The Openness Charge
          Openness theologians argue that classic theology has been corrupted by the inroads of philosophy. John Sanders, who writes the chapter on "Historical Considerations" in the book, The Openness of God, asks and answers a major question: "Where does this 'theologically correct' [classic] view of God come from? The answer, in part, is found in the way Christian thinkers have used certain Greek philosophical ideas. Greek thought has played an extensive role in the development of the traditional doctrine of God."⁹
          Sanders gives a survey of the Greek philosophers (especially Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and Philo) whom he believes influenced the church fathers to bring philosophy into the doctrine of God. Since the Greek gods were "characterized by rationality, timelessness and immutability," the church fathers brought these doctrines over into Christianity.¹⁰ Philo, who writes a treatise on God's immutability and impassibility, is the mediator of this pollution of early Christian theology. According to Sanders, Augustine was especially beguiled. Sanders writes, "His emphasis on divine immutability and simplicity takes precedence over God's suffering, love and faithfulness. Augustine always believed in the biblical God, but in my opinion he allowed neo-Platonic metaphysics to constrain that God. He quotes the Bible extensively, but interprets it with the neo- Platonic framework."¹¹
          Later Christian theologians were all the more influenced by pagan theology, says Sanders. In the Middle Ages, the scholastics made use of Greek philosophy to defend Christianity. In the Reformation, the Reformers, though able to restore some biblical semblance to ecclesiology and soteriology, failed in theology proper. Influenced by Augustine and some of the scholastics, they fortified the doctrine of God with Greek philosophical concepts. This polluted doctrine of God was passed along, declares Sanders, to later generations of divines, and is taught by such writers as Stephen Charnock, William G. T. Shedd, A. H. Strong, Louis Berkhof, Herman Bavinck, Lewis Sperry Chafer, A. W. Tozer, Charles Ryrie, J. 1. Packer, W. Bingham Hunter, and Carl F. H. Henry.

The Classic Theology Response
          No classical theist, of course, would wish to defend all that the church

⁹John Sanders, "Historical Considerations," in The Openness of God 59.

¹⁰Ibid., 69.

¹¹Ibid., 85.

"Is There Knowledge in the Most High?" (Psalm 73:11)       137

fathers, scholastics, or even the Reformers had to say about theology or specifically, the doctrine of God. In fact, most conservative evangelical theologians would no doubt agree that what goes by the name of classic theology cannot be accepted in the whole, but must be adjusted when its weaknesses are exposed by Scripture. ¹² But open theists are not arguing for minor corrections. They are charging that the doctrine of God in classic theology has been so corrupted by Greek philosophy that it obscures who God really is.
          So how have classic theists responded to this historical argument? First of all, they have pointed out that the this argument is not new and has been adequately answered in the past. The idea that classic Christian theology suffers from the inroads of Greek philosophy was the exact thesis of some nineteenth- century liberals. Gerald Bray recounts,

In fairness, it should be said that the gist of the above argument was not invented by the authors of the openness of God, nor is it a product of the most recent modem theology. It originated in the early nineteenth century in Germany, where it was connected with such names as Ferdinand Christian Baur (I 792-1869) and August Neander (I 789-1850). Later on, it was picked up by Albrecht Ritschl (I 822-89), but the classic exposition which became famous all over the world is that of Alfred [Adolph] von Hamack (I 85 1 1930), expressed most clearly in a series of lectures delivered in Berlin in 1900 and published in English translation as What is Christianity? Hamack's thesis was later developed by Walter Bauer (1877-1960) and has gained wide acceptance . . . . ¹³

¹²See for example, John Feinberg, No One Like Him (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2001). Naming classical theism, Process Theology, and Open Theism, Feinberg goes so far as to say, "[T]he position I shall espouse in this book is represented by none of the three. I shall offer a different mediating position, the model of the king who cares" (62). His mediating position, however, is only a moderate departure from classic theology, in comparison to Open Theism and Process Theology.

¹³"Gerald Bray, The Personal God (Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster, 1993) 7.

¹⁴Adolph von Hamack, What Is Christianity?, trans. Thomas Bailey Saunders (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1901) 13.

¹⁵Bray, Personal God 7.

