Is the Future Settled or Open? James White vs Bob Enyart

The following presentation is a production of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc. and is protected by copyright laws of the United States and its international treaties. Copying or distribution of this production without the expressed written permission of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc. is prohibited.

Opening Statement: Open Theism, God’s Freedom, and the Incarnation

Greetings everyone and hello James White. I am Bob Enyart, pastor of Denver Bible Church. Of course, regardless of our differences, I am thankful that James White loves the Lord and mostly that God so loved the world that he sent Jesus Christ to die for those who could not save themselves and to give eternal life to those who trust him.

Open theism is the Christian doctrine that the future is not settled but open because God is alive, eternally free, and inexhaustibly creative. Open theism...excuse me, there was a beeping back there.

The settled view disagrees and as a result claims that God cannot think a new thought and so his creativity is not inexhaustible but completed. Open theism grows as Christians realize that its foundation is not based on man but rather on God's freedom.

I will show tonight that the future is open based on three fundamental truths, God's freedom, his attributes, and the incarnation. The first is God's freedom for he is eternally free. In the doubly redundant terminology of theologians, we'd have to say that God has libertarian free will.

And if God is free right now and forever, then the future must be open. Secondly, we will show that the Bible's five main attributes of God. The Bible shows five attributes and they are different from the five main philosophical attributes of God which come from pagan Greek philosophy.

I will attempt to show you visually by flipping through the pages of the Bible in a way that your eyes may actually help you perceive that the five biblical attributes of God being living, personal, relational, good, and loving are way more important to God and are a better description of him.

And that the biblical attributes of God teach an open future. We will see that theologians like Dr. James White arrive at the settled view by using the philosophical and not the biblical attributes of God.

And thirdly, the incarnation irrefutably shows that God is not outside of time. The incarnation proves that God is not outside of time because the life of God the son is being lived in a sequence. First he existed through eternity past with only one nature, a divine nature, not having a human nature.

Then by the incarnation he became a man, even the son of man, taking upon himself a second nature, our human nature. So that now and forever he is both God the son and the man Jesus Christ. For 1600 years the church has argued that the future must be settled because God is outside of time.

But that collapses by the force of the central doctrine of Christianity, the incarnation. Now let's look at those three truths starting with the incarnation, which shows that God is not outside of time because God has a past.

For God, God the son, was not eternally a man. Back before the incarnation, the books of Numbers and 1 Samuel explicitly state that God was not a man. Moses even wrote that God is not a man nor a son of man.

So in God's past, God the son was not a man and had only a divine nature which was perfect. Then he became a man, as the Bible says, and became is a word that indicates change. So he took on a human nature.

So now he has two natures which is still perfect. That proves that God lives in sequence, which also shows that God is not outside of time and that perfect things can change contrary to the doctrine of immutability.

James White does not believe that God experiences sequence, but I posit that the sequence experienced by God through the incarnation is irrefutable. Now for those who think that time was created by God and not an aspect of his existence, please consider that time cannot be created.

Why not? Because creation means going from nonexistence to existence, which itself is a before and an after. And since time therefore is a precondition of creating, time itself cannot be created. Now to the second reason for an open future, the attributes of God.

You may have been told that the five primary attributes of God are immutability, impassibility, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. We refer to these as the omnis and the ims. They are quantitative.

The five biblical attributes of God are that he is living, personal, relational, good, and loving. These are qualitative. The omnis and ims are philosophical attributes that mix pagan Greek philosophy with theology and they deal with quantity, like how much or how little.

For example, how much knowledge? That's omniscience. How much power? That's omnipotence. How much presence? Omnipresence. How little emotion does God have? That's impassibility and their claim that he cannot change, that's immutability.

Jesus told us in Mark 13 .32 that God the Son did not know the day or the hour of the second coming. That falsifies the claim that God must possess all knowledge or else he couldn't be God. Luke shows this also recording that Jesus, who is God the Son, grew in wisdom and also that Jesus grew in favor with the Father.

That shows change also in the Father. The things that God says that he did not know and the things that the Bible says that God learned, these things disprove omniscience and also they disprove immutability.

Settle view proponents, like James White, believe that God is impassible, which is the claim that he has no emotion. The whole Bible shows that God has emotion, yet John Calvin taught that God, quote, is incapable of every feeling.

