Historical Considerations and Openness Theology

By Ron J. Bigalke Jr. [1]

Ron J. Bigalke Jr. (M.Apol., M.T.S., Ph.D.) is an author, lecturer, and pastor. He is the founder and director of Eternal Ministries and discipleship pastor of Grace Community Church (Rincon, GA). Dr. Bigalke has taught classes for Moody Bible Institute, Tyndale Theological Seminary, and secondary schools, and has served as a Christian school administrator. He is a member of several Christian professional societies. His email address is bigalke @ gccec.org.

Introduction

Martin Luther declared, “If I profess, with the loudest voice and clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battle field besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.” [2]

Among the many current biblical and theological battles, the most distressing are those which minimize the nature and glory of God. The present battle regarding God’s sovereignty requires the loyalty of the church, and no flight or flinching before the heretical views of openness theology concerning the omniscience of God and His sovereign ordination of all things can be tolerated.

Attacks on the foreknowledge of God happened throughout church history, but they had been infrequent. [3] Unfortunately, this has changed in the past three decades. The battle regarding the foreknowledge of God has been intensifying since the publication of W. Norris Clarke’s God, Knowable and Unknowable (1973) [4] and Roy Elseth’s Did God Know? (1977). [5] Although Calvinists and Arminians define foreknowledge differently, both groups affirm the foreknowledge of God regarding the decisions of mankind. [6]

Dialogue and discussion within the Evangelical Theological Society on the issue of Open Theism has continued for several years. The following simple resolution affirming traditional belief in God’s foreknowledge was passed at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Colorado Springs: “We believe the Bible clearly teaches that God has complete, accurate, and infallible knowledge of all events past, present, and future, including all future decisions and actions of free moral agents.” [7]

The end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first have witnessed a plethora of “scholarly” books which deviate from the orthodox [8] views of the church and, most critically, from the testimony of the inerrant and inspired Word of God. [9] Christianity Today has been bringing much attention to this issue, as evident in the following titles: “Did Open Debate Help the Openness Debate?”; “Does God Know Your Next Move?”; “Evangelical Megashift”; “God at Risk”; “Has God Been Held Hostage By Philosophy?”; “The Future of Evangelical Theology”; and “Truth at Risk.”

It appears that postmodernism is dividing evangelical thought into reformism and traditionalism. Reformists adopt new significant changes in principles of biblical interpretation, [10] while the traditionalists work to restate the historic doctrines of the Bible so people can readily understand them. Furthermore, traditionalists utilize every resource available to clarify unclear doctrines. Reformists, on the other hand, revise difficult doctrines by emphasizing multiplicity of meanings and creating indefiniteness, or fluidity, of truth. An examination of Openness Theology will reveal a rejection of traditionalism and a desire for obfuscating biblical truths.

What Is Openness Theology?

Openness theology views God’s foreknowledge as limited to past and present events. God’s limited knowledge is predicated on the fact that the future is unknowable. The future is conditioned upon other events that are undeterminable to man or God. [11] This view has also been called “free-will theism,” “personalist theism,” “relational theism,” “risk theology,” and “simple (or middle) knowledge.” Boyd, an open theist, stated, “Contemporary Christian thought is witnessing something of a renaissance on the doctrine of God. A fair number of today’s most prominent theologians and philosophers are affirming the openness of God. A new wave of critical reappraisal and competent reconstruction of the doctrine of God is sweeping over the intellectual landscape.” [12]

The most prominent advocates of the openness movement are Gregory Boyd, Clark Pinnock, and Richard Rice. Pinnock and Rice have been most influential in getting attention for the movement. [13] Boyd, senior pastor at Woodland Hills Church, St. Paul, Minnesota, and former professor of theology at Bethel College, began an intense debate within the Baptist General Conference and Baker Book House, which is evident from the comments in his book Letters from a Skeptic.

In the Christian view God knows all of reality—everything there is to know. But to assume He knows ahead of time how every person is going to freely act assumes that each person’s free activity is already there to know—even before he freely does it! But it’s not. If we have been given freedom, we create the reality of our decisions by making them. And until we make them, they don’t exist. Thus, in my view at least, there simply isn’t anything to know until we make it there to know. So God can’t foreknow the good or bad decisions of the people He creates until He creates these people and they, in turn, create their decisions. [14]

The Claims of Openness Theology against Orthodoxy

Why are openness theologians challenging the traditional doctrine of God? Their recurring response is that classical theism has been polluted by Greek philosophy. Sanders explained:

Where does this “theologically correct” view of God come from? The answer, in part, is found in the way Christian thinkers have used certain Greek philosophical ideas. Greek thought has played an extensive role in the development of the traditional doctrine of God. But the classical view of God worked out in the Western tradition is at odds at several key points with a reading of the biblical text.. .. The early church fathers lived in the intellectual atmosphere where Greek philosophy (especially middle Platonism) dominated. [15]

Sanders asserted that the early church fathers were influenced by Greek philosophy—Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and particularly Philo. He stated that, according to the Greeks, God was “characterized by rationality, timelessness and immutability,”16 and since this is what classic theology teaches, he claimed that it has been contaminated by Greek concepts. Sanders pointed to Philo of Alexandria as the chief proponent of this “error” because he “sought to reconcile biblical teaching with Greek philosophy.” Therefore, Sanders concluded that Philo deserves “the distinction of being the leading figure in forging the biblical-classical synthesis.” [17]

