The Dangerous Doctrine of Open Theism

1
The Dangerous Doctrine of Open Theism

• Chris Poteet

2
Why Talk About Open Theism?

• See to it that no one takes you captive through
  philosophy and empty deception,
• according to the tradition of men, according to
  the elementary principles of the
• world, rather than according to Christ.
• Colossians 28
• I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and
  of Christ Jesus, who is to judge
• the living and the dead, and by His appearing and
  His kingdom preach the word
• be ready in season and out of season reprove,
  rebuke, exhort, with great
• patience and instruction. For the time will come
  when they will not endure sound
• doctrine but wanting to have their ears tickled,
  they will accumulate for
• themselves teachers in accordance to their own
  desires, and will turn away their
• ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
  
• 2 Timothy 41-4

3
Overview

• The Openness Hermeneutic
• The Issue of Mans Will
• The Problem of Evil
• Defending the Classical View

4
False Teachers of Open Theism

• Gregory Boyd
• Professor of theology at Bethel College and
  pastor of Woodland Hills Church
• Clark Pinnock
• Professor of Systematic Theology at McMaster
  Divinity College
• John Sanders
• Author of The God Who Risks
• Richard Rice
• Professor of theology at La Sierra University
• William Hasker
• Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Huntington
  College
• David Basinger
• Professor of Philosophy Ethics at Roberts
  Wesleyan College

5
The Openness Hermeneutic Definitions

• Theology Proper
• While Theology" refers to the more general study
  of the biblical worldview, Theology Proper"
  refers to
• the specific study of Gods character and
  attributes.
• Hermeneutics
• A branch of philosophy concerned with human
  understanding and the interpretation of texts.
• Omniscience
• The state or quality of knowing everything.
• Anthropocentrism
• The view that humans are the most important
  beings on Earth. Typical of Western
  Judeo-Christian
• culture.
• Anthropomorphism
• The attributing of human form, behavior or
  characteristics to non-human beings, especially
  God.

6
The Openness HermeneuticTenants of Open Theism

• Texts that represent God as changing His mind,
  learning, and the like are taken literally.
• In Open Theism, prayer can change Gods mind.
• Just because one event might be determined, does
  not mean that every event is as such.
• This motif of future determinism does not
  warrant the conclusion that God predestines and
• foreknows as settled everything about the future
• Gregory Boyd, God of the Possible (pgs. 53-54)
• Gods love is so great for His creation that no
  one will spend an eternity in tormentonly cease
  to exist (Annihilationism).
• Humans have Libertarian free will (to be
  discussed).
• God has perfect and complete past and present
  knowledge.
• God can, and does, change His mind, learns, makes
  mistakes, and takes risks.
• God, in effect, takes on a form resembling man
  (Anthropocentristic theology).

7
The Openness Hermeneutic

• The Open Theist contends that Classical Theists
  take texts that appear that God
• changes His mind, makes mistakes, learns and the
  like non-literally but
• anthropomorphically when (as they contend) there
  is not support to not take the
• texts literally.
• As a result, the Open Theist contend that God
  must therefore not know all events
• exhaustively, and Bible passages referring to
  Gods foreknowledge are broken up
• into two motifs or categories.
• My approach to these two motifs differs from
  this Classical Theism. I do not assume that the
• motif of future openness is less literal than the
  motif of future determinism. Nothing in the
  Biblical
• texts that constitute the motif of future
  openness suggests that they are less literal than
  the texts that
• constitute the motif of future determinism.
• Gregory Boyd, God of the Possible (pg. 14)

8
The Openness Hermeneutic

• Two motifs
• Motif of future determinism
• That certain Bible passages refer to events that
  are settled in Gods mind.
• Motif of future openness
• Bible passages that seem to imply that God does
  not have exhaustive foreknowledge.
• The classical view of divine foreknowledge
  interprets the first motif as speaking about God
  as he
• truly is and the second motif as speaking about
  God only as he appears to be or as figures of
• speech. In other words, whenever the Bible
  suggests that God knows and/or controls the
  future, this
• is taken literally. Whenever it suggests that God
  knows the future in terms of possibilities,
  however,
• this is not taken literally.
• Gregory Boyd, God of the Possible (pg. 14)

9
The Openness HermeneuticFuture Determinism

• From that time Jesus began to show His disciples
  that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many
  things
• from the elders and chief priests and scribes,
  and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.
  