138     The Master's Seminary Journal

writes,"What Hamack interprets as the intrusion of alien elements into the Gospel is more correctly seen as the elucidation of its unique subject-matter in light of its contemporary setting."" In other words, doctrine books, theology sets, and confessions of faith written from the classic perspective are contemporary elucidations and systemizations of truth, not the corruption of the Christian message.
          Classic theologians have another response to the openness argument that classic Christian theology has been polluted by Greek philosophy. This argument is unimpressive, they respond, in light of the fact that openness theology itself has been influenced by philosophy-specifically process philosophy and theology. This is not to say that openness theologians are themselves process theologians. Boyd insists, "Some evangelical authors have wrongly accused open theists of being close to process thought, but in truth the two views have little in common."¹⁷ In process thought, for example, God cannot predetermine anything. In Open Theism, God does predetermine some things. In process thought, God needs the universe in order to express His love. He is ontologically dependent on the world. In open theology, love is expressed in the Trinity, and God is ontologically independent of the universe.¹⁸ Clark Pinnock has said, "Indeed, if the choice were exclusively between classical and process theism (which it is not), I would certainly opt for classical theism."¹⁹
          Still, careful critics have presented evidence that Open Theism has been influenced by Process Theology. According to William Watkins, open theist Gregory Boyd, in his academic work, Trinity and Process, "takes on process philosopher Charles Hartshorne in an attempt to salvage what's viable in Hartshome's metaphysic and uses it to resolve what Boyd sees as the problem areas of classical Christianity."²⁰O In classic theology, God is pure act. He has no potential to be other than He is. Hartshorne, however, argues that God has two poles, one is His ever-changing experiences, and the other is constant. Therefore, becoming rather than being is the most fundamental characteristic of reality. Boyd, though modifying Hartshorne, agrees that "the fundamental vision of the process world view, especially as espoused by Charles Hartshorne, is correct."²¹ Thus, Open Theism "adopts the major process category of a socially related, becoming reality

¹⁶H. E. W. Turner, The Pattern of Christian Truth (London: A. R. Mowbray & Co. , 1954) 18.

¹⁷Gregory A. Boyd, God of the Possible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000) 31. "Gregory A. Boyd, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992) 192-95. "Clark Pinnock, "Between Classical and Process Theism," in Process Theology, ed. Ronald Nash (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987) 316. See also Richard Rice, "A Philosophical Perspective," in The Openness of God 138-41.

²⁰William D. Watkins, "A Summary Critique," Christian Research Journal 16/2 (Fall 1993):43.

²¹Gregory A. Boyd, Trinity and Process (New York: Peter Lang, 1992), Preface.

"Is There Knowledge in the Most High?" (Psalm 73:1)       139

while rejecting certain other metaphysical views found in Process Theology. . . ."²²
          To summarize, openness theologians accuse classic theology of being corrupted by Greek philosophy. Classic theologians respond that this is an old argument well-answered in the past by Christian scholars. Though it is always liable to specific modification, classic theology, as we know it in the creeds, confessions of faith, and other evangelical literature is a generally accurate systematization of scriptural truth. Moreover, the historical argument of Open Theism seems to be a defective argument inasmuch as openness theology itself has been influenced by Process Theology.

          Second, openness theologians defend their system by a reinterpretation of God's activities in the OT., This defense includes at least two features: (1) A minimization of anthropopathisms; and (2) An emphasis on divine ignorance.

A Minimization of Anthropopathisms
          An anthropomorphism is a figurative description of God using physical parts of a man, such as the eyes of God or the arm of God. Classic and openness theologians agree that such terms are figurative, and that God does not actually have physical eyes or arms.
          An anthropopathism, on the other hand, speaks of God by using words about the human emotional life—words such as grief, repentance, anger, and regret.²³ Historically, many classic theologians have viewed these terms as figurative. John Calvin, for example, claimed that God does not really grieve, but the biblical writers simply use terms like "grieve" to communicate God's displeasure. In Gen 6:6, for example, "the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart." Calvin comments, "Certainly God is not sorrowful or sad; but remains forever like himself in his celestial and happy repose: yet because it could not otherwise be known how great is God's hatred and detestation of sin, therefore the Spirit accommodates himself to our capacity.²⁴ In

²²Tiessen, "Openness Model of God," Didaskalia 98. See further, Clark Pinnock, "Between Classical and Process Theism," in Process Theology 309-27. Also, for an excellent summary and analysis of Process Theology from an evangelical perspective, see John Feinberg's chapter, "Process Theology," in his book, No One Like Him, 149-79. Also see John B. Cobb Jr., and Clark H. Pinnock, eds., Searching for an Adequate God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). The subtitle of this book is, "A Dialogue between Process and Free Will Theists." Interestingly, Rice says that "it would seem that Process Theology itself is also vulnerable to criticism for excessive deference to philosophy-in this case, to the process philosophy of Whitehead" ("A Philosophical Perspective," in The Openness of God 141 ).
21For a further study of these terms, see Graham A. Cole, "The Living God: Anthropomorphic or Anthropopathic?," The Reformed Journal 59 (April 2000):16-27.

