On another thread, the subject of open theism came up and a debate between myself and “västergötland” ensued. I quoted John Piper’s words of introduction to the book ”Beyond the Bounds”, where Piper identifies open theism as a Christ-dishonoring heresy. västergötland replied by saying Piper’s comments were “easy” and “cheap”, and he implied that I was only superficially treating the book under discussion by limiting my quotes to the introduction.
FYI, I was not refering to a few sentences of the introduction. Those are claims and had they stood alone they would carry no weight whatsoever with anyone who didnt already believe them to be true. Read a whole chapter and see if that changes the perception somewhat?
Saying it is “a dishonor to Christ” is easy and cheap, showing that it is so is an entierly different issue.
I want to thank västergötland for challenging me to dig deeper into this book, because it has been edifying and has confirmed what I concluded independently—that open theism is fundamentally destructive to the Christian faith and as such, should unquestionably be considered heresy.
To substantiate these claims and in response to västergötland, I will conclude this post with quotes from every part of the book he has challenged me to read. I encourage others to read this book, or at least prayerfully consider the quotes I’ve assembled here.
May we disagree with humility, but be united in devotion to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Greg
Beyond the Bounds : Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity
Edited by John Piper, published 2007
Introduction
“Open theism teaches a sub-Christian view of God that is unworthy of a robust biblical faith. I have no sympathy for this view and think it would be a great mistake for evangelicals to welcome it within the bounds of tolerable theological diversity.”
“[Open theism] so redefines the God of the Bible and of theology that we wind up with a different God.”
“[Open theism] ultimately portrays a different God than the God of the Bible.”
Part One
“Openness advocates cannot sustain their claim that the Fathers incorporated Greek philosophy into the church’s theology. Sanders cites no evidence; Boyd furnishes only his estimation. Granted, Sanders and Boyd appeal to a few similarities between Greek philoosophy and Christian theism, but these similarities do not prove that the Fathers synthesized biblical and Greek philosophical ideals into the church. They have not proved and cannot prove their assertions. They simply beg the question. To prop up their faltering claim and to sidestep their obligation to prove their claim, Sanders and Boyd must put the infection of Greek philosophy into the church before the earliest of the Fathers. This neatly and artfully explains everything: why all the Fathers were duped, and why no evidence exists to prove when the infection occurred—everything just happened so early. The claims of Sanders and Boyd are more like a modern conspiracy theory—the lack of evidence only confirms the conspiracy—than actual history.”
“Clearly, Christians must reject the claims of the openness view: its historical claims are misinformed...its theology is misguided...and its exegesis is mistaken.... In the end, the openness view requires too much. It requires us to believe that Christians and Jews have misunderstood history, theology, and exegesis for thousands of years. It requires a new history and a new exegesis to support its new theology. It then requires a new hymnbook, a new prayer book, and a new liturgy. Next it requires a new Bible, and finally, a new God. It requires too much; it supplies too little.”
“...open theism has some characteristics which, in my opinion, make it more susceptible to synthesis and infection from alien thought forms. One problem lies in its tendency to seek the more bizarre interpretations of Scripture and to prefer them above other options. This is repeatedly seen in Boyd’s warfare volumes, and is the reason why his theology has a modified Manichaean flavor. Here is another difficulty—the rear-guard action which Boyd (especially) employs to make his hermeneutics work. As I noted earlier, he has to switch gears repeatedly between the times when God does know tomorrow and the times when he does not. These manifold hermeneutical adjustments eventually make his proposal less and less believable, and make it seem more and more as if he is constantly repairing the roof over his theological work shed. But perhaps the most insidious problem with open theism, the one which makes it the most susceptible to dogmatic infection by alien theological viruses, is its commitment to contemporary culture as a source for theological knowledge. It is this which infuses feminism, relationalism, processism, and even Marcionism into the mix.”
Part Two
“Compatibalists believe that when God elects to change a human heart, he acts irresistibly—’For we know, brothers loved by God, that [God] has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction’ (1 Thess. 1:4-5). Such irresistible grace is anathema to Sanders. Irresistible grace, he concedes, ‘may be thought of positively as divine liberation from an invincible prison.’ Yet it ‘may also be seen negatively as divine rape because it involves nonconsensual control....Of course, the desire God forces on the elect is a beneficent one—for their own good—but it is rape nonetheless.‘ Libertarians [open theists], in contrast, hold that ‘God does not rape us, even for our own good.’”
