Covenant of Love

Archive for the ‘Open Theism’ Category

From reading books criticizing Open Theism to many casual conversations online and in person, I have formed a list of the top 6 misnomers about Open Theism:

Misnomer 6: Open Theism is regurgitated Arminianism.

This is an unfair criticism which almost always comes from Calvinist. It is unfair because it fails to pay proper due to vital distinctions between these views. Granted people usually travel through Arminianism on their way to Open Theism, but the difference is significant enough that the two cannot be equated as the same. The vital difference, of course, is that Arminianism is largely based on the concept of Simple Foreknowledge. For Open Theism, there is nothing “simple” about God’s foreknowledge.

Misnomer 5: Open Theism teaches that God does not know the Future.

It might shock some people to discover that Open Theism is quite indebted to Calvinism in at least two crucial ways: 1) Open Theism believes that God foreknows that which he foreordains. Like Calvinism (and unlike Arminianism) God’s foreknowledge is based on what he has predetermined to sovereignly cause and to sovereignly make happen. 2) God sovereignly over-rules man’s free will in order to sovereignly cause or sovereignly make what he has predetermined to happen, happen. So it is not accurate to say that God does not know the future. He knows it in so far as he determines it.

Misnomer 4: Open Theism undermines God’s Divine Sovereignty.

Again, and not surprisingly, this criticism comes largely from the Calvinist camp and is based on the commandeering of the term “sovereignty”. Open Theist understand the term sovereignty to be a reference to God’s ability and authority, and does not see sovereignty as a term which preconditions God to control all things. Open Theists (like Arminians) teach that God has the sovereign right and ability to limit himself if he so sovereignly chooses too, and for the sake of the covenant which God established with humanity, he chose to limit his foreknowledge. This allows for a genuine relationship between God and his children.

Misnomer 3: Open Theism undermines biblical prophecy.

Many Christians find their faithful security blanket in biblical prophecy. Wherever Open Theism is introduced the first kneejerk reaction is to ask: What about prophecy? Doesn’t Open Theism cast doubt on biblical prophecy? Open Theism believes that there are two types of prophecy in the scriptures, contingent prophecy and determination prophecy. 1) Contingent prophecy is evident throughout the scriptures everywhere terms like “if” or “maybe” or “perhaps” comes from God’s lips; they are contingent upon the actions of individuals (e.g. Jeremiah 26:3). 2) Determined prophecies are prophecies which God himself has determined will happen and sovereignly makes or causes that thing to happen (e.g. Ezekiel 24:14).

Misnomer 2: Open Theism undermines future prophecy.

In close relation to Misnomer 3 is the fear that somehow our future in Christ may not be secure. Is it possible that in the end the Devil might just pull a quick on one God and win the day? First it is important to note that the end has been determined by God, the fact that God wins in contingent upon nothing but God’s sovereignty. Second, the question about the enemy maybe pulling a quick one on God may reveal something of the questioner’s idea of God; as if God, if he were not in control of every detail, can’t control anything. From the Open Theist perspective, the concept of god this question is based on is simply too small. Open Theism believes that God is omnicapable, omniresourceful and infinitely intelligent as well as omnipotent. Like a master chess player – only infinitely more so because God is infinite – God sees every possible move the enemy could ever possibly do and God has prepared an action for everyone one of those moves. The enemy cannot win, because God said so.

Misnomer 1: Open Theism denies God’s omniscience.

Since many people take for granted the belief that the future is already determined completely (something Calvinists and Arminians agree on), it seems obvious to them that if God were to not know the future fully, this must mean that God must not be omniscient. This amounts to a denial of an orthodox attribute of God. But Open Theism has a different view of time. The Open Theist understanding of time is that the future simply does not exist yet, and there is nothing in reality or science to suggest that it does. So, beginning on that premise (and not on the Calvinist/Arminian premise) God can still be omniscient, he can still know everything, without knowing the future exhaustively. There are two reasons for this: 1) theologians and Christian philosophers have long acknowledged that God cannot do what is logically impossible. For example, God cannot hear silence because silence is the absence of sound, there is nothing to hear, and therefore it is logically impossible for God to hear silence. Because the future simply does not exist, it is unknowable and it is logically impossible to know the unknowable. 2) Because omniscience is defined as knowing all there is to know, and because the future is not knowable the way the past and present are, God can be omniscient and yet not know the future.

