The Future of Openness? A Review of Creation Made Free

In 2007, I was exploring Greg Boyd's newly launched ministry website when I stumbled upon an upcoming conference he was scheduled to attend on the site's calendar page. The event was called the "Open Theology and Science" seminar and it was to take place in mere weeks just outside Boston (where I live) at Eastern Nazarene College. I was ecstatic! I immediately scoured the ENC website for more information. To my delight, the school's website housed a complete description of the event including a schedule of the public debates and lectures that were to be held, along with a complete list of the conference participants. The list read like an Open theology hall of fame! The dream team of the Open View would all be there: Pinnock, Polkinghorne, Sanders, Hasker, Basinger, Rice, Boyd… I could hardly believe my eyes.

I counted down the days like a kid waiting for Christmas and attended every second of every publicly held event with what Joshua Tom calls "nerdy glee." I met and spoke with many of the Openness scholars I'd admired for years at the point, and continue to admire to this day. For a theology geek like me, it was tantamount to meeting rock stars. My wife and friends teased me mercilessly about my giddiness.

While I primarily attended the conference for the theology, I couldn't help but marvel at the presentations given on Open theology's potential to propel forward a deeper, more meaningful dialog with the sciences. That Openness made sense of the Bible was enough for me to affirm the view, but its capacity to bridge the unnecessary cultural divide between biblical Christian faith and serious scientific research only magnified its value for me.

However, I was a bit confused by the presence of Process theists at the conference, and wondered if I had been mistaken in my conviction that Openness was quite distinct from Process. Having vigorously defended Openness from the accusation by classical theists that it is 'Process in disguise', I felt slightly betrayed. Were Open View proponents compromising their distinctiveness? At several points throughout the public events I was assured this was not the case by the Open theists with whom I spoke, but a lingering twinge of suspicion remained.

It was a great privilege to meet the conference organizers Karl Giberson and Thomas Jay Oord, and to witness the miracle of an evangelical denominational college that did not feel threatened by either dialog with science nor theological frameworks often maligned amidst groups like the ETS. I gained a great deal of respect for the Nazarenes as a results and retain it to this day.

Both the 2007 and 2008 Open Theology and Science seminars are what gave birth to this book and have sparked this important dialogue between the theological and scientific communities.

I encourage you to check out my review of this seminal work in this field at my independently-hosted blog (BeingTC.com): bit.ly/cmf-review

The Condition and Convictions of Clark Pinnock

Today, some very sad news has been made public. Clark Pinnock has permitted friends to share that he is suffering from middle stage Alzheimer’s disease.

Clark Pinnock is a living legend and hero for young theological scholars who seek to have a conversant and relevant theology while modeling Christ-like patience and humility in theological discourse. I am in Dr. Pinnock's debt and pray that I can cultivate the sorts of internal resources of peace he has when I face criticism.

On my independently-hosted blog (BeingTC.com), I discuss what Dr. Pinnock's life and work has meant to me.

The Condition and Convictions of Clark Pinnock - bit.ly/pinnock

FlashForward and the Openness of the Future

My friend Jimi hipped me to the existence of a new TV series called "FlashForward." When he explained the premise, I was so immediately interested that I am now caught up in the season after only one night (which is at episode 7 as of this post).

Here is a summary of the show's premise from Wikipedia:

A mysterious event causes everyone on the planet to simultaneously lose consciousness for 137 seconds, during which people see what appear to be visions of their lives approximately six months in the future - a global “flash forward”. A team of Los Angeles FBI agents, led by Stanford Wedeck (Vance) and spearheaded by Mark Benford (Fiennes), begin the process of determining what happened, why, and whether it will happen again. Benford contributes a unique perspective on the investigation; in his flashforward, he saw the results of six months of investigation that he had done on the flashforward event, and he and his team use those clues to recreate the investigation.

The team investigates a number of events related to the flash forward, including "Suspect Zero," who did not lose consciousness during the event, the sinister "D. Gibbons", and a similar mass loss of consciousness in Somalia in 1991. Meanwhile, personal revelations contained within the flashforwards occupy the personal lives of the principal characters. Mark Benford sees his alcoholism relapsing, his wife sees herself with another man, and other characters grapple with similarly unexpected or surprising revelations in their flashes forward.

Determinism and Freedom are rarely as overtly and prominently featured in a television series as they are on FlashForward. It is also equally (if not more) rare that a philosophical subject such as this is combined with such excellent writing and acting.

