This blog will deal with a “new” teaching relating to the character of God and His relation to time and man’s decision making. The Leadership Team at Grace believes that “Openness Theology” is not only unbiblical, it has developed into one of the greatest threats to orthodox theology in the last 30 years. My desire with this blog is to expose the development, rational, and practical influence of this “new” theology. Please feel free to submit questions as we go.
What is “openness theology” you ask?
Richard Rice, a supporter of “openness” helps us here by saying: “God knows a great deal about what will happen. He knows everything that will ever happen as the direct result of factors that already exist. He knows infallibly the content of his own future actions, to the extent that they are not related to human choices. Since God knows all possibilities, he knows everything that could happen and what he can do in response to each eventuality. And he knows the ultimate outcome to which He is guiding the course of history. All that God does not know is the content of future free decisions, and this is because decisions are not there to know until they occur” (The Grace of God and the Will of Man, ed. by Clark Pinnock, 134).
What are some of the titles that “openness theology” goes by?
Those who ascribe or unwitting have wandered into this belief system often describe it by calling it: “Relational theism, freewill theism, simple foreknowledge, presentism, openness,” and some versions of “middle knowledge.” Also, he idea of “risk” is a key buzz word that finds its way into the conversation of those who believe this characterization of God.
My next entry will deal with the various expressions of “openness” theology and also begin to ponder the horrible effects this type of thinking will have on biblical theology if it is not refuted. I welcome your questions too!
Dan
If you take the idea “All that God does not know is the content of future free decisions,” and play it out, you have to ask how in the world can God predict things if He knows the potential outcomes but not THE outcome?
With all the variables that can effect one evening, how could Jesus have possibly predicted Peter’s denial – let alone the prophets forcasting the birth of the Messiah over thousands of years?
If God was “open” then Jesus’ statement would have been more like, “Peter, you may or may not deny me three times before the rooster crows.” ;^)
Without a doubt! You are hitting on the tip of the iceberg why this type of theological gymnastics is so deadly to God’s character and, ultimatly, our living life. It recreates the terminology and methodology of Christ, the prophets, disciples, and so on. In the the name of creating a “living, breathing relationship” between God and man, God is destroyed and man is left helpless. Prophecy is turned into meaningless hope and we are all left in the dark….
Sorry about being so late in responding, it got caught on another computer…..
I’d like to bring John Eldredge (Wild at Heart, The Sacred Romance) into the discussion.
Until the last few months, I’ve been something of a fan of Eldredge’s. His books awoke a passion in my heart that had long been quiet.
However, revisiting his books in light of these discussions of openness theology makes me turn a more critical eye on his works.
What I like about Eldredge is that he stands passionately against the tide of postmodernism. There is a huge “big story” that we are all a part of – postmodernism, by contrast, dismisses such an idea in favor of a shallow relativism.
Nevertheless, he stands accused by many of embracing open theism. In one of his books he denies the charge, but without a clear doctrinal reconciliation of his expressed theology with the sovereignty of God. I grant that he makes many overtures in that direction, but never with the aplomb with which he describes God as a risk-taker.
I guess it just boils down to the fact that you don’t have to fudge on who God is in order to arouse a passion for His kingdom.
It depresses me somewhat; I really enjoyed reading his books, but God must be worshiped for who he is, not who we want him to be – and certainly not for an idolatrous version of deity that succeeds in the publishing market.
This begs some questions. Is this kind of phenomenon just sloppy (uninformed or poorly expressed) theology, or is it something more insidious? Does it matter one way or the other? Is it just that any fool who can type can get published these days (or post to a blog like yours truly, by the way), or is there something more of a concerted movement to promote “another gospel” at work here?
I am not sure if Mr. Eldrege understands what he is saying at times or that the theme he touches on, the adventure of living, has spilled over to include God – He also has an adventure to live.
“This might be the most difficult ‘new thought’ many men encounter – the idea that God has set up even his own life to involve immense risk. There’s a rather heated debate right now over ‘open theism.’ and I’m not entering into that here. In saying that God has an adventure to live, I don’t mean the world is chaotic, or out of control, or that somehow God’s sovereignty is diminished.”
Wild at Heart Field Manual, page 39
However, I do believe that Mr. Eldrege needs to be mindful that due to the ability to write and it be seen by thousands, if not millions, very quickly; that solid theology is vital. Mr. Eldrege does tamper and begin to reinterprete particular doctrines. For example, “We are created in the image of God, or more precisely, as a reflection of the Trinity. If we really understood this wonderful truth deep in our hearts, it would probably bring revival in our day. Consider just two essential realities that flow from this fact. First, we observed in the previous chapter, the Trinity is a community and so to be made in its image means we are relational at our core. “Our creation is by love, in love, and for love,” writes psychologist Gerald May. But there is more. The Trinity is a society whose members draw their identities from the others. The Father wouldn’t be a Father if it weren’t for his relationship to the Son and to us. He might be “God,” “Jehovah,” or even “Almighty,” but never “Abba, Father.” Of course the Son would never have been one if not for the presence of the Father. But because of his relationship to the other members of the Trinity, Jesus has been and forever will be the Son of God. And just like my son, Luke, and all children, what he craves most, his greatest prize, is the applause of the Father. “Father, I want those you have given to me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.” (John 17:24)
The Sacred Romance, page 87
Bottom line? I think there is a mixture of sloppy writing and a slouch toward wrong thinking due to a theme made for us casting a shadow of how we are told to view God.