BOUND ONLY
ONCE:
The Failure Of Open Theism
Douglas Wilson, editor
Cannon Press 2001
Available at:
Local Christian
bookstore
GOD'S LESSER
GLORY
by Bruce Ware
Crossway 2002
Available at:
Local Christian
bookstore
NO OTHER
GOD
by John Frame
P & R Publishing 2001
Available at:
Local Christian
bookstore
|
NOTE
Open Theism is a relatively recent doctrine with its origin attributed mainly to Clark Pinnock
around 1980 and recently to Dr. Greg Boyd, professor of theology at Bethel College, the
educational arm of the Baptist General Conference. The doctrine has as its primary goal, a
redefinition of the nature and character of God. Its foundational principle, which allows God to be
redefined in numerous ways, is the proposition that God cannot know the future, because the
future has not yet occurred and is therefore unknowable. From this premise it is stated that God
can still predict certain events in the future and make plans for the future, since He has certain
abilities to know how man operates and thinks, but since He cannot know what the future choice
of man will actually be, the reality is that He cannot know with certainty what the future will bring
or whether He will be able to accomplish the plans that He has made. In this theology, God is a
victim of time, being confined to the present, and also a captive of, and subject to, the decisions of
man. Because of His deficiencies in knowledge, God does not always do the right thing or make
the right decision and is capable of causing unwaranted pain and suffering in the lives of
individuals. The God of Open Theism is not sovereign, not perfect, can and does make mistakes,
as a result of imperfect knowledge, for which He apologizes and regrets.
The fundamental flaw in the theology is also its basic claim, that God cannot know the future.
When the foundation is defective, then the doctrine derived from that foundation is defective also.
Open Theism defines God within the confines of the existing material universe in which man lives,
but which God created. The assumption is made that God does not exist outside of this material
universe, but He exists within, and is subject to, His own creation rather than the creation being
subject to Him. It is also assumed that there are God-created entities that have greater authority
than the God who created them. It was God who created the element of time in relation to this
universe, to which the life and existence of all proponents of Open Theism must submit. It is the
Open Theist who cannot know the future because they are subject to the properties and
boundaries of the universe established by God.
The proponents of Open Theism would presume that the element of time, although created by
God, somehow exerts a superior power over His ability to know, by restricting his knowledge
through the means of confining Him to a literal present state of being, within a finite creation. By
this view, the proponents of Open Theism deny the unlimited power of God to know the
beginning from the end and fail to understand the statement of God in Exodus 3:14, "I Am Who I
Am." It is God who is, standing always in the present, transcending the boundaries of time itself.
Rather than God being subject to the present state of time, it is time itself that is subject to the
eternal present state of God, who is past, present and future all at the same time and who sees the
beginning through the end always in the present. The Open Theist does not consider the fact that
time is a transient entity, having a beginning and ending subject to the good pleasure of
God.
This universe and time, from their beginning to end, are encompassed by the unknowable and
incomprehensible power and majesty of God who created all and continues to uphold all by His
power. It escapes the reasoning of the Open Theist that God is greater than this universe and its
limitations, and is greater than their ability to define and understand the God who was and is, even
when this universe had not been created. By what measure was God's knowledge limited prior to
His creation of the universe and time? How is it that God becomes a servant to His own created
entities? Time itself is a subjective entity even in this material universe. Time at one place can be
different from that in another; to the person traveling in space at light speed, time may even stand
still for them, while the rest of the universe continues to age at what appears to be a frantic
pace.
Was God constrained by some law greater than Himself to make the measure of time as it
appears? Could he not have changed that measure, so that what now appears as a year could be
a fraction of a second or a million years? How is the infinite God limited to the finite boundaries
of His own creation? God has created a universe at His good pleasure and He can and will change
that universe at His good pleasure, including the fabric of time itself. God is the sovereign ruler of
all that is known and all that is unknown, in this universe and whatever infinitude of spheres in
which He exists. He created the universe out of nothing, by His power and He upholds its
operation by His power. God created time by His power, and He determines whether it continues
or ceases by His power.
The open theist engages in a myopic, self-centered delusion by believing that their thoughts and
subsequent decisions have the power to change the course of God's determined will. The universe
in which the open theist exists, and its consequent inclusion of time, is but an infinitesimal speck,
itself confined, hidden and lost within the majesty and infinity of the God who is "I Am."
