Page 6

Now, is the God of open theism absolved here because in formulating his wise plans he

does in fact make use of all available and logically possible knowledge, so that it would be unfair
to discredit the perfect wisdom of his decisions just because he did not take into consideration
knowledge of the future, which knowledge is logically impossible to have? No, to the contrary,
what it exposes is that a God lacking exhaustive foreknowledge is intrinsically and unavoidably
fallible and faulty in making his future plans. He may have unparalleled wisdom, as Basinger
states, but if God himself evaluates his decisions in retrospect and says, `things didn't work as I
had hoped; this is not what I intended and I don't like what happened; knowing what I now
know, I would have done differently,' then in no real sense could misguided plans, whether
unintentional or not, whether unavoidable or not, be said to arise from One with perfect wisdom.

5.

[A parallel point:] Open theism's denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge severely
implicates the complete and perfect rightness of God's actions, since God may do things
that he later realizes, in retrospect, were not best.

God not only makes misguided decisions, but he then implements them in action. And

rather than finding this a troubling notion, open theists seem to make use of God's mistaken
decisions and actions as part of their explanation of why God sometimes changes his mind about
things he has said or done. As one notable example, recall how Sanders suggests we might
understand God's promise never again to flood the earth: "It may be the case that although
human evil caused God great pain, the destruction of what he had made caused him even greater
suffering. Although his judgment was righteous, God decides to try different courses of action in
the future."

In other words, God reasons, `although just, this may not have been best.

Certainly, I won't do this again.' How often may God so evaluate his own actions as less than
best? We have no way to know, but given his expansive ignorance and mistaken beliefs about
the future, we may someday be surprised to learn how many times, and in how many ways, God
regretted doing what he did, thinking when they occurred, `I wish I had acted differently.'

6.

Open theism's denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge encourages in its followers
adherence to a view of God which is strikingly and centrally similar to the biblical
idolatry denounced in Isaiah 40-48. What is true both of the God of open theism and of
these idols is this: neither can declare what specific future events will unfold, events that
involve innumerable future free choices and actions of human beings.

But the true God can! For example, the expansiveness and comprehensiveness of God's

foreknowledge claim in Isa. 46:10 ("Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient
times things which have not been done") is then expressed in concrete form in 46:11 ("calling a
bird of prey from the east, the man of my purpose from a far country") as he predicts the coming
of a man, Cyrus no doubt, whom he knows will accomplish his purposes. That is, God knows
specific future events, people, free choices and actions, and their effects. But, which of the idols
can do this, asks the Lord! Furthermore, God says of the worshippers of those idols who do not
know and cannot declare such future actions of free creatures, "he who chooses you is an
abomination" (Isa. 41:24), and of the idols themselves, "Behold, all of them are false; their
works are worthless, their molten images are wind and emptiness" (Isa. 41:29). By its denying

Sanders, God Who Risks, 50.