“When, by God’s grace, [the author realized the problems with open theism], then libertarian claims about love and fellowship and freedom began to sound a bit thin. I realized that sometimes real love must act without the beloved’s consent. Sometimes nonconsensual, unilateral action is necessary if there is to be ay possibility of interpersonal love and personal freedom. Suppose I find my wife unconscious and in cardiac arrest. In that condition, she will never love or exercise any kind of personal freedom if I do not work to revive her without her consent. Indeed, my love drives me to act without obtaining her consent. Whether love must act without the beloved’s consent depends on the condition that the beloved is in. Compatibilists believe the Scripture asserts—and deeper Christian experience corroborates—that, until God regenerates us, all human beings are not merely spiritually sick but actually spiritually dead in our sin (Eph. 2:1).”
“...sincere Christians appreciate honest efforts to take God’s words seriously. Christians who have been living off a meager diet of sermons only tangentially related to the text of Scripture will find in the writings of Greg Boyd or John Sanders an attitude about Scripture that is refreshing. Malnourished believers are extremely unlikely to see the role that openness presuppositions about love and freedom are playing. What they’ll see and feel is an invitation to take the Bible seriously. Since careful attention to Scripture is crucial to leading people away from openness thinking, any rejection of the movement must not squelch this legitimate desire.”
“The interest open theists take in [history] isn’t the problem. Rather it is their inconsistent approach to it. They insist that the ancient church was easily carried off by Greek thought. Yet they confidently assume that they are not being unduly influenced by twentieth-century thinking about freedom, love, and power. This confidence leads them to cast aside two millennia of Christian consensus too easily. Like jurors who overturn the presumption of innocence on the basis of a strong hunch, they overturn the presumption of the Holy Spirit’s past guidance on the basis of their strong intuitions about love and freedom.”
“Lamentably, [open theism’s] answers come only at the cost of God’s majesty. While the proponents of openness are aware that their solutions involve whittling away at God’s traditional attributes, to most people such costs are too subtle and abstract to matter. Open theists believe that the gains, however, are gripping and concrete. Critics of the openness view may believe that this is a higher price than God’s Word allows us to pay for intellectual satisfaction and psychological solace, but we must not overlook the reality of the intellectual and psychological needs that make open theism attractive. Even though the openness solutions are false and ultimately injurious, these questions are real and deserve attention that is accessible and sensitive. Even when their work injures the church, open theists should not be faulted for addressing these troubling questions.”
“Cultural trends and evolving thinking about church identity have provided fertile soil for the growth of open theism. But the speed of its move into the mainstream has also depended on the failure of efforts to impede it. Critics of openness have been sounding an alarm, but in general the God-ordained means for protecting God’s flock are malfunctioning. While many strategies could effectively arrest the spread of openness influence, the only authority that can legitimately command obedience is the collective judgment of overseers set apart by ordination. Conservative scholars may be able most clearly to explain the dangers posed by open theism’s understanding of God and his dealings with his people, but only ordained overseers have the biblical authority to condemn the error. Open theists have enjoyed the absence of effective resistance because the link that should exist between academics and ordained overseers is broken.”
“While defenders of open theism insist that they are only attempting to correct the defects in the traditional understanding of God, the God open theism is conveniently consistent with the kind of deity that American evangelicals will find comfortable. ...I am...struck by the way the open God fits current American expectations about power, freedom, mystery, and community. Even if proponents of openness were motivated by zeal to rescue the God of the Bible from Greek distortions, what they have produced is a God of American distortions. In the place of a static tyrant, they have erected the ultimate American parent. The God of open theism is soothingly free from mystery and gratifyingly zealous to affirm our autonomy.”
Part Three
“There are two things to observe concerning Boyd’s comments. First, Boyd is correct when he says that God does not know the future by pre-observation; he knows the future because he has planned it. In this regard, we are like God. We do not anticipate future events by clairvoyance. Anticipation of our relationship to tomorrow or next month derives from our plans, ineffective as they are. Second, Boyd commits the referential fallacy; he inverts the analogy implicit throughout Isaiah 46:8-11, by taking the analogue’s knowledge as the measure of God’s knowledge. He has the analogy upside down. Instead, our knowledge of the future is like God’s knowledge. Of course, the dissimilarities between our knowing and God’s knowing are astronomical. His knowledge is sure, because his purpose is effective; our knowledge is uncertain because our plans are ineffective. Therefore, to imagine God to have knowledge of the future with human-like restrictions, when he speaks of ‘my purpose’ and ‘what I have planed,’ as Boyd contends, is to turn on its head the Lord’s words, ‘I am God, and there is none like me.’ Isaiah seeks to shatter this icon. God’s knowledge of the future is a distinctive attribute of deity that sets him apart from gods carved out in the likeness of God’s image, namely humans.”
“Despite his claims to the contrary, Boyd’s reasoning brings the Creator down to the creature’s level, for he reasons, what is true for the creature must be true for the Creator. Strange as it may seem, open theists believe that classic Christian beliefs about God’s knowledge of the future ‘bring the Lord down to our level.’ At the same time, they chastise and mock belief that God accommodate himself to his creatures when he reveals himself.”
“...open theism claims to be biblical. But where Reformed theology recognizes Scripture alone as the source of theology, while experience, reason, and tradition are treated as significant influences, open theists adopt the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral, with Scripture as the first but not sole normative source. In a pervious work Pinnock reasoned, ‘Just as Augustine came to terms with ancient Greek thinking, so we are making peace with the culture of modernity.’ Yet one would be hard-pressed to find Augustine sharing Pinnock’s assessment of such direct dependence. Pinnock writes, ‘As an open theist, I am interested in such authors as Hegel, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Whitehead because they make room in their thinking for ideas like change, incarnation and divine suffering...’”
“If it is wrong to dismiss open theism as simply a revival of Socinianism or a lackey of process theism, it is just as erroneous to conclude that open theism represents a noble stream of Christian thought. No group generally recognized as ‘orthodox’ or ‘catholic’ (Eastern or Western)—that is, belonging to the mainstream Christian tradition—has ever denied God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, atemporality, aseity, simplicity, or immutability, as those terms have been historically understood.”
“If Calvinism represented even in broad terms the description given to it especially by Pinnock, it could hardly have unleashed the energies for dynamic Christian action in missions, social compassion, education and the arts, vocation, and countless other enterprises which it has in fact unleashed. Many of us fail to recognize Reformed theology in his polemical descriptions of it.”
Part Four
“[In open theism] God must respond and adapt to surprises and to the unexpected. As Pinnock states, ‘God sets goals for creation and redemption and realizes them ad hoc in history. If Plan A fails, God is ready with Plan B.’ Thus, says Pinnock, because of God’s creation of human beings with libertarian freedom, the sovereign God delegates power to the creature, making himself vulnerable. Sovereignty does not mean that nothing can go contrary to God’s will, but that God is able to deal with any circumstances that may arise.”
“As has already been stated, the God of open theism is a risk taker. Accordingly, the implication is not only that God lacks exact and infallible knowledge of the contingent future but also that, as David Basinger argues, ‘It can no longer be said that God is working out his ideal, preordained plan. Rather, God may well find himself disappointed in the sense that this world may fall short of the ideal world God wishes were coming about.’”
“...even after all the caveats have been factored in, open theists must affirm that a God with only present knowledge must take risks. For if God makes decisions that depend for their outcomes on the responses of free creatures in which the decisions themselves are not informed by knowledge of the outcomes, then creating and governing such a world is, in the words of William Hasker, ‘a risky business.’”
“...given the fact that prophecies have taken place, then, given the claims of Scripture, they must necessarily come to pass and thus be true. But, once again, if one denies that God is able to know future contingents, then how does one explain how God can know that these prophecies will truly come to pass? Would it not be more consistent to affirm that God possibly has erred or might err on these matters? But if one were to admit that, then how would one also affirm that Scripture is an infallible and inerrant revelation on all areas that it touches, including the prophetic realm? It seems that the openness proposal faces a serious dilemma. Either reject the inerrancy of Scripture and admit that God can only give us probabilities about the future, or reject the openness proposal regarding divine omniscience for the traditional view of God’s exhaustive knowledge of the future and retain the doctrine of inerrancy. At least on the surface, there seems to be no other option.”
“What, then, should we conclude about the relationship between the openness proposal regarding divine omniscience and the doctrine of Scripture? Does the proposal uphold or undermine a high view of Scripture, or does it have very little impact? It would seem that the openness proposal does have some very significant implications for one’s doctrine of Scripture. Two points need to be made in this regard. First, even though it is logically possible for someone to affirm simultaneously an openness view of divine foreknowledge and the doctrine of inerrancy by believing that God, as well as the biblical authors, ‘just happened’ to get everything right, it is certainly highly improbable. In fact, I see no explanation forthcoming as to show how open theists are able to affirm that God can guarantee that what he predicts will in fact come true.