²⁴John Calvin, Commentaries on Genesis, trans. John King (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 249.

140    The Master's Seminary Journal

another place, Calvin writes, "Although he is beyond all disturbance of mind, yet he testifies that he is angry toward sinners. Therefore whenever we hear that God is angered, we ought not to imagine any emotion in him, but rather to consider that this expression has been taken from our own human experience, because God, whenever he is exercising judgment, exhibits the appearance of one kindled and angered."²⁵ According to Calvin, God forever remains in his celestial and happy repose.
          In contrast, openness theologians have argued that we should take these expressions of emotion by God as genuine and literal, not as anthropopathisms. God really does grieve, regret, and become angry. Gregory Boyd writes, "[L]anguage about God 'changing his mind,' 'regretting,' and so on should be taken no less literally than language about God 'thinking, ' 'loving,' or 'acting justly.'"²⁶
          Some classic theologians have proposed a mediating view that God does 2' But have emotions such as love and anger, and does genuinely grieve over sin.²⁷ But such genuine emotions should not be placed in the same category as anthropocentric communicative expressions such as God's changing His mind, regretting, not knowing where someone was, or unawareness of what was happening in some place on earth.

Gen 3:9-"Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, 'Where are you?'
Gen 6:6-"And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart."
Gen 18:20-2 1 -"And the LORD said, 'Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know."
Gen 22:12-"And He said, 'Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for

²⁵John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960) 227.

²⁶Boyd, God of the Possible 170 n. 2.

²⁷Another feature of the discussion of anthropopathisms in Scripture is the question of whether terms like "grieve," "anger," and "love" can ever be used of God in the same way as they are used of man. Feinberg asks, "Since God is so different from us, when Scripture says God is love, maybe we don't know what that means" (No One Like Him 78). Are these terms used of God and man univocally, equivocally, analogically, or in some other way? Thus, the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God enters into this discussion. Anthropopathisms are also closely connected with the doctrine of impassibility, which will be discussed in the next section.

"Is There Knowledge in the Most High?" (Psalm 73:11)      141

now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son from Me."'

          Some of these passages show clearly that divine ignorance is not real. Are we to believe that when God called to Adam, "Where are you?" that He really did not know where Adam was? Or, did God have to go down to Sodom to find out what was going on there? Obviously, divine ignorance passages are communicative devices. They are anthropocentric in nature intended to communicate key points in the narrative.
          What about God's seeming ignorance of the quality of Abraham's faith? At first glance, the text seems to say that God did not know whether Abraham really trusted Him or not before the command to sacrifice Isaac. Commenting on Gen 22:12, Gregory Boyd writes, "The verse clearly says that it was because Abraham did what he did that the Lord now knew he was a faithful covenant partner. The verse has no clear meaning if God was certain that Abraham would fear him before he offered up his son."²⁸
          But Bruce Ware has responded well to Boyd's argument.²⁰ First, if God must test Abraham to find out what is in his heart, it calls into question God's present knowledge of Abraham's or anyone else's spiritual, psychological, mental, and emotional state. Does not the Bible say, "For the LORD searches all hearts, and understands all the intent of the thoughts" (I Chron 28:9). It is not just the future, but the present knowledge of God which is destroyed if God's statement is robbed of its anthropocentric nature. Ware writes, "As such, this straightforward interpretation ends up conflicting with Scripture's affirmation that God knows all that is, and it contradicts open theism's own commitment to God's exhaustive knowledge of the past and present."³⁰
          Second, God already had confidence in Abraham's faith. Before this time, God had established and confirmed the Abrahamic covenant with Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; 15; 17:1-8). In Gen 18:19, God testifies to His confidence in Abraham, "For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him." In fact the faith of Abraham before and after the test in Genesis 22 is outlined specifically in Heb 1 1: 812, 17-19.
So why did God take Abraham through this experience? As to the doctrine of God, it indicates, as Ware explains, God's "real experience in historically unfolding relationships with people, of changed dispositions or emotions in relation to some changed human situation. Just because God knows in advance that some

²⁸Boyd, God of the Possible 64.
²⁹Bruce Ware, God's Lesser Glory (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2000) 67ff. Ware's book is a ,'must" read in understanding the biblical weaknesses of openness innovations. ³⁰Ibid., 68.