Okay, so here’s the rub. I have read at least twenty books on Open Theism, at least half of which were written by Calvinist’s, and the rest by Open Theists. I hold the term/label “Open Theism” at arm’s length because on the one hand I see a solid argument in favour of Open Theism established on the bedrock of scripture, while on the other hand I struggle over certain (albeit rare) interpreted passages and philosophical assumptions (my own).

Still, perhaps because I am so well informed on the subject (by contrast to the engagement I’ve experienced on-line via facebook and blogs and sadly even by what I’ve read in many books written by “professionals”), I get frustrated over what usually amounts – at minimum – to simple ignorance or – at most – pure unadulterated slander. Such slanderous myths include:

• Open Theism/theist is nothing but recycled Arminianism.
• Open Theism/theist denies God’s sovereignty.
• Open Theism/theist reject the atonement.
• Open Theism/theist is akin to socinianism.
• Open Theism/theist denies God’s omniscience.
• et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…

Can you image the frustration the early church must have endured when they were accused by the wider public of cannibalism? They gathered together once a week to “eat the flesh and drink the blood” of some guy. Rumors flew and spiraled out of control and before long, everyone believed that Christians were cannibals. This must be the same frustration felt by those who hold to Open Theism; having to endure constant slander and misrepresentation. But there is a difference in the example given: in the early churches communion service, the Eucharist was practiced in private, and only baptized Christians were permitted to even be present. So naturally rumors spread out of ignorance because the outside world had no outlet to inform them as to what was really being practiced. By wide contrast, books by Open Theist are widely available and so those who slander out of ignorance are without excuse. And those who misrepresent but who do know what Open Theist believe, they will be held to great account.

Roger Olson has taken this slander (and those who do the slandering – without naming names) to task. Read his post here!

(P.S. Olson is a firm classical Arminian who rejects Open Theism, but defends its evangelical validity. I add this note for those who have uncritically accepted the myth that Open Theism as simply recycled Arminianism.)

It is difficult to overstate the influence Clark Pinnock has had on me and many others. I knew my chances of taking a class at McMaster in Hamilton Ontario (only three hours from where I live) under his tutelage were unlikely, but I hoped.

Clark is like the forefather of Post-conservative theology. The head runner to forward thinking, always accompanied by the humility required to admit a wayward path if only to somehow attain the truth. You might say he plowed the way for many of us to follow. He writes:

Not only am I often not listened to, I am also made to feel stranded theologically: being too much of a free thinker to be accepted by the evangelical establishment and too much of a conservative to be accepted by the liberal mainline.

I feel the same way. I want to cry out, “That’s me! That’s me too!” A quote I endeavor to model my faith after comes from Clement of Alexandria:

If our faith is such that it is destroyed by force of argument, then let it be destroyed for it would be proved that we do not possess the truth.

If Clement laid out the philosophy, Clark lived out the philosophy as a model to follow. From liberal Baptist to conservative Evangelical. From biblical inerrantist to biblical infallibilism. From exclusivist to inclusionist. From an orthodox theology of hell to a heterodox theology of anniliationism. From staunch cessationist to charismatic renewalist. From established Calvinist to forerunner and defender of Open Theism (or neo-Arminianism).

No one is going to follow all of Clark’s theological shifts. No one should. But I wish more Christians followed Clark’s openness, willingness and embrace of free-thinking and his post-conservative approach to life and theology.

Clark Pinnock passed away August 15th, 2010 from a heart attack. (ct. reports it here.) More on Clark Pinnock and how his theology has influenced me personally to come.

I made a new friend on my blog, xTraex, who first commented on the post, Time To Unlearn a Few Things. In that post I made the case, using Walter Brueggemann’s book An Unsettling God as a point of reference, that the Hebrew testimony of God is not like the platonic god of traditional theism.

xTraex raised the concern that if God can be moved, if he is emotional, if he is effected by the passing of time and if he changes (or at least changes his mind), wouldn’t he be the same as the ancient gods of Greek mythology? (See the post for my answer to that question.)

The story of Noah presents an interesting case study because it reveals God precisely as I suggested in that prior post (the biblical account describes God as being “sorry” that he created man and “it grieved him to his heart“), and because there is a Mesopotamian parallel to this story in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Both stories are similar in that humanity is destroyed by a flood brought about by the divine, and one man and his family escape the disaster (Noah/Utnapishtum) by way of a “box” (Hebrew).

So because God is depicted as acting on emotion with a heart that was grieved to action, what distinguishes him from the gods in the Gilgamesh story?

In the Gilgamesh story the gods actions seem arbitrary (they destroyed the earth because humans were annoying them by making noise). The Greek myth gods are just as arbitrary, cruel, lustful and all things immoral. The striking difference between them and God is his faithful and righteous character.

How can we be sure that “the gods” will not destroy the earth again with a flood? We can be sure because God (← capital “G”) has unilaterally made an unconditional covenant with Noah which he sealed with a sign. Unlike the ancient myth gods, the God of the scriptures is righteous, faithful, calculated and purposeful.

We humans are a creation of God’s imagination and made in His image to be like him (Gen 1:26). We should not be surprised that the scriptures depict God as emotional, he’s our Dad and we are emotional beings who take after Him. This thought does not create God in our image, it acknowledges that we are created in his.

I suggest that if we put the question of Calvinism and Arminianism aside for a time and study God as he has revealed himself in the scriptures we will not discover Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover as Calvinism has always espoused; in fact we may not even discover God as the Arminian understands him. It may be, after seeking to discover the God of the scriptures on their own terms, that we may discover the God of Open Theism quite by accident! Not of Calvin’s Unmoved Mover, but of Pinnock’s Most Moved Mover.We will, in all probability, discover as John Sanders said, a God Who Risks. This – I believe – is the truth we all must wrestle with whether or not we embrace Open Theism.

Walter Brueggemann, one of the foremost Old Testament scholars, seems quite disinterested in questions of determinism and foreknowledge – except when specific texts’ call attention to such speculation – and in the debates between Calvinism and Arminianism (and Open Theism). But in his studies of the God of the Old Testament, the “Hebrew testimony” and portrayal of YWHW, he writes: “the defining category for faith in the Old Testament is dialogue, whereby all parties – including God – are changed in a dialogic exchange that is potentially transformative for all parties… including God.” And again, “The Old Testament is an invitation to reimagine our life and our faith as an on-going dialogic transaction in which all parties are variously summoned to risk and change.” He goes on:

“When we are freed of static categories of interpretation that are widely utilized among us, we are able to see that the articulation of God in the Old Testament partakes exactly of the quality of complexity, dynamism, and fluidity that belong to the post-modern world… such an open and thick articulation of faith may be threatening to some and may require unlearning by us all”. An Unsettling God; 2009, p.xii; italics added.

What a powerful statement from a man who is not interested in sustaining “static categories of interpretation” such as Calvinism or Arminianism; neither, it is prudent to add, is he interested in Open Theism. When Brueggemann approaches the scriptures he does not ask, is the God of Calvin here or the God of Arminius or the God of Pinnock? When Brueggemann approaches the Old Testament he asks the question to the ancient Hebrews, “Who do you say that He is?” Sometimes we see the categories of Calvin and sometimes we see the categories of Arminius, this is partly what makes God “unsettling”, because YWHW cannot be made to easily fit into our “static categories of interpretation” – He is too big, and we are too fallible.

