Thursday, May 16, 2024

Back to the Basics, Part 1 - Open Theism v Process Theology


Back to the Basics, Part 1:
Open Theism v Process Theology

by R.E. Slater


Lately, I've read of a bit of a dust-up between open theists and (open and relational) process theists. Here are some of my reactions to our "close" brothers and sisters in sympathy, faith, fellowship, and mission:

I

Firstly, Process theology and Open theism are two different theological views which differ in how they view the relationship between God and creativity. Process theology, sometimes known as [Whiteheadian] neoclassical theology, emphasizes that God has the power to act and be acted upon; moreover, creation is endowed to act and be acted upon as well as bearing the image of the divine God (Imago Dei). That is, "As God, so God's creation."

By comparison, Open theism, sometimes known as openness theology, is a version of freewill theism which views God's power as more limited, with God voluntarily limiting his power to create room for creational and human freewill. This latter dogma refers to God's self-limiting act by divine fiat and is disputed by love-based process theologians who positively state that in God's Self, sic, God's Being of divine love, creational freewill, or agency, is a natural result and not to be conjectured as an act of divine fiat. To summarize, "In God's Being of Love, God's Self - in all it's grandeur - is shared gladly with creation."

---

II

Secondly, Open theology is more closely affiliated with Calvinist evangelical theologies as expressed by Reformed, Christian Reformed, Baptists, Disciples of Christ, Bible Churches, and so on. However, I don't see why this same sentiment cannot also be said of Arminian evangelical theology as the more natural inheritor of Open theism. This then would include Methodists, Nazerenes, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and all historical Baptists.

Though we rarely witness Calvinist groups becoming Open Theists we more readily see Arminianian groups adopting and moving into Open AND Relational theologies. This was my experience as well when removing Calvinistic beliefs of God, bible, Jesus, and daily experience when reclaiming my historical Baptist roots. From these purposeful acts I because educated in Arminianism and then more easily embraced at first Open theology, and then Relational theology. At which point I felt they each more naturally embraced the other when then led to re-expressing both in terms of process theism.

II B

Hence, it is my considered opinion that Open and Relational Theology is more fully completed and expressed when admitted into non-Analytic and Continental branches of Western philosophy. Which completion than is expressed by Whiteheadian Process philosophy and its derivative of Process theology spanning Christianity onto more common grounds with it's ancient Hebrew faith, the ancient Semitic cultures, and generally, moves it closer towards its Jewish roots and Islamic faithful. By and by, post-Calvinistic evangelicalism when founded on process foundations then mirror and reflects parts of Eastern Asian religions, granting to process Christians an expanded audience in which to share it's Jesus-faith based more rigorously on God's love and God's processual Being. Likewise with any-and-all processual sciences as we see today with quantum physics, sciences, evolution, etc.

Why? Because process philosophy is an integral cosmological metaphysic which spans quite easily all previous metaphysics taking up these processual precursors into it's greatly expanded wings which express bits and parts and more of the process metaphysic unlike Westernized faiths, religions, and sciences.

II C

Process then is a metaphysic comprising i) relationality of all things to all things; ii) the experientiality of all things to all things; which also iii) may/must included all non-material resultants such as faith, consciousness, and immortal aspects of a broader, more inclusive cosmological metaphysic.

II D

Which also means that any religion or religious faith - including that of the quantum sciences et al - which are willing to leave Platonism et al to the dustbins of history - may express the ancient process elements described/identified by Whitehead as organic, panrelational, panexperiential, and panpsychic. Moreover, its Process-based cosmological metaphysic bears with it correspondent process-based ontologies, ethics, and epistemologies. Which is to say, Westernized Evangelicalism cannot compete with - nor comport with - expressing the processual God of creation nor creation's processual interior as well or as completely as can a process-based faith and scientific discipline.

II E

In sum, non-processual philosophies and cultural attitudes cannot see, nor express, nor behold, God, the bible, creation, human culture, nor timeful outcome similarly with processual metaphysics. As such, Westernism is anathema to Processualism.

II F

In pragmatic terms, process Christianity admits to a fuller, more congruent expression of a post-evangelic faith which is progressive, contemporary, interfaith, and ecumenical than can its previous descriptors and theologies derived from Platonism, Aristotelianism, Medieval-Scholasticism, or any of its Modernistic precursors. Process Christianity is less bound to substance and more identifiable to motion and movement as reality markers (sic, quantum physics, process-based evolution and negentropy events, Jungian Archetypes, etc). This makes Process Christianity a surer faith-for-the-future as opposed to Christian faiths grounded in the classic forms-and-expressions of the past.

---

III

Thirdly, theistic worldviews lean into (meaningless) transcendentalism rather than the more meaningful worldviews admitting to God's immanent presence in the daily lives and imaginings of creation. I say meaningless, because a non-present God means little-to-nothing in our lived lives and experiences... much as a non-present, or absent, parent or partner, friend or lover. Though a process faith readily admits to God's God-ness, that God-ness quality becomes more meaningful when God is present in our lives and the lives of those around us - including all of creation. Philosophically, God is the Present "Other" who/which can transcend creation but is Practically ever-present, as the God who is the Lover of our souls and constant companion.

III B

It may be said that the typical classic theism worldview prefers its God to be High, Holy, Uplifted, Controlling everything, and bringing down the hammer in righteous dictum, anger and wrath. Such a God is believed in fear-based faiths which have a very low view of God's creation. That is, creation is constantly spoken of as sinful, ugly, and like worthless rags. As a result, such Christian beliefs hold within itself fierce salvation dogmas, eschatologies, and outreach programs from the church of the classical past beheld in churches, and church doctrines, whose strident voice is presently lost in Trumpism and MAGA-based, supremacist Christianity. 

