~ ~ ~
One common objection to open theism is that it is dangerously close to suggesting that G-d lies. Two passages, Numbers 23:19 and I Samuel 15:29 are often used by opponents of open theism because they state G-d does not lie. Rice argues against these passages; first by equating lie with repent. [1] Next, Rice states that by saying G-d will not repent, it implies he can if he so chooses.[2] For Rice, this gets back to how G-d intentionally designed the world. G-d purposefully cannot see future free choices, protecting our libertarian freedom, so that he can engage with us in a genuine, meaningful manner. Ware agrees the two terms are related, but goes on to expound that since G-d never lies (2 Tim 2:13, Titus 1:2, Heb 6:18), it is more accurate to understand this as parallelism and not a substitution of terminology.[3]
Regret or repentance indicates that G-d has no foreknowledge of the future in open theism. Greg Boyd argues,
We must wonder how the Lord could truly experience regret for making Saul king if he was absolutely certain that Saul would act the way he did. Could God genuinely confess, “I regret that I made Saul king” if he could in the same breath also proclaim, “I was certain of what Saul would do when I made him king”? I do not see how… Common sense tells us that we can only regret a decision we made if the decision resulted in an outcome other than what we expected or hoped for when the decision was made.[4]
And Boyd’s argument does make sense – if we are to understand this in terms of human feelings and emotions. We certainly make poor decisions, with imperfect information, in a fallen and sinful world. But we are speaking of the G-d of the universe here, and as Ware points out, I Samuel 15:29 plainly states that G-d is not like man.[5]
Others support the openness of G-d from Scripture, and it cannot be denied that there are instances where G-d appears to change his mind or shows regret that need to be addressed. There are several passages used by the open view to illustrate G-d’s regret. The most common example is that of The Flood, where Genesis tells us, “Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood” (Gen. 8:11; cf. 8:12-16). Ware does an excellent job expounding this event from the orthodox perspective.[6]
I will focus on another frequently cited passage, the account of Saul, the first king of Israel, in I Samuel. The Israelites had grown restless, and requested the prophet Samuel appoint a king to lead them. Saul was chosen – appointed by G-d – to lead his chosen people. Saul then disobeyed the Lord, and the Lord “regrets” making him king. Let us look at the verse in question (I Samuel 15:11) in different translations:
“I am sorry that I ever made Saul king, for he has not been loyal to me and has refused to obey my command.” Samuel was so deeply moved when he heard this that he cried out to the Lord all night. (NLT)
"I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments." And Samuel was angry, and he cried to the LORD all night. (ESV)
The open view explains that this passage indicates G-d’s regret over His own decision to make Saul king. G-d had high hopes for Saul, and believed he would lead the Israelites well. However, Saul made several poor decisions and disobeyed the Lord’s commands, thus displeasing the Lord, and causing Him to regret making Saul king (cf. I Samuel 13:13). For open theists, this shows that G-d did not know Saul would be a bad king, and he speaks of his regret over this poor decision.
The ramifications of a G-d who can regret his own choices are profound. The positive pastoral implications for open theists are that when bad things happen to good people, G-d never intended and did not know it would happen. This is how Boyd explains why a woman’s husband could have an affair, without G-d ever having foreknowledge, and thus control, of her husband’s painful actions.[7] Counseling her, Boyd explains that “by framing the ordeal within the context of an open future, she was able to understand the tragedy of her life in a new way. She… didn’t have to accept that somehow God intended this ordeal “for her own good”… This isn’t a testimony to his [G-d’s] exhaustive definite foreknowledge; it’s a testimony to his unfathomable wisdom.”[8] John Sanders also tackles suffering from the open view. He calls some suffering “pointless evil,” and believes that “the possibility of gratuitous evil has a point but its actuality does not.”[9] Further, he states “God does not have a specific purpose in mind for these occurrences.”[10] This view comes dangerously close to suggesting a G-d that doesn’t care, and is indifferent to the sufferings of his people. Granted, the proponents of open theism would disagree, but how can he care if “the G-d of open theism does not know, intend, or will good out of any future suffering?”[11] And, if suffering is pointless, what do open theists’ make of the Cross? Does not the Suffering Servant become obsolete?
[1] Rice, 33
[2] Rice, 32
[3] Ware, 33 (2003); Ware, 88 (2000). Ware also challenges the open theist use of Hosea 11:8-9.
[4] Ware, 26 (2003); Ware, 52 (2000)
[5] Ware, 33 (2003)
[6] Ware, 159 (2000) Although the same arguments can apply to Saul, I will defer to Ware here, as the Flood is not the focus of this paper.
[7] Ware, 64-65 (2003)
[8] Ware, 65 (2003)
[9] Ware, 66 (2003)
[10] Ware, 66 (2003)
[11] Ware, 67 (2003); emphasis mine.
