A Response to Blake Ostler on Open Theism

Blake T. Ostler, another LDS advocate of Open Theism, in a blog post published in January 2, 2007 titled: “Hermeneutical Assumptions and Open Theism,” has outlined his justification for Open Theism which can be seen here. It is a long piece not conducive to a detailed, point-by-point response; neither is it necessary to give it a detailed response in order to refute its basic premises, assumptions, and conclusions. The following is a brief, but adequate response to his advocacy of Open Theism. He begins his message as follows:

“It is no secret that Open Theists read [the] scriptures with different operative principles of interpretation than those who maintain classical theology. Open theists generally argue that scriptural passages demonstrate that God changes his mind, relents, repents or feels sorrow for things that have occurred. If they are correct, then at least to the extent such scripture is regarded as disclosing what is true of God, then God cannot be, as classical theists maintain: (1) immutable in the strong sense that none of God’s intrinsic properties is subject to change; (2) impassible in the sense that nothing outside of God influences him or otherwise has no feelings comparable to human feelings; (3) timeless in the sense that God is outside of any type of temporal succession; (4) prescient in the sense that God has infallible foreknowledge.

“Those who oppose Open Theism argue that the ‘literal’ readings of scripture by Open Theists ignore more general statements about God elsewhere in the Bible; fail to recognize that God adapts himself ‘anthropomorphically’ to speak to mere mortals and that from the divine point of view things look very different than from this view adapted to human weaknesses. We question whether this type of critique of open theists can be coherently maintained. Indeed, it seems that those who critique open theists readings makes [sic] several hermeneutical assumptions that are not merely foreign to the text itself, but which assume a view of human knowledge that is both arrogant and impossible from the human stance.”

The answer to that is that the critiques are based on other scriptural passages that affirm the attributes and character of the Deity which Open Theists like to deny, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and immutability. Open Theists like to selectively pick the bits of scripture that suits their nuanced interpretation, while conspicuously disregarding the bits that don’t. He continues:

“In such a short space we cannot possibly do justice to all of the texts and all of the issues that arise from such a far ranging discussion. Even a discussion that merely adequately defined the various views of the divine attributes would be foolish to attempt in so short a presentation.”

The whole of Open Theism is based on one fundamental assumption: that the future is “open” to God (meaning that God does not know it exhaustively), because of man’s freewill. It sees divine foreknowledge and human freewill to be incompatible. You can’t have both. It is either one or the other. And since man is free, therefore God’s foreknowledge cannot be exhaustive. If that basic premise can be disproved at its first point of weakness, then the whole edifice of Open Theism collapses, together with the artificial scaffolding that has been built around it, and the debate comes to an end. So the debate about Open Theism need not be as “far ranging” as he likes to portray it to be. The advocates of Open Theism like to portray it as though it were a much more grandiose theological project than it actually is. Once the essential underlying assumptions of Open Theism is destroyed (which is easy to do, especially with reference to modern LDS scripture as shown in my previous posts), there will be nothing more of it left to debate and argue over. He then continues as follows:

“However, we want to focus on just two texts to tease out the differing hermeneutical approaches and to demonstrate that while both open theists and their opponents bring critical assumptions to the text, their assumptions are not equally problematic. Open theists bring the assumption to the text that its meaning can be teased out by logical principles. Taking the text at what it both says and asserts, they derive conclusions based on simple deductive principles.

“Their critics, on the other hand, bring a prior understanding of God to the text that controls what it can possibly be read to establish. The critics, for short, assume scriptural uniformitarianism. That is, all writers of scripture write with a common understanding of God so that if one writer of scriptural records, even removed hundreds of years from another, has a given view of God, then all have a common understanding of God so that they cannot disagree. Thus, if say Isaiah says something that disagrees with the writer(s) compilers of Exodus and Deuteronomy, the text of Isaiah must be read in such a way as to harmonize. Further, the critics argue that this common understanding of God has already been accurately grasped by the tradition and so this traditional reading must control what can be concluded from the text.”

The underlying assumption of that statement is that scripture cannot be relied upon to teach a consistent theology—and that is okay from his point of view. It is okay for Isaiah to teach one theology or doctrine, and for Exodus to teach another that is at odds with Isaiah—and there is no problem with that as far as he is concerned! That is his basic assumption. The effect of that assumption is twofold:

Firstly, it undermines his own “openness of God” theology every bit as much as the classic “closed” one. If scripture (collectively) cannot be trusted to teach a consistent theology, or a consistent view of God, who is to say which bit of scripture is teaching the “correct” doctrine or theology, and which bit isn’t? If Isaiah is teaching a “closed” theology, and Exodus is teaching an “open” theology, by what criteria has he determined that Isaiah’s theology is the wrong one, and Exodus’s theology is the right one? Why not the other way?—or worse still, who is to say that both of them are not equally wrong? If scripture cannot be trusted to teach a consistent theology, it cannot be trusted to teach a correct theology.

Secondly, his underlying assumption undermines the doctrine of the divine inspiration of scripture. If scripture cannot be trusted to teach a consistent theology, then how can it be assumed to be divinely inspired and contain the revealed will of God? Does God contradict himself? A fundamental assumption of dealing with God is that he is a God of truth and cannot lie. He is trustworthy and reliable, and does not contradict himself. If God contradicts himself, or teaches contradictory doctrines, how can we trust anything that he says? It goes contrary to passages such as these:

2 Timothy 3:

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Peter 1:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

How can scripture be considered to be the inspired word of God, and to teach the revealed will of God, if it does not teach a consistent theology? It also goes contrary to repeated statements made by Jesus himself in the four Gospels in which the “scriptures” are portrayed as teaching (authoritatively) a consistent theology. It likewise contradicts numerous similar passages found in modern LDS scripture affirming the same thing. In D&C 42:12 for example we read, “… the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.” How can the Bible (and the Book of Mormon) contain the “fulness of the gospel” if they are not teaching a consistent theology, or if they are not divinely inspired?

At this point he embarks on a lengthy discussion of Exodus 32:7–14, and Jonah 3:1–10, which he reckons support Open Theism; because they appear to show that God does not know the future exhaustively, but reacts to events as they occur in time; is subject to temporal succession; and is capable of “changing his mind”. First he quotes from Exodus 32 as follows (emphasis added):

“Let’s consider just two common texts used to support the Open Theist’s view. Consider the text of Exodus 32 (and its parallel in Deuteronomy 9):”

Exodus 32:

7 Yahweh spoke to Moses, “Go, get down; for your people, who you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves!

8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them. They have made themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it, and have sacrificed to it, and said, ‘These are your gods, Israel, which brought you up out of the land of Egypt.’”

9 Yahweh said to Moses, “I have seen these people, and behold, they are a stiff-necked people.

10 Now therefore leave me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them, and that I may consume them; and I will make of you a great nation.”

11 Moses begged Yahweh his God, and said, “Yahweh, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, that you have brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?

12 Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, ‘He brought them forth for evil, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the surface of the earth?’ Turn from your fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against your people.

13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your seed as the stars of the sky, and all this land that I have spoken of I will give to your seed, and they shall inherit it forever.’”

14 Yahweh repented of the evil which he said he would do to his people. (World English Bible)

From that scripture he reaches the following conclusion: (emphasis added):

“There are several key points to be made about this text. God clearly declares that he intends to destroy the Israelites who had made the golden calf and to fulfill his promises by raising up a holy people through the lineage of Moses’ descendants alone. Moses, however, contends with God. Moses ‘begged’ God to both ‘turn’ (bwX) his wrath and ‘repent’ (mhn) of his purpose to destroy Israel. (v. 12) The verbs here show that Moses expected God to change what he had declared he would do. He expected God to change his mind. The Hebrew verb nacham means not merely to change, but its primary meaning is to feel sorrow or regret for what one does. Its primary meaning is emotive. It refers to the emotional tone of one’s feelings about one’s own actions. The Hebrew shuv means to turn around, to turn from, to change one’s course or direction. Moses then asks God to remember (rkz) the covenant he has made to raise seed from them as numerous as the stars. God then ‘repents’ (KJV) or ‘relents’ (NAB) or ‘changes his mind about the disaster he had planned to bring to his people.’ (NRSV). While Moses believes that God’s intentions and declarations can be turned away and changed, he believes that there is something that must remain constant: God’s commitment to his covenant promises. Thus, Moses argues with God based upon the unchanging commitment to his covenant with Abraham to make of him a great nation. What is unchanging for Moses in this narrative is not God; but God’s purposes and promises.”

That is not an accurate depiction of the verses he has quoted and is commenting on. God doesn’t say that he has made a firm, irrevocable decision to destroy the Israelites. He says in verse 10, “Now therefore leave me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them, …” which means that he has not firmly made up his mind to destroy them. He is open to persuasion, and so Moses persuades him. Everything else that he has said about that scripture from that point on becomes moot. He is making an incorrect inference from the start, which renders all the rest of his argument based on that inference redundant. It also ignores passages like Numbers 23:19–20 and 1 Samuel 15:29, which clearly indicate that once God has indeed made up his mind, he does NOT afterwards relent or change his mind. Blake has committed two obvious hermeneutical errors: (1) he has incorrectly interpreted Exodus 32:10 to mean that God had made up his mind, when it is obvious that he hadn’t; and (2) he has overlooked Numbers 23:19–20 and 1 Samuel 15:29 which clearly teach that once God has indeed made up his mind, he does NOT afterwards relent or change his mind. And none of this of course invalidates the foreknowledge of God, which is the central issue here. God interacts with man in time because man is a creature of time, and that is the only way that God can interact with man; but that does not prevent God from foreknowing what the outcome of that interaction will be in the long-run. Skipping a lot of redundant material, the next set of scripture he quotes in support of his theology is from Jonah 3 (emphasis added) as follows:

“A similar course of events occurs in Jonah 3, except it is a prophet who declares God’s intention; though it is once again God who relents or changes his mind:”

Jonah 3:

1 The word of Yahweh came to Jonah the second time, saying,

2 “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I give you.”

3 So Jonah arose, and went to Nineveh, according to the word of Yahweh. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days’ journey across.

4 Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried out, and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”

5 The people of Nineveh believed God; and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.

6 The news reached the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and took off his royal robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.

7 He made a proclamation and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, “Let neither man nor animal, herd nor flock, taste anything; let them not feed, nor drink water;

8 but let them be covered with sackcloth, both man and animal, and let them cry mightily to God. Yes, let them turn everyone from his evil way, and from the violence that is in his hands.

9 Who knows whether God will not turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, so that we might not perish?”

10 God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way. God repented of the evil which he said he would do to them, and he didn’t do it. (Jonah 3 WEB)

And he concludes from it the following:

“In this passage Johah declares the message given to him by Yahweh: ‘Yet forty days and Ninevah shall be overthrown.’ (v. 3) So God through Jonah declares the destruction of Ninevah and there is nothing in the context to suggest that such a declaration is conditional. It is a starightforward statement of what will occur.”

That again is an incorrect reading of the text. If God had already made a firm decision to destroy Nineveh no matter what, why is he sending Jonah to advise them of the fact forty days in advance? What would be the point of him doing that? There is an underlying assumption there that he hasn’t made an irrevocable decision, but that he is open to persuasion, and that he is giving them a chance to repent. Evidently that is what the people of Nineveh understood by it, which proved to be right. Elsewhere the Bible affirms the same doctrine:

Ezekiel 33:

14 Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right;

15 If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die.

16 None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.

That is what the people of Nineveh did. The rest of his argument thereafter again becomes moot. He is making an incorrect inference from the start, which invalidates all the rest of his argument based on that inference, and renders everything else he has said in that context redundant. And again, none of this invalidates God’s foreknowledge, which is the central issue as far as Open Theism is concerned. The fact that God interacts with mankind temporally, because man is temporal and is subject to the passage of time, does not negate God’s timelessness nor foreknowledge.

In the remainder of his lengthy discussion he brings two counter-arguments against the critics of Open Theism. The first is that they “reject deductive logic as a hermeneutical tool”. That is a matter of opinion. I think that my “deductive logic” is better than his, because mine takes into account the broader context of the scriptures. His deductive logic is flawed partly because its focus is too narrow; and partly because he actually draws incorrect inferences from the limited premises that he has chosen, as shown above. In Exodus 32, God does not say that he has categorically made up his mind to destroy Israel (as he assumes); and the “40-day respite” given to the people of Nineveh in Jonah 3 also amounts to the same thing—that God had not made up his mind, but was open to persuasion, and is giving them a chance to repent. In Oriental cultures and languages, they make use of a lot of hyperbole in their speech. For example in Matthew 26:26, 28 Jesus says, “This is my body,” and, “This is my blood”. This does not mean that it is literally, physically, his body and blood, but it represents his body and blood; it is an example hyperbolic use of language. Or in John 17:11, when Jesus says, “I am no more in the world,” it does not mean that he is literally, physically “no more in the world,” but that soon he will not be; it is an example of the use of hyperbole in language, which the Orientals are so fond of using. Likewise in Jonah 3:4, when it says, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” it does not mean God had made a firm, irrevocable decision to destroy it no matter what; but carries with it an implication that their sins had become so serious that it would be unless they repented, which they did. It is an example of the use of hyperbole in language. And none of this of course cancels out God’s foreknowledge in any degree, which is the ultimate issue here.

The second counter-argument he brings against the opponents of Open Theism is that “anthropomorphism” does not adequately explain God’s dealings with mankind (i.e. that he appears to change his mind, or appears not to know the future exhaustively). The word anthropomorphism may not adequately describe the phenomena that is being observed. There are two questions here that need to be addressed. The first is, Does God interact with mankind at all in scripture? The answer to that is obviously Yes. No “classical theist” would deny that God interacts with mankind in scripture. He sends them prophets, gives them laws, commands them to repent, rewards them when they do good and punishes them when the do evil, and answers their prayers. The second question is, given God’s exhaustive foreknowledge of the future, how should God interact with mankind? Should he talk to them, and give them commandments and laws as if he didn’t know the future exhaustively; or should he say, “I already know what the end result will be, so I am not going to waste my time and your time talking to you, and telling you what to do or how to live; I am going to leave you get on with it as best you can, and wait until the end comes, and damn whoever deserve to be damned and save whoever deserves to be saved.” Open Theism’s assumption is that if God knows the future exhaustively, the only logical kind of interaction he should have with mankind is of the second kind, which is not a reasonable assumption.

Even though God knows the future exhaustively, and he knows “the end from the beginning,” he still needs to interact with mankind temporally as if he didn’t know, so that he can tell them what he expects of them, so that in turn he can judge them “according to their works” (Revelation 20:12-13). How could God judge mankind “according to their works,” if he did not interact with them temporally according to their condition as if the future was open, and reveal to them his laws and commandments, even though from his point of view he already knows what the outcome will be? How could he “judge them according to their works” unless he has first interacted with them to inform them what kind of “works” he expects of them? Blake’s basic assumption is that God should not interact with mankind in that way if the future is already known; or else if he does, then that means that the future must be open, which is not a valid, logical, or necessary assumption. The future being known does not invalidate man’s freewill. Although the future is known to God, man is still free to make his choices, and needs to be informed of what is required of him, and what the consequences will be if he doesn’t comply. Blake’s argument is based on the false assumption that if God knows the future exhaustively, then man’s will cannot be free, which is not a logical requirement. That is the false premise that underpins both Calvinism and Open theism, and discredits both.