So far, while it is clear many of the characters hold a fatalistic view of the future, it is obvious that the openness of the future is a given in the FlashForward universe---as it should be.

In the most recent episode, a character speaks of the future saying this:

"[The future] is no longer going to unfold as I had feared. My gift to you is release from… the feeling that you're no longer in control. The future is unwritten. Make the most of it."

I'll continue to watch and perhaps write more updates of any significant developments.

Push, Knowing, and the Future: Determinism and Openness in Two Recent Sci-Fi Films [Warning: Spoilers!]

This summer, Summit Entertainment released two sci-fi thrillers that are similar in many ways, but different in one major respect. Both films are action-packed and laced with impressive CGI. Both films are set in present day among seemingly ordinary people who turn out to either possess remarkable abilities or to have been chosen for a unique purpose. But these two films deal with the nature of the future in diametrically opposing ways. In this brief Note, I'd like to explore the fundamental difference between the way in which the future is depicted in each film and provide commentary on why I believe one film represents the classical view of future determinism and the other represents the biblical view of future openness.

Knowing and Future Determinism

Starring Nick Cage, Knowing is about a professor of astrophysics at MIT who does not believe the future is predetermined. The professor's conviction of the randomness of the universe, and the pain that can often result, stems from the sudden and tragic loss of his wife shortly before we enter the story. Nick Cage's character also has a son, a sister, and religious background he has long-since shunned due to some ambiguous conflict with this preacher father.

The prof's presupposition of randomness is put to the test when a 50 year-old time capsule is unearthed at his son's school housing a cryptic code penned by a gifted and misunderstood schoolgirl. When his son suggests the sequence might be a mathematical puzzle of some kind, Cage's inebriated character cannot resist the temptation to analyze them in search of meaning and purpose. With a few short keystrokes in Google's search field, the prof finds that most of the numbers are the exact dates of major world disasters along with the precise number of casualties. In classic thriller fashion, he reaches out to a close friend who of course thinks he's crazy. (Who saw that coming?) When the prof realizes that three of the dates has not happened yet, he watches the 24-hour cable news cycle for breaking reports of catastrophe on the day when the present disaster is predicted. However, the disaster does not immediately present itself.

Running late picking up his son, the prof finds himself stuck in traffic at the exact coordinates of the disaster predicted for that day. Wondering how a simple traffic accident can produce 81 fatalities, he exits his vehicle just as a plane crash lands in the field next to the highway. Cage's character runs to the wreckage throwing blankets on survivors still in flames and performing CPR on some who are injured.

This brings me to why Knowing represents the motif of future determinism. No matter what the professor does, in the Knowing universe his actions can have no effect on the predetermined dates, coordinates, or number of causalities these disaster will produce. Though he takes desperate measures placing his own life in danger, he is ultimately impotent to prevent even a single person from dying. In the Knowing universe, there is a higher, transcendent power that knows precisely how these events will play out without contingency of any kind. Even though he receives "warning," he is still left to conclude he is powerless. All power of determination is left in the hands of the otherworldly transcendent power(s).

[Sidenote: Knowing goes to great lengths to present biblical faith as phenomenological mythology. Without giving too much away, I will say that biblical imagery/concepts are replaced by science fiction imagery/concepts. Whether or not the writers and/or producers intend to demean biblical faith is unclear, but skeptics and unbelievers will certainly have any preconception that 'Christians are simple' reinforced.]

In summary, the universe of Knowing is a closed one. What will be, will be. There is nothing human beings can do to effect the outcomes of the future. Ultimately, we are powerless and at the mercy of the transcendent power(s) that is/are controlling our lives. This, I submit, is also the conclusion of one prominent branch of Christian theology. Namely, it is that branch of Christian theology that has sought, since Augustine, to synthesize the biblical narrative with Greek (particularly Platonic) metaphysics. Calvin belongs to this tradition as well as the Reformed churches. This theological tradition accepts no future contingencies viewing the future instead as entirely certain, set, determined. Some within this tradition differ on precisely how and by whom the future is determined, but all agree that the future is not alterable nor populated by any real possibilities.

Push and Future Openness

Push stars Chris Evans, who is perhaps most famous for playing Johnny Storm in the 2005 live-action version of Fantastic Four, and Dakota Fanning, who is famous for starring in everything from Man on Fire opposite Denzel to the Charlotte's Web opposite a CGI-enhanced piglet. In the Push universe, there are people hidden among the general population endowed with extraordinary abilities a la X-men, Heroes, etc. etc. And just as in all other "special abilities" sci-fi franchises, there is of course the now obligatory, clandestine agency bent on either eliminating these 'supers' or exploiting their power.

