Open Theism

[Arial]

What is Open Theism?​

by Matt Slick | Dec 9, 2008 | Minor Groups & Issues, Open Theism
Open Theism, also called openness and the open view, is a theological position dealing with human free will and its relationship to God and the nature of the future. It is the teaching that God has granted to humanity free will and that in order for the free will to be truly free, the future free will choices of individuals cannot be known ahead of time by God. They hold that if God knows what we are going to choose, then how can we be truly free when it is time to make those choices – since a counter choice cannot then be made by us, because it is already “known” what we are going to do. In other words, we would not actually be able to make a contrary choice to what God “knows” we will choose thus implying that we would not then be free.

In Open Theism, the future is either knowable or not knowable. For the open theists who hold that the future is knowable by God, they maintain that God voluntarily limits His knowledge of free will choices so that they can remain truly free. Other open theists maintain that the future, being nonexistent, is not knowable, even by God. Gregory Boyd, a well-known advocate of Open Theism says,

“Much of it [the future], open theists will concede, is settled ahead of time, either by God’s predestining will or by existing earthly causes, but it is not exhaustively settled ahead of time. To whatever degree the future is yet open to be decided by free agents, it is unsettled.”1

But open theists would not say that God is weak or powerless. They say that God is capable of predicting and ordaining certain future events because He is capable of working in the world and bringing certain events to pass when the time is needed. Therefore, God could inspire the Old Testament writers to prophesy certain events, and then He could simply ensure that those events occurred at the right time.
Furthermore, open theists claim that they do not deny the omniscience of God. They, like classical theologians, state that God is indeed all-knowing. But they differ in that God can only know that which is knowable and since the future has not yet happened, it can not be exhaustively known by God. Instead, God only knows the present exhaustively, including the inclinations, desires, thoughts, and hopes of all people.
In Open Theism God can make mistakes because He does not know all things that will occur in the future. According to them, God also takes risks and adapts to the free-will choices of people. They claim biblical support for their position by citing scripture where God changes His mind (Exodus 32:14), is surprised (Isaiah 5:3–7), and tests people to see what they will do (Genesis 22:12).
Finally, Open Theism tends to portray the God of orthodoxy as distant, controlling, and unyielding while promoting the God of openness as involved, adapting, loving, interacting, and caring for humanity.

Orthodox Christianity​

Historic Orthodox Christianity states that God knows all things, even the entirety of the future, exhaustively. 1 John 3:20 says, “…for God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.” Likewise, Peter said to Jesus in John 21:17, “…You know all things; You know that I love You…” God’s sovereignty is clearly taught in scripture, and His sovereignty is tied to His omniscience. Orthodox Christianity teaches that God is very loving, very involved, and even condescends to our level and interacts with us in a manner that we can understand. This means that we will see what appears to be instances of God changing His mind, testing, and adapting. But, this is all due to God’s working with creatures who have limited vision, short life spans, and are sinners. God must work on our level since we cannot work on His.

God and time​

The question about God’s knowledge of the future is very important because it deals with the actual definition of God’s nature in relation to the nature of the future. Is God all-knowing about the future or not? Is God existing in the future or not? Is God limited to the present or not? The answers to these questions reflect the very nature and scope of God’s existence. The open theists are pushing a description of God that reduces God from knowing all things, past, present, and future, to not knowing all things in the future. God’s omnipresence is also in jeopardy in Open Theism, since some open theists deny the existence of the future and thereby deny the omnipresence of God in the future.

Conclusion​

My opinion is that openness is a dangerous teaching that undermines the sovereignty, majesty, infinitude, knowledge, existence, and glory of God and exalts the nature and condition of man’s own free will. Though the open theists will undoubtedly say it does no such thing, it goes without saying that the God of Open Theism is not as knowledgeable or as ever-present as the God of orthodoxy.

​

 

[Sissy]

Matt Slick didn't get it quite accurately.
Open Theism teaches that God knows all possibilities.
Thus, no matter what choice of action you choose to do God can come up with a remedy for it.
Open Theism teaches that God can influence, guide, and nudge people, but does not puppeteer people.

 

[Arial]

Open Theism denies the transcendence of God and often basis their conclusions on presenting God as manlike, and man Godlike in many areas. The following quotes are taken from the OP paper and are not my voice.

It is the teaching that God has granted to humanity free will and that in order for the free will to be truly free, the future free will choices of individuals cannot be known ahead of time by God.

Its very starting premise is with man and his freewill. This would be a logical fallacy as OT, though in some places may state a support for this, the support given is nothing more than an interpretation of scriptures with the bias of freewill already in place. It takes into account only what is visible in mankind and gives no account to what God says of Himself. The Bible nowhere states that God gave us free will, or that God is any way forced into contingency by man's freewill. The view is completely linear, not vertical. We do not even need to go to the Bible to know that man has a will, and that he freely makes choices. But this does not conclude that his will is entirely free. The Bible itself says it is not when it says we are in bondage to sin. Bondage is not freedom. Though we do not sin all of the time or as badly as we could, there will inevitably be times when we sin.

Therefore, God could inspire the Old Testament writers to prophesy certain events, and then He could simply ensure that those events occurred at the right time.

But they differ in that God can only know that which is knowable and since the future has not yet happened, it can not be exhaustively known by God. Instead, God only knows the present exhaustively, including the inclinations, desires, thoughts, and hopes of all people.

Both of the above statements, while claiming they do not deny His omniscience, do that very thing, by not recognizing the transcendence of God. His complete otherness from mankind. They bring Him bound within our boundaries of time. They are in fact denying the very God of the Bible who reveals Himself as the eternal self-existent someone who created everything that is, including time.

 

[Arial]

Matt Slick didn't get it quite accurately.
Open Theism teaches that God knows all possibilities.
Thus, no matter what choice of action you choose to do God can come up with a remedy for it.
Open Theism teaches that God can influence, guide, and nudge people, but does not puppeteer people.

Just as there are branches of every ism, so to in this.

 

[Sissy]

They, like classical theologians, state that God is indeed all-knowing. But they differ in that God can only know that which is knowable and since the future has not yet happened, it can not be exhaustively known by God.

If by "exhaustively" you mean that God knows every single choice of action made by man before it happens, then you are correct that Open Theism does not teach that.
But that does not mean that God cannot know what the future will hold since no matter what move man makes God can remedy it.

It has been compared with a chess game for analogy.
Is it more impressive for someone to win because they already know what moves you will make ahead of time, or more impressive for someone that can figure out a way to win no matter what move you make?
The 1st scenario takes no intellectual power, the 2nd scenario takes great intellectual power.

 

[Arial]

If by "exhaustively" you mean that God knows every single choice of action made by man before it happens, then you are correct that Open Theism does not teach that.
But that does not mean that God cannot know what the future will hold since no matter what move man makes God can remedy it.

It has been compared with a chess game for analogy.
Is it more impressive for someone to win because they already know what moves you will make ahead of time, or more impressive for someone that can figure out a way to win no matter what move you make?
The 1st scenario takes no intellectual power, the 2nd scenario takes great intellectual power.

That quote was from the OP paper, not me. I will go back and make that clearer.

The analogy is a good one. I think God works in both ways in a sense, depending on what a particular situation we are talking about. I think He knows every choice a person will make and either He will use it as a way to fulfill His purpose, stop something, bring something about, or change the direction, whether it be in an individual's life or on a grand scale with the endgame in mind. There are countless, countless things in play every second, so I don't really think it is like a chess game with Him, though I know, just an analogy. Which can never touch the reality when it comes to analogies of God. And I think that if God knows everything that will happen and the choices people will make, it has to go deeper than just knowing about them, in a constant game of contingencies, which is the Open Theist view. It is an ordaining, yet in a way that does no violence to God's character or makes Him the cause of evil or sin. This is where His transcendence utterly baffles the capabilities of our finite minds. For one thing human responsibility and God's sovereignty run side by side, but our responsibility does not lessen His sovereignty, nor does His sovereignty lessen our responsibility.

Personally, I think the covenant of redemption is something that existed among the Father, Son and Holy Spirit before ever the world was formed. The full and complete plan was in place from the beginning in all its details, and therefore is ordained to the umpteenth degree. And this does not apply only to the purpose and fulfillment of it, but as it involves individuals being redeemed, involves the trajectory of their lives also. With God that involves all knowledge which He and He alone has. We really are quite small compared to God yet created for His glory.

 

[shroom]

This is where His transcendence utterly baffles the capabilities of our finite minds.

This is where a lot of people who hold to Reformed theology wind up. They're baffled.

 

[Arial]

This is where a lot of people who hold to Reformed theology wind up. They're baffled.

Is that a conversation or debate?

 

[shroom]

Is that a conversation or debate?

It was a statement. My opinion, with some truth to it by your own admission.

 

[Sissy]

That quote was from the OP paper, not me.

I know, but to quote what Slick said in your post I have to quote your post.

Personally, I think the covenant of redemption is something that existed among the Father, Son and Holy Spirit before ever the world was formed.

Open Theism believes that too.
Open Theism believes that God devised a plan before the creation that would remedy any and all possible actions of creation.

 

[Arial]

I know, but to quote what Slick said in your post I have to quote your post.



Open Theism believes that too.
Open Theism believes that God devised a plan before the creation that would remedy any and all possible actions of creation.

All potential actions and choices? As in, He could see all the contingencies, have a plan for each one (think of all the actions and choices and thoughts and changing thoughts and choices of all people over all time) He knew all of these, had a plan ready for each scenario and when the time came put into play the aspect of the plan that fit the situation at that moment? Just trying to understand what they mean.

 

[Sissy]

All potential actions and choices? As in, He could see all the contingencies, have a plan for each one (think of all the actions and choices and thoughts and changing thoughts and choices of all people over all time) He knew all of these, had a plan ready for each scenario and when the time came put into play the aspect of the plan that fit the situation at that moment? Just trying to understand what they mean.

It means that no matter what move creation makes, God can make a move to counter it.
And God need not know in advance every single move creation will actually make in order to do so.
His plan covered all possible moves creation could choose to make.