Open Theology and the Church of the Nazarene

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

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.

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,
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.

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).

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

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.) 

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.

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.

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!

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!!

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

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.

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.

I am confident in an open theology. The concept itself supports a relational God, which I know to be true. When things of the future are set in stone, there is no leeway for our input; similarly to a relationship. If we were robots, there would be no real love. In this situation, if there is a set future, then nothing we ever did would matter, because the future would already be set. God allows our input and our choices because He desires a real relationship. A relationship where each side gives and takes and each side reacts to the other. An open theology allows for real relationships and unsettled futures in the fact that we are all dynamic, moving, and changing.

An important point that you make is that passages can tremendously lose their significance if God knows exactly what is going to happen. The character of God is hopeful in the plans God has for creation and experiences emotions as we would when things do not go according to plan or when they do. In Jeremiah 29:11, God describes hope, which would not make sense if God knew exactly what would take place. Another important point that you make is that of petitionary prayer. Prayer in this manner would be meaningless if the future was already determined whether or not someone was to prayer in petition to God. Great thoughts and discussion of questions that arise from the Open Theology perspective.

Dr. Oord,

My theology has shifted quite a bit since spending time thinking and processing theology in your class. Upon entering NNU I was completely sure that God knows the future completely. But, after hearing lectures and reading things on this topic I can say my thinking has changed. Now, as I ponder open theism, I have more and more of a peace about it. There is something comforting for me about a God who is relational and who is effected by my life and the things I say and do. I realize open theism provides an opportunity for us to be in relationship with God that is authentic. Prayer of petition does not make much sense in a view where God knows the future. In order for something to be known, it must be set and complete. I now affirm open theism, I recognize that God is loving and exists in this life with us. We can pray for things that will happen in the future and it gives God options to make changes to our future.

I agree that open theism has some very attractive viewpoints. I like the idea that God knows all of the possible outcomes, but does not know which outcome we will pick. He probably knows what outcome we are more likely to pick, but we are still free to make our own chose. The most attractive piece of this view for me is the fact that God is viewed as a relation being, which I believe God is. Due to God being in relationship with us we can make choices that draw us closer to God, or make choices that draw us farther away from God. Overall, this is a helpful article in getting the conversation started.

Open theology provides a view of God very often neglected by other lines of thought. I am attracted to this view of God because in many ways this view is more consistent with not only the way I have experienced God in my own life but also the way I choose to live out my life. I am however, also suspicious of open theologies distrust of tradition. It is hard for me to wrap my mind around why open theology tends to pick and choose from the Christian tradition. This perspective could simply be based on my current understanding of open theology. I would certainly agree that open and free discussion of this topic would not only be helpful in the Church of the Nazarene but healthy as well.

I do like alot of things that open theology talks about, and accept alot of the theology that it has. One thing that you touched on here that I am still pretty questionable on is this idea of God in relation to time. I like the analogy of God being on the steeple and seeing the parade take place, to where he can see everything from start to finish, but I also like the idea of God being here on earth with us as we go through life. Being present, and changing as we change. This, to me, makes him a more relatable God. In terms of God being able to see everything, though, why can’t he? I don’t see much context of God and how he sees time in biblical text, but it’s something that i’ll look into more.

I am a young theologian so I am hesitant to take a true stance yet anywhere on the spectrum of Christian belief. I just don’t feel educated enough yet to stand somewhere and speak for or against it with complete certainty (or as much is possible for one to take a confident stance). I will say that I am sympathetic towards an Open View of God like many Wesleyan’s are. Honestly, part of my hesitation to endorse Open Theology is a fear of being called a “heretic”. Which brings me again to the season of reflection that I am in as I take this class: the issue for me is not what we believe so much as how we are interacting with each other and treating each other as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who see and believe in things differently for a number of reasons. Obviously I am generalizing, but there is a reason why I am hesitant to come out and be a Open Theist, although I am very tempted to. My second thought as I reflect is: “Can I like some of the things Open Theism says, some of the traditional Wesleyan views, and maybe a little pinch of Calvinism?” Is it possible that we all have some things more right than others?

Good stuff here Tom,
I just have one critique if I may. I find it interesting that those passages of scripture that God “Repents” you take literally yet other even in the same book you dont like the creation accounts. I am not saying the position is faulty because of this but it seems to be a serious contradiction to me. Why do we take some passages in Genesis for instance literal while others not (anybook for that matter not just Genesis)? Other than that good stuff.