In fact, when you read in the Bible that God is angry or grieved, Calvin wrote, it's just a figure of speech. But many verses in the Old and New Testament describe God's emotion, with Jesus, for example, going from joy to weeping.

And then in Gethsemane, he became distressed and then was in agony. Is that all a figure of speech? Until three days later when the Lord said to the women, rejoice. Why does James deny that God has emotion?

Because even that kind of change would prove that God lives in sequence. Do you get that? The doctrine of immutability dissolves in Jesus' tears. So the Bible shows that God has emotions, which falsifies impassibility and also refutes immutability because they show that he can change.

In preparation for the debate, I read the four Gospels to highlight each verse that plainly reveals God's biblical attributes in yellow and anything that looked like the omnis and ims in green. I was able to highlight four verses in green.

Then for the yellow, remember the biblical attributes that God is living, personal, relational, good, and loving. Highlighting each verse in yellow that plainly demonstrated those attributes took 15 hours.

You can visualize, you can visually see the results. As I flip through the pages of the Gospel, thousands of verses highlighted in yellow, thousands showing that God is living, personal, relational, good, and loving.

Unlike the interpretation required to highlight those four green verses, not one of these yellow highlighted verses are in the least questionable or arbitrary. Not one is in the least contradicted by the Lord himself or mitigated by any other passage.

None of these is subject to metaphor. Instead, each of these verses demonstrates boldly in the flesh the unequivocal doctrine of who God really is and what his attributes actually are. Sometimes a single verse shows all five, like Mark chapter 10, verse 45, for example.

The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many. That verse shows that God is alive because it says he gave his life. It shows he is personal because he's referred to as the Son.

It shows he is relational because he is the Son of Man. It shows he is loving because he was coming to serve, and it shows he is good because he gave his life a ransom. Our webpage for tonight's debate is opentheism .org slash James White.

I hope that's okay, Dr. White. It has the opening statement on it, my opening statement, and we have all of our references. That page also lists the methodology that we used to do the highlighting describing our very conservative approach.

Let's test how the different sets of attributes affect James White's and our interpretations. Two hotly contested verses often put in opposition to one another from Ephesians and 1 Timothy both use the word all.

They can't both mean all without exception. Does God work all things according to the counsel of his will, that is, predestining everything, or does God desire that all men would be saved, that is, everyone?

First, some background. While on location in Asia Minor, studying there, we learned that Ephesus was the international center of the worship of Diana, a wild goddess who might throw a tantrum and turn you into an animal.

Pagans would worship in the high places, so Paul told the Ephesians that we are blessed in the heavenly places, where Christ is seated above any acropolis, in fact, far above all principalities and powers.

If you prioritize the omnis and ims, as James does, that God has all power and all knowledge and cannot change, if you put those above the biblical attributes, then by those philosophical attributes, you immediately conclude that the verse must say that God has predestined everything, for you conclude that before you even look at the verse.

If instead you prioritize those thousands of highlighted verses, the biblical attributes of God above the omnis and ims, and you focus on God being living, personal, relational, good and loving, then the other interpretation is this.

You immediately see that God does desire all men, without exception, to be saved, because that interpretation is not based on quantity, but on quality, and it fits with his biblical attributes. So God wills that all would be saved, yes, as the Bible says that the lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, many others will reject God's will that all would be saved.

Then God being good and loving shows that he would never predestine filth and evil, just the fact that he's good and loving. So God working all things according to the counsel of his will means that unlike the pagan gods who are arbitrary and capricious, everything that our God does, he does thoughtfully according to the counsel of his will.

So Ephesians does not teach that everything that happens is done by God, for God is not even the author of confusion, let alone evil. Rather, unlike the cruel and unpredictable Greek gods, everything that our God does, all God's works, not all of man's works, but all of God's works are done deliberately and out of his goodness.

So by the biblical attributes, we reject the omnis and ims interpretation and see that God wants everyone to be saved, and also that not everything is settled, but rather, everything God does is for a good reason.

So by prioritizing the attributes highlighted in these verses above the omnis and ims, you get a powerful biblical framework for interpreting the Bible, which never leads to the settled view, but to the God who is eternally free.

And those thousands of highlighted verses, they're just in the gospels. There must be more than 10 ,000 such passages throughout the scripture that show those attributes of God. And that framework makes sense because the Bible shows which set of attributes are more fundamental and more important to God, for scripture systematically elevates God's goodness above his power.

For example, Jonah interprets the unfulfilled prophecy of Nineveh, their impending destruction, not attributing it to immutability, omnipotence, or omniscience, but to God being merciful and loving. For the prophecy did not come to pass, as Jonah put it, because God is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, abundant in love, one who repents from doing harm.

The book of Jonah is understood by the biblical attributes, but it confounds the omnis and ims. It says that God saw that they turned from their evil way and God repented from the disaster that he said he would bring upon them, and he did not do it.

This is exactly what God says in the potter and clay passage. Depending on how men respond to his promises and warnings, that he will not do that which he said he would do, that he will not do that which he thought he would do.

But why does the Bible prioritize love above power? Because quality trumps quantity. And God's primary attributes are qualitative, not quantitative. Goodness is greater than power. For might doesn't make right, but right makes might.

For as the Bible says repeatedly, righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne, O God. And God's throne represents power, and it is righteousness that is the foundation of that power. So the banner under which we have the victory is not a flag depicting omni-powerful nuclear weapons.

Rather, the banner over us is love showing the lamb that was slain. Just as might doesn't make right, it cannot be that from before the foundation of the earth that God for his glory and pleasure decreed every thought and every action and controls every molecule.

For that would mean that all the world's hatred and perversion flowed from the mind of God. And that, as happened in Florida, when a man abducts a little girl from her own bedroom, torments her, molests her, and then buries her alive, that would mean that all of that played out in the mind of God before that criminal came into existence, a criminal who could perform in no other way than the way in which he was created.

Which is why James White consistently says that all wickedness is meaningful, because even though he doesn't want to be held to it like Augustine, he traces all evil directly back to God's omnis and ims.

And that's another thing about open theism, which James White has admitted publicly, that even on its face, that unlike Calvinism, open theism does not bring men to question the goodness of God. Now returning to the first of our three fundamental truths to close, we began by stating that the future is open based on God's freedom.

The settled view is forced to deny God's freedom, taking away his ability to think a new thought, write a new song. For example, we believe that God was actually free to create or not to create, and in how he designed the universe.

But if the settled view acknowledges God's actual freedom, even in what he decrees, then exhaustive foreknowledge is not an eternal attribute of God, because he could have done otherwise. Yet if they deny that God was free to create differently, then like Zeus, they trap God himself in fate.

God is free, and therefore the future cannot be settled, but must be open. Now as James White comes up and presents proof texts, he will view them through the lens of the omnis and ims. With that mindset, some verses actually sound like everything is settled.

But 30 times the Bible calls him the living God, and living things change. Each of the claimed proof texts, based on the omnis and ims, has an opposite interpretation based on the biblical attributes that God is living, personal, relational, good, and loving.

So with each verse you hear, consider two questions. First, am I being asked to interpret this by the omnis and ims? And secondly, what is the other interpretation? And you will find that there is always that other interpretation which speaks of the living God who is eternally free.

Thank you.

Rebuttal: Scripture, Foreknowledge, and the Divine Decree

Well, good evening. Thank you very much for being here this evening. This is a very, very important topic, and I hope you will listen very carefully. I also hope you will allow each one of us to define our own positions.

Unfortunately, Bob has misrepresented me pretty badly already on a number of instances. He didn't give citations because he wouldn't be able to. I'll try to correct those in my rebuttal period because I only have a few moments to try to explain to you why it is that Christianity, all branches of Christianity, have never believed what Bob Enyart just presented to you to be true.

The primary reason is this. What you've heard Bob do just now is he's taken certain attributes which all Christians believe that God is personal, that he's living, that he's good, he's relational. We all believe that.

What he does is he elevates those above the other attributes that are revealed in Scripture. The only way to truly understand God is to go to his Word and allow his Word to tell us about him because we are not like him.

We are his creatures, and therefore we're dependent upon his Word to explain to us who he is. So what Christian theology has done down through the years is not follow Plato and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

That's a bogus argument. What we have done is we've allowed the Scriptures, all of the Scriptures, to reveal the entire range of God's attributes, and we as his creatures do not have the right to say, I'm going to pick this one, this one, this one, this one, and I'm going to subserviete everything else to these because those are the ones that make God most look like me.

