Open Question

I spent a bit of time responding to a comment on this week’s Theological Term, which was, in case you’ve forgotten, open theism.

From the comment from Kane:

Have you read Gregory Boyd, or John Sanders? Perhaps Clark Pinnock?

I’m thinking more specifically about the books God At War, Satan and the Problem of Evil, The God Who Risks, or Most Moved Mover. They’re all very impacting reads and make exceptional cases for providential openness.

I haven’t read all of those books, but I have read one of them, so I gave a quick summary of the reasons that I reject the arguments in it.

I’ve read John Sanders quite thoroughly. (Once upon a time we went to the same church.) I’d have to say that I didn’t consider his arguments compelling and here’s a quick summary of my reasons why:

• First, I don’t share the philosophical assumptions that gave rise to the whole openness system. It’s hard to buy the system if you don’t buy the presuppositions.

• I’d also argue that the notion that classical view of God borrows from Greek philosophy is bogus. That criticism actually better fits the openess view.

• What’s more, I found the exegetical arguments unconvincing. I accept that most of the proof texts used to support the open view are anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms. After all, God is not like us, so we would expect that when he communicates truths about himself to us by means of human language, it will always be by way of analogy, because there are only inadequate human categories to use.

• And last, even though open theists claim to be vindicating God, I find open theology to be useless as a theodicy.

If you want me to explain more about any of the points, let me know.

Comments

[Brandon]

This is a good summary of the problems with it. I haven't read any Sanders, but I've read quite a bit of Pinnock and some Boyd, and my reaction is very much the same: the philosophical presuppositions are dubious, the understanding of the history of the classical view (including why people hold it) is weak, the exegetical principles are not principles that could really be applied consistently, and open theism creates problem while just not having the advantages claimed for it.

Plus, while changes to what has been long held by prayerful readers of Scripture might sometimes be good if they are genuinely well-founded, one always has to be very careful to show that it isn't a case of trying to change doctrines merely to fit our cultural ideas, trying to remake God after our own preferences, and I think both that it's the sort of position that is dangerously flattering to many modern First World sensibilities and that open theists rarely if ever do anything to show that they aren't just re-tailoring doctrine to fit those sensibilities (and the rhetoric they often use sometimes suggests otherwise).

[rebecca]

one always has to be very careful to show that it isn't a case of trying to change doctrines merely to fit our cultural ideas...

And this is a hard one, because our cultural ideas seem so intuitively obvious to us that it's difficult to see we're doing this when we do it.

[Kane Augustus]

Rebecca,

I'm sorry. I didn't see your post on openness. It's late now, so I won't be writing much more than this, but I intend to respond to you soon, when I have half a moment.

Cheers!
Kane