Open Theism

(The following paper was given in an abridged form at our congregation's Bible Study Conference in November 2001.)

One marker of what's happening in the evangelical world is to look at the agenda for the Evangelical Theological Society's Annual Meeting. The ETS is made up of over 1000 scholars, mostly from North America, mostly academics working in conservative Seminaries and Bible Colleges, and all committed to the verbal inspiration of the Bible.

This year's annual meeting took place from 11th-16th of this month in Denver, Colorado, on the theme "Defining Evangelicalism's Boundaries", with the open view of God as its sub-theme. Open Theism has become a deeply divisive theological issue among conservative, evangelical scholars. Some are arguing that it is a new reformation within evangelicalism; others are arguing that it is the very opposite of what being an evangelical means.

The literature on this subject is only now beginning to appear, and it is an issue that is deeply dividing the evangelical world. All the more reason, therefore, for us to become familiar with the debate and its implications.

A Question of Definitions

What is this debate all about? 'Theism' tells us that is has something to do with God, with the way we understand God and know God. That tells us something about the centrality of this issue. It is not peripheral. It touches on the very heart of our faith, because eternal life is to know God (John 17:3). If our ideas about God are wrong, then everything else will be wrong.

It remains true that "no man has seen God at any time" (John 1:18). In order to know God, we need revelation. God reveals his glory to us in the creation all around us, but it is characteristic of man in sin that he does not give God the glory that he should (Romans 1:18ff). God, in his grace, has given us special, redemptive revelation of himself in and through Jesus Christ (John 1:18) and through the Bible (John 5:35). By the illumination of the Holy Spirit we can know God; apart from that saving, illuminating work, we cannot receive the things of God.

If we were to be asked 'What is God?', we could fall back on our Shorter Catechism definitions. "God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable ..." (Question 4) or "he has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass" (Question 7). We have learned that God is the all-powerful, all-knowing God, who sees all things and who understands all things. We have inherited a powerful tradition of theology and insight, a tradition which emphasises that God is sovereign, in control of our lives, and ruling over the world. We have been taught that he works all things towards a pre-determined end, and that his ways are "unsearchable" and "past finding out". That is the Classic Theism position.

But Open Theism is raising questions about where this theology came from. It is questioning whether, in fact, this is the God of the Bible at all, and suggesting that these concepts of God owe more to the abstractions of philosophy than to the teaching of the Bible. Open Theism appeals to certain passages of Scripture to demonstrate that there are some things (including the future) which God does not know, and that he has not, in fact, ordained "whatsoever comes to pass". It argues that the God of the Bible takes risks by co-operating with us in his designs, goals and purposes.

The word "Open" in the subject of our paper, therefore, refers to a view about reality, and especially the future. If God honours our choices and actions and makes them determine the course of events, then the future cannot be determined by God -- it must remain open, unreal and therefore unknowable. This view is sometimes referred to as The Openness of God, and was first articulated in a book of that title published by IVP in 1994. The sub-title of the book is "A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Undersanding of God". The position is also sometimes called "Free-will Theism", since it emphasises the importance of man's free-will in determining the course of future events. It is argued that the greatness of God is seen in that he knows every possible combination of choices which we might make, and therefore the endless possible futures that the world might have. But God remains limited in knowing what will actually happen, and the future remains 'open' as a result. This theology makes God more open, accessible and, it is argued, more personal (and consequently more like the God of the Bible).

One of the leading proponents of this view is Professor Clark Pinnock, who teaches theology at McMaster Divinity College in Canada. Pinnock was committed to a Calvinistic and traditional view of God until, as he says in a 1998 interview, "I along with others have sensed the need for a better theological articulation of our dynamic relationship with God" ("Free Space: An Interview with Clark Pinnock", downloaded from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals Website). In order to understand the appeal of the openness model, it is worth quoting at length from Clark Pinnock's interview:

...God sovereignly grants human beings significant freedom, because he wants relationships of love with them. In such relationships, at least in the human realm, either party may welcome or refuse them. We may choose to cooperate with God or work against his will for our lives. God has chosen to enter into dynamic give-and-take relationships with us which allow God to affect us and also let us affect God. As co-labourers with God, we are invited to bring the future into being together along with him. The openness model of God is a variation of what is often called 'free-will theism', and I think it makes better sense both of the Bible and of our walk with God.

The problem with the 'old' model in its Thomist or Calvinist versions has to do with the fact that it emerged out of a synthesis of the Bible and Greek philosophy. Several (but not all) of its features are unscriptural and inappropriately dependent on Hellenistic thinking. Categories like God's impassibility, timelessness, immutability, exhaustive omniscience are badly skewed. They give the impression that God is immobile and reminds one uncomfortably of Aristotle's unmoved mover. It makes God look a lot like a metaphysical iceberg...

