Why should all Christians of all walks of
life be concerned about open theism? Are the arguments for and
against open theism an example of “much ado about nothing”–an
issue only relevant to “ivory tower” academicians? What
are the implications of open theism for practical discipleship?
Theology may be good or bad, true or false. Yet, theology always
influences how we live. Therefore, I encourage laypeople and
pastors alike to follow the example of the noble Bereans and
search the Scriptures “daily to find out whether these
things were [are] so” (Acts 17:16 NKJV).
In my opinion, open theism fails at several
levels and, thus, undermines biblical Christianity. I cite at
least four areas in which open theism fails.
First, open theism fails biblically.
Deuteronomy 18:22 establishes the test of a true prophet as
complete accuracy. In matters of prophetic future, a true prophet
functions as a spokesperson for the God who knows the future. In
Isaiah, the living God chides the false gods because they fail to
meet the criteria of telling events yet future (Isa. 41:21-23).
While false gods fail to foretell the future, the living God
declares the end from the beginning. The eighth-century B.C.
prophet connects God’s detailed knowledge of the future with
His role as Savior (Isa. 43:11; 45:21).
Open theists, in contrast, believe that some
prophecies will not happen. God, therefore, does not meet the
test of a true prophet. Pinnock flatly states that Jesus wrongly
issued prophecies related to the destruction of Jerusalem. The
God of open theism, therefore, lacks the biblical credentials of
a true prophet.
Second, open theism fails in terms
of practical discipleship. Prayer is one of the most
vital aspects of the Christian life. Open theists teach that a
personal, relational God wants to hear from us, and indeed, God
may not act until He hears from us. Yet, because open theists,
like the Deists of the English Enlightenment, affirm that God
rarely intervenes in earthly affairs, the natural question is,
“Why pray?” Further, since God refuses to influence
people, intercessory prayer is useless.
The issue of God’s guidance is another
practical discipleship problem for open theists. Greg Boyd tells
the emotive story of a missionary candidate named Susan. Susan
sought God’s guidance before marriage; felt that God gave
her a specific spouse; yet her husband committed adultery. For
Boyd, the proper pastoral response necessitates informing Susan
that God Himself was shocked to learn of the divorce. Do you
really want to seek out the advice of a God who can have mistaken
beliefs, who regretted His own past divine actions such as the
creation of mankind (a divine Oops!)?
According to Boyd, God can do a better job
providing guidance in short-term matters than He can with long-term
guidance. How does this guidance from an “open” God
differ from the guidance of another human?
Third, open theism fails as a
solution for the problem of evil and suffering. The
existence of evil in light of a good, all-powerful God must
remain a mystery for Christians. The problem of evil and
suffering is a personal, practical issue for many of the leading
advocates of open theism because of their personal, existential
suffering. (Those who disagree with the conclusion of open
theists must respond with tender empathy and compassion to their
personal suffering.)
Open theists absolve God of any relationship
to evil by ascribing evil to human libertarian freedom. A good,
powerful God, for example, could not know of the future rise of
Hitler. Therefore, God could not prevent the ascendancy of Hitler
to control of the Third Reich. Yet, even in the open theist
understanding of God, once God learned of the evilness of Hitler,
He could act to prevent Hitler’s atrocities. God, however,
chose not to intervene even after He became educated. Does this
bring resolution to the problem of moral evil?
Is the open theism explanation superior to
the traditional explanations for the problem of evil? In contrast
to open theism’s lack of a divine plan, Christians
throughout history received comfort from the realization that
their suffering served an important purpose for their good.
Fourth, open theism diminishes
Christian hope. Some open theists view the church as God’s
“good luck,” that is, a risk-taking God achieved his
purpose for a people despite a lack of knowledge about the
outcome ahead of time. If the church is God’s “good
luck,” then how can the Christian experience certain hope
regarding the consummation of history? Could the risk-taking God
- a God mistaken about past events - gamble the unknown future
and lose? Can an “open” God ever be sure of final
victory?
Perhaps it’s the possibility of eternal
insecurity that causes Pinnock and Sanders to also hold to
annihiliationism - the heretical doctrine that those who die
without having trusted Christ will be destroyed at death, rather
than suffer eternal punishment in hell. The vulnerable God of
open theism realizes secure victory only by the absolute
destruction of all enemies, angelic and human. In the end, the
God of open theism truly changes His character and purposes. In
the end, God becomes a sovereign king.
The God described by the Baptist Faith and
Message is superior to the God proposed by open theism. “God
is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge
extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the
future decisions of His free creatures” (BFM, Article II, God).
To this knowledgeable God, we owe the highest love, reverence,
and obedience.
No, this is not a merely academic debate
with little importance to everyday Christian life. The assault on
the biblical, historic doctrine of God found in tenets of open
theism is one that must be opposed by all believers - inspired by
the model of the Beareans - who know that our future hope is
found only in a God who holds the future.
E-Mail To A Friend
Printer-Friendly Article
Share Your Views
