The founder and senior pastor of
Woodland Hills Church, Greg Boyd received his Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, his M.Div. from Yale Divinity School, and his B.A. from the
University of Minnesota. In addition to teaching at Bethel University, Boyd
founded Christus Victor Ministries, a nonprofit organization that promotes
Boyd’s writing and speaking. He is a recognized theologian and author of
numerous books including best-seller, Letters from a Skeptic.
Married to his wife Shelley for 28 years, Gregory resides in St. Paul,
Minnesota.
When Bible Study Becomes Scary
When I was young,
my parents hosted a couples’ Bible study on Sunday nights. While my parents
studied in the community of believers, I listened to music and played video
games in the office.
One Sunday
evening, I remember my mother visibly shaken after a study. During the Bible
study, one member shared with the group his personal study on the actions God
cannot perform. The very thought, to my mother, seemed heretical. God is God right? God can do anything!
But the personal
study held certain amounts of truth. God promised that he would never destroy the
earth by flood again; the Bible tells us that God cannot lie. In both
instances, God intentionally limits himself.
Despite general
agreement amongst the Evangelical church about God’s limits, many Christians
believe that the all-powerful God knows the future comprehensively. But does
Scripture point to this theological belief?
In God of the Possible, theologian and pastor Gregory Boyd argues for the open view of God: a perspective that suggests God does not conclusively know the future.
In God of the Possible, theologian and pastor Gregory Boyd argues for the open view of God: a perspective that suggests God does not conclusively know the future.
The Classical View of Foreknowledge
Classically,
Christianity echoes platonic sentiments which espouse a philosophy of an
unchanging and limitless God. From these principles, Christians argue that God
is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-present. But Boyd questions,
“If the future is indeed exhaustively settled in God’s mind, as the classical view holds, why does the Bible repeatedly describe God changing his mind? Why does the Bible say that God frequently alters his plans, cancels prophecies in the light of changing circumstances, and speaks about the future as a ‘maybe,’ a ‘perhaps,’ or a ‘possibility’? Why does it describe God as expressing uncertainty about the future, being disappointed in the way things turn out, and even occasionally regretting the outcome of his own decisions? If the Bible is always true—and I, for one, assume that it is—how can we reconcile this way of talking about God with the notion that the future is exhaustively settled in his mind” (11)?
The Open View of God
Given these
questions, Boyd proposes the open view of God: the idea that God, as
illustrated in Scripture, is capable of changing his mind regarding future
events. Instead of a God so set in determined actions as a micromanager, Boyd
argues that God is personable, capable of being swayed, and a kind ruler. Yet
despite a belief in an open future, Boyd points toward a God who remains all-powerful.
He argues,
“Open theists, rather, maintain that God can and does predetermine and foreknow whatever he wants to about the future. Indeed, God is so confident in his sovereignty, we hold, he does not need to micromanage everything. He could if he wanted to, but this would demean his sovereignty. So he chooses to leave some of the future open to possibilities, allowing them to be resolved by the decisions of free agents. It takes a greater God to steer a world populated with free agents than it does to steer a world of pre-programmed automatons” (31).
In other words,
Boyd maintains that God manages a world of choices within parameters that God
has set in his infinite power. As an analogy, if I plan to travel to New York
City, I must make choices regarding my travel plans in order to ensure
successful transportation. Yet, my decisions only make sense given the
assumption that New York City exists.
At its core, God of the Possible contends that
Christians must rethink the way they interpret the Bible. Currently, the
seemingly contradictory passages about free will and determinism are often
interpreted in such a way that one set is read literally and the other
figuratively. Boyd believes, however, that an open theism allows for a literal
reading of both free will and deterministic passages.
A Mischaracterization of the Classical
View
Although Boyd
offers compelling arguments, I believe he misunderstands the central reasons
for belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present God. While many critics
believe that such a God limits free will and arbitrarily chooses those who are
saved and those who are condemned, Christians who believe in determinism
possess such ideas because they do not feel like humanity is capable of
understanding spiritual truths by their own power.
Put differently,
deterministic Christians ask, “Who are we to choose salvation? If we have the
power to make this decision, are we not more powerful than God?” God must
reveal himself to a Christian before a response. Wouldn’t this God know those
who choose him and those who do not?
Foreknowledge: Having Your Cake and
Eating It Too
Additionally, I
think God of the Possible rejects
determinism in order to side with free will. Despite the attempt to accept both
conflicting ideas, Boyd leans toward free will. I suggest, however, that both
free will and determinism can exist with an all-powerful God.
Imagine you must
make a choice between two options. Supposing God is all-powerful, all-knowing,
and ever-present, God would know the causal chain behind
either of the choices you could make. Thus, God not only knows how the future
will unfold given the choice you make, he also know the course of events from
the choice you didn’t make. Expanding
this principle to every choice from every person, and you have a God who knows
everything that everyone will ever do while we at the same time maintain free
will.
While
complicated, I suggest that such an idea better describes the seemingly
contradictory statements as seen in the Bible. Are there things God can’t do?
Perhaps. Scripture certainly hints at ways in which God limits himself.
Nevertheless, self-limitation does not mean that God is not all-powerful, all-knowing,
and ever-present. With God of the
Possible, Gregory Boyd asks some interesting questions. Yet, I find his
arguments inconclusive. God of the Possible is worth a read, but do so with a critical eye.
Verdict: 3 out of 5
---
Posted by: Donovan Richards
Affiliate Links:
Great insight. I agree with Boyd's view of "open theism," but tend to agree with your "Having your cake" stance.
ReplyDeleteIt's good to hear from you Doug! I find it hard to take a hard-line stance either with Calvinism or Arminianism. Given that Scripture discusses both free will and determinism, we really ought to develop a theology that affirms both. Both sides have good things to say but I don't think we should dismiss the other side's argument.
ReplyDeleteHope all is well with you!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on a complicated issue.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this review. I don't think I'll probably be reading this book, but I appreciate hearing your thoughts on the topic. For a middle via between Calvinism and Arminianism, I'm very interested in reading William L. Craig's The Only Wise God. Wayne Grudem describes Craig's position on free will as "certainly not the kind of freedom that most Arminians would accept"--but still classifies Craig as an Arminian. 'Course, this position may very well serve only to upset both sides of the free-will/determinism crowd :-)
ReplyDeleteI loved this book, just because I enjoy cogent arguments for theological positions, even if I don't agree with them. I'm not sure foreknowledge answers *all* the questions raised by Boyd, but I'm also not convinced of the Open position. What bugs me is when determinists caricature the Open view, saying that it claims God *can't* know the future.
ReplyDeleteThe question of free will vs. determinism is still something I'm pondering, but I'm not sure it's important to figure it out soon. I don't have any trouble accepting John Piper and Greg Boyd as brothers in Christ.
I actually reviewed this one a little more than a year ago. You can check out my thoughts here:
http://seth.heasley.net/blog/2010/10/god-of-the-possible-by-greg-boyd/
Rebekha, thanks for the comment. I haven't read any Craig but I openly affirm any stance that attempts to promote both determinism and free will. I'd love to read a review of The Only Wise God once you've read it!
ReplyDeleteSeth, I enjoyed you review; thanks for sharing it. I think you are right in concluding that the free will/determinism debate is not a core theological tenet. It's fun to discuss these ideas but these conflicts ought not force anyone into a war on heresy.