In Sanders’ view, openness theology is trying to purge classical theology from Philo’s Hellenizing influence. [18] Sanders mentioned the teachings of various church fathers to argue his point and then directed attention to Augustine, the individual believed to be the greatest proponent of Philo’s “error”:

His [Augustine’s] emphasis on divine immutability and simplicity takes precedence over God’s suffering love and faithfulness. Augustine always believed in the biblical God, but in my opinion he allowed neo-Platonic metaphysics to constrain that God. He quotes the Bible extensively but interprets it within the neo-Platonic framework. His consistent rejection of any sort of changeability or passibility in God leads to problems in understanding the nature of God’s love for his creatures and how God can have any sort of covenant relationship with them. [19]

According to openness theology, the middle ages made things worse by carrying forth this Neoplatonic influence. Sanders stated that the Reformers “achieved much greater success in revising ecclesiology and soteriology” than they did in purging Augustine’s “doctrine of God proper” and “Scotist and Ockhamist tendencies that affirmed an absolute divine sovereignty.” [20] He indicted Luther, Calvin, and Aquinas for perpetuating the problem and cited Stephen Charnock’s Discourses on the Existence and Attributes of God and the writings of Bavinch, Berkhof, Chafer, Packer, Ryrie, Shedd, Strong, and Tozer (among others) as contemporary examples of this “Greek amalgamation.”

Other theologians, such as Gilbert Bilezikian, John Boykin, and Philip Yancey, have embraced some, if not all, of Openness Theology. According to Sanders, the Free-Will Theism movement includes Arminian theologians (L. D. McCabe, Gordon Olson), Dutch reformed theologians (Hendrikus Berkhof, Harry Boer, Adriö König, Nicholas Wolterstorff), liberal theologians (Richard Foster, Jürgen Moltmann, Wolfhart Pannenberg), Roman Catholic feminist theologians (Elizabeth Johnson, Catherine LaCugna), Roman Catholic theologians (Thomas Fretheim, Thomas Torrance), and various philosophers of religion (David Basinger, Peter Geach, J. R. Lucas, Richard Purtill, Richard Swinburne, Keith Ward). [21] The list provided by Sanders is simply an attempt to avoid the charge of heresy by showing that contemporary members of “the church” hold the same view in various forms. [22] However, the fact that there are Christians and theologians who are willing to embrace this view does not prove its validity. One can always find someone who holds to some foolish and unreasonable idea in the history of the church.

In contrast to Sander’s accusation of Greek amalgamation, the Reformers held to an “epistemology of the Holy Spirit,” wherein the Bible was considered objective truth regardless of what the enemies of Scripture said. Nevertheless, Sanders dispensed with the views of Luther, Calvin, and Aquinas—authors of monumental works on the nature of God—in less than five pages! Such a surface appraisal linking their theologies with Greek philosophy will not suffice. Consequently, the adherents of open theology list many Scriptures in their writings (perhaps to create a semblance of accuracy) as evidence that they have avoided Greek philosophy and are advocating the truly biblical teaching.

If Open Theology is correct and great minds throughout the history of the church have been so deceived by Greek philosophy, then an obvious question should arise. How has the openness view of God maintained purity from an alleged undiscerned, ongoing Greek influence throughout the centuries upon the traditional doctrine of God? Therefore, the crucial question is, How could the early church, mentored by the Apostles, and the church throughout the centuries err so gravely regarding the nature of God that now openness theology has to purify it with this “biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God”? [23] Furthermore, is it “new evangelicalism” as open theologians assert or should it be more appropriately called neotheism? Hasker provided the following response:

Without doubt a very large number of philosophical issues are involved in the difference between the divine openness view and the classical conception of God-far too many to discuss in a single chapter. My task is made somewhat easier, however, by the fact that many of the indications and preconception with which we today approach these issues are decidedly different from those that prevailed when the theological tradition was being formed. To be sure, the fact that a view was once widely held and has now been generally abandoned is not a decisive reason to reject it; truths can be forgotten and then rediscovered. But when we are assessing the merits of views supported by a long tradition, it is surely appropriate to consider the ways in which the assumptions that influenced the shaping of the tradition differ from our own. [24]

Hasker believes that both reason and revelation have led Christians to develop a Greek concept of God that is “perfect being theology.” [25] However, the testimony of church history is that the majority of the church did not argue for God’s perfection on the basis of reason alone, but rather based on the propositional revelation of God’s Word. (The infidels, on the contrary, were using their reason to argue concerning the nature of God.) Belief that God is perfect is not a doctrine that is true because it is rational; it is reality because Scripture testifies that it is true. Of course, logic can be used to demonstrate the rationality of God’s perfection. Man is expected to use reason, [26] but not to elevate it beyond the authenticity and reliability of revelation; therefore, one can reason without imbibing rationalism.

The clear testimony of Scripture is that God is immutable, but this does not imply that He is static (Psalm 102:25–27; Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 1:11–13; James 1:17). For example, when Scripture describes God as “repenting,” it does not affect God’s unchanging moral character. God does not change His mind in the same manner as humanity does. Anthromorphisms are simply ways of describing God as having human characteristics, e.g., as possessing ears (Psalm 31:2), eyes (Isaiah 1:15), hands (Isaiah 41:10), heart (Genesis 6:6), and mouth (Psalm 33:6). Every diligent student of Scripture understands that these are not literal descriptions of God. Why then should anthropopathisms be any different? Nevertheless, Boyd wrote, “language about God ‘changing his mind,’ ‘regretting,’ and so on should be taken no less literally than language about God ‘thinking,’ ‘loving,’ or ‘acting justly.’” [27] John Calvin thoroughly rejected the idea of divine repentance:

As to repentance, we must hold that it can no more exist in God than ignorance, or error, or impotence. If no man knowingly or willingly reduces himself to the necessity of repentance, we cannot attribute repentance to God without saying either that he knows not what is to happen, or that he cannot evade it, or that he rushes precipitately and inconsiderately into a resolution, and then forthwith regrets it. But so far is this from the meaning of the Holy Spirit, that in the very mention of repentance he declares that God is not influenced by any feeling of regret, that he is not a man that he should repent. [Institutes 1.17.12] [28]

Obviously, passages in Scripture dealing with God repenting are not literal because of other descriptions of God. For instance, Scripture states that the knowledge of God holds no bounds (Job 11:7; 15:8; Psalm 92:5; Isaiah 40:13; Jeremiah 23:18; Romans. 11:33, 34; 1 Timothy 1:17). Another example is when God challenged Job to search the extent of His wisdom, convinced Job of his ignorance and finitude, and then enumerated His perfections (Job 38–39). Job made some hasty judgments based upon bad information from “friends” and his ignorance of all the details of his particular situation, but God is never lacking in such knowledge. The change of action or mind that occurs on a human level cannot be understood as representing God in the same manner. Such similarities of emotions between God and mankind can be simply understood as theomorphisms, since man is created in the image of God. The emotions of man come from His creator but cannot be equated with the same emotions that God possesses. [29]

Certainly, Scripture does attribute to God emotions such as anger (Numbers 12:9), jealousy (Exodus 20:5), mercy (Jeremiah 3:12), and longsuffering (2 Peter 3:9). Such emotions indicate that the God of the Bible is personal, but a distinction must be made between the manner in which God experiences emotions and the manner in which man experiences emotions. The fact that man can experience theomorphic emotions is a gift of God; however, when God repents, it cannot be said that He regrets the prior decisions that He had made. Rather, it is best to understand divine repentance as a genuine emotion because God foreknows the sorrowful act as it occurs in the time-space dimension of mankind. When the act occurs that God has foreknown, He genuinely grieves over the sinfulness of mankind (cf. 1 Samuel 15:29). Therefore, it would only make sense to seek a plain reading of the text without denying the absolute foreknowledge of God. The golden rule of interpretation has always been this: “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.” [30]

As already stated, Openness Theology finds the traditional doctrine of God unreasonable and relies upon philosophical arguments instead of the Word of God. The assertions made by the openness movement are not the doctrines of those who hold Scripture in high regard; rather, they are consistent with the liberalism so characteristic of the enemies of orthodox Christianity. [31] For instance, the argument that the traditional doctrine of God is polluted with Greek philosophy is the same as the argument against the orthodox views of Christianity which was championed by Adolf von Harnack in What is Christianity? (1900). [32] It should be remembered that Harnack’s work was not the result of careful scholarship, but rather of a theological crusade to remove from Scripture anything offensive to the human mind. Harnack sought to create a Jesus that would coincide with his own nineteenth-century liberal worldview. [33] Bray explained:

In fairness, it should be said that the gist of the above argument was not invented by the authors of The Openness of God, nor is it a product of the most recent modern theology. It originated in the early nineteenth century in Germany, where it was connected with such names as Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860) and August Neander (1789–1850). Later on it was picked up by Albrecht Ritschl (1822–89), but the classic exposition that became famous all over the world is that of Alfred von Harnack (1851–1930), expressed most clearly in a series of lectures delivered in Berlin in 1900 and published in English translation as What is Christianity? Harnack’s thesis was later developed further by Walter Bauer (1877–1960) and has gained wide acceptance, even though it has been refuted in considerable detail by such eminent scholars as J. N. D. Kelly (1909–97) and H. E. W. Turner (1907–95) and is no longer taken seriously by church historians. It comes as a surprise to see this old idea served up as something new.. .. More alarmingly though, the authors of The Openness of God show no sign that they have discovered where this idea comes from, nor do they appear to be aware that it has been convincingly refuted by the above-named scholars among others. [34]

According to Harnack, the job of the church historian is to separate the “kernel” from the “husk.” [35] One is the essence of Christianity, and the other, the doctrine and theology of the church. Essentially, this is the methodology of the openness theists. In other words, Openness theologians believe that the correct doctrine of God was lost because of a Greek perversion of Christianity. The Openness theists are now attempting to challenge and correct the perversion. However, the traditional understanding of God gives all the evidence of being an accurate systematization of Scripture rather than the polluted Christianity that openness theists proclaim it to be.