142    The Master's Seminary Journal

event will occur, this does not preclude God from . . . expressing appropriate reactions when it actually happens."³¹ Moreover, the test was a majestic confirmation of Abraham's confidence in God. As such, Abraham becomes a magnificent example for every believer of every generation. What a man of faith!
          Yes, God did know how Abraham would respond. God is never ignorant. God was, in fact, active in producing the faith that was put on exhibit. Still, God could and did express genuine pleasure when the event transpired in history. And the event becomes a tremendous encouragement for future generations of believers.

          Open theists believe that "a new wave of critical reappraisal and competent reconstruction of the doctrine of God is sweeping over the intellectual landscape."³² This reappraisal features an emphasis on a certain attribute of God, a denial of two other attributes of God, and a minimization of the onmipotence and omniscience of God.

God Is Essentially Love
          Openness theologians have set love up as a paradigm through which to view God. Richard Rice argues, "[L]ove is the most important quality we attribute to God,³³ Moreover, "Love is the essence of the divine reality, the basic source from which all of God's attributes arise."³⁴ Such an idea, though attractive, is not biblically defensible. As John MacArthur has written, "Divine love in no way minimizes or nullifies God's other attributes-His omniscience, His omnipotence, His omnipresence, His immutability, His lordship, His righteousness, His wrath against sin, or any of His glorious perfections. Deny any of them and you have denied the God of Scripture.³⁵
          No one attribute should serve as a paradigm for understanding God. Every attribute of God is equally essential in the divine person.

³¹Ibid., 91.

³²Clark Pinnock and others, "Preface," in The Openness of God 9.

³³Richard Rice, "Biblical Support for a New Perspective," in The Openness of God 14.

³⁴Ibid., 21. This misinterpretation of the nature of God was discussed in a previous study of the doctrine of eternal punishment (Larry D. Pettegrew, "A Kinder, Gentler Theology of Hell?," TMSJ 9 [Fall 19981:207-10).

³⁵John MacArthur, The Love of God (Dallas: Word, 1996) 28. See also D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 241; Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994) 1 80; and Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis, Integrative Theology, vol. I (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1987) 197.

"Is There Knowledge in the Most High?" (Psalm 73:1 1)       143

God Is Mutable and Passible
          Classic theologians have taught that God is immutable and impassible. Immutability means that God is unchangeable in His essence, attributes, consciousness, and Will.³⁶ According to open theists, immutability is not a biblical doctrine, but comes from Greek philosophy. Instead of being immutable, God is "an eternally on-going event, and an event which is dynamic and open.... [There is] eternally room for expansion."³⁷
          Impassibility ([Greek script], apathes) is defined lexically as "not being subject to suffering."³⁸ The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, following the Westminster Confession and earlier theologians, states that God is "a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions. . . ."³⁹ Some classic theologians would thus argue that to assert that God is "without passions" means that God is unable to suffer, sorrow, or grieve. In this way, God is impassible. Open theologians argue that the doctrine of the impassibility of God came from Greek philosophy rather than the Bible.⁴⁰
          Without going into detail in this survey of Open Theism, it is fair to say that the Greek philosophers had a more extreme doctrine of impassibility than have many classic theologians. Gerald Bray has shown that John of Damascus, for example, understood impassibility as meaning that God's "being could not be attacked or banned by an outside power."⁴¹ This is different from saying that God is not "touched by the feelings of our infirmities" (Heb 4:15). Some modem-day classic theologians have in fact rejected the more extreme doctrine of impassibility. John Feinberg, for example, writes, "In light of the nuanced understanding of divine

³⁶"For an excellent discussion of what is changeable and what is not changeable in God, see John Feinberg, No One Like Him 264-76. Feinberg says, "What we need is a more nuanced notion of immutability, one that takes into account the criticisms of process and open view thinkers but still upholds the essential points taught in Scripture and demanded by the conservative tradition" (265).

³⁷Boyd, Trinity and Process 386.

³⁸"Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition, rev. and ed. by Frederick William Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000) 95.