We need to reflect more the awesome tenderness of God in bending down to us and making himself vulnerable within the relationship with us ... I hope we will not be too stubborn to make reforms in our thinking according to God's word".

Some evangelicals see the openness model as heralding a new reformation. Gilbert Bilezikian, in his endorsement of the book The Openness of God, wrote: "Almost five centuries ago, Christians thrilled at the recovery of the truth of salvation by grace that had been hijacked from them for a millennium of church history. This book throbs today with the same excitement at the rediscovery of a God infinitely greater and freer than the cold abstractions of medievally minded reductionist theologians make him to be" (back cover of The Openness of God). Bilezikian is one of the theological giants behind the Willow Creek Community Church, where 17,000 people worship each Sunday. He has taught at evangelical Seminaries in the United States, and his endorsement of Open Theism will be influential in spreading this new view of God. Calvinists are being accused of reductionism, of reducing God to an aggregate of abstract attributes. It is alleged that such attributes as omniscience, immutability and impassibility imprison the God of the Bible within an impersonal theological framework. In order to recover the personal, dynamic, relational view of the God of the Bible, we need to change our theological models.

Clark Pinnock also delivered a paper at this year's ETS annual meeting, entitled "Reconstructing Evangelical Theology: Is the Open View of God a Good Idea?", in which he gives an apologia for his view at a major meeting designed to discuss it. Pinnock is correct to state in his paper that "the question before us now is whether the open view of God is a proposal that can be considered evangelical" ("Reconstructing Evangelical Theology: Is the Open View of God a Good Idea?", p1). Pinnock's appeal in this paper is for Openness Theology to be given a place at the evangelical table, on the grounds that it is good to discuss new views. Pinnock makes much of the fact that "it is not as if other evangelicals have not noticed problems in the traditional approaches" ("Reconstructing" p6) -- God's temporality and unchangeableness are constantly being redefined. But Pinnock also accuses those who have attacked his position of being "a group of sectarian evangelicals"; he continues: "I have always known there was a vigorous paleo-Calvinist credalism in evangelicalism ... one senses a hardening of the categories typical of fundamentalism and an excessive traditionalism" ("Reconstructing" p8). In my view it is difficult to advance the debate when the advocates of Open Theism are already accusing Calvinists of an entrenched dogmatism which refuses to be open to the mind of the Spirit. The tone of Pinnock's paper makes me very concerned for the future discussion of the topic, and for the future of evangelical Calvinism itself.

Scriptural Support For Open Theism

Open Theism appeals to several passages of Scripture in support of this new view of God.

It appeals to passages which deal with God's purposes and intentions. Consider the following:

Genesis 6:6 -- "The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart".

Exodus 32:14 -- "So the Lord relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people".

1 Samuel 15:35 -- "Samuel mourned for Saul, and the Lord regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel".

Jonah 3:10 -- "Then God saw their [the people of Nineveh's] works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it".

In each of these passages, the statement is made either that God was sorry for something which He had previously done, or that God changed His mind, and did not fulfill something He had previously stated as His intention. According to Open Theism, God's "ultimate objectives required him to change his immediate intentions" (The Openness of God p28). The interaction of God with Moses, or with the Ninevites is real and personal, and the actions of Nineveh in repenting become the basis of an immediate change of intention in God. Similarly, when God sees the wickedness of Saul he is sorry that he ever made him king. It was a mistake -- something God allows at the time, but subsequently regrets.

The classical view of God, it is argued, forces a meaning on these passages which Scripture will not allow them to carry. Classical theism argues that God is immutable, and that his purposes and intentions do not change. According to Stephen Charnock, passages which speak of God repenting or changing his mind show that men have changed their relationship to him, not that he has actually changed. But the appeal of Open Theism is that it takes such biblical passages literally. Classical theism is charged with subjecting the Bible to theological 'control beliefs', such as God's immutability, and not allowing the Bible to speak for itself. If the Bible says God changed his mind, then why not accept that he responded to human initiatives and did just that -- he altered his plans and changed the course of his purpose in response to the actions of men?

Richard Rice, a leading proponent of Open Theism, summarises as follows:

God's intentions are not absolute and invariant; he does not unilaterally and irrevocably decide what to do. When God deliberates, he evidently takes a variety of things into account, including human attitudes and responses. Once he formulates his plans, they are still open to revision (The Openness of God pp29-30).

