What does God know, and when does God know it?
That is the question of late in evangelical circles as scholars debate a view
known as open theism.
Traditional Christian theology says God is sovereign and omniscient
– having perfect knowledge of all things. At the same time, humans have
free will, setting up a classic paradox – if God already knows what one
is going to decide to do, does one really have freedom of choice?
What does God know, and when does God know it?
That is the question of late in evangelical circles as scholars debate a view
known as open theism.
Traditional Christian theology says God is sovereign and omniscient
– having perfect knowledge of all things. At the same time, humans have
free will, setting up a classic paradox – if God already knows what one
is going to decide to do, does one really have freedom of choice?
Within that paradox, open theists take another approach. They
say God does not know exact details of the future, because it will be shaped
by human decisions. Thus, the future is “open,” rather than predetermined.
The debate has percolated in the Southern Baptist Convention.
In 1999, messengers passed a resolution affirming the traditional view. In 2000,
they approved a revision to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message that affirms
God as all-powerful and all-knowing.
Recently, the Evangelical Theological Society also voted to
reject open theism. That prompted a statement by other scholars, deploring what
they said is a tendency to “define the boundaries of evangelical faith
and life too narrowly.”
Evangelicals should not be so hasty to close the door on the
open theism debate, said a trio of scholars, including Roger Olson of George
W. Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor University. The trio urged evangelical
leaders “to make room for reverent exploration of new ideas and reconsideration
of old ones without assuming too quickly that we know what Scripture clearly
does and does not teach.”
Meanwhile, the debate continues.
Advocates of open theism say their view provides answers to
serious questions, such as what happens in prayer.
“There is no single, universally agreed-on definition
of open theism,” said Olson, who added he is not an open theist but takes
the view seriously. “Generally speaking, … it is the belief that God
is truly personal and interactive with people, such that the effectual,
fervent prayers of Gods people can make a genuine difference in
the way God acts. …
“Open theism says that God has freely chosen to limit
himself so that he does not foreordain or cause all that happens,” Olson
explained. “The future is partly open because it depends on what human
persons decide to do.”
The idea is a pragmatic one, said Wallace Roark, professor
of Christian studies at Howard Payne University in Brownwood, Texas. “Open
theism is an effort to bring our doctrine and our practice into harmony,”
he said. “Open theism is the theology most Christians actually live by.”
John Sanders is professor of religion and philosophy at Huntington
College in Huntington, Ind., and author of “The God Who Risks.” He
cited five principles of open theism:
Sovereign God freely determined to create humans
capable of experiencing Gods love.
Although totally free and sovereign, Gods
love for people led God to base some actions on what people do.
In divine wisdom, God exercises “general”
rather than “meticulous” providence – or control – over
the future.
God has given people the freedom necessary to establish
“a truly personal relationship of love” with God.
God – who indeed is omniscient – “knows
all that can be known or all he wants to know.”
Open theists cite both biblical and theological reasons for
their beliefs. For instance, at least three dozen biblical texts report God
changing his mind – and open theists interpret these literally. For them,
the key is Scriptures portrayal of God as loving and personal.
“And to be both loving and personal is to interact,”
Olson explained. “A being who cannot be acted upon – who cannot be
affected by other persons – is neither truly personal nor loving. The God
of the Bible is a God who goes on a journey through history with his people.
He remains superior to them in his omnipotence, but he condescends to allow
them to affect his smaller plans and ways.”
Open theists contend that if God is immutable – cannot
be changed – there is no reason for intercessory prayer. Why pray for people
and causes if the future is determined and God will not change it?
“Open theists argue that their view of God and Gods
foreknowledge is consistent with the ordinary Christians prayer life,”
Olson stressed. “Christians pray as if their prayers can make a real difference
in the way God acts.”
Open theists also say their approach helps explain evil and
suffering, allowing freedom to be misused to . Since freedom is a necessary
component for reciprocating divine love, they contend it can be misused to do
evil. That is the price humanity pays for the opportunity to experience Gods
love, they explain.
Appraisals of open theism by opponents range from “it
is inadequate” to “it is heresy.”
Open theism undermines the deity of both God and Jesus, as
well as the inerrancy of Scripture, noted Bruce Ware a professor at Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., and a vocal opponent of open
theism.
Ware insisted evangelicalism must have boundaries. “Open
theisms denial of what Scripture teaches and what all historic views affirm
constitutes a departure that is biblically, theologically, and practically so
serious in nature, that Christian leaders should declare open theism unacceptable
as a viable, legitimate model within evangelicalism,” he said in “Gods
Lesser Glory,” his book on open theism.
Such rejection is justified and required, Ware added.
“Are there not times when faithfulness to God, Scripture
and divine calling require the … drawing of lines and calling something out
of bounds? … Before us is a question of enormous theological and practical
importance, clearly one of the most critical for our generation and those to
follow.”
Ware said substitutionary atonement – the belief that
Jesus death on the cross substituted for the eternal punishment that all
humans deserve – is invalidated by open theism. That is because Jesus could
not have known who would be conceived and later sin in the future, he said.
A.J. Conyers said the open theism approach oversimplifies some
vital but complex ideas about the nature of God. “It obscures the fact
that Christianity begins in a paradox, namely the incarnation of God in Christ,”
said Conyers, a professor at Truett Seminary.
Although humanly illogical, God could have exhaustive, definite
foreknowledge of events and be never changing, even while giving humans freedom
and experiencing a loving, personal relationship with them, he insisted.
Proper handling of such divine paradox is key to Christian
theology, and open theism fails at this point, Conyers said.
However, Conyers stopped short of calling open theism heresy.
Instead, he characterized it as “off target.”
Meanwhile, Olson said evangelicals and traditional Baptists
should make room for dialogue with open theists.
“The open theists are not arguing against Scripture; they
are arguing against a traditional interpretation of Scripture,” he noted.
“Their unanimous appeal is to Scripture itself and not to philosophy or
experience or tradition. While they respect and use those sources and norms,
they do not rely on them over or against the Bible.”
“Open theism will always remain at most a minority
report within evangelical Christian and Baptist circles,” Olson predicted.
“Rather than get all worked up about it and go on a witch hunt to root
out open theists, lets keep discussion about it open, civil and constructive.”
(This article includes information from an Associated Baptist Press release
by Marv Knox of the Texas Baptist Standard and Michael Foust of Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary)