24
Augustinian/Calvinist and Semi-Pelagian/Arminian/ Wesleyan resolutions of this paradox by
asserting that God can neither determine nor know the future, free choices of humans.
Why do open theists hold this novel position? In the case of John Sanders, one reason is
his rigid use of the LONC. John Sanders points to the teachings in the Bible regarding God
being grieved, changing his mind, resorting to alternative plans, and being open and responsive
to what humans do, and says these teachings are logically incompatible with the view that God
knows the future and especially with the Calvinist view that he has ordained it. "These sorts of
things make no sense within the framework of specific sovereignty. If God always gets precisely
what he desires in each and every situation, then it is incoherent to speak of God's being grieved
about or responding to the human situation."
77
"My principle argument against exhaustive
sovereignty is that it rules out certain experiences, decisions and actions that the Bible and many
theists attribute to God."
78
If God has determined the human actions that shall come to pass (as
Augustinians/Calvinists affirm), then it seems to follow logically that humans are puppets of
God and God cannot feel genuine sorrow over human sins and suffering or joy over their
obedience. Logic, he believes, forces us to opt for either a relational God or a God who
determines the future. "One simply cannot have it both ways: either God controls everything and
the divine-human relationship is impersonal, or God does not control everything and so it is
possible for the divine-human relationship to be personal."
79
There is a logical tension here, and Christians have held a continuum of positions on this
issue. Whereas open theists favor the relational passages of the Bible and distort the
foreknowledge and sovereignty passages, hyper-Calvinists, at the other end, have distorted
God's general love for all.
80
However, both sets of truths have a Scriptural basis. When the open