• Matthew 1621
• It had been determined from ages past that the
  Lord himself would have to become a man and die.
  This is
• something God was going to do, and thus it was
  foreknown from whatever time he decided it. In
  this verse
• Jesus reveals the divine plan to his disciples.
  But we have no reason to conclude from this that
  the whole of the
• future was settled in Jesus mind. Indeed, Jesus
  prayer in the Garden suggests that he held an
  outside hope that
• even his death could be averted at the last
  minute.
• Gregory Boyd, Commentary on Matthew 1621
  (Christus Victor Ministries)
• "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And
  before you were born I consecrated you I have
• appointed you a prophet to the nations."
• Jeremiah 15
• This verse shows Gods love and plan for Jeremiah
  before he was born. This does not imply that
  Jeremiah could not
• have rejected Gods purpose for himself, ..
  The Bible contains many examples of people whom
  God appointed
• for a purpose but who freely thwarted Gods plan
  for their life.
• Gregory Boyd, Commentary on Jeremiah 15
  (Christus Victor Ministries)

10
The Openness HermeneuticFuture Openness

• Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was
  great on the earth, and that every intent of the
• thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
  The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the
  earth,
• and He was grieved in His heart.
• Genesis 65-6
• If we accept that Scripture is speaking
  plainly here and Gods regret was real then
  it seems more reasonable
• to believe that until that point in time, God
  didnt know with certainty that humanity would
  grieve him
• the way it did.
• Gregory Boyd, Commentary on Genesis 65-6
  (Christus Victor Ministries)
• Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife
  to slay his son. But the angel of the LORD called
  to
• him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And
  he said, "Here I am. He said, "Do not stretch
  out
• your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him
  for now I know that you fear God, since you have
  not
• withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
• Genesis 2210-12
• Indeed, if the future is exhaustively settled
  there would be no point in his test of Abraham,
  because God would
• never have to find out anything.
• Gregory Boyd, Commentary on Genesis 2212
  (Christus Victor Ministries)

11
The Openness HermeneuticFuture Openness

• So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which
  He said He would do to His people.
• Exodus 3214
• If the classical view of divine foreknowledge is
  correct, God would already have been certain that
  he wasnt going
• to consume the Israelites and his statement to
  Moses regarding his plan to do just this would be
  disingenuous.
• If Gods declared intention and Scriptures
  teaching are true, it is hard to avoid the
  conclusion that Gods mind was
• not eternally settled regarding the fate of
  Israel at this time.
• Gregory Boyd, Commentary on Exodus 3214
  (Christus Victor Ministries)
• And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His
  face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is
  possible, let
• this cup pass from Me yet not as I will, but as
  You will."
• Matthew 2639
• Jesus request makes little sense if we assume
  that Jesus believed that the future was
  exhaustively settled in Gods
• mind and/or that Gods plans were unalterable.
  His prayer reveals that even with regard to the
  central defining event
• of world history there was in the mind of Jesus
  an outside chance that his Father might yet
  change his mind.
• Gregory Boyd, Commentary on Matthew 2639
  (Christus Victor Ministries)

12
What About Omniscience?

• The Open Theist affirms omniscience in terms that
  God knows all that could happen
• (possibilities), but God doesnt know the exact
  outcome of all actions.
• Open theists affirm Gods omniscience as
  emphatically as anybody does The issue is not
  whether
• Gods knowledge is perfect. It is. The issue is
  about the nature of the reality that God
  perfectly
• knows. More specifically, what is the content of
  the reality of the future?
• Gregory Boyd, God of the Possible (pg. 16)
• The Open Theist as well would say God still knows
  everything perfectly, but that there are
• certain things that have not been settled.
• Its because there is, in this view, nothing
  definite there for God to know!
• Gregory Boyd, God of the Possible (pg. 16)

