Open Theism by Matthew K. Weber

This is a great paper written by a friend in our church...enjoy, be challenged, stir your intellect and remember that Jesus said that loving God with our mind along with the rest of our being is the greatest commandment!!

Pastor Fred Michaux



REGENT UNIVERSITY
THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION ON OPEN THEISM


A THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION PRESENTED TO
DR. ESTRELDA ALEXANDER
FOR TCDH 501 – SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY I
SCHOOL OF DIVINITY


BY
MATTHEW K. WEBER
APRIL 2008

INTRODUCTION
Rarely has there existed a time when the church lacked some sort of theological controversy. The modern time is no exception. The current theological discussion regarding open theism, also called free will determinism, is intense and sometimes heated. Theologians are passionate about their position regarding the controversy. Some even believe that those who hold to the open theist view hold to heretical teaching.[1] Whatever the verdict is on heresy or orthodoxy, there are strong emotions on both sides of the debate.

OPEN THEISM DEFINED

The main concept of open theism is fairly succinct and well defined. However, the ripples from the assertion travel far and wide in doctrine and practice. Greg Boyd provides a fitting summary when he asserts, “the future is settled to whatever extent the sovereign Creator decides to settle it.”[2] In other words, God decides how much of the future he foreknows and establishes as permanent future reality. Open theism is mainly a question of God’s foreknowledge and the nature of the future.
Boyd and others use language that indicates they believe God is sovereign, but in a different manner than the classical view. Boyd indicates that God does not need to “micromanage”[3] the creation because He has the ability to guide the ultimate outcomes of all events that He sees fit to guide according to His good pleasure. Most theologians who hold to this view believe that the future is largely if not exclusively determined by the actions of free-willed creatures instead of by the free-will of God.

PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER

This paper will provide an open reflection on the theological concept of open theism. The main tenants of open theism will be examined and contrasted to more orthodox classical views of God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge. Furthermore, the arguments for and against the open theist position will be studied.

MAJOR TENANTS AND PROPONENTS

The tenants of open theism are fairly simple, but the practical out-workings of those tenants are quite broad. In many ways the out-workings affect other important core doctrines of the Christian faith far more than the doctrine of foreknowledge and the future. There is a growing list of proponents to this doctrine, and it appears to be a discussion that the church will continue to engage in far into the future.
Some of the main proponents of open theism are Gregory Boyd, John Sanders, Clark Pinnock, William Hasker, and Richard Rice. Each of these scholars has published extensively in various periodicals and books. At least one professor at Regent University has also recent expressed support for the doctrine. Dr. J. Lyle Story expressed his support for the doctrine during the spring two thousand and seven session of the Unity of the Bible course. Each of the proponents mentioned clearly has a strong belief in the validity of the doctrine and has or is in the process of working vigorously to defend it.
One of the main assertions of the open theist viewpoint is the idea that Greek philosophy and worldview distorted the more biblical view of the future. According to John Sanders, who authored a chapter in the book The Openness of God, “Greek thought has played an extensive role in the development of the traditional doctrine of God.”[4] Sanders goes on to say that in some ways the early church fathers were “sell outs”[5] to Hellenism. He points out that particularly in the area of the nature of the universe and the nature of God, the early church fathers relied heavily on Hellenism in order to culturally translate the reality of Christianity to the broader culture of the time. This affirmation of the corruption of the biblical view of God opens the door for open theists to reexamine the current classical view on the nature of God and the nature of the future. Without this assertion of Hellenistic corruption, it is unlikely that open theism would be seriously discussed in many scholarly circles.
There is a necessary counter balance that must be struck to this point. As Steven Roy notes, Greek philosophy was not one “singular, unified Greek philosophy that spoke with one voice on the nature and extent of divine foreknowledge and its relationship to free human decisions.”[6] Roy points out the philosophy of Aristotle and the Roman philosopher Cicero both represent a view that does not support the omniscience of God, which is much closer to open-theism.[7] This fact must be taken into account when speaking about Greek philosophical influence into the doctrine of foreknowledge.

THE NATURE OF GOD

Gregory Boyd is one of the leading voices and proponents of open theism. His book God of the Possible highlights the majority of the tenants that open theists espouse. He does not give much depth to the discussion of these tenants in this work. However, he provides a good starting point to view into the tenants and out-workings of the doctrine especially in relation to the nature of God.
GOD REGRETS
Boyd asserts that God expresses regret.[8] Specifically in Genesis chapter six verse six God expresses regret for creating humanity. He then goes on to cause a massive flood in which Noah and his family are the only survivors. Again in first Samuel chapter fifteen God regrets making Saul king. Boyd observes, “we must wonder how the Lord could truly experience regret for making Saul king if he was absolutely certain that Saul would act the way he did.”[9] In other words, God chose not to see into the future to know what way Saul would choose. If God were in fact all knowing, He would have already known the outcome of Saul’s kingship and therefore could not show regret for making Saul king.
GOD RISKS
One main aspect of open theism is that God takes risks. In the classical view of God, there is no ambiguity in the outcome of the intentions and plans of God. However, the open theist position is quite the opposite. There is risk in all that God does because He does not know how events will transpire and how his plans will conclude. In The God Who Risks, John Sanders highlights this view with the following statement: “It is claimed that there is more than sufficient biblical data teaching that God does not exercise meticulous providence in such a way that the success of His project is, in all respects and without qualification, a foregone conclusion.”[10] It seems as though Sanders is saying that God does not exercise control over the outcome of events.
Boyd continues on this theme by asserting that taking risks is psychologically healthy.[11] He implies that if God does not in fact take risks, then God is not psychologically healthy. Further, Boyd asserts that “the only way to deny that God takes risks is to maintain that everything that occurs in world history is exactly what God wanted to occur.”[12] Opponents of open theism strongly protest this point. However, there is a certain logic that proponents of open theism use to support their position based on this understanding of God taking risks and God sometimes not getting His way.
“GOD ASKS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE”[13]
Several places in Scripture, God asks questions regarding the future. Asking questions about the future could mean that God does not entirely know the outcome of the future. This would imply that God does not totally control the future. As Boyd notes, these questions can be explained as rhetorical. However, he notes that “there is nothing in these texts or in the whole of Scripture that requires these questions to be rhetorical.”[14]
GOD EXPRESSES SURPRISE
Several times in Scripture God seems to be surprised at the outcome of a situation. Again, this interpretation of surprise is not a required interpretation of such passages, but it is a possible interpretation. Boyd challenges the classical position by asking, “If everything is eternally certain to God, as the classical view of foreknowledge holds, how could the Lord twice say that he ‘expected’ one thing to occur, only to have something different occur?”[15] This seems to be a fair question if one asserts this interpretation of certain sections of Scripture.
GOD EXPRESSES FRUSTRATION
Open theists claim that if God is totally sovereign and has foreknowledge of all future events, then He should never be frustrated. His plans should always be established and never be aggravated. An example of God displaying apparent frustration is seen in Moses’ lack of willingness to engage in the redemptive activities set apart for him.[16] Boyd notes, “If it was a foregone conclusion that Moses would not go along with God’s plan, however, one wonders why God frustrated himself trying to get Moses to do so.”[17] Again, if the interpretation of the passage supports or even requires indicating that God can be frustrated, then this is a valid point that should be discussed further.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

The historical development of open theism takes place over a number of centuries. However, the main tenants of the doctrine came together over the last fifteen years. In some ways the roots of open theism can be traced back to Greek thought. As previously mentioned, some strands of Greek thought are the antithesis of open theism. Without the antithesis, open theism may not have been established. The Greek philosophical position on the nature of God is nicely summed up by John Sanders when he says, “Aristotle says that this supreme God ‘is a substance which is eternal and unmovable…without parts and invisible…impassive and unalterable.”[18] If the unmovable God is the God of the Greeks, then the movable and pliable God is the God of the Open Theist.
Modern open theism seems to trace back to a group of several scholars. In nineteen ninety four Richard Rice, John Sanders, Clark Pinnock, and William Hasker contributed to a book entitled The Openness of God. Since its publication numerous additional materials have also been published both for and against the open theist position.

THE FREEDOM OF HUMAN WILL

By definition, the open theist position is highly concerned with expressing the freedom of human will. God no longer has primary control of the outcome of events. Rather, the choices of truly free actors determine the outcome of events. In many ways the open theist view is a subset of the free-will Arminian view. In both views human choices are real choices. The main difference is that according to the Arminian view God has complete understanding and knowledge of the future. The similarity between the two views has led some who were Arminian in theology to closely examine and sometimes adopt the open theist position.

BASIS IN SCRIPTURE

According to scholars who subscribe to open theism the Scriptures are bursting with examples indicating that the future is in fact open. Much of the argument occurs from the Old Testament.[19] One such argument can be found in Exodus chapter thirteen verse seventeen. The Scriptures say, “When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter. For God said, ‘If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt.’"[20] Here God clearly speaks in conditional terms.[21] God does not appear to know what the absolute outcome of this event would be. Boyd makes an excellent point that if we accept the verbal-plenary view of Scripture, “doesn’t it clearly imply that God considered the possibility, but no the certainty, that the Israelites would change their minds if they faced battle?”[22]
Jeremiah chapter eighteen could possibly in some ways be considered the locus classicus of open theism. In this chapter God appears to be saying that even if He says one thing, there is still room for Him to change His mind.
“If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.”[23]

The open theist position asks of this text, how can God know the future with absolute certainty if He says here that He is willing to change His mind depending on the actions of free-willed people? Boyd offers one of his weightiest critiques of the classical position when he says, “I suggest that if this text isn’t enough to convince us that God’s mind is not eternally settled, then our philosophical presuppositions are controlling our exegesis to a degree that no text could ever teach us this. People who affirm the divine authority of Scripture do not want to be guilty of this charge.”[24] This is a truly weighty charge to level against a person who takes the Scriptures to be God’s divine word. However, there are those who strongly disagree with this interpretation of Jeremiah chapter eighteen and seek balance from the whole of Scripture.

CRITIQUE OF CONCEPT

There is no shortage of critique on open theistic theology. In fact, some would probably argue it is one of the most controversial theological propositions of our time. Some argue that the critiques of open theism are based more on the philosophical understanding of God than the Scriptures themselves.[25] However, there are some important critiques that must be addressed by the open theist position in order for it to have any semblance of validity.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
One of the critiques is a counter to the claim that the classical view is primarily based on Greek philosophy instead of a truly biblical view. One key argument that John Sanders continually cites is found in the writings of John Owen[26]. Sanders cites the passage indicating that Owen implies that Greek philosophy deeply influenced the biblical view of God. Russell Fuller counters this argument by stating that “Owen is not saying that Greek philosophy corrupted scriptural teaching, as Sanders clearly implies in his citing of Owen, but that the Fathers and Philo used Greek philosophy for expression and for amplification of the divine attributes that the Scriptures teach.”[27] Fuller continues to critiques Sanders on continued misreading of G. L. Prestige.[28] Fuller wraps up by saying, “Sander’s historical claims and appeals are hopeless, in whole and in part. They should raise eyebrows, if not the hackles, of historians. These errors are serious, ominous with implications and grave with consequences for the openness view.”[29]
It appears as though the assertion of heavy Greek influence into the classical view must be severely tempered. Clearly, some Greek vocabulary was involved. However, it seems reasonable that “the Fathers inherited Hebrew theism and that the ‘main trunk of the Christian idea of God’…comes from the Hebrew Prophets not from Plato.”[30]
Anthropomorphism is one common defense that those who ascribe to the classical view make regarding Scriptures that may appear to indicate that God changes His mind. Jeremiah chapter eighteen, as previously noted, is one such example. Some argue that this defense has inherent problems because it interferes with the clear meaning of the text. A. B. Caneday writes of open theists, “they reify God’s self-disclosures in terms of human-like qualities. They transmute figurative portrayals of God into literal portraits. We need to address this problem.”[31] In other words, the Scriptures are rich in meaning and it is best to interpret Scripture according to the literary style in which the book was written. To ignore some anthropology, hyperbole, and other figures of speech is to severely misread the Scriptures. The question that is so crucial for correct interpretation so often revolves around literary context. It seems reasonable that God would sometimes speak of Himself in anthropomorphic terms. Could the passages that speak of God changing His mind be just such anthropomorphic passages?
Another major criticism of open theism is that it is out of step with all of Christian history. Historically, the church has embraced the idea that God knows the future in its entirety. To deviate from this affirmation is a major change in the view of God. God is no longer as powerful and omnipotent. John Piper states, “Every orthodox Christian communion for two thousand years has affirmed the exhaustive, definite foreknowledge of God. Departures from this view have been rejected as unorthodox by every major branch of the Christian church.”[32] Departing from twenty centuries of orthodoxy should not be taken lightly.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONCEPT

The implications of the open theist view are wide ranging in adjacent areas of theology as well as in practice. This seems to be the reason that this topic is so hotly debated. What is at stake is very weighty indeed.
Open theism implies “that God makes mistakes.”[33] Gregory Boyd indicates that God can “mis-predict”[34] future events. This is certainly possible if God cannot fully see into the future. However, Piper argues that mis-prediction should be called a mistake.[35] Therefore, God should not be considered perfect. This is a serious implication that must seriously be discussed.
Another implication of open theism that is daunting to say the least is that it implies that God is ignorant[36]. Again, this is a major deviation from the historical view of God being omniscient. Matthew chapter five verse forty eight says “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”[37] The question must be raised, is God still perfect if He is ignorant?
One of the major differentiators between the polytheistic gods of the Old Testament and the LORD God of the Hebrews was God’s ability to know all that would come to pass. John Piper points to Isaiah forty six verses nine through ten which point to God being the uniquely divine being with the ability to know the future and to bring His plans to fruition[38]. Therefore, it could be asked, if God does not have the power to certainly know the future, is God really God at all?
One of the major implications of open theism is it casts doubt on the deity of Christ. Piper writes, “Jesus teaches that his ability to predict the free acts of responsible people is an essential part of his divine glory, so that the denial of his foreknowledge is an unwitting undermining of the deity of Christ.”[39] Most open theists would not accept this as a valid implication. However, there is truth to the fact that Jesus knew the future. He did not simply make a highly educated guess about what the future could hold. Rather, He actually knew the future. Any denial of His ability to do this is a denial of His deity. A denial of the deity of Christ would be a major deviation indeed.
A question that is worth spending some time considering is how reliable God’s plan of redemption is from the open theist perspective. If God is not in control of the future and does not know what absolutely will happen in the future, then how can God’s plan of redemption be ensured? Second Timothy one verse nine says that God “saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began.”[40] The question is immediately raised, how could God provide the redeeming grace of Jesus even before the ages began if He did not know that there would be a fall? Piper says of this issue, “In this way, our confidence in the accomplishment of redemption would be weakened because our view of God would nullify the eternal plan of redemption spelled out in the Scripture.”[41] Therefore, our sanctification and glorification are at risk. This is a very serious implication from open theism.
One of the perceived beneficial implications of open theism is it attempts to show God as being more loving and compassionate. If God does not know the future, then He cannot be held responsible for the evil events of the future. He is simply powerless to stop the evil event because He did not know it was about to occur. According to open theists God could make a wise guess that such events might occur, but He cannot say for sure. This removes all perceived culpability from God. Humankind is completely responsible for all evil in the world.
Open theists propose that the classical view of God “means that God kills people and causes disasters in the hope that some may then repent and confess Christ.”[42] This weighty allegation is one that open theists often pronounce against more Calvinistic views. Romans chapter eight verse twenty eight states that “for those who love God all things work together for good.”[43] Sanders writes that “God seeks to bring good out of tragedy, but there are no guarantees.”[44] Therefore, Sanders is saying that all things might work together for good, but don’t necessarily require it.
Loss of hope is another possible implication of this idea that God has limited control of evil. Piper discusses this from a pastoral perspective. He says:
“Therefore denying that ‘a good divine purpose lies behind all particular events’ is false. More than that, it undercuts the very hope it wants to create. If we deny that God could have used a million prior events to save a college student, what hope then do we have that God will use all the hard things of life to bless the surviving loved ones (spiritually or physically) in the hour of trial? The Bible teaches that God could have restrained the evil that killed the college student (Gen. 20:6)…But it was not in his plan to do it. Let us beware. If we spare God the burden of his sovereignty, we lose our only hope.”[45]

Denying the foreknowledge and sovereignty of God prevents a pastor from truly comforting those who are suffering. Is it more comforting to say that God had no idea that evil events would befall a person, or that God is even sovereign over evil events (not causing them directly) but has a purpose and plan that is in the midst of being fulfilled through them? In the case of open theism, there is no meaning in the event – no purpose or plan. In the case of the more classical view, there is definite purpose, plan, and design. From a pastoral perspective, this is a very significant difference.

CONCLUSION

The weighty issue of God’s foreknowledge or lack there of is far from settled. Some see open theism as an opportunity to “experience the triune love”[46] of God to a greater extent than previously imagined. Others see it as “theologically ruinous, dishonoring to God, belittling to Christ, and pastorally hurtful.”[47] With such divergent opinions on the subject, there seems little hope for a resolution of the issue any time in the near future. There are significant differences and significant implications for faith and practice from those differences. Humility is definitely called for, but so is truth. Going forward, may both humility and truth will continue to guide the discussion.



WORKS CONSULTED

Boyd, Gregory. God of the Possible, Ada, MI: Baker Books, 2000.

Grenz, Stanley J., Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing, 1994.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: IV Press, 1994.

Pinnock, Clark. Most Moved Mover. Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.

Piper, John., Taylor, Justin., et. al. Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the
Undermining of Biblical Christianity. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2003.

Rice, Richard., Sanders, John., et. al, The Openness of God. Downers Grove, IL: IV Press,
1994.

Roy, Steven. How much does God Foreknow?. Downers Grove, IL: IV Press, 2006.

Saia, Michael, R. Does God Know the Future?. Farfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2002.

Sanders, John, E. The God who Risks. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1998.

Schreiner, Thomas. “Editorial: God vs. God," Christianity Today, 7 February 2000, Vol. 44,
No. 2.

Ware, Bruce A. God's Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and The Christian Faith.
Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004.

Ware, Bruce A. God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. Wheaton, IL:
Crossway Books, 2000.

The Bible, NIV.
The Bible, ESV
[1] Bruce Ware, God’s Lesser Glory, (Wheaton: IL, Crossway Books, 2000), 33.
[2] Gregory Body, God of the Possible, (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 2000), 31.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Richard Rice, John Sanders, et. al, The Openness of God, (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 1994), 59.
[5] Ibid, 60.
[6] Steven C. Roy, How much does God Foreknow?, (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 2006), 198.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Gregory Body, God of the Possible, (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 2000), 55.
[9] Ibid, 56.
[10] John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 1998), 40.
[11] Gregory Body, God of the Possible, (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 2000), 57.
[12] Ibid, 58.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid, 59.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Exod. 4.
[17] Gregory Body, God of the Possible, (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 2000), 62.
[18] Richard Rice, John Sanders, et. al, The Openness of God, (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 1994), 66.
[19] John Piper, Justin Taylor, et. al, Beyond the, Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2003), 31.
[20] Exodus 13:17, NIV.
[21] Gregory Body, God of the Possible, (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 2000), 69.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Jeremiah 18:7-10, NIV.
[24] Gregory Body, God of the Possible, (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 2000), 78.
[25] “Editorial: God vs. God," Christianity Today, 7 February 2000, Vol. 44, No. 2.
[26] John Sanders, The God Who Risks, : A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 1998), 141.
[27] John Piper, Justin Taylor, et. al, Beyond the, Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2003), 30.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid, 31.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid, 153.
[32] John Piper, Justin Taylor, et. al, Beyond the, Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2003), 372.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid., 373.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Matthew 5:48, NIV.
[38] John Piper, Justin Taylor, et. al, Beyond the, Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2003), 374.
[39] Ibid.
[40] 2 Timothy 1:9, ESV.
[41] John Piper, Justin Taylor, et. al, Beyond the, Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2003), 375.
[42] John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 1998), 273.
[43] Romans 8:28, ESV.
[44] John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 1998), 273.
[45] John Piper, Justin Taylor, et. al, Beyond the, Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2003), 381.
[46] John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 1998), 14.
[47] John Piper, Justin Taylor, et. al, Beyond the, Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2003), 384.