Yet it is a fearful road Brueggemann offers, it is a road of discomfort; because in asking the Hebrews and not the Greeks “Who is YWHW?” he finds himself immediately at odds with classical Christian theology.

“In… much classical Christian theology, ‘God’ can be understood in terms of quite settled categories that are, for the most part, inimical to the biblical tradition. The casting of the classical tradition… is primarily informed by the Unmoved Mover of Hellenistic thought… a Being completely apart from and unaffected by the reality of the world” [p.1]

We have come to a point – or perhaps we have always been there – where the God revealed by the Hebrew testimony is rather embarrassing to our sensibilities. The Hebrews speak of a God affected by the passing of time; a God emotionally invested in his creation and sometimes those emotions are even mixed. They speak of a God whose mind is not settled and what’s worse, they don’t seem to mind this God at all! This God repents, He laughs, He tests, He changes His mind and what’s more, He allows his creation to move Him to action and at other times, they have the power to stay His wrathful hand.

“It is common to be embarrassed about the anthropomorphic aspects of this God, so embarrassed as to want to explain away such a characterization or at least to transpose it into a form that better serves a generic notion of God…. All such embarrassments, however, fail to do justice to the scriptural tradition.” [p.2]

Again, Walter Brueggemann has called us out on the carpet; all of us! Classical Christianity cannot escape the ugly reality that we have since near the beginning been embarrassed of the Hebrew testimony of God and so silenced it. It does not jive well with our sensibilities, our Hellenistic sensibilities. But who is the guilty one; are they or are we? It is not they who are being unfaithful to the scriptures; indeed they wrote them! And instead of being embarrassed of the Hebrew testimony of YWHW we ought to be embarrassed of our selves. It will no longer do, in my mind, to dismiss the challenge of the Old Testament as embarrassing “anthropomorphic” ramblings of ancient people. Christianity needs – to some extent – to put Classical Christian Theology on trial and the judge ought not to be Aristotle, but Abraham. Classical Christian Theology is in need of purification, and its filter ought to be the scriptures.

The more I read Old Testament scholars the more aware I become that the “standard categories” of a deterministic God and future is not so “standard” after all. These Biblical Old Testament scholars make the jobs of Systematic Theologians difficult because the nature of God cannot be so neatly settled as they’d like. This also makes for upsetting the received paradigm tradition which is why these scholars are often either ignored (which is usually the case) or waved aside as not being “Evangelical” by popular writers, preachers and theologians. Yet no matter their take on inerrancy or infallibility, these scholars take the Old Testament serious to the extreme, maybe even more than traditional Evangelical scholars who are sometimes prone to explain away a difficult passage because it may not align well with their paradigm.

Over the past year or so I have read the works of Brent Sandy (Plowshares and Pruning Hooks), Walter Brueggemann (An Unsettling God), John Goldingay (Old Testament Theology Vol. 1), and Samuel Meier (Themes and Transformations in Old Testament Prophecy) and the consensus seems to be this: the Hebrew testimony is that the future is at least partly open.

Samuel Meier: Discontinuity among O.T. Prophets

In this post I want to zero in on Samuel Meier’s study on themes and transformations in Old Testament prophecy. Unlike other works which simply take the Old Testament as a whole in terms of “themes”, Meier emphasizes the transformation or progressive reality of these themes. And when the question is put forth, ‘is the future determined according to Old Testament prophets?’ Meier answers: ‘yes and no, depending on what period you are asking about’. He writes

If God waits for temporally-bound creatures to make decisions that affect the destiny of humans [a case he makes in the preceding chapter], this raises the perennially perplexing question as to the contingency of the future: has the fate of humanity already been decreed, or is the future yet an unwritten chapter whose outcome is – at least in some details, if not in its entirety – open to negotiation?