The discussions that he subsequently has with those who have responded to his blog are also revealing. His post has received around 135 responses, most of which are not seriously challenging; but there is one respondent who signs himself as Jacob, who gives him a run for his money. He challenges him on 3 Nephi 27:32. How could Jesus be “sorrowing” over the conduct of the Nephites four generations down the line if his foreknowledge was not exhaustive (and man’s will was not free)? He also quotes him 2 Nephi 26:9–10, indicating how the prophecy goes back much further in time. Blake’s response to it is basically a copout. His response is that these are not true prophecies, but redactions, expansions, or “actualizations” made subsequently by others after the events had already taken place. For example in response #90, after quoting 3 Nephi 27:32, Jacob asks him the following question:

“Obviously the falling away of the Nephites is not something God would intentionally bring about, so that doesn’t work on this prophecy. I suppose you are saying that the fact of it happening four generations later could have been a redaction by someone after the fulfillment of the prophecy (Mormon?, Joseph Smith?). I am wondering what you think the original prophecy might have looked like. ‘It sorroweth me, because they will eventually fall away …’? (Comment by Jacob—January 14, 2007 @ 2:09 am)”

To this Blake gives some erratic responses at first, and finally crystallizes it in response #115 as follows:

“Jacob & Matt: The easiest answer is that the Book of Mormon language is actualized by later knowledge. I think that such actualization of the language in light of knowledge of the New Testament is evident throughout the book. So the challenge remains to find a passage that predicts free acts which is published before the act predicted. I am not aware of any. Only such an instance is truly predi[c]tive however. (Comment by Blake—January 15, 2007 @ 11:58 pm)”

His response is basically a copout. He is essentially saying that they are not true prophecies, but redactions, expansions, or “actualizations” of prophecies after the events had already transpired. He also challenges us to find a detailed prophecy which has not yet been “actualized”. Well, it is not hard to find such a prophecy. Here is one:

D&C 45:

68 And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety.

69 And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.

70 And it shall be said among the wicked: Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion are terrible; wherefore we cannot stand.

This is a definitive prophecy about the future which has not yet come to pass. That proves what? The critic will now say that this is a prophecy about the future which has not yet come to pass, and therefore we won’t know that it will until it has! So we are now caught in a catch 22 situation. If we find a prophecy which has already been fulfilled, we are told this is a fulfilled prophecy which has already been “actualized,” therefore it is a redaction or expansion on something that in its original form would have been less clear. And if we find a clear prophecy which has not yet been fulfilled, we will no doubt be told that this is a prophecy which has not yet come to pass, and we won’t know that it will until it has! So we can never win. For further discussion of Open Theism see my previous posts.

Open Theism is essentially a theology of unbelief. There are two classes of people who are attracted to Open Theism: The first are those who have intellectually worked their way through it (like Blake Ostler, or like the Evangelical theologians who are advocating it); and the second are those who haven’t, but are simply relying on or trusting what somebody else has said, like Louis Midgley. For the first group, Open Theism is a theology of unbelief. For the second group, it is a theology of ignorance. It has no basis in scripture.

In conclusion it should be noted that answering Blake Ostler and others would have been made much easier for Latter-day Saints had the Lectures on Faith still been canonized. The Lectures on Faith are not only true scripture, but also the greatest theological treatise that has ever been written. They are “given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” and are “able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:15–16). They are important items of revelation in the scriptural repertoire of Latter-day Saints enabling them to combat many false doctrines and theological errors such as those which Open Theists are advocating. Decanonizing them was a mistake which hopefully at some point will be reversed.

Revised November 6, 2020.