The hidden agenda of Open Theism is apparent, because it is opening the door for a unification of
what are now many divergent beliefs. Open Theism can embrace the Mormon church, which is
desperately seeking to appear to be mainstream Christianity, and its concept of God who is
imperfect and continually in a state of learning. Recently, Gordon Hinckley, Prophet and President
of the Mormon church, has equivocated on the historic Mormon doctine that man can become a
god. Consequently, their teaching that the god of this universe was once a man, might eventually
be placed in their archives of convenient forgetfulness, opening the way to a connection with
mainstream Christianity. The Positive Confession, Word of Faith proponents, such as Kenneth
Hagin and Kenneth Copeland, who claim that words and faith have superior power over the will
of God and can control the actions of God, and many, many groups holding to Arminian theology
in which God is subject to the choice of man, could easily embrace Open Theism with only minor
adjustments. With the charismatic experince having already united many Protestant and Catholic
groups, the meeting of the charismatic (which is exclusively Arminian in theology) and Open
Theistic theologies could further bring about a unity of unprecedented magnitude. To be
mainstream is not necessarily to adopt a biblical foundation, and in most cases that is the case.
Unity can always be achieved by adopting the lowest common denominator which, in the majority
of cases, is to deny the absolute sovereignty of God. Although masquerading under the cloak of
historic protestant orthodox belief, Open Theism is a very sinister and deceitful heresy of the
highest magnitude.
- BARRICK, WILLIAM D.
"The Opennes of God: Does Prayer Change God?"
"God did not change His mind regarding His plan for the twelve tribes; He rather altered His
timing in order to keep His promises to them. What He did in response to Moses' prayer cannot
be taken as normative action. His "change of mind" was a tool to elicit a change of response in
Moses. Moses' prayer changed Moses, not God."
- CRAIGEN, TREVOR
"Isaiah 40-48: A Sermonic Challenge To Open Theism"
"Rhetorical interrogation and appropriate vocabulary and facts characterize the first sermon in
Isaiah 40. These constitute a powerful indictment against Israel for her lack of trust in the LORD.
According to Isaiah 46, He planned the creation from outside of time and history and
implemented His plans within time and history. Isaiah 44 cites classic examples of His governance
in world history, including His naming in advance a Persian king who would decree the rebuilding
of Jerusalem. These sermons also cite the deeds of the LORD in dealing with Israel and the
nations. The sermons, though addressed to Israel as a rebuke for her idolatry, also point out the
error of Open Theism in that system's demeaning of God and exalting of
man."
- GILLEY, GARY E.
"Open Theism" parts 1, 2, 3, 4
"These are some of the issues being served on the table of open theism. It might be asked,
however, what has motivated these theologians to trade the classical view of God for this insipid
version. Ware's opinion is worth pondering, "The culture in which we live, including much of the
Christian subculture, has drunk deeply at the well of self-esteem. Where the Bible enjoins
unfettered but deeply humble 'God-esteem,' we have been conditioned to think that we should
have some of that esteem for ourselves. So, when a theology comes along that says, 'God often
doesn't make up his mind what to do until he hears first from you,' or God and you
together chart out your course for the future as both of you learn together what
unfolds,' or, 'Sometimes God makes mistakes but we need to realize that he was doing his
best,' such a view plays well with many in our culture. We feel like we are almost peers with
God."
Perhaps the Psalmist put his finger on the real problem of open theology when, in another
context, he penned God's accusation upon a wayward people by saying, You thought I was
just like you (Psalm 50:21). This is openism's problem; their God is too
human."
- MacARTHUR, JOHN F.
"Open Theism's Attack On The Atonement"
"Unfortunately, the major segment of this generation of evangelicalism seems to lack the will or
the knowledge to decide whether open theists are wolves in sheep's clothing or true reformers.
But let it be clearly stated: by any definition of evangelicalism with historical integrity, open
theism opposes the very core truths that evangelicals stand for. And by any truly biblical
definition, they are heretics, purveyors of a different gospel. Both of these charges are
substantiated by open theism's abandonment of substitutionary atonement alone."
- MAYHUE, RICHARD L.
"The Impossibility of 'God Of The Possible'"
"Open Theism in general and Greg Boyd's GP in particular have been taken "captive through
philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men . . " (Col 2:8). This view of
God, which is not a mediating position between the classical view and the Aminian view of God's
foreknowledge, is rather an extreme view outside the acceptable and reasonable boundaries of
orthodoxy. GP focuses more on God's ignorance than it does on God's omniscience. Thus,
GP is found to be biblically deficient in its own defense and is to be rejected as a heresy
which measurably distorts the biblical portrayal of God as sovereign ruler over
all."
- PETTEGREW, LARRY D.
"Is There Knowledge In The Most High?"
"For many, however, it is clear that open theists have not interpreted the teaching of the Bible
correctly, and have therefore produced a "dangerous" system. Caneday explains, "It is dangerous
not only because Sanders forges a God who resembles the image and likeness of man, but also
because he builds his argument upon artifice, misrepresentation, prejudiced and selective use of
biblical texts, pejorative remarks, and historical selectivity, all intended to induce disgust toward
the God Christians have worshiped, from the beginning, and to welcome the deity of 'open
theism.'"
- PIPER, JOHN S. 1946-present
"Answering Greg Boyd's Openness Of God Texts"
8 texts claimed by Greg Boyd to indicate the openness of God are refuted.
- PIPER, JOHN S. 1946-present
"Does God Make Mistakes"
A Response to Greg Boyd's Treatment of Jeremiah 3:6-7, 19-20
"I deal with Dr. Boyd's interpretation of Jeremiah 3:6-7, 19:20 as an example of the kind of
difficulties he gets into, even though he claims to be following a simple, face-value hermeneutic.
He gives the impression that, on the face of it, this text, and many others, are clear and simple
illustrations of God's openness to an uncertain future. But on careful examination, his own
interpretation involves problems even greater than the traditional one he rejects."
- PIPER, JOHN S. 1946-present
"The Enormous Ignorance Of God"
When God Doesn't Know The Future Choices Of Man
"For God not to know future volitions of humans is not a small ignorance but a huge one,
unimaginably huge. It is, for example, not a periodic ignorance, but a continual one; not a narrow
ignorance, but a universally human one; not an insignificant ignorance, but a tremendously
significant one; not a confined ignorance, but a diverse one (relating to all things a person can
choose)."
- PIPER, JOHN S. 1946-present
"How Open Theism Helps Us Conceal Our Hidden Idolatries"
"All of life is meant to be lived to reflect the infinite value of Christ (Philippians 1:20). We show
his infinite worth by treasuring him above all things and all persons. Believing in his all-ruling, all-
wise sovereignty helps reveal our idolatries in times of pain and loss. Not believing that God has a
wise purpose for every event helps conceal our idolatries. Thus Open Theism, against all its
conscious designs, tends to undermine a means of grace that our deceptive hearts
need."
- PIPER, JOHN S. 1946-present
"Is The Glory Of God At Stake In God's Foreknowledge Of Human
Choices?"
"Two things are crucial to note here: one is that Jesus foreknows the evil deed of Judas with
certainty. The other is that Jesus himself says that this foreknowledge is part of his glory as divine:
"I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am"
(John 13:19). If Evangelicals have a passion for the glory of Christ, we must join him in affirming,
not denying, his ability to foreknow with certainty human choices without removing moral
accountability. It's his glory to know them."
- PIPER, JOHN S. 1946-present
"Thomas Oden's Charge Of Heresy"
"Concerning The Denial Of God's Foreknowledge"
"In other words, a leading non-Calvinist evangelical theologian who is not marginal or alarmist or
fundamentalistic or narrow calls this view "heresy." He does so not in a huff behind
closed doors, but calmly and with charity in a mainstream evangelical publication. This is very
significant."
- THOMAS, ROBERT L.
"The Hermeneutics Of Open Theism"
"The Scripture furnishes numerous instances where God's sovereignty and man's free will
interplay with each other. Both are biblical teachings. For man to try to alter either one to find a
reconciliation is an attempt to eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree, an attempt of man to escape
his finitude so as to become like an infinite God. Open Theism attempts to alter biblical teaching
about God's sovereignty, and in so doing, make God like man, thus creating the likeness that
Adam and Eve sought in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:5). Such attempts will never succeed. Valid
principles of hermeneutics for understanding what God has said in His Word will not permit
it".
- THOMAS, ROBERT L.
"The Principle Of Single Meaning"
"Someone needs to sound the alarm about recent evangelical leaders who are misleading the body
of Christ. A mass evangelical exodus from this time-honored principle of interpreting Scripture is
jeopardizing the church's access to the truths that are taught therein. Whether interpreters have
forsaken the principle intentionally or have subconsciously ignored it, the damage is the same.
The only hope of escape from the pit into which so many have fallen is to reaffirm the principle of
single meaning along with the other hermeneutical principles that have served the believing
community so well through the centuries."
|
