ST: Critique of Open Theism

The paper, continued. This is it. I think I've fit it in two posts. Kind of sad, really. I could have said more but we were limited to 12 pages in 12 point font.

~ ~ ~

Critical Response to Regret in Open Theism

The open theistic understanding of G-d’s regret, specifically in the account of Saul found in I Samuel, incorrectly categorizes the emotion, fails to see Saul in the scope of redemptive history, and raises problematic theological implications. The use of “repent” in place of regret is mistaken, and the inexplicable avoidance of putting I Samuel 15 in context with the rest of 1 Samuel is inexcusable. Open theism also unavoidably leads to a G-d stripped of his revelatory authority.

Rice uses “divine repentance” for the Flood, Saul, Nineveh, etc. It is his catch-all phrase for a variety of G-d’s emotions, translating sorry, relent, regret, and grief all as repentance.[1] Citing Jonah and Joel, Rice equates G-d’s mercy with his “repentance.” Let’s look at these verses:

Jonah 4:2b: “I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate G-d, slow to anger and abounding in love, a G-d who relents from sending calamity.”

Joel 2:13b: “Return to the Lord your G-d, for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, and he relents from sending calamity.”

How is relenting from due punishment repentance? Jonah is referring to the just judgment Nineveh deserved, and Joel is calling Israel to return to the Lord because of their rebellion. Yet, Rice claims “formulations like these demonstrate that repentance is not an exceptional action on God’s part, let alone something that is out of character for him,”[2] implying that when he “relents from calamity,” G-d is repenting.

Rice is adamant that this be translated “repent” rather than “relent.” But, both Jonah and Joel are referencing G-d’s revelation of himself to Moses on Mount Sinai, where it is clear that “he relents from sending calamity” is parallel to G-d’s forgiveness and mercy, not divine repentance.[3]

The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious G-d, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. (Exodus 34:6-7, emphasis mine)

Repentance implies sin. This is not a matter of a lack of foreknowledge, but a lack of knowledge to make the right decision – period. How can G-d be wrong? This limits His deity entirely, by suggesting that G-d, who is perfect in all ways, can make mistakes. If we allow for a G-d who can be wrong, we find ourselves worshiping an incomplete deity; a deity imagined on human understanding of emotions, and not grounded in Scripture where man is made in G-d’s image, not vice versa.[4] Regret can be because of a poor decision, or it can just be sadness over what we know will come to pass, i.e., grief. This is what Ware describes as the proper understanding of this emotion in I Samuel, and what the NIV translates:

"I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions." Samuel was troubled, and he cried out to the LORD all that night. (1 Sam 15:11)

Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him. And the LORD was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel. (I Sam 15:35)

Ware describes the use of regret in this context as that of “weak regret” versus “strong regret.”[5] Strong regret is the sense in which we most experience regret. In hindsight, when we have a more complete picture of events and new information, we experience regret over poor choices, actions, etc. But the Lord is not caught off guard by new information because he is all-wise, and fully aware of all future actions (Ps 139:4, 16; 147:5). The sense of regret G-d expresses is the weak sense, meaning he experiences sadness over watching painful events come to pass. G-d is always grieved over witnessing sin; to rob him of this steals his righteousness. John Piper further expounds this emotion:

So my alternative way of thinking about these texts is: God foreknows the grievous and sorrowful effects of some of his own choices – for example, to create Adam and Eve, and to make Saul king. These effects are genuinely grievous to God as he sees them in themselves. Yet he does not regard his choices as mistakes that he would do differently if only he foreknew what was coming. Rather, he wills to do some things which he then genuinely grieves over in part when the grievous effect comes to pass.[6]

There are deeper theological implications of a G-d who regrets. To suggest G-d cannot know the future, and is dependent on human acts, and can therefore regret his own decisions based on the actions of others, implies an incompleteness to revelation. Countless passages tell us G-d’s decrees – and that his plans will come to pass. If we cannot trust that G-d will make wise decisions, we cannot trust his promises, and the whole of Scripture comes into question. Open theism argues that his plans will come to realization; he just doesn’t have the specifics laid out. But this is a slippery-slope at best and heretical at heart. It begs the question: Can G-d be trusted to do what he says? The answer, against open theism, is emphatically yes. Not only because G-d is in complete control of all future actions, but that has he ordained them. His sovereign order gives us confidence that his Word is trustworthy and complete, and that he alone can be trusted (Prov 30:5-6; Ps 145:13).