The reasoning of openness theists is by no means new. Dispensationalism is argued to be the product of Baconian inductivism; pretribulationism, the result of the visions of Margaret Macdonald; young-earth creationism, the figment of Ellen G. White’s imagination; Trinitarianism, the Neoplatonism based on the pagan beliefs of Babylonia and Assyria; inerrancy, the product of Scottish common sense realism; plain literalism, a philosophy of extremists like William Miller; and ad nauseam. Rather than deal with the biblical text, the critics (or evangelical left [36]) revert to what is called post hoc arguments (since A preceded B, then A caused B).

Openness Theology and Process Theology

The question asked continually of Open theists is whether they are Process theologians. Some Open theists have been influenced by the arguments of Process theologians for a dynamic view of reality, responsive God, and a partly open future. It needs to be stated, though, that Openness Theology is not identical to Process Theology. Consider the following from Boyd:

Some evangelical authors have wrongly accused open theists of being close to process thought, but in truth the two views have little in common. 

Process thought holds that God can’t predetermine or foreknow with certainty anything about the distant future. Open theists rather maintain that God can and does predetermine and foreknow whatever he wants to about the future. [37]

In Classical Theism, God is pure actuality; that is, there is no potentiality in the Godhead. Conversely, process theology views God as possessing two poles. The majority of process theologians affirm that God’s actual pole is ever changing and finite, whereas His potential pole is unchanging and infinite. The conclusion is obvious: God is becoming (His actual pole) rather than being (His potential pole). In contrast to God having two poles, Classical Theism presents Him as pure actuality and teaches that God does not possess any potential to become anything other than what His essential nature is.

As evident in the preceding paragraph, there are striking similarities between Open Theism and Process Theology. Additionally, there is a clear identification of some Open theists with Process theologians. Indeed, the effort of some is to modify classic theism in the direction of process theology. For instance, Pinnock has written that he is in complete agreement with Process theologians such as David Griffin, Axel Steuer, and Nelson Pike. [38] Rice has indicated the influence of Process thought on his own views. [39] Although Open theists are saying that they are not Process theologians, at least Pinnock and Rice have indicated that they are in agreement with the fundamental tenets of Process Theology and believe them to be accurate. [40] The charge that Classical Theism has been inundated with Greek philosophy should direct attention back to the ones making the charge, since noteworthy Openness Theists have admitted influence by Process Thought.

The Testimony of the Early Church Fathers

The testimony of the early church fathers was unanimous that God is infinite, immutable, and omniscient. Openness theology argues that the church fathers (and Classical Theism) invented these views because they were dependent upon Greek philosophy. However, the arguments set forth by Openness Theology are the same heresies that the church fathers faced and rejected as unfaithful to the Scripture. The church fathers did not believe that God was finite. They testified that God is not limited in power or wisdom. [41]

The heretics and pagan philosophers taught that God could be contained. Heretical groups that troubled the early church with ideas of a finite god were Gnostics (adherents of a Greek philosophy that emphasized the need for enlightenment and taught that a god who created was an imperfect being inferior to a greater God), Manichaeans (adherents of the most extreme form of Gnosticism), Marcionites (a group that held to a Gnostic dualism that believed in two Gods: the Creator God of the Old Testament and the Supreme God who was wholly a Being of love as revealed in Jesus Christ), [42] and Valentinians (followers of the most popular form of Gnosticism). All of these movements taught that God was finite in his power and knowledge. Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria—to name a few—warned of the Gnostic threat to Christianity. Hippolytus wrote against the teachings of the Manichaeans. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus wrote against Marcion and his followers. Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr called Valentinus and his followers heretics.

Responding to seditions in the Corinthian church, Clement (AD 30–100) wrote:

Day and night run the course appointed by Him, in no wise hindering each other.. .. Let us cleave to the omnipotent and omniscient God.. .. For by His infinitely great power he established the heavens, and by His incomprehensible wisdom He adorned them. .. and fixed it upon the immoveable foundation of His own will. [First Epistle of Clement 20, 27, 33] [43]

Justin Martyr (AD 110–165) wrote Dialogue with Trypho to correct false views regarding Jesus Christ. In this work, he dealt with many of the prophecies of Scripture that indicate the omniscience and foreknowledge of God.

since we know that He foreknew all that would happen to us after His resurrection from the dead and ascension to heaven. .. so likewise Christ declared that ignorance was not on His side. .. but being of indescribable might; and He sees all things, and knows all things, and none of us escapes His observation. [Dialogue with Trypho 82; 99; 127] [44]

Responding to the rising epidemic of heresy, Irenaeus (AD 120–202) defended the nature of God against numerous enemies of the Scripture.

For how can there be any other Fulness, or Principle, or Power, or God, above Him, since it is matter of necessity that God, the Pleroma (Fulness) of all these, should contain all things in His immensity, and should be contained by no one? [Against Heresies, 2.1.2] [45] 

nor does it become us to conjecture [as Valentius, Marcion, Saturninus, and Basilides], so as, in accordance with our own opinions, to form endless conjectures concerning God, but we should leave such knowledge in the hands of God Himself. [Against Heresies, 2.28.6–7] [46] 

Neither. .. the Father of all no doubt contains all things. .. . But they [Gnostics] do not know what God is, but they imagine that He sits after the fashion of a man, and is contained within bounds, but does not contain. .. . [Against Heresies 2.31.1; 4.3.1] [47]

Tertullian (ca. AD 145–220) likewise described the power and foreknowledge of God.