Second, even if one desired to affirm the doctrine of inerrancy and open theism at this point of predictive prophecy, how would one attempt to do so? Inductively, one could not now make the affirmation that Scripture is inerrant since there would be no way to know until the eschaton whether God and the biblical authors just happened to get it right. Deductively, one could not now make the affirmation either since not one of us could say with assurance that God is able to guarantee that all of his promises and predictions will come to pass given the openness view of divine foreknowledge. Thus, even though it is logically possible to affirm open theism and inerrancy in regard to predictive prophecy, similar to its implications with the doctrine of inspiration, it is highly improbable that such a view will yield an inerrant set of passages that predict future events.”
“...open theists must seriously reconsider their proposal on the relationship between divine sovereignty-omniscience and human freedom because it leads to insurmountable problems for a high view of Scripture, particularly the doctrine of inerrancy. ...the openness proposal undermines: (1) any kind of guarantee that either the human authors will freely write precisely what God wanted written, or that what God predicts will in fact come to pass; and (2) a strong epistemological grounding to our belief in and defense of the inerrancy of Scripture.”
“...open theists should not be surprised that other evangelicals find their views unacceptable and outside the limits of biblical orthodoxy. Evangelicals are willing to think through theological matters time and time again in light of Scripture. But when proposals arise that have implications that undermine the very basis for an authoritative and inerrant Bible, it should come as no surprise that many of us will find these proposals problematic, unwarranted, and unbiblical. The price is too great. Open theism must be rejected, at least on this count: it undercuts that which is foundational to Christian theology—the sovereign, self-attesting triune God who speaks with all authority, knowledge, and wisdom, through human authors, in a true, faithful, and inerrant manner.”
“Much of the gospel, for open theism, is God’s contingency plan for the human race, not his set plan, determined in eternity past, by which the future sin of humans, and the future redemption from sin in Christ, are eternally set verities.”
“[In open theism] it is certainly the case that it is impossible, before creation, for God to know the future salvation of sinners, contrary to what orthodoxy has claimed.”
“If sin is a mere possibility, perhaps even an implausibility before Genesis 3 [as taught in open theism], then no set plan would already be in place. The gospel, however, announces God’s eternal and set purpose to save, which means he knows the sin that will occur and he has already planned for our rescue before he even creates.”
“Consider your own existence. Could God have known from eternity past that you would exist? On openness grounds, absolutely not. Consider the contingencies. Your parents decide to marry—yes, that particular man and woman, not another pair (which God could not have known in advance). And, they decide whether to have children, whether to use birth control or not, how many children to have, and in all this the genetic combinations vary for each possible conception. None of this God can know ahead of time. What is true of you is, of course, true also for each of your parents, and their parents, and so on all the way back to the garden. The fact is, God can no more know now who will be born a year from right now than you or I can.”
“It is evident that the eternal plan and design of the gospel, if open theism is accepted, must be strictly a contingency plan. Consider the difficulty God faces: If sin occurs, then I’ll know that I’ll need to save, God must reason. Further, when people (beyond the initial pair) come into existence, then I’ll know whether these particular individuals might possibly be subjects of my salvation. Of course, since I don’t know how long they will live, or what choices they will make, I will only “choose” to save them at the moment that they trust in My Son, for only then will I know they exist and believe.”
“How much of God’s plans must now be seen not as certain, wise, and dependable, but as contingent, probabilistic (at best), and subject to massive revision and possible failure. If God cannot know future free choices and actions, there is virtually nothing about the future of humankind he could know prior to creation. This implication is staggering, and is contrary to Scriptures teaching of God’s set purpose and plan, in eternity past, to choose and save fallen people through his Son’s future definite act of redemption.”
“The problem [of contingencies] does not end with Abraham, however. Many generations separate Abraham from the ultimate fulfillment in the seed who would come as the blessing to the nations, Jesus the Christ. What are we to say of this succession of seed-bearers, as we might call them, who are conceived and born, generation by generation, in the line of Abraham? Given God’s total inability to know, for any time future, just who would be conceived and born, how long they would live, what actions and choices might make up their lives—how remarkable that God could predict in Genesis 12 that Abraham’s seed would remain, and that the Messiah would come in his very line. Given the variables over roughly 2,000 years of human history that stand between Abraham and Christ, given God’s total ignorance of the totality of future free choices and actions in human history at any time and every time future, and given God’s inability to control or regulate the free choices and actions of his human creatures, one can only marvel at the promise of God in Genesis 12 and stand incredulous before the question of how God could have pulled this off. Is the openness interpretation of this (and so many more!) promise satisfying? Does it account for the theology and history of Scripture? Surely this promise is a witness, not to God’s ignorance of so much of the future as demanded by the open view, but to his full knowledge and accurate predictions of all that would take place.”
“What is clear, then, is that both the plan and promise of God to bring about salvation through the seed of Abraham, and the actual saving actions of God in his justification of sinners and through the sacrificial system’s atoning efficacy, are undercut and shown to be strictly impossible if the open view is accepted. What massive gospel harm is done in the Old Testament period itself when it is denied of God that he can know the future free choices and actions of moral beings. Neither those free choices and actions of Abraham, Sarah, Abraham’s line over 2,000 years, nor of Christ himself, could be known; and hence, no promise of salvation or any saving activity itself could be grounded and secured. Only when God knows the full future of human action and choice can God secure these realities in ways that accord clearly with Old Testament theology and history, as Scripture would have us believe and affirm.”
“Is there any hint in Scripture that the resurrection of Christ, when as yet a future reality, was uncertain? Are we led to think that God’s ultimate victory over sin and death is really a risky venture in which God might possibly fail? And yet how many (!) free moral choices and actions are connected to the events leading up to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ? But God pronounced with certainty and full authority hundreds of years in advance that his Son would not suffer decay. A certain resurrection requires a certain crucifixion, which requires God’s foreknowledge of all those human choices and actions affecting these central events. The open view simply cannot account for what Scripture demands: the absolute and fixed plan and prediction of God regarding his Son’s future and certain death and resurrection.”
“Because God cannot know in advance just who will be living at any and every point of human history, therefore, when Christ died on the cross, he simply could not, in any real sense, have substituted for ‘you’ or for ‘me’ in his death and payment for sin. While his death could have been quite literally in the place of, or as a substitute for, those living up to the point of his death, this could not be the case with those to be conceived and born yet future. While advocates of limited and unlimited atonement differ over those for whom Christ died, all agree that when he died, he died in the place of sinners, i.e., actual sinful people whose deaths and payments for sin he took upon himself. Hence, the substitutionary nature of the atonement can obtain only if God knows not only those prior to Christ’s death but also those yet future for whom Christ died.”
“Finally, the Christian church has ever rejoiced in the hope of the certain victory of God over all that stands against him. And this hope has been understood not only to include God one day bringing an end to the world as we know it, but centrally that when he does consummate history, he will have accomplished what he purposed and designed for this world. But of this, we simply cannot be sure, if the open view is accepted. After all, to the extent that one holds that God took a significant risk in his creation of the world, one must admit that it may turn out that God gets less than he wanted. How much less? The fact is, we simply cannot know. The gospel—that announces to those in Christ the surety of our lives in God’s hands and the confidence of knowing that God’s purposes will succeed—becomes less than good news if the open view is accepted. Consider the implications for life now and beyond when one denies of God his exhaustive knowledge of the future.
1. Open theism’s denial of God’s exhaustive definite foreknowledge undermines the Christian’s hope that affliction, suffering, and trials in life are permitted by God for what he knows will turn out to be ultimately good purposes (e.g. Rom. 8:28; c.f. Rom. 5:1-5; James 1:2-4).
2. Open theism’s denial of God’s exhaustive definite foreknowledge calls into question the church’s ultimate eschatological hope that God will surely accomplish all his plans and purposes, exactly as he has told us in Scripture that he will; and openness assurances that he will succeed ring hollow, in that not even God knows (i.e., can know) what unexpected turns lay ahead and how severely these may thwart his purposes or cause him to change his plans.”
“Openness advocates want it both ways. They want high risk, and they also want high assurance of God’s success. They cannot have it both ways. Clearly, what wins in the open view is risk; what loses is assurance of God’s success.”
“Four areas central to the certainty and reality of the gospel are deeply compromised by the open view. The surety and specificity of God’s plan, in eternity past, to save sinners; the saving acts of justification and sacrificial atonement for sin in the life of Old Testament Israel; the certainty and nature of the very substitutionary death and resurrection of Christ our Saviour; and our confident and expectant hope for life now and for eternity—all require massive reformulation, given open theism’s central commitments. In the end, when seen through the lens of the open view, this reformulated gospel is no longer the same gospel cherished by the church and taught by the Scriptures. As such, it ought not be commended by Christians or accepted as a viable evangelical understanding. When a theological proposal has compromised the very gospel itself, it has moved beyond the bounds.”
Part Five
“...as a pastor who longs to be biblical and God-centered and Christ-exalting and eternally helpful to my people, I see open theism as theologically ruinous, dishonoring to God, belittling to Christ, and pastorally hurtful. My prayer is that Christian leaders will come to see it this way, and thus love the church by counting open theism beyond the bounds of orthodox Christian teaching.”