The Openness of God

By Clark Pinnock, et al.
Intervaristy Press

Reviewed by Louis F. DeBoer

This book is composed of five chapters, by five different authors, all professional theologians, and is a more scholarly attempt to popularize the view of Open Theism. It demonstrates the radical Arminianism that gave birth to these views and the resultant caricature of God that appears. It clearly shows the theological issues on which these views rest and the interpretations of Scripture that are necessary to any attempt to defend them. 

The first chapter is an attempt to Biblically maintain the notion that God neither knows nor controls the future. This chapter deals with the heart of the issue, the Biblical data, it is the most important chapter and probably the one that would most likely influence prospective adherents to this view. After reviewing the traditional view of God and quoting Stephen Charnock's classic defense of that view he goes on to state that there are two stream of Biblical thought that seem to support the open view of God (i.e. the view that God is open to change and the future is open as he implements his evolving plan for his creation). These are that the Bible shows God as responding to and reacting to what is taking place on earth with his creatures, and that the Bible teaches that his creatures have free will (i.e. in the Arminian sense of libertarian free will.) Like most Open Theists he sees God's defining characteristic as being his love. This is emphasized almost to the exclusion of everything else. The point of all that is to insist that a loving relations hip is not characterized by power and control, but by responsiveness and sensitivity. This in his view demands Open Theism as God responds and reacts to his creatures in love in a dynamic interpersonal relationship. Biblically, I believe that God's defining characteristic is his holiness, it is the attribute that is repeated in triplicate, and this emphasizes his righteousness and his justice. Even God's love for his elect is dominated by his holiness as it required the death of his Son to redeem his people in a way consistent with his holiness and his justice. But all this is lost on Open Theists who wax eloquent and sentimental on God's love while treating his holy judgments on his sinful creation as part of the "problem of evil" in a creation formed by a good God. After dealing with God's feelings (they are seen as evidence of a sensitive God who shares our disappointments and our pain, as he too comes to grips with the bad choices of his free agents), and God's intentions (they are constantly changing as he reacts to the free will decisions of his creatures), and God's actions (they are seen as responsive and reactive to the events unfolding in his creation, he goes on to another startling issue.  He sees the life and experiences of Jesus, who is God, as very determinative of the narture of God. Christ's interpersonal relationships and his interreaction with people, his feelings and his pain, are all presented as proof of the Open Theist view of God. Not a word is said about the two natures of Christ. He simply seems to assume that everything about Christ is instructive about the true nature of God. In actuality it is a gross blunder to take the characteristics of the perfect humanity of Jesus Christ and transpose them upon the eternal transcendant God. His insistence  that God was crucified, that God really  suffered on the cross, and by implication that God died, strikes one as the grossest form of error. The human nature of Christ, the second Adam, the representative man and covenant head of the elect, died and suffered for his people. The notion that God suffered and died can only be considered as part of the heresy of Open Theism. For the author, prophecy seems to be often based on guesswork, not on certainty. A case in point is Pharaoh's rejection of the demands that he liberate the children of Israel. He postulates that God arrived at this conclusion not by certain divine foreknowledge but by his knowledge of what someone with Pharaohs character was likely to do in such a situation. The Bible refute this with the statement that God hardened his heart to bring about the prophesied result. This may create problems for him with respect to human freedom and responsibility, but it clearly does not make prophecy a matter of guesswork. He then goes on to refute the notions of foreknowledge and predestination. His basic argument against the latter is that God's will is constantly being broken by the creatures, therefore, predestination clearly isn't what is happening. This of course is merely confusing the preceptive will of God, which is broken anytime someone sins, with Gods secret will, his predestinating decrees, which are never broken. He goes so far as to say, "The fact that God foreknows or predestines something does not guarantee that it will happen." (p. 55-56) As a result he states "...the Bible clearly indicates that God has often experienced disappointment and frustration." (p. 56)  the election of God's people is seen as corporate and not individual. God has predestined there will be a church and the church corporately has been elected, but God has no idea who will be in the church, until specific individuals choose to accept Christ and believe the gospel. All this is made to sound very plausible and very Biblical. However, those Christians who know the Scriptures, and know the God of the Scriptures, can only be appalled by this caricature of the great and glorious, the omnipotent and omniscient God that they serve and worship. 