That's why you won't find this belief in church history because people recognize that there are so many passages of the Bible that teach otherwise. It's not a matter of, well, you've got your interpretational system and I've got mine.

It's allowing the Bible to speak for itself. So I'm going to begin with Ephesians 1 .11, and I'm going to suggest to you that if you read Ephesians 1 .1 through 1 .11, you're going to find no way to limit what God is saying there when he says, when he is described as the God who works all things after the counsel of his will because the context there is the accomplishment of the highest act that God is engaged in, and that is his self-glorification, the salvation of a specific people that he has elected from time eternal.

And so everything that goes into that has to be a part of God's plan and God's sovereign action. And so when it says he works all things after the counsel of his will, it actually means that. But we don't even have to stick with Ephesians because Paul I think is just simply echoing what we hear in Isaiah chapter 46.

Listen to these words. I would invite everyone this evening to go home tonight, before you go to bed tonight, go home and read Isaiah 40 through 48. It's the trial of the false gods. And listen to what God says about himself in those chapters and ask yourself a question, who represented that God this evening?

That would be very, very important. But listen to these words beginning in verse 8 of Isaiah 46. Remember this and stand firm. Recall to mind, you transgressors. Remember the former things of old, for I am God, there is no other.

I am God and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done. How can God do that if the future doesn't exist? How can God do that if he doesn't have knowledge, exhausted knowledge of the future?

Saying, my counsel shall stand and I will accomplish all my purpose. Bob's going to tell us this evening, God hopes his prophecies fail. He hoped the prophecy concerning Judas would fail. And it's okay if it did.

But here God says, my counsel shall stand and I will accomplish all my purpose. That is my assertion this evening. I have three points to try to cram into 16 minutes and it's not going to be easy to do.

Point number one, the Bible directly, plainly, clearly and unalterably teaches God's eternal nature and his absolute knowledge of all matters in time because everything that happens in time is a result of his creative decree.

Number two, the Bible teaches that the incarnation of Jesus Christ and the demonstration of his deity is based upon God's eternal nature and his knowledge of the future. They're tied together and I believe there are serious Christological errors in Bob Enyart's theology, serious Christological errors that we will need to address this evening.

And number three, my friends, and this is why this is most important, this is a gospel issue. The gospel of Jesus Christ is directly impacted by this teaching. And I will submit to you that as we look at scripture, God's knowledge of future events and specifically his knowledge of the people that he's going to redeem is made impossible by the open theist perspective and therefore the gospel itself is greatly impacted.

Turn with me to Isaiah chapter 41 and I want you to hear what God says in his inspired word. Isaiah chapter 41 verse 21, here calling the false idols to come into the court. Set forth your case, says Yahweh.

Bring your proofs, says the king of Jacob. So he's inviting these false gods. Come in, set forth your arguments, let's hear what you have to say, let them bring them and do what? What's the test that God gives us in his own inspired word for who is and who is not truly God?

Tell us what is to happen. The true God can do this, a false God cannot. An idol cannot tell you what's going to happen. This is the very test given to the people of God. Here's the dividing line between the true God because he knows the future and a false God because he does not.

Then notice what else it says. Tell us the former things what they are that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome or declare to us the things to come. Tell us what is to come hereafter that we may know that you are gods.

And then he gets sarcastic. This is sarcasm. Do good or do harm that we may be dismayed and terrified. Behold, you are nothing and your work is less than nothing. Toeva, an abomination is he who chooses you.

Strong words, but notice that something is frequently missed in this text. It's not just so clearly stating that a fundamental test of the true God is he knows the future and can tell you what's going to happen.

That's clear, that's obvious, but notice something else. Tell us the former things, what they are that we may consider them and that we may know their outcome. Folks, do you know what that means? I had the opportunity of teaching church history in Kiev.

I landed in Kiev right as the U .S. State Department issued a travel warning, don't go to Kiev. And I was there during the revolution and what was I there? Therefore, I was teaching church history. I've taught church history for many years and historians can very often tell you what happened in the past, but very often historians cannot tell you why it happened in the past.

It's one thing to know the facts, it's another thing to know why. And God says not only can I tell you what's going to happen in the future, I can tell you what happened in the past and why it happened.

