Open Theism

In the last few days I have been pondering about the movement/line of thought sometimes called Open Theism (theopedia). First of all one of the other students at Wycliffe asked me what I thought about it. I had to ask him to explain to me what it was first! Then there was a bit of a blarney about it on Andrew Jones's blog (here) involving said student and a local church leader. Then just yesterday my friend Tim (part of the Vaughan collective) who was visiting me here in Oxford told me he had been thinking about it a lot recently and had found it a really attractive and helpful line of thought. Thankfully by now having heard about it through the two other sources I was able to sound knowledgable and informed, as if I hadn't only heard about it the week before. Tim was disappointed to hear I think it is a load of rot (is that a CS Lewism creeping in there?).

So, since it kept cropping up I decided it was about time I did a little more thinking and pondering on the subject, especially since I'd love to invite those who advocate it to explain it to me more clearly (I don't want to be dismissing a straw man). So below is a summary of my understanding of what its main ideas are, followed by my reasons for disagreeing. Comments, emails and trackbacks welcome.

Claims of Open Theism (OT)

OT basically claims that God does not know the entire future, and the future is not therefore utterly set and unalterable. This might be because God deliberately chooses to limit his knowledge (e.g. of which human beings will choose to know him and which will reject him) or because it is simply not in God's nature to know the future exhaustively. Because God doesn't know everything that will happen, God is not himself limited or definitively committed to any particular course of action (e.g. which human beings he will save). God is open and the future is open. This does not exclude the idea that God might know much about the future and might be completely decided in certain courses of action (e.g. to become incarnate and die to rescue us from sin and death, to return in glory and bring healing and deliverance from pain and misery and to conquer death, etc). But it leaves open certain (more minor) things, such as whether God will make it sunny today or whether he will reduce Sodom and Gomorrah to rubble.

This solves oodles of problems. Firstly, it explains why God created the world even though the world became a place of great suffering. Secondly, it explains how prayer works (God can really be affected by it). Thirdly, it prevents God from being seen as arbitrary and cruel in choosing to save some people but not others - because it's up to them. Fourthly it means human beings have genuine free will.

I hope that's a fair summary. Let me know corrections.

Why it's probably rot

Clearly on a prima facie level OT doesn't stand a chance. It is essentially a counter-move to predestination - i.e. an attempt to circumvent the idea that God has chosen in advance those who will be saved. It does not arise easily or unforcedly out of natural biblical exegesis or classical theism (God = omniscient, omnipotent, transcendent i.e. beyond time and history, and unchanging) but out of a desire to solve certain doctrinal problems which are unpalatable to modern sensibilities. It is also quite helpful in dealing with the problem of evil. It seems therefore to quite clearly be a (post)modernist response of solution and resolution of doctrinal questions rather than simple reflection on Scripture. However, the question must be raised how much God is still God if such attributes are systematically removed or diminished. This hardly fits with the view of biblical prophecy and God's sovereign involvement in history (a major theme of the prophets). God knows precisely what is going to happen because he is completely in charge of it; It is he who decides what is going to happen. The Bible further claims that God "foreknows" who will choose to know him or not.

Furthermore, I wonder how necessary or capable OT is to 'solve' the problems which it is brought in to do. Just because God knows something's going to happen doesn't mean he has decided it that way - there is still plenty of scope and space for free will. I don't see either why there needs to be any contradiction between divine omniscience and the (Biblical) idea that God changes his mind in response to intercession: God can have a set will determined to do something but for the fact that intercession changed his mind. He always knew it would - but that doesn't mean that the intercession was ineffectual.

So, I open the floor: tell me what you think. If you want to write something longish rather than simply posting a comment then trackback to your own blog - or alternatively email it to me and I'll post it here.

Comments

[andrew jones]

hi sean

i will be interested to see where you study leads you in this - i am also waiting for the day when i can sit down with books and see both sides clearly

[Steve Johnson]

I have studied and thought about Open Theism (limited, or no, foreknowledge of God) for close to 30 years now (since 1976). I attended a YWAM school in Switzerland in 1978 where Gordon Olson spent 2 weeks explaining with God doesn't know the future and why men are absolutely free to make their own choices. At the time I thought it was absolutely true.

