2 of 3

Stan Grenz ponders the same question in his comments on your work in his recent book, Renewing the Center. "What is perhaps even more disquieting about Sanders's proposal," Grenz writes, "is that it seems to require the rejection of such a broad swath of the Christian theological tradition. He intimates that on something as fundamental as our basic conception of God, nearly everyone from the fifth century to the present has deviated far from the true understanding of biblical texts."

I acknowledge that there have been figures in the church's history who have argued that God's foreknowledge is limited, but they are minor figures at best, and the church as a community has never validated their conclusions. While the interpretive tradition of the church is not infallible, extremely convincing exegesis will need to be forthcoming if the two marks of openness theology are to be accepted, that is: (a) God's knowledge of the future is limited, and (b) God's knowledge grows as time itself proceeds.

Finally, James Packer taught me that while biblical revelation is absolutely infallible, it presently contains certain irresolvable tensions, largely because God haschosen to keep certain things to himself, at least for the present. Thus, while God always speaks truthfully, God might well choose to remain silent or incomplete in his communication. Indeed, Moses taught Israel that the "secret things belong to the Lord" (Deut. 29:29). Packer has warned me, both as his student in Vancouver and in many of his writings, to beware of draining the mystery out of the Scripture in a misplaced desire for rational consistency. In Packer's words, we can frequently trace theological confusion and error to "the intruding of rationalistic speculations, the passion for systematic consistency, a reluctance to recognize the existence of mystery and. … a consequent subjecting of Scripture to the supposed demands of human logic." Hence, I have learned to live with incompleteness, paradox, incomprehensibility, and deep mystery in my relationship with God and as I think theologically.

Simultaneously, though, the Bible makes certain things quite clear. For instance, while evil in its essence may remain inexplicable to me, in Jesus Christ, God has clearly spoken against evil and sin. While I may not understand why God has allowed certain events to take place, or has seen fit to remain seemingly silent in answer to certain of my prayers, I can know that God loves me and his world infinitely. How so? God has demonstrated this love and goodness in the incarnation, ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. While God allows evil to occur and, indeed, uses it to further his own purposes, God has spoken and acted against that very same evil, as seen in the earliest sections of the biblical narrative (cf. Gen. 3). In Christ we have God's definitive statement against sin, evil, and suffering. God's last word will always be a redemptive one.

I find Tom Oden's comments in The Living God to be helpful, both concerning the nature and extent of God's knowledge and regarding God's relationship to time itself. In a way, Oden is simply summing up the ecumenical consensus reached upon these issues in the early centuries of the church's history. God's knowledge is "without limitation or qualification." It is, as the psalmist writes, "beyond all telling" (Ps. 147:5). What of God's knowledge of the future? "God's incomparable way of knowing knows the end of things even from the beginning: 'I reveal the end from the beginning, from ancient times I reveal what is to be; I say, "My purpose shall take effect, I will accomplish all that I please"'" (Isa. 46:9). God knows "past, present, and future. … external events and inward motivations."

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

May 21 2001, Vol. 45, No. 7