Bound Only Once: The Failure of Open Theism

by Douglas Wilson

The problems with Open theism lie deeper than most critiques suggest. This book interacts not only with the truth claims of Open theism but also its distorted aesthetic and ethical assumptions that do so much work in that program. Open theists characterize the God of classical Christian theism as a distant, despotic, micromanaging, petty, Mr. Burns sovereign, with little time for nonsense or tissues. They depict the god of Open theism as a nineties sort of guy, ready to enter into new experiences, feel our pain, and link pinkies into an unknown future. Open theists insist that God has knowledge, but not all knowledge, certainly not knowledge of the future acts of free beings and some statues. Such Open theistic inferences reveal a deep-seated devotion to Enlightenment categories and narrow unpoetic imaginations. Ideas have destinations, and one of the consequences of our trying to read the Scriptures without any poetry in our souls will be the eventual destruction of any possibility of ministering to souls. Just imagine the hymn writer trying to lift up the "I know not what the future holds, but I know Who also doesn't know much about it either." Contributors to this collection of essays include John MacArthur, John Frame, Peter Leithart, Steve Schlissel, R.C. Sproul, Jr., and Douglas Wilson.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Nonfiction

Paperback

First published June 7, 2001

About the author

I write in order to make the little voices in my head go away. Thus far it hasn't worked.

Reviews

[Benjamin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very fine refutation of the heretical doctrine called open theism. This would be a very good read for the many anti-reformed groups that are rising up (such as provisionism). Many of these groups are unfortunately in their zeal to refute classical theism fall into open theism.

[ValeReads Kyriosity]

I only made it through the first two chapters. It was enough to get the gist of how stupid and boring open theism is; ten more chapters plus an epilogue is more than I can face even from a properly critical perspective.

A shame, because I love Daniel Newman as a narrator and must go back to hoping to hear him again soon...in a book I can bear to ingest all of.

[Caleb M. Powers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent.

[Caleb Harris · Rating 3 out of 5]

First, I'd like to begin by praising this book as likely the most scholarly, professional book I've ever read from Canon Press. Many of the contributions to this book I found quite enjoyable. I particularly liked:

*Ben Merkle's "Liberals in Drag," which argues historically that Open Theism is just the kid sister of Socinianism and, later, Process Theology;
*Thomas Ascol's "Pastoral Implications of Open Theism," which argues practically that Open Theism robs Christians of many foundational aspects of the faith, including not only confidence in God but also, interestingly, confidence in Scripture; and
*Steve Schlissel's "Moses' Bush or Procrustes' Bed," which argues sociologically that Open Theism falls into the secular plot to liberate man from Almighty God.

One of the most helpful big-picture takeaways I gained from this book is that, whenever you're confronted by someone espousing strange doctrine, you should ask yourself the question, "Why does this person feel like they need to espouse this doctrine in this way? What (perverted) view are they trying to protect at the cost of an orthodox understanding of this particular doctrine?" As several of the contributions of this book point out, for example, by positing a god who chooses to relinquish absolute control of the future to the free determinations of men, Open Theists are trying to protect man's free will, which, as they understand it, cannot exist in a meaningful way alongside an omnipotent God. Unsatisfied by the classical response to this question, which basically defers the question as a mystery while declaring what can NOT be the case (man's moral responsibility cannot be compromised, and God cannot be the author of sin), Open Theists are thus faced with an unsavory tradeoff: either maintain man's freedom at the expense of God's freedom, or vice versa. While such a tradeoff is, in actuality, entirely unnecessary and a direct result of the Open Theists' insistence to explain everything rationalistically while avoiding mystery, it is at least helpful to consider WHY Open Theists believe they must make this tradeoff at all: in order to protect man's autonomous will.

My enjoyment of the book, however, was not without reservation. My biggest criticism is that at least a few of the contributors--whether in this book or elsewhere--seem to adopt the very Open Theist view they claim to be rejecting. In his contribution "God Without Mood Swings," for instance, Phillip Johnson comes dangerously close to adopting a kind of divine mutability (upon which Open Theism is obviously predicated). Even while voicing support for God's "absolute immutability" and the "utter impossibility of comprehending the mind of God," Johnson quotes a couple sketchy passages from J. I. Packer approvingly, in which God "enters into suffering and grief" such that he can "empathize with human pain and grief." How does this view not sacrifice God's immutability? Because God only enters into such "affections" (which Johnson distinguishes dutifully from "passions") of his own "deliberate decision"--as if positing a god who changes of his own will somehow does not mean positing a god who changes.

Additionally, John Frame, one of the book's more well-known contributors, even while paying lip-service to God's "exhaustive sovereignty and foreknowledge," insists that the error of Open Theism lies not in their asserting that in the "temporal world there is a kind of 'give and take' between God and His creatures," but only in their denying that "in addition to God's immanence in the world He also exists transcendently." For Frame, God's ability to exist simultaneously within and beyond the world of change explains the biblical passages that refer to God's suffering or repenting: God's temporal, mutable side truly suffers and repents, but only insofar as his atemporal, immutable side has decreed from eternity. James Dolezal picks up on this theme from Frame in his excellent book All That Is in God, in which he asserts that Frame's "timeless-and-temporal" model actually denies the classical doctrine of God, which affirms that the divine essence is simple and thus not composed of temporal and atemporal "faces" as Frame suggests. Finally, Peter Leithart essentially espouses Frame's view in his book The Baptized Body, in which he contends that God is indeed subject to changes of emotion or mind, but only as his sovereign will has decreed beforehand; however, Leithart thankfully spares us his views in his contribution to this book. (Incidentally, riffing off my previous point, I think the reason Frame and Leithart believe they must posit a god who is susceptible to the "give and take" of history the way a "face value" reading of Scripture declares him to be, is because they want to believe that Scripture, at least occasionally, speaks of God univocally, and not always analogically, as in the classical understanding; that is, Scripture says that God is angry or that he repents, and this means exactly the same thing of God as it does of man.)

This rather sizeable criticism aside, my only other criticism is that the contributors seem to share almost unanimously an aversion to all theological contributions before the nineteenth century. The supposed views of Aquinas, the patristics, and the scholastics are routinely brushed aside without any serious consideration of their views or possible contributions to the issue at hand. Leithart's contribution, "Trinity, Time, and Open Theism: A Glance at Patristic Theology," could be seen as an attempt to bring the contributions of patristic theology to bear on the Open Theism debate, but this essay is mostly concerned with clearing the patristics of the charge that their theology was TOTALLY compromised by the influence of Plato and Aristotle, and asserts (but does not prove) that, to the extent to which our theology still relies on Greek ideas, to that extent it still remains to be purged of its Hellenic perversions. Hardly a flattering assessment of patristic and scholastic theology, which relied heavily on Platonic and Aristotelian categories. The only essay which appeals extensively to another theologian is Schlissel's "Moses' Bush or Procrustes' Bed," but that theologian is Herman Bavinck, another resident of the nineteenth century.

Overall, I was impressed with the overall professionality of this book and with most of its contributions, but wish that greater care had been taken in vetting contributors and their work before publication. And, of course, a greater understanding and appreciation of the contributions of patristic and scholastic theology would be nice.

[Hattie Burchfield]

This book made me glad I’m not an open theist! Also it made me realize how many people I know who subscribe to open theism but would NEVER call it that!

[Eli · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is excellent: a must read for anyone thinking about Open Theism. I truly appreciated the contribution of all the authors, and found myself laughing out loud on several occasions (in agreement) as the book also contains a healthy dose of humor. I thank God for the work He accomplishes through His people for the defense of the truth.

John Frame's chapter on Open Theism and Divine Foreknowledge is one of the highlights of the book. He examines the exegetical case for and against the doctrine of God's exhaustive foreknowledge and argues convincingly for the traditional view. He also effectively deals with some prevalent objections, and puts forth an astute observation regarding the judicial context of certain statements in Scripture.

Another excellent chapter is written by Phil Johnson dealing with the emotions, affections and impassibility of God. Johnson underscores the important distinction between impassibility and impassivity--that God truly does experience emotions and affections, but that they are not passive. God is not passionate, in the sense of uncontrolled emotions dictated by what happens outside of Him, but that God experiences emotions as a result of His decreed will from before the foundation of the world. In other words, God feels deeply for what happens on earth, yet He is never surprised.

The only reason I don't give this book five stars is because I think that one of the conclusions expressed in the book--the conclusion that belief in Open Theism constitutes a forfeiture of salvation--is too absolute. I agree wholeheartedly that Open Theism is contrary to the gospel and is inconsistent with the truth that saves, but I think we must recognize that people can be inconsistent. That is, they can hold views together that they shouldn't be able to hold together. Therefore, as heretical and inconsistent with the gospel that Open Theism is, I believe it is possible for a true Christian to be an Open Theist (however much I dislike the thought, and think it unreasonable), so the above absolute conclusion is inadvisable.

But other than that, well done! "Bound Only Once" deserves to be read as it is a valuable discussion of the subject.

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Open theism is very nearly Arminianism, except God isn't simply powerless over salvation, He is powerless over anything. Wilson and the gang collected some of their essays here in the deconstruction and undressing of open theism, made easy by the fact that open theism is already deconstructed and naked.

[Dylan Sullivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

In many ways this volume was great. In fact enjoyable and helpful in a lot of places. However it’s the “Framean” frame (pun intended) around classical theistic definitions of immutability and impassability that I find ironically playing into the Open Theist frame.

DW’s essay, “Foundations of Exhaustive Knowledge” was thorough and well written. Worth the price of the book.

[Catherine · Rating 5 out of 5]

Exceptional.

[Kyle Grindberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found it helpful thinking through the problems with Open Theism.

[Steven · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chapter 9 is worth reading. Everything else is not.

[Jared Leonard · Rating 5 out of 5]

A compilation of essays about open theism by various authors from the reformed community. There are some real gems in here, I only wish that William Davis' article was included in this volume rather than in another volume. This book is more creative in its critique of open theism than many of its stand-alone contemporaries as it sees open theism as a failure of imagination.