The point which Open Theists which to emphasise is not so much that God changes his mind, intention, or purpose, but that "[God's] relation to us is one of dynamic interaction" (The Openness of God p32). Classical theists are accused of positing a God who knows and ordains all things, yet is not really interacting with us in our own decisions and actions at all. Open Theism wants to recover a sense of the dynamism of God's immediate presence with us, and appeals to a literal reading of the Bible in its statements concerning God's plans and purposes.

Secondly, Open Theism appeals to passages which deal with God's actions and works. Open Theism acknowledges that there are passages in Scripture in which God can bring things about unilaterally and immediately. When he created the world, for example, God said, "Let there be light", and there was light. Yet there are other passages which emphasise that in his actions God constantly interacts with people, and interacts in time, so that we can speak of 'before' and 'after' with respect to God.

Consider the following passages:

1 Samuel 16:1 -- "Then the Lord said to Samuel, 'How long will you mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and go; I am sending you to Jesse the Bethlehemite. For I have provided Myself a king among his sons.'" Open Theism says: "God hoped that Saul would be a good king. When Saul disappointed him, God turned elsewhere" (The Openness of God, p37). God is open, and the future is open -- God has taken a great risk by having Saul enthroned over Israel. Now God is disappointed, sorry that he ever allowed the accession of Saul, and he acts to anoint David not because he ordained David's rule, but because it is the only option available to him following the unexpected wickedness of Saul.

Luke 15:11-32 -- The Parable of the Prodigal Son. Open Theism says: "Jesus says in effect 'Do you know how it feels to lose something you love and then get it back again? That's just how God feels when sinners return to him'. These parables thus portray God as one who has a capacity for deep and diverse feelings, who is intimately aware of and keenly sensitive to men and women, and who reacts differently to different situations" (The Openness of God, p41). In the case of repentant sinners, God does not know who will repent. All he knows is that some will repent, and then he will act in a particular way towards those who do. He is open towards the world, honours the free choices of men and women, and is exhilarated to recover that which he has lost.

One practical result of this approach that sees God's actions as conditioned by ours is in terms of our prayer life. The Bible says that "the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much""(James 5:16). Open Theism takes that to mean that prayer can cause God to change his mind about certain things, and to act in ways other than those in which he intended to act. In fact, Open Theism so wishes to stress the freedom granted to man in the shaping of world events, that advocates of this view say that "God voluntarily forfeits control over earthly affairs in those cases where he allows us to exercise this freedom" (The Openness of God, p159), so that prayer becomes a means by which God willingly hands over control of the world and events in it to be shaped and fashioned by our prayers and petitions. Another Open Theist teacher, John Sanders, puts it like this:

"God has, in sovereign freedom, decided to make some of his actions contingent upon our requests and actions. God elicits our free collaboration in his plans. Hence, God can be influenced by what we do and pray for, and God truly responds to what we do. God genuinely interacts and enters into dynamic give and take relationships with us." ("Does God know your next move?", Christianity Today, 21 May 2001, p40).

Thirdly, Open Theism appeals to passages which speak of God's knowledge and awareness. Take the following examples:

Genesis 22:12 -- "And [God] said, 'Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me'".

Deuteronomy 13:3 -- "...the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul."

Clark Pinnock says about such passages that "total foreknowledge would jeopardize the genuineness of the divine-human relationship" (The Openness of God, p122). In other words, if God really knew what Abraham would do when asked to sacrifice Isaac, or what Israel would do when confronted with tests of fidelity, then there could be no genuine personal relationship between God and man. As far as Abraham is concerned, God genuinely did not know, according to Pinnock, how he would react, and whether he truly feared God or not. God is a partner in a living, dynamic relationship with Abraham, and in order to find out whether Abraham fears God or not, God must test the depth of Abraham's commitment. Only on Mount Moriah can God truly say, 'NOW I know that you fear God'.

Similarly, God can be genuinely taken aback. Consider Jeremiah 32:35 -- "they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into my mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin". Here, it is alleged, not only did God not know what Judah would do, according to Clark Pinnock, "God expresses frustration ... God had not anticipated it" (The Openness of God, p122).

The theological problem is to reconcile biblical statements about God knowing all things with statements which suggest that he discovers things he did not know and is frustrated with things he did not even anticipate. For Open Theism, as a recent writer puts it, "Genuine human freedom and the omniscience of God can be reconciled ... only when we acknowledge that there are some things that even an omniscient God cannot know" (P.K. Helseth, "On Divine Ambivalence", Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 44.3 (September 2001), p494). It is difficult, however, to know how such a God could be omniscient.

Open Theism seems to teach that God's omniscience means not that he knows all events which will actually occur, but that he knows all the events which might potentially occur; he knows the total range of possible futures which there could be in the history of the world, but, depending on our actions, reactions, prayers and petitions, God does not know which future we will actually make for ourselves. The classical position, it is argued, locks us into a fatalistic position, but the openness model secures a genuine relationship in which God and man co-operate.

