I'm beginning to be a follower of Open Theism as well,
but I have some problems with it and I thought you might be of help to me.
I have read your articles on "Open Theism." But it seems to me that
many (if not all) Open theists do not address Ephesians 1:11 where it says,
"In Him we where also chosen, having been predestined ACCORDING TO THE PLAN OF HIM WHO WORKS OUT EVERYTHING IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PURPOSE OF HIS WILL."
Doesn't this verse clearly imply that God exactly knows what is going to happen in the future since He works out everything according to His plan?
Grace and
Peace,
EC
Thank you for
the kind words…let’s take a look at the passage…
It should be
noted at the start that the ‘problem’ of Eph 1:11 applies to any interpretation
rejecting determinist theology (i.e. ‘God controls all things’). As such, all non-Calvinistic schools of
thought, not only open theism, need to respond. Also the open view faces a problem only if the Calvinistic
reading is accepted. However, as I hope
to show below, this need not be taken for granted at all.
1. One ‘non-Calvinist’ approach is to highlight
the ambiguity within the passage itself, as Reichenbach explains
(italics his, bolded emphasis mine):
“Does
the passage teach that God does or works everything in conformity with
his purposes, or does it teach that everything God does he does in
conformity with his purposes? The
grammar of the sentence does not force us to adopt one interpretation over the
other. For example, one can say, “John
does everything very slowly.” From this
we would not infer that John does everything, only that everything he does
he does slowly.” (‘Response to Feinberg’ in Predestination & Free
Will, Bruce Reichenbach, eds. Basinger & Basinger, p.52-3)
Paul, according
to this view, is not saying that God decrees all things but all that He does
decree or act upon He does so in conformity towards His will. This both avoids the complications of an
all-inclusive divine decree and affirms the goodness, justice, power and
wisdom of God in all His work.
Alternatively,
(and this is my two-pence, *smile*), God could be said to be working with
and within all situations to ‘realign’ them more towards His ultimate
aims. The idea of a plan
also makes better sense this way – when there is at least some element
of uncertainty, flux, opposition, ‘undesirables’, etc. – rather than in the
case where every minute detail has been pre-set ahead of that being planned
for. Surely it requires more power and
wisdom to ensure that one’s ultimate goals are achieved in spite of
resistance, than to dictate everything from the beginning. The former would represent a real victory;
the latter wouldn’t even be a real battle.
2. On the other hand - assuming 1:11 is teaching
that ‘God does everything’ - instead of interpreting ‘everything’ in an
absolute way, we could acknowledge the contextual limitations imposed on
the verse. ‘Panta’
(‘everything’, ‘all things’) ought to be understood in light of the focus or
theme of the passage and not uncritically used in an all-inclusive total
sense. This is obviously seen in the
following passages:
·
John
19:28, “Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture
would be fulfilled, Jesus said, ‘I am thirsty.’” (focusing on Christ’s atoning work)
·
Acts
17:25, “And God is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because
he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.”(focusing on ‘existential’ provision
and/or basic sustenance)
·
Rom
8:32, “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all – how will
he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?” (focusing on ‘all that we need in
Christ’, *smile*)
·
1Cor
6:12, “’Everything is permissible for me’ – but not everything is
beneficial. ‘Everything is
permissible for me’ – but I will not be mastered by anything.” (focusing on food)
·
1Cor
12:6, “There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of
them in all men.”
(focusing on spiritual gifts)
In the above,
the authors of the passages implicitly limit panta to whatever topic
they were discussing; the word simply wasn’t meant to be taken in an
unqualified way. And this could be the
situation we face with Eph 1:11. What
is the focus in this case? Jack
Cottrell offers a suggestion (emphasis mine):
“This
focus (of Eph 1:11) is ‘the mystery of his will’ (1:9), which is the uniting of
Jews and Gentiles together into one body, the church (3:6). To say that God works all things after the
counsel of his will means that he does whatever is necessary to accomplish
this purpose i.e. the gathering together of Jews and Gentiles under one head,
Jesus Christ.” (‘The Nature of Divine Sovereignity’, Grace of God &
Will of Man, ed. Clark Pinnock, p.116)
Although this
explanation is less solid than I would hope, it can also be pointed out – as
Cottrell did (ibid. p.116, n.83) – that Calvinists also tend to limit the scope
of ‘panta’ when the passage in question impacts their doctrine
negatively, the most prominent examples being John 12:32, 1Tim 2:4, 2Pet 3:9
i.e. the famous ‘universal atonement’ proof-texts. (It’s interesting to see how Arminians detect in Scripture God’s love
for all, whereas Calvinists read only the universality of God’s control. Naturally, I prefer to use the former ‘grid’
for interpreting Scripture, not to mention Eph 1:11)
Finally, to
complement Cottrell’s view (and combine it with the first ‘Arminian-inclined’
approach to addressing the verse), we could paraphrase the key section in 1:11
to read, “…having been predestined according to the plan of Him who acts
in everything in order to bring conformity to His plan of uniting Jews and
Gentiles under Christ…”. God is
even now implementing His project - which no doubt ‘hits’ everything in
creation - to ensure that soon there will be ‘no Greek or Jew, but Christ in
all.’
It should also
be clear by now that, assuming we do not accept the determinist reading, there
is no pressure on the Open View from this verse as foreknowledge doesn’t ‘play’
at all. Eph 1:11 need not teach that
God controls everything in the future, only that He has a plan for it
(something the OV would never deny).
Hope this helps,
Alwyn
Note: You might want to check out the discussion on
Eph 1:11 in opentheism.org where
open view writers like John Sanders, Greg Boyd and William Hasker give further
comments on the passage.