Open Theism and Orthodoxy
i i i i i i 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]
i i i i 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]
i i i i i i 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).
