The Openness of God; Issues of Importance for Theology

and Christian living.

Open theism presents an alternate means of understanding God as that proposed by

classical theism. The claims of open theism are varied but their claims relating to the

omniscience of God are the most important as they propose the omniscience of God

excludes foreknowledge. Propositions relating to the omniscience of God and implications

resulting from this proposition shall be assessed according to Biblical and theological

understandings of God. Factors relating to their propositions include the interpretation of

anthropomorphisms and the relationship between God and time. Open theists contend that

anthropomorphisms should be interpreted in a ‘literalistic’ manner as they propose that

anthropomorphisms represent God as he truly is. Theories of Biblical interpretation shall

be explored to demonstrate that this premise is false and that anthropomorphisms should

be interpreted anthropomorphically. The relationship between God and time is important

as open theism presents God as experiencing time ‘temporality’. Philosophical arguments

relating to God’s relationship with time and a correct understanding of the interpretation

of and implications of prophecy cast doubt upon their propositions. Finally, implications

of open theism shall be explored as they affect issues of theodicy and Biblical inerrancy.

The propositions of open theism shall be demonstrated to undermine confidence in God’s

sovereignty in relation to evil, and in the inerrancy of scripture, both of which have

detrimental effects upon theology and Christian living. The propositions of open theism

shall be examined with the argument being presented that classical theism accurately

represents God whilst the propositions of open theism distort the Biblical understanding of

God.

1

The Openness of God; Issues of Importance for Theology and Christian living.

Theology is primarily interested in comprehensively understanding and describing

God, who he is, and how he interacts with creation. The Christian theologian1 seeks to

reconcile belief(s) regarding God with the revelation of God as found in scripture.

Traditionally the primary model for understanding God has been through the paradigm of

classical theism2 although from the nineteen eighties open theism has been presented as a

viable alternative.3 Open theism proposes a significantly different means of understanding

God and his interaction with creation which warrant examination.

By way of clarification and introduction it is important to succinctly define the

issue in contention. “The core of the problem is the attempt to make the mystery of God’s

sovereign grace and providence compatible with the biblical affirmation of human

responsibility and freedom”.4

The Trinitarian God, according to open theists, is characterised by love

relating as “the essence of loving community.”5 Divine love is believed to be foundational

to the relationship between God and humanity whereby libertarian freedom defines God’s

relationship with humanity.6 Open theists propose that the true ‘Biblical’ understanding of

God has been distorted by excessive Hellenistic influence upon Biblical interpretation

resulting in a misrepresentation of God to the world.7 Understandings of the essence of 1 All Christians are theologians insofar as they propose various understandings relating to who God is and how he interacts with creation. 2 John M. Frame, "Open Theism and Divine Foreknowledge,"(2001), http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2001OpenTheism.htm.3 A. B. Caneday, Veiled Glory: God's Self-Revelation in Human Likeness - a Biblical Theology of God's Anthropomorphic Self-Disclosure, ed. John Piper Justin Taylor & Paul Kjoss Helseth, Beyond the Bounds (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2003), 149-150.4 Donald G. Bloesch, God the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 256-257.5 Gregory A. Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God (Michigan: Baker, 2000), 134,137,145. Further discussions relating to this topic may be found in the writings of Pinnock, The Openness of God, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 107-107.6 Gregory A. Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God, 134.7 Clark H. Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 27-29.

2

God being love, the libertarian freedom of humanity and Hellenistic influence upon

Biblical interpretation, although important, are not of upmost importance in examining the

propositions of open theism. Of upmost importance in relation to open theism are the

propositions relating to the omniscience of God. The propositions of open theism, as shall

be demonstrated, are antithetical to the propositions of classical theism and as these two

models for understanding God are contrasted I shall present the argument that classical

theism accurately presents the Biblical representation of God.

Hellenistic Influence

The issues relating to an understanding of God being influenced by Hellenistic

thought and that God is primarily revealed as love is not without concern. An examination

of Hellenistic influence upon classical theology and the use of an interpretive center in the

hermeneutics of open theism results in questioning whether these assertions are correct.