The plot of Push isn't nearly as attention-keeping as Knowing's so I won't bore you with it's details. Suffice to say, while eluding capture by the sinister captain of the shadowy bureau (who is himself a super), the unlikely pair (Evans and Fanning) must find a syringe filled with a double-whammy drug concoction that either magnifies it's recipient's powers or kills them.

What I want to highlight instead of the this film's lackluster plot, is the way in which it depicts the nature of the future. Those supers with the ability to see the future, if only in glimpses, understand the future in a fundamentally different way from Knowing. For example, at the very beginning of the movie, Fanning's character says,

"Right now the future I see is not so great. The good news is, the future is always changing."

The sentiment that the future is composed at least in part of possibilities or contingencies, as opposed to unchangeable certainties, is an on-going theme in the film. As the characters track down the syringe, the choices they make effect the future outcomes "Watchers" see in their predictive visions. Each choice changes the future that could or could not happen.

I submit that the way in which Push depicts the future is more in line with the portrait of the future the bible paints. Scripture teaches that our choices have significance for future outcomes. What we choose today and tomorrow we grow to become. If we pray or not changes the future. If we share our witness with others changes the future. If we exercise faith or not changes the future. Scripture shows us that God has imparted significant responsibility to human beings to co-create the future with him. As his agents and co-laborers in the world, we shape the future for his kingdom purposes with our choices. A person doomed to destruction can be redeemed. There is hope when the future is not set in stone.

Freestyle: Hip Hop, Improvisation, and the Praiseworthy Wisdom of God

I'm going to interrupt my own series on mentoring as spiritual warfare to briefly write about something that captured my mind today.

I spent longer than normal on the bus today because I needed to get a haircut in Allston, which is out of the way of my usual trek from Cambridge to Roxbury. This detour gave me time to listen to music and think. I listened to staples like Pac, 100 Portraits, and Jason Morant. But the extended trip gave me the opportunity to indulge in some favorites by Jill Scott and the Roots crew. While Jill and the Roots make music in two separate genres---R & B and hip hop respectively---the two share in common that jazzy Philly sound. This got me thinking about about the many connections hip hop and jazz share. From there, my mind shifted to theology---as it often does.

God and Improvisation

In Openness circles, the analogy of dynamic providence to improvisational jazz is well-known and affirmed. For Open theists, God's relationship to humanity, particularly regarding his salvific economy, is more analogous to the improvisation of jazz musicians than the direct rendering of notes from a musical composition. The brilliance and the artistry of the music is found in it's creativity and spontaneity, not it's ability to follow a pre-programmed routine.

So wide-spread is this analogy, a quick search using the terms "God" and "improvisation" yielded a book called _Theology, Music, and Time_ by Jeremy Begbie. In this book I read this wonderful excerpt:

"...any student of [Romans chapters 9-11] knows that there has been a tendency (especially drawing on chapter 9) to interpret Paul as assuming a predestining divine decree, individual and particular, proceeding from an essentially singular God. It is as if Paul's primary concern were the means by which a (non-trinitarian) God executes a decision which he has made from all eternity with regard to the future of human beings considered as isolated agents -- some for salvation, some for eternal death. Salvation is thus conceived a priori in atomistic and monadic terms, with regard to both human beings and God himself. The musical equivalent would be a composer composing a piece of music, choosing from a list of performers a restricted number of recipients (simultaneously rejecting the rest), and then sending the music out to the chosen for for them to play. We have seen, using musical improvisation in an attempt to allow the text to speak clearly, that Paul's interests are rather different. For he writes of an election to salvation mediated through a process of receiving from, and passing on to others. The orientation of Romans as a whole (including Romans 9) is not towards solitary recipients of a decree but towards communities who already know the interrelatedness basic to salvation and the mission of God's people. Salvation comes, and can only come, within this mutual relatedness. The individual is of course crucially significant, but only within this mutuality. To put it differently, God gives abundantly in order to promote more giving, to generate an overflowing reciprocity, and salvation occurs within this ecology of giving. Moreover--here we move beyond what Paul says explicitly in these chapters--this is a reciprocity which reflects and shares in the eternal relatedness-in-love of the Trinity. This is the momentum which the group improviser learns: to receive music from others, improvise upon it, pass it back and on to others, and all this in such a way that others are drawn in, and they in turn become the new improvisors. The Composer, we might say, comes to be known only in and through the process of passing the music on, and we find that the original music was composed in mutuality, through an infinitely abundant exchange (between Father and Son) in to which we are now being caught up."