He is beyond our utmost thought, though our human faculties conceive of Him. He is therefore equally real and great. .. . [Apology 17] [48] 

which is infinite is known only to itself. This it is which gives some notion of God, while yet beyond all our conceptions-our very incapacity of fully grasping Him affords us the idea of what He really is. He is presented to our minds in His transcendent greatness, as at once known and unknown. [Apology 17] [49] 

not as if He were ignorant of the good until He saw it.. .. Now then, ye dogs, whom the apostle puts outside, and who yelp at the God of truth [regarding the fall of man]. .. . For if He had been good, and so unwilling that such a catastrophe should happen, and prescient, so as not to be ignorant of what was to come to pass, and powerful enough to hinder its occurrence that issue would never have come about.. .. [Against Marcion 2.4–5] [50]

Clement of Alexandria (ca. AD 150–220) wrote the Stromata in opposition to speculative philosophy (or Gnosticism).

God is invisible and beyond expression of words. .. to Him who by nature possesses impassibility.. .. And what voice shall He wait for, who, according to His purpose, knows the elect already, even before his birth, knows what is to be as already existent? [Stromata 5.12; 7.3; 7.7] [51]

Minucius Felix (AD 210), a contemporary of Tertullian, wrote against the philosophers:

He orders everything, whatever it is, by a word; arranges it by His wisdom; perfects it by His power. He can neither be seen-He is brighter than light; nor can be grasped-He is purer than touch; nor estimated; He is greater than all perceptions; infinite, immense, and how great is known to Himself alone. [Octavius of Felix 18] [52]

Openness theologians attempt to prove that their notion of a finite god who does not know the future was the belief of the early church. Furthermore, they have argued that the traditional understanding of God is based upon Greek philosophy. The brief quotations from the early church fathers demonstrate conclusively that they recognized the views claiming that God is finite as heretical and unfaithful to Scripture. Solomon astutely wrote, There is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9). The arguments of the heretics and pagan philosophers against God’s attributes and nature are the same as those used by the Openness theologians today. Just as the early church fought these battles, so must the church today argue biblically against this revived heresy.

Old Socinianism, Not New Evangelicalism

Fausto Sozzini (or Socinus, 1539–1604), who formulated the teachings of Socinianism, was a post-Reformation rationalist who used reason to decide which doctrines of God he would believe. Socinianism was rejected as heresy by Protestantism because of its denial of the doctrines of Christ’s deity, substitutionary atonement, justification by faith, and doctrine of God. Openness theology denies at least two of these doctrines directly (viz., substitutionary atonement and doctrine of God).

In fairness to the church fathers, it should be mentioned that, although they did not produce a clear articulation of the doctrine of atonement, they did define it by key words like ransom and propitiation. Some of the Fathers seemed confused about whether the recipient of the ransom was God or Satan. Schaff commented as follows:

But the primitive church teachers lived more in the thankful enjoyment of redemption than in logical reflection upon it. We perceive in their exhibitions of this blessed mystery the language rather of enthusiastic feeling than of careful definition and acute analysis.. .. Nevertheless, all the essential elements of the later church doctrine of redemption may be found, either expressed or implied, before the close of the second century. [53]

It was not until Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) formulated the penal substitution view [54] in his Cur Deus Homo? (1094–1098) that the doctrine of atonement was given much systematic attention. Since the time of Anselm, the penal substitution view has been the hallmark of evangelicalism, teaching that Christ’s death upon the cross rendered satisfaction of God’s righteousness. Peter Abelard (1079–1142) challenged penal substitution and argued for a moral influence view, [55] which elevated the love of God beyond the justice of God. (Interestingly enough, Open theists have done the same thing. [56]) Although it is true that Christ’s work on the cross was motivated by love (Romans 5:9), Abelard reduced the atonement to nothing more than an example that would awaken a responsive love among sinful humanity. Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) later developed the governmental view that regarded the atonement as an act by which both God and the sovereignty of the Law were satisfied. In other words, the atonement displayed the justice of God but did not actually pay the penalty of sin.

The Socinians emphasized the love of God to the exclusion of His holiness. They believed, based on God’s love, that there was no need for a payment for sin in order for sinners to be reconciled to God. In contrast to Hebrews 9:22, Socinianism argued that forgiveness of sins was incompatible with the payment of a penalty for sin. [57] Following the teachings of the Socinians, open theists have belittled the need for a payment for sin. For instance, Sanders understands “sin to primarily be alienation, or a broken relationship, rather than a state of being or guilt” and belittles the cross of Christ. [58] The atonement in Openness Theology demonstrates the willingness of Christ to suffer [59] rather than a payment for the remission of sins. [60]

Therefore, it can be concluded that openness theology falls somewhere between the moral influence view of Abelard and the governmental view of Grotius. Abelard, Grotius, and Socinus believed that God could forgive sinners without the payment of a penalty for sin. Now Open Theism joins their ranks. Indeed, Pinnock admitted:

What kind of substitution, if unlimited in scope, does not entail absolute universalism in salvation? Obviously it required me to reduce the precision in which I understood the substitution to take place.. .. It caused me to look again first at the theory of Anselm and later of Hugo Grotius, both of whom encourage us to view the atonement as an act of judicial demonstration rather than a strict or quantitative substitution as such. [61]

