Open Theism and Orthodoxy
f f f f f Because of God’s commitment to give to humankind unhindered freedom,
openness scholars reject the idea that God is fully omniscient—that is, that He knows
the future exhaustively. In this construct, God is portrayed as ignorant about future
events, and sometimes even plain wrong.[1] This depiction of God is one where He
“expresses frustration” when events transpire in ways which were not anticipated.[2] In
these kinds of situations God remains flexible, and often ‘changes His mind’ when
events unfold in ways that differ from what He desired.[3]
f f f f This is no small matter. The orthodox position among all traditions—Eastern
Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant has affirmed (despite their very real
differences in other matters) the classic attributes of God’s person. Included in these
has been full omniscience—that there is no aspect of the past, present, or future that
God fails to fully realize. It is often said that for extraordinary claims, extraordinary
evidence must be presented. For openness theology to thus overturn two thousand
years of the most fundamental of biblical and theological affirmations—especially
regarding the person of God and His nature (omniscience, immutability, etc.)
overwhelming evidence should be the standard.
It seems that openness scholars interpret everything against the ‘grid’ of
libertarian freedom. Since God’s knowledge of future events might somehow ‘limit’
man’s complete freedom, that knowledge must be redefined. Pinnock writes,
However, omniscience need not mean exhaustive foreknowledge of all future
events. If that were its meaning, the future would be fixed and determined,
much as is the past. Total knowledge of the future would imply a fixity of
events. Nothing in the future would need to be decided. It also would imply
that human freedom is an illusion, that we make no difference and are not
responsible.[4]
Of course classic Arminian theology affirms both God’s exhaustive omniscience as
well as man’s libertarian freedom. One need not jettison God’s complete knowledge of
the future in order to support man’s freedom. It seems openness scholars fail to
adequately account for this position.[5]
f f f f f As exploration considers the positions outlined in Feinberg and Wells, one
should take great care in assessing whether the changes to orthodox theology
undertaken by the openness scholars are a small thing—tiny modifications around the
edges—or are more fundamental to the heart of biblical theology.
In the Lamb,
Dr. Buck
[1] John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 1998), 132-33.
[2] Clark Pinnock, “Systematic Theology,” in Pinnock, et al., The Openness of God
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994), 122.
[3] Richard Rice, “Biblical Support for a New Perspective,” in The Openness of God,
26-35.
[4] Pinnock, Systematic Theology, 121.
[5] Certainly one need not be Arminian to affirm this. Reformed scholarship fully
embraces complete omniscience as well. But since openness theology attacks
foreknowledge and omniscience precisely because of libertarian freedom, it is best to
consider the findings of traditional Arminian thought (Arminius, Wesley, et al).
