Open theism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Open theism, also known as free will theism, is a theological movement that has developed within Evangelical Protestant Christianity as a response to certain ideas that are a part of the synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian theology. Several ideas within Classical theism (a designation which is not to be taken as inclusive of all of orthodox theism) state that God is immutable, impassible, and timeless. Classical Theists also believed that God fully determines the future thus humanity does not have libertarian free will, or if free, that freedom must be compatible with God's determining actions.

Open Theism is a foundational theology that attempts to explain the practical relationship between the free will of man and the sovereignty of God. Based on traditional Arminian[1] theology, Open Theism expounds on the idea of free will. One of the key advocates for open theism, Dr. John Sanders, describes the view of God’s sovereignty:

“That God changes in some respects implies that God is temporal, working with us in time. God, at least since Creation, experiences duration. God is everlasting through time rather than timelessly eternal.” “We believe that God could have known every event of the future had God decided to create a fully determined universe. However, in our view, God decided to create beings with interdeterministic freedom which implies that God chose to create a universe in which the future is not entirely knowable, even for God. For many open theists, the “future” is not a present reality – it does not exist – and God knows reality as it is.”[2]

Practically, Open Theism makes the case for a personal God who is able to be influenced through prayer, decisions, and actions of people. Although unknowing of the future, God has predictive (anticipatory) foreknowledge of the future through his intimate knowledge of each individual. As such, he is able to anticipate the future, yet remains fluid to respond and react to prayer and decisions made either contrary or advantageous to His plan or presuppositions.

Contents 1 Historical Development 2 Arguments 2.1 Pro 2.2 Con 3 External links 4 See also 5 Books 5.1 Pro 5.2 Con 5.3 Multiple views 5.4 Related work

[edit] Historical Development

The first known mention of a concept similar to open theism with regard to the issue of foreknowledge is found in the writings of Calcidius, a 5th-century interpreter of Plato. In the late 19th century several theologians wrote in its defense, including Gustav Fechner, Otto Pfeiderer, Jules Lequier, Adam Clarke, Billy Hibbard, Joel Hayes, T.W. Brents, and Lorenzo D. McCabe. The term "open theism" was introduced in 1980 with Seventh-day Adventist theologian Richard Rice's book The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will. The broader articulation of Open theism was given in 1994, when five essays were published by Evangelical scholars (including Rice) under the title The Openness of God. Open theism is an alternative to some classical ideas about God, Classical Theism, stemming from a single crucial point of difference: Open theism asserts that the future exists partly in terms of possibilities rather than certainties. That is, there are aspects of the future that are believed to be indeterminate. This means that God’s knowledge of the future, being perfect, would perhaps consist largely of possibilities and not certainties. God has knowledge of some future certainties such as those things that He ordains, and He knows all future possibilities such as the possible free will choices of His created beings. This view of God, based on a libertarian view of free will and particular philosophical views on the nature of time and other metaphysical matters, is supposed to allow its advocates to 1) Attribute both power and wisdom to Him without suggesting that He ordains everything to His own glory, including evil (Calvinism) 2) Avoid what Open Theists regard as the inconsistency of suggesting that libertarian human freedom can coexist with foreknowledge and Divine Sovereignty (Arminianism).

This is not only a rejection of predestination as it is understood by Calvinism, but also of most accepted alternative versions. The writers in favor of free-will theism differentiate their views from those of Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Arminianism, Eastern Orthodoxy, neo-orthodoxy, and Islam, all of which—differently from one another, but similarly over against open theism—assert that God has a certain knowledge of all aspects of the future.

Theologians of note currently espousing this view include: Richard Rice, D. Basinger, Gregory Boyd, Thomas Jay Oord, Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, and William Hasker.

[edit] Arguments

[edit] Pro

Proponents of open theism assert the following, with some variation:

• The concepts of omnipresence and immutability do not stem from the Bible, but from the subsequent fusion of Judeo-Christian thought with the Greek philosophy of Platonism and Stoicism, which posited an infinite God and a deterministic view of history.
• The God described in the Bible is the most powerful, most knowing, most loving, and most unchanging in his nature, but not omni-everything. In scripture, he changed his mind and plans [3], voluntarily limited Himself in power, was surprised by events on Earth [4], was hurt [5], and paid attention to the pleas of men and angels [6].
• According to the classical view, God's foreknowledge is exhaustive. This leads to a number of apparent inconsistencies, such as the problem of prayer (of what effect is our prayer if God already knows what will happen before we pray?), the problem of evil (why would a God permit evil to exist when he knows everything, can do anything, and wants only good?), the problem of sin (if God set the universe in motion in such a way that we would inevitably sin, how can we be punished for the sin he planned and we could not avoid?), the problem with omnipotence (can God change the future? Can God create something never imagined before? Can God create a creature who's future he doesn't know?).
• The God of open theism is supposed to resolve some of those apparent inconsistencies. Prayer has meaning, because we can influence God's decisions in an undetermined future. Evil exists because there are other powers in the universe besides God's. Sin is punishable because we sometimes make decisions contrary to God's will, and deserve punishment.
• A minority of open theists believe that God is not yet omnipotent, but someday will be when the victory is won, as the only use of the word "omnipotent" in scripture is in Revelation 19:6, a picture of God's future victory. Open theists believe that by His power and through His Church, God will ultimately overcome evil, sin, and death and reestablish His reign on Earth. They frame this not in terms of a historical necessity or a predestined fact, but in terms of Faith and Hope that God will rescue this struggling, desperate, and confused world in time. Most open theists believe that God is omnipotent, but not able to do what is logically contradictory, and never choosing to do what is inconsistent with His own divine character.
• The more popular view in regard to God's omnipotence such as God's future victory and other certain future events is that THESE are a historic necessity and a predestined fact, but only these specific things and certainly not everything (especially related to individual's choices). If God prophesies that something will happen, it is often because He will cause it to happen. (Isaiah 46:10).
• One theory goes that If God truly knows all that happens presently in the universe, then God would know every single variable in the universe from any one moment. This would mean that God could extrapolate the future as the set of all possibilties and their probabilities based on every single variable in the universe from a single moment, including the effects and events caused by these variables.

[edit] Con

Opponents of open theism respond with the following points:

• The more theologically traditional position asserts that open theism denies the omniscience of God, because it denies that God knows all of the future. Most open theists reject this characterization, commonly espousing one of two counterarguments. Open theists following Greg Boyd feel that the parts of the future that are unknown to God are not merely unknown or unknowable, but are simply not yet determined in any way, and therefore not "there to be known" by even an omniscient entity. One way to put this would be to say that God knows all facts, but parts of the future (those parts involving free human actions) exist only as a set of possibilities and are not yet factually determined. Boyd says that it would make no more sense to require an omniscient God to know the undetermined aspects of the future than it would to require an omniscient God to know how far you could sail before you fall off the face of the Earth. The Earth is round, so there is no knowledge of this sort to be had, and the future is partially undetermined, so there is no complete knowledge of the future to be had either. A minority of open theists follow William Hasker (God, Time, and Knowledge, Cornell Univ. Press, 1998) in saying that God knows all that it is logically possible for him to know. Hasker would say that we don't expect an omnipotent God to be able to create a rock so large he can't lift it, because such a feat would be logically impossible. In the same way, we can't expect an omniscient God to know what is logically impossible for him to know. This logical impossibility arises from status of the facts about future free actions as "soft facts". Unlike "hard facts", it is within some entity's power to change the truth value of soft facts. Since God's knowledge can never fail or be wrong, he cannot know the truth value of soft facts. Opponents counter by saying that these involved explanations of omniscience amount to redefining the term to mean less than is Biblically acceptable (e.g. Bruce Ware, God's Lesser Glory, Crossway Books, 2000).

• According to G. Boyd, God's limitations are the consequences of His decisions made in creation, i.e. they are self-imposed, to create a world that supports love of God and fellow man through creaturely freedom. By contrast, the limits proposed by Process Theology are characteristics of God -- God can only woo, but cannot impose his will. Thus, any similarity between these two views is supported by their underlying ideas.

• Proponents of the classical view argue that open theism diminishes God by limiting God's attributes, which is contrary to the beliefs of Scripture in both Judaism and Christianity.

• There are many objections to Open Theism relating to its views of time and God's timelessness or lack thereof. Many believe that God must necessarily be timeless if He is to be the creator of the universe. Others view the whole idea that the future must be indeterminate to allow for libertarian free will as based on poor philosophical arguments and severe misunderstandings that have been refuted time and again. Others object to the idea that the future is indeterminate based on broader philosophical considerations concerning the nature of time and many take such a view to be either incredibly implausible or even contradictory. Considerations from logic, science, metaphysics, language, and even ethics are often brought into consideration here.

• Many object to the denial that God foreknows exactly what free creatures will do because they believe that such a denial is based on a misunderstanding of both what free will and the nature of foreknowledge involve combined with certain mistakes they perceive as being common to almost all accusations of fatalism. Others object because they believe such a view is in conflict with what the Bible says concerning God's foreknowledge of future free actions.

• Classical views defend themselves from Open Theist objections in a number of ways. They believe the Bible to use more anthropomorphism in speaking of God than Open Theists will often allow and some even accuse Open Theists of inconsistently picking and choosing which texts to take as literal and which to take as anthropomorphic in order to support their own views but not to fall into any particularly distasteful view. Classical theists often also claim that making sense of the Biblical accounts, such as detailed future free-agency prophecies of Elisha regarding Hazael and Jeremiah regarding Zechariah and Ahab, taken literally or very nearly so, is not as difficult on a classical account as Open Theists make it out to be. Classical theists often demonstrate Open Theists as misunderstanding what Classical Theism and related doctrines really entail. See Erickson, 'What Does God Know and When Does he Know it?' pg. 2-12

• One confusion classical theists have accused open theists of making is mistaking God's foreknowledge or the future's settledness in God's mind with some form of determinism or imposition of necessity regarding free agents on their future or what occurs in time. Once these things are properly understood, they argue, many of the problems open theists encounter with classical theism simply disappear or at least appear less troublesome to their view.