Tom,
I think the concept of open theology might be helpful when thinking about the ongoing argument regarding Judas Iscariot’s actions that led to the arrest crucifixion of Christ. There are some who believe that Judas was “set up,” by God in order to complete God’s plan of salvation. I do not agree with this line of thought. I think our previous behaviors are a predictor for God. Judas did not have to sell Christ out for silver. He chose to do it. Judas had the opportunity to repent. Judas did not have to resort to suicide. Instead of repenting, he allowed his guilt to ultimately destroy his soul. Not sure if my comments are a good fit for this dialogue, but wanted to share. Thanks for the great insights.

I think that you have done an excellent job on explaining open theology. I feel that if we believe that God’s predominant characteristic is love, then we almost must believe in this theology. If God did not lead with love, it would be easy to say that “This is the way it is.” There is no other option available because God already knows what will happen. God provides freedom because of His love. I grew up with a Calvinistic understanding of Scripture, but now as an adult, I go back and read and so many times there is just no way that God knows what will happen. God is moved by the people that He has relationship with. I also have thought about in the past year the very issue that you bring up. There would be no point in petitionary prayer if the future was all mapped out. I thought this was a very good essay and provided a good explanation of open theology.

It is comforting to think that God has my future planned out.  That is easy to that say today, anyway.  Assured in my salvation, I can find solace in an idea that puts God in full control of my life.  After all, who could know what I need better than God, right?  Well, that might be true, but God has no desire to be the dictator of my (or anyone else’s) life.  Lord, Creator, Sustainer, Savior?  Definitely.  God certainly is and desires to be all of these.  But God will only take on these roles in our lives if we allow God to do so.  God gives us freedom, which inherently means God also gives us an opportunity to impact a future that cannot logically exist yet.  Certainly, to know the future would not necessarily require God to be the cause of the future.  But it would bring into question the culpability of God with regard to evil’s oppressive existence in the lives of God’s people. 
I do not say all these things to say that Open Theism is the answer to all these questions, but I am a proponent, like Oord, of keeping the dialogue open within our churches.  Perhaps there is not a “right” answer, but there certainly are some plausible responses that can from such a dialogue.

I have previously identified with open theism. I believe that it is the best explanation for how God can be a loving God and allow complete free will and not hinder the idea of omniscience. What I appreciate most about this blog post is its admonition to the church. While it is addressed specifically to the denomination Church of the Nazarene, I think that it should be taken up by all churches and all denominations.
There should be open discussions about such important issues. Church leaders and parishioners should be encouraged to examine multiple views regarding things like Open Theism, considering what best fits with the Biblical narrative and experience; and what might improve or take away from Christian history. And likewise, I don’t think there should be an “official” stand one way or another on these kinds of issues. I think that official stances like this cause much more division than they do unity.

Tom makes a strong case for open theology, and it seems clear to me that this set of ideas about God is not contradictory to Scripture.  I have come to agree with open theology, but to be honest, it is not as much about the logic as the application.
  Open theology has an unflinching view of the world and it does not shy away from difficult questions by appealing to the mystery of God.  It makes a case for a God who loves and seeks genuine relationship with us, which is Biblically sound, but it also builds an argument that can deal with the darkness and pain that so many face.  When it comes to my own struggles over the years and the troubles I have seen others face, I can find a way to make peace with them through these ideas.

In it’s very premise, I disagree that God does not know the future. Alpha and Omega, beginning and the end. God exists outside time. The fallacy is, in my opinion, that foreknowledge is unfair and necessarily determining the choices of free people. God created a structure and a way for humans to come to him within the constraints of his character, and therefore in the ultimate goal of being in a loving relationship with God. God does not change. Consequently, the way he provides will not, and the criteria for salvation is inherently just, merciful and full of grace. God does not deviate, and therefore hell is a reality, along with God’s loving name. Humans, the chaotic deciders, do not know the future. We are wide open because of our place within time. God knows every choice we will make and every deed. Every sin will be judged according to his justice, mercy and grace, and He will determine the relationship between us and Him. In fact, it in a sense, it has already been decided. Yet, it hasn’t from our perspective. We still have freedom enough to choose God and a place in a loving relationship with Him, yet before creation, He already chose us. Yet, a relationship will not be formed if humans do not choose God, in faith, and obey. God already knows what we will choose and who will be obedient, yet determines only so much as the type of relationship available to humans, and the miniscule requirement to enter into it- perhaps no bigger than a mustard seed. I’ve been a Nazarene all my life, and this thinking is somewhat well meaning, but false. God knows everything, including the future, and who will choose what. It is up to God to decide which saturation of sin and repentance is fair as time unfolds, and who will receive eternal salvation through Christ. All of this is knowable. This desire to lessen the blow of a God who perhaps failed to save enough people is not prudent, as more than likely God will be proven holy and righteous in all His ways, up to and including foreknowledge of all decisions, and all inaction and lack of intervention in the lives of those who will be damned. Love can still exist in pure states with this scenario.  God bless our hearts and minds.

You seem to have presented this “Open Theology” well. However that kills it for me. As plausible as it may sound, it doesn’t square with certain ideas we are given in Scripture about God’s nature, man’s nature and God’s creation. It also assumes everything there is to know about God comes is present in the Scripture. Scripture presents us with what we need to reconnect with God and as Jesus said “the bulk of the book is about me”. I don’t believe it is profitable to engage in theorizing more about God’s nature than what Scripture presents to us. I am not saying we shouldn’t dig into scripture searching for the hidden seeds(SOD) that are placed there for the diligent disciple to find., we certainly should, but I have yet to find anything in Scripture that was hidden, that disagreed with the basic descriptions of God’s nature.
Modern science theorizes there are 10 dimensions and Nachmonides in circa1250AD derived the same from reading Scripture. Even though there is symbolism in Scripture, most of Scripture is literal (a.k.a. it means exactly what it says) I have often speculated on the nature of God and what might there be we are NOT told about in Scripture, but I always bear in mind, I am speculating and I have no proof that I am correct in my assumptions. So those things I glean from such meditation on Scripture and God’s nature, I clearly define as my own thoughts when sharing them with others. I think this theory of Open theology that speculates on God’s nature involving time is an assumption which does not make sense when considering God as creator of all 10 dimensions and mastery over them including the 4th dimension we humans commonly ascribe to Time. It goes against every other facet we ascribe to God’s nature such as omnipotence, omnipresence, eternality etc. It brings up more questions about the verity of such verses as “I am the beginning and the end. “”I know the beginning from the end” If we are going to search for answers about our universe and it’s construction, then let us ask questions such as:
Where do the angels live?
They come and go to Earth as God pleases, but do they translate in from another of the 10 dimensions, or do they come in UFOs or what?
Where does Lucifer and his third of the angels live? Do they inhabit the same dimension as heavenly servants or yet another dimension?
Where is the Abyss? Is it inside the Earth? Or is it in yet another dimension? The Fallen angels are said to be imprisoned there, but the Nephilim who became demons interact with our world and humankind. Are they here with us and out of phase or do they come and go from some dimension?

So what is the point of these seemingly silly questions? I am trying to illustrate there are many things we don’t know about our own universe much less about God’s nature and we should endeavor to take all Scripture literally first, until we see otherwise. I see no reason to think God cannot know the future just because we have free will and can indeed change certain outcomes through prayer and repentance. These small choices we make in our lives have no influence on the outcome of the larger events to ahead. Even as God allowed Nineveh to repent and change, their end was still to come. I know it is hard for us to imagine God as being in the past, present, and future simultaneously, but I choose to believe it even though I cannot mentally grasp the physics of it. I choose to believe the prophesies of the future of mankind and the second coming of Messiah Jesus are all true even though they too are difficult to grasp. So far Scripture’s prophecy record is 100% so I have no incentive to reject the rest of them. It is difficult for the mind to grasp, that God is at the end of time seeing past history, and then influencing through the Holy Spirit the prophets to write their prophecies, but there is no other way to explain it. The only thing that helps me to think about is is to IMAGINE God not actually being in body like Jesus, but as being some layer in the fabric of the universe as though the universe is an extension of God’s true body. It is mind reeling, but it is as good a speculation as any others I have heard. It would explain the ability to be omnipresent.