III C

By comparison, there is the post-evangelical worldview of panentheism (NOT pantheism NOR pandeism... look it up). Within pan-en-theism's paradigms God is lovingly present from the beginning of creation throughout its eternal/immortal? being. Why "being"? Because Whitehead considered the cosmos to be a feeling, reacting, even "conscious" form of entity. Notably, Whitehead's process philosophy was first known as "the philosophy of organism". Hence, process-based panentheism must account for the universe to be some form of organic process which acts and reacts with form so feeling ala forces, energies, if not more....

III D

The centering theme of panentheism is that God is present, personal, loving, and serving even as creation and ourselves are to emulate God in God's personally loving presence. This same God is still High, Holy, Uplifted, etc and etc, but this "God which is Other" is also near, helping, sustaining, and ever faithful within the darkened worlds of sin-based agency gone mad, unloving, cruel, hellish, and full of death.

III E

It can be said therefore that Process Christianity bears dogmas of loving salvation, loving futures, loving church paradigms and programs based upon the needs of others and not itself typified in lovingly local or non-local missions. However the world ends, it will end with God's loving presence every abiding its constructs and structures... as opposed to the dead-sure fearful preaching of the evangelical pulpits that all things - including us - are going to hell. 

Lastly, as a separate subject, one may aver that process faiths are much more oriented towards loving end-time eschatologies proposing i) forms of self-annihilation at worse, or ii) forms of justice-based universalism doctrines... than to NON-processual, classic-evangelical dogmas preaching "gone-to-hell" tribulational-millennial futures.

---

IV

Fourthly, Open theists make all kinds of misrepresentative claims which they believe are true of process Christianity even as such spurious claims are themselves dependent upon their non-processual Calvinistic dogmas which are decidedly Westernized in orientation. And when such claims are pronounced as true of process theism I lay the blame to process theologians who have not more clearly explained, nor integrated, their positions more completely. Thus justifying open theists in their assessments and judgments but also showing themselves locked into their metaphysical head-space. My next post will examine a few statements made by Open theists of process theology.

---

For your perusal, I'll leave the struggle between open and process theism below across several references so you may see what I mean by my above statement. However, as process Christianity is continually refining and developing its metaphysic and dogmas I am more confident that seemingly justifiable Calvinistic claims can be weeded out when reperspectivizing Western outlooks to be more processually-based. From what I have experienced and learned over the past fifteen years of theological writing, I am unperturbed by such superflurous academic arguments utilizing misstatements, mistruths, and misreasonings as deadweight anchors to their belief systems.

Lastly, we are followers of Jesus. Let us act like that to one another when debating the incongruity of our faiths between one another.

Peace,

R.E. Slater
May 16, 2024
PS - My family is rejoicing this week at the birth of our first granddaughter and fourth grandchild, all of whom are five, turning three, nearly three, and newborn. This gives me great joy and a lot to do in the years ahead!  :)

References to Start With


* * * * * *


Wikipedia - Process Theology


Process theology is a type of theology developed from Alfred North Whitehead's (1861–1947) process philosophy, but most notably by Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000), John B. Cobb (b. 1925), and Eugene H. Peters (1929-1983). Process theology and process philosophy are collectively referred to as "process thought".

For both Whitehead and Hartshorne, it is an essential attribute of God to affect and be affected by temporal processes, contrary to the forms of theism that hold God to be in all respects non-temporal (eternal), unchanging (immutable), and unaffected by the world (impassible). Process theology does not deny that God is in some respects eternal (will never die), immutable (in the sense that God is unchangingly good), and impassible (in the sense that God's eternal aspect is unaffected by actuality), but it contradicts the classical view by insisting that God is in some respects temporal, mutable, and passible.

According to Cobb, "process theology may refer to all forms of theology that emphasize event, occurrence, or becoming over substance. In this sense theology influenced by G. W. F. Hegel is process theology just as much as that influenced by Whitehead. This use of the term calls attention to affinities between these otherwise quite different traditions." Also Pierre Teilhard de Chardin can be included among process theologians, even if they are generally understood as referring to the Whiteheadian / Hartshornean school, where there continue to be ongoing debates within the field on the nature of God, the relationship of God and the world, and immortality.

History

Various theological and philosophical aspects have been expanded and developed by Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000), John B. Cobb, Eugene H. Peters, and David Ray Griffin. A characteristic of process theology each of these thinkers shared was a rejection of metaphysics that privilege "being" over "becoming", particularly those of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Hartshorne was deeply influenced by French philosopher Jules Lequier and by Swiss philosopher Charles Secrétan who were probably the first ones to claim that in God [the] liberty of becoming is above his substantiality.

Process theology soon influenced a number of Jewish theologians including Rabbis Max Kadushin, Milton Steinberg, Levi A. Olan, Harry Slominsky, and, to a lesser degree, Abraham Joshua Heschel. Contemporary Jewish theologians who advocate some form of process theology include Bradley Shavit Artson, Lawrence A. Englander, William E. Kaufman, Harold Kushner, Anson Laytner, Michael Lerner, Gilbert S. Rosenthal, Lawrence Troster, Donald B. Rossoff, Burton Mindick, and Nahum Ward.

Alan Anderson and Deb Whitehouse have applied process theology to the New Thought variant of Christianity.

Richard Stadelmann has worked to preserve the uniqueness of Jesus in process theology.

God and the World relationship

Whitehead's classical statement is a set of antithetical statements that attempt to avoid self-contradiction by shifting them from a set of oppositions into a contrast:

  • It is as true to say that God is permanent and the World fluent, as that the World is permanent and God is fluent.
  • It is as true to say that God is one and the World many, as that the World is one and God many.
  • It is as true to say that, in comparison with the World, God is actual eminently [sic, "to a notable degree" or "very" - re slater ], as that, in comparison with God, the World is actual eminently.
  • It is as true to say that the World is immanent in God, as that God is immanent in the World. [immanent - "something which is inherent and spread throughout" - re slater]
  • It is as true to say that God transcends the World, as that the World transcends God.
  • It is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the World creates God.

Themes

[Process theology is influenced by the metaphysical process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1861 - 1947). Process theology concepts include:]

  • God is not omnipotent in the sense of being coercive. The divine has a power of persuasion rather than coercion. Process theologians interpret the classical doctrine of omnipotence as involving force, and suggest instead a forbearance in divine power. "Persuasion" in the causal sense means that God does not exert unilateral control.
  • Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature. These events have both a physical and mental aspect. All experience (male, female, atomic, and botanical) is important and contributes to the ongoing and interrelated process of reality.
  • The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of freewill. Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings. God cannot totally control any series of events or any individual, but God influences the creaturely exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities. To say it another way, God has a will in everything, but not everything that occurs is God's will.
  • God contains the universe but is not identical with it (panentheism, not pantheism or pandeism). Some also call this "theocosmocentrism" to emphasize that God has always been related to some world or another.
  • Because God interacts with the changing universe, God is changeable (that is to say, God is affected by the actions that take place in the universe) over the course of time. However, the abstract elements of God (goodness, wisdom, etc.) remain eternally solid.
  • Charles Hartshorne believes that people do not experience subjective (or personal) immortality, but they do have objective immortality because their experiences live on forever in God, who contains all that was. Other process theologians believe that people do have subjective experience after bodily death.
  • Dipolar theism is the idea that God has both a changing aspect (God's existence as a Living God) and an unchanging aspect (God's eternal essence).

* * * * * *


Open theism


Part of a series on the
History of
Christian theology
Malmesbury Abbey's 1407 Bible from Belgium
Background
Ecumenical Creeds
Patristics and Councils
Post-Nicene development
Reformation
From the Reformation to the World Wars
Since the World Wars
Contextualisation and Inculturation
icon Christianity portal

Open theism, also known as openness theology,[1] is a theological movement that has developed within Christianity as a rejection of the synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian theology.[2] It is a version of free will theism[3] and arises out of the free will theistic tradition of the church, which goes back to the early church fathers.[4] Open theism is typically advanced as a biblically motivated and logically consistent theology of human and divine freedom (in the libertarian sense), with an emphasis on what this means for the content of God's foreknowledge and exercise of God's power.[5]

Open theist theologian Thomas Jay Oord identifies four paths to open and relational theology:[6]

  1. following the biblical witness,
  2. following themes in some Christian theological traditions,
  3. following the philosophy of free will, and
  4. following the path of reconciling faith and science.

Roger E. Olson said that open theism triggered the "most significant controversy about the doctrine of God in evangelical thought" in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.[7]

Exposition of open theism

In short, open theism posits that since God and humans are free, God's knowledge is dynamic and God's providence flexible. Whereas several versions of traditional theism picture God's knowledge of the future as a singular, fixed trajectory, open theism sees it as a plurality of branching possibilities, with some possibilities becoming settled as time moves forward.[8][9] Thus, the future, as well as God's knowledge of it, is open (hence, "open" theism). Other versions of classical theism hold that God fully determines the future, entailing that there is no free choice (the future is closed). Yet other versions of classical theism hold that, though there is freedom of choice, God's omniscience necessitates God's foreknowing what free choices are made (God's foreknowledge is closed). Open theists hold that these versions of classical theism do not agree with the biblical concept of God; the biblical understanding of divine and creaturely freedom; and/or result in incoherence. Open theists tend to emphasize that God's most fundamental character trait is love and that this trait is unchangeable. They also (in contrast to traditional theism) tend to hold that the biblical portrait is of a God deeply moved by creation, experiencing a variety of feelings in response to it.[10]

Comparison of open and Reformed theism

The following chart compares beliefs about key doctrines as stated by open theists and Calvinists after "the period of controversy" between adherents of the two theisms began in 1994.[11] During this period the "theology of open theism… rocked the evangelical world".[12]

DoctrineOpen TheismCalvinism
Scripture (the Bible). "In the Christian tradition, the Old and the New Testaments are considered Holy Scripture in that they are, or convey, the self-revelation of God."[13]"Committed to affirming the infallibility of Scripture"[14]Scripture is "the infallible Word of God".[15]
God's Power. "God's power is limited only by God's own nature and not by any external force."[16]"God is all-powerful."[17]"God is all-powerful."[18]
God's Sovereignty. "God's ultimate Lordship and rule over the universe".[16]Portraying God as ordaining whatever happens reduces "humans to robots".[19]"Nothing that exists or occurs falls outside God's ordaining will. Nothing, including no evil person or thing or event or deed."[20]
God's Perfection. "God as lacking nothing and free of all moral imperfection".[16]Believes in "(because Scripture teaches) the absolute perfection of God."[21]Believes that, because "Scripture says" it, God "will always do what is right".[22]
God's Foreknowledge. "God's knowing things and events before they happen in history".[23]"God is omniscient" about "settled" reality, but the future that God "leaves open" can be known only as open "possibility" without specific foreknowledge.[24]Classically Augustinian-Calvinist view: "God knows the future because he preordains it."[25]
The Fall. "The disobedience and sin of Adam and Eve that caused them to lose the state of innocence in which they had been created. This event plunged them and all mankind into a state of sin and corruption."[26]God "does not unilaterally and irrevocably decide what to do". God's decisions are influenced by "human attitudes and responses".[27]"Ultimate reason" for the Fall was "God's ordaining will".[20]
Free Will. "The term seeks to describe the free choice of the will which all persons possess. Theological debates have arisen over the ways and to the extent to which sin has affected the power to choose good over evil, and hence one's 'free will'."[28]Promotes incompatibilism, the doctrine that "the agent's power to do otherwise" is "a necessary condition for acting freely".[29]Promotes compatibilism, the doctrine that "freedom" of the will requires only "the power or ability to do what one will (desire or choose) to do" without constraint or impediment, even if what one wills is determined.[30]
Free Will and God's Sovereignty. A "caustic debate" began about 1990 over "God's sovereignty and human free will".[31]Saying that God governs human choices reduces "angels or humans to robots in order to attain his objectives."[32]God governs "the choices of human beings", but without "cancelling [their] freedom and responsibility".[33]
Theodicy issue. "The justification of a deity's justice and goodness in light of suffering and evil".[34]To meet the "conditions of love", God exercises "general rather than specific sovereignty, which explains why God does not prevent all evil".[35] Also, God "does not completely control or in any sense will evil" because the world is "held hostage to a cosmic evil force".[36]Because "Scripture says" it, God "will always do what is right".[37]