- Theology, Music, and Time, Jeremy Begbie p. 262-263

Hip Hop and Freestyling

In hip hop, as in jazz, mastery of the art is not recognized in artists who merely possess the ability to recite or perform pre-written words. Rather, master emcees are praised for their ability to creatively generate skillful rhymes and flows on-the-fly. This talent is called freestyling. In fact, freestyling, like improvisation in jazz and also in hip hop dance, is often performed in a group called a cypher. As Begbie's points out, improvisation has a drawing effect on it's listeners. It is an invitation to participation.

The Praiseworthy Wisdom of God

All this leads me to the conclusion at which I arrived today while riding the bus. The wisdom of God is praiseworthy precisely because God masterfully improvises with his creation the music of life. Just as the lyrical prowess of the emcee is praiseworthy due to his or her artistic creativity, so it is with God. In the Trinity, for all eternity, the divine community has shared in the cypher of mutual loving exchange. In the Gospel, and in the life, ministry, self-sacrifice, and resurrection of Christ, God invites us to join in. When we identify with the Improvisor and begin to receive his music, giving back our own mimicked notes, we share in the triune God's eternal song of love and become improvisors ourselves.

The wisdom of God is praiseworthy precisely because it is truly wise. Wisdom is not required to coerce inferior beings to live out pre-programmed lives towards a pre-programmed fate. Just as in jazz and hip hop, superior praise is due the artist resourceful and creative enough to adapt words perfectly for a particular moment in time.

Join the cypher!

Yummy Heroes Theology

I'm a sucker for tasty sci-fi goodness. Give me just about anything that combines a martial arts showcase of raw skills with out-of-this-world powers and I'll scarf it down. But if you really want to fill my metaphorical belly, find a way to intelligently work into the sci-fi action some juicy philosophical musings. The Matrix, like a master chef, accomplished this feat ingeniously, and has perhaps become the prototype for this sub-genre. Heroes is the newest dish I've tasted that serves up this delicious combo, only in bite-sized weekly morsels that leave you wanting more.

My wife and I got into Heroes pretty late in the game. I had watched only brief moments from a few random episodes prior to season 3. However, because of our Netflix subscription, we noticed that every episode of seasons 1 and 2 were available for instant viewing via streaming over the interwebs. So, 2 or 3 episodes at a time, we watched the entire first and second seasons---and then the entire third season finishing up the series (thus far) last friday.

Of course the action is enthralling and the special effects impressive, but honestly it has been the characters that have drawn me in. Each story line has it's own unique appeal, it's own fascinating dynamics. There are marriage dynamics, sibling dynamics, friendship dynamics, to name a few. There are teenagers coming of age, men and women in middle-aged crises, and elders in the twilight of their lives clinging to hope.

It's the philosophy of Heroes, however, that holds the show together. Random stories about characters and their relationships is daytime soap territory. Even the super-powers wouldn't stand on their own---Passions proved this. But by adding the philosophical undertones of fate, free will, destiny, God, and the ontological nature of the future, the plot is provided with a stabilizing force that intertwines each of the disparate story lines and gives the series a maturity and credence it would otherwise lack.

I'm of course in love with the portrayal of the future as partially indeterminate in the Heroes universe, but this is now to be expected. It seems that classical theists, like the proverbial ostrich with it's head buried in the sand, are the only group that continues to deny the openness of the future. To everyone else, the future's openness is an obvious and proven fact. Some other examples of this are Minority Report, the Butterfly Effect, Next, etc. etc. In the Heroes universe, the partial openness of the future is illustrated through the relationship of the characters to time travel and predictive visions of the future. When the few characters gifted with the ability to either dream or see or paint the future do in fact predict what is to come, there is an intuitive knowledge that this vision can be altered, prevented. Characters with vested interest in a particular future being actualized tend to speak of it as "inevitable." But this fatalism is almost always met with immediate opposition. For example, in one episode, when a character named Claire is told a dismal future is "inevitable" she vehemently retorts, "the future is not written in stone!"

