Page 8

longer be said that God is working out his ideal, preordained plan. Rather, God may well find
himself disappointed in the sense that this world may fall short of that ideal world God wishes
were coming about."

Does this then mean that open theists also believe that God's ultimate plans will not come

to pass? The answer is no. Open theists argue that even though God does not have exhaustive
knowledge of the future, he is still God. And given his familiarity with present causal tendencies
and his clear grasp of his own providential designs, God is almost "sure" about how the future
will turn out even though the future remains open. Richard Rice explains it this way:

God's future thus resembles ours in that it is both definite and indefinite.

But it differs

greatly from ours in the extent to which it is definite. Since we are largely ignorant of the
past and present, the future appears vastly indefinite to us. We know very little of what
will happen because we know and understand so little of what has already happened. God,
in contrast, knows all that has happened. Therefore a great deal of the future that appears
vague and indefinite to us must be vividly clear to Him.

But, it must be quickly added, even after all the caveats have been factored in, open theist must
affirm that a God with only present knowledge must take risks. For if God makes decisions that
depend for their outcomes on the responses of free creatures in which the decisions themselves
are not informed by knowledge of the outcomes, then creating and governing such a world is, in
the words of William Hasker, "a risky business."

The Openness Proposal and the Doctrine of Scripture

We now turn to investigate whether the open theist construal of the divine sovereignty-

omniscience and human freedom relationship has any logical bearing on the doctrine of
Scripture. Is the openness proposal able to uphold a high view of Scripture or will it undermine
it? Given the openness proposal of God's relation to the world, does it have any bearing on what
we may or may not affirm about Scripture? It is to these questions that we now turn and I will
attempt to address these questions in two steps. First, I want to think through the open theist's

Basinger, "Divine Control and Human Freedom," 58.

See Boyd, God of the Possible, 21-87, who also makes this same point.

Richard Rice, God's Foreknowledge and Man's Free Will, 55-56. Peter Geach in a very similar way argues that

just because the future is indeterminate does not mean that God's ultimate plans will not come to pass. In his book,
Providence and Evil (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 40-66, Geach views God as a Grand Chess
Master who is simultaneously playing several games of chess. He has everything under control even though some of
the players are consciously trying to hinder his plan, while others are trying to help it. But whatever the finite
players do, God's plan will be executed because as the Grand Master he cannot be surprised, thwarted, cheated, or
disappointed.

William Hasker, God, Time, and Knowledge, 197.