An Introduction to the Open Theism Controversy by Andy Woods © 2004 INTRODUCTION Welcome to this session, which is entitled —Introduction to the Open Theism Contro ersy." This session is designed to introduce the open theism contro ersy to those with little or no knowledge of the subject. The central (uestion raised by open theists is —what does )od know and when does he know it*" Why should Christian leaders de ote attention to learning about this contro ersy* The answer to this (uestion is that open theism has been embraced by some members of the influential E angelical Theological ,ociety1 and is conse(uently beginning to find its way into mainstream e angelicalism. Thus, as a pastor, you are bound to run into it at some point and therefore it is best to familiari-e yourself with the issue ahead of time. When dealing with the openness contro ersy we are in ol ed in the battle o er how to define )od. This battle is nothing new for the church. There ha e always been numerous ideas that ri al the traditional understanding of )od.2 ,uch ideas include the following. deism, which ad ocates )od/s lack of in ol ement with 0is creation, pantheism, which confuses )od with 0is creation, finite godism, which ascribes limitations to )od, polytheism or the notion of many gods, 2 and atheism, which denies )od/s e1istence. 1 Open theism/s leading proponents include )regory 3oyd, Clark Pinnock, and 5ohn ,anders. 2 3y the —traditional iew of )od" I am referring to the iew that sees no limitations upon )od/s knowledge, power, or presence. The traditional or —classical iew of )od" understands )od as possessing omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. 2 Norman )eisler and 0. Wayne 0ouse, The Battle for God 7)rand 8apids. 9regel, 2001:, 8-9. 1 What is open theism* Open theism impacts how one understands se eral of )od/s attributes.4 0owe er, in this session, our focus will be limited to )od/s omniscience or more specifically 0is foreknowledge. We seek to highlight this aspect of the debate not only for the sake of time but also because it is this facet of the debate that has created the most contro ersy and publicity.5 The (uestion that open theists are proposing is not how )od knows the future6 but if he knows it. Open theists maintain that )od does not know what a gi en human being will do until he acts. They refer to such human actions as human contingencies. 3ecause )od remains unaware of human contingencies, the future remains unsettled in 0is mind. Open theists are careful to note that )od does ha e an e1hausti e knowledge of the past and present. 0e also has an e1hausti e knowledge of things that 0e will bring to pass unilaterally independent of human choices.7 0e is also aware of all the potential choices a person may make.8 0owe er, regarding specific human choices, )od must adopt a —wait and see approach" before 0e knows what people will do. What is the moti ation behind the creation of open theism* Although openness proponents claim that their theology is dri en by the te1t of ,cripture, they are also (uite candid in their admission of the philosophical problems resol ed by their theology. One such philosophical dilemma is the tension between human freedom and di ine foreknowledge. According to Pinnock, —Philosophically speaking, if choices are real and freedom significant, 4 Open theism affects ones understanding of )od/s omniscience, eternality, immutability, simplicity, impassibility, relatability to the world, and so ereignty. 5 Aor a work e1ploring how open theism affects all of )od/s attributes, I recommend )eisler and 0ouse, The Battle for God. 6 The church has always had differences of opinion regarding how )od knows the future. The competing theories used to debate this issue include the simple foreknowledge, middle foreknowledge, and Cal inist positions. Aor a clear definition of each, see Millard Erickson, What Does God Know and When Does He know It?: The Current Contro ersy O er Di ine Foreknowledge 7)rand 8apids. Conder an, 2002:, 12-12. 7 ,uch unilateral acti ity could include the ultimate defeat of e il, the creation of the eternal state, or the e1istence of the tree of life in the New 5erusalem. 8 3oyd uses the e1ample of a chess player to illustrate this concept. The —chess master does not foreknow e1actly what mo es her opponent will make, but she perfectly anticipates all the mo es her opponent might make." )regory 3oyd, —The Open-Theism Diew," in Di ine Foreknowledge: Four Views, ed. 5ames 9. 3eilby 7Eowners )ro e. Inter arsity, 2001:, 45. 