³⁹"Second London Confession," II, I, in William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Los Angeles: Judson Press, 1959) 248.

⁴⁰For example, see Sanders, The God Who Risks 142-47.

⁴¹Gerald Bray, The Doctrine of God: Contours of Christian Theology) (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1998) 98. For examples of other discussions of impassibility, see Bertrand R. Brasnett, The Suffering of the Impassible God (New York: Macmillan, 1928); Charles Hartshorne, The Divine Relativity.- A Social Conception of God (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1948); Warren McWilliams, "Divine Suffering in Contemporary Theology," Scottish Journal of Theology 33 (1980):33-53; Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1974) 268; J. K, Mozley, Impassibility of God: A Survey of Christian Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1926); T. E. Pollard, "The Feasibility of God, " Scottish Journal of Theology 8 (1955):353-64; Bruce A. Ware, "An Evangelical Reformulation of the Doctrine of the Immutability of God," JETS 29 (December 1986):431-46.

144      The Master's Seminary Journal

immutability, it is necessary to reject divine impassibility" (277).⁴²
          Robert Reymond concurs,

Thus whenever divine impassibility is interpreted to mean that God is impervious to human pain or incapable of empathizing with human grief it must be roundly denounced and rejected. When the Confession of Faith declares that God is "without ... passions" it should be understood to mean that God has no bodily passions such as hunger or the human drive for sexual fulfillment .... 13

God Is Not In Full Control
          Open theist Greg Boyd writes, "There is no single, all-determinative divine will that coercively steers all things. . . ."⁴⁶ "God, for whatever reasons, designed the cosmos such that he does not necessarily always get his way. . . ."⁴⁷ Why? Because in the divine-human relationship, there must be "genuine give-and-take relations between God and humans such that there is receptivity and a degree of contingency in God."⁴⁸

God Does Not Exhaustively Know The Future
          According to open theists, God does not know what decisions and actions humans will make in the future. Richard Rice writes,

God knows a great deal about what will happen. He knows everything that will ever happen as the direct result of factors that already exist. He knows infallibly the content

⁴²John Feinberg, No One Like Him 277. See also Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology 165-66.

. ⁴³Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998) 179.

⁴⁴Ibid.

⁴⁵D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2000) 60.

⁴⁶Gregory A. Boyd, God At War (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1997) 20.

⁴⁷Ibid., 47.

⁴⁸Sanders, God Who Risks 12.

Is There Knowledge in the Most High?" (Psalm 73:11)       145

of his own future actions, to the extent that they are not related to human choices. Since God knows all possibilities, he knows everything that could happen and what he can do in response to each eventuality. And he knows the ultimate outcome to which he is guiding the course of history. All that God does not know is the content of future free decisions, and this is because decisions are not there to know until they occur.⁴⁹

          A fourth way that open theists defend their doctrine of God is by asserting that it better answers the mysteries of human tragedies. Indeed, one wonders whether this is not the primary reason for the development of Open Theism. Sanders begins his book with the story of the death of his brother in a motorcycle accident. At first, he accused God of killing his brother. But later he came to believe that God had nothing to do with the accident." Later in the book, Sanders claims, "When a two-month-old child contracts a painful, incurable bone cancer that means suffering and death, it is a pointless evil. The Holocaust is pointless evil. The accident that caused the death of my brother was a tragedy. God does not have a

⁴⁹Richard Rice, "Divine Freewill Theism," in The Grace of God and the Will of Man, ed. Clark Pinnock (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1989) 134.

⁵⁰Boyd, God of the Possible 15-16.

⁵¹"For examples of Scriptures that teach exhaustive omniscience of future free decisions, see I Chron 5:26; 2 Chron 21:16-17; Prov 2 1: 1; Isa 44:23; 45: 1 ff.

⁵²Sanders, God Who Risks 9-10.

146      The Master's Seminary Journal

specific purpose in mind for these occurrences."⁵³
          It is at this point that it becomes clear that open theists, in practice, teach a doctrine of God similar to secularists and process theists. A. B. Caneday, in his critique of Sander's book, discerningly points out that Harold Kushner's, When Bad Things Happen to Good People, popularized the view of process theism that answers human puzzles in a similar way to open theists' explanation.⁵⁴ Scripture instead teaches that "all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose" (Rom 8:28).