This has profound implications for the whole notion of biblical prophecy. How are we to understand the predictive prophecy of Scripture in the light of the openness model which this new evangelicalism presents? Richard Rice, in his chapter on biblical perspectives in The Openness of God devotes several pages to discussing the phenomenon of prophecy, because he recognises that prophecy places a prominent role in the Bible. But he cautions us against accepting the traditional view that God predicts the future on the basis of his sovereign and exhaustive foreknowledge. He argues that prophecy is a much more complex phenomenon. Prophecy, he says, "may express God's intention to do something in the future irrespective of creaturely decisions" (The Openness of God p51); or it may express "God's knowledge that something will happen because the necessary conditions for it have been fulfilled and nothing could conceivably prevent it" (The Openness of God p51); or it may express "what God intends to do if certain conditions obtain". Rice argues that it is necessary to explore these different facets of prophecy because "if God knows the future exhaustively then conditional prophecies lose their integrity" (The Openness of God p52). In other words, how can God say, as he says in Jeremiah 18:8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it" if he knows beforehand what that nation will do? Prophecy then is to be understood as God interacting as best he can with individuals and nations whose behaviour is not predictable.

The best that God can do, therefore, is to predict his own actions, but not the actions of others. Predictive prophecy is not on the basis of supreme and exhaustive foreknowledge, but is contingent upon the fulfillment of certain conditions. God knows what may occur, but cannot be certain of what actually will occur. His omniscience means that he knows the whole range of possible futures, but how the future will unfold very much depends upon our actions, choices and prayers.

Sometimes individuals and nations have specific roles to play within God's plan. But God, it is argued, cannot know how such individuals and nations may act, and his plans may at any time be thwarted and become subject to revision. All we can say with certainty is that "God is Love"; and, like any love relationship, develops dynamically, unexpectedly and sometimes surprisingly. For Open Theism, this relationship with mankind extends to the preaching of the Gospel: God is not willing that any should perish, yet some do perish, so He therefore cannot know the number of the saved. Richard Rice draws the logical conclusion: "God's will does not guarantee the outcome that he desires" (The Openness of God p54-5). To summarise:

Various passages reveal a God who is deeply involved in human experience. The failings of his human children disappoint him and their sufferings bring him grief, but he seeks their companionship and rejoice when they return his love. These passages also reveal a God who is active within human history, patiently pursuing his objectives for his creatures, while taking into account their decisions and actions. They show that God adjusts and alters his plans to accommodate changes in human behaviour. (The Openness of God p58

Open Theism: a Test Case

Perhaps one of the greatest tests we can apply to theology is the test of experience. Our theology has to appeal to the Bible, and must be shaped by the statements of the Bible. But it is also practical, and a theology which cannot be applied to our personal, social or cultural lives is of little help to us.

On 11 September 2001, the world witnessed the horrific terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre. More than one voice has asked: "Where was God on September 11th?" Can we articulate any divine response? What is God's mind on the events which took place in New York? Did he know what was to occur?

Open Theism would say that God did not know beforehand what was to take place in New York that day. He knew that it was possible that the chain of events which culminated in the attack could work out that way; but he also knew all the possible permutations of events by which Providence might have been different. The actual events which unfolded are part of the risk God took when he made men and women with the power of free will and of free choice. Although God might have intervened directly to prevent the attack from happening, he values freedom over everything else, and "he does not normally over-ride such freedom, even if he sees that it is producing undesirable results." (The Openness of God p156). That is why he did not intervene to prevent the tragedy. Open Theism would argue that God was profoundly affected by what he saw happening in America, and had to re-adjust his immediate plans in the light of what happened. He continues to collaborate with us in the making of history; he wants us to make the best possible choices. As The Openness of God says in its concluding paragraph, "Things do not always turn out as expected or desired. But the God to whom we are committed is always walking beside us, experiencing what we are experiencing when we are experiencing it, always willing to help to the extent consistent with our status as responsible creations of his. And we find this to be both exciting and spiritually rewarding." (The Openness of God p176)

What can classic theism do with the problems of September 11th? First, it acknowledges the absolute sovereignty of God. In a statement entitled "Our Situation and Need", issued the day after the terrorist attack my friend and colleague, Dr Ligon Duncan of First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, wrote: "What do we, as Christians, say to all this? How do we process this biblically? Well, the first thing is this -- we run to the sovereignty of God. What a kind providence that here at First Presbyterian Church, God has had our hearts meditating, Lord's Day after Lord's Day, in Romans 8 and 9 over these past few months. No passage in all of the Bible could be more important for us to grasp at such a time as this. The truth of His sovereignty rings clearly in moments of crisis like these; and when it is heard, even "when the strife is fierce, the warfare long," our "hearts are brave, again, and arms are strong." Thank God that He is Lord. He sits in heaven and laughs His enemies to scorn. He is the God of Hosts and mighty in battle. Don't ever let anyone tell you that Scripture is irrelevant. We know, now better than ever, from experience even, just how timely it is. Praise God for His sovereignty and Word." (from the website of First Presbyterian Church, www.fpcjackson.org).

Classical theism acknowledges that sin is a mystery, but it is not afraid to ask the rhetorical question of Amos 3:6 -- "if there is calamity in a city, will not the Lord have done it?" It does not make God the author of sin, but it does confess, in humility and awe, that God ordains sin, permitting evil to be perpetrated that he might have all the glory by his grace. It bows before the throne that knew and ordained and allowed the events of 11 September to occur, and which alone is able to bring good out of the disaster and the chaos. It does not leave us wondering what to do next, because history is only a sequence of events contingent upon our choices, but is determined by God, who is gathering His elect into his kingdom and overthrowing the power of darkness.

To those who suffered the loss of loved ones, the loss of hope, the loss of orientation on 11 September, Open Theism says "God was as shocked as you are. He can help you now get over your pain." Classical theism says "God is in control. His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. But the one who knows is the one who sustains." As Ligon Duncan put it in a lecture to the 2000 Founders Conference at Samford University, Joseph did not say to his brothers "You meant it for evil and God decided to use what you have done for good". He said "You meant it for evil, God meant it for good." This is "the concurrent operation of God's providence even against the cross-purposes of the wicked to his praise and for the good of his people". (SBC News and Views, www.reformedreader.org/hsbcr/news46.htm).

Critiquing Open Theism

One of the main attractions of Open Theism is its insistence on emphasising the personal and relational aspect of God's love. A real concern is being expressed by the proponents of this view, that too often we consider God in the abstract, using terminology which fails to do justice to the biblical portrayal of God. It is easy to talk in terms of infinity, impassibility, immutability etc, and be left with an impersonal deity. The biblical emphasis is far more on the personal portrayal of God -- God as Father, Husband, Judge, Shepherd, for example -- and our theology and pulpit presentation must do justice to these personal portraits.

On the other hand, it is difficult to agree that Calvinism has erred either on the side of abstraction and impersonalness or on the side of fatalism. Open Theism accuses us of downplaying the personal aspects of God's being on the one hand, and on the other so emphasising the sovereign and decretive aspects of God's glory that there is no room left in our system for free will. But it is difficult to see how these accusations can be justified. The Open Theism model has already called forth some robust critiques, such as Bruce Ware's God's Lesser Glory and John Frame's No Other God. It will, no doubt, stimulate further discussion and debate in the future. It will also be important and interesting to see how the Evangelical Theological Society handles the issue, since some members are calling for Pinnock and others to have their membership suspended on the grounds that Open Theism is heretical.

One is tempted to think that Open Theism is just an old heresy in a new garb. It has affinities with Arminianism on the one hand, and Process Theism on the other. Like Arminianism, Open Theism believes that God's knowledge is dependent on man's choices, but unlike Arminianism, rejects the idea of God's exhaustive foreknowledge. Arminianism never held to such an open view of the future. Indeed, in his treatise on the divine decrees, in which he was consistently arguing against Arminianism, Jonathan Edwards began by saying: "Whether God has decreed all things that ever came to pass or not, all that own the being of a God own that he knows all things beforehand". (Edwards, Works, Volume 2, p525). God's exhaustive foreknowledge was readily admitted both by the Calvinism and by the Arminianism of Edwards' day. But Open Theism departs from both by suggesting that the future is entirely open and unreal, and therefore unknowable, even by God.

Process Theism is a theological position that builds upon the philosophical premise that reality is a process of becoming, and not a static thing. When applied to God, this model suggests that God is both 'eternal' and 'becoming'. Without going into the peculiar distinctives of process theology, it can be seen that Open Theism has affinities with the concept of a God who develops, as his relationship to his people develops, and is trying to steer a middle course between classical theism's emphasis on the independence of God and process theism's emphasis on the interaction of God. But at least process theism, for all its reductionist tendencies, does acknowledge that God could intervene creatively to bring about a better world, or to prevent suffering from occurring. In Open Theism, God has no such liberty: he is entirely dependent upon his creatures and their choices.

I doubt if Open Theism will be a problem for the Free Church, but one never can tell. At the very least, Reformed and evangelical churches need to be aware of the issues involved. The following points are the beginnings of a critique of Open Theism.

(1) It is inaccurate in its presentation of Calvinism.

According to John Sanders, writing on "Historical Considerations" in The Openness of God, Calvin's doctrine of predestination "effectively denies any sort of mutual relationship between God and his creatures. It is all a one-way street, or, better, a novel in which the characters do exactly what the novelist decides." I do not believe that this caricature of Calvinism can stand scrutiny. Let's look at three brief statements in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Conf. III.1 -- "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established".

Open Theism accuses Calvinism of holding a fatalistic position, and argues that if we wish to do justice to freedom of will we must move away from the concept of a God whose knowledge and foreordination of all things is total and comprehensive. But the position of the Confession is otherwise: it is, first, that God's foreordination does not violate the freedom of our will; and in fact that it establishes our freedom and the secondary causes which lie behind events in the world. Only on this basis can you grant God's absolute sovereignty AND respect the way the world operates. Our freedom, our choices, our actions -- these are not removed by the doctrine of foreordination, but are established. Similarly our responses to the Gospel are free responses which are not any less free because of election or predestination; predestination is what establishes our free responses to the claims of Christ on our lives.

Conf III.8: "The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending the will of God revealed in his word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence and admiration of God, and of humility, diligence and abundant consolation, to all that sincerely obey the Gospel."

Here the Confession reminds us of the practical nature of God's decree, particularly the decree of predestination. It warns us against a careless and imprudent handling of the doctrine. It tells us that because of God's decree we can have assurance and we will the more be led to admire and worship God. It is a doctrine full of mystery and profundity, but it remains a practical and a wonderful doctrine for those who love the Lord. The Confession strikes the note of warm relational communion between the God who predestines and the worship of those who believe.

Conf. XII.1: "All those that are justified, God vouchsafeth, in and for his only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption; by which they are taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges of the children of God; have his name put upon them, receive the Spirit of adoption, have access to the throne of grace with boldness; are enabled to cry Abba, Father; are pitied, protected, provided for, and chastened by him as by a father; yet never cast off, but sealed to the day of redemption and inherit the promises as heirs of everlasting salvation."

It is impossible to argue, in the light of such a passage, that classical theism leaves no room and does no justice to the relationship which God has with his people through Christ. The Confession is replete with references to such a relationship. Clark Pinnock writes of the open view of God that "Instead of locating God above and beyond history, it stresses God's activity in history, responding to events as they happen, in order to accomplish his purposes." (The Openness of God p125). But the Calvinism of Westminster wants to emphasise that it is the God who is over history that has invaded history. Far from being abstract and impersonal, the God who decrees, elects and predestinates is the God whom we call 'Father'. Richard Rice's statement that "traditional theism seeks to safeguard God's transcendence by denying divine sensitivity" (The Openness of God pp43) is a simplistic misrepresentation. If that is the reason why we now need to embrace Open Theism, then someone has been misinformed.

(2) It is inadequate in its doctrine of the atonement.

It is interesting, for example, that in The Openness of God, Clark Pinnock, in his chapter on "Systematic Theology", deals with the Trinity, creation, God's transcendence and immanence, God's power, immutability, impassibility, eternity and knowledge, but says nothing about the atonement. The open model for understanding God wishes to review God's attributes in the interests of a more relational understanding. Yet there can be no relationship with God without reconciliation, and no reconciliation without atonement.

Yet if we ask the question, "Did God know that the cross was going to happen?", Open Theism would have to say: "Only as a possibility. It may never have happened, but since it did, God made the most of it." In Open Theism, Providence is a big risk, and God is the ultimate chess player, who is constantly thinking out strategies, depending on the moves men make. In his book on Providence, entitled God of the Possible, open theist Gregory Boyd states that there is no divine purpose for every specific event (quoted in Helseth, p509). In the same book Boyd argues that it demeans God's sovereignty to suggest otherwise, since it requires more authority and sovereignty for God to grant freedom to his creatures. "It takes a truly self-confident, sovereign God to make himself vulnerable", Boyd says (quoted in Ware, God's Lesser Glory, p221). But if this is so, and if no specific divine purpose is attached to the events which do take place in Providence, then no specific purpose was attached to the cross. It simply happened, and God had to turn the actions of men into a benevolent result.

One important proof text in this connection is Acts 2:23, from Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost: "[Jesus], being delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified and put to death". At the recent Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Brent Kelly of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary gave a paper entitled "Open Theism and Democratic Methodology", in which he compared and contrasted the different ways in which Greg Boyd (Open Theism) and Bruce Ware (Classical Theism) handled this passage. Kelly shows the radical cleavage between the two approaches. On the one hand, open theists argue that God knew that in all probability people would reject his Son, and, as it happened, that is what he did. But all that God could do was take a "calculated risk", and in fact made an "excellent prognosis". But, as Kelly argues, "The divine "must" seen in this text argues against the idea of boundaries and prognosis ... Yet if one is committed to the necessity of a democratic methodology [i.e. to open theism], then there can be no divine "must," only a divine guess."

