Scholarlink

<p>Open theists defend the epistemic openness of the contingent future for God, although they don’t regard biblical&#xa0;prophecies, which involve God’s providing information about the future, as problematic for their view. They proceed to&#xa0;explain such prophecies in one of the following three ways: as conditional prophecies, as prophecies based on current&#xa0;necessities, or as prophecies of divine intentions. In this article, I argue that there are problematic biblical prophecies for&#xa0;open theism that can’t be explained in any of these three ways within an open theist framework. Then I propose two ways for&#xa0;open theists to deal with these problematic prophecies. The first solution is to renounce a literal interpretation of the&#xa0;problematic prophecies, which would be compatible with open theism being more biblical than its rivals. The second solution is to put&#xa0;forward a fourth way of explaining prophecies, which involves a specific view of future contingents, and to apply it to the&#xa0;problematic prophecies.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Open Theism and Prophecy

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月18日

查看全文
  • Ferhat Yöney

摘要

Open theists defend the epistemic openness of the contingent future for God, although they don’t regard biblical prophecies, which involve God’s providing information about the future, as problematic for their view. They proceed to explain such prophecies in one of the following three ways: as conditional prophecies, as prophecies based on current necessities, or as prophecies of divine intentions. In this article, I argue that there are problematic biblical prophecies for open theism that can’t be explained in any of these three ways within an open theist framework. Then I propose two ways for open theists to deal with these problematic prophecies. The first solution is to renounce a literal interpretation of the problematic prophecies, which would be compatible with open theism being more biblical than its rivals. The second solution is to put forward a fourth way of explaining prophecies, which involves a specific view of future contingents, and to apply it to the problematic prophecies.