Historical development

Contemporary open theists have named precursors among philosophers to document their assertion that "the open view of the future is not a recent concept," but has a long history.[38]

The first known post-biblical Christian writings advocating concepts similar to open theism with regard to the issue of foreknowledge are found in the writings of Calcidius, a 4th-century interpreter of Plato. It was affirmed in the 16th century by Socinus, and in the early 18th century by Samuel Fancourt and by Andrew Ramsay (an important figure in Methodism). In the 19th century several theologians wrote in defense of this idea, including Isaak August Dorner, Gustav Fechner, Otto Pfleiderer, Jules Lequier, Adam Clarke, Billy Hibbard, Joel Hayes, T.W. Brents, and Lorenzo D. McCabe. Contributions to this defense increased as the century drew to a close.[a]

The dynamic omniscience view has been affirmed by a number of non Christians as well: Cicero (1st century BC) Alexander of Aphrodisias (2nd century) and Porphyry (3rd century). God's statement to Abraham “Now I know that you fear me” (Gen 22:12) was much discussed by Medieval Jewish theologians. Two significant Jewish thinkers who affirmed dynamic omniscience as the proper interpretation of the passage were Ibn Ezra (12th century) and Gersonides (14th century).[citation needed]

Sergei Bulgakov, an early-20th-century Russian Orthodox priest and theologian advocated the use of the term panentheism, which articulated a necessary link between God and creation as consequence of God's free love and not as a natural necessity. His sophiology has sometimes been seen as a precursor to 'open theism'.

David R. Larson claimed in 2007 that "in less detailed forms the basics of 'Open Theism' have been taught at Loma Linda University for about fifty years, beginning at least as early as long-time professor Jack W. Provonsha."[42] Provonsha started teaching at Loma Linda about 1960.[43]

Millard Erickson belittles such precursors to open theism as "virtually unknown or unnoticed."[44]

After 1980

The term "open theism" was introduced in 1980 with theologian Richard Rice's book The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will. The broader articulation of open theism was given in 1994, when five essays were published by evangelical scholars (including Rice) under the title The Openness of God. Recent theologians of note expressing this view include: Clark Pinnock (deceased as of 2010), Greg Boyd, Thomas Jay Oord, John E. Sanders, Dallas Willard, Jürgen Moltmann, Richard Rice, C. Peter Wagner, John Polkinghorne, Hendrikus Berkhof, Adrio Konig, Harry Boer, Bethany Sollereder, Matt Parkins, Thomas Finger (Mennonite), W. Norris Clarke (Roman Catholic), Brian Hebblethwaite, Robert Ellis, Kenneth Archer (Pentecostal), Barry Callen (Church of God), Henry Knight III, Gordon Olson, and Winkie Pratney. A significant, growing number of philosophers of religion affirm it: Peter Van Inwagen, Richard Swinburne (Eastern Orthodox), William Hasker, David Basinger, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Dean Zimmerman, Timothy O'Connor, James D. Rissler, Keith DeRose, Richard E. Creel, Robin Collins (philosopher/theologian/physicist), J. R. Lucas, Vincent Brümmer, (Roman Catholic), Richard Purtill, Alan Rhoda, Jeffrey Koperski, Dale Tuggy, and Keith Ward. Biblical scholars Terence E. Fretheim, Karen Winslow, and John Goldingay affirm it. Others include writers Madeleine L'Engle and Paul C. Borgman, mathematician D.J. Bartholomew and biochemist/theologian Arthur Peacocke.[45]

Philosophical arguments

Open theists maintain that traditional classical theists hold the classical attributes of God together in an incoherent way. The main classical attributes are as follows:[46]

  • All-good: God is the standard of moral perfection, all-benevolent, and perfectly loving.
  • Simplicity: God has no parts, cannot be differentiated, and possesses no attribute as distinct from His being.
  • Immutability: God cannot change in any respect.
  • Impassibility: God cannot be affected by outside forces.[47]
  • Omnipresence: God is present everywhere, or more precisely, all things find their location in God.[48]
  • Omniscience: God knows absolutely everything: believes all truths and disbelieves all falsehoods. God's knowledge is perfect.
  • Omnipotence: God can do anything because he is all-powerful and not limited by external forces.

Alleged contradictions in the traditional attributes are pointed out by open theists and atheists alike. Atheist author and educator George H. Smith writes in his book Atheism: The Case Against God that if God is omniscient, God cannot be omnipotent because: "If God knew the future with infallible certainty, he cannot change it – in which case he cannot be omnipotent. If God can change the future, however, he cannot have infallible knowledge of it".[49]

Open theism also answers the question of how God can be blameless and omnipotent even though evil exists in the world. H. Roy Elseth gives an example of a parent that knows with certainty that his child would go out and murder someone if he was given a gun. Elseth argues that if the parent did give the gun to the child then the parent would be responsible for that crime.[50] However, if God was unsure about the outcome then God would not be culpable for that act; only the one who committed the act would be guilty. An orthodox Christian might try, on the contrary, seek to ground a theodicy in the resurrection, both of Christ and the general resurrection to come,[51] though this is not the traditional answer to evil.

Varieties of open theists

Philosopher Alan Rhoda has described several different approaches several open theists have taken with regard to the future and God's knowledge of it.

  • Voluntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because he has voluntarily chosen not to know truths about future contingents. It is thought Dallas Willard held this position.
  • Involuntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because truths about future contingents are in principle unknowable. William Hasker, Peter Van Inwagen,[52] and Richard Swinburne espouse this position.
  • Non-Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions about future contingents are neither true nor false. J. R. Lucas and Dale Tuggy espouse this position.
  • Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions asserting of future contingents that they 'will' obtain or that they 'will not' obtain are both false. Instead, what is true is that they 'might and might not' obtain. Greg Boyd holds this position."[53]

Criticism

Norman Geisler, a critic of open theism, addresses the claims that the Classical attributes were derived from the Greeks with three observations:[54]

  1. The quest for something unchanging is not bad.
  2. The Greeks did not have the same concept of God.
  3. Philosophical influences are not wrong in themselves.

An open theist might respond that all such criticisms are misplaced. As to observation (1), it is not characteristic of open theists to say that the quest for something unchanging is bad. Indeed, open theists believe God's character is unchanging.[55] As to observation (2), open theists do not characteristically say traditional forms of classical theism have exactly the same concept of God as the Greeks. Rather, they argue that they imported only some unbiblical assumptions from the Greeks.[56] They also point to theologians of the Christian tradition who, throughout history, did not succumb so strongly to Hellenistic influences.[57] As to observation (3), open theists do not argue that philosophical influences are bad in themselves. Rather, they argue that some philosophical influences on Christian theology are unbiblical and theologically groundless. Consider John Sanders' statement in The Openness of God (1980):

Christian theology, I am arguing, needs to reevaluate classical theism in light of a more relational metaphysic (not all philosophy is bad!) so that the living, personal, responsive and loving God of the Bible may be spoken of more consistently in our theological reflection ...[58]:  100 

Opponents of open theism, both Arminians, and Calvinists, such as John Piper,[59] claim that the verses commonly used by open theists are anthropopathisms. They suggest that when God seems to change from action A to action B in response to prayer, action B was the inevitable event all along, and God divinely ordained human prayer as the means by which God actualized that course of events.

They also point to verses that suggest God is immutable, such as:

  • Malachi 3:6: For I, the Lord, have not changed; and you, the sons of Jacob, have not reached the end.[b]
  • Numbers 23:19: God is not a man that He should lie, nor is He a mortal that He should repent. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill?[c][60][61]
  • 1 Samuel 15:29: And also, the Strength of Israel will neither lie nor repent, for He is not a man to repent."
  • Isaiah 46:10: [I] tell the end from the beginning, and from before, what was not done; [I] say, "My counsel shall stand, and all My desire I will do."

Those advocating the traditional view[who?] see these as the verses that form God's character, and they interpret other verses that say God repents as anthropomorphistic. Authors who claim this can be traced back through Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, Ambrose, and Augustine. Open theists note that there seems to be an arbitrary distinction here between those verses which are merely anthropopathic and others which form God's character. They also note that the immediate sense of the passages addressing God's inalterability ought to be understood in the Hebrew sense of his faithfulness and justice. In other words, God's love and character is unchanging; this, however, demands that His approach to people (especially in the context of personal relationship) be flexible.[62]

Literary debate

In the early 18th century, an extended public correspondence flourished around the topic of open theism. The debate was incited by Samuel Fancourt's 1727 publication, The Greatness of Divine Love Vindicated. Over the next decade, four other English writers published polemical works in response. This led Fancourt to defend his views in six other publications. In his 1747 autobiography, in response to some who thought that this controversy had affected his career, Fancourt wrote, "Should it be suggested, that my religious principles were a prejudice unto me—I answer: so are those of every Dissenting Protestant in the [United] Kingdom with some, if he dares to think and to speak what he thinks." Fancourt also names other writers who had supported his views.

In 2005, a "raging debate" among evangelicals about "open or free-will theism" was in place.[63] This period of controversy began in 1994 with the publication of The Openness of God.[64][65]:  3  The debate between open and classical theists is illustrated by their books as in the following chart.[66]

YearOpen theism books and commentsClassical theism books and comments
1980Rice, Richard (1980). The Openness of God: The relationship of divine foreknowledge and human free will. Nashville, Tennessee: Review & Herald. – Rice was the "pioneer of contemporary evangelical open theism."[65]:  5 Critical acclaim, but public mostly unaware of open theism; the controversy had not yet begun.[65]:  5 
1989Hasker, William (1989). God, Time, and Knowledge. Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of Religion. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
1994Pinnock, Clark; Rice, Richard; Sanders, John; Hasker, William; Bassinger, David (1994). The Openness of God. InterVarsity. – "ignited a firestorm of controversy".[65]:  5 "Provoked numerous hostile articles in academic and popular publications."[65]:  5  The "conservative backlash" was "quick and fierce".[67]
1996Basinger, David (1996). The Case for Freewill Theism: A philosophical assessment. InterVarsity. – Considers divine omniscience, theodicy, and petitionary prayer in freewill perspective.[68]McGregor Wright, R. K. (1996). No Place for Sovereignty: What's wrong with freewill theism. InterVarsity. – Sees open theism as wrong biblically, theologically, and philosophically.[68]
1997Boyd, Gregory (1997). God at War: The Bible & spiritual conflict. InterVarsity. – Made open theism the centerpiece of a theodicy.[65]:  6 Geisler, Norman (1997). Creating God in the Image of Man?. Bethany. – Asserts that open theism should be called new theism or neotheism because it is so different from classical theism.:  78 
1998Sanders, John (1998). The God who Risks: A theology of providence. InterVarsity. – "The most thorough standard presentation and defense of the openness view of God."[69]Erickson, Millard (1998). God the Father Almighty: A contemporary exploration of the Divine attributes. Baker. – Accuses open theists of selective use of Scripture and caricaturing classical theism.[70]
2000Pinnock, Clark (2000). Most Moved Mover: A theology of God's openness. Baker and Paternoster. – "The most passionate and articulate defense of openness theology to date."[71]
Boyd, Gregory (2000). God of the Possible: A Biblical introduction to the open view of God. Baker. – "A genuinely evangelical portrayal of the biblical God."[72]		Ware, Bruce (2000). God's Lesser Glory: The diminished God of open theism. Crossway. – "The most influential critique of open theism."[65]:  6 
2001Boyd, Gregory A. (2001). Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a trinitarian warfare theodicy. InterVarsity. – "A renewed defense of open theism" and a theodicy grounded in it.[73]Frame, John (2001). No Other God: A response to open theism. P & R.
Geisler, Norman; House, Wayne; Herrera, Max (2001). The Battle for God: Responding to the challenge of neotheism. Kregel. – "Debate seemed to turn somewhat in favor of classical theism."[65]:  6 
2002–2003Boyd, Gregory A. (2003). Is God to Blame? Beyond pat answers to the problem of evil. InterVarsity. – Attacked classical theists as "blueprint theologians" espousing a "blueprint world view".:  47, 200 Huffman, Douglas; Johnson, Eric, eds. (2002). God under Fire: Modern scholarship reinvents God. Zondervan.
Erickson, Millard (2003). What does God Know and When does He know it?: The current controversy over divine foreknowledge. Zondervan. – Attacked "open theism as theologically ruinous, dishonoring to God, belittling to Christ, and pastorally hurtful".:  371 
Piper, John; Taylor, Justin; Helseth, Paul, eds. (2003). Beyond the Bounds: Open theism and the undermining of Biblical Christianity. Crossway.
2004–2012Hasker, William (2004). Providence, Evil, and the Openness of God. Routledge Studies in the Philosophy of Religion. Routledge. – Contains appendix titled "Replies to my critics".:  187–230 Branch, Craig, ed. (2012). "Open Theism: Making God like us". The Areopagus Journal. 4 (1). The Apologetics Resource Center. – Book's stated purpose is to "demonstrate the errors of open theism".
2013–2014Ham, Garrett (2014). The Evangelical and the Open Theist: Can open theism find its place within the evangelical community?. Kindle. – Argues that proponents of open theism have a right to be called "evangelical".Scott, Luis (2013). Frustrating God: How open theism gets God all wrong. Westbow. – Declares that "open theists get God all wrong".:  xviii 
presentThe Internet brought open theists and their debate with classical theists into public view.[74] – An internet site supporting open theism is "Open theism – a basic introduction". reknew.org. May 2014.The Internet brought classical theists and their debate with open theists into public view.[74] Two internet sites supporting classical theism (from the Calvinist perspective) are: "The foreknowledge of God". desiringgod.org. and
"Open theism and divine-foreknowledge". frame-poythress.org. June 5, 2012.

See also

Footnotes

  1. ^ Retrospective lists of (approximately) open theists:
    Jowers (2005)
    names Audius and Socinus.[39]
    Sanders (2007)
    names the following as “proponents” of “dynamic omniscience”: Edgar S. Brightman, Adam Clarke, Isaak Dorner, Samuel Fancourt, Gustave T. Fechner, Billy Hibbert, William James, Lorenzo D. McCabe, Otto Pfleiderer, and Andrew Ramsay.[40]
    Boyd (2008, 2014)
    names the following as “open theists”: 4th century Calcidius, 18th–19th century T.W. Brents, Adam Clarke, Isaac Dorner, Samuel Fancourt, G.T. Fechner, J. Greenrup, Joel Hayes, Billy Hibbard, J. Jones, Jules Lequier, Lorenzo McCabe, Otto Pfleiderer, D.U. Simon, and W. Taylor.[41]
  2. ^ "For I, the Lord, have not changed": Although I keep back My anger for a long time, My mind has not changed from the way it was originally, to love evil and to hate good. — Rashi[full citation needed]
  3. ^ "God is not a man that He should lie": He has already promised them to bring them to and give them possession of the land of the seven nations, and you expect to kill them in the desert? — Rashi[full citation needed] – [See Mid. Tanchuma Mass'ei 7, Num. Rabbah 23:8] – "Would He say ...": Heb. הַהוּא. This is in the form of a question. And the Targum (Onkelos) renders, "who later relent". They reconsider and change their minds.