2 future decisions cannot be e1hausti ely foreknown."9 Thus, because openness theologians appear unwilling to li e with the tension between human freedom and di ine foreknowledge, an openness theology that challenges )od/s foreknowledge appears to be a con enient alle iation of this tension. Openness ad ocates incorporate a kenosis concept into their theology. They maintain that because )od created people as free moral agents, deciding to lay aside 0is knowledge of what choices people would make was one of the conse(uences associated with 0is decision to create humanity.10 Another philosophical hurdle resol ed by open theism is the problem of e il. 3oyd e1plains that the openness iew helped him in counseling Christians who had e1perienced tragedies. Openness theology allowed him to e1plain to the ictims that )od did not foreknow their tragic circumstances. Thus, they could not blame )od for knowing of a coming tragedy and doing nothing to pre ent it.11 In sum, open theism appears to pro ide a con enient escape from the problem of e il as well as from the tension between di ine foreknowledge and human freedom. In this session we will criti(ue open theism from a classical perspecti e. The criticisms of openness theology that I will share did not originate with me but rather are charges that ha e been le eled against the openness iew from arious prominent classical theists such as )eisler, 0ouse,12 Erickson,12 Ware,14 and Thomas.15 In order to pro ide an o er iew of the 9 Clark Pinnock, —,ystematic Theology," in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God 7Eowners )ro e. Inter arsity, 1994:, 122. 10 Clark Pinnock, —There is 8oom for Fs. A 8eply to 3ruce Ware," (ournal of the E angelical Theological Society 45, no. 2 75une 2002:. 214. 11 )regory 3oyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God 7)rand 8apids. 3aker, 2000:, 106. 12 )eisler and 0ouse, The Battle for God. 12 Erickson, What Does God Know and When Does He know It?: The Current Contro ersy O er Di ine Foreknowledge. 14 3ruce Ware, God,s -esser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism 7Wheaton. Crossway, 2000:. 15 8obert L. Thomas, E angelical Hermeneutics: The .ew Versus the Old 7)rand 8apids. 9regel, 2002:, 472-505. 2 subject, we will look at open theism from the following four angles. hermeneutical, biblical, historical, and practical. HERMENEUTICS16 3oth classical and open theists make certain interpreti e choices when they approach the te1t of ,cripture. Fnderstanding how the hermeneutics of open theism differs from the hermeneutics of classical theism helps us understand both iews better. Open theists employ si1 hermeneutical methods. First, open theists take Old Testament language, which has traditionally been understood figurati ely or anthropomorphically, and they interpret such language literally. An anthropomorphism is of figure of speech that in ol es ascribing to )od a human feature. ,uch a figure of speech is necessary in order for finite man to relate to and understand an infinite )od. 3y interpreting literally numerous passages that ha e traditionally been understood anthropomorphically, open theists are able to conclude that )od/s foreknowledge is limited. A key battle ground te1t in this ongoing debate is )en 22.12 where )od tells Abraham that now 0e knows that Abraham fears )od as Abraham was on the erge of offering Isaac. Open theists use this te1t to teach that )od was not aware of what Abraham would do in such a situation until )od actually obser ed Abraham/s choice. Open theists contend that only this e1planation satisfies the language of the te1t, which says, —for now I know that you fear )od." 3oyd rejects an anthropomorphic understanding of te1ts of this nature when he notes, —We simply do not see anything in narrati es that describe )od as thinking about the future in terms of what may or may not happen 7e.g. E1od 4.1-9H 12.17H 5er 26.2H E-ek 12.2: or changing his mind 7e.g. 22.10- 16 0ermeneutics refers to the science and art of biblical interpretation. It addresses the issue of how ,cripture is to be interpreted. 4 14H 5er 18.7-10H 5onah 2.10: or e1pecting something to happen that does not come to pass 75er 2.6-7H 19-20H Isa 5.1-10: that suggest they are anthropomorphisms."17 0owe er, classical theists ha e pointed out that 3oyd/s hermeneutic, which treats such te1ts literally rather than anthropomorphically, is problematic. If it is applied consistently then the end result is a )od that is far more limited than what open theists would be comfortable with.18 Aor e1ample, using 3oyd/s literal hermeneutic in interpreting )en 2.9, where )od says to Adam —where are you*" would limit )od/s present knowledge.