Responding to Open Theism (pt2a)
Repeat Disclaimer: I won't be giving the entirety of each person's argument. If you want the full presentation of the other person's argument, then buy the book. However, I will try to summarize the authors as best I can, in as brief a space as possible. Then I will quote certain portions and respond. For the sake of not being overly redundant, this will be the last time this particular disclaimer is mentioned.
Basic Introduction and Summary
If you missed the first part, since this is part 2, then go back to post #9 to see part one.
Having considered Boyd's introduction, the discussion now turns to his first major point of three in his presentation of Open Theism. Boyd gives us the most succinct statement of what this section entails. "In part one, I shall demonstrate that while the Bible certainly celebrates God's foreknowledge and control of the future, it does not warrant the conclusion that the future is exhaustively controlled or foreknown as settled by God." (p. 14) In this section, Boyd considers several passages of scripture that point to God's control and knowledge. He argues that these passages demonstrate particular control and knowledge, but they do not demonstrate exhaustive control and knowledge. In this section, his main critique is that the traditional view endorses a hasty generalization fallacy.
The hasty generalization fallacy is when one takes particulars and generalizes the whole on the basis of the particulars. A few examples can be given to spell out this fallacy. (1) A husband and wife may be arguing. The husband has struggled with picking up after himself. He still has the bad habit of leaving dirty clothes on the floor. Early in the marriage, he consistently failed; but now he usually picks up after himself; but at times he lapses into old habits. After one of these times, his wife states, "You always forget to pick up your dirty laundry." This is a statement born more from frustration than reality. She has generalized from past instances and one present instance that he "always" forgets. However, this is simply not true. Her husband has made significant progress, and now his momentary lapse definitely does not indicate that he "always" forgets.
(2) Politics is overly ripe with flagrant fallacies, and one easy example comes from border control. One side is for legal immigration and against illegal immigration. The other side is for open borders. The side for open borders criticizes the other as being against immigration and points out how this nation (US) was founded by immigrants. This is a rather obvious example of a hasty generalization. Just because one is against illegal immigration does not mean that he is against all immigration. This is also a straw man fallacy, since one side misconstrues the other side's position to make it easier to criticize. (3) While this is not an example, one can also call this fallacy a non-sequitur fallacy. The conclusion of "all" or "always" is not justified by the reference to certain particulars. Even if something happens a lot of the time, the conclusion that it always happens is not justified. It is important to spell out this particular fallacy, for this is utterly central to Boyd's position and critique. (4) A final example comes from my own interaction concerning Acts 4 and the predestination verses there. A poster critiqued my view by pointing out that the passage doesn't argue for God being in control of everything. Unfortunately for the other poster, that was not my argument. But this is yet another example of how the hasty generalization works. Had it been my argument, then the other poster would have been correct.
In general, I think that Boyd is fundamentally wrong, and I will spell out why later. However, it is very important to see what he argues before evaluating. Further, if one is ignorant of the verses involved and how positions are argued from the Calvinistic side, then I can see how one could come to the conclusion that Boyd is very persuasive. I can easily see his argument persuading the general Christian population.
Considering a Few of the Particulars of Boy's Argument in Part One
One must move past summaries and overall impressions to dealing with the particulars of Boyd's presentation. Boyd quotes from Isaiah 46:9-11 and Isaiah 48:3-5. God is critiquing idolatry and stating that He is God and no other, who declares the end from the beginning. Boyd states, "The Bible unequivocally celebrates God's foreknowledge and control of the future." (p. 14) After considering the above passages and a few others he also states, "These passages clearly exalt God as the sovereign Lord of history. This scriptural motif reassures believers that however out of control the world may seem, the Lord is steering history toward his desired end. His overall purposes for creation cannot fail, and his eternal purpose for our lives is secure." (p. 15) He agrees that these verses point out that "much of the future is settled ahead of time and is therefore known by God as such." (p. 15) However, he goes on to argue that this does not mean that all of the future is settled ahead of time and known as such.
Boyd's argument concerning Isaiah 46:9-11 and 48:3-5 is that (1) it nowhere says that it concerns all things. (2) The context points out a more particular focus. (p. 16-17). The rest of the section concerns the (1) coherence of having a partly open future (p. 17-18). (2) Foreknown individuals (Josiah, Cyrus, Peter, and Judas) do not constitute an argument that the future is exhaustively settled. (19-23)
It is crucial to note the role of libertarian freedom as it governs Boyd's interpretation of the various passages. (p. 18, 21, 22) In particular, Boyd argues that Jesus possessed predictive knowledge (like a weather man) regarding Peter's character and his denial of Jesus (p. 20-21). Special note can be given to his understanding of Acts 2:23 and 4:27-28 at the end of the section. I will take the time and space to quote it, for I will later critique it heavily.
"In my view, this is how we should understand the wicked activity of all the individuals who played foreordained roles in the death of Jesus: for example, the rulers who had Jesus crucified (Acts 2:23, 4:27-28), the soldier who pierced his side (Jn 19:34-37) and the soldier who gave Jesus vinegar (Jn 19:28-29). As seen in its references to Judas, Scripture never suggests that these specific individuals were destined or foreknown to carry out these wicked deeds. It only teaches that these specific deeds were destined and foreknown to take place. Saying that someone carried out a predestined or foreknown wicked event is much different from saying that someone was predestined or foreknown to carry out a wicked event. Scripture affirms the former but not the latter. These passages only require us to believe that, when he so chooses, God can narrow the parameters within which certain people act out their freely chosen character." (p. 22)
Part 2b will entail my critique of the above summary and quote.