If you desire to follow this line of speculation, then great insecurity is a given for your future. Scripture is clear as is Church tradition, dogma and history.

If you want a clear understand of this doctrine get the book, "Did God Know" by Howard Elseth, writted in about 1980 or so).

Open Theism is only a small piece of a theology called Moral Government. If you go down this road, as I did, life is going to pretty bumpy...ask Joseph Smith.

[Mark Porter]

Hey Sean,

A couple of comments;

- I don't think OVT is primarily about predestination (although it depends what variety of OVT you're looking at I guess) - that seems to be primarily the distinction between arminianism and calvinism - as far as I can see it OVT is a more extreme version of arminianism. It certainly doesn't arise easily out of classical theism, but I think it can arise farily easily out of scripture. Why cling to classical theism? Sanders argues that classical theism is something of a corruption of the biblical God.

- OVT therefore is not primarily a claim about God but about the nature of the future, although I think Sanders argues for a slight change in the relation of everything to God - I think he refers to OVT as 'relational theism' but then says that this was always present in chritian theology anyway.

- As to scripture, I think there are numerous passages, particularly in the OT which if taken at surface value point to OVT. You give the example of God changing his mind in response to intercession - and this is a passage which under your interpretative paradigm needs explaining at something other than its surfact value. OVT does the same but with other texts - the predestination texts are generally taken as referring to some kind of corporate rather than individual predestination and it is argued that this is more in line with how they would have been viewed at the time of writing.

Erm, yeah... I highly recommend John Sanders - The God Who Risks, he tries to start from a primarily biblical rather than philosophical basis.

[J Lundgren]

Sean is correct that OT is basically a counter move to predestination or more accurately a move by Arminians who finally came to recognize the intellectual weakness of their own position. Although it is too late for this, I think it would be helpful to name it Neo-Arminianism or Consistent-Arminianism rather than OT which gives the impression that it's something altogether different from the Arminianism from which it arose.

[Jamie]

The Open View is a relatively small area of doctrine? I almost spit out my soda when I read that. It is a huge area of doctrine that impacts many issues, including:

divine foreknowledge
God's relationship to time
predestination/free will
prophecy
prayer
theodicy
soteriology
christology
pneumatology
bibliology
eschatology

... just off the top of my head. From creation to the final judgement, Open Theism is entirely relevent.

And Moral Government heresy? Usually, OT is (wrongly) associated with heretical Process Theology; it's been a while since I heard it related to MG. There is a growing movement of Mid-Acts dispensational OV'ers, particularly centered around Bob Hill, Bob Enyart and Derby School of Theology, and I'm one of them. We reject both MG and Process. It seems to me that the OT is one of the most misrepresented (and/or ignored) views in orthodox Christianity, today. Most theological encyclopedias and other reference books completely ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist. I don't know what they're afraid of. The OT affirms God is Omniscient (not to mention Omnipotent, Omnipresent and sovereign). We don't differ on whether God knows everything; we only disagree on what there is for God to know, and/or what He chooses to make knowable.

Sean made reference to the OT being untenable in light of biblical prophecy. This issue is exactly why the *Settled* view is utterly untenable, whether Calvinist, Molinist or Arminian.

There are numerous examples of prophecies that do not come about as stated, in both the Old and New Testaments. The Settled View has no satisfactory answer for this, other than vague references to "anthropopathisms" and God using "baby talk." These answers fail quickly. The "anthropomorphism/-popathism" argument is frustrating for OTers because it seems to us that Settled Viewers are the world's biggest experts on what the Bible does not mean. If it says God changed His mind, they respond that it doesn't really mean that. What *does* it mean? Who knows, but surely not that. It says Ninevah would "surely" be destroyed on a specific day, but it wasn't. Well, it didn't really mean that... What *did* it mean? I never get an answer. The Son (speaking as the Son, not a mere man) says He doesn't have foreknowledge of the timing of His return. But it surely didn't really mean that.

As for "baby talk," only an adult can tell the difference between baby talk and adult talk, and understand what they really mean. So how is it that Calvinists seem to think on a higher spiritual level than the rest of us, such that they can understand the adult meaning behind the baby talk, unlike the rest of us "babies?" And this still doesn't answer what such passages *actually* mean. It still only tells us what the Bible does not mean.

The Lord said He would destroy the Israelites in the wilderness, and start over with Moses. We learn that God decided this not once but three times! Did He do this? No, He repented of that, and it never, ever happened. He said He'd drive out all the Hittites, Hivvites, Jebusites - all the 'Ites - from the promised land, "without fail." Did He? Indeed, a generation later, He acknowledges that He promised that, but adds He will not do it, now. Of course, the Jonah prophecy is the most obvious. Indeed, the reason Jonah gives for resisting God's call was that he knew He was a God who repents! Jonah knew if the Ninevites repented, He would as well, and Jonah wanted them destroyed, regardless.

God said He would do ____. He acknowledges He said He would, and then says He will NOT do it.

Later on (was it in Jeremiah? I don't have my Bible in front of my right this second), the Lord actually tells Israel that He is weary of repenting! Strange, if He never repents.

So, this puts us in a dilemma. Either God meant what He said when He meant it - that He really would destroy the Israelites and start over with Moses, or drive out the 'Ites, or destroy Ninevah - or on the other hand, God repeatedly makes intentionally false statements, not only to unbelievers but to believers throughout the Bible.

The consequence of this is that the Settled Viewer is the one who has no basis for God's faithfulness in honoring His promises. How does one know if our promise of eternal life wasn't simply another example of this alleged "baby talk" and that He was, once again, intentionally making a false statement to believers, for His greater glory? How can a SVer put stock in anything at all that God promises? I don't know.

The Open View, however, acknowledges that God really did mean what He said, genuinely repented (because of His immutable righteousness in response to man's failure), but His character is immutable (unlike the rest of His nature, which is highly mutable), therefore He is immutably good, and therefore is faithful and trustworthy.

Open Theism guards the Lord's immutably good character, His faithfulness, and theodicy in general. The Settled View requires us to believe that He is a chronic liar, whose any promise could be just another knowingly false statement.

[Will D]

Hello Sean.

I'm an open theist. The Open View asserts that future is open and not settled. The foundation of the open view is that of God's freedom, not man's. Do you believe God is free? Did God have to create the universe, or did He freely choose to?

[Expositor]

I've heard it put this way...

Does God control his foreknowledge or does his foreknowledge control him?

[Nate Elarton]

I have been curious in this also. CARM.org has a nice outline of openess theology. I just cannot swallow TULIP and the futilism that Calvinism promotes, in view of God.

[Greg]

To reconcile the fact of God's absolute sovereignty with man's free will requires the idea of "limited free will." That is to say, man makes free choices albeit always within the larger scope of God's sovereignty. We often say, "America is a free country." We mean that we as citizens have the power and the right to act freely-- to make choices and live as we choose-- as well as the responsiblity of living with the consequences of those choices. However, we do not mean that we have absolute freedom. The truth is that although we have freedom as Americans, it is in actuality limited freedom. We cannot really do anything we want to do without eventually running into the reality that our freedom has boundaries-- just try driving 90mph in a 35mph zone and then try to explain to the officer that you have a right to go as fast as you want because it's a free country after all; or the classic screaming "fire!" in a crowded theater. I realize that this analogy comparing a sovereign America with a sovereign God breaks down at several points-- as do all analogies. In fact, a better one would use the example of a sovereign monarch instead of a democratic system, since in a democracy the power of the "sovereign" (government) is derived (at least theoretically) from the people and is not inherent in the sovereign as in a monarchy. Ultimately, I think we have to merely accept both the fact of God's absolute sovereignty, foreknowledge, predetermined will, election, etc, along with man's free will because the Bible teaches both. The mere fact that human minds cannot fully reconcile both does not mean both are not true. Have you ever heard a truly adequate explanation of the Trinity? Can we fully grasp intellectually one God in three persons? Yet anecdotally, the concept of the Trinity is replete in Scripture, so we by faith accept and believe it, even if we can not logically comprehend it. I believe by faith that God is absolutely sovereign, omniscient (past, present and future), has predetermined those who will be saved, and that He is immutable. At the same time, I believe by faith according to the Bible, that man has free will (albeit limited), that he has a part to play in choosing to be saved, and that by prayer he can move God to act in a way He would not have acted otherwise. Ultimately, I cannot logically reconcile these. However, that is simply an admission that I myself am not God-- a good thing. I wonder if the Open Theism view does not actually evidence more fundamental issues-- namely the belief in the infallibility of Scripture and sound approaches to biblical interpretation. For example, just because we see something in Scripture that may seem to present a logical inconsistency does not mean that it actually is inconsistent. It can simply mean that we're just not that smart. So then what should we do in such a case? (1) Accept the fact of scriptural infalliblity (if this is not accepted, an entirely different debate than this one is needed) (2)Seek to understand fully and to reconcile apparent inconsistencies. It is safe to proceed to this second step only when we are fully committed to step 1. (3) Realize that the "mysteries" of God are not uncovered by mere intellectual inquiry. That is to say, God, in His depths, is unknowable except that He chooses to make Himself known (i.e. revelation). At best, intellectual inquiry alone can discover things about God, but can never discover God Himself--i.e. by intellect we can come to know something ABOUT God, but we can never come to KNOW Him. This should humble us--a quality often lost in intellectual dialogue. This is why it is entirely possible,for example, for a grandmother who only went to 6th grade to have more real knowledge of God than some theologians. God reveals Himself to those who seek HIM (i.e. to know Him in intimate relationship), not to those who's interest is only in engaging in intellectual debate about Him. (4)Be willing to accept by faith logically-irreconcilable concepts found in Scripture. I'm not suggesting in this step that we should cease ongoing intellectual inquiry, but merely that our debate should always be from the basis of faith (which, by the way, should not be thought to be inferior to intellectual knowledge. Faith, I would argue, is in fact a higher form of knowledge than intellect. It is revealed knowledge as opposed to discovered knowledge). Sorry if it seems like I'm trying to spoil the fun of the debate, but I do think the broader perspective is needed sometimes.

