Page 20

someone to affirm simultaneously an openness view of divine foreknowledge and the doctrine of
inerrancy by believing that God, as well as the biblical authors, just happened to get everything
right, it is certainly highly improbable. In fact, I see no explanation forthcoming as to how open
theists are able to affirm that God can guarantee that what he predicts will in fact come true.

Second, even if one desired to affirm the doctrine of inerrancy and open theism, how

would one attempt to do so? Inductively, one could not now make the affirmation that Scripture
is inerrant since there would be no way to know until the eschaton whether God and the biblical
authors just happened to get it right. Deductively, one could not now make the affirmation either
since we can not say with assurance that God is able to guarantee that all of his promises and
predictions will come to pass given the openness view of divine foreknowledge. Thus, even
though it is logically possible to affirm open theism and inerrancy, it is highly improbable that
such a view will yield an inerrant set of passages that predict future events.

Concluding Reflections

What, then, shall we conclude about our investigation as to the relationship between the

openness proposal on divine sovereignty-omniscience and the doctrine of Scripture? I offer
three brief concluding reflections.

First, open theism must seriously reconsider their proposal on the relationship between

divine sovereignty-omniscience and human freedom because it leads to insurmountable
problems for a high view of Scripture. No doubt, the openness proposal does allow for open
theists logically to affirm inerrancy. But it also undermines: (1) any kind of guarantee that
either the human authors will freely write precisely what God wanted written, or that what God
predicts will in fact come to pass; and (2) a strong epistemological grounding to our belief in and
defense of the inerrancy of Scripture.

Second, if open theism wants to maintain and defend a high view of Scripture along with

the theological underpinnings of that view, they need to surrender their open view of God.

I do

not see how any coherent and rational defense of an inerrant Scripture can be made on the
foundation of open theism.

Third, open theists should not be surprised that other evangelicals find their views

unacceptable and outside the limits of evangelical theology. Evangelicals are willing to think
through theological matters time and time again in light of Scripture. But when proposals arise
that have implications that undermine the very basis for an authoritative and inerrant Bible, it

On this point see the wise observation of J. I. Packer when he writes: "The customary apologetic for biblical

authority operates on too narrow a front. As we have seen, faith in the God of the Reformation theology is the
necessary presupposition of faith in Scripture as "God Word written," and without this faith sola Scriptura as the
God-taught principle of authority more or less loses its meaning.... we must never lose sight of the fact that our
doctrine of God is decisive for our concept of Scripture, and that in our controversy with a great deal of modern
theology it is here, rather than in relation to the phenomena of Scripture, that the decisive battle must be joined"
("`Sola Scriptura' in History and Today," in God's Inerrant Word, 60).