References

  1. ^ G. L. Bray, “Open Theism/Openness Theology,” in New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic, ed. Martin Davie et al. (London; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press; InterVarsity Press, 2016), 632.
  2. ^ Clark H. Pinnock;Richard Rice;John Sanders;William Hasker;David Basinger. The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Kindle Locations 1164-1165). Kindle Edition. Location 1162
  3. ^ Pinnock, Clark H. “Open Theism: What Is This? A New Teaching? and with Authority! (MK 1:27).” Ashland Theological Journal 2002, Vol. 34, pp: 39–53. ISSN: 1044–6494
  4. ^ Sanders, John (July 30, 2007). "An introduction to open theism". Reformed Review. 60 (2). Retrieved August 13, 2021.
  5. ^ "A brief outline and defense of the open view". ReKnew. December 30, 2007.
  6. ^ "Paths to open and relational theologies". thomasjayoord.com. For the Love of Wisdom and the Wisdom of Love. May 13, 2014. Retrieved March 7, 2020.
  7. ^ Olson, Roger E. (2004). The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 190.
  8. ^ Tuggy, Dale (2007). "Three Roads to Open Theism" (PDF). Faith and Philosophy. 24 (1): 28–51. doi:10.5840/faithphil200724135. ISSN 0739-7046.
  9. ^ Rhoda, Alan R.; Boyd, Gregory A.; Belt, Thomas G. (2006). "Open Theism, Omniscience, and the Nature of the Future" (PDF). Faith and Philosophy. 23 (4): 432–459. doi:10.5840/faithphil200623436. ISSN 0739-7046.
  10. ^ "chapter 1". The Openness of God.[full citation needed]
  11. ^ WRS Journal 12:1 (Feb 2005), 5.
  12. ^ WRS Journal 12:1 (Feb 2005), Editor's notes, inside cover.
  13. ^ Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Westminster John Knox, 1996), 251.
  14. ^ Gregory A. Boyd, God at War: the Bible and Spiritual Conflict (InterVarsity, 1997) 106.
  15. ^ John Piper, "Why I Trust the Scriptures", http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/ConferenceMessages/ByDate/2008/2629_Why_I_Trust_the_Scriptures/ (accessed October 9, 2009).
  16. ^ Jump up to:a b c Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Westminster John Knox, 1996), 117.
  17. ^ Gregory A. Boyd, Is God to Blame? Moving Beyond Pat Answers to the Problem of Evil. (InterVarsity, 2003) 42.
  18. ^ Carl F. Ellis, Jr., "The Sovereignty of God and Ethnic-Based Suffering" in Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, ed. John Piper and Justin Taylor, 124. (Crossway, 2006).
  19. ^ Greg Boyd, "How do you respond to Isaiah 48:3-5?", http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-do-you-respond-to-isaiah-483-5/
  20. ^ Jump up to:a b Talbot, "All the Good That Is Ours in Christ", in Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, ed. John Piper and Justin Taylor, 43-44 (Crossway, 2006).
  21. ^ Greg Boyd, "A Brief Outline and Defense of the Open View", http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/essays-open-theism/response-to-critics/ (accessed October 11, 2009).
  22. ^ Mark R. Talbot, "All the Good That Is Ours in Christ", in Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, ed. John Piper and Justin Taylor, 41 (Crossway, 2006).
  23. ^ Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Westminster John Knox, 1996), 115.
  24. ^ Gregory A. Boyd, "The Open Theism View", in Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, ed. James K. Beilby, Paul R. Eddy, 14 (InterVarsity, 2001).
  25. ^ James K. Beilby, Paul R. Eddy, eds., Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, 11 (InterVarsity, 2001).
  26. ^ Ronald F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison, eds., Nelson's Student Bible Dictionary: A Complete Guide to Understanding the World of the Bible (Thomas Nelson, 2005), s.v. "FALL, THE".
  27. ^ Rice, Richard (1994). "Biblical support for a new perspective". In Pinnock, Clark H.; et al. (eds.). The Openness of God: A biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God. InterVarsity.
  28. ^ Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Westminster John Knox, 1996), 109.
  29. ^ Robert Kane, "The Contours of Contemporary Free Will Debates", in The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, ed. Robert Kane, 10-11 (Oxford USA, 2005).
  30. ^ Robert Kane, "The Contours of Contemporary Free Will Debates", in The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, ed. Robert Kane, 12, 13 (Oxford USA, 2005).
  31. ^ Roger E. Olson, The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology (Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 186-187.
  32. ^ Greg Boyd, "How do you respond to Isaiah 48:3-5?", http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-do-you-respond-to-isaiah-483-5/.
  33. ^ Mark R. Talbot, "All the Good That Is Ours in Christ" in Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, ed. John Piper and Justin Taylor, 69 (Crossway, 2006).
  34. ^ Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Westminster John Knox, 1996), 279.
  35. ^ John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (InterVarsity, 1998), 268.
  36. ^ Gregory A. Boyd, God at War: the Bible and Spiritual Conflict (InterVarsity Press, 1997), 20, 291.
  37. ^ Mark R. Talbot, "All the Good That Is Ours in Christ", Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, ed. John Piper and Justin Taylor, 41 (Crossway Books, 2006).
  38. ^ Gregory A. Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil (InterVarsity, 2001), 91, n.11.
  39. ^ Jowers, Dennis W. (February 2005). "Open theism: Its nature, history, and limitations". WRS Journal. 12 (1): 4. (in print and online)
  40. ^ Sanders, John (2007). The God Who Risks: A theology of providence. InterVarsity. pp. 167, 323 note 135.
  41. ^ Boyd, Gregory A. (August 2008). "Newly discovered open theists in church history". reknew.org. Retrieved August 1, 2014. and Satan and the Problem of Evil. InterVarsity. 2001. page 91, note 11.
  42. ^ David Larson, "Richard Rice Discusses Open Theism". Spectrum Blog, 11 November 2007
  43. ^ Provonsha, Jack Wendell; Larson, David Ralph (May 1995). A conversation with Dr. Jack Provonsha, Part 1. Loma Linda Broadcasting Network. Retrieved June 9, 2023.
  44. ^ Millard J. Erickson, What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?: The Current Controversy over Divine Foreknowledge (Zondervan, 2006), 248.
  45. ^ To see documentation to verify most of the people on this list see John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence, revised edition (InterVarsity press, 2007) 166-169.
  46. ^ Classical theism
  47. ^ Creel, Richard. Divine Impassibility. p. 11.
  48. ^ St. Augustine. Confessions. Church Fathers. Book I – via newadvent.org.
  49. ^ Smith, George H. (1974). Atheism: the case against God. New York City: Nash. p. 74. ISBN 0-8402-1115-5. OCLC 991343.
  50. ^ Elseth, Howard R.; Elseth, Elden J. (1977). Did God Know? A Study of the Nature of God. Saint Paul, Minnesota: Calvary United Church. p. 23. OCLC 11208194.
  51. ^ N. T. Wright Evil and the Justice of God
  52. ^ http://andrewmbailey.com/pvi/Omniscient_Being.pdf [bare URL PDF]
  53. ^ Rhoda, Alan (February 21, 2006). "Alanyzer: Four Versions of Open Theism". Retrieved January 30, 2014.
  54. ^ Geisler, Norman L. (1997). Creating God in the Image of Man. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House. p. 96. ISBN 1-55661-935-9. OCLC 35886058.
  55. ^ Bouma, Jeremy. "Open Theism and 'Most Moved Mover': Changeability".
  56. ^ "The Early Church Fathers on Hellenism and Impassibility". Open Theism. January 28, 2014.
  57. ^ "God as Most Moved Mover". Open Theism. February 9, 2014.
  58. ^ Jump up to:a b Rice, Richard (1980). The Openness of God: The relationship of divine foreknowledge and human free will. Nashville, Tennessee: Review and Herald Pub. Association. ISBN 978-0812703030. ISBN 0812703030 – Note that the first part of this book's title was repeated by Pinnock, Rice, & Sanders (1994).
  59. ^ Piper, John (January 1, 1976). "The Sovereignty of God and Prayer". Retrieved January 30, 2014.
  60. ^ Singer, Tovia. "Monotheism". Retrieved August 19, 2013.
  61. ^ Spiro, Ken. "Jewish followers of Jesus". Seeds of Christianity. Simple to Remember. Retrieved August 19, 2013 – via simpletoremember.com.
  62. ^ Boyd, Gregory A. (2000). God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books. ISBN 080106290X. OCLC 43589372.
  63. ^ Inbody, Tyron (2005). The Faith of the Christian Church: An introduction to theology. Eerdmans. page 98, note 31.
  64. ^ Pinnock, Clark H.; Rice, Richard; Sanders, John (September 22, 1994). The Openness of God: A Biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God. Inter Varsity Press, Academic. ISBN 978-0830818525. Note that this later book has the same short title as Rice (1980).[58]
  65. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i Jowers, Dennis W. "Open Theism: Its nature, history, and limitations". WRS Journal. 12 (1).
  66. ^ Cited by Jowers:[65]:  5  Risler, James. "Open Theism". The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. University of Tennessee at Martin. ISSN 2161-0002 – via www.iep.utm.edu.
  67. ^ Larsen, Timothy; Treier, Daniel J., eds. (2007). The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology. Cambridge University Press. p. 25.
  68. ^ Jump up to:a b Back cover of cited book.
  69. ^ "Review of The God who Risks". WRS Journal. 12 (1): 31–33. February 2005.
  70. ^ Stallard, Mike (Fall 2001). "The open view of God: Does he change?". The Journal of Ministry & Theology. 5 (2): 5–25.
  71. ^ "Publisher's description". Baker Academic. Archived from the original on June 29, 2017.
  72. ^ On back cover of Brueggemann
  73. ^ "Gregory A. Boyd and the problem of evil". dts.edu (review).
  74. ^ Jump up to:a b Coffman, Elesha. "Open debate in the openness debate". Christianity Today.