What Meier discovers in his study is that the prophetic attitude toward a determined future progressed from an “open” future where God is portrayed as truly dialogical and the future is largely determined by human decisions and actions, to an extreme view of a closed future where all beings in the universe are mere pawns on the divine chess board and God is the only player. (It is this progression in prophetic attitude that may account for the positions of Calvinists and Open Theist, where Calvinist’ stress the works of the later prophets – the future is closed – and Open Theists stress the works of the earlier prophets – the future is partly open.)

Earlier Prophets: Partly Open Future

Samuel Meier highlights the fact that the word “perhaps” is used frequently throughout the earlier prophets (800 – 600 B.C.) indicating that these prophets were never certain exactly how the future would unfold. Their general attitude was “Repent because maybe God will hear and the disaster will be averted” as happens to be the case with Hezekiah when God changes his mind (2 Kings 20:1-5). Zephaniah prophecies, “Seek righteousness, seek humility. Perhaps you will be hidden in the day of Yahweh’s anger” (Zeph 2:3). Amos prophecies, “Hate evil, and love good, and establish justice in the gate. Perhaps Yahweh, the God of hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph” {Amos 5:15). Joel prophecies “Tear your heart and not your garments. Return to Yahweh your God… Who knows whether [i.e. maybe] he may return and relent, and leave a blessing in his wake?” (Joel 2:13-14).

There are no shortages of these examples (Jonah 3:9; Gen 18:16-33; 2 Sam 24:14-25; Ezek 12:1-3; 1 Sam 9:15-17 cf. 1 Sam 15:11; et. cetera), but what Meier finds most stunning is that God himself sometimes seems uncertain what the future holds:

Thus said Yahweh, ‘Stand… and speak… all the words that I have commanded you to speak to them. Do not omit a word! Perhaps they will listen and each person will turn from his evil way, so that I may relent of the evil that I intend to do to them because of the evil of their deeds.’ (Jer 26:2-3, also Jer 36:1-3)

In the above passage it is not the prophet speaking, but God himself. God states plainly that he has intended to do evil to them because of their evil deeds, but if they repent he will “relent” – i.e. change his mind. What is stunning about this passage is that God makes no statements of certainty regarding the future – will what he intended happen or not? – because what God intends to happen totally depends on whether or not the people repent! As Meier put it, “God is doing all he can through his prophet to prompt his people to repent, but God is unsure that the effort will be successful” [p.30]. This characteristic of an open future seems to be a pattern of the earlier prophets and numerous other examples could be listed of God “relenting”, “repenting”, “changing his mind” and so on (cf. Jer. 18:7-10).

Later Prophets: God Plays Alone

In the chapter preceding the one called “is the future determined” Meier observes a shift in the prophets standing before God. It seems that the earlier prophets were often invited into the very council room of God so that God could engage them in conversation and dialogue, often about something which God is deliberating about (cf. Amos 7:1-6; Ezekiel 1:26; Isaiah 6:1-2; Jer 23:16-22). According to Meier, when God is depicted in Ezekiel 10-11 as departing the Temple during the Exile a shift takes place. For the first time in Israel’s history God is not in Israel or Judea; instead he is with Ezekiel in Babylon!

These new circumstances correspond to a new depiction of the prophets’ relationship to the divine council; no longer does Ezekiel stand among the hosts of heaven…. God is still on his throne, and the angelic retinue is present, but the prophet no longer sees nor participates in the deliberations of the council. The council comes to him, so to speak, with a decree that is not negotiable… After the exile, a further transformation – indeed, deterioration – of the prophet’s relationship to the divine council occurs: no prophet is explicitly depicted as taking part in God’s council.” [p. 24]

The point is – if we fast-forward to the present chapter – the broad consensus is that the idea “that the future is negotiable runs through a number of prophets, all of whom… appear before the postexilic period” but, Meier continues, “this consensus does not carry over into the postexilic period” [p. 34]. After the exile the future is often depicted as a non-negotiable. God’s made a decision and the prophets no longer have input.

