VERITAS
"The Man-Made God of Open Theism"
By Craig Branch
March 2004

Theological controversy has always been a part of the Church’s experience and will continue to be until Christ returns. It is something that we cannot ignore. Scripture explicitly and repeatedly warns us about false teachers who are either unlearned or unruly. The effect of false teachers is harm to the body. Moreover, there are the accompanying passages admonishing us to be of sound doctrine so that among other things we may “refute those who contradicts” so that it will be obvious to all in the Church, for their protection and well being. (Read Titus 1:9-13; 2:6-10; 2 Timothy 4:1-4; 2:14-18; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, 12-15).

The above passages are speaking of rank heretics, both inside and outside the visible church (wolves in sheep’s clothing, Matthew 7:15). But even fellow believers who are teaching some error, more knowledgeable believers are to point out “the way of God more accurately” to them (Acts 18:24-26). This is the purpose of this issue of Areopagus.

One of the principles of the Reformation is semper reformanda (always reforming) which means that we should be ever diligent to test even our traditions by the Word of God via sound scholarship. But this involves always looking to Scripture to form our philosophy, theology, and practice—not to first bring our ideas to Scripture.

One of the most persistent theological controversies that has always been a part of the Church’s experience has been trying to reconcile the parallel truths of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. It began with Augustine and Pelagius, and continued with Luther and Erasmus, Calvin and Arminius, Whitfield, and Wesley.

Today, however, this debate is taking a more radical, even controversial form. The theological construct is being called “Open Theism” or “Free-Willism.” It was introduced more to the public in 1994 with the publication of The Openness of God, by five evangelical scholars, including its editor, Clark Pinnock, as well as John Sanders and Gregory Boyd.

I say “more radical” because even most Christians who emphasize the human agency or responsibility of the equation (free will, Areminianism) over the sovereignty of God side (predestination, Calvinism), also reject the “Open Theism” doctrine as heretical. Although it is a bit ironic in that “Open Theism” is a logical and consistent extension of Arminianism.

Open Theism date states that God limits Himself in His interaction with the human race. Because God made man with a free will or agency, He neither predetermines nor foreknows their moral choices. They point to the language in the Bible that God “repents” or changes His mind based on what man has done/will do. Open Theism also says that God chooses not to know everything that will happen in advance because His foreknowledge and activity are contingent on what man does. The “Open” in Open theism is described by Sanders who state, “God is open to what we do. What we do makes a difference to what God decides to do” (Religious News Service, undated, Adelle M. Banks, “Evangelical Group Retains Two Scholars Despite ‘Open Theism’ Views”).

This issue and its implications are serious enough to have dominated the agenda of the last several annual sessions of the 54 year old Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) made up of some 800 members. The doctrinal criteria for membership is an affirmation of the Bible’s “inerrancy” and the Trinity. The debate on Open Theism began to really accelerate in 2001 when the ETS passed a resolution rejecting Open Theism and stated, “God has complete, accurate, and infallible knowledge of all events, past, present and future, including all future decisions and actions of free moral agents.”

Last year, a founding member of ETS, Roger Nicole of Reformed Theological Seminary brought formal charges for the expulsion of ETS members Clark Pinnock and John Sanders on the basis that the teachings in respective books violated the ETS view of inerrancy (Greg Boyd is not a member of ETS). During the year, the Executive Committee of ETS investigated the charges and recommended the expulsion of Sanders 7-2 to the membership. Pinnock avoided the recommendation by agreeing to change some of the wording of his book. This November the ETS, after much discussion and debate, voted to retain Pinnock and Sanders. However, Sanders barely escaped expulsion with 63% of the votes going against him, barely short of the required 67%.

A number of members, including a former ETS president Dr. Norman Geisler, resigned from ETS stating that the society had lost claim to being evangelical. Dr Al Mohler , president of the Southern Baptist’s flagship school, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville stated, “The big issue before ETS right now is whether this is a society of evangelical theologians or a society about evangelical theology. There’s a critical distinction between these two ideas” (Crosswalk.com, “A Referendum on Open Theism,” Russell Shubin, Salem Communications, no date). William Lane Craig stated, “We are here beginning to sense the inadequacy of the ETS doctrinal statement as a filter for doctrinal heresy” (Ibid.).

John Sanders called those who tried to expel him the “evangelical Taliban” and maintains that Open Theism is, “part of a tradition of reform in church thought” (Christian Century, Dec. 12, 2001, Eve Gorski, “Evangelical Theologians Reject ‘Open Theism’”).

We do not want you to think this is a “hair splitting” exercise of no real meaning or consequences followed by a bunch of ivory tower theologians. Heresy doesn’t arrive in its full form. It often begins very small and grows. And heresy, especially about the nature of God, will have serious immediate consequences and for eternity.

The methodology and conclusions reached by open theists corrupts the way the Bible is understood and interpreted, our understanding of prayer, of evangelism, trials and tragedy, and in a direct affront to God’s nature and character. For example, open theists would say that there is no point in praying for a sick child if God already knows and has determined what the outcome of the illness would be. The same would be true for praying for someone’s salvation. They challenge even praying for wisdom or making a right decision if God has already decided for you in advance. They ask how we can even love anyone if God has determined everything. They say, “How can I truly love if there is not true free will or choice?”

John Sanders began his errant journey when his brother was tragically killed in a motorcycle accident. When he asked God and his friends, “Why was my brother killed?”, they responded that it was part of God’s plan to help Sanders accept Jesus as his savior. Sander in turn asked, “God killed my brother so that I would become a Christian?” Unfortunately, he is still in the dark (Washington Post, November 8, 2003, page B9, Bill Broadway, “Redefining Omniscience”).

Clark Pinnock sets forth the importance of this subject in the Preface of his book, The Openness of God. He writes, “No doctrine is more central than the nature of God. It deeply affects our understanding of the incarnation, grace, creation, election, sovereignty and salvation…One’s views of God has a direct impact on practices such as prayer, evangelism, seeking divine guidance and responding to suffering” (p. 8). He also presents the dilemma. He notes that open theists “were challenged by certain texts of Scripture that did not fit with the accepted understanding of the diving nature.” He points out that Christians “who believe that God cannot change His mind sometimes pray in ways that would require God to do that…[or] who make use of the free will defense for the problem of evil, sometimes ask God to get them a job or spouse, or to keep them from being harmed, implying that God should override the free will of others in order to achieve these ends” (Ibid.).

The contributors in this journal will demonstrate the errors of human philosophy or reasoning and a faulty approach to the Scriptural revelation of God to us. Dr Bruce Ware, Associate Dean of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a member of the Executive Committee of the Evangelical Theological Society leads off with “The Demise of Christian Faith and Hope With the Diminished God of Open Theism” (and that’s just the title). Ware points out that the affinities of Open Theism with Arminianism and then notes that open theists are “disturbed” that many Arminians are not with them as they see their particular views as consistent. Wares sets forth the basic affirmations of Open Theism, contrasting them with traditional Atheism and attempts to demonstrate the faulty logic and weakness of their positions.

Next is Dr. A. B. Caneday, Professor of New Testament Studies and Biblical Theology at Northwestern College, who writes, “How Open Theists Interpret the Bible.” He charges that Open Theists make the mistake of beginning with a “philosophically forged” view of God and then have come to the Bible for support. Caneday strikes at the heart of open theists’ claim of Biblical support of their position, demonstrating their misunderstanding and misapplication of metaphor, “literal interpretation” and anthropomorphisms in the Bible. For example, when Greg Boyd challenges the traditional understanding of Jeremiah 26:2-3 by saying, “If God never changes His mind, then He must be lying” in this passage. In addition to Caneday’s response , I am amazed at Boyd’s inconsistency. Boyd is a former Oneness Pentacostal who denied the Trinity and wrote a marvelous book exposing that heresy. He should understand the faulty use of language & proof texts on the nature of God.

And lastly, we commend Dr. R. K. McGregor Wright of the Aquila and Priscilla Study Center and his article, “The Key to the Openness Theory.” He explains that the “theory of free will is of a libertarian or autonomist freedom is unknown in Scripture,” and seeks to bring a balanced Biblical perspective to bear.

In closing, I must agree with Justin Tayler in his introduction to a wonderful book, Beyond the Bounds, edited by John Piper, Tayler, and Paul Helseth (Piper, Tayler, and Helseth, 2003). He summarizes what is at stake: “Does Open Theism logically undermine the essentials of our faith, including the inerrancy of Scripture, the trust worthiness of God, and the Gospel of Christ?” You be the judge.

Craig Branch is the Director of the Apologetics Resource Center, Birmingham , Alabama.

Order an annual subscription to Areopagus Journal.

(top)