While I will continue to, and perhaps always, appreciate twin philosophical undertones such as fate/freewill in stories like Heroes, another pair of themes in Heroes has surprisingly grown prominent and caught my attention. Healing and forgiveness have played important roles in this series---moreso than I would have expected. It has been particular intriguing to see the characters portrayed as the villains wrestle with these subjects. "Sylar," who is often portrayed as the character of greatest sinister evil, appears in a scene with another character upon whom he has inflicted tremendous pain. In Sylar's quest for purpose and identity he has, by this point, realized he may not want to be a monster. In this particular scene, Sylar allows the person he has severely hurt to lash out against him in a deeply self-sacrificial way. When she is exhausted from inflicting as much pain on Sylar as possible, she reveals that she too feels like a monster. She feels responsible for transforming Sylar into the monster he has become. Sylar says to her, "I forgive you. Now you must forgive yourself."

Family is another dominate theme that makes Heroes more than ordinary. Throughout the series the viewer discovers more and more surprise familial relationships. Characters discover they were adopted, they have siblings of which they were unaware, etc. Amidst a program about amazing abilities, the bond of family is often shown to be the strongest power of them all.

Heroes is a delicious entertainment snack that I have enjoyed consuming. In future posts, I may take up specific topics, episodes, or characters from the show for discussion. Be on the lookout for Heroes reheated like leftovers with commentary applied liberally like Tony's =)

The Peter Event - An Open View Analysis

Recently, I was asked by a friend who is a classical theist of the Calvinistic variety, how Jesus was able to so accurately predict Peter's denial through the lens of the Open view. He grants that even in the Open view Jesus could know Peter's heart perfectly. But he asks further: How Jesus could have known the number of times Peter would be confronted and thus deny Him?

What follows is my response:

Re: The Peter Event

Without God's infinite intelligence, unlimited wisdom, and omni-resoucefulness in mind, I can see how it could be difficult to imagine how God could orchestrate the circumstances surrounding Peter's denial. But when one considers all that is at God's disposal, it becomes clear that the future needn't be exhaustively settled nor known as exhaustively definite for Jesus to have made such an accurate prediction about the future.

Recall the context in which the Peter event takes place. Jesus and the disciples have been ministering in Judea for 3 years and have caused more than a small commotion. Jesus is what everyone is talking about! He has performed amazing miracles: healed the sick, raised the dead, etc. If you'll permit me a tiny bit of creative license, I'd like to use a somewhat uncomfortable analogy.

Do you remember what it was like in 1994 shortly after the 'low-speed chase' of O. J.'s infamous white bronco? No one talked about anything else! Imagine now that instead of O. J. being the singular person at the center of all the attention, he had a well-know entourage with him during it all. Now, let's stretch the analogy a little further. Imagine members of O. J.'s entourage were outside the courthouse in L. A. during his history-making trial. Would I need omniscience to predict that bystanders would recognize a member of O. J.'s entourage, one like Peter? If O. J. had been accompanied by an entourage throughout his exploits the probability that someone would NOT have recognized those guys during O. J.'s trial would have been on par with Lotto odds--astronomical.

And to make the odds even more astronomical, Galileans had a distinguishable accent, much like different regions of England (which btw people from other regions of England can identify easily after only a few words. I've witnessed this first-hand.) This seems to be precisely what is indicated by verse 73 of Mt. 26.

Now, given that the disciples were famous members of Jesus' entourage, and the talk of Israel (especially Jerusalem), the aspect of Jesus' prediction that Peter would be confronted is not all that remarkable. You are correct, however, to note the remarkable nature of the precise number of times Peter is asked about his relationship to Jesus. This may on the surface appear to be a difficulty for the Open view, but I can easily demonstrate that it isn't.

First, Open theists hold the same view of free will as all other Christians in the Arminian theological family/tradition (the majority of Christians world-wide) including: all Wesleyans (Methodists, Nazarenes, etc.), all Pentecostals, Charismatics (such as the Vineyard), many Baptists, most Roman Catholics, and all Eastern Orthodox traditions. (I'd also like to add, just as a jab at Calvinists, the theological tradition of the Black church in America has always accepted the Libertarian understanding of free will and rejected the deterministic view). The way all these Christian traditions understand free will from Scripture is commonly known as the 'Libertarian' view. This view holds that a person's decisions are free because they have the capacity to choose between options---to choose 'otherwise.'

This view is in contrast to the deterministic theory of free will called 'Compatibilism' that is held by a minority of Christian traditions which includes: "Reformed" traditions, most Presbyterians, some Baptists, and the deliberately Calvinist churches such as 'Sovereign Grace' and Calvary Chapels. The Compatibilist theory holds that a person's decisions are "free" because they want to do what they decide---even if their "wants" are pre-programmed by God and they cannot choose otherwise. (As an aside: Compatibilism does not resolve the contradiction between God being responsible for people's desires, but not for their sin, even though Compatibilism claims we can only choose what we desire and that we are born desiring only sin and can choose nothing else. This is a tremendous flaw in Calvinist theology that is irreconcilable with Scripture: e.g. James 1.13)

Since, with the majority of Christians world-wide and throughout church history, I hold the Libertarian understanding of human freedom, I believe each person who spoke to Peter that day could have chosen not to. Moreover, I also believe that more than three individuals and/or groups of individuals could have chosen to confront Peter. This does not, however, put in jeopardy the accuracy of Jesus' prediction beyond the contingency present in every prophecy of future events God Himself will not be preforming. Therefore, I will now argue that there is at least two ways Jesus (and the Father and Spirit) could have orchestrated the circumstances surrounding Peter's denial without removing the participants freedom. Following that, I will argue that the deterministic understanding Calvinists propose (including an exhaustively settled future) is actually quite damaging to an Evangelical understanding of Scripture's authority and trustworthiness.

Since the future is not exhaustively settled, but is composed instead of many contingencies or possibilities, a Christian who believes in God's omniscience must believe that God knows the future perfectly as it is. Since I am a Christian who believes in God's omniscience, I believe God knows the future perfectly as composed of partly settled events and partly indeterminate (open) events. God's infinite intelligence, unlimited wisdom, and possession of all the resources in the universe gives God the most exalted and transcendent view of the future possible. God alone is able to see every possible outcome that may result from every possible decision that every single person may make. God knows exhaustively every possible future and is prepared for every possible outcome. This does not mean, however, that anything is possible. Some things are not possible or contingent. Put another way, some things are determined either by God or causally by previous decisions made by free agents (human and angelic beings). Where I was born, when I was born, to what family I was born (and as a result my genetic make-up, characteristics) are all examples of parameters for which God is at least partly responsible along with the decisions of other free agents (such as my parents, and their parents, and so on.) We are not free to do or be anything of which we can conceive. Even genuine freedom (Libertarian) is constrained in large part by innumerable parameters at any given point in our lives. Parameters outside of which our freedom does not allow us to venture does not negate the existence of freedom.

Here's an analogy that I think will clear up some confusion about Libertarian free will. Imagine that I am accustomed to shopping for soda at a Super Walmart that has 126 different varieties of soda from which to choose. Unfortunately, for some reason, I am unable to get to the Super Walmart on a particular day and must instead shop for soda at the 7-11 on the corner near my house, which only has 26 different varieties of soda. Have I lost my capacity to freely choose which variety of soda I want to purchase simply because my options are now fewer?

No, the quality of my freedom has not been diminished, only the quantity of my options.

Therefore, one possible scenario in which God could have easily orchestrated the circumstances around Peter's denial is one in which God constrained the options of those with whom Peter had contact. Everyone was well aware of the Galileans who were with Jesus. They were rock stars. God did not have to determine that the bystanders confront Peter---that much was a given. The precise number of times Peter is asked, and thus has to respond negatively, is something that God could have constrained while not removing anyone's genuine freedom (e.g. via Compatibilism). Limiting the number of options from which a genuinely free being has to choose does not remove that being's freedom.

A second possible scenerio in which would have resulted in the circumstances that surrounded Peter's denial is in God's omniscient foreknowledge of all possible future contingencies, no possible future existed in which neither more nor less people/groups would confront Peter rendering Jesus' prediction inaccurate. Open theists do not believe simply because God knows every possible future, that every CONCEIVABLE future actually does exist. Here's another example: It is conceivable that one day I may have the opportunity to speak with President Obama in person. However, only God knows if there are any possible futures in which this is an actual possibility. There very well may not be. Simply because I can conceive of a future in which this is possible, does not mean that a future with this possibility actually exists. Furthermore, it is conceivable to me that one day I may have the opportunity to speak with the Dali Lama in person. Only God knows if a future with this possibility actually exists. And if one did actually exist, only God knows how likely or improbable is that possibility. A future might actually exist in which an in person meeting with the Dali Lama is possible, but it might depend on an astronomical number of choices lining up to produce this event. Perhaps the number of improbable choices that would have to occur for this possible future to become realistic are so astronomical that it is virtually impossible.