Sources

Pro
  • Trinity and Process, G.Boyd, 1992
  • "Satan & the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy", Greg Boyd (2001) ISBN 0-8308-1550-3
  • The Case for Freewill Theism: a Philosophical Assessment, David Basinger, 1996, InterVarsity Press, ISBN 0-8308-1876-6
  • The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will, Richard Rice, 1980, Review and Herald Pub. Association, ISBN 0-8127-0303-0
  • The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, Clark Pinnock editor, et al., 1994, InterVarsity Press ISBN 0-8308-1852-9, Paternoster Press (UK), ISBN 0-85364-635-X (followup to Rice book includes contribution from him)
  • The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, John Sanders, revised edition, 2007. InterVarsity Press, ISBN 978-0-8308-2837-1
  • The Nature of Love: A Theology, Thomas Jay Oord, 2010. Chalice Press, ISBN 978-0-8272-0828-5
  • God, Time, and Knowledge, William Hasker, 1998, Cornell University Press, ISBN 0-8014-8545-2
  • God of the Possible, Gregory A. Boyd, 2000 reprint, Baker Books, ISBN 0-8010-6290-X
  • Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness (The Didsbury Lectures), Clark Pinnock, 2001, Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-2290-8
  • Providence, Evil, and the Openness of God, William Hasker, 2004, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-32949-3
  • Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science, Thomas Jay Oord ed., 2009, Pickwick, ISBN 978-1-60608-488-5
Con
Multiple views
  • The Sovereignty of God Debate, D. Steven Long and George Kalantizis editors, 2009 Cascade Books, ISBN 978-1-55635-217-1
  • Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: 4 Views, Bruce Ware editor, 2008, Broadman and Holman Academic, ISBN 978-0-8054-3060-8
  • Divine Foreknowledge: 4 Views, James Beilby and Paul Eddy (editors), et al., 2001, InterVarsity Press, ISBN 0-8308-2652-1
  • God and Time: Essays on the Divine Nature, Gregory E. Ganssle and David M. Woodruff (editors), 2002, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-512965-2
  • God & Time: Four Views, Gregory E. Ganssle (editor), et al., 2001, InterVarsity Press, ISBN 0-8308-1551-1
  • Predestination & Free Will, David and Randall Basinger (editors), et al., 1985, Intervarsity Press, ISBN 0-87784-567-0
  • Searching for an Adequate God, John Cobb and Clark Pinnock (Editors), et al., 2000, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ISBN 0-8028-4739-0

Further reading

External links
at No comments: