Customer Reviews

The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God

5 star:		(23)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(21)

 

 

This book is the work of five authors who set forth a version of theism known as Open Theism, the defining (though not necessarily central) characteristic of which is the proposition that God's omniscience does not include everything that will be actualised in the future.

Richard Rice opens with an exegetical case for the notion that God's immutability is restricted only to His character and ultimate plans; He experiences change in His actions, experiences and knowledge. Both the Old and New Testament are briefly (but carefully) mined to bring out both the pathos and openness of God to His people and the future respectively. Already in Rice's chapter, the pioneering Scriptural defense of open theism, we see a reasonable refutation of the only TWO verses in the OT - 1Sam 15:29 and Num 23:19 - which states that "God does not change His mind" (which Rice convincingly argues when taken in context is synonymous with "God does not LIE"). He contrasts this with the more than THIRTY which make the opposite point (e.g. Jer18, Isa, Hosea, etc.). Rice then discusses the life of Jesus and shows how the intense pathos of God is revealed through the Incarnate Son's ministry, tears, and ultimately His death on the Cross. How the doctrine of immutability can claim to be Scripturally derived in the light of the life of Christ is truly a mystery. Rice's work is passionate, meticulous and unassuming; the very first chapter of the first major work on the movement lays down the arguments in the Scriptural arena, within which the debate needs to take place. I heartily recommend him.

Next, I don't like saying this but I'm afraid I found John Sanders' contribution a little on the boring side at the time. His chapter is a very comprehensive look at what theologians throughout history believed about divine immutability, relationality, etc. Sanders shows the undeniable continuity between Platonic ideals and early Christian thought, and makes a strong case for the non-ability of much theological thinking to break free from the unBiblical notions left by this early influence. A very text-book-like chapter consisting less of an argument than a survey of a remarkably persistent trend to equate 'Perfection' in terms of 'Unchangeability'. Hopefully more people will find it more interesting than I did, but if not, Sanders' chapter of a similar nature in his "God Who Risks" will more than compensate for any disappointment with his work this time around.

Clark Pinnock then whips the storm back up again with his powerful and systematic proposal for a RELATIONAL view of God as the foundation of everything else we understand about Him. His experiences, actions and - most saliently for the book - His knowledge is dynamic and undergoes progress and change by the very nature of the Person He is and the Creation He's brought into existence. Like Sanders' piece, this chapter doesn't so much argue a case for open-theism as much as it elaborates a particular understanding of God, given the authors' assumptions. I've found this approach to be characteristic of Pinnock's work in which, in effect, he seems to be saying, "I'm not going to try hard to prove you wrong and I right; I'm just going to show you the theological beauty and benefits of my view of God and its congruity with Scripture, and you tell me if you prefer this to traditional (mainly Reformed) theology".

William Hasker's philosophical perspective (my favourite, next to Rice's) begins by highlighting problems with the notion of divine timelessness and scrutinizing the traditional equation of divine 'perfection' with divine immutability. His essay begs us to reconsider, "What is 'perfection' in a Personal Being, anyway? And why have we traditionally associated it with 'changelessness'?" He, like Sanders, pinpoints Neo-Platonic philosophy as the major influence on classical theologians for their bias against change. He then briefly discusses the major theistic viewpoints of divine providence and omniscience: Calvinism (which makes God logically responsible for all evil), Molinism (which, though removing many problems associated with Calvinistic divine sovereignity, still eventually makes God the 'Arch Manipulator'), Simple Foreknowledge (which sorta 'imprisons' God in His foreknowledge, making Him helpless to intervene), Process Theology (which is panentheism in Biblical packaging), and Open Theism (which Hasker sets forth as showing God to be a loving risk-taker who desires creatures who voluntarily love and befriend Him and has thus actualised a universe with incredible contigencies, beauty and surprise - but also terrible potential).

Finally, we come to David Basinger's spelling out of the explanatory and experiential superiority of open-theism as compared to Calvinism and Process Theology on the following aspects: petitionary prayer, divine guidance, suffering, social responsibility and evangelistic responsibility. Like Hasker, he presents open-theism as the redeeming 'middle ground' between the divine helplessness of process theology and the all-determining Control Deity of Calvinism. Only with open-theism can there be a meaningful notion of human responsibility (contra Calvinism, which leaves one wondering what the point is resisting evil/sin since everything's been foreordained) without the need to state that God has already done 'all that He can' (contra process theology, which gives us a powerless God). Though insightful and honest with regard to existing non-resolved issues, I wouldn't recommend this chapter to anyone not at least open to the possibility that the Bible teaches the openness of God.

Although the book, being a pioneering 'ground-breaker' for open theism, certainly needs more elaboration and work, I'd have to say that I agree with its overall thesis. Critics often fail to note that open theists employ solid Biblical epistemology and evidence to derive the back-bone of the view, particularly the non-exhaustive understanding of God's omniscience (the Sriptural evidence for immutability is pitifully scant; the number of 'divine repentance' passages itself, like I've mentioned, is a staggering 30-plus which was the major factor forcing me to rethink my theology. I can't help but wonder why God would say so often in His very own Word that He experiences genuine changes of mind and thus knowledge, if this is a completely false ontological notion). Unfortunately, academic backlash is usually focused on the philosophical and experiential implications of open theism, all the whilst seemingly ignorant or dismissive of the powerful Scriptural case in favour of it.

With that said, I would propose that this book be read only AFTER one absorbs either John Sanders' "God Who Risks" or Gregory Boyd's more accessible "God of the Possible". All in all, the book IMO represents an inspiring work and a necessary provocation to the Christian (especially the Reformed) community to relook at its Biblical foundations and traditional presuppositions about the nature of God. And in closing, allow me to quote from Pinnock's chapter, which eloquently sums up the picture of God the book puts forth:

"...God is so transcendant that he creates room for others to exist and maintains a relationship with them...God is so powerful as to be able to stoop down and humble Himself...(and) God is so stable and secure as to be able to risk suffering and change."

Pinnock joins four other authors to provide one of the more hotly debated books on the doctrine of God amongst Evangelical Christians. At the root of the vision of deity they designate the "Open God" is their shared conviction that love is God's chief attribute, and all other divine attributes must not undermine the primacy of love.

In order to offer a coherent doctrine of God, essayists address issues of divine transcendence, immanence, power, omniscience, mutability, and passibility. At the core of his proposal is his account of divine loving activity that includes God's responsiveness, generosity, sensitivity, openness, and vulnerability. In fact, Clark Pinnock contends that "love rather than almighty power is the primary perfection of God" (114).

Essayists in The Openness of God argue that no doctrine is more central to the Christian faith than the doctrine of God. Laying out a coherent, livable, biblical doctrine is crucial for the practical and theoretical aspects of theology. Many Christians, however, observe an inconsistency between their beliefs about the nature of God and their religious practice. For example, Christians ask God to act in a certain way when they pray, although their formal theology may suppose that God has predetermined all things. A major factor in assessing the viability of a theological scheme, then, is the piety question: How well does this "live?"

"How can we expect Christians to delight in God or outsiders to seek God if we portray God in biblically flawed, rationally suspect, and existentially repugnant ways?" asks Pinnock (104). In his attempt to avoid rationally suspect hypotheses, Pinnock seeks to offer a coherent doctrine of God, i.e., each divine attribute "should be compatible with one another and with the vision of God as a whole" (101).

The Openness of God authors share the basic conviction that love is the principal theme in Christian theology. Pinnock insists, for instance, that love is the primary perfection of God. Richard Rice, who assumes the task of offering biblical support for the open view advanced in the book, claims that the open view expresses two basic convictions Scripture supports. First, love is the most important quality humans attribute to God. Second, love is more than care and commitment; it also involves sensitivity and responsiveness. Rice further notes that, from a Christian perspective, love is the first and last word in the biblical portrait of God. When one enumerates God's qualities, one must not only include love on the list, but, to be faithful to the Bible, one must put love at the head of that list. A doctrine of God faithful to the Bible must show that all God's characteristics derive from love. Rice concludes: "Love, therefore, is the very essence of the divine nature. Love is what it means to be God" (19).

Pinnock embraces the notion that God is like a loving parent when affirming these hypotheses. In this parental model, God possesses "qualities of love and responsiveness, generosity and sensitivity, openness and vulnerability" (103). God is a person who experiences the world, responds to what happens, relates to humans, and interacts dynamically with creatures.

Essayists reject the classic conception of God described as "an aloof monarch" removed from the world's contingencies, i.e., the entirely transcendent God. They reject the deity who is completely unchangeable, all-determining, irresistible, and does not risk. "The Christian life involves a genuine interaction between God and human beings," Pinnock contends. "We respond to God's gracious initiatives and God responds to our responses . . . and on it goes" (7).

Essayists also deny divine foreordination, divine foreknowledge of free creaturely actions, and the hypothesis that either divine foreknowledge or unilateral determination are compatible with creaturely freedom. God knows all things that can be known, but divine omniscience does not mean that God possesses exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events. Total knowledge of the future would imply that future events are fixed. "If choices are real and freedom significant, future decisions cannot be exhaustively known," Pinnock explains (123).