To be clear, I am not claiming that either one of these scenarios NECESSARILY HAS to have been THE scenario that allowed for the circumstances surrounding Peter's denial. There may be several additional scenarios that I have not thought of. I am only arguing that these two constitute at least two feasible scenarios that do not require the removal of freedom via determination.

Now, I will argue that if we take the Calvinistic approach to biblical prophecy (that includes the assumption of an exhaustively settled future), we will forced to at least adjust our view of the Bible's trustworthiness and authority, if not replace it altogether.

In Ezekiel 26, God speaks through the prophet and prophesied against Tyre saying He would raise up Nebuchadnezzar against them. Tyre would be made "a bare rock" and will "never be rebuilt." (v.14) First, Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Tyre for 13 years and failed to conquer it. But it was Alexander the Great (nearly 300 years later) who eventually conquered the island city, but even he did not utterly destroy it as was prophesied. Tyre never became a "bare rock," has been "rebuilt" after every conquering, and STILL EXISTS TODAY!!!

This fact is unfortunate for the Calvinistic view. Since history has proven that some biblical prophecies have utterly failed, we will either have to deny history (the same history that confirms the accuracy of other biblical prophecies), making us hypocrites who only seek to affirm history that supports our view. Or, we will have to change our view of the Bible's inspiration, authority, truthfulness. Or, we will have to change our view of the future, and therefore the nature of prophecy itself. As I see it, there is only one honest and reasonable option between these three. We cannot discount only the history that does not support the Bible, while affirming the history that does, making us hypocrites on part with any cult (i.e. Mormonism). And we cannot compromise our view of the Bible's inspiration, authority, or truthfulness. Therefore, we must reconsider our view of the nature of the future and biblical prophecy.

The only way to prevent academic dishonesty/hypocrisy due to the historical evidence, or compromise our shared view of the Bible's divine origin, is to adopt an view of the future (and therefore of biblical prophecy) that includes genuine contingency.

Divine Jujitsu

Here are some verses of scripture commonly used to teach a deterministic model of divine sovereignty:

"The kings heart is in the hand of the Lord, He turns it wherever He wishes"



"The Most High rules in the kingdom of men and sets up over it whomever He chooses"

"A sparrow does not fall to the ground and die apart from your Fathers will"

"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord"

Certainly scripture is true when it says: "The kings heart is in the hand of the Lord, He turns it wherever He wishes" But this does not, as the determinist supposes, necessitate a deterministic interpretation. Pharaoh worshipped idols long before God sent plagues upon Egypt. The thorns that Jesus said choke the seed, that is the word, had deep roots in his heart long before God sent Moses to free his people. And God did not cause Pharaoh to be an idolator, nor any of us to sin. Scripture itself says directly, in the same passage, that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Since the same sun that melts butter also hardens clay, one can easily see that the heart of a hardened idolator like Pharaoh would likely only be further hardened by God's judgement.

God certainly does control each of our hearts, but not in the way determinists suppose. Rather, the Sovereign Lord employs a much more sophisticated sovereignty than one of brute force. The Lord maintains control over a universe populated with free agents the way a master of Judo or Jujitsu is in control of a fight against a powerful opponent. In Judo or Jujitsu, the "techniques that relied solely on superior strength [are] discarded or adapted in favour of those that involved redirecting the opponent's force, off-balancing the opponent, or making use of superior leverage." "[Judo] is characterized by the indirect application of force to defeat an opponent. More specifically, it is the principle of using one's opponent's strength against him and adapting well to changing circumstances. For example, if the attacker was to push against his opponent he would find his opponent stepping to the side and allowing his momentum (often with the aid of a foot to trip him up) to throw him forwards". (wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judo) What determinists fail to recognize in scripture is the tremendous freedom God permits angelic and human beings to resist and oppose his will.

Certainly scripture is true when it says: "The Most High rules in the kingdom of men and sets up over it whomever He chooses" But a deterministic interpretation of this verse does not treat with respect the divine jujitsu. Remember that God never intended Israel to have a king. In her sin, Israel longed to be like the nations. God wanted to be Israel's only king. But God conceded. Yes, divine concession! Then, if that weren't enough to unequivocally prove dynamic sovereignty, the man God chose from among his people---God's chosen king---fails to fulfill God's will. And what does God declare in scripture? "I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions." (I Sam 15.11)

The Potter whom the Reformed attempt to paint as a meticulous, coercive despot is the Potter whom Jeremiah describes as a responsive, adaptive artist. When the clay is marred, the Potter reacts, compensates, reconsiders. This is how God expresses his sovereignty: "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." (Jer 18.7-10)

Certainly Jesus is telling the truth when he says, "A sparrow does not fall to the ground and die apart from your Fathers will." He is likewise being truthful when he pleads so earnestly that the Father change his plan in Gethsemane that he sweated great drops of blood. Jesus, being very God, treats God's will as contingent and intercedes, as many like Moses did in generations before him, to possibly change the future. So, yes, the Father's will encompasses all life and death, but the Father's will is no blueprint, but an improvisational symphony he conducts with all creation.

