“Open theism” is an energetic,
controversial topic in evangelicalism today, which has captured
the appeal of a significant segment of the evangelical culture to
the point that major evangelical publishers enthusiastically
publish books authored by open theists. This growing movement
affirms some aspects of the classical view of God, such as, God’s
independence, the Trinity, creation, and relational capability.
Open theism, however, rejects some of the classical view of God’s
attributes, specifically the changelessness of God and the divine
foreknowledge of human choices.
The name “open theism” derives
from the affirmation that God Himself is open to new experiences,
including the experience of learning the progressive events of
world history as the events unfold.
Throughout Christian history, orthodox
believers expressed a common understanding of the nature of God
labeled “classical theism.” The last fifteen years
witnessed the development of a reformation of the evangelical
understanding of the doctrine of God. In calling the movement a
reformation, I suggest that the movement represents a major
paradigm shift in the understanding of God by some evangelicals.
The leaders of open theism are articulate,
well-educated, evangelicals affirming the inerrancy of Scripture.
The “great triumvirate” of open theism includes Clark
Pinnock, Gregory Boyd and John Sanders. Pinnock, recently retired
professor of theology at McMaster Divinity College in Ontario,
Canada, is a British scholar who began his North American
teaching career at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in
the 1960s. Gregory Boyd formerly taught at Bethel College,
associated with the Baptist General Conference, in St. Paul,
Minnesota. John Sanders teaches at Huntington College in
Huntington, Indiana, a Brethren in Christ school.
Classical theism affirms that God is
unchanging in His being, character, purposes and promises. Open
theists delight when misinformed individuals assume that the
historic theological debate between Calvinism and Arminianism
drives the current debate about God’s foreknowledge. Such an
assumption neglects the strong emphasis on God’s
foreknowledge within the Arminian tradition. James Arminius, for
example, wrote, “God knows all things from eternity. He
knows all things immeasurably. He knows all things immutable, his
knowledge not being varied.” Thomas Oden, professor of
theology at Drew University and perhaps the leading Arminian
theologian in the Methodist tradition today, strongly disagrees
with the openness position. In a Feb. 9, 1998, Christianity
Today article, Oden wrote, “The fantasy that God is
ignorant of the future is a heresy that must be rejected on
scriptural grounds.”
Historically, Baptist confessional
statements and theological writings reveal that Arminian and
Calvinistic or Particular Baptists consistently affirmed God’s
foreknowledge of all events, including the choices of human
beings. Southern Baptists addressed the challenge of open theism
in the 1994 report of the Presidential Theological Study
Committee, a 1999 resolution and the 2000 revision of the Baptist
Faith and Message. Open theism, however, is making inroads into
Southern Baptist life. In its June 24, 2002, issue, the Texas Baptist
Standard published a series of articles generally favorable
to the openness position.
Although advocates of open theism do not
agree among themselves on every aspect of their revision of the
historic doctrine of God, five key elements characterize the
understanding of God in open theism.
First, open theists affirm a
qualified divine omniscience (all-knowing). God
possesses exhaustive knowledge about proper subjects of knowledge.
Since the future does not exist to know, God cannot know the
future free choices of His creatures. God possesses present
knowledge, that is, perfect knowledge of the past and present.
Open theists do not regard this qualification as compromising God’s
omniscience. To buttress their case, open theists note, for
example, God’s omnipotence (all-powerful), does not mean
that God possesses the power to do anything whatsoever. God
cannot do the illogical (make round squares) or the immoral.
Second, open theists reject a
monarchial metaphor of God’s sovereignty in favor of a
parental “at-risk” sovereignty. They argue the
metaphor of a sovereign king depicts the tyrannical control of an
insecure, weak and sick being. In God’s “sovereignty
over His sovereignty,” He chose to grant His creatures
genuine freedom–God created mankind in His image, which
means that humanity participates with God in creating an open
future. This risk-taking God has a goal for His creation, yet His
free creatures can thwart and even frustrate the purposes of God.
Rather than emphasizing God’s omnipotence, open theists
affirm God’s omnicompetency (all-ability) to adapt to
surprises and unexpected situations.
Third, open theists highlight God as
a relational being. Love is the preeminent attribute of God.
The dynamic God of open theism creatively interacts and responds
in a vulnerable, loving fashion. God exercises control through
persuasion, not coercion.
Fourth, the central component of the
open theist’s position is human libertarian freedom.
According to Pinnock, humans have the ability to make free-choices
without the coercion of “nature, nurture or God.” In
line with the “at-risk” model of providence, God does
not generally intervene in human affairs. Humanity, therefore,
bears the primary responsibility for the developing future.
Fifth, open theists conceive of
their viewpoint as a solution to the problem of evil and some
forms of human suffering. Human libertarian freedom and
an open future entail the possibility of great evil. God knows
neither the content nor the consequences of his creatures’
future free choices. God, therefore, cannot prevent evil. God is
responsible for the potentiality of evil, but he is not
responsible for the reality of evil.
E-Mail To A Friend
Printer-Friendly Article
Share Your Views