Thomas Jay Oord

As a college student in his late 30s who is majoring in philosophy, I can testify to the accuracy of this book's historical section. As the authors ably point out, much of the modern Christian conception of God comes not from the Bible but from the writings of Plato and Aristotle. And the God of Greek philosophy is far more remote and inhuman than the one portrayed in both the Old and New Testaments. This has created a tension in the field of theology proper which has left many perplexed and confused.

The Openness of God offers a remedy to this ages-old mixture of divine revelation and pagan thinking. It challenges us to accept God as the Bible portrays Him, emotions, ambivalence and all. Readers will discover a deity who is just as powerful as the one described in classical theism, but who is also far easier for humans to relate to.

This book and ones like it have been unfairly and maliciously attacked by narrow-minded critics, who call it everything from anti-Calvinist to an apologetic for Mormonism. Nonsense. What the open minded seeker will find in these pages is a cogent yet humble case for a view of the Creator which is both refreshingly new and yet millenia old. Very highly recommended for everyone interested in theology, philosophy or apologetics.

Open theism, unfortunately, has suffered much abuse from critics too quick to label it heresy but too stubborn to actually evaluate its aims and insights. I'll make it clear that I am not an open theist, but neither to I have any reason to see open theism as undermining the historic faith. Anyone who reads this book will understand that, though the position is sometimes hard to consider given our long-held notions about perfect being theology, the openist position fits well within the mainstream of history.

This book does a great job of describing the open theist aims to interpret the Bible on its own terms apart from the influence of Platonic philosophy that crept into theology in the early years of the church. It does a great job of laying out the aim of presenting a God who is open to working alongside humanity to bring about a desired end, and who wants to enter a dynamic, give and take relationship with humanity. It also does an adequate job of giving an introduction to the three philosophical bases of the position: a temporal God, libertarian free will of humanity, and the denial of the existence of true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (i.e., there is no truth value to statements like, "Had I only been there, I would have...").

Being a student of Sanders and Hasker and being involved in philosopical conferences, I've had the ability to hear about the position from the sources and get to know the men behind it personally. They're good Christian people trying to make sense of God's revelation--nothing more, nothing less.

For those who would like a more in-depth look at the philosophy of open theism, I recommend Hasker's "God, Time, and Knowledge." For more about the openist view of providence, try Sanders' "The God Who Risks." And for those of you who want an alternative to the openist position that honors God's foreknowledge but are dissatisfied with the Calvinist views of free will, I suggest looking into Molinism, it's best introductory text probably being Thomas Flint's "Divine Providence: The Molinist Account."

I'll start of by saying: I'm not an open theist. I wasn't before I read the book, and I'm not now that I'm done reading it.

But, that's not to say that I didn't find the book persuasive. The authors do a very good job explaining their take on the Greek philosophical source of the notion of the timelessness of God. And they do a very good job laying out comparisons between open theism and some of the other views of "God and time". These comparisons, in my opinion, are what made this a good book. While I disagree with their conclusion that "open theism is better that other views", I do agree that, mostly, they lay out the practical implications of the various views fairly for the most part. Ultimately, though, my evaluation is that some forms of "traditional theism" are still better than open theism.

But, this book did convince me of something important. I'm willing to make divine openness a "to each his own" issue in Christianity. Each of us finds a different model of God to be most useful in our relationship with Him. So, as long as we seek to build our view of God on Scripture, I am willing to be tolerant of people who I disagree with. This book convinced me that open theists do try to build their view of God on Scripture. So, though I'm not one of them, I see little reason to bicker with them.

If you want a book that will lay out open theism in terms that a layman can more or less understand, this is the book for you.

If you're looking for a more deeply theological/philosophical book on the issue, I wouldn't recommend this one. Mostly because I understood it too well for people who love "God and time" theology to find it satisfying.

This book clearly outlines the Biblical argument for the principal of the one and only Sovereign God is perfectly reflected in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus is God, and this book points out the love God has for His creation and that He is not always responsible for the hardships that take place in the daily lives of people.

A must read for anyone interested in how a loving sovereign God can let evil happen...since He is in control!!!

A must read!!!!

"Open Theism" first came to my attention a few years ago, at the beginning of my brief mission work in Brazil. At that time, reading about it in Christianity Today, I thought it sounded ridiculous. How things have changed.

Open theism proposes, among other things, that God does not have perfect knowledge of our future. As strange as this might sound to people trained in classic views of God, it makes a lot of what the Bible says about God much clearer.