The Open theists have also followed the teaching of the Socinians in regards to the doctrine of God. In a Sense, open theists have denied the deity of God by reducing Him to the level of human understanding. Schaff provided a helpful description of Socinianism in regard to this doctrine:

The Socinians admitted that Calvinism is the only logical system on the basis of universal depravity and absolute foreknowledge and foreordination; but they denied these premises, and taught moral ability, free-will, and, strange to say, a limitation of divine foreknowledge. God foreknows and foreordains only the necessary future, but not the contingent future, which depends on the free-will of man. [62]

An appraisal of Socinianism is important at this point because open theism is reproducing the teachings of this old heresy. Although the authors of the Openness Theology want to assert that their view of God is new, history demonstrates that it is an old heresy reinvented for modern times. Openness theists redefine omniscience [63] as knowing “everything knowable” and claim that, since “future free decisions do not yet exist,” God’s knowledge of the future is limited. [64] However, this is the exact same argument that the Socinians used. Francis Turretin’s magnum opus, Institutio Thelogiae Electicae (1627), was a post-Reformation response addressing this very issue.

Additionally, why is it that in his “historical considerations” Sanders did not even mention the Socinians? [65] Is this because he is trying to avoid the charge of heresy that rightly applies to Socinianism? Lelio Sozzini was a constant nuisance to the Reformers, especially Calvin. Sanders gave the impression that if the Reformers had only been exposed to the openness views earlier, they may not have erred in their understanding of the doctrine of God. [66] Nothing could be further from the truth! The Protestant Reformers were exposed to the teaching regarding God’s knowledge being limited and rejected it as dangerous heresy.

The Glory of God in Scripture

Psalm 73 states that only the wicked will say that God is limited in knowledge. Psalm 135 praises God as above the idols of the nations, because idols are limited in knowledge and power. Isaiah 41:21–29 describes the gods of the people as nothing compared to God, who alone is infinite.

Isaiah 40–48 details the supremacy and greatness of God in contrast to the impotence of the false gods of Babylon. For example, Isaiah 40 describes the power and wisdom of God, who is omnipotent (40:12), omniscient (40:13–14), infinite (40:15–17), perfect (40:18, 25), and immovable (40:19–20). The false gods are carved from trees and require skilled human craftsmanship so as not to totter in the ordinary course of life; they are contrasted with the Almighty God, who sits above the circle of the earth (40:20–22).

Furthermore, in a lesson the Openness theologians need to learn, God chided the people for comparing Him to man (40:26). The reason why He is incomparable is that He is the Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator (40:27–31). God cannot be compared to man or any idols. Indeed, He challenged the idols to demonstrate that they are false based on their limited knowledge (41:21–24). Conversely, God declared that His foreknowledge is coupled with His glory (42:5–9). The criticism of Open Theology is not a mere academic exercise, since His glory is being lessened through its teachings.

Reminiscent of Ephesians 1, God declared that He created a people unto Himself for His glory and to show forth His praise (43:7, 21). These verses do not indicate the probability, but rather the certainty of the fulfillment of God’s will. In contrast to the false gods, who cannot speak with any degree of certainty, God speaks of Israel’s redemption as though it were already done: Shout for joy, O heavens, for the LORD has done it (44:9–20, 23). A further illustration of God’s glory in contrast to the false gods of Babylon is that He will cause Cyrus to capture Babylon (44:28–45:1). Isaiah 45:22 testifies that even the call of God unto salvation is fixed in His eternal purpose. God declared that He is beyond time and space; hence, man is not the measure for understanding the decrees and nature of God (46:10–13). God has declared eternity past and eternity future.

Truly, God alone governs the affairs of mankind. In his excellent response to open theism, God’s Lesser Glory, Bruce Ware also quoted numerous passages from Isaiah. Additionally, the New Testament testifies to the absolute sovereignty of God in passages like Romans 9–11. The Bible simply will not allow any conclusion that God is limited in knowledge and power. [67]

Responding to Openness Theology

It is critical that Christians have a proper understanding of God. One cannot emphasize God’s love to the exclusion of his holiness, but this is exactly what Open theists have done. God’s love will never allow what His holiness condemns. The two attributes of God cannot be separated.

Not only have open theists attacked God’s love and holiness, but also they have attacked His sovereignty and foreknowledge. In God of the Possible, Boyd presented God as being just as surprised by pain and suffering as mankind. It is true that man will not always perceive the specific purpose that God has for the tragedies of life, but this is no reason to ignore biblical teaching of God’s sovereignty. These attacks upon the Bible are by no means new. Boyd’s arguments are the same that Process theologians have used repeatedly. For example, Harold Kushner wrote When Bad Things Happen to Good People in 1981 as a book designed to bring peace to those facing the tragedies of life. Kushner’s premise was that God did not know the future either.

