied hundreds of years before happening? But he says Jesus' prayer presupposes that divine plans are alterable. That's an example.

"The timing of the Second Coming. It's not fixed in God's mind. It depends on how people respond to the Gospel and how Christians live. That affects the timing of the second coming. Would God create condemned people? Doesn't the fact that God sincerely tries to get people to believe implies that it was not certain to God they would not believe when He created them." In other words, you have to leave it open. Because if He created them knowing they wouldn't believe, then we have the wrong kind of God.

"He adjusts His plan, changes His mind, depending on what does or does not take place. Classical theology cannot accept this conclusion [the conclusion of the Openness of God] because of philosophical preconceptions of what God must be like. Because of this philosophical presupposition, God is not allowed to say what He wants to say in Scripture. The classical exegesis of the passages these talk about is driven by philosophy. It's determined on the basis of philosophic preconceptions. We learn that God sometimes regrets how decisions He's made turn out. He sometimes questions how aspects of the future will go. Other times He confronts the unexpected and experiences frustration because free agents chose unlikely courses of action." He talks again about philosophic preconceptions. You see the difference and yet we are supposed to have our arms around each other. We're believers but the Calvinist philosophy, philosophic presuppositions, they are clay to us, but we're friends. We have unity. We love each other. We wouldn't divide over this. Yet he's constantly on the attack and churches tolerate this?

I want to give you an example and we're done. I'm only halfway through the book. Sorry. "If you believe the future is eternally settled in the mind of God, that sometimes contributes to a harmful picture of God." He wants God to be like us. Again, he talks about we help God create the future. "God not only wants to influence us, but He also wants to be influenced by us." Well, I have a terrible time with this. He not only wants to influence us, but to be influenced by us. Have we elevated man to borderline deity or worse?

The idea that there is purpose for everything begins to fall apart. I want to give an example here for you. He does say that the fact that God has picked out a husband or wife for you is an evangelical myth. "When we rid ourselves of any lingering suspicious that evil somehow fits into the eternal purpose of God, we are more inclined to be motivated to do something about it. Evil was never part of God's plan." You've got a problem that Christ was crucified before the foundation of the world in the plan of God, but it never was part of God's plan.

The example referred to this: A woman got married. She wanted to serve the Lord on the mission field. She prayed for a husband. She goes to college, meets a husband, and they get married. They are going to go to Taiwan or someplace. He becomes immoral repeatedly. This woman had prayed that God will confirm in her this was the man and she believed God had confirmed that in her heart. This is the man I want you to marry. Then the marriage comes apart. "'If a lesson was the point of it all,' Suzanne remarked [that's the woman he uses], then God is a very poor teacher.' The ordeal didn't teach her anything. It left her bitter." So that would be a problem for God. I mean, she didn't react right.

"If God knew exactly what her husband would do, then He bears all the responsibility for setting her up the way He did." Now you see that. If God knew, He bears all the responsibility. What about Nebuchadnezzar? Isn't the Scripture clear God set him on the throne. You know he roasted Ahab in the fire, not nice. You know, He took the last king of Israel had his son slain before his eyes, then put the guy's eyes out so the last thing he would have seen was the execution of his son. Yet the Scriptures are clear. God said that He put Nebuchadnezzar on the throne. Does that make God responsible for Nebuchadnezzar's sin? Now this kind of theology really tears apart anything that's related to the Bible.

He says, "I couldn't answer her. Didn't know what to say because if God brought you together then your husband did that, then God's responsible." "I suggested," here's his answer. "I suggested to her that God felt as much regret over the confirmation He had given Suzanne." God felt regret over confirming to her she should marry him. We both made a bad decision. Sorry, Suzanne. "Not that it was a bad decision at the time. Her ex-husband was a good man with godly character. That prospect that he and Suzanne would have a happy marriage and fruitful ministry were at the time very good." Remember, God doesn't know the future so He's only acting on the basis of the present. "Indeed, I strongly suspect that God had influenced Suzanne and her ex-husband toward this college with their marriage in mind." But you know, things didn't turn out the way God wanted or the way you wanted. "Fortunately, the God of the possible always has a plan B or a plan C. So, He could say, 'Look, God didn't want that to happen. He didn't intend it to happen. It wasn't part of His plan, but you can take heart to know. Even though you were shocked and surprised so was God, but that's all right. God has plan B and if that doesn't work out, He'll have plan C."

Then he has the audacity to close the section, "Without having the open view to offer, I don't know how one can effectively minister to a person in Suzanne's dilemma." I just am boggled.

So that gives you an idea of the openness of God view. I haven't tried to present it fairly. I hope you haven't found anything appealing in it. Well, there's a lot I have marked in this book, but that gives you an idea. Just so you're aware. You'll hear about the Openness of God. I mentioned Mike Wing in North Platte, a church we've been involved with, had two families recently leave his church because they got involved in the Openness of God movement. Obviously, the denomination this man's been part of has felt the impact and they've been waging a war for three years over this. He's coming out with a follow-up book to explain more. A book that's published by Baker Books. They used to publish good things. They used to publish Calvinistic things. They still do, but they are moving like everyone else to publish whatever sells. What about the theology? No responsibility and accountability for putting this stuff out?

I just simply want you to be aware it's there. I'm not recommending you delve into it. I'll be recommending in the future a book on the sovereignty of God that we have to get it. It's out of stock in the warehouse right now. I think you ought to spend your time reading good stuff. I read this stuff simply so I can be aware to make you aware, but I don't plan on reading much more of it because I don't want to immerse myself in this. I want to immerse myself in the truth of God the Scripture has. But we ought to be aware and as the Church's theology gets weaker, if it's grasp of Scripture gets shallower. The Church becomes more vulnerable to not only weak theology but heretical theology that draws away people after these kinds of teachers. One of the responsibilities we have as readers is to warn the Church. Let's pray together.

Thank you, Lord, for Your truth. Thank you for Your sufficiency. Thank you for all that You've done for us in Christ. Thank you that You are God, that You rule over all, that You control all, that Your perfect will and plan is being accomplished down to the minute detail in every area of life and every area of the events of the world. We take comfort and confidence in knowing that you are our God, you are trustworthy and someday we will enjoy Your presence. We pray in Christ's name, amen.