The second chapter is a scholarly review of pagan Greek philosophy that attempts to demonstrate that the traditional view of God held by orthodox Christianity has been derived as much from Greek thought as it has from the Scriptures. This includes an interesting review of classical philosophy, but is hardly convincing. While establishing that there are some parallels between their respective views of God, it does not prove that the Christian view of God derived from the pagan. More to the point, it does not establish that Christian theologians did not gain their viewpoints from Scripture, although at some points they were in agreement with the philosophical and rational models of the perfect deity. This chapter is hardly going to make converts to Open Theism, and serves mainly to sow seeds of doubt and suspicions with respect to the traditional view of God. 

The third chapter is the one by Pinnock and deals with Open Theism and systematic theology, with where open Theism fits into the theological scheme of things, especially in relation to theology proper. Here his main concern seems to be to separate Open Theism from its cousin Process Theology, and to critique the latter while defending the former. All this is mainly done in terms of theological categories with some Biblical exposition thrown in, although in most of the texts quoted he simply assumes the Open Theist interpretation. 

The fourth chapter deals with philosophical issues. It deals with how Christian philosophy is coming to the support of the Open Theist view. This is probably the best written, the most interesting, and the least polemic chapter in the book. The author reviews the five competing views of God, his foreknowledge, and providential control, from a philosophical perspective. The five positions are from the theological right to left are as follows; Calvinism, Molinism (i.e. middle knowledge), classical Arminianism (i.e. simple foreknowledge), Open Theism (No foreknowledge of future free will actions), and Process Theology. While most Christians will let their understanding of the relevant Scriptures, rather than philosophical considerations, dictate their view, this chapter, while not convincing, is very worth while reading. 

The fifth chapter deals with how these competing views of God and his foreknowledge relate to practical considerations such as prayer, divine guidance, evangelism, and social responsibility. If in the latter category you detect a note of theological liberalism you are correct. This is probably the worst chapter of the book as the author seems to discard any pretense of being evangelical, much less Biblical. For example, in discussing evangelism, where incidentally he takes the position that it is up to us to seek to bring our neighbors to God insomuch that God cannot do so without violating their free will, he defines the gospel as bringing people to a state where they "are properly related to God." No talk of sin and judgment, of deliverance and atonement, of faith and repentance, or even of Jesus Christ, just of getting into a proper relationship with God. Christ does not seem necessary to this process as he states "that each person's eternal destiny will ultimately be determined by God on the basis of the light available to him or her." I take that he means that if the best light available is Hinduism of Buddhism that will what God will judge them by. Although he doesn't say it, this is not much of an incentive to evangelize as it only makes them more responsible and sets a higher standard for their acceptance by God.  However, getting back to the issue at hand, on prayer he states that open Theism is superior because it teaches that God changes his mind and adjusts his plans to coordinate his purposes with the free will decisions of his creatures and that this gives a solid footing to the efficacy of prayer. On divine guidance he admits that this is somewhat problematical as God doesn't know any more than we do what the final outcome of a present decision will be. All God can do is help us select the best alternative based on present considerations. On social responsibility he argues that since Calvinist determinism is somewhat fatalistic and since Process Theology already believes that God is always doing all he can to get people to follow his plan, only Open Theism really has a logical footing for human responsibility in social matters. Incidentally, his list of social concerns are very mundane and the typical concerns of theological liberals, such as world hunger, racism, and sexism, etc. Finally, he concludes with a statement that Open Theism is not an exclusive system that can answer the logical and philosophical issues relating to the nature of God and people will have to choose the kind of God they are comfortable with. He thinks Open Theism is a good choice, but seems open to the idea of a designer religion that allows us to pick what works for us.

This book is good in the sense that it is open (no pun intended!) and forthright, and clearly sets forth what Open Theism is and believes. It is shocking in the sense that what they believe is so estranged from the traditional view of God, that one finds it hard to imagine that such a god could be the object of awe, reverence, and worship. It probably isn't, as that is exactly what is missing in this book, an awe and reverence for the majesty, omnipotence, wisdom, and power of the God who reveals himself in the Scriptures.