So then, is it good to search for answers and speculate on such things as God’s nature? I think it is as long as we do not let it create contradictions in Scripture. Let us theorize and speculate, but let us believe what we read in the scriptures first and let us place our need for full understanding second. Let us not question whether Scriptures are true, but let us question how can this be and allow God to reveal what He will, when He wills it. I believe everything we need to know about Good in this life, is in Scripture and those things that are not, are unimportant. Just think how difficult it was for people to believe in a young Earth and six day creation before mankind’s science and math discovered the stretching of time as a direct result of the stretching of space. These days our math and science have shown that space and time are interlocking elements. Christians before us had to take it on faith alone. That is my Motis Operandi, to believe first and search for how these things are true. I don’t want to change my belief or embrace another’s theories then see how I can make the Scriptures fit.

Dr. Oord,
I think it would be good for the denominational leaders to allow open dialogue on Open Theology. I can see your points on Wesleyanism being attracted to the points of Open Theology. I am also thankful for you taking the time to explain the concepts a little more for me. Your language is much easier to digest for me than some of the stuff we were digging into. The key phrase for me is that God knows everything that can be known. His omniscience is still in tact, while our free will is fully intact as well. You’ve really made me think a lot about it.

Thanks for the post. I think that it is the challenge of any church/denomination leaders to pinpoint those issues that must be non-negotiable and those that are open for discussion. One of the joys of the CON is that, in my opinion, they have done well in limiting the non-negotiable issues. However, there is an unwritten undercurrent that is still in many of our churches that tack on a few more to the list. It is my hope that the CON continues to cultivate a people that seek to know God more deeply, with will have to include discussions on topics such as open theism.

The movement about open theism is a movement that I am actually quite thankful for because it helps answer some important questions that I felt we haven’t really found a satisfactory answer to such as the problem of evil.
I appreciate the recommendations to invest in dialogue on these issues and not force members to take a stand for or against it. This make sense in two ways. First, we are an international church and if we like it or not the blog above is probably situated best between a certain cultural context. To force members to think about the issues mentioned above would probably also force them to deny their own cultural context and adopt another one. We would foster hypocrisy. Secondly, the issues open theology relates to such as free will and ‘God is with us’ play in certain cultures a much more important role than in others. Sometimes to such an extent that if denying certain theological aspects would mean denying certain cultural characteristics, who we are as an American, a German, fill in the blank.
So the dialogue suggested is important to also realize that certain issues are more culturally tinted than theologically and in order to remain an international church we need that dialogue to discover our own blind spots and be a mirror for each other.

Detractors of Open Theology might argue that God not knowing the future weakens God. However, isn’t it more powerful of God to know all possible outcomes than to know one concrete outcome? I appreciate the logic of “God cannot know a future that doesn’t exist yet,” but my whole life read the bible with the assumption that, as Calvinists teach, God is outside of time. Funny, I don’t think I was ever explicitly taught that, but the assumption was made and never corrected/challenged. I still get stuck between passages that show God changing God’s mind versus a passage like Jesus predicting that Peter will deny him three times.

One of the most intriguing points is God’s relationship to time. Open theologians say God is in time with us. For me, this says our lives and choices matter because the future isn’t set yet. This gives greater credence to our decisions, but also to God’s covenantal relationship with us. God not knowing the future (because it doesn’t exist yet) takes God off the hook for evil acts perpetrated by humans at their free will. For me, as a Christ-follower and minister, this matter most in the way that I pray. I hope to be praying to a God that hears me and has the ability to respond/act/move/change plans in accordance to the current state of our relationship. Out of that responsive love I have the freedom to love others as I have first been loved. That love has the ability to change the future.

As I consider open theology and find myself asking questions I had not asked before, I become more and more aware of my need for my questions to be acceptable to my denomination without threat of retribution. I think that the church’s response to this and any questions we may have regarding our theology or polity, should be taken seriously and we should not be in a position where we are worried that this may threaten our standing as members or pastors. We already have areas where the church has allowed for more than one opinion, like Baptism for example, so why would this be any different? It is my opinion that denominational leadership should encourage discussion regarding our beliefs. As a pastor I think we should also encourage our congregations to consider what their personal theology might be. This is not to say that I believe that leadership, pastors or congregations all need to be come open theists. What I would like to see is an environment where difficult questions are tackled within our denominational walls in a safe manner. This is but one area where people may feel themselves asking questions and seeking out various ideas, there are many others to come. As the next generation moves into leadership we need to consider that they have been raised in a very different world where everything is questioned on social media where people can openly attack each other from behind a screen. We need to model conversations that happen in person, where people are sharing, open and even open to disagreement without being offended, threatening to leave the church or accusing others in some way.
On another note I am happy to be getting an idea of how some of our earlier church leaders may have felt about the idea of God not having the foreknowledge that we have assumed upon Him for many years within the church, great food for thought.
Thank you for summarizing and defining what has proven to be an enlightening subject for me.

This essay was a well stated overview of the basic beliefs of Open Theology, and the reasons why the Church of the Nazarene should neither require nor reject this teaching. I agree that these opinions should find a welcome place inside the “big tent” as, in my opinion, this is not an essential issue in relation to salvation. With that being said the basic belief’s of Open Theology concerning the foreknowledge of God. It seems to me like the Open theology view that God does not know the future, because it cannot be know, is very much compatible with the Wesleyan view of free-will. It is completely plausible to me that God may not know the future because of the freedom of creation. But, all though God may not know for certain the future, God knows the possibilities. Because God knows the possibilities, and knows the nature of each us of the choices we make are likely obvious to God, though not a certainity.

I really like the end in how we should respond to the idea of God’s knowledge of the future. By maintaining an overall neutral stance, the Church of the Nazarene is not condoning something that cannot be proven one way or another. Part of this understanding is recognizing the limits of the choice we make. Whether it is a God within or outside of time, or a God that doesn’t fully know or has foreknowledge of the future. This is not a case where one is right and one is wrong, but how a person views the relationship with God and how God interacts with creation. It is a very real possibility to have to agree to disagree. The difference in opinion on this matter does not have greater implications upon ones faith. I agree with the idea of encouraging dialogue because this can foster greater understanding of one’s faith and belief structure.

This was an insightful post that allowed one to explore through some of the different viewpoints. After, reading through some of these thoughts I am of the opinion that God does know the ultimate future plan that He has in store. I don’t see that the ability for God to see the future as a factor that would limit our own freedom. It could be that God is able to see the different opportunities that are available to us and know every destination of every possible opportunity. This to me makes more sense to explain whether God can see the future. There may also be a mystery element involved in this discussion that we may not be aware of that God further explain how God can see the future.

Tom,
When talking about God knows our future, Jeremiah passage and how it can go both ways. Couldn’t we argue that yes God knows us, our lives and wants us to prosper but because of our Free Will that is what changes? I don’t know if I would say that God changes His mind…free will allows us too and after God says something to us we are allowed to make the next choice. If God stayed with everything He said and we didn’t change then would we still have a world?
It would be like a composer….working on his music, hears something, he likes the sound of it, adds to what he had already said was his composition. God is a loving God, we get to decide if His love is lavished on us or if we turn away.
I think there is a lot to think about….I do believe God knows, but wants to see what we choose.

Dr. Oord, I thank you for leading us through the understanding of open theism and the Nazarene understanding of its place in our life. All the aspects that you have brought up, from pre destination to foreknowledge has played a huge role in my understanding in how God operates and presides over us. The most useful thing was a understanding of how John Wesley and Arminius perceived God’s foreknowledge. Drawing from (Phil. 2:12) I was able to see not only how Paul thought, but how Wesley understood the future and God. Divine love will be the guiding force in so many lives, and will take a bigger role in mine as well. Thank you!

In the few years after I graduated from college, I really struggled with the idea of free will and God knowing the future. At that time, I read something by C.S. Lewis in Miracles and later Mere Christianity, which helped me see God outside of time, basically watching us in all moments as God watches us in the present moment. And that helped.

I wonder if, at that time, I had been presented with the idea of open theology, how I would have responded. Being younger and without already having made up my mind, it would have been easier to believe these ideas. However, even now at my old age of 38, I find myself leaning toward open theology—the true freedom it grants in God not knowing with certainty what we will do.

Strangely, I find my ideas of God expanding, rather than shrinking into a smaller God. If we are truly free, our life choices truly matter, and we can be in a true relationship with the creator of the universe! I am still struggling with many ideas connecting with open theology, but I think that God flowing through time with us actually makes the most sense.

Dr. Oord, your post has brought much important information to light in regards to open theology within the Church of the Nazarene. Your writings reinforce how people in the denomination should be more understanding of each other and I agree with that to an extent. I think there are some aspects that we should not stray from in our theology.

I do support the church being more open to open theology. I think I am in favor of open theism because as you said, ” the holiness message is rooted in love: God’s love for the world and God’s call for creatures to love.” ( page 2) A loving God provides for opportunities to grow spiritually and emotionally. I love how you find the words, “but” , “if” and “then” in the passage from 2 Choranicles. It goes to show that God grants us opportunities to choose to be in relationship with Him because He loves us so firecly and desires to be loved by us as well. We can spread His love to those around us because of our ability to choose.

I found this blog post to be an easy and interesting read. I agree with the majority of the positions presented in defense of Open Theology. The Bible is not imminently clear on the topic. The Church of the Nazarene should not take an official position, but should provide an “open” and safe environment to wrestle with the Biblical witness and arising questions about God’s knowledge of the future. This is not an area that requires common agreement, nor should it result in division. There is common ground and people come to the conversation from different perspective. With that said, there is strong support for the belief that the future is not fully set
.
God is love. God is omniscience in that God knows all that can be known. Our lives matter and what we do really does count. We are called to cooperate freely with God. God is responsive to us and lives in relationship with us. As Scripture tells us, the Kingdom is near. We are morally accountable for our actions and those actions have consequences both good and bad. God does not foreordain evil. Moral culpability for evil sits with creation, not God.

Time is an interesting topic. In our desire to understand time, we may be limited in our understanding of God’s ability to be inside and outside of time at the same time. God, through Christ and the Holy Spirit are inside time. In the example of the parade, God the Father is on the church steeple at the same time that the Holy Spirit is active in the lives of the participants.

I do not take the position that some biblical prophecies in Scripture might be in error. There is no proof of that. Scripture is not explicit as to how some of these prophecies will come to fruition. We co-labor with God (1 Cor. 3-9). We can do all things through Christ who strengthens us. In the end, what is most important is that we respect the differences in our views and find unity in what we have in common. God is love and we live in God, when we live in love (1 John 4:16). Let us love one another when we open our hearts to important matters of faith and understanding.

Towards the beginning of this blog entry, you say, “The Church of the Nazarene takes the Bible as its primary source for issues relating to salvation.” Yet biblical prophecies about salvation and the coming of a Messiah who we know as Jesus are not taken in the same light and context as those as you say in the realm of open theology. You say, “Open theists respond that a) the vast majority of prophetic statements in the Bible are not predictive, b) God can know with certainty what God plans to do without foreknowing all future events, and c) sometimes prophets were wrong in their predictions.”
The Old Testament contains over 300 prophecies about Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Are you really saying that these prophecies are wrong? There are also prophecies about the future to come in the New Testament. These prophecies give me hope for a better life to come. Without these prophecies and without at least myself putting my trust in them as true, I feel as if myself and lot of other people in this world would be in despair. Where is your hope in the future? What do you look expectantly towards? What gives you a reason for living each day? Why are you here?

I have enjoyed spending time reading about open theologies and seeing how God is love and how we interact with God as we continue creating alongside God. One of the ideas that I have been hung up on is that God can still make plans. After reading about the future being unsettled, I thought it to mean that God doesn’t make plans for the future, which could go against several Scriptures. However, it has been eye opening to see that open theists do believe that God can make plans for the future that are not dependent on creaturely freedom meaning that God’s plans will happen as God planned. I am learning to enjoy the kind of God that open theology talks about.

Thank you so much for your clarification in regards to prophesy. I have a much clearer understanding of what this means. I have always understood that prophets could get it wrong. It’s like a game of telephone going from one person to the next and at times the end story doesn’t match the beginning conversation. Where I was confused is in regards to the promises that God makes. God does not have to know the future entirely in order to make plans and keep promises. If God says He will do something He can and will carry out. The unknown future and possibility of change comes into play when creation is involved. Our choices are free for us to make. This blog really clears a lot up for me.

SPACE/TIME: God is Spirit. As such ‘he’ neither occupies space, nor experiences time. Therefore, all uses of space/time terms are concessions to our space/time bound nature. God knows, what to us is our future. But note, even the phrase “God knows” is time bound. Perhaps it would be best to stop debating things we have absolutely no knowledge or experience of, and start focusing, in our space/time bound way, on existing in and experiencing the presence of God in our now. It does not matter if God knew, or was ignorant of my actions before I acted. What is of immense importance, is whether or not I was living in God’s presence when I acted. (Sorry, still can’t escape space/time terms – to whit ‘Living’.)