Openness and inerrancy: Can they be compatible?

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 2002 by Nicholls, Jason A

I. INTRODUCTION

To some observers, the resolution concerning divine foreknowledge passed at the 2001 ETS Annual Meeting in Colorado Springs might seem rather harmless. "We believe the Bible clearly teaches that God has complete, accurate, and infallible knowledge of all events past, present, and future, including all future decisions and actions of free moral agents."1 It undoubtedly reflects the society's majority viewpoint. Yet this vote comes on the heels of several years of discussion and debate, albeit rather limited until recently, on the question of whether the position known as the openness of God is compatible with evangelical theology.2 In fact, some are interpreting the results of this vote as the first step down the road toward outright dismissing advocates of the open view from the ETS. Scholars such as Wayne Grudem have admitted as much by characterizing the vote as a "gentle nudge" for open theists to exit the society.3 But exactly why would critics of the openness view want to see this theological position expelled from the society, and why have its proponents come under such intense fire? Essentially, many are contending that open theism is incompatible with evangelical theology-or, to put it another way in light of the theme of the 2001 meeting-it is alleged to have crossed an evangelical "boundary."

Precisely which boundary has been violated? Negotiating a clear answer to this question is no easy matter, since delimiting such evangelical "boundaries" is a task replete with its own challenges. Indeed, such an endeavor-- defining evangelical boundaries-too often disintegrates into a tricky debate as different evangelicals have contrasting opinions on what constitutes even the most basic of evangelical boundaries.4 Yet the critics of open theism have, for the most part, leveled a rather unified and concise attack against it by alleging that openness theology is incompatible with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.5 Given the ETS's basic doctrinal statement, this accusation is momentous. All society members must affirm (1) that "[t]he Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs"; and (2) that "God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an untreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory."

Based partly upon this specific charge, North American evangelicalism is currently witnessing a growing yet sobering trend. What could be described as a climate of hysteria has been cultivated in regard to openness theology, and this has stemmed in large part from the specific charge that open theism is incompatible with biblical inerrancy. Witness the number of influential voices that are on record indicting the open view. Many of its detractors would argue that it is inconsistent with evangelical theology, and a few have even gone so far as to condemn it as a heresy that is destructive to both churches and personal lives.6 My purpose in this article is not to try to counter these more dramatic accusations. But I do want to reply to a specific and increasingly pervasive criticism against the openness position-viz. that its view of God is incompatible with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. For, again, it is precisely on this basis that a core group of scholars is calling for the expulsion of open theists from the ETS. As I document below, a number of these critics have come to this conclusion thinking that logic somehow demands it. In short, if the God of open theism is incapable of guaranteeing the fulfillment of his purposes, the logic goes, then this risks thwarting divine providence. And if God's providence were to be thwarted, this would in turn necessarily undermine the doctrine of inerrancy.

In response, I contend that this allegation is based on a misconception about the openness view. I will demonstrate how open theism, rather than undermining divine providence, can and does affirm providence by upholding the reality of unilateral divine intervention in the midst of libertarian freedom. I describe this interaction as one of governed libertarianism guided by incidents of select determinism. By articulating the relationship between these two concepts, then, I will show how an advocate of the openness view may continue to affirm biblical inerrancy-effectively removing all legitimate grounds for excluding open theists from the ETS on the basis of its current doctrinal statement.

Perhaps the biggest risk taken in this article is that I may at times reiterate points made previously by such open theists as Gregory Boyd, Clark Pinnock, and John Sanders. Where I am aware of this, I have tried to acknowledge it. Why add another essay to the growing theological crossfire between critics and proponents? I write because I am convinced that this specific issue-namely, to reconcile the open view with divine providence and, therefore, the doctrine of inerrancy-deserves more explicit treatment. And I am hopeful that the argument made here will fall on ears that are willing to listen-and that I am convinced need to listen. I should also underscore that, while the more prominent open theists might agree with the basic point made here, they also may not. I speak only for myself in this essay. 7