This book, "The Openness of God," is an excellent place to start studying open theism. The only section I felt uncertain about was the portion entitled "A Philosophical Perspective" by William Hasker. Most of my misgivings can possibly be attributed to lack of personal aptitude for philosophy as a field, but I also did not like the way he kept telling the reader what "a majority of philosophers" think about this or that (as though that alone added weight to what he was saying).

All in all, this is a wonderful book and a great introduction to open theism.

Clark Pinnock and openness theology neglects careful consideration of Christian orthodoxy's 2000-year-old wisdom. God's all powerful and all knowing activity in the world are well defined and defended by the pillars of Christian tradition (i.e Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther). Why does Pinnock not address these thinkers? The book is a modern attempt to wrestle with the problem of evil and find a new solution to the tension between the existence of evil and a good all-powerful God. The real "openness" of the theology is that it opens the door to liberal theological conceptions of autonomous man and his ability to reason and understand all that God thinks and does. Ultimately though, the thesis seems to stretch definitions of God's ability and "control" in order to satisfy modern understandings of justice and the human being. Reading this book I am reminded and humbled by God's question to Job: "Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself?" I would caution any Christian who reads this book to consider the greater and deeper tradition of Christian thinking on this important subject.

St. Augustine wrote: "He who dares to embark rashly and without order upon the study of those [philosophical] questions will become not studious but curious, not learned by credulous, not prudent but unbelieving." from "On Order"

This book needs major revision and re-editing by those who are familiar with the Greek New Testament. It should never have been published.This book is a challenge only for the Bible-challenged!

I hesitated to weigh in on this, but can't let Shoreview's accusations go unanswered. They are utterly unfounded.

As a moderate Arminian, after careful exegesis of John 13:19, and the other "Ego eimi" statements in John's Gospel (nearly a dozen), Edina is definitively correct. Shoreview is mistaken.

It is requested that Laika from Shoreview who posts on the Christus Victor chatsite of Greg Boyd's, kindly retract her 'review' which does not even bother evaluating this unfortunate book or explain her reasons for embracing Openness.

Again, this Openness book, like Laika, is incorrect. Moderate Arminian interpretation prevails over Ultra/Hyper-Arminianism.

Thank you to the reviewer from Edina who sets the record straight about this book, Openness Mistheology and its misled

followers. A close look at the Greek New Testament settles all.

Those interested in the contemporary theological and philosophical discussion of God's foreknowledge and providential control of the world cannot afford to miss a fascinating development known as the open view of God. According to this view, God does not have comprehensive foreknowledge of the future. Namely, He does not know with certainty the free choices His creatures will make. Thus, the future is partially open- depending upon the decisions of free creatures. Since He chose to create a world with free agents, God is necessarily limited in His foreknowledge.

While the openness view does represent a rather radical break with traditional understandings of divine foreknowledge and providence, it does not deny that God is omniscient. God is omniscient just in case He knows all facts which can be logically known. Since, according to the advocates of this view, it is not logically possible to know the future free choices of agents (indeed, there simply aren't any facts to be known!), it is no limit on God's omniscience to say that God does not know them.

This view of God's foreknowledge and providential control has been described and defended in detail in "The Openness of God" by some of the foremost defenders of the controversial view. Each author adds a contribution in his own area of specialty to provide a compelling cumulative case for the open view of God.

In chapter 1, Richard Rice looks at the biblical evidence for the open model. He points out that a consistent theme of God changing his mind in response to human actions reappears all throughout the Bible. For example, God repeatedly changes His mind when dialoguing with Abraham, who continually tries to persuade God to give him more lenient requirements for the salvation of the city of Sodom in Genesis 18. There is also the famous passage in Genesis 6 where God `repents' of making man in the first place. These are but two examples that demonstrate a persistent biblical theme.

Rice also contends that the open view gains some support from the Biblical theme of God's love. While other views (such as Calvinism) stress the power of God, the open view stresses the love and relational character of God. Rice argues that love is the more central feature of God's character. First, there is a contrast between God's anger and love in Scripture. While anger is temporary, love is eternal, and while God is reluctant to get angry, He is eager to show mercy. Secondly, the direct Johannine statement "God is love" is one of the most direct descriptions of God's nature in the Scriptures.

Perhaps the most significant Biblical area of struggle for this account is to be found in prophecy. Here, Rice's exposition is a bit weak. Though he legitimately points out that there are different types of prophecies, some of which are indeed conditional, he is still unable to find a solid metaphysical grounding for God's prophetic pronouncements in order to make sense of the Biblical data.

In chapter 2, John Sanders attempts to argue that the early Christian church was unduly influenced by Greek thought. The melding of Greek philosophical categories and expectations with the Biblical God led to the untenable hybrid that is often upheld in traditional theology today. This chapter offers a fascinating historical review both of the development of Greek philosophy and the development of Christian theology. While some may differ with Sanders about the degree to which the Church Fathers were influenced by Hellenistic thought, Sander's contribution provides some great food for thought and a fascinating recounting of history that will be of benefit to any reader.

In chapter 3, Clark Pinnock offers a brief look at systematic theology from the openness perspective. Pinnock is an interesting figure because he is a famous convert from Calvinism. Pinnock looks at some of the traditional characteristics ascribed to God by traditional theology and attempts to reinterpret them in light of what he considers a more balanced Biblical view. Some attributes Pinnock considers are immanence, transcendence, immutability, eternity, and, of course, omniscience. Much of Pinnock's treatment is actually quite compatible with the view that God has perfect foreknowledge of the future, but Pinnock contends that a balanced Biblical perspective favors the open view.

In chapter 4, William Hasker offers some philosophical considerations relevant to the debate. He analyzes five competing theories of God's knowledge and power, ranking them on a continuum from most controlling to least controlling. These perspectives include, in order, theological determinism, Molinism, simple foreknowledge, open theism, and process theology. Hasker then argues that the open view offers the most consistent and compelling philosophical account of Christian theism.

In the final chapter, David Basinger looks at some practical implications of the open view. He looks at five areas of concern- petitionary prayer, divine guidance, human suffering, social responsibility, and evangelistic responsibility. Basinger argues that, collectively, the open view of God is actually the most satisfying account of divine foreknowledge and providence. It makes sense of petitionary prayer- since our praying for things can actually change the outcomes of the future. It increases our sense and awareness of social and evangelistic responsibility by reminding us that the future is partially up to us. And it helps us understand human suffering. Rather than conceive of evil as directly created or permitted by God, on the open view we can acknowledge that some evil really is gratuitous.

Since this book is authored by some of the foremost defenders of the open view of God, it is highly recommended for any reader interested in the topic of divine foreknowledge and providence. Moreover, a number of peripheral issues are discussed. Even those who are not enchanted by the open view of God may find the discussions about divine transcendence, eternality, immutability, and simplicity very rewarding. And, since each author analyzes the view from a different perspective, The Openness of God offers a great overview of the pertinent issues concerning this debate.

Personally, I hold some serious reservations about the open view of God. It seems to me that several serious problems plague the theory. I think openness theology is particularly weak at explaining prophecy and providence. Moreover, the view seems to be disconfirmed by numerous Biblical texts that imply or teach God's foreknowledge of future free events. As a matter of fact, I agree with the authors that many points of traditional theology have been unduly influenced by Greek thought and ought to be dispensed with. For example, the doctrine of impassibility teaches that God cannot suffer. But this view seems to be contradicted by many passages describing God's frustration and disappointment with sin. Even if these could be brushed off as anthropomorphisms, certainly the suffering of Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry seems to contradict this doctrine. I also think that we ought to view God as existing in time (though always existing), rather than timelessly. Likewise, the doctrine of divine simplicity is rather dubious, particularly considering the fundamental fact that God is in fact a Trinity of three persons in one substance. In all of these cases, I think that the Biblical testimony strongly favors rejecting many of the attributes of classical theology.

Nevertheless, I lack such an inclination with regards to God's absolute foreknowledge. That God has such foreknowledge seems to be taught repeatedly and forcefully in Scripture. Even if other classical theological doctrines came about via the influence of Greek philosophy, the view that God has foreknowledge about the future- even about future free choices- seems to be solidly based in the Bible. Although I grant that many passages seem to call this view into question (such as the `repenting' passages cited by Rice), I think that the interpretative dilemma facing open theologians is even more severe.

That being said, I would like to offer a brief line of defense for open theists. Contrary to many authors, I do not consider advocates of open theism to be outside the pale of Orthodoxy. Although their view of God does differ significantly from the view offered by traditional theology, I find no reason to deem them heretical. Open theists still affirm that God is omniscient. Thus, the main difference between open theists and their antagonists is their view about whether there really are facts about future free choices. It is true that denying the possibility of facts about future free choices leads to some fairly serious theological consequences, but this fact alone should not lead us to condemn open theism. I think openness theology remains a live option for the Biblical Christian.

Nevertheless, regardless of your view on the matter, "The Openness of God" is an important work that I recommend.