Tom,

I really like the brief introduction to open theology. Hopefully uninformed critics will gain from this.

I agree that the Church of the Nazarene should not take an official stand either way. Yes, our tent is large enough for those in both camps of this issue. I for one find open theology the more Biblical. But as you said others do not. While we may think the other wrong in their opinion, the holding of either opinion does not preclude salvation. Open Theism does nothing to alter the essentials of the faith, neither does the opinion that God exhaustively know every detail of the future.

Recently I have come to think that maybe there are the various theological traditions, as well as developing theologies, as an effort by God to reach a wider audience, for God wishes none to perish (2 Pete 3:9). None of the theological traditions that are accepted deny the essentials, none are rightly heresy. One can be an adherent to Calvinism, Wesleyanism, Arminianism, Open, Closed, etc and still be a Christian and have salvation. If I had had only the Reformed/Calvinist theology to adhere to, I may never have accepted Christ because as I read the Bible I found that position wrong, yet others find it correct.

While differences are important, for we all have come to our opinions and to say they are not important is demeaning, our commonalities are so much more important. We can respect the differences while finding unity in what we have in common.

Paul DeBaufer

In addition to what Tom has posted, perhaps it would be helpful to discuss the meaning of “knowledge.” As Tom indicates, “… the answer one gives the question, “Does God know the future?” is important.” Yet, how can we come to a thoughtful conclusion on the matter without a robust understanding of knowledge, or what it means “to know”. Does “knowledge” connote certainty? If so, then it seems that for God to “know” or “be certain” of future events is contrary to human freedom. If knowledge does not suggest certainty, then what makes knowledge different from belief? But can God’s knowledge be fallible? If not, then for God, all knowledge (perfect knowledge) requires absolute certainty. That is, everything that God “knows” about the future is necessarily true. Therefore, the future is fixed and freedom is lost. While these questions and scenarios are far from exhaustive, they suggest that a deeper investigation of epistemology is required for a better understanding of the foreknowledge debate.

Tom, I so appreciate this balanced, thoughtful outline of Open Theology and its opposing views. I agree with your recommendations to the denomination that we welcome the discussion without making up a litmus test yet. As always, in all ages, our concern should be to seek the truth. what if we were to discern that Wesleyan-Arminian understandings were seriously flawed? Could we be honest enough to embrace the truth or do we have to stay in one particular theological camp forever? I personally think that Wesleyan understandings are very helpful as the world shifts away from modernity to whatever shall evolve next.I just want to make sure that we don’t hang our hat too quickly on Open Theology without giving lots of thought over a period of years to see if it best fits the biblical record.

You mention in your post that not all predictive prophecy came to pass. An example of that in the New Testament is found in Acts 21:11 where Agabus prophesied that the Jews would hand Paul over to the Gentiles. In actuality, if the Gentiles hadn’t arrested Paul in Acts 21:33 the Jews would have beaten Paul to death. They had no desire to hand him over to anyone.

Thanks so much for this. It’s a clear and concise summary. One thing I like about Open Theology is that its basic ideas can be so simply and clearly communicated.

The ideas of Openness played an important role in preserving my faith at a very difficult time in my life. I am grateful to everyone willing to explain and encourage these hope-filled and inspiring theological ideas.

Tom, a few comments:

You quoted:

“If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves, pray, seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then … I will forgive their sins and heal their land….  But if you turn aside and forsake my statues and my commandments that I have set before you, and go and serve other gods and worship them, then I will pluck you up from the land that I have given you…”(2 Chron. 7:14, 19-20a).

For this purpose, I think Jeremiah 18 is stronger and even more outspoken as to God’s knowledge and the purpose of prophecy:

“7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.”

You wrote:

“Both Open theologians and those who think God knows the future exhaustively affirm the idea that God knows everything. Both affirm divine omniscience.  Both believe that God knows everything that can be known. They differ on what is knowable.”

I think this is the key. Here is what it comes down to. I would stress that even more forcefully.

You wrote:

“We should not be held morally accountable if our future has already been settled prior to any choice we might make. This “choice” does not seem genuinely open.”

But also:

“At the same time, this history supports the view that God’s exhaustive foreknowledge is compatible with creaturely freedom.”

I feel a tension here that might require more explanation than you provide.

Other then these minor comments, I think you wrote a very good article and I totally agree with your recommendations.

Blessings,
Hans

Tom,

What is at stake as I hear the critics of Open Theology is a diminishing of God and how God is understood. Your brief introduction of this essay is helpful to this point. You wrote, “Open theology affirms that God knows everything that may happen in the future. God knows all possibilities.” It might be wise for the discussion to talk a great deal about these things with opponents of Open Theology.

One critic wrote that God has a plan b, c, d…etc. But that isn’t the case. Open theology, as I see it, says that there is no plan b, everything is plan a.

Something else that Open Theology would advocate is earnest obedience to God’s will and desires. We are co-creators with God of the future. This makes prayer and drawing close to God insanely important.

Finally, there needs to be a way to help address fears of those that see Open Theology differently than what it is. Your call to start a conversation is a good start. It is up to all of us to help people see that some of the things they fear are merely shadows and nothing of substance.

Tom,
Thanks for this straightforward depiction of Open Theology.  I know that you have listed many of these statements in various other ways over time.  However, having this all in one place and the arguments for the Church of the Nazarene to consider not rushing to judgment against Open Theology are extremely beneficial.

As a local pastor I often find that many parishioners are the proving grounds for these concepts.  We need to articulate the theology as accurately as possible, however, it is the average person in the pew or on the street that has to live out his or her understanding of God.  The average person will not be involved in these theological discussions but they are the ones to whom all this applies.

I am grateful for the possibility that many of those average persons can connect with such a God as One who will partner with them to make the “future” a better one. Each average worshiper possesses such a hope.  Being a pastor to those people, it makes a difference what we say about God relating to us all.

Nice job. I hope your recommendations received due consideration, but I have my doubts. The fear that is deep in the hearts of our folks is profound and will make this conversation difficult (as it already has).

Chuck

Re-reading Hans’ comments about 2 Chron. 7- the remainder of that chapter outlines the actions God will take if the people fail to cooperate with God in the work of redemption.  The future there was not decided until the people acted.  The chronicler showed two potential actions and the consequences anticipated by following either course of action.  Both the positive and the negative are delineated from verses 14-22.  Neither one is locked in until the people act (or fail to act).

Tom,

Nicely done, though I would prefer a very different approach than you have suggested via ‘Open’ constructs.  Perhaps this single comment gives us cause for pause:

“Prominent voices in the Christian tradition – e.g., Ireneus, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Martin Luther – believed that God both foreknows all that will occur and foreordains all that will occur.  A sovereign God causes all events, say these theologians.”

What if there were other options here…  What if knowing did not imply utter causation?  What if God can see the unfolding without being a ‘first line causal agent’?  What if knowing has two dimensions, a ‘seeing’ and an ‘experiencing’?  And what if the latter allows for an all knowing God to ‘learn’ as God experiences what had only been seen…?  What if the challenge to ‘pray’ and ‘repent’ is part of the freely unfolding process that is unfolding just as God saw it freely would?

Perhaps more importantly, are we really to feel better about this God who chooses to let evil wreak havoc, pain and chaos, into our lives, all for the sake of allowing sin infected beings to move about ‘freely’?  Does that not contradict the biblical idea that we are ‘slaves’ to sin…?  What kind of freedom is this?  Was not Arminius after something much more profound than this…?

Are we really comforted by this God who has not infused every micro moment with purpose and meaning, and instead, is letting the ‘creation’ freely spew forth chaos and pain…?

Looking forward to our time in March… Me thinks there are much better solutions in the micro…

As already expressed, thanks for the thoughts on this topic.  It certainly seems to be one that has many flash points.  The thing that gets me is that even those who oppose the idea of the future being open function as if it is.  It seems one of the appeals to Openness theology is that it is honest (if that makes sense).
John

I feel very blessed to be taking senior seminar in philosophy with a topic of free will right now at it is amazing how often we talk of time related matters. I think that I have come to believe that we are free, God knows what will happen, and that we can’t “change” the past, even with time travel, in the same way we cannot change the future. This works intellectually for me without limiting freedom. I think of God as outside of time, looking down on (a western) straight line of time from it’s beginning on infinitely. I think this is a very interesting topic however, and further dialog by learned minds is always positive. My views on many things change and it was fun to hear this theory presented in this way.

Thanks, Tom.

As you know I’m no longer a Wesleyan and since I’m not I keep asking myself, “Why should I care how this all plays out?”

As I’ve thought about it I’ve identified three reasons. 

First, I have extended family in the Church of the Nazarene.  Second, I think there is a story here that is interesting and I think there is a certain inner logic of inevitablity to how it is working out.  And third, since I think the Reformed view is a better view than Open Theism, I’d like to bring people in that direction.

To the second point.  Wesley was influenced by Reformed thought.  His circle of friends, particularly early on, was made up of several Reformed believers.  Wesley’s experience at Aldersgate came during the reading of Luther’s Commentary on Romans.  Perhaps the best verse in all Reformed hymnody was written by Charles, “Thine eye diffused a quickening ray…”  (If that’s not the Reformed doctrine of regeneration, what is it?)

But Wesley recoiled from the inner logic of Reformed teaching because of predestination.  When he did that Open Theism was the inevitiable result.  Jonathan Edwards predicted it in, The Freedom of the Will.

As I’ve told you before, I think Open Theism has an inner consistency lacking in traditional Wesleyan theology.  To foreknow is to defacto foreordain.

Nevertheless, most Nazarenes believe it is possible to have the first without the second.  These folks they feel like the Open Theists are changing the rules on them.  And they’re right.

Wesley wasn’t a consistent thinker, he pragmatically sought to fuse together a Reformed approach to justification and a Catholic understanding of sanctification. Modifications had to be made to both—but for folks of a pragmatic bent, the troublesome stuff could be glossed over without discomfort.  Early Nazarenes spoke of two works of grace to keep things neat and tidy.  The only problem with that was the shaky biblical proof-texting.  With the passing of that school of interpretation the door was opened to jetison the last vestiges of the Reformation from Wesleyan theology.  When I picked up on that in the early 90s I knew my days were numbered and I began my to develop my exit strategy.

Finally, I think what gives plausibility to the Open view for average folks are advances in mathematics and computer modeling.  God is like a vast calculating machine, something like Big Blue—who (it?) can defeat world class chess players, not by creativity and panache, but by brute numbers crunching.  There’s a down side to that though—waste.  I’m not sure how you can reconcile the transparently loving God of Open Theism with the body count.  With Reformed thought there is a God who remains in part opaque.  There is mystery there.  As the original Harvard shield displayed, Veritas leaves one book is face down.  Somethings we simply can’t know.  I’ll take the awesome, fearsome God who foreordains any day over the wasteful calculating machine of Open Theism.  (I’ve much more to say, but its not my blog.) 

Hi Tom:

I’m trying really hard to find something I disagree with here! But there isn’t much. I like the way you present the topics and the biblical sources for their plausibility. I can only offer a few ideas here:

1. I like to talk about “Open Theologies” rather than “Open Thelogy.” People often ask me, “What do you think about Open Theism?” And I respond with “Which Open Theism do you mean?”

2. I think the genius of the Wesleyan Theological tradition is its inclusive nature- so your appeal to the “big tent” is both historically and practically helpful. I tremble when I think of so many people who presume to be “speaking for the tradition” but don’t understand the ways in which the tradition can be understood. And that it is why your suggestion that not taking a stand one way or the other is probably most consistent with the predominant understanding of the tradition (especially in Wesley’s sermon “On Catholic Spirit.”).

Thanks again for posting this.

Craig

Tom, thank you for your helpful post.  You have clarified what the issues are in the discussion.  I found your suggestions for how the Church of the Nazarene can proceed helpful, and most of all charitable.  It calls people from both sides to unity; it calls both sides first and foremost to maintain its witness to the truth of God in Christ by remaining united in love.  We have all lost if we lose sight of loving God and neighbor. 

You have done a superb job at introducing this issue and calling us to keep our bonds of Christian fellowship—our right to bear the title “Christian” not being compromised by where we stand on this issue.  For the purpose for which this post was written you have said enough and said it well. 

At another time, in another context we could parse out all the differing forms these respective positions take.  One example, even though I see myself as an Open Theist, in my own work I would quibble with the statement that God knows all possible outcomes.  I like to say that God makes possible that an other might speak its own ‘word’—a word that God is hearing and experiencing as it is being spoken.  Because creation speaks its own word (not God’s), it cannot be foreknown by God.  Only when that which is other to God expresses itself is there something to be known by God. And, yes, God knows everyhing there is to be known.

Hello Tom:

As usual, a brilliant job. You continue to present the case in thoughtful, eloquent style. This does not diminish my strong disagreement with Open Theology. While I appreciate your erudite expression of these issues, I continue to be challenged by the underlying assumption that God cannot know the future with any final degree of certainty. I remember Dr. Greathouse reminding me that God can only know what can be known. The puzzle continues for those of us who are not determinists, but continue to believe in the omniscient God who “appears” to change in response to our prayers, petitions, etc.

Well done, friend!

David, we must keep in mind that our ideas about God don’t change Him. He is who He is, our ideas can get closer to that reality or not, that’s all.
To me, in many ways, Open Theism is helpful, but it does not solve every theological problem. One day we may find a better theology. That’s ok. As to God’s knowledge, I’m sure everyone agrees that God does not know what cannot be known. Omniscience simply means He knows all there is to know. So the issue is epistemological more than anything else. Now that’s the theory of course. What makes it so difficult is our ideas of what kind of God we NEED. And I understand that problem very well.

Hans, thoughtfully put! We have common ground.

Thanks for the kindness and generosity you have embedded in your clear and helpful explanation.  I am thankful to be part of a church with a Big Tent and a Catholic Spirit.  May it ever be so!

thom,
  thanks so much for this.  I must admit that i am still new to the idea of open theology, but your article is very easy to read and straight to the point.  while i still do not know if i fully agree with the idea, it baffles me that so many people who contend for free will cannot even accept the possibility of it.  thanks again for your words.

cam

p.s.  i just finished that book you sent and will have a review up soon.

Tom,  I thought you did a magnificent job in presenting Open Theology and questions relating to God’s foreknowledge.  The whole question of the problem of evil is best resolved by coming at it from an Open Theology position—I think!!

As I was reading this article I kept wandering why some people are so against this idea.  Open Theology makes sense for prayer, otherwise our prayers are just meaningless because God already knows everything that is going to happen.  The scriptural evidence is pretty strong, and like Cam said above, if we really do believe in free will why would this idea be so frightening? I, myself think its kind of exciting.

I think we like the idea that everything happens for a reason, because it allows us to just sit back and not actively participate and seek out the will of God knowing that whatever happens is supposedly God’s will.  We like to think that we have free will, yet we like to think that God is in control.  I think this is because we dont like to put that much responsibility on ourselves.  Open theology encourages Christians to seek out God and His will for their life instead of passively waiting for it to happen.  We were created to be in loving relationship with God, which means freedom.  We should not be afraid of this freedom and responsibility, we should embrace it because God is waiting for our active participation in the Kingdom!

Tom,
Thanks again for another well crafted article and conversation starter.  I appreciate your explanation, but most of all I appreciate your tone in writing it.  I agree with the recommendations for the denomination.  Thanks again!

Peace,
Paul

I agree with some of Open Theology, I just think it becomes too narrow. I understand that it’s an attempt to define something infinite and that’s the fun with theology. But one thing I think we miss is, what about the mystery of God? Sure, I think that Open Theology demonstrates that God is not trapped in a box and is “experiencing” life along side us, but I think that takes away from the mystery of who He is. What I mean by that is; Does God not have the capability to do what He wills? Is everything there is to know about God and his attributes in scripture?
Also, there are many attributes of God that I don’t always understand, and can be defined a hundred different ways. To me some things aren’t meant to be known. So why not live in the midst of His mystery. He gives and takes away. The rain falls on the just and unjust. But through it all, as you’ve stated (one thing I totally cling to) He is with us.

Tom, I’m working my way through Gregory Boyd’s GOD OF THE POSSIBLE. There’s the assumption that divine foreknowledge and foreordination are inextricably linked, i.e. that God knows what will happen because God has so determined it. (This is the assumption of my good friend Chris Wiley’s note above). I like what the Five Articles of the Remonstrants (1610) does on this point. It says exactly the opposite, i.e. that God’s predetermination in election is based upon his foreknowledge. In this little bit of theological jujitsu, we have an Arminian doctrine of election. Interestingly, John Wesley adopts the same position in his 1752 treatise, PREDESTINATION CALMLY CONSIDERED. What I don’t care for in Boyd’s treatment is that he espouses the Calvinistic assumption, i.e. that God’s foreknowledge is dependent upon God foreordination. And this same presupposition is apparent in Open Theology generally. But I don’t grant this presupposition, and so much of what Boyd write (for me) seems to be trying to solve a problem that - at least in the realm of election - the Remonstrants already solved. Open Theology by its premise has the (unintended?) consequence of denying the possibility of an Arminian doctrine of election, and that’s a doctrine I’m not willing to let go, nor (in my opinion) would John Wesley.

Thanks for saying that god can know everything and that god does not have to influence reality. That is a important distinction to make

Dear Tom,
A comment about anthropomorphisms in the Bible. People usually point them out to minimize their impact—“just an a…” However, the use of God’s nose or arm or hand to show God’s anger or passion or might does not imply less but more—God’s nose grew hot means God is very very angry. In addition, to use a physical part of God or God walking is very different from saying God regretted. Regret is not anthropomorphic like a nose is. Those who take the Bible literally are often the same one who claim God knows the future so God cannot regret. But this is NOT taking the Bible for what it is plainly saying, and thus not taking the Bible seriously.

Dr. Oord,
I would like to thank you for your concise overview of Open Theology. Throughout my life I have listened to discussions on the subject, and they all seemed rather muddled. You were able to demonstrate how we may know various aspects of God while still allowing room for change. I see God’s character as a work of art. The longer you view the painting and try to understand it, the more intricate and limitless it becomes.