No Other God

A Response to Open Theism

R.C. Sproul

• Publisher: P Publishing
• Year: 2001
• Print ISBN: 9780875521855
• eBook ISBN: 9781629955551
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

John Frame describes open theism and evaluates it biblically. He addresses questions such as: "Is God's will the ultimate explanation of everything?" and "Does God know everything in advance?"

ONE

---

What Is Open Theism?

In this chapter, I shall try to describe the open-theist position in general terms, contrasting it with traditional theism. But first I need to clear away some barriers to mutual understanding.

The Rhetoric and the Reality

Open theists have not always been clear in describing what they believe. Many (though certainly not all) of their expositions are more like motivational talks or political speeches than philosophy or serious theology. They seem to be more interested in persuasion than clarity. They often write emotive prose, calculated to give the reader a good feeling about their position and a bad feeling about traditional views of God. I must begin by warning readers not to let themselves be carried away with this rhetoric.

For example, the open theist Clark Pinnock distinguishes “two models of God” that people “commonly carry around in their minds”:

We may think of God primarily as an aloof monarch, removed from the contingencies of the world, unchangeable in every aspect of being, as an all-determining and irresistible power, aware of everything that will ever happen and never taking risks. Or we may understand God as a caring parent with qualities of love and responsiveness, generosity and sensitivity, openness and vulnerability, a person (rather than a metaphysical principle) who experiences the world, responds to what happens, relates to us and interacts dynamically with humans.¹

Pinnock endorses the second model and identifies it as open theism.² But this description of supposedly common models of God doesn’t quite ring true. My impression is that most Christians combine elements of both models: God is a monarch, but not aloof. He is an all-determining and irresistible power, but also a caring parent.³ He is not contingent (that is, dependent) on the world, but neither is he “removed from the contingencies of the world,” for he is very much involved in the world he has made. He is aware of everything that happens and never takes risks, yet he abounds in love and responsiveness, generosity and sensitivity. He is a person, not merely a metaphysical principle.⁴ Nor do I think that most Christians (even traditional ones) would object to Pinnock’s description of God as one “who experiences the world, responds to what happens, relates to us and interacts dynamically with humans.”⁵

What Pinnock presents as two distinct models of God are, for the most part, aspects of a single model—the biblical model that has governed the thinking of most Christians through the centuries. I would reject two elements in the first list (God’s aloofness and his removal from the world process), and I would question two from the second list (God’s openness and his vulnerability).⁶ I think most Christians throughout history would agree with me.

The Openness of the Sovereign God

I said that I question Pinnock’s terms openness and vulnerability, not that I reject them. In fact, I can affirm these terms in some senses. However, they are ambiguous. Openness is, of course, a metaphor. It is not used in Scripture as an attribute of God, and it does not have a standard meaning in the theological literature. Richard Rice defines it as showing that open theism “regards God as receptive to new experiences and as flexible in the way he works toward his objectives in the world.”⁷

But I believe that Pinnock and others use the word open also because of its connotations.⁸ The term has a good feel to it. It suggests vistas of spacious meadows, full of merry sunshine, welcome mats, unlocked gates, undogmatic thinking, and people who are willing to share their inmost secrets. That kind of imagery is certainly attractive to people in our culture. But we should be careful of it. Sometimes, after all, closed is better than open. Food will spoil if we leave the refrigerator door open. An open safe is an invitation to thieves. And it is not wise to leave the door of a moving car open. Perhaps it is better, in some respects, for God to be closed. For example, if he really has left the future completely open, he has left open the possibility of Satan’s victory.

The sovereign God of traditional Christian theism is closed in certain ways, as we shall see. But in other respects he is also a God of openness. He opens the world wonderfully to his children, commanding them to exercise dominion over the whole earth (Gen. 1:28), enabling Paul to say that he can do all things through Christ (Phil. 4:13)! He sets an open door before his people as they proclaim Christ throughout the world (Col. 4:3; Rev. 3:8). God can open and close the doors of creation precisely because he is sovereign: “What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open” (Rev. 3:7).

His sovereignty makes him fully open to our prayers, for he is always able to answer them. No door is closed to him. He can, indeed, even open the doors of human hearts to his influence; we cannot keep him out. His sovereign power opens us to him and him to us.

So the openness metaphor cuts both ways. Indeed, the relatively few biblical uses of open fit better with the traditional model than with Pinnock’s. But, of course, theology should not be built on metaphors, which typically can be taken in many different directions, but rather on the teaching of Scripture.

Sovereign Vulnerability

Vulnerability is an idea that I shall discuss later in this book. My own view is that God cannot suffer loss in his essential nature, and that his eternal plan cannot suffer any defeat. In those senses, he is invulnerable. But when he interacts with creatures, yes, he does experience grief (Eph. 4:30). Jesus was vulnerable unto death, and he is nothing less than God the Son. And even apart from the Incarnation, the prophet declares that “in all their distress [God] too was distressed” (Isa. 63:9). This biblical emphasis is fully compatible with classical theism, as I shall argue in this book.⁹

The Ambiguities of Open Theism

We have not, however, made much progress in defining the nature of open theism and its precise differences with the traditional view. Pinnock’s two lists, as we have seen, are far too vague, ambiguous, and misleading to define the differences. I have spent some time on his lists in order to show that the appeal of open theism is often based on connotations, on the sounds of words, on rhetoric, rather than substance.

