Defining evangelicalism's boundaries theologically: Is open theism evangelical?

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Jun 2002 by Ware, Bruce A

I. INTRODUCTION

Clark Pinnock is exactly right. After noting (correctly) in his Most Moved Mover that Arminians and Augustinians have co-existed throughout much of the church's history, and that a number of evangelical theologians today (and not just open theists) are working toward refinements in an evangelical doctrine of God, he asks, "Why draw the line at foreknowledge?"1 A few pages later, he returns to this question: "In raising the issue of the divine foreknowledge, we have not transgressed some rule of theological discourse and placed ourselves outside the pale of orthodoxy. Why can an evangelical not propose a different view of this matter? What church council has declared it to be impossible? Since when has this become the criterion of being orthodox or unorthodox, evangelical or not evangelical?"2

What does Pinnock mean when he says that open theists have raised the issue of divine foreknowledge? Simply this: Open theism affirms God's exhaustive knowledge of the past and present, but it denies exhaustive divine foreknowledge, in that it denies that God knows-or can know-the future free decisions and actions of his moral creatures, even while it affirms that God knows all future possibilities and all divinely determined and logically-- necessary future actualities. As William Hasker explains, "Since the future is genuinely open, since it is possible for a free agent to act in any of several different ways, it follows that it is not possible for God to have complete and exhaustive knowledge of the entire future."3 So, the specific denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge is embraced in open theism as central and essential to its own identity.

And essential it is. For to open theists, the very notion of the future's "openness" is only viable if future free choices and actions are both fully unknown and fully unknowable to God. Were God to know some future choice, say, of what you will have for dinner this evening, since God's knowledge is infallible, it must be the case that you will have for dinner what God knows you will, in which case you are not free to choose otherwise. As central and essential as libertarian freedom is to open theism, so equally central and essential is its denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge.

Now, why is Pinnock right to raise this question about the openness understanding of divine foreknowledge in particular? Two answers are needed. First, it is precisely here, in open theism's denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge, that the open view has separated itself from classical Arminianism specifically and from all versions of classical theism generally. Let's be clear about this: some of open theism's most basic and fundamental theological commitments are held in common with the entirety of the classical tradition.4 For example, openness proponents could not be clearer in rejecting the process model of a co-eternal and interdependent God-world relationship in favor of a strong commitment to the classical doctrines of God's aseity, the divine self-sufficiency, and creatio ex nihilo.5 Moreover, some other of open theism's most basic and fundamental theological commitments are shared with large segments of the broader evangelical and orthodox heritage. For example, open theism shares with classical Arminianism their common commitment to the centrality of the love of God and the necessity of libertarian freedom for moral experience, worship, love, and genuine relationship.6 None of these openness commitments shared in common with classical theism generally or with Arminianism specifically raises the question of its rightful place within the boundaries of evangelicalism. Rather, it is the specific and distinctive openness denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge that separates it from its otherwise endearing relationship to Arminianism and its significant connection to much of the classical heritage, and it is this denial, defended only in open theism and in no other branch of orthodoxy or evangelicalism, that raises the boundary question.7

The second reason Pinnock is right to raise the foreknowledge question is this: Open theism has, by this denial, entertained and promoted a reformutated understanding of God and God's relationship to the world in ways that are massive in its implications both theologically and practically. Perhaps when Pinnock asked, "Why draw the line at foreknowledge?" he meant us to take it rhetorically, implying that no good reason could be given. But with Pinnock's concluding chapter, I agree that "it is time now to ponder the implications" of the openness proposal.8 And so, I propose in the body of this paper to take the question, "Why draw the line at foreknowledge?" seriously. Has sufficient careful consideration been given to what implications follow from this specific denial? It seems to me that before we can think responsibly about whether open theism should rightly be conceived as within or without the bounds of evangelicalism, we must ponder as carefully and fully as we can just what open theism's distinctive doctrine (i.e. its denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge) leaves us with theologically and practically. After all, open theism is nothing without this doctrine. So, if it turns out that this specific doctrinal departure has innocuous or acceptable theological and practical implications, then open theism as a model cannot be discredited on the grounds of this, its distinctive doctrinal tenet. However, if it is demonstrable that the openness denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge has seriously unacceptable theological and practical implications, then open theism as a model must likewise be deemed unacceptable.