Consequently the prophets after the exile speak with much more confidence about the future, “Return to me and I will return to you” (Zech 1:3; Mal 3:7); notice the absences of the word “perhaps”! In Haggai, Malachi and Zechariah there is never a “perhaps” or “maybe” or “who knows”; everything is absolutely certain. Of course everything remains conditioned by the actions of people – of this the Old Testament is emphatic about (Mal 3:9-11: blessing will come if they are obedient; Hag 1:8-9, Hag 2:17-19: if they rebuild the temple then God will bless them), but whatever the person chooses, there is an absolute response from God – no question about it in these later prophets.

When the discussion is carried over to Daniel a deterministic future is taken to the extreme. Because the future was been worked out in the details one may learned in advance specifics “such as how many kings will reign and how they will behave (Dan 7:23-25; 8:21; 11:2-45), as well as how the righteous will fare (Dan 7:21, 25; 8:24; 11:32-35)” [p. 36]. Meier connects this to his discussion in the previous chapter about how the prophets after the exile are no longer privy to engage God in dialogue about things which may occur:

Where future consequences could be presented as not entirely clear in the early prophets, and where it becomes less vague and more predictable in the later prophets, in apocalyptic [i.e. Daniel] the future becomes exceedingly predictable. In fact, the future in apocalyptic is already determined in its entirety.” [p. 36]

Conclusion: Prophetic Demotion?

Meier draws out many more progressive themes in the Old Testament such as the theme of angels which suggests that the early prophets always had direct access to God, “Yahweh said to …” whereas for the later prophets angels become mediators. Another example is that early prophets had a gift of being able to “see” precisely what God wants them to see whereas the later prophets need the visions to be spelt out for them (here for examples). In every case the pivotal point of change is the Exile. After the exile there seems to be – in a sense – a demotion of the prophetic ministry and a change in the way God interacted with Israel’s prophets and the future.

There was a time when God invited human representatives (i.e. the prophets) into the divine council chambers (which includes angels) and dialogued with them about things which may be. The human representatives were able to add their opinions and sometimes even sway the divine intent – it was truly a relationship. This privilege is taken away after the Exile. God no longer invites human representatives into the council to consult them on what may happen; now he simply decrees what will happen and their job is to simply listen and convey the message (Daniel does not interact with his visions in a dialogical fashion, he is simply an observer who is instructed to document what he sees [Dan 7:1]).

When a friend first told me about “Open Theology” I knew it was something I had to look into. For years I read the bible, particularly the Old Testament, and always came away with questions which remained unanswered. Open Theology offered a way to understand the nature of God which correlated well with many biblical passages. It’s not a perfect system (Calvinism and Arminianism are both far from being perfect systems also!), but for me it offered a way forward to what I perceive to be a more biblically nuanced articulation of the nature of God.

But people are afraid of what they don’t understand and they become (sometimes) vicious when they feel like their concept of God is under attack. I have experienced this first hand.

As a result Open Theology has been bemoaned as “heresy”, I have been called nothing less than a devil worshiper for considering the strengths of this system and God is often said to be “imperfect” if Open Theology is correct.

I’d like to underscore what I said a moment ago: People are afraid of what they don’t understand. I think Open Theism is misunderstood. I have read responses to Open Theism by John Piper, John Frame, Bruce Ware, Paul Helm and many others, and none of them seem to be able to accurately explain what Open Theology teaches, and if they don’t understand it, how can they accurately respond to it? This ignorance is only perpetuated when fans of these popular authors read their books.

I want to extend this warm invitation toward you to give Open Theology a fair hearing. Greg Boyd is one of the most vocal advocates of Open Theology and in the videos below he is a guest speaker in Clark Pinnock’s class (Pinnock is a Calvinists turned Open Theist).

Your comments below will intrigue me…