Whilst it is true that some theologians have tended to overemphasise the

transcendence of God this has not always been the situation. Open theists have tended to

overemphasise the extreme presentations of the transcendence of God and present them as

the norm of classical theism.8 Pinnock exemplifies this where he says: “We may think of

God primarily as an aloof monarch, removed from the contingencies of the world,

unchangeable in every aspect of being, as an all-determining and irresistible power, aware

of everything that will ever happen and never taking risks”.9 Open theism, generalises

Hellenistic influence upon classical theism and presents a caricature of classical theism

that is in reality, incorrect. Wellum identifies the utilisation of prejudicial language that

both denigrates and portrays a distorted view of classical thought. Wellum identifies the

utilisation of prejudicial language that both denigrates and portrays a distorted view of

classical thought. For example, God is described as "unaffected," "inflexible,"

"disengaged," an "aloof Monarch," a "distant king," …… “ and so on..10 Open theists fail

to recognise classical theists do not, and have not always presented the impassibility of

God in this manner. Erickson critiques the open theistic omissions of interacting with the

8 Millard J. Erickson, God the Father Almighty: A Contemporary Exploration of the Divine Attributes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 88.9 Ibid, 88; Pinnock, The Openness of God, 103.10 Wellum, 147.

3

immanence and suffering of God as presented by Luther and any number of modern

classical theistic adherents.11 Wellum proposes that this distorted presentation of classical

theism by open theists casts doubt on their assertions relating to excessive Hellenistic

influence upon the interpretation of scripture.12

Love of God

Central to the teaching of open theism is the proposition that God is Love. The

Trinitarian relationship serves paradigmatically as a model for all others therefore an

adequate understanding of the relationship within the Trinity is essential to understanding

Trinitarian relationships with the created order. Pinnock outlines relationships within the

Trinity whereby, “The tri-personal God is the very model of love, a community where

each gives and receives love”13 Further, God, in Trinitarian relationship, is the essence of

loving community which precludes concepts of a “solitary, domineering individual”.14

Wellum (a critic), citing Rice, discusses the emphasis of divine love within open theism:

From a Christian perspective, love is the first and last word in the Biblical portrait of God. According to 1 John 4:8: “Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love” The statement God is love is as close as the Bible comes to giving us a definition of the divine reality…….. Love therefore, is the very essence of the divine nature. Love is what it means to be God. 15

The Trinitarian love of God needs to be understood in relation to his self sufficiency

whilst God simultaneously desires to extend his love to others.

Creation is to be understood as an extension of Trinitarian love. God did not need

to create humanity but as a consequence of his communal love, “He chose to create in

order to share love”.16 Intrinsic to any understanding of creation is a comprehension of the

interaction between God and humanity. Open theism proposes the relationship between

God and humanity is open and free. “God’s purpose in creating was to bring forth beings 11 Erickson, 88.12 Wellum, 147. 13 Clark H. Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001).14 ———, The Openness of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994).15 Stephen J. Wellum, "The Openness of God: A Critical Assessment," Reformation & Revival 10, no. 3 (2001), 139.16 Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness.

4

who could respond to his love by loving God in return ...”17 For a relationship to be free,

humanity would require the freedom to respond, or not respond, to God. Any conception

that humanities love for God is somehow coerced or based upon any influence external to

humanity would consequently render relationships with God as illusionary. Genuine

relationships occur when humanity may freely, in a reciprocal manner to respond to God’s

love. The only way humanity could freely enter into relationship with God was if they

possessed libertarian freedom.

Love of God: Interpretive Centre

Open theism presents as one of its primary tenants that, ‘God is love’. It has been

asserted that open theists utilise an interpretive center whereby a defining passage serves

as a filter for the interpretation of specific or other passages of scripture.18 An example of

this is found in open theism whereby the concept of the love of God serves as an

interpretive centre for Biblical interpretation. Rice is reported to affirm that 1 John 4:8

“God is love” serves as “a definition of the divine reality”. Whilst God is love, is this

declaration an adequate premise for the interpretation of scripture.19 Erickson questions

whether open theists are engaging in isogesis whereby a passage discussing an attribute of

God is promoted as ‘the primary essence’ of God, thereby going beyond the primary

meaning of the text. Additionally, “Their approach ……..deprives sections [of scripture]

dealing with God’s other attributes of their biblical role in constructing the doctrine of

God”.20 A preferred hermeneutical approach would be to allow the doctrine of God to

grow out of the whole counsel of God, not just selected parts.21

Biblical support for the concept of libertarian freedom is based both on the

character of God and the expressed will of God. The open theist viewpoint is akin to that

of the Arminian viewpoint and therefore shall not be explored at length. Libertine freedom

17 John Sanders, Divine Providence and the Openness of God, ed. Bruce Ware, Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: 4 Views (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2008).18 Robert L. Thomas, "The Hermeneutics of “Open Theism”," The Master's Seminary Journal 12, no. 2 (2001), 187-188.19 Erickson, 76. 20 Thomas, 188; Erickson, 86. Erickson discusses how other passages which discuss the holiness of God (Isa. 6:3), or the jealous character of God (Exod. 20:5) are not treated in like manner to 1 John 4:8. 21 Thomas, 188.

5

proposes that “the love of God is universal and impartial and that he wants everyone to be

saved (Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11; Acts 10:34; 1 Tim. 2:4; 4:10; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2)”.22

Further, God calls upon humanity to decide whether to enter into relationship with him

(Deu. 30:19; Jos. 24:15). For these propositions to make sense, humanity must have the

libertarian freedom to choose God, without compulsion. The concept of libertarian

freedom accounts for the result of the fall whereby, “The Holy Spirit makes it possible for

us to believe, but he does not make it impossible not to believe. Scripture makes it clear

that people can, and do, resist the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives (e.g., Isa. 63:10;

Luke 7:30; Acts 7:5 1; Eph. 4:30; Heb. 3:8, 15; 4:7)”.23

Divine Omniscience

Open theists propose the omniscience of God excludes foreknowledge.

Assessment of open theism must investigate why this proposition is presented. What, if

any, are the implications of this proposition upon understanding of who God is, and how

he interacts with creation? Additionally, what effect does this proposition have upon

theological and practical issues such as (not exhaustive) the inspiration of scripture,

hermeneutical practices, soteriology, divine guidance, prayer and theodicy?

The issues relating to the omniscience of God are complex and necessitate an

examination of both the Biblical and theological claims of open theism to ascertain a

preliminary resolution to this dispute. Biblical support generally incorporates the concepts

that God may be surprised at the responses of humanity; he tests us to learn how we might

respond, he changes his mind and speaks in conditional language. These indicate that God

does not know the future comprehensively. Theologically, issues relating to God’s

relationship with time and the relationship between foreknowledge and libertarian

freedom are utilised to argue God does not possess foreknowledge.

Definition of Omniscience

22 Gregory A. Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God (Michigan: Baker, 2000).23 Ibid.

6

Classical theism presents the omniscience of God as including either determinative

(Calvinistic) or simple (Arminian) foreknowledge.24 Open theists define omniscience as

incorporating all that may be known excluding foreknowledge.25 For any relationship

with God to be genuinely free his omniscience could not include foreknowledge as

foreknowledge implies determinism.26 God possesses complete and comprehensive

knowledge of the past, the present and future potentialities which include God’s future

settled plans but excludes foreknowledge. For example, the future is settled in relation to

God’s acquisition of a bride (the church) and God’s ultimate victory over Satan and all

forces of evil.27 Yet, “Scripture shows that the future is open to the extent that God has

granted humans and angels free will. The issue of contention relates to the whether content

of reality that God perfectly knows, incorporates foreknowledge.28 Open theists contend

that the future is open to the extent whereby “scripture shows that whatever occurs against

God’s will was at some point in the past open, for it should not have happened and did not

need to happen.”29

To assess the claims of open theism a representative sample of their arguments for

the omniscience of God shall be examined followed by a brief consideration of the

implications of their propositions

Examples

Biblical examples provided of where the future is open incorporate, but are not

limited to the following. God is surprised at the responses of humanity. In Jeremiah the

Lord expresses his surprise at Israel’s behavior by saying his children were doing things

"which I did not command or decree, nor did it enter my mind" (Jer. 19:5; cf. 7:31; 32:35).

Boyd questions “how can God say that he "expected" one thing to occur, only to discover

something else occurred if he is eternally certain of all that shall ever occur? Taking the

24 John Sanders, Divine Providence and the Openness of God, ed. Bruce Ware, Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: 4 Views (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2008), 201-202.25 26 Pinnock, The Openness of God, 121.27 Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God.28 Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God, 125.29 Ibid., 145.

7

passage at face value, Boyd asks, does it not imply that God was not certain of the future

of Israel?”30

Abraham

God is noted to test us to learn how we might respond. In testing Abraham on

Mount Moriah (Gen. 22:1-18) God is noted to have said, “for now I know that you fear

God …” (v. 12). It is proposed that God was unsure of how Abraham would respond to

this test and that both God and Abraham learnt something new. Whilst Abraham learnt

that he could trust the faithfulness of God, God learnt that Abraham would trust him in

trying circumstances.31 Using the frequently cited example of God learning in Genesis 22

we shall explore this issue. At face value this verse seems to teach God learnt something,

“for now I know” (v. 12). In considering this event several problems with the open theistic

proposition have been identified. Firstly, if God must test Abraham to see what is in his

heart does this not call into question God’s present knowledge of Abraham? Second, does

God even need this test to know whether Abraham fears God? Open theists propose that

God may extrapolate, on the basis of past responses to God, the potential future responses

of humanity.32 If this being so God should have known the depth of Abraham’s faith.

Romans 4:18-22 tells us that Abraham’s faith for a son persevered for many years.

Hebrews 11:8-12, 17-19 discusses the ongoing faith of Abraham from his call in Ur to

Mount Moriah. Finally and more conclusively, God must have known that Abraham

believed God could raise the dead prior to the point of sacrifice as Hebrews 11:19

contends that Abraham considered God able to raise the dead prior to going up on the

mountain. According to open theists God should, and would have known this prior to

Abraham raising the knife. If Hebrews 11:19 and Genesis 22:5 are to make sense God

must have known beforehand how Abraham would respond. The Biblical record from

Genesis 22, Romans 4 and Hebrews 11 warrant the acceptance Genesis 22:12

anthropomorphically and not literally.33 A problem with the openness model is that despite

30 ———, The Open-Theism View, ed. James K. Beilby & Paul R. Eddy, Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 24.31 Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness, 42; Sanders, Divine Providence and the Openness of God, 220-224.32 Boyd, The Open-Theism View, 20-23. Boyd discusses the predictive ability of God whereby he could, on the basis of past and present behaviour predict the denial of peter and the betrayal by Judas.33 Ware, God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism, 67-71.

8

Abraham passing this test what assurance could be given that he would be faithful in the

future. Ultimately, God would have no assurance only the potentiality of future

obedience.34 Additionally, from a theological viewpoint, if Abraham had proved unfaithful

it is proposed God would have potentially needed to find someone else to fulfill his

purposes.35 What does one make of the unilateral and irrevocable covenant that God made

with Abraham (Gen 15)? Considering the covenant was not based upon Abraham’s future

obedience36 God was taking an incredible risk in unilaterally ratifying the Abrahamic

covenant given the consequences of Abraham’s potential future disobedience.

God Changes His Mind

God changes his mind following interaction with creation. In dealing with

Nineveh, God noting their repentance “learns new facts as they occur and changes plans in

response to what humans do (Jon. 3:9).”37

God Speaks in Conditional language

God speaks in conditional language saying ‘perhaps’, which indicates that he does

not possess complete foreknowledge. “God is certain about some aspects of it (the future)

and uncertain about other aspects. He is certain about what he has decided to do and what

will inevitably happen but less certain about what creatures may freely do.”38 For example,

God was unsure whether Israel might respond to the call to repentance from the prophets.

God says, “Perhaps they will understand…” (Ezek. 12:3): or, “I thought, ‘After she has

done all this she will return to me,’ but she did not return” (Jer. 3:7). These verses

indicate that God does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge and that the future is

partially open and dependant upon the interactions between God and humanity.39

In advancing the argument that God does not possess foreknowledge Boyd rightly

asks; if we are not to accept these verses literally, what are these passages are intended to

34 Ibid, 71-72.35 Boyd, The Open-Theism View, 33-37.36 Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 319.

37 Pinnock, The Openness of God, 117-118.38 ———, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness, 47.39 Ibid, 48.

9

communicate?40 Biblical interpretation involves utilising the skills of hermeneutics and at

times may be challenging, as this debate demonstrates. Ware agrees with open theists that

Christians should accept the straightforward meaning of the text as the intended meaning

although difficulty arises when the straightforward meaning is not always intended.41 The

verses outlined by open theism in favour of God, repenting, changing his mind, learning,

and so on, are referred to as anthropomorphisms. That being the case, the question must be

asked, how should anthropomorphisms to be interpreted?

Anthropomorphisms

Boyd rightly asserts that “where the Bible speaks anthropomorphically and

figuratively about God, it is speaking truthfully about God. The expressions genuinely tell

us true characteristics about God, albeit in a nonliteral fashion”.42 Anthropomorphisms

ought to be interpreted literally unless the literal interpretation would be ridiculous (e.g.,

God has an "outstretched arm," Deut. 4:34).43 The difference in understanding

anthropomorphisms is outlined whereby the traditional theist “understand

anthropomorphism to provide an accommodating glimpse of God ……., [whilst] Sanders

understands such figures of speech as ‘divine repentance’ to portray God as he actually

is.”44 Open theists contend that classical theists have interpreted anthropomorphisms

anthropomorphically because Hellenistic influence demanded an immutable God.45

Classical theists, in understanding scripture have tended to highlight the fact that, as God

speaks to us in human language with categories from creation; all scripture ought to be

understood as anthropomorphic in nature.46 Classical theists have regularly treated all such

assertions of God’s repentance as anthropomorphisms whereby these verses signify a

40 Boyd, The Open-Theism View, 34.41 Bruce A Ware, God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000), 66-67.42 Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God, 119.43 Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God, 118.44 A. B. Caneday, "Putting God at Risk: A Critique of John Sanders’s View of Providence " Trinity Theological Journal 20, no. 2 (1999), 152. (emphasis in original)45 Ibid.,, 118-120; For an extended discussion relating to anthropoporphisms see Boyd, The Open-Theism View pp. 37-40.46Caneday, Veiled Glory: God's Self-Revelation in Human Likeness - a Biblical Theology of God's Anthropomorphic Self-Disclosure, 197.

10

change of God’s attitude toward humanity based upon our responses to him.47 God’s threat

to judge certain people for their sins often comes through the prophet with an explicit or

implicit condition attached: If the people repent of their sin, God will withhold the

judgment that he so forcefully said would come.48 God often changed his response to

Israel on the basis of their repentance (Is. 1:1-20). Caneday quotes Sanders as proposing

that, “Metaphors do not provide us with an exact correspondence to reality, but they do

provide a way of understanding reality”49 Open theists, in applying ‘literalistic’

interpretations to anthropomorphisms, eliminate figurative language from

anthropomorphisms and thus distort the intended meaning of scripture whereby

repentance texts inform us of God’s changing relationship with humanity.50

Another and more significant reason why the repentance verses should not be taken

literally is because scripture says God cannot change his mind. Numbers 23:19 and 1 Sam.

15:29 describe God as incapable of repenting:

Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

1 Sam. 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent.”

Ware contends that anthropomorphisms cannot be interpreted literalistically for two

reasons. Firstly, the parallelism of lying and repenting indicates that just as God cannot lie,

he cannot repent. Secondly, these verses contrast God and humanity, unlike humanity,

God never repents.51 The evidence that God does not repent or change his mind is

sustained by the arguments as above therefore anthropomorphisms may be interpreted

anthropomorphically. Responding to Boyd’s question as to what repentance verses teach

we would respond; that they provide a way of understanding reality whereby God changes

in his response toward us in relation to our obedience to him.

47 Bruce A. Ware, "An Evangelical Reformulation of the Doctrine of the Immutability of God," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29, no. 4 (1986), 444.48 Ibid., 443.49 Caneday, "Putting God at Risk: A Critique of John Sanders’s View of Providence ", 151.50 Ware, "An Evangelical Reformulation of the Doctrine of the Immutability of God, 441.51 Ware, God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism, 84-90.

11

Having briefly examined Biblical issues relating to open theism it is important to

review the theological reasons for their assertions. Open theists assert that issues relating

to God’s relationship with time and the relationship between foreknowledge and

libertarian freedom provide evidential support for their propositions. Unfortunately our

examination must be limited to brief examinations of the issue of God’s relationship to

time.

God’s Relationship with Time

God’s relationship to time may be understood as either divine timelessness or

divine temporality. Open theists affirm the latter view whereby God experiences temporal

passage, and learns, as we do.52 Arguments proffered to support this view include the

assertion that divine temporality “resonates with the portrayal of God in the biblical

record”53 It is asserted that divine timelessness limits God whereby God would be unable

to intervene in salvation in history54 because a timeless being cannot be understood to

plan, deliberate or change his mind.55 Classical theists understand the relationship between

God and time whereby God, who created time, is outside and above time and views the

past, present and future simultaneously.56 Erickson argues that, according to Einsteinian

physics, reality is to be understood as four-dimensional space-time universe in which time

and space are conjointly relative. If this is true, then God’s relationship to time is parallel

to his relationship with space. As God exists over and outside of space so he would be

understood as being outside of time and not constrained by divine temporality.57 Drawing

upon the concept of ‘dimensional beyondness’, as proposed by Kirkegaard, Erickson

contends that God exists in another dimension that is not accessible to us.58 This concept

allows us to interact with the concepts of transcendence and immanence. God is immanent

insofar as he is omnipresent and transcendent as he exists in another dimension. God’s

omnipresence entails omniscience but transcendence does not demand that God cannot

52 Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God, 131; Pinnock, The Openness of God, 120-121.53 Sanders., 227.54 Pinnock, The Openness of God ,121.55 Sanders, 226.56 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 170-171.57 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1983), 343.58 Ibid, 342.

12

intervene in human history. The immanence of God depicts him as acting and responding

within human history, despite being transcendent.

Prophecy

An important component of scripture which affects our understanding of God’s

omniscient foreknowledge is prophecy. Saunders proposes that predictive prophecy falls

into one of three categories. Prophecy may concern predictions that God unilaterally

decides to bring about.59 Secondly, prophecies predict future events based upon inferences

drawn from Gods’ exhaustive knowledge of the past and present. In these predictions God

states what he believes is the most probable state of affairs to materialise. Finally, God

may declare what he wants to happen in the form of conditional predictions (prediction in

Jonah that Nineveh would be destroyed).60 When predictions include the involvement of

humanity Boyd asserts that only the specific deeds were destined and foreknown to take

place not those involved.61 Ware questions these assertions. There are texts that state

predictively that God will do something in or through human beings and texts that state

predicatively what human beings will do apart from God directly acting in or through

them. To extrapolate the premises of open theism, whereby God could not conceive that

Israel would sin prior to exile62, how could God have conceived of the means of the

crucifixion (as scripture contends he did) if God does not possess foreknowledge?63

Geisler argues that the open theism viewpoint results in questioning whether predictive

prophecy is reliable; “On the premise that God is only guessing, it is reasonable to assume

that some [prophecies] are wrong.64 The Biblical record argues the God knows and

predicts the future. The primary purpose of the comparison between God and the idols of

Isaiah (40-48) is that God claims to know and declare the beginning from the end (46:9-

10), as well as declaring specific details regarding individuals as God has concerning

Cyrus (41:26-26). Open theists accept that God sometimes places limits around the 59 These predictions incorporate God’s settled plans for the future such as the eschaton.60 Sanders, Divine Providence and the Openness of God, 219-220; Hasker, "The Openness of God.", 118.61 Boyd, The Open-Theism View, 19-23.62 Pinnock, The Openness of God, 122.63 Bruce A. Ware, "Defining Evangelicalism's Boundaries Theologically: Is Open Theism Evangelical?," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45, no. 2 (2002), 206-207.64 Norman L. Geisler, "Neotheism: The Dangers of Making God in Our Image," Christian Research Journal Apr-June (1998), 32.

13

libertarian freedom of specific people in achieving his plans and purposes.65 In relation to

Cyrus, God would have needed to severely curtail the libertarian freedom of multiple

‘open events’ in fulfilling the prophecies of Isaiah. The concept of God intervening to the

extent of curtailing libertarian freedom in this manner must be considered somewhat

inconsistent with the propositions of open theism. In contrast to open theism, scripture is

clear that God knows and predicts the future exhaustively.

Having examined Biblical and theological issues relating to God’s relationship

with time I would like to examine two important implications of open theism from a

theological and Christian living perspective.

Theodicy

The open view of God purportedly provides a better response to the issue of

theodicy. According to open theism, the relationship between humanity and God whereby

humanity was created with libertarian freedom means that God cannot guarantee that we

will always do what is right. The Biblical account clearly demonstrates the anguish of God

toward our rejection of him and the senseless horizontal violence we exhibit toward one

another (Is. 63:10; cf. Eph 4:30; Mic. 6:8-12).66 God, according to open theism, is just as

upset and displeased with sin as we are and he promises his comforting presence with us

during our trials (Phil. 4:7) and he may, on occasions, bring good out of evil (Rom. 8:28-

29)67 although in some instances there is no purpose to suffering.68 The primary difficulty

according to open theists with the classical view is that if God ordains whatsoever comes

to pass, including evil, how can we trust the character of God?69 Whilst at first glance the

open theist explanation is appealing it is in fact appalling insofar a false picture of God is

presented. God is presented as mistaken in relation to his plans and impotent in the face of

evil. God brings to pass events in our lives but due to an open future and libertarian

freedom, he cannot know with certainty the consequences of his actions. In contrast, the

Biblical account constantly affirms we can exhaustively trust the character of God in all

65 Boyd, The Open-Theism View, 19.66 Boyd, The Open-Theism View, 29.67 ———, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God, 155-156.68 Ibid., 15369 Ibid., 155

14

aspects of life, including suffering (Rom 8:32; Ps. 34:10, 84:11). Romans 8:32 highlights

the reliability of God whereby he is noted to be actively involved in bringing all things,

both good and bad, that come to pass in the believer’s life for their good.70 It is difficult to

comprehend this truth in the face of a child dying of cancer or other calamity yet the Bible

speaks of God ordaining ‘evil’ to occur to bring about a greater good in accordance with

his plans. Examples would be found in Joseph’s slavery (Gen. 45:4-8), Job’s story (Job

42:11), the affliction of Paul (2 Cor. 12:7-10) and ultimately through the death of Christ

where the greatest good was bought from the most heinous evil (Acts 2:23, 4:27-28; John

3:16; Isa. 53:10).71 In contrast with the God of open theism, God ordains whatsoever

comes to pass our lives acting and intervening for our ultimate good in bring about the

realisation of his plans. This understanding of God provides more comfort in suffering

than a God who is surprised and aggrieved at suffering, wanted to help but cannot due to

the libertarian freedom of humanity or simply chose to allow ‘evil’ to occur for no reason.

Ad Hoc History

Historically scripture have been understood as “God’s word written ……..

whereby human authors wrote exactly what God intended and without error.72 The open

theistic viewpoint whereby God does not know the future ultimately undermines the

infallibility of the Bible whereby God assess, makes plans and readjusts those plans ‘ad

hoc’ in history.73 Ware proposes that, God in making adjustments to his previously

declared plans demonstrates that he was, ultimately mistaken, regarding how he thought

his plans would turn out. For example God states that Israel would prosper and would

follow him, but in fact they forgot the Lord their God (Jer. 3:19-90). The propositions of

open theism present a God who means to speak the truth in what he says but may in fact

be mistaken and in error.74 Additionally, in relationship to prophecy, open theists propose

70 Ware, God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism, 194-195.71 Ibid., 197-206.72 Stephen J. Wellum, The Inerrancy of Scripture, ed. Justin Taylor & Paul Kjoss Helseth John Piper, Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2003), 239-240.73 Pinnock, The Openness of God, 113.74 Ware, "Defining Evangelicalism's Boundaries Theologically: Is Open Theism Evangelical?.", 203.

15

that prophecies predict future events based upon what he believes is most probable to

materialise.75 This would mean that until a prophecy was fulfilled there would always be

doubt at to the veracity of God’s word.76 The claims of open theism are of concern

because the aforementioned reasons would ultimately lead Christians to question the

inerrancy and therefore the truthfulness of scripture from which we receive revelation

about who God is and how he relates to us.

Conclusion

Open theists present a God made in the likeness of humanity and misrepresent the

transcendent yet immanent God. From the arguments presented it must be concluded that

open theism presents a sub-standard understanding of God. Through incorrectly

interpreting anthropomorphisms, misunderstanding God’s relationship to time, failing to

understand the implications of prophecy, and not adequately accounting for the inerrancy

of scripture, the claims of open theism must be rejected as inadequate. As has been

demonstrated, classical theism, presents a Biblical understanding of who God is and how

we may relate to him as our God and Father.

75 Sanders, 219-220.76 Geisler, 32.

16