How do advocates of open theism explain the
novelty of their viewpoint in light of millennia of Christian
history? Open theists charge that the classical view of God’s
attributes, particularly divine foreknowledge, unchangeableness
and timeless nature, owe more to Greek philosophy than biblical
revelation. Once the early church established the tradition,
succeeding generations of Christians blindly read Scripture
through the lens of this philosophical-based tradition.
A blanket accusation of the early
theologians’ indebtedness to Greek philosophy unfairly slams
Greek philosophy and the response of early Christian theologians
to their intellectual cultural. First, Greek philosophy was not a
monolithic system. In response to their charge that Greek
philosophy shaped the formulation of the traditional
understanding of God, I ask the open theists “which Greek
philosophy?” Early Greek philosophy included naturalism,
agnosticism, atheism, pantheism and hints of monotheism.
Second, in reality, much of Greek
philosophic theism contradicted the worldview of early Christians.
For example, Plato denied the possibility of an incarnation,
advocated that God has no relations with mankind, denied that God
has the capacity to love, and maintained that God is uninterested
in history. Aristotle’s God was unaware of the existence of
any other being. The Divine Being of Neo-Platonism lacked
personhood; in this pantheistic system the universe exists as a
result of emanation rather than creation. The core teachings of
Greek philosophy about the Divine Being, therefore, oppose the
personal, loving, Trinitarian God of the early Christian creeds.
All forms of Greek philosophy denied the goodness of matter and
viewed the concept of resurrection as revolting.
Third, open theists overstate the influence
of Greek philosophy on early Christian theologians. In analyzing
the publications of the advocates of open theism, they cite
secondary sources, rather than primary sources, as evidence of
the influence of Greek philosophy on the formation of the
Christian doctrine of God. In contrast, esteemed Yale professor
Jaroslav Pelikan classified the claim that classical doctrine
developed out of Greek philosophy as a distortion. Indeed,
according to Pelikan, the development of the church’s
doctrine was a process of dehellenization, that is, a process of
removing Greek metaphysics. Pelikan did acknowledge the influence
of philosophy upon early theologians – the theology of the
heretics. For example, Arius rejected Neo-Platonism due to the
influence of Neo-Platonic thought.
Open theists criticize the classical
doctrine of God as a development of pagan philosophy. Yet, many
open theists seem blind to the indebtedness of open theism to
process philosophy.
Process philosophy developed in the United
States in the twentieth century. Alfred North Whitehead of
Harvard University and Charles Hartshorne of the Universities of
Chicago and Texas served as the guiding lights. Clark Pinnock
esteems the anti-trinitarian Whitehead highly; he even identifies
Whitehead as a Christian. Therefore, while Pinnock acknowledges
the influence of Whitehead upon him, he can claim that a “pagan”
philosophy did not influence him in a manner similar to his claim
that “pagan” philosophy influenced early Christian
theologians.
Open theism properly rejects process
philosophy’s denial of creation, the trinity, and
interdependence of God and the universe. God in process thought
is di-polar: transcendent as well as limited, eternal as well as
contingent. The world is God’s body; thus, God and the world
are mutually dependent. God and all reality are in the process of
development. God continually synthesizes new experiences and
develops toward greater perfection. God is a supreme “omnipassive”
relativist. The future, therefore, is free and open.
Gregory Boyd, who wrote his doctoral
dissertation on Charles Hartshorne, explains open theism in terms
of a dance in which God and creation join. In Boyd’s
illustration, God is dipolar, structure and freedom comprise the
polarities. Creation, rather than man, is in the image of God.
The created order exhibits the same polarities of structure and
freedom as God. Boyd claims, “The future is partly open as
well as partly settled.” A relativist God waits for man to
create the future.
If they were alive today, Whitehead and
Hartshorne would rejoice at their influence on evangelicals.
E-Mail To A Friend
Printer-Friendly Article
Share Your Views
