I was recently listening to an audio course on apologetics that made the brief comment that open theism is a modern heresy. What is open theism? Open theism is an attempt to remove Greek philosophical categories from theology and a presentation of God in which the future is indeed influenced by our decisions and actions, causing God to not have full knowledge of the future. In the book, the Openness of God, the concept is presented in this way:
“God in grace, grants humans significant freedom to cooperate with or against God’s will for their lives, and he enters into dynamic, give-and-take relationships with us. The Christian life involves a genuine interaction between God and human beings. We respond to God’s gracious initiatives and God responds to our responses … and on it goes.” (p. 7)
Before I comment too much, I need to put my cards on the table. I am not the most reformed Christian. I appreciate reformed theology and I like the tightness of the system. But when I look at TULIP, I have deep biblical concerns about almost every one of them. This is not based on my denominational heritage. I was raised Anglican but never heard these issues discussed. I was a Pentecostal, which is technically Arminian/Wesleyan, but again this stuff was rarely discussed and I was not afraid to disagree on Pentecostal doctrine in other areas. My current Baptist tradition does not take an official position on either side and there are people who believe anything along the spectrum. The other thing I need to say is that I studied theology at McMaster Divinity College under Clark Pinnock, one of the main proponents of open theism. That does not mean I agree with Clark, but I do know and respect him.
My experience in the church tells me that most people pray (whether Calvinist or Arminian) like open theists. Rarely do we pray simply to align our wills with God’s. When a loved one is sick, we pray as if our prayer may have some influence with God. Something within us (whether right or wrong) tells us that prayer does something. I do believe that God does take our wills into consideration. I believe that we do have a say as to whether or not we become a Christian. Against the Calvinists, I do believe that grace is resistible.
However, against the open theists, I disagree that God is limited in his knowledge. I believe God is outside of time and that he already knows the decisions we will make and the prayers we will pray. To deny that God knows all things is to go down a dangerous path.
I would not consider myself to be an open theist. But the question is: Is open theism a heresy? As I said, I know Clark Pinnock and I deeply respect him, not just intellectually but as a Christian. He has a passionate love for Christ and I believe that he is serving the Lord with all his strength. I can disagree with Clark on certain issues but I can not deny his love for Christ. To me, heresies are most often defined by an inadequate Christology, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ belief of Jesus as the archangel Michael. I have seen no evidence of any heretical tendencies in their Christology. I continue to be skeptical about open theism, but I am not able label them as a heretical movement. They are Christian brothers and sisters that I have some disagreement with in theology.
Interesting post. Like you, I’m not a proponent of Open Theism, however, I don’t think it’s heresy. I haven’t read much of Pinnock, but like Boyd’s work.
I like Boyd in general for his New Testament and apologetics works but have not read his open theism stuff. It is interesting that open theists are criticized by very conservative Christians for taking literally the passages that say God changed his mind. I do not agree with open theism but perhaps there is still a place to ask some tough questions.
Finally. I am so tired of people using the word heresy for any theology that doesn’t agree with Calvinism. Where in any of the creeds is there a clause saying that God’s knowledge of the future is comprehensive and fixed? There isn’t. You may disagree with Open Theism – but I believe it is in the bounds of Orthodox Christian discussion. We don’t say that people who have different views than us on Baptism are heretics do we? No because there is grace to have different opinions. So it should also be on our understanding of the future.
I agree. Unfortunately this has been a trend for a long time. Reformed, Lutherans and Anabaptists disagreed with each other in the Reformation almost as much as they disagreed with the Catholics. In general denominations have come to a place of greater tolerance and mutual respect. But we still have lots of work to do.
Hi Stephen,
Thank you for your posture and attitude towards those that you might not always agree with. That is very refreshing and all too uncommon in Blog related discussions.
The question I have been asking is this. At what point does our theology or idea about God become idolatry?
Meaning, I was recently told by a Pastor that unless I held to the penal substitution view of the Atonement I did not have the full gospel. Whether I was to be considered a Christian or not was not specifically addressed but one would have to wonder…
I think theology is a great tool to ask questions and search for answers but is it right to “finalize” our answers and make our doctrines “truth” that is equal to anything that Jesus might say about Himself or is Father?
Personally I’d like to “finalize” the truth that Jesus is in fact God. That doesn’t seem wrong to me. Neither does it seem wrong to me to state as truth that Jesus died for me. However, at what point do we go wrong in our idolatrous worship of our concepts?
The orthodox traditions have always taken a lot of crap from evangelicals for their icons. However, does evangelicals have icons “of their minds” that are possibly as idolatrous than anything the orthodox traditions have ever done? I don’t intend to start a debate of the pros and cons of icons here but merely to make a point. So, those of you reading this that are orthodox please misunderstand me correctly :)
Is there ANY theologian that you can think of that the passing of time has not revealed some kind of error?
Thus, although I have never met or spoken with Clark Pinnock much more respect for someone that say “this is what I think today, and here’s why…” then someone like John Piper that says “I am right, you are wrong, the debate is settled,
and if you disagree with me your are an heretic”.
Note: These are not direct quotes I am simply paraphrasing their attitudes as perceived by me in their writings.
There’s a saying in Sweden that goes something like this. “Some people that a STAND, and that is the last thing they ever underSTAND”.
I guess “take a stand and stop understanding” might sound better. Nevertheless, when if comes to the divinity of Jesus I’d like to take a stand. Is that wrong?
When it comes to making everyone agree on a specific “view” of everything I do not personally see the need. Is that right, and why?
Where do you “stand”?
Thanks again Stephen!
Leo
I would agree with what you say. There are things that we should take a stand on and there are things that we should have some grace on. I think of the story of Elisha and Naaman. After Naaman’s conversion, he wanted to take some Israelite dirt with him so he could worship in his own land. That was not theologically correct as God was not limited to one land. But Elisha agreed to it without correction because he knew Naaman’s heart. I do not want an everything goes attitude toward theology. I believe that everything should be open to discussion and critique. You are correct that we all likely have some error to our thinking as I have yet to meet two people that believe the exact same things. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Hello,
My name is Marie and I am working with Pastor Andy Deane who recently wrote the book: Learn to Study the Bible – it teaches 40 Bible study methods. We would love to send you a free copy to see if you would review it on your site. Recently we’ve received some exciting endorsements from Dr. Catt (pastor of church that produced the movie FIREPROOF) and Pastor Bob Coy (9th Largest church in USA). If you are able to blog about this new Bible study book please let me know if an internet ebook version would be possible for you to read (saves us money to do that).
TITLE: Learn to Study the Bible
AUTHOR: Andy Deane
ISBN: 978-1-60791-576-8
PUBLISHER: Xulon Press
BOOK WEBSITE: http://www.LearnToStudyTheBible.com
Sure, I would be happy to review this book. Email it to stephenbedard@hotmail.com.
I agree with you that it is not heresy and that we can disagree with these guys and still consider them brothers in Christ.
You said, “However, against the open theists, I disagree that God is limited in his knowledge. I believe God is outside of time and that he already knows the decisions we will make and the prayers we will pray.”
The thing you are wrong about is your concept of time. If you were a presentist, you wouldn’t have to say that God is “outside of time” or believe that God not knowing all of the future lessens His omniscience. Time is a way of measuring duration of or between events. Without events, there is no time. The future doesn’t exist. However, if God says something will happen, it certainly will happen, because He can make it happen.
That is of course a possible interpretation and I have no problem with that. I do think that God is outside of time but then again the Bible does not get into such philosophical speculation. Thanks for your thoughts.
Hi Again Stephen,
How do you view, or explain, the relationship of the Trinity in light of the philosophical concept that believes that God exists “outside” of time outside of any kind of succession of events?
Meaning, can God think any new thoughts? Can there be any kind of relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?
Also, as we think of the future and peek into eternity, it appears that Jesus is God in (some kind of body) that we as humans can relate to? If so, and if Jesus is 100% God, does it not appear likely that God is very committed to living within time?
It seems to me that we either accept a static God that is utterly incoherent and truly incomprehensible OR we accept a God that is dynamic, very much relational and a God that has no beginning, no starting point, and that has always existed.
Is it possible that our human difficulty in grasping the latter might have influenced us to accept the static god and the “eternal now” as a “solid” starting point? If so, who then, is relying on their rationalism?
// Leo
Great thoughts and I must confess that I have not studied this topic to any great extent. One of my thoughts is that perhaps one of the costs Jesus paid for us was to enter into time. Here is another way to look at things: if time did not exist before creation, did the existence of creation change God in some way by making him live in time? Just some thoughts.
I suppose God has always been active in some way. Activity implies events. The duration of or interval between events is measured by time. Time as being something that one can enter into or be outside of makes no sense to me nor do I see any evidence of Biblical characters conceiving of time in such a way. I think it is a Greek construct. The prophesies of Scripture come true because God can make them come true.
I can’t argue with you on that last point. Like I said, I have not studied the issues well enough to debate them. I simply wanted to say that open theism falls within the boundaries of orthodoxy. But I do appreciate your thoughts.
Um, not only does Pinnock greatly err with his view of open theism, but he also denies that Hell exists. He is an annihiliationist. How much heresy is enough heresy?
Pinnock did not deny that hell existed, he denied that it was eternal. The idea was that people were punished there for a limited time and then in Revelation says Hades is throne into the lake of fire, then everyone there is annihilated. I don’t agree but that is what Clark taught. The question is: is a theological error the same as a heresy? Calvinists and Arminians cannot both be right, charismatics and cessations cannot both be right, should they be considered heretics?
Picking up this old thread; wish I’d been in on the original discussion. So it appears to me that time as we know it is definitely an attribute of creation. It is also clear that in life after life after death we have time, but after all that is creation. Jesus is the first born of the new creation. Jesus entering time was at the least, a change. Does that make me a “presentist”? I believe that God the Father sees everything in the present. For me there is no problem with the eternal Son being made subject to the conditions in the creation in order to rescue us. Eternally grateful that He did. And thanks for your insights all.
Thanks for your thoughts. Much appreciated.
My problem with open theism is that it takes away a piece of God’s power and glory to sneak in a little bit of human power thus giving man glory. The Bible says that God is God Almighty. To me that means He has all the power, 100%, not as much power as He could have.
Here are verses that clearly refute open theism:
Psalms 139:4: “For there is not a word on my tongue, but behold, O LORD, You know it altogether.”
Proverbs 19:21: “There are many plans in a man’s heart, nevertheless the LORD’s counsel – that will stand.”
Proverb 20:24: “A man’s steps are of the LORD; How then can a man understand his own way?”
Jeremiah 10:23: “O LORD, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.”
These passages clearly refute this new age teaching.
Furthermore, God does not learn because He does not change:
Malachi 3:6: “For I am the LORD, i do not change; therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.”
Hebrews 13:8: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
(also James 1:17)
Open theism is dangerous because it desire to exalt the pagan value of ‘free’ will (an idol), something the Bible does not teach, above the glory of God. It subtracts from God’s majesty, power, and glory. It is my view that such a view of the Bible is exceedingly dangerous, not only because the Bible clearly portrays God as God Almighty. Such a view turns out to steal His glory, by attributing some goodness to man. Man’s righteous deeds are like filthy rags before God (the Hebrew actually describes the deeds as used menstrual rags) Isaiah 64:6.
Furthermore, Isaiah 42:8: “I am the LORD, that is My name! And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to carved images.”
Hope this help anyone.
Thanks for your thoughts. I would not consider myself an open theist. However, I would not consider free will to be an idol either. For as many passages that you cited, I could cite just as many where God or a prophet or an apostle challenges people to choose to follow God. The plain sense of this is that people have the freedom to make that choice.
Interesting debate. I suppose I must describe myself as an open theist because I do believe that God is influenced by man. If we are to follow Christ’s teaching to pray as in the Lord’s Prayer we pray in the belief that God responds to our requests. If God was going to respond anyway (He knows our needs) what would be the point in praying. If we believe that God can be known , that we can have a relationship with the Father, then we must follow that to the point where man influences God’s action.
A point on Hell, is hell punishment for the unredeemed sinner or is hell the consequence of being an unredeemed sinner; ultimately being left in a place where God is not.
Lastly on time and creation, was there an event before creation and would there have been an event without it?
I am not sure it takes open theism to believe that prayer matters, although I think that open theism is trying to take that seriously. As for hell, I would say it is the consequence of not choosing God. Was their an event before creation? I have no idea. Was before my time. Thanks for your comments.