[Jesse Morrell]

If God eternally foreknew all events as certain (not possible), then the entire future has been eternally settled in God's mind. And if the future has been settled from all of eternity, God never had a chance to plan anything. If open theism isn't true, God is not capable of either changing plans or even making plans. God could not predestine anything at all unless the future consists, at least at one time, of open possibilities which God is able to decide between.

[Owen Daniels]

The first time I heard it, messed me up in the way I saw God. Currently I have I have broader view of GOD

[Jack-dosejo-alvarez]

it's nice to hear from you guys re open theism. im now reading books re the matter. initially, i really like john sanders' 'the God who risks'. i'm a filipino pastor serving the poor here in payatas, quezon city, philippines. contextually & personally, open theism makes sense than those western theologies i've grew up with. so far, i wish to keep my eyes open re the subject and not to make some preponderances. God bless!

[C Olson]

I agree with Jamie's post concerning the fact that OT is often misunderstood and misrepresented. I can't tell you how many articles I've read where the author gives his particular understanding of OT and inevitably it is a misrepresentation of it. One poster I noted said it was something Arminians came up with. The first book I read on OT was by Greg Boyd and I don't think he is Arminian. I would suggest you read God of the possible by Greg Boyd. As I read that book it was the first time as a believer of 30 years certain passages began to make sense. While working on my MA in biblical studies, I got both the Calvinist view and the Arminian view. Neither to me really dealt with the problem passages. I've yet to read or hear a Calvinist explain Scripture without ending up holding contradictory views. When these are pointed out, the answer is usually "God's ways are above ours". That, my friend, is simply a cop out.

[NTHN]

Study Hebrew guys. There are two words translated into english as repent or relent. But the two words represent two very different concepts. NHM (nahem) means to breathe heavily or be stricken with sorrow, and the other is teshuva (root shub) which means to go a different way.
G-d did not repent (Shub) of making people (Gen 6:6) but expressed sorrow (nhm) just because He knew that it was going to happen did not mean that is still didn't hurt Him. to say otherwise is a contradiciton to when He says that He does not change, or "I have decided and I will not change my mind" this is anthropromorphism, G-d is steadfast. The OTer states that G-d knows all that there is to know meaning past and present but then that is to say that he didn't know what I was going to type after that which is now present. If G-d changes His mind where is your eternal security? After all to an OTer G-d might change His mind and decide that though you have asked Yeshua to be lord of your life He doesn't have to honr that...think about it.

[Virgin Porn Videos]

any news coming ?

[Doorieple]

http://lechi-pozvonochnik.ru/bitzd.html