What do you think?
Rate this book
The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God
Voted one of Christianity Today's 1995 Books of the Year!The Openness of God presents a careful and full-orbed argument that the God known through Christ desires "responsive relationship" with his
202 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1980
49 people are currently reading
299 people want to read
About the author
Clark H. Pinnock
49 books20 followersClark H. Pinnock (d. 2010) was professor emeritus of systematic theology at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario. Widely regarded as one of evangelicalism's most stimulating theologians, he produced several widely discussed books, including The Wideness of God's Mercy and (with four other scholars) The Openness of God.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
October 12, 2018
We need a theology that is biblically faithful and intellectually consistent, and that reinforces, rather than makes problematic, our relational experience with God
Should anyone be interested, I have written a gargantuan review of this book that I built up as I read through it and which is based on the (even larger) set of notes I took whilst reading.
However, as I seriously doubt anyone actually is interested, I’ve also written this.
This is a book for people who do not mind their thinking being challenged. For many, it will challenge some very basic assumptions. I’m OK with that, but not everyone is. You have been warned.
Most Christians live with a conflict that they choose to ignore because thinking about it is too complicated. We end up in an almost Orwellian state where we hold conflicting “truths” as though they don’t conflict even though, deep down, we know they do.
What am I talking about? I suppose the most common example is predestination vs. free will. In theory, we believe God has predestined things to happen, but in practice, we pray believing that “prayer changes things”. We say that God knows everything, including everything that will happen in the future, and then we look for ways to explain Bible passages such as God changing his mind about Saul being king or about destroying Nineveh after Jonah preached to the city: we have to invent convoluted arguments to explain these passages even though the ones that suggest God changes his mind outweigh the ones that suggest he doesn’t.
This book presents an argument that the Christian God wants a “responsive relationship” with his creatures. It argues that this means we need to reconsider our views on God’s immutability, impassibility and foreknowledge. These are three areas where the traditional view is so embedded into the religion that questioning them is almost immediately marked as heretical (see some of the reviews here on Goodreads). This is referred to as the “open view” of God and it is explored in five chapters:
Chapter 1: there is biblical support for both the traditional and the open view. This chapter explores this evidence and concludes that a more natural reading of the Bible supports the open view.
Chapter 2: this chapter considers the historical considerations which have formed the traditional view - in particular it looks the influence of Greek philosophy in the early days of Christianity. It concludes that stripping out the diversions caused by the Greeks leads to a more open view of God. Perhaps most controversially, this chapter lays the foundation for a redefinition of “omniscience” as meaning God knows everything that can be known at a point in time but does not know the future.
Chapter 3: here we look at systematic theology built on the assumption that the many passages of scripture supporting the open view should be read at face value. If God does not know the future, his relationship to his creation becomes, by necessity, far more intimate and dynamic.
Chapter 4: this considers the philosophical perspective of the open view of God. It reviews some of the philosophical difficulties in Calvinism (OK to explain God’s sovereignty but struggles with the presence of evil in the world) or Process Theology (OK with explaining the presence of evil but necessarily reduces the power and activity of God) and other approaches and concludes that the open view is the most philosophically solid perspective.
Chapter 5: here we look at practical considerations - what does it mean for prayer, divine guidance, human suffering, social responsibility and evangelistic responsibility to believe in an open view of God?
If, like me, you have been a Christian for approaching 50 years, it is a good mental workout to consider views that challenge what has become almost hardwired into your brain. As mentioned, there are reviews here on Goodreads that simply dismiss this book as heretical. I prefer a "more measured approach" as a recipient of an order from Donald Trump is reputed to have said. The open view of God actually makes a lot of sense. It is a view that supports God's sovereign power but also allows human free will. In my view, as the book suggests at one point, it actually makes God bigger than we might have thought (which takes more power, more love, more involvement: to oversee a predetermined world or to oversee an undetermined world?). At the same time, it makes the role of the individual person and the church more significant.
This is, by necessity, an introduction coming in at only 176 pages. But is an introduction that gives plenty of food for thought if you are prepared to open your mind to the idea of an open God.
Should anyone be interested, I have written a gargantuan review of this book that I built up as I read through it and which is based on the (even larger) set of notes I took whilst reading.
However, as I seriously doubt anyone actually is interested, I’ve also written this.
This is a book for people who do not mind their thinking being challenged. For many, it will challenge some very basic assumptions. I’m OK with that, but not everyone is. You have been warned.
Most Christians live with a conflict that they choose to ignore because thinking about it is too complicated. We end up in an almost Orwellian state where we hold conflicting “truths” as though they don’t conflict even though, deep down, we know they do.
What am I talking about? I suppose the most common example is predestination vs. free will. In theory, we believe God has predestined things to happen, but in practice, we pray believing that “prayer changes things”. We say that God knows everything, including everything that will happen in the future, and then we look for ways to explain Bible passages such as God changing his mind about Saul being king or about destroying Nineveh after Jonah preached to the city: we have to invent convoluted arguments to explain these passages even though the ones that suggest God changes his mind outweigh the ones that suggest he doesn’t.
This book presents an argument that the Christian God wants a “responsive relationship” with his creatures. It argues that this means we need to reconsider our views on God’s immutability, impassibility and foreknowledge. These are three areas where the traditional view is so embedded into the religion that questioning them is almost immediately marked as heretical (see some of the reviews here on Goodreads). This is referred to as the “open view” of God and it is explored in five chapters:
Chapter 1: there is biblical support for both the traditional and the open view. This chapter explores this evidence and concludes that a more natural reading of the Bible supports the open view.
Chapter 2: this chapter considers the historical considerations which have formed the traditional view - in particular it looks the influence of Greek philosophy in the early days of Christianity. It concludes that stripping out the diversions caused by the Greeks leads to a more open view of God. Perhaps most controversially, this chapter lays the foundation for a redefinition of “omniscience” as meaning God knows everything that can be known at a point in time but does not know the future.
Chapter 3: here we look at systematic theology built on the assumption that the many passages of scripture supporting the open view should be read at face value. If God does not know the future, his relationship to his creation becomes, by necessity, far more intimate and dynamic.
Chapter 4: this considers the philosophical perspective of