Is Open Theism Biblical?
By Bible researcher Eli Kittim
Open Theism
âOpen theismâ (aka openness theology) is a theological movement which holds that God doesnât exercise complete sovereignty over the universe but allows it to be âopenâ to the contribution of human free will. Put differently, because God cannot possibly know the future in an exhaustive sense, the future is not predetermined by him. Paradoxically, even though open theists seem to affirm Godâs omniscience, they nevertheless deny Godâs foreknowledge and claim that he doesnât know everything that will occur. In his book âThe Grace of God, The Will of Man,â Clark Pinnock, a Christian theologian and proponent of open theism, writes:
Decisions not yet made do not exist
anywhere to be known even by God. They
are potentialâ yet to be realized but not yet
actual. God can predict a great deal of
what we will choose to do, but not all of it,
because some of it remains hidden in the
mystery of human freedom ⌠God too faces
possibilities in the future, and not only
certainties. God too moves into a future not
wholly known âŚ
Similarly, in his book âLetters from a Skeptic,â author Greg Boyd, a leading advocate of open theism, explains it thusly:
In the Christian view God knows all of reality
âeverything there is to know. But to assume
He knows ahead of time how every person
is going to freely act assumes that each
personâs free activity is already there to
knowâeven before he freely does it! But itâs
not. If we have been given freedom, we
create the reality of our decisions by
making them. And until we make them, they
donât exist. Thus, in my view at least, there
simply isnât anything to know until we make
it there to know. So God canât foreknow the
good or bad decisions of the people He
creates until He creates these people and
they, in turn, create their decisions.
Open theism is basically a new model through which scholars have tried to explain the relation of Godâs foreknowledge to the free will of human beings. Their argument runs as follows: humankind could not really be free if God knew absolutely everything pertaining to the future. And since open theists believe that human beings are completely free, it follows that God cannot absolutely know all there is to know about the future. This argument would carry over to our understanding of Biblical eschatology and would suggest not only that the future is unknowable, but also that God doesnât know the future.
Invalid Arguments
However, it seems to me that open theists are committing a logical fallacy, namely, equating the foreknowledge of God with determinism. If that were the case, their conclusion would be correct, to wit, that a deterministic foreknowledge of God would necessarily be incompatible with human free will. But the premise is misconceived. Foreknowledge in and of itself doesnât necessarily presuppose determinism. Just because God can foresee the future doesnât mean that he causes it. Calvinism, of course, is the other extreme which maintains that God is the cause of all events, thereby postulating hard determinism without apologies. However, If we, as free agents, were to act in whichever way we chose, and God could foresee our decision, Godâs foreknowledge and human free will would be perfectly compatible!
What is more, Open Theism asserts that although God knows all truths, there are certain possibilities which cannot yet be established about the âopenâ and undetermined future, and thus even God himself doesnât know their outcome. But this, too, seems to be a logical fallacy. They create a strawman argument in which they falsely equate foreknowledge with logical impossibilities. Once again, the premise is invalid. Just because the âtruthâ of what will happen is based on many complex, contingent factors, and is unknowable to human beings, doesnât necessarily imply that itâs equally impossible for God to know it. On the contrary, it wouldnât be considered illogical for God to know the outcome of any given event. Yet Open theists claim that itâs as logically impossible for God to create squared circles or make 2 + 2 = 5 as it is for him to know the future. But foreknowledge is not a logical impossibility like a squared circle or a married bachelor.
This, of course, can take the form of a very deep and protracted philosophical discussion about the nature of free will and the essence of Godâs sovereignty, namely, to what extent are we free agents, and so on. According to open theism, instead of God exhaustively knowing the course of history in toto, God gradually gains knowledge of events as they occur. This is viewed as the âopen view of Godâ since it considers God as open and receptive to new realities. Thus, in contradistinction to classical theism, open theism suggests that God is, in some sense, dependent on the material world to enhance his knowledge.
There is, however, a contradiction in this premise. How could one compare Godâs learning curve from the point of view of time if God is said to be timeless? And how could a transcendent God possibly be dependent upon an âinferior realityâ (as both Paul and Plato put it) to gain knowledge?
Bible Proofs of Godâs Immutability
Opponents of open theism accuse the latter of employing anthropopathisms (i.e. the practice of ascribing human emotions to God). Moreover, Open theist interpretations of the Bible comprise anthropomorphic characterizations of God as âchanging His mindâ or âseeming to gain knowledgeâ or even âbeing surprisedâ (see Gen. 6.6; 22.12; Exod. 32.14; Jon. 3.10). But these passages should not be read out of context. God is simply trying to describe himself in ways that we can relate to. Godâs language of being disappointed with humanity doesnât mean their actions caught him by surprise. The idea that he âchanges His mindâ is to illustrate in human terms that he responds to human behavior and allows our free will to make an impact, especially through prayer, not that he literally is unaware of future events. In fact, the immutability of God can be demonstrated Biblically. For example, in Malachi 3.6 (NRSV), God declares âFor I the Lord do not change.â In Numbers 23.19, Scripture reads:
God is not a human being, that he should
lie, or a mortal, that he should change his
mind. Has he promised, and will he not do
it? Has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it.
1 Samuel 15.29 says:
the Glory of Israel will not recant or change
his mind; for he is not a mortal, that he
should change his mind.
Bible Proofs of Future Prophecies
Not a few scholars think that in dismissing classical theismâs doctrine of Godâs exhaustive foreknowledge, open theism is dangerously reinterpreting the God of the Bible. In this radical re-envisioning of the God of Scripture, how can a clueless God, concerning the future, guarantee the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies? Yet contrary to this position, Psalm 139 verses 4 & 16 read:
Even before a word is on my tongue, O Lord,
you know it completely ⌠Your eyes beheld
my unformed substance. In your book were
written all the days that were formed for
me, when none of them as yet existed.
How could God predict explicit details about Jesus Christ in the Hebrew Bible if he doesnât even know what the future holds? And, more importantly, how could God possibly guarantee our salvation if he doesnât have the slightest clue about the future? Furthermore, did God lie in Isaiah 46.9-10 where he declared that he can see the future?:
I am God, and there is no one like me,
declaring the end from the beginning and
from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, âMy purpose shall stand, and I will
fulfil my intention.â
Conclusion
Open Theism is an attempt to balance Godâs foreknowledge and humanityâs free will. Open theismâs conclusion is that God doesnât possess an infallible knowledge of the future. But just as Calvinism is an extreme form of âtheological determinism,â turning humans into pre-programmed robots, so open theism goes to the opposite extreme by turning God into a human being who hasnât the foggiest idea of what the future looks like. Besides rejecting the credible evidence of eschatology and Bible prophecy, on which our faith and hope depend, open theism ultimately fails to demonstrate its key points both scripturally and philosophically!
â