Both open theism and Ware fail to point to Saul in the greater context of I Samuel (cf. I Sam 8:6-18, below). Here we see the Lord is punishing Israel for rejecting him as king, by appointing a king who will rule, as all earthly kings do, with force. It does not matter if this passage is directly about Saul, for Saul is the establishment of a kingship for G-d’s chosen people; a kingship for a fickle people, which will bring them much hardship, but that brings also the line and rule of the King of Kings. The following exchange takes place when Samuel approaches the Lord about the Israelite desire for a king:

6But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do." 10Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." (I Samuel 8:6-18)

It is clear from Samuel’s prophecy that G-d knew exactly what he was doing by establishing a kingship and anointing Saul king. To see Saul in perspective, we must look at him in redemptive history. G-d is punishing his rebellious chosen people, and yet, he is ushering in David the Messianic King, pointing towards Christ. Think also of the Psalms attributed to David as he was pursued by Saul (Ps 18, 52, 54, 57, 59, 142). And, would David have written the Messianic Psalms had he not learned a deep trust and reliance upon the Lord, seen his pleas for rescue answered, and the glory of G-d’s faithfulness? Clearly, G-d’s plan for Saul went beyond Saul. What is also evident from seeing Saul through the lens of redemptive history is not only did good come from bad, but G-d intended it to all along (I Samuel 12:14-15, 12:20-25 and 13:14).

Another aspect of putting the regret passages into the context of all Scripture understands that G-d sometimes says thing for our own realization. Our Lord’s actions illustrate this in the story of Lazarus found in John. Not only does Christ display genuine sorrow for Lazarus’ death, even though he knew it would not last, he also prays “for the benefit of the people standing here” (John 11:41). Seeing G-d’s grief through redemptive history is part of understanding that G-d acts in history.[7] Because of this, we can trust that good can from bad, evil, wrong and suffering; we do not endure hardships needlessly. This is not in the patronizing sense that we must learn our lessons “for our own good,” but that we may trust our sufferings are not pointless and that he works all things for good (Rom 8:28).

Knowing that G-d is for us, working sovereignty in our lives, we can trust his promises, and can fully believe that what he promises in Scripture will come to pass, because he is in complete control. The orthodox view of G-d vindicates the divine authority of his word because it upholds G-d’s wisdom to make right choices, keeping providence under his rule and thus maintaining that his promises can be trusted. Whereas open theism states, “since God does not necessarily know exactly what will happen in the future, it is always possible that even that which God in his unparalleled wisdom believes to be the best course of action at any given time may not produce the anticipate results in the long run;”[8] we have the benefit of resting in his providence. For all their protection of libertarian freewill, open theists actually limit freedom by not trusting fully in the only one who can be trusted to know what the future holds. Knowing that his promises stand firm, we can lean on his Word as everlasting truth, trusting its divine authority to be complete.


[1] Rice, 27
[2] Rice, 31
[3] Ware and Piper both make room for use of this term. Whether this is kept as a counterargument tactic is unclear. Granted, I don’t know Biblical Hebrew, but I find the use of divine repentance, even from the reformed perspective, disturbing.
[4] Ware, 35 (2003)
[5] Ware, 33 (2003)
[6] Ware, 97 (2000)
[7] Ware, 91, 93 (2000)
[8] Ware, 171 (2000); David Basinger

~ ~ ~

Yes, I did get teased by friends for using that giant block of Scripture but I felt it was necessary for my argument, and the professor did not say anything about it in his comments. And yes, I still would've made the page requirements had I not included it. :)