And finally, stripped of its context (amidst the many, many proverbs that emphasize our responsibility to act and choose righteousness and trust in the Lord), this one proverb can easily be understood to mean something no singular Christian with any rational faculty believes. Certainly if every cast of the lot was the decision of the Lord this would be the overwhelmingly prescribed methodology for discerning the will of God in the New Testament. In fact, were this the case, the authors of the New Testament who overwhelmingly prescribe submission to, fellowship with, and guidance from the Holy Spirit as the primary means of discerning God's will, did not get the memo.

May the God revealed in scripture, the God who so longs to transport we who were once his enemies into his love, that he took on flesh, suffered and died, reveal to us his dynamic sovereignty of suffering, vulnerability and risk---his divine jujitsu.

GodGod: Infinitely More Wise Than TomTom

I am a bit of a techno-geek. OK, im a BIG techno-geek. I once mounted a poster of the original Titanium G4 PowerBook above my desk at work and stared at it, drooling, as if it were a picture of a pin-up girl. I know, sad huh?

Well, one piece of technology that is available for us to use today sprang into my mind today as i pondered the composition of the future, free will, and God's providence: Portable GPS (Global Positioning System) Car Navigation Systems. You might have seen commercials for these devices. They are really cool! They communicate with satellites orbiting the earth and plot the most convenient routes in complex urban areas. In one commercial i saw, they even claim they can warn you when you are approach gridlock and provide you with an alternate route to your original destination!
ISNT THAT AMAZING!?!

You may find the combination of this technological product and theological issue strange, and you'd probably be right. But i hope to show you how the former helps me to understand the latter.

First, lets examine the scriptures. Many of the most profound passages that deal with God's knowledge and control of the future are found in Isaiah. And of those passages, Is. 46:9-11 is one of the more striking.

"remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
[emphasis]declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,[/emphasis]
saying, 'My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,'
calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it."

(emphasis mine)

These are remarkable statements of God's sovereignty over history and control of the future. What are we to make of them? Upon first glance, one can easily read them to mean that God is determining every event in history including the future, free acts of people. And this is probably the way in which most people have understood this passage. However, it is my contention that it is not necessary to conclude from this text that because God has determined the destination of history, he has also determined the route by which we arrive there.

Returning to TomTom, it strikes me as incredibly relevant that the GPS device does not (and even more so COULD not) know in advance the traffic conditions of a particular city on a particular day. Yet, when it is confirmed that a particular city on a particular day is experiencing gridlock due to unforeseen circumstances (such as a 10-car pile up), it has been programmed to provide the user/driver with alternate routes to the original destination.

Those who hold to a Calvinistic/Fatalistic view of God/the future typically claim that these verses teach meticulous providence (the belief that God determines every detail of history without exception). In fact, at times they argue it would NOT be possible for God to determine the end without also determining the means to that end. They scoff at proponents of Open Theism saying "If the future is not determined by God, how then can we trust him to accomplish his will in the eschaton?"

Sidenote: I find this type of reasoning incredibly ironic considering these same types are the ones accusing Open Theists of "limiting" God.

However, i think based on the premise that God is infinitely more wise than a GPS navigation device like TomTom, it is conceivable and even biblically consistent that God could ensure history's arrival at his desired destination without necessarily determining the route by which it arrives.

I would even go so far as to say the scripture makes this picture astoundingly clear in the story of the exodus. In this story, the destination is the promised land---a land flowing with milk and honey. However, due to Israel's sin and stiff-neckedness, the route by which God would lead his people there was significantly altered. (Numbers 14)

In our own lives, we can see clearly in retrospect how the sinful choices we have made led to a significantly altered path back to God's will. But regardless of the detour, God, being Omni-resourceful, can and does provide us a way back to him and to a better future. He will not leave you, nor forsake you. But rather, he is a faithful Helper and Guide.

Just as Paul proclaims, "No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it." - 1 Corinthians 10:13, 14