But as Bruce Ware puts it, in commenting on Acts 2:23,

As these passages illustrate, God often is said to know and predict what free human beings will carry out. The alternative here is appalling: Due to God's ignorance as he 'predicts' (read: guesses in regard to) the future crucifixion of Christ, it is a good thing (read: God gets lucky that) the Pharisees and Roman soldiers did not repent at the preaching of Jesus, lest God's promise to offer his Son might have failed. No, such divine predictions are not dependent on unknown and unforeseen human choosing which might thwart God's purposes. God knows the future; he predicts much of what will come to be; and in many cases these predictions include the future free choices and actions of his creatures. This is not philosophical sophistry: it is the straightforward meaning of text after text of Scripture. God knows the future, and if we have understood Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel, John, Peter, Luke and Jesus rightly, by its denial of this truth the openness doctrine of God diminishes God's deity. (God's Lesser Glory, p140-1)

The implications of Open Theism for the doctrine of the atonement are astounding. In spite of Pinnock's insistence that he is merely re-interpreting the manner of God's knowledge and working in the world, and in spite of the emphasis on grace which is evident in the Open Theism literature, Open Theism nevertheless leaves too much open, including the possibility that Christ may never have died for us at all. His insistence on the cross as the end of his earthly ministry, and his obedience as Servant as the passion of his life are downgraded in Open Theism and radically revised. There never was, apparently, a divine purpose to save sinners from all eternity, only a smart outwitting of the powers of darkness. Rice goes so far as to say:

Many Christian scholars now perceive the suffering of Calvary not as something Jesus offers to God on human behalf, still less as something God inflicts on Jesus (instead of on other human beings), but as the activity of God himself. (The Openness of God p45)

This, however, evacuates of meaning the passages which speak of Christ as priest, offering a sacrifice, and of Christ as being made a curse for us. It also ignores the import of passages which distinguish the human will of Jesus from the divine will of God, or the ignorance of Jesus from the knowledge of God (for example, concerning the time of the Parousia).

(3) It is inconsistent in its interpretation of the Bible.

One of the strengths of Open Theism is its insistence that we read the Bible literally, free from theological 'control beliefs'. It will not do, its advocates tell us, to read passages like "God repented" and say "God did not, of course, literally repent". Similarly, with passages which deal with God's feelings and intentions, we are told that we must take these literally.

But in actual fact, this gives us an unworkable hermeneutic in practice. Richard Rice, in The Openness of God, wants to make a distinction between passages which speak of God having physical features (eg arms, hands, mouth, face), which he says are rightly construed as symbolic (The Openness of God p34), and passages which speak of God's feelings. To argue that the former passages are anthropomorphisms is correct, he says; but to say that the latter are anthropopathic, in which human emotions are ascribed to God, is evidence of a "popular and entrenched idea that God lies utterly beyond the reach of creaturely experience" (The Openness of God p34).

It is difficult not to accuse Rice of exercising control beliefs here -- he is saying that non-Open Theists generally interpret the Bible inconsistently. But more fundamental still is the fact that the Bible consistently uses language which, on the surface at least, appears paradoxical. The God who says in Genesis 3:9, "Adam, where are you?" is the same God who knows where each one of us is all of the time (Psalm 139:1-7). In relating to human experience, God reveals himself to us in metaphors which have an analogy to our experience, but which never constitute the whole reality about God. This analogical use of language is not an attempt to impose a control theology on the biblical narrative: it is actually a signal that the God who is beyond finite experience nonetheless relates to our human condition. An ignorant God, subjected to the constraints and vulnerability of his own passions, hardly accords with the supreme deity of the Bible.

(4) It is indiscriminate in its use of christological categories.

I am thinking here of two elements of Openness theology: first, that the incarnation represented a change in God, and, secondly, that kenosis means a literal emptying and can be applied to the Trinity.

Rice seeks to develop the logic of the incarnation. What does it mean for us that the incarnate Jesus is the revelation of God? It means that all of Jesus' experiences are God's experiences -- his ignorance is God's ignorance, his suffering is God's suffering, his relations with men are God's relations with men. It shows that God "requires the cooperation of human agents" (The Openness of God p44).