You know what that means? That means there was a purpose. That means it happened according to his divine decree. There is a reason, there is a purpose, and God, we may not know what it is, we may not know till eternity, but God knows what the purpose was because he is an awesome creator.

And that's how you tell the difference between the true God and idols. And it says anyone who chooses a God who can't do those things is themselves toevah, an abomination. Those are strong words. Those are strong words, but that's not the only place.

Look at Isaiah chapter 44, verses 6 through 8. Same section, but this is where God reveals so much about himself. Listen to what he says in verses 6 through 8 of chapter 44. Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Yahweh of hosts, I am the first and I am the last.

Beside me there is no God. Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come and what will happen. Fear not, nor be afraid.

Have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses. Is there a God besides me? There is no rock. I know it on any. You see folks, I've been debating this issue from the time I started ministry because the first people I dealt with were Mormons.

And on an epistemological and ontological level, Bob Enyart's theology of God's knowledge of the future is identical to Mormonism. Finite. Godism is nothing new. And so when I hear these things, I'm like, oh wow, we need to go back to Isaiah.

That's where we've gone so many times before in the context of demonstrating the one true God. What does God say? Set forth what is going to take place. The true prophets can do that because they serve the true God who has an exhaustive knowledge of future events.

Now I said the next thing that very much concerns me is the issue of the incarnation. Turn just one page back probably in your Bible to Isaiah 43 .10 or maybe these days just tap back. That may be the way most people are doing this.

To Isaiah 43 .10, this is an incredibly important text dealing with Mormons all the time. That last phrase, before me, no God was formed, nor shall there be after me, cuts the Mormon law of eternal progression right in half.

But notice what comes before that. Isaiah 43 .10 is the Bible verse from which Jehovah's Witnesses get their names. You know that? Notice it says, you are my witnesses declares Yahweh, or as we slaughter it in English Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen, who may know and believe me and understand that I am he.

This is in the context of God revealing future events. And he's chosen his servant, Israel, that they may know and believe me and understand that I am he. In Hebrew that's Anahu. In the Greek Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which was the Bible of the New Testament church, that is the phrase, Ego Aime, I am.

Now keep your finger there and turn with me to John chapter 13. Here in the Gospel of John chapter 13, in the context of the betrayer, Judas, verse 18, I am not speaking of all of you. I know whom I have chosen, but the scripture will be fulfilled.

We may need to talk about that word because Bob has a very unusual understanding of what plairothe means. He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me. Notice citation of Old Testament text, Jesus says it's going to be fulfilled.

Then verse 19, I am telling you this now before it takes place that when it does take place, you may believe that I am he. Then notice this verse 21, after saying these things, Jesus was troubled in his spirit and testified, truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.

So here's the context, the betrayal of Judas. And notice what Jesus says. In verse 19, I am telling you this now before it takes place that when it does take place, you may believe that I am he. Sound familiar?

Yeah, if you look at the Greek Septuagint and you parallel the language that's found in Isaiah 43 .10 with what's found here in John 13 .19, Jesus is drawing from Isaiah 43 .10 and applying verses about Yahweh God to himself.

This is one of the places where I am is used in John chapter 8, verse 24, 8 .58, 13 .19, 18 .5 -6. John is clearly in each one of these indicating to us that these are references to the deity of Christ, not just the deity of Christ, these are references to Jesus being Yahweh.

And how does Jesus present this? In the context, I'm telling you this before it happens so that when it does happen, you may understand, you may believe, I am deity, I am Yahweh. My esteemed opponent this evening believes that Jesus could have been wrong when he said this.

Judas could have repented, that would have been great. And then he misrepresents us Calvinists because he says, see Calvinists don't like this because they think it's terrible that a man repent, has nothing to do with it at all.

I've heard him say it over and over again, has nothing to do with it at all. Our objection is simple, Jesus can't prove he's Yahweh by lying. We need to know who Jesus is. And if Jesus says you can know me because of this, then if Jesus is wrong, we have no way of knowing who Jesus really is.

That's the issue, it has nothing to do with Judas repenting, it has everything to do with God having to be true because my friends, if you want to know God as personal, if you want to know God as loving, you've got to first believe that God is true and consistent and faithful.

What if his gospel changes tomorrow? We're without hope. We're without hope. Fascinating. Well, very little time left, turn with me please to Acts chapter 2. Acts chapter 2 verse 23, we read these words, let's begin at verse 22.

Men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know, this Jesus delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

The cross was not something that came along later in God's thinking. I debated a scholar of this subject by the name of John Sanders a number of years ago, and Dr. Sanders, a consistent open theist, believes that when God created, he did not know that Adam would fall.

In fact, he was shocked, he was surprised. He didn't know it was going to happen. And that means when God created, he had no idea that you would ever exist. None. Because you're the result of thousands of free will choices, so God could never know that you existed.

And so he couldn't know what was going to happen. He created all the potentiality of all this evil, but he had no purpose other than to show that he's good and loving and personal, but all that evil, all that stuff that he didn't know what happened, but it just sort of took place.

And so then he has to find a way to solve this problem, and so we have the cross, right? And yet according to Acts chapter 2, this Jesus delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.

Well, you can't have foreknowledge if you don't have knowledge of the fore. And so God has a definite plan, and the cross has been a part of that plan. In fact, as Peter tells us, it speaks of Jesus, the lamb slain for our salvation, foreknown before the creation of the world.

The early church believed this. Look at Acts chapter 4 verses 27 -28. It's so clear in their preaching, for truly in this city they were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel.

Look at all those different people involved there. Think of all the different motivations in Herod's mind and Pilate's mind and the Jews' mind and the Romans' mind. Herod was a nut, Pilate was a coward, the Jewish leaders hated Jesus because he kept exposing them, and the Roman soldiers just were getting their pay and doing their thing.

All of them have all sorts of different motivations, but was there any uncertainty about the crucifixion? Was there any uncertainty about the crucifixion? No, because look at what it says, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

There's the faith of the early church. That's why Christians have always believed what Christians have believed about the unchanging nature of God, His purposes, His intentions. You see, what we believe is that God is eternal, but you see, He has decreed in the creation of this universe to enter into relationship with His people.

It's a personal relationship, it's an intimate relationship, it's all a part of His decree. He decrees in the creation of time to enter into time in the person of Jesus Christ and to also interact through His spirit with His people.

So you see, the only way that there can be a contradiction there is if you squish God down to someone who looks like us. If you insist that He either has to be timeless and He's Plato's cold stone idol, or He has to be a person like us that experiences time.

What if He's bigger than either one of those? What if He exists outside of time, creates time, and interacts with us in time, and demonstrates His love for us by the second person of Trinity entering into human flesh, which does not create a change in the being of God.

You have to have a very wrong Christology to come up with that idea. What if He does that? That's exactly what the Bible says He did. That's exactly what the early church, they recognized in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ to do whatever your hand and your plan predestined to take place.

Now, two minutes and two and a half minutes is ridiculous, but here we go, Romans chapter 8. Let me just make a few comments as to how this is a gospel issue. You see it's a gospel issue because it has to do with the very crucifixion of Jesus Christ Himself, but now let's look at some other aspects which I'll only be able to touch on a few.

Verse 29, well, verse 28, and we know that for those who love God, all things work together for good for those who are called according to His purpose. That is so personal, my friends. That is so personal.

God has to be in control of the future to make that promise come true. That has been the bulwark of the hope of God's people for 2 ,000 years. But notice the application, for those whom He foreknew. Wait a minute for the open theist, God didn't know you were going to exist.

God had no idea. You're the result of all sorts of free will actions of men. God didn't know you were going to exist, so He couldn't have foreknown you. You see, you end up with an impersonal concept of salvation where God simply chooses a nameless, faceless group and then we fill it in by what we do, by our belief, by our repentance, whatever else it might be.

It becomes impersonal just like the cross becomes impersonal. Because see, I believe that the elect reunite with Christ in His death, so His death becomes my death, His resurrection becomes my resurrection, my name was written on His hands.

Not for the open theist, my name didn't exist yet. At the crucifixion, Jesus didn't know I'd exist. How could my name be on His hands? It becomes impersonal. That changes the gospel, my friends. Those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed, the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers.

Notice the golden chain. Those whom He predestined, He also called. Those whom He called, He also justified. Those whom He justified, He also glorified. It's the same group all the way through. It's personal, my friends.