13
The Issue of Mans Will Definitions

• Compatibilism (Soft Determinism)
• Free will is compatibile with determinism
  (foreordination).
• Compatibilistic Free Will
• Free will is affected by human nature and cannot
  choose contrary to our nature and desires.
• Libertarian Free Will
• Free will is that which we have the ability, at
  any point, to choose between choices without
  constraint of causal
• circumstances.
• Molinism (Middle View of Divine Foreknowledge)
• The view of Gods foreknowledge and relation to
  mans will in Arminianism. That God looks down
  the corridor of time
• to learn the unfolding events of humans with
  Libertarian free will.
• Principle of Alternate Possibilities
• The philosophical presupposition present in
  Libertarian free will that man is only free when
  he makes a choice, he could
• have always chosen to the contrary.
• Incompatibilism

14
The Issue of Mans Will Open Theism and
Arminianism

• Arminianism holds to Libertarian free will, but
  holds that God does exhaustively know the future
  (through Molinism).
• Open Theism sees this as philosophically
  incoherent (and it is), so they seek to resolve
  the paradox by denying Gods exhaustive
  foreknowledge.
• Open Theism places human freedom with such a high
  emphasis to solve the problem of evil and
  resolve philosophical inconsistencies.
• Humans experience our future as being to some
  extent open to our determination.
• We experience ourselves as turning several
  possibilities into one actualities by creatively
  bringing
• about a state of affairs that was not there
  before and was not necessitated by anything that
  was there
• before. I argue that libertarian,
  self-determining freedom is more philosophically
  and theologically
• sound than compatibilism. While libertarian
  freedom is not compatible with predestination, it
  is
• compatible with Scripture.
• Gregory Boyd, Is Free Will Compatible With
  Predestination? (Christus Victor Ministries)
• Libertarian free will is in the Open Theistic
  (and Arminian) scheme, because they believe that
  any thing less than that would make God
  un-loving and it would negate human
  responsibility.

15
The Issue of Mans WillThe Libertarian
Presupposition

• Open Theistic logic on mans will
• Man is free (in the libertarian sense).
• If the choice is known in advance, then it is not
  truly free (as in Arminianism).
• Therefore, all choices cannot be known.
• The problem is that the libertarian perspective
  on the will is philosophical and not Biblical.
• Libertarian view of the will does not account for
  many verses which explicit state that mans will
  is bound to his nature (Joh 319 Rom 310-12,
  614-20 1 Cor 214) and that God intervenes on
  our will (Deut. 230 Prov 211 Ezk 3626).

16
The Problem of Evil

• The Warfare Worldview
• The warfare worldview is based on the conviction
  that our world is engaged in a
• cosmic war between a myriad of agents, both human
  and angelic, that have aligned
• themselves with either God or Satan.
• Gregory Boyd, What is the Warfare Worldview?
  Christus Victor Ministries
• Open Theists contend that Classical Theism is
  logically incoherent
• because of the following tenants of Classical
  Theism.
• God is all holy yet God ordains all evil.
• God wills all to be saved yet ordains the
  damnation of many.
• Creatures have free-will yet God predestines
  their every move.
• The Open Theist will say that evil is not a
  problem for a God that doesnt ordain
• actions but the evil is a result of mans
  complete autonomy.

17
Defending the Classical View

• Westminster Confession of Faith
• Chapter III Of God's Eternal Decree
• I. 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.
• III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation
  of His glory, some men and angels are
  predestinated unto everlasting life and others
  foreordained to everlasting death.

18
Defending the Classical ViewTenants of
Classical Theism

• God knows the future exhaustively, because He
  foreordains it.
• God does not repent, make mistakes, learn, or any
  other human attributes applied to God by Open
  Theists.
• Man acts out of his own nature and desires.
• Determinism and free will (that is making real,
  meaningful, moral choices) are compatible.
• Classical Theism views many of the proof texts
  used by Open Theists as being anthropomorphic in
  nature.
• The Problem of Evil is, although seemingly more
  complex to solve in Classical Theism, is still
  not a problem.

19
Defending the Classical ViewSupport for
Foreordination

• Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold,
  O LORD, You know it all. Your eyes have seen my
  unformed
• substance And in Your book were all written The
  days that were ordained for me, When as yet there
  was not one
• of them.
• Psalms 1394, 16
• He counts the number of the stars He gives names
  to all of them. Great is our Lord and abundant in
  strength His
• understanding is infinite.
• Psalms 1474-5
• "Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet
  not one of them will fall to the ground apart
  from your Father. "But
• the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
• Matthew 1029-30
• When the Gentiles heard this, they began
  rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord
  and as many as had been
• appointed to eternal life believed.
• Acts 1348
• For we are His workmanship, created in Christ
  Jesus for good works, which God prepared
  beforehand so that we
• would walk in them.

20
Defending the Classical ViewIsaiah 40-48

• Lift up your eyes on high And see who has created
  these stars, The One who leads forth their host
  by
• number, He calls them all by name Because of the
  greatness of His might and the strength of His
  power,
• Not one of them is missing.
• Isaiah 4026
• "I am the LORD, that is My name I will not give
  My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven
• images. "Behold, the former things have come to
  pass, Now I declare new things Before they
  spring
• forth I proclaim them to you."
• Isaiah 428-9
• "Remember the former things long past, For I am
  God, and there is no other I am God, and there
  is no
• one like Me, Declaring the end from the
  beginning, And from ancient times things which
  have not been
• done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established,
  And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'
  Calling a
• bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose
  from a far country. Truly I have spoken truly I
  will
• bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I
  will do it.
• Isaiah 469-11

21
Defending the Classical ViewThe Issue of Mans
Will

• Classical Theism doesnt affirm libertarian but
  compatibilistic freedom.
• Freedom is compatible with determinism.
• The definition of freedom is not the Principle of
  Alternate Possibilities but that our choices are
  free from coercion.
• Determinism does not negate human responsibility.
• Mans will is bound to his nature.

22
Defending the Classical ViewSupport for
Compatibilism

• The king's heart is like channels of water in the
  hand of the LORD He turns it wherever He wishes.
  
• Proverbs 211
• "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My
  word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal
  life, and
• does not come into judgment, but has passed out
  of death into life.
• John 524
• Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being
  tempted by God" for God cannot be tempted by
  evil, and
• He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is
  tempted when he is carried away and enticed by
  his
• own lust.
• James 113-14
• For we also once were foolish ourselves,
  disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts
  and pleasures,
• spending our life in malice and envy, hateful,
  hating one another. But when the kindness of God
  our
• Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He
  saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have
  done in
• righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the
  washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy
• Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through
  Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified
  by His
• grace we would be made heirs according to the
  hope of eternal life.
• Titus 33-7

23
"The will is not destroyed but rather repaired by
grace." John Calvin
24
Defending the Classical ViewChallenging the
Openness Hermeneutic

• Despite Open Theistic claims against Classical
  Theistic for selective literal interpretation,
  they do the same.
• Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to
  him, "Where are you?"
• Genesis 39
• Abrahams presupposed libertarian free will and
  his test.
• The inerrancy of the Scriptures.

25
The Truth

• The God of the Bible is not the god of the Open
  Theists.
• He does not repent.
• "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son
  of man, that He should repent Has He
• said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken,
  and will He not make it good?
• Numbers 2319
• He does not change His mind.
• "Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change
  His mind for He is not a man that He
• should change His mind."
• 1 Samuel 1529
• He is Sovereign, and He will bring to pass as He
  wills.
• "Remember the former things long past, For I am
  God, and there is no other I am God, and there
  is
• no one like Me, Declaring the end from the
  beginning, And from ancient times things which
  have
• not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be
  established, And I will accomplish all My good
• pleasure' Calling a bird of prey from the east,
  The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I
• have spoken truly I will bring it to pass. I
  have planned it, surely I will do it.
• Isaiah 469-11

26
Recommend Reading

• Gods Lesser Glory The Diminished God of Open
  Theism
• Bruce Ware
• No Other God A Response to Open Theism
• John Frame
• Desiring God Resources www.desiringgod.org
• John Piper

27
Recap

• The Openness Hermeneutic
• The Issue of Mans Will
• The Problem of Evil
• Defending the Classical View

28
Questions?