          The reinterpretation of one doctrine in a systematic theology impacts all other doctrines. In reinterpreting theology proper, open theists are forced to reinterpret other doctrines. In hamartiology, the doctrine of sin, some open theists teach that God did not expect Adam and Eve to sin in the Garden of Eden.⁵⁵ In the doctrine of eschatology, annihilationism, and postmortem salvation are common among open theists." In addition, the following three doctrines seem to be in the process of reinterpretation.

Angelology

          Open theists, especially Greg Boyd, are constructing a warfare doctrine of God and angels. It is based on what seems to be a novel Christian worldview. Boyd writes, "Stated most broadly, this worldview is that perspective on reality which centers on the conviction that the good and evil, fortunate or unfortunate, aspects of life are to be interpreted largely as the result of good and evil, friendly or hostile, spirits warring against each other and against US."⁵⁷
          Thus, God, with the angels at His side, is locked in mortal combat against the devil and his angels. "[D]ivine goodness does not completely control or in any sense will evil; rather good and evil are at war with one another. . . . God must work with, and battle against other created beings."⁵⁸ Not all events in history have a divine purpose, but occur as a result of the existence of a "myriad of free agents,

⁵³Thid., 262. See also Greg Boyd's attempt to show that God did not know about a future tragedy, God of the Possible 103ff. Boyd argues that God always has a Plan B and Plan C ready when His Plan A doesn't work out.

⁵⁴A. B. Caneday, "Putting God at Risk: A Critique of John Sander's View of Providence," Trinity Journal 20 (1999)133.

⁵⁵Sanders, God Who Risks 45-49.

⁵⁶"For example, see John Sanders, ed., What About Those Who Have Never Heard? (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995) 21-55.

⁵⁷Boyd, God At War 13.

⁵⁸Ibid., 20.

"Is There Knowledge in the Most High?" (Psalm 73:11)      147

some human, some angelic, and many of them evil."⁵⁹ Such a doctrine is in contrast with the classic teaching that God is in sovereign control of angelic and demonic forces.

          Open theists believe that Jesus Christ was the God-man, following orthodox Chalcedonian Christology. But because they believe that God has to relate mutually with humans and other free agents in order to get His will done, open theists are compelled to reinterpret the details of the life of Christ. For example, Mary did not necessarily have to be the mother of Jesus. "If Mary had declined," writes Sanders, "then God would have sought other avenues. After all, it is doubtful that there was only one maiden in all of Israel through whom God could work. God is resourceful in finding people and then equipping them with the elements necessary for accomplishing his purposes."⁶⁰ Even "the Bethlehem massacre was not the will of God and was not planned beforehand by God. Instead, it reveals that the will of God in its fullness may not be fulfilled in all situations.⁶¹

          Sanders takes his belief that God lacks knowledge of future free decisions to its logical conclusion in the doctrine of salvation. Even though classic theologians would point to several OT passages, Sanders maintains, "There is nothing specifically said in the Old Testament that would have led one to predict a dying and raised Messiah."⁶² Even up to the time of the Garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus prayed, "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me" (Matt 26:39), the cross could have been avoided. Sanders asserts, "Jesus wrestles with God's will because he does not believe that everything must happen according to a predetermined plan. . . . Although Scripture attests that the incarnation was planned from the creation of the world, this is not so with the cross. . . . Until this moment in history other routes were perhaps open."⁶³ For classic theologians, Sanders's theory that the cross could have been avoided is abominable. Caneday wams, "If anyone follows Sanders's guidance fully on how to understand such events, one jeopardizes faith in the God of the Bible."⁶⁴

⁵⁹Ibid., 53.

⁶⁰Sanders, God Who Risks 92.

⁶¹Ibid., 94.

⁶²Ibid., 133.

⁶³Ibid., 100. ⁶⁴Caneday, "Putting God at Risk," Trinity Journal 163.

148      The Master's Seminary Journal

⁶⁵Boyd complains, with some justification, that "most of the published criticisms raised against the open view have largely ignored the biblical grounds on which open theists base their position" (Boyd, God of the Possible 12). The task of comparing and contrasting the details of this system with the biblical material is not yet complete, though some important critiques have already been completed. Again, I recommend Bruce Ware's book, God's Lesser Glory. Four other articles in this issue of The Master's Seminary Journal are also intended to contribute to the literature challenging the biblical interpretation on which open theists base their position.

⁶⁶Caneday, "Putting God at Risk," Trinity Journal 163.

⁶⁷Tozer, Knowledge of the Holy 9-1 0.