[edit] External links

• News Story on Open Theism and the Evangelical Theological Society [7]

• Open Theology and Science seminar[8]

• The Open Theism Information Site

• God vs. God a February 2000 editorial in Christianity Today

• Did Open Debate Help The Openness Debate? a February 2001 article from Christianity Today

• ETS Membership Challenge the record of the unsuccessful 2003 attempt to remove open theism proponents Clark Pinnock and John Sanders from membership in the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS)

• Online written Open Theism Debate between Knox Theological Seminary's Associate Professor of New Testament and the pastor of Denver Bible Church moderated, in ten rounds

• Open theism (Theopedia - includes audio resources)

• Open Theism - An Introductory Presentation Jonathan Erdman, not an Open Theism advocate, attempts an objective and very detailed analysis of Open Theism focussed on the biblical, philosophical, and existential arguments of Open Theism as outlined by their leading proponents.

[edit] See also

• Theism
• Corporate election
• Conceptions of God

[edit] Books

[edit] Pro

• Trinity and Process: Toward a Synthesis, G.Boyd, 1986
• The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will, Richard Rice, 1980, Review and Herald Pub. Association, ISBN 0-8127-0303-0
• The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, Clark Pinnock editor, et al, 1994, InterVarsity Press ISBN 0-8308-1852-9, Paternoster Press (UK), ISBN 0-85364-635-X (followup to Rice book includes contribution from him)
• The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, John Sanders, 1998. InterVarsity Press, ISBN 0-8308-1501-5
• God, Time, and Knowledge, William Hasker, 1998, Cornell University Press, ISBN 0-8014-8545-2
• God of the Possible, Gregory A. Boyd, 2000 reprint, Baker Books, ISBN 0-8010-6290-X
• Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness (The Didsbury Lectures), Clark Pinnock, 2001, Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-2290-8
• Providence, Evil, and the Openness of God, William Hasker, 2004, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-32949-3

[edit] Con

• God's Lesser Glory, Bruce A. Ware, 2000, Crossway Books, ISBN 1-58134-229-2
• Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace, Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (editors), 2000, Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-2232-0
• Bound Only Once: The Failure of Open Theism, Douglas Wilson editor, et. al, 2001, Canon Press, ISBN 1-885767-84-6
• No Other God: A Response to Open Theism, John M. Frame, P & R Publishing, 2001, ISBN 0-87552-185-1
• Consuming Glory: A Classical Defense of Divine-Human Relationality Against Open Theism, Gannon Murphy, Wipf & Stock, forthcoming, ISBN 1-59752-843-9
• Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, John Piper et al., 2003, Crossway Books, ISBN 1-58134-462-7
• What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?: The Current Controversy over Divine Foreknowledge, Millard J. Erickson, Zondervan, 2006, ISBN 0-310-27338-2

[edit] Multiple views

• Divine Foreknowledge: 4 Views, James Beilby and Paul Eddy (editors), et al, 2001, InterVarsity Press, ISBN 0-8308-2652-1
• God & Time: Four Views, Gregory E. Ganssle (editor), et al, 2001, InterVarsity Press, ISBN 0-8308-1551-1
• Predestination & Free Will, David and Randall Basinger (editors), et al, 1985, Intervarsity Press, ISBN 0-87784-567-0
• Searching for an Adequate God, John Cobb and Clark Pinnock (Editors), et al, 2000, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ISBN 0-8028-4739-0

[edit] Related work

• God, Foreknowledge, and Freedom, John Martin Fischer (editor), 1989, Stanford, ISBN 0-8047-1580-7
• The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge & Human, William Lane Craig, 2000, Wipf & Stock Publishers, ISBN 1-57910-316-2
• The Dilemma of Freedom and Foreknowledge, Linda Zagzebski, 1996, Oxford, ISBN 0-19-510763-2
• Eternal God : A Study of God without Time, Paul Helm, 1997, Oxford, ISBN 0-19-823725-1
• Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time, William Lane Craig, 2001, Crossway Books, ISBN 1-58134-241-1
• Time and Eternity, Brian Leftow, 1991, Cornell, ISBN 0-8014-2459-3
• Travels in Four Dimensions: The Enigmas of Space and Time, Robin LePoidevin, 2003, Oxford, ISBN 0-19-875255-5
• The Ontology of Time, L Nathan Oaklander, 2004, Prometheus Books, ISBN 1-59102-197-9
• Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time, Theodore Sider, 2003, Oxford, ISBN 0-19-926352-3
• Real Time II, Hugh Mellor, 1998, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-09781-9
• The Suffering of God, Terence E. Fretheim, 1984, Fortress Press, ISBN 0-8006-1538-7