A Critique of Open Theism (Dr David Hunt)

00:00 Introduction

01:53 What is Open Theism?

04:02 Classical view of God's omniscience

08:21 Three Types of Open Theism

20:24 Scripture, Church Tradition and Open Theism

32:30 Philosophical Critiques of the Type I Version of Open Theism

49:56 Brief Critiques of Types II and III Versions of Open Theism

52:28 Thoughts on Alan Rhoda's Argument for Open Theism

01:05:23 Conclusion

To read more details of Dr. Hunt’s criticisms of Open Theism, check out his essay “What Does God Know?” in the book, Contending with Christianity’s Critics, linked below.

-----------------------------------------------GIVING------------------------------------------------
One Time:
You can leave a Super Thanks or give on PayPal

Monthly:

------------------------------------------MERCHANDISE-----------------------------------------
To purchase TAC shirts, mugs, phone cases, and more, go to

----------------------------------------------CONTACT------------------------------------------------
If my videos have been of service to you, I'd love to hear how you have benefitted from them. You can reach me at

----------------------------------------------WEBSITE---------------------------------------------------

[TheAnalyticChristian]

Here is Dr. Alan Rhoda’s response to the objections Dr. Hunt raises in this interview.

[williammarinelli]

I remember watching Dave Hunt present the "orthodox" view on issues presented by the John Ankerberg show, and then I read Hunt's book on Calvinism which, for me at the time, was a real eye-opener concerning the influence of Catholic "saint" Augustine on Calvin. So, as a Bible believing Christian, I considered Dave to be an apologetic "good guy". Until now. I found this video to be a scandalizing gut punch.

Around the 20:30 timestamp the host asks, "What do you think are some of the Scriptural reasons to reject open theism?" Then, around the 29 minute timestamp the host interjects, "...but it might be helpful to have maybe one example and then we can shift to some of the other philosophical reasons because you already mentioned briefly the church tradition so we won't spend much time on that...but maybe, if you can recall, maybe just one text that an open theist might say, 'this seems to favor pretty strongly like an openist view' and then maybe just explain how you might interpret that text differently."

29 - 20.5 = 8.5 minutes of meandering thought that doesn't address the initial question, which the host feels needs to be repeated. A theology professor had a dream...some Scriptures teach my view, some Scriptures teach the opposing view...I don't think it can be settled based on Scripture...so tradition favors my classical theist position...

Then, finally, Dave cites the vineyard parable of Isaiah 5, which he wrongly attributes to Jeremiah - maybe Dave should have spent more time in the Word and less time in tradition and neo-platonist philosophy.

Also, part of Dave's ramble, "...if you're a real hard line, sola Scriptura Protestant you might not attach much weight to tradition..." I wonder if that's Dave-speak for Bible believer (which I affirm, though have nothing to do with Protestantism.)

Back to the host's question at the 29 minute timestamp: Scripture citations of God acquiring knowledge through observation:

Gen 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for NOW I KNOW that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

Gen 18:21 I will go down now, AND SEE whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I WILL KNOW.

Deut 8:2 And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, TO KNOW what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.

Deut 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, TO KNOW whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

2 Chr 32:31 Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent unto him to enquire of the wonder that was done in the land, God left him <Hezekiah>, to try him, THAT HE MIGHT KNOW all that was in his heart.

I appreciate the informative video, even though the information was like a paper cut with lemon juice poured over it.

[alanrhoda]

Nice interview, Jordan. I will write up a blog response probably by the end of next week and then send you the link.

Incidentally, despite my saying "will write" the previous sentence is *not* primarily a statement about the future, but about my present intentions regarding the future. This is one thing that Dave gets wrong. To say that X "will" happen is *not* primarily to say something about the future, but rather to say something about the *present* and how it bears upon the future. All tense is rooted in the (speaker's) present and can then point from there either forward or backward. It is precisely because of this that an open futurist will insist that if it's true *now* that Dave eats a BLT tomorrow then it had better have a truthmaker *now*. The truthmaker can't merely lie in the future, as Dave contends, because the statement isn't wholly, or even primarily, about the future. It is about how the present bears upon the future. The same thing goes for truths about the past. They are about how the present preserves the past.

[IdolKiller]

God knew David would speak with you. At the time, He knew he was speaking with you. Now He knows David spoke with you. Dynamic Omniscience is merely the recognition that God has perfect cognition, knowing all that's knowable. It assumes the Biblical depiction and affirmation of the A Theory of time and man as an imagebearer of the free and living God.

[jamieammons]

I think Josh Rasmussen is the type of open theist that believes God freely chooses to leave some things open(type 3).

[aidanscott]

The only other person I know of who affirms type 3 is the political philosopher Vox Day

[hudsontd]

Open Theism Type 2 for me but I would change it a little, Yes No No Yes Yes

Hunts straight forward view of God's Omniscience is Unbiblical, the your God is to small argument is begging the Question, how is a STATIC [ B Theory of TIME ] God knowing all (past-present-future) a Big View of God's Omniscience?

It sounds like Fatalism to me?

What was Hunt scripture reasons for denying open theism?

[rkirkpatrick]

Why not have on an OT represent the position?

[spartianknight.]

If the tradition was influenced by pagan philosophy, and tradition colors how you see scripture, how is that not an innovation? David Hunt just admitted that the bible doesn't teach Classical Omniscience, you have to look at it through the lens of Greek philosophy to get there. Did Jesus, or the Apostles, or any of the Prophets, use and teach Greek philosophy? How much more innovative can you get? It seems, from the 'Traditional' view, even Jesus had no idea of the true attributes of God. If only Plato or Plotinus had been there to set Him straight, eh?

[petromax]

I would say God isn't omniscient. It makes no sense to me to decide which words to use to describe God before figuring out what God is actually like. If 'omniscient' can just be redefined to fit very different conceptions of God's knowledge, then it's worse than useless as a description of God. It just confuses anyone who isn't already aware of the different definitions and which one is intended.

The only way for God to infallibly foreknow all future events would be if all future events are predetermined. Because we know from direct experience that we have free will, we know that future events are not all predetermined, so God cannot infallibly foreknow them all.

It also seems dubious to say that God knows all possible futures, since the future is possibly infinite. For God to have infinite knowledge, if that isn't incoherent, his knowledge would have to be eternal. Why would there be an eternally fixed set of possible futures? At the least, it seems that such infinite knowledge would be practically indistinguishable from limited foreknowledge from our perspective. The only way to prove it would be if God said it himself explicitly.

[faithbad]

Lemme guess...

Your theism is right huh???

Pander on