God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God

Boyd's book is very well organized, makes some arguments that are quite compelling, and it is very readable. I read a lot of philosophy and theology. Some of it is very bad and some of it is very good. Nearly all of it is so poorly written that I can never recommend it to anyone. By contrast, Boyd organized his book into clear sections and arguments. Unlike a lot of other contemporary writers of philosophy and theology, Boyd has deliberately made it easy to see and understand his points and arguments. For this Boyd deserves much praise.However Boyd doesn't make the case for open theism. He doesn't undercut his own position, contradict himself, or say extremely boneheaded things (unlike other contemporary theologians) but he doesn't manage to prove his case. Boyd does establish a few things that could lead to open theism, but nothing that necessitates it.Before I started reading the book I said Boyd would have to do two things to make a case for open theism;1. Establish that scripture supports or directly teaches open theism.2. Establish how/why some parts of the future are impossible/unknowable.Boyd partially accomplished 1. He did nothing in regards to number 2.Boyd was able to establish with an extremely large degree of certainty that scripture teaches God actually does change his mind. This does destroy deterministic theological models like Calvinism and Arminianism, but it doesn't establish open theism. God changing his mind is a necessary but not sufficient condition for open theism. i.e. If open theism is true than God will (or can) change his mind, but God changing his mind does not necessitate open theism. There are other ideas and theological models like Molinism and simple middle knowledge, that fit with the idea of God changing his mind.To give Boyd credit, a lot of people do hold to a model of God that is quite deterministic and it is a worthy thing to use scripture to bring them to a better understanding of God. But his stated purpose was to establish open theism. To do that he would need to show from scripture that God is ignorant of at least some aspects of the future. Establishing that God changes his mind or that he experiences regret does not (in and of itself) establish that God is ignorant of the future. Boyd assumes the only reason God would experience regret or change his mind is if he experiences new information (knowledge of the future that God was previously ignorant of); however there might be other reasons why God would change his mind and experience regret. For example; I have experienced negative emotions when things turned out exactly the way I expected. It's not that I was insane. I was trading the negative emotions for other things that I wanted and valued more. At times these negative emotions were at or approached the level of regret. I'm willing to grant Boyd and open theists that most of the time when people change their minds or experience regret, it is because they acquire new information. But there have been times in my life that I experienced regret without acquiring new information. i.e I know what would happen and how it would make me feel, and I did it anyway. I'm sure most people will be able to point to similar experiences in their own lives. Why should we assume that God couldn't experience things in a similar fashion? It's at least logically possible.Also Boyd's idea only works if God is subject to time just as we are. While this is possible, it seems unlikely. To be fair, scripture is vague on God's relation to time and theologians and philosophers have never approached anything like a consensuses on God's relation to time. I don't know how God's relationship to time works, but it seems very unlikely that the one who created all space and time will have the same relationship to it that I do.I'm willing to grant there is subjectivity and questions in this process. Perhaps it can be established that the only possible explanation for God changing his mind is that he acquired new information. But Boyd did not do so in this book, and until this is done I see no compelling reason to think so.Equally important is that Boyd does not even address the idea that some knowledge of the future is an incoherence on level with square circles or actual infinity. He does explain that open theists believe this and that it is why they think God cannot know the future, but he does not explain why such a belief is reasonable or justified. Incoherence can be demonstrated in some ways. Attempt to conceive of a square circle or an actual infinity, and you will be unable to do so. You cannot conceive of them because these are incoherent ideas that do not exist. But we can conceive of the future. All of us do it all the time. A lot of the time, what we think about the future turns out to be wrong, but error is not the same thing as incoherence. The errors in knowledge of the future don't seem to be fundamentally different from any of the numerous other errors we make when thinking about things.Scripture seems to be vague about the nature of knowledge of the future. It is quite clear that God does know at least some parts of the future (he makes prophesies) but scripture is silent as to how God knows the future. In the absence of clear direction from scripture, a compelling philosophical argument is a good thing to go with. But Boyd gives us no such argument. He simply says that knowledge of some parts of the future is incoherent. He never demonstrates this or argues for it. There are decent arguments that it is logically possible for us to know the future just like we know anything else. Here's one.1. We all know the future to varying degrees of certainty. a. I know that I will not win the lottery tomorrow(I have the evidence that I did not buy a ticket; therefore I know with 99.9% certainty that I will not win the lottery). b. I know that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow (I have the evidence that throughout all of recorded history the sun has risen in the east, so I know with 99.9% certainty that it will do so again).Without a reason to think that knowledge of the future is inherently different from other types of knowledge, I see no reason to think that is logically impossible for us to know it. If it remains logically possible for us persons with limited perception to know the future, than it is certainly logically possible for God (who does not have limited perception) to know it. Now of course the evidence that can lead us to knowledge of the future is much shakier and much harder to come by than evidence for other kinds of knowledge. But all this does is lead us to know the future with a much lower degree of certainty (perhaps even lower than 50% so that we are uncertain); it doesn't make knowledge of the future inherently different. In his book, Boyd has given no reason to think knowledge of the future is any different. Since Boyd has given no argument or reason to think that knowledge of the future is incoherent and I have some arguments that suggest it is possible to know the future, I'll have to reject open theism for now.A final point needs to be made. Boyd and all open theists seem to make the same assumption as the Calvinists and other determinists they are standing against. Both of these groups assume there is an inherent conflict between knowledge of an action and a choice made in that action. There does not seem to be any reason for this assumption. I.E. Someone who knows Phil very well knows that when Phil is on a road trip and he stops for gas, Phil will get a cup of coffee. Does having knowledge that Phil will do this (and he will!) mean that Phil did not make an active and free choice to do so? Of course it doesn't! Phil freely chooses to get a cup of coffee and he could choose not to. Just because Phil's family and friends know him well enough to know he will do it does not mean they are controlling Phil and removing his free choice. I do not know anyone who will disagree with the previous statement, so I do not understand how replacing Phil with all the people who ever lived and Phil's family and friends with God suddenly introduces a conflict that no one thought was there before. There is no reason (that I'm aware of) to think that God having knowledge of our choices means we do not make free choices. Alvin Plantinga argues the same thing at a very high academic level in his book, "God, Freedom, and Evil."Open theism seems to be an attempt to address this apparent conflict between God's knowledge and our choices. Since there is no such conflict, I question why open theism is even necessary (I say the same of Calvinism).But I do highly recommend Boyd's book as a good read. He does successfully destroy the Calvinistic and deterministic God (for those who believe in that version of God) and his writing and style of arguing is refreshing and quite good. There are a few times where he falls into the trap of special pleading (i..e isn't a God who does things this way greater and cooler than a God who does things that way?), but these are pretty rare and don't seem to effect the main points. Boyd didn't make the case for open theism, but I think it might still be possible to do. If he can demonstrate the God is ignorant of the future and/or explain how knowledge of the future is incoherent that would probably do the trick. I await to see if it can be done.