The reaction of Job to having lost his family and possessions and being stricken with ailment was not one of indifference to the will of God. His response was, I know that Thou canst do all things, and that no purpose of Thine can be thwarted (Job 42:2). Time and time again, sinful mankind will try to understand God through reason, but it will never be equal to the inspired revelation. God’s Word must always be the authority in determining doctrines, for the moment man subjects the Word of God to his reasoning, he will produce a perversion of Scripture. If the effects of the Fall have been extended to man’s will and reason, then man must be dependent upon God alone for understanding everything pertaining to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). Openness Theology denies the total depravity of men and seeks to cater to their corrupted understanding. Humanity’s mental image of God is critical. Voltaire once said, “If God has created man in his own image then man has certainly returned the favor.” The second commandment condemns idolaters, who create a god in their image to worship. Such is the god of Openness Theology. In his popular book, The Knowledge of the Holy, A. W. Tozer wrote the following exhortation which should resonate in the mind of all, for it is a call to action.

the gravest question before the Church is always God Himself, and the most portentous fact about any man is not what he at a given time may say or do, but what he in his deep heart conceives God to be like. We tend by a secret law of the soul to move toward our mental image of God. This is true not only of the individual Christian, but of the company that composes the Church. [68]

Notes

1. The author read an earlier draft of this article at the first annual regional meeting of the Conservative Theological Society on 9 August 2003 at Living Word Church, New Port Richey, FL.
2. Quoted by Parker T. Williamson, Standing Firm: Reclaiming Christian Faith in Times of Controversy (Springfield: PLC, 1996), 5.
3. Over a hundred years ago, Lorenzo McCabe wrote two works challenging the historic view of God’s foreknowledge: Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies A Necessity (New York: Phillips and Hunt, 1882) and The Foreknowledge of God and Cognate Themes in Theology and Philosophy (Cincinnati: Walden and Stowe, 1882).
4. W. Norris Clarke, God, Knowable and Unknowable (New York: Fordham University Press, 1973).
5. Roy Elseth, Did God Know? A Study of the Nature of God (St. Paul: Calvary United Church, 1977).
6. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols. in 1, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 2:231, wrote, “[God] foresees the things which are about to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are so to happen, it is vain to debate about prescience, while it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment.” James Arminius, The Works of Arminius in The Master Christian Library (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998), CD-ROM, 1:214, wrote, “[God] knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere, according to the before described administration of those means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and, by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere.” Consequently, the open view of God should be a concern to Calvinists and Arminians alike.
7. See David Neff, “Scholars Vote: God Knows Future,” Christianity Today, January 7, 2002. Neff reported that the resolution was passed by a vote of 253 to 66, with 41 members abstaining.
8. Orthodoxy simply means “correct doctrine” (cf. 1 Tim. 4:16) gleaned from a consistent historical-grammatical hermeneutic.
9. Bruce A. Ware, God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000). R. Albert Mohler Jr., “The Eclipse of God at Century’s End: Evangelicals Attempt Theology Without Theism,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 1 (Spring 1997): 6, wrote, “The ideological acids of modernity, the theological accommodationism of the age, and the temptations of the larger academic culture have infected evangelicalism to the point that the theological integrity of the movement is clearly at stake. Having debated issues ranging from biblical inerrancy to the reality of hell, evangelicals are now openly debating the traditional doctrine of God represented by classical theism. My argument is that the integrity of evangelicalism as a theological movement, indeed the very coherence of evangelical theology is threatened by the rise of the various new ‘theisms’ of the evangelical revisionists. Unless these trends are reversed and evangelicals return to an unapologetic embrace of biblical theism, evangelical theology will represent nothing less than the eclipse of God at century’s end.”
10. The new approaches of reformists are in contrast to the grammatical-historical approach, or consistent literal approach. Some reformists, such as progressive dispensationalists, combine an understanding of the biblical text based upon a grammatical-historical approach with an allegorical or symbolic approach. (Progressive dispensationalism is only an example of reformist trends; it does not mean that this movement also embraces openness theology.)
11. Richard Rice, “Divine Foreknowledge and Free-Will Theism,” in The Grace of God and the Will of Man, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1989), 134, wrote, “God knows a great deal about what will happen.. .. All that God does not know is the content of future free decisions, and this is because decisions are not there to know until they occur.”
12. Gregory Boyd, “Preface,” in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 9.
13. Clark Pinnock, “God Limits His Knowledge,” in Predestination and Free Will, ed. David Basinger and Randall Basinger (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986); Pinnock, Grace of God and Will of Man; Richard Rice, The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1985).
14. Gregory Boyd and Edward Boyd, Letters from a Skeptic (Colorado Springs: Victor Books, 1994), 30.
15. John Sanders, “Historical Considerations,” in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, ed. Clark Pinnock (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 59.
16. Ibid., 62–69.
17. Ibid., 69.
18. To substantiate his point, Sanders quoted H. P. Owen: “So far as the Western world is concerned theism has a double origin: the Bible and Greek philosophy” (see H. P. Owen, Concepts of Deity [New York: Herder and Herder, 1971], 1, quoted in John Sanders, “Historical Considerations,” in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, ed. Clark Pinnock [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994], 72).
19. Ibid., 85.
20. Ibid., 87.
