A couple years ago, there was quite a stirring in Minneapolis. Two professors at Bethel University began openly debating one another’s theological views. The battle was Open (Freewill) Theism v. Classical Theism. Doing a quick google search of Gregory Boyd v. John Piper will give you a glimpse into the two positions.
Being a proponent of classical theism, and moving to Minneapolis increased my desire to educate myself on the arguments, hermeneutics, and passion behind the Open Theism view of God. I started my study with John Sanders’ The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence.
For those not familiar with Open Theism, I’ll be overly simplistic here. The basic position is that God limits himself in his foreknowledge so that he only knows certain aspects of the future, leaving some decisions/actions open to freewill agents (us). There are things that God simply does not know. “In choosing to depend on human beings for some things, God takes the risk of being either delighted or disappointed in what transpires.” The benefit, it is said, is that this allows God to become involved in real, intimate give-and-take relationships with humanity.
What I Liked: This book is much more academic than I originally anticipated, but in a refreshing way. Sanders does a great job of weaving in and out of scholasticism and pastoral insight. It was tedious in places, but overall, very enjoyable to read grammatically.
Also, this book gave me a glance into the heart of Open Theology. Many times people with theology that vastly opposes tradition are villainized; however, after reading this volume, it was great to read the love for God behind Sanders’ views. That having been said, I agree with very little of this book.
What I didn’t Like: I disagreed with this book on a fundamental level. Rather than saying everything I didn’t like (which would take forever), I’ll just outline a few of my main dissents.
- In a book rejecting the classical view of God, I found this basis to be lacking: “the goal here is to establish that there is sufficient biblical warrant (not proof) for affirming that the future is in some respects indefinite even for God..” I believe that this is not nearly enough of a foundation for me to throw out orthodoxy and embrace these views. Furthermore, this appears to show that the basis for most of Sanders’ hermeneutics are isogetical. His goal in navigating these Scriptures is to prove his point. His goal is to show that his view can work according to the Bible. I know Sanders would never take it this far, but this seems to avoid the original intent of the authors in order to adapt his own ideas.
- Although Open proponents do careful stepping around this issue, I believe a fundamental problem they must face is God’s fulfilled prophecies. Basically, their view is that sometimes God legitimately goes through with a prophecy, other times He intends to do something unless a freewill agent causes a change in the situation, or He is simply guessing what seems most likely to happen. I see why these views work within Open Theology, however, I do not see Biblical evidence that this is how the mind of God works when he says he’ll do something.
- There is seemingly an offensive elevation of man and deep demotion of God underlying open theism. In saying how necessary a give-and-take relationship is for God to truly love us, humanity is placed on some pedestal, as if we were something great, as if God was wholly dependent upon us, and as if God only loves when he allows us to make decisions and “create” with him. As Sanders puts it, “A God of sheer omnipotence can run a world of exhuastively controlled beings, but what is magnificent about that?” I would advise Sanders to read Job 38-42, and understand the majesty of God’s foreknowledge and specific sovereignty.
Personal Takeaways: This view deepened my love for the sovereignty of God. It forced me to ask hard questions of my own personal theology and to continue my search for Truth. It made me trust God even more and love his meticulous control and sovereignty. It gave me a fire that I loved!
It also, again, helped me understand where open proponents are coming from and helped me see their love and desire for knowing God and making him known. I respect Open theologians, but I think the basis of their theology is not grounded in Scripture.
Who’s It For?: I would recommend this book for readers who enjoy engaging in theological discussions. I would advise the reader that the book is decently high in its academic theological jargon and therefore, isn’t extremely accessible on all levels. However, there are chapters that have much more of a pastoral bent to them which are much easier to follow. For a more layperson guide to Open Theology, look for my forthcoming review of Gregory Boyd’s God of the Possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment