Openness and inerrancy: Can they be compatible?

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

IV. CONCLUSION

The overarching intention behind this essay, then, has been to show that an openness view and inerrancy can indeed be compatible. The openness view need never, nor has it yet done so to my knowledge, deny God's providence. For inasmuch as open theists are willing to make room in their system for the possibility of periodic instances of divine intervention, none of God's unconditional predictions will be at risk. God always retains the prerogative to unilaterally intervene in our earthly affairs-yes, perhaps even to the point of controlling, overwhelming or overriding libertarian freedom on occasion. In this way, divine providence (albeit a more general view) is protected. To put it a bit crassly, one could say that the openness God, either by his wisdom or sheer dint of power, is imminently capable of "getting what he really wants." And since God's non-negotiable, future plans can be guaranteed in this way, there is no inherent conflict with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. What God promises to accomplish, he will see that it gets accomplished.62

By the same token, though, I recognize that open theism (like Arminianism in general) is rooted in the essential conviction that God is the governor of some kind of moral system, and that he, as a general rule, respects the integrity of free human choices.63 Yet I have argued that this simply requires that divine intervention and/or control of human choices be the exception rather than the norm. Of course, as noted, I am aware that a concession like this carries a significant implication for one's view of freedom. But again, by appealing to Thomas Reid, a champion of libertarianism, I have demonstrated that this allowance does not necessarily require one to utterly abandon libertarianism. Together, open theists and Arminians may continue to speak of libertarianism as the general manner in which humans choose-- that is, the usual way in which finite creatures are permitted (under God's ultimate sovereignty) to execute their decisions.64

Hence, one must not think that the openness advocates, when faced with what might appear to be conflicting biblical evidence, are overlooking, ignoring, or simply rejecting scriptural teaching, thereby scrapping inerrancy.65 On the contrary, I have argued that their conceptions of God, his power, and his plans have been frequently misinterpreted-and the consequence of this has been accusations of violating this critical evangelical boundary. Indeed, it seems that what the open theists themselves desire most is that their admittedly fresh conception of God continue to be tested and evaluated in view of the biblical evidence and in the broad context of the evangelical theological community. And as I understand the mission of academic organizations like the ETS, they provide the perfect environment for investigating and critiquing such ideas. For regardless of whether one is convinced of the openness view's efficacy, I trust that this essay has shown that the openness view has no problem de facto with inerrancy. And I sincerely hope and would expect that theologians will continue to discuss and debate the internal consistency and feasibility of the openness system, not to mention its biblical warrant. But for such to occur-that is, to foster genuine, fruitful exchange among conservative theologians of contrasting opinions-heresy-- hunting and gestures of an ETS expulsion first must cease.66