Openness and inerrancy: Can they be compatible?

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

Exactly what is it about the openness view that sets so many teeth on edge? As I noted previously, critiques of the openness view center on a perceived inability for the openness God to realize his purposes. To reiterate, if it is uncertain that God can fulfill his promises, some question whether we should see these as trustworthy-and can we, furthermore, put trust in a Bible that supplies such guarantees? Norman Geisler was one of the first scholars to offer a book-length challenge to this proposal, which he likened to "the latest produce in the worldview supermarket."15 Essentially, Geisler argues that because open theism, or "neotheism" as he prefers to call it, denies God's exhaustive foreknowledge of future free acts, it must as a consequence also deny God's complete sovereignty over human events.16 To Geisler, an open future necessarily means that God's predictions can be fallible. But predictive prophecy requires "an incredible web of free activity" in order for any of it to be fulfilled. Hence, Geisler is convinced that this eliminates predictive prophecy, prompting him to conclude that openness theology is incompatible with inerrancy.17 In a similar vein, Robert Picirilli, a self-professed "Reformation Arminian," assumes that openness scholars like John Sanders deny God's exhaustive foreknowledge based entirely "on a logical objection." 18 With Geisler, Picirilli agrees that every part of world history is "so interwoven" with free choices that God must either foresee "all of the future or none of it." Thus, he concludes that the openness view's "neoArminian" view of God actually weakens Arminian efforts to correct classic Reformed theology on this point.19

More recently, Reformed theologian John Frame has also offered a booklength criticism of the openness view.20 Not surprisingly, Frame pinpoints libertarian freedom as the "central issue" in the debate, even describing it as the "engine" that drives open theism. In fact, the very foundation in Frame's critique of the open view is his contention that libertarian freedom is "an incoherent, unbiblical speculation that denies divine sovereignty and destroys what it purports to establish, namely, human responsibility before God." To him, it is a "kind of bondage to unpredictable chance."21 In addition to this, Frame also charges that the open view leaves the future "completely open," even to the point of risking "the possibility of Satan's victory."22 Although he levels no direct accusation regarding the compatibility of openness with inerrancy, he does find it "a happy inconsistency" for open theists to believe in an authoritative, inspired Bible.23 In the end, Frame charges that open theism, because it is based upon a libertarian view of freedom, destroys moral responsibility and undermines any orthodox doctrine of original sin-not to mention a legal view of the atonement and the doctrine of assurance.24 He ultimately concludes that open theists, in order to make their theology consistent with libertarian freedom, have essentially denied God's sovereign lordship over creation.25