21. John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 162–164; Sanders, “Historical Considerations,” 97–98.
22. This author does not believe all the listed individuals, especially the Roman Catholics, are part of the church of God, but has simply provided Sanders’ list of who he believes to be representative of Christian belief and thought.
23. The quotation is the subtitle of The Openness of God, ed. Clark H. Pinnock.
24. William Hasker, “A Philosophical Perspective,” in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 127.
25. Ibid., 131.
26. Indeed, Isaiah 1:18 assumes this point.
27. Gregory Boyd, God of the Possible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 170.
28. Calvin, Institutes, 1:195.
29. Graham A. Cole, “The Living God: Anthropomorphic or Anthropopathic?” The Reformed Theological Journal 59 (April 2000): 24.
30. David L. Cooper, The World’s Greatest Library Graphically Illustrated (Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1942), 11.
31. Historical theology is the study of the unfolding of biblical doctrine throughout the centuries. Historical theology is important for understanding the formation of systematic theology and deviations from Scripture.
32. Significantly, Jehovah’s Witnesses use the argument that belief in the Trinity is “influenced by Plato’s ideas of God and nature.” They reference Harnack’s Outlines of the History of Dogma (among other sources) to argue against the claims of the church “that its new doctrines were based on the Bible” (Should You Believe in the Trinity? [Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989]: 11). Mormonism is also presenting itself as a theology that reverses the effects of Greek philosophy upon the Christian concept of God. For instance, Richard R. Hopkins, How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God (Springville, UT: Horizon Publishers, 1998), argued that Greek philosophy corrupted nearly all Christian theology, or classical theism.
33. His methods are the same as those used in the quests for the historical Jesus by the Jesus Seminar.
34. Gerald Bray, The Personal God (London: Paternoster, 1998), 7.
35. Adolf von Harnack, What is Christianity? (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957), 12–15.
36. See Millard Erickson, The Evangelical Left (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 29–30.
37. Boyd, God of the Possible, 31.
38. Pinnock, “God Limits His Knowledge,” 151, 153, 157.
39. Richard Rice, “Process Theism and the Open View of God: The Crucial Difference,” in Searching For An Adequate God, eds. John Cobb and Clark Pinnock (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 180–181.
40. Ibid., 183–187; Gregory Boyd, Trinity and Process: A Critical Examination and Reconstruction of Hartshorne’s Di-Polar Theism Towards a Trinitarian Metaphysics (New York: Peter Lang, 1992), 3–11.
41. J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 282, wrote, “Some have argued that just as God cannot make a square circle and that is no limit to his power, so he cannot have foreknowledge of future free events because there is nothing for him to know until the choice is made. This solution is hard to square with a classical understanding of God’s foreknowledge and with biblical passages that teach that God knows everything whatever, including the future acts of his creatures.”
42. Similarly, openness theology holds that God is love above all else. Richard Rice, “Biblical Support for a New Perspective,” 21, stated, “According to the Bible, God is not a center of infinite power who happens to be loving, he is loving above all else. .. . Love is the essence of divine reality, the basic source from which all of God’s attributes rise.”
43. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 1:26.
44. Ibid., 1:461, 481, 513.
45. Ibid., 1:711.
46. Ibid., 1:796-797.
47. Ibid., 1:809, 924.
48. Ibid., 3:54.
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid., 3:540-541.
51. Ibid., 2:923, 1076.
52. Ibid., 4:360.
53. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (1858–1892; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 2:584–585.
54. Penal substitution view regards the atonement of Christ as a vicarious substitutionary sacrifice satisfying the demands of God’s justice upon sin.
55. Moral influence view holds that the atonement of Christ demonstrates God’s love, which causes man’s heart to soften and subsequently repent.
56. Richard Rice, “Biblical Support for a New Perspective,” 20–22.
57. David Basinger, “Practical Implications,” in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 173–175.
58. Sanders, God Who Risks, 100, 105, 133; John Duns Scotus (ca. 1266–1308), a critic of Aquinas, argued that the crucifixion was not necessary to achieve man’s salvation because if it were, God’s freedom would have been limited.
59. Christ’s life sufferings were the verification of His claims. They demonstrated that He was the substitute for sin. He did not earn righteousness by His suffering. The atonement was substitutionary because it was objectively directed toward God and the propitiation of His holy character. It was vicarious in the sense that Christ was the substitute who bore the punishment sinners rightly deserved, their guilt being imputed to Him. A nonatoning view of Christ’s life sufferings is in accordance with the general idea of sacrifices in the Old Testament and is explicitly taught in the New Testament (cf. John 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 2:24). Furthermore, the nonatoning view is sustained by the use of such prepositions as peri, huper, and anti, which in numerous contexts in fact support the idea of a divine substitute for the sinner in the person of Christ on the cross.
60. Sanders, God Who Risks, 100, 105, 133.
61. Pinnock, “From Augustine to Arminius,” in The Grace of God and the Will of Man, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1989), 23.
62. Schaff, History of the Church, 8:631–632.
63. Ps. 139:1–4; Isa. 46:9–10; Acts 2:23; 1 Pet. 1:1–2; Heb. 4:13 are just a few examples of God’s omniscience.
64. Rice, God’s Foreknowledge, 32, 54.
65. Pinnock’s article, “From Augustine to Arminius,” also failed to mention this connection and continued to speak of openness theology as “Arminian thinking.” Is this because Arminianism is far less objectionable than Socianism?
66. Sanders, “Historical Considerations,” 87–91.
67. Most Christians are familiar with a common watchword among the early church being maranatha (Aramaic, “our Lord cometh”). It is wise to note that another common watchword was God knows (2 Corinthians 11:11; 12:2–3; cf. Luke 16:15; 1 Corinthians 2:11).
68. A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy (New York: Harper and Row, 1961), 7.