But Pinnock goes further. In his exposition of Open Theism he says that the Son of God surrendered "the divine glory in order to become a human being ... What a mystery -- God wanting to be loved by us and willing to make himself vulnerable" ("Reconstructing" p3). For Pinnock, the Logos is the totality of God, and the relational aspect is a mere wish on the part of God. The Bible knows of no such view of God. He loved the world and gave his Son. He did not abandon his glory in the hope that the world would fall in love with him.

More serious, in my view, is the attempt to read back from the kenosis of Christ into the sovereign acts of God in history. Kenosis is 'self-emptying'; but as Philippians 2 makes clear, Christ abandoned none of his glory when he became man. He was emptied not by the loss of his deity, but by the assumption of our humanity. The emptying is clearly not literal, or else not one miracle could have been wrought by him. Open Theism not only wants to interpret the kenosis literally, but to read it back into the act of creation. God, according to Pinnock, empties himself of omnipotence the moment he created the world and allowed it to exist alongside himself (although presumably that world had no more need of his power to sustain it). He empties himself of eternity by creating a temporal world. He empties himself of omniscience by relating to his creation and collaborating with men in the making of the future. Pinnock and others may see this as a logical extension of incarnational theology, but it is an example of Open Theism exercising its own control belief on theology, since nowhere in the Bible is such kenosis attributed to God; creation is not a self-emptying in any sense, and the incarnation is a self-degradation only of the Son, not of the Father and not of the Holy Spirit.

(5) It is insistent in polarising doctrines which we must hold together.

For Open Theism, the choice is between a God of power or a God of love, a God who wants control or a God who wants involvement. Pinnock states: "Open theists rejoice in the freedom to understand God, not as an indifferent metaphysical iceberg or solitary narcissistic being who suffers from his own completeness, but as a free and creative trinitarian person" ("Reconstructing" p3). The traditional view does not, however, regard God either as indifferent or solitary; nor is he a singular 'trinitarian person' but a trinity of Persons.

There is no reason to suppose that a God of absolute power cannot be related to creatures of time and space. A God who says "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: my purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please" (Isaiah 46:10) may also accommodate himself, in personal relations, to the children of men whose experience of knowing is gradual and piecemeal. A God who knows the future can be truly involved in personal relations. A God who foreordains all things can also foreordain free will choices as means for the accomplishing of his purposes. Indeed, the Bible is the revelation of such a God.

It is precisely the mystery of God's sovereign purposes, worked out through the sin, disobedience and rebellion of a covenant people, that causes Paul to say "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out!" (Romans 11:33). The God of Open Theism is a poor substitute for the God of the Bible, of whom his people can say "I am poor and needy, yet the Lord thinks about me" (Psalm 40:17).

Conclusion

The pillar around which Open Theism is built is the supposition that the future has not yet occurred, is dependent upon our actions in the present, is therefore unreal, and therefore unknowable, even by God. But, as Charles Hodge puts it, "To deny foreknowledge to God ... is to destroy the very idea of God" (Hodge, Systematic Theology, Abridged edition, p318). It is to place God's ways, thoughts and knowledge on precisely the same plane as ours, whereas they are certainly not so. In the traditional Calvinist view of God, God's transcendent power and glory, infused with all the superlative attributes which we ascribe him, has never turned him into an isolationist being, and has never threatened his relations with us. Indeed, the glory that belongs to God as the Triune God of Scripture is that he has entered into covenant with us, in order to relate to us. It is a mystery that a God craving for our love and collaborating with us in the creation of the future could conceivably be greater than the God who is.

Jonathan Edwards has a detailed and intricate discussion of God's decrees in Chapter 3 of his "Remarks on Important Theological Controversies" (Works, Volume 2). At the close of the chapter, Edwards states:

"I wish the reader to consider the unreasonableness of rejecting plain revelations, because [i.e. on the grounds that] they are puzzling to our reason. There is no greater difficulty attending this doctrine than the contrary, nor so great. So that though the doctrine of the decrees be mysterious, and attended with difficulties, yet the opposite doctrine is in itself more mysterious, and attended with greater difficulties, and with contradictions to reason more evident, to one who thoroughly considers things; so that, even if the Scripture had made no revelation of it, we should have had reason to believe it. But since the Scripture is so abundant in declaring it, the unreasonableness of rejecting it appears the more glaring." (Works vol 2, p543).

That is as much the case with the Open Theism of our day as it was with the Arminianism of Edwards' day. The Confession of Faith reminds us of the need for special care in our handling of the doctrine of predestination; the difficulties in presenting it, and the dangers in misrepresenting it are, however, no reason to look instead towards another kind of God with another kind of knowledge. Our supreme confidence in religion is that the God of all power, knowledge and glory is moulding and shaping his people in his own image. All hope is gone the moment we mould God in ours.

© Iain D. Campbell 2001