The book is a biblical study on the open view of God. Namely, that God can change His mind and that He allows us the free will to the extent that He doesn't foreknow every little decision we will make. For people who have grown up with the classical view of God's foreknowledge (that God foreknows EVERY little detail of EVERYTHING), and who haven't had a reason to challenge this belief, the open view can be a little unnerving. I know it was for me. But in my studies, it is the only view that gives an accurate voice to what we see throughout Scripture.The open view of God is not the view that God doesn't know anything. The open view espouses that God foreknows the future in different ways. Wait, if God is perfect, how can He not know something? Isn't that a serious limitation? Not at all. To quote Boyd:"The issue is not whether God's knowledge is perfect. It is. The issue is about the nature of the reality that God perfectly knows. More specifically, what is the content of the reality of the future? Whatever it is, we all agree that God perfectly knows it."Admittedly, this topic is what is considered a non-essential. That means that you can be a Christian regardless of your take on this topic. I know plenty of Christians that I deeply respect that do not see this the way that I do. With that said, of all of the non-essential issues this one is by far the one I care the most about. The reason is that this one (as opposed to how you think the end times will play out logistically) shapes how we interact with God daily. There are four areas in particular where the open view of God makes sense with what I read in the Bible and what I experience with the Spirit of God in my life. They are the topics of regret, prayer, God's sovereignty, and God's ability to change His mind.I've heard critics of the open view describe it as saying that God can make mistakes. When I've asked more about what is referred to as a mistake, it is usually referenced to God regretting something that He did. While this may make us a bit uncomfortable to think through, the Bible clearly allows for this. Consider when God floods the earth in the days of Noah and His says that He regrests making humans (Genesis 6:5-7). Or, when the first king of God's chosen people throughout the Old Testament goes south and God regrets that He made him king (1 Samuel 15:10-11,35).If God knew these things in advance, how is it He can have regrets? By contrast, if God does not foreknow every little detail then we have no issue making sense out of passages like this.PrayerI've never met a Christian who doesn't believe in the importance of prayer, even if they themselves aren't "good" at it. But consider this, if God foreknows every little detail, what's the point of praying? If the future course is already determined then all we have to do is adjust ourselves to the script and follow along obediently. I don't know about you, but this isn't something that makes me want to pray. Prayer matters because many of God's actions are responses to what we do or pray about. (Consider the Jeremiah passage below).The major fear that Christians usually have when considering this view of God is that it diminishes His power. At first glance, this seems unavoidable. The more you think through this though the more you realize the reverse is actually true. My view of God exploded when I realized what the Bible is really communicating about Him. As Boyd rightly argues, "It takes a greater God to steer a world populated with free agents than it does to steer a world of preprogrammed automatons." Wait till you read Boyd's chess player analogy that he lays out. Brilliant.While the Bible tells us that God Himself is unchanging, it does not say that His plans are unchanging. This is a significant difference. The Biblical answer to this one is an overwhelming "yes." I'll give just one example that blatantly makes the case. In Jeremiah 18:1-12, God is showing how He interacts with mankind often in response to what we do. He faults Israel at this time for not believing that what they do matters and that God will respond accordingly. Ironically, what many Christians do today.While much of this book may push you to think through ideas that are new, and often uncomfortable to you, it should cause you to read your Bible with a renewed vigor. As has been my experience, I will bet that you'll start seeing things about God that you've never noticed before. And if your experience is anything like mine, it will ignite a spiritual fire in you like nothing else.

This is a really readable, warm book. It's well written and not easy to put down. As you read, it's hard not to agree with his portrait of other theologians as making God dark, heavy-handed and unpleasant.The trouble is that he never gives other arguments or ideas a fair hearing. He gives awful caricatures of his opponents, which you'd never suspect without actually reading them. His position sounds reasonable, but only because he ignores most of the evidence and pillories everyone else. In other words, this is manipulation and not argument.I disagree with this book, as you've probably guessed. But there are books I disagree with that deserve a good review, because they put their case fairly and well. This isn't one of them.

Challenging. Suggested it to a book reading group. Oh dear, did it stir the pot!

As I read, I failed to understand what his premise really was. At points he would talk about God's foreknowledge of all things, and at other points he would talk about God's complete control over all instances, and seemingly use them interchangeably. Although I admit that I have a hard time overcoming my presuppositions about the nature of God's knowledge regarding the future and that I could possibly entertain thr idea that God does not know what will happen until it does, this was not the book to change my mind.

A book that needs to be read more than once. There is much in it to digest, think through. Well worth reading.