Another example is provided by the preface to The Openness of God:

God, in grace, grants humans significant freedom to cooperate with or work against God’s will for their lives, and he enters into dynamic, give-and-take relationships with us.

The Christian life involves a genuine interaction between God and human beings.We respond to God’s gracious initiatives and God responds to our responses . . . and on it goes. God takes risks in this give-and-take relationship, yet he is endlessly resourceful and competent in working toward his ultimate goals. Sometimes God alone decides how to accomplish these goals. On other occasions, God works with human decisions, adapting his own plans to fit the changing situation. God does not control everything that happens. Rather, he is open to receiving input from his creatures. In loving dialogue, God invites us to participate with him to bring the future into being.¹⁰

The authors admit, to their credit, that this description of open theism is only in “broad strokes.”¹¹ But this is the sort of description that grabs the attention and emotions of the average reader. The authors offer to take us on a grand adventure, with great risk, but arm in arm with God himself. Who would not want to come along?

But what is “significant freedom”? Open theists also describe it as “real freedom” or “genuine freedom.” (Compare the later reference to “a genuine interaction.”) Of course, everybody wants to have “genuine” freedom, and everybody would like to believe he has it. (Indeed, what other kind of freedom is there?) But that language hugely prejudices the discussion. As we shall see below, open theism teaches a particular view of freedom, namely, libertarianism, which is highly controversial in theology. I shall argue that the concept is unbiblical and incoherent. And, upon careful analysis, it turns out not to be genuine freedom at all, but a kind of bondage to unpredictable chance.

And what is a “dynamic” relationship to God, as opposed to a static one? Modern theology praises things that are dynamic and demonizes anything static, and the authors of The Openness of God follow that trend dutifully. But what, actually, is the difference? Evidently, in this context, dynamic means “changing,” rather than “powerful.” But even in classical theology, our relationship to God changes in some respects, even though God in himself does not change. That is, God is unchanging in his nature and eternal plan, but his relationships with creatures do change. So in fact both classical theology and open theism promise us a dynamic relationship with God.

And do we really want to exclude all static (unchanging) aspects of our relationship to God? Is it not important that some aspects of that relationship do not change, such as God’s promises, his way of salvation, and his justice, holiness, and mercy? Does not the writer of Psalm 136 delight in repeating the refrain, “His love endures forever”? Would any open theist be pleased to see God’s love change to cruelty?

I plead with readers of open-theist writings not to be carried away with rhetoric. Don’t let anything get past you.Think it through; ask what these writers really mean. Don’t let them sweep you off your feet by means of ambiguous, but rhetorically attractive, language.

The Open-Theist View of Traditional Theism

We must now move from the rhetorical to the real differences between open and traditional theism. Open theists, to their credit, do sometimes move beyond the rhetorical posture to an analytical one. Richard Rice, for example, gives us a rather precise account of the issues, and we should look at that. We should consider first the open theists’ view of what traditional theism teaches. Here is my summary of what Rice calls the “traditional” or “conventional” view:¹²

1. It emphasizes God’s sovereignty, majesty, and glory.
2. God’s will is the final explanation of everything.
3. His will is irresistible.
4. He is caring and benevolent, but he is glorified equally in the destruction of the wicked.
5. He is supratemporal.
6. He knows everything in the past, present, and future.
7. He is essentially unaffected by human events and experiences.

The terms traditional and conventional suggest that most theological traditions would agree with these propositions. But, in fact, Rice’s description reflects Calvinist beliefs specifically, more than any other tradition. Arminians, for example, would not agree that God’s will is the final explanation of everything or that his will is irresistible. On the other hand, not all Calvinists would agree that God is glorified equally (or in every sense) in the salvation of the righteous and the destruction of the wicked. Calvinists believe that God equally foreordains both of these outcomes, as he foreordains all the events of nature and history. But not all events are pleasing to him, and in that sense all events do not equally glorify him. As for the destruction of the wicked, Scripture says that God takes no delight in that (Ezek. 33:11), and many Calvinists take that teaching quite literally.¹³ Nevertheless, Rice’s list indicates the views that open theists want to reject.

The Main Contentions of Open Theism

Later, Rice sets forth his own view of God, which he shares with other open theists. Again, I paraphrase and summarize...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• 1. What Is Open Theism?
• 2. Where Does Open Theism Come From?
• 3. How Do Open Theists Read the Bible?
• 4. Is Love God’s Most Important Attribute?
• 5. Is God’s Will the Ultimate Explanation of Everything?
• 6. How Do Open Theists Reply?
• 7. Is God’s Will Irresistible?
• 8. Do We Have Genuine Freedom?
• 9. Is God in Time?
• 10. Does God Change?
• 11. Does God Suffer?
• 12. Does God Know Everything in Advance?
• 13. Is Open Theism Consistent with Other Biblical Doctrines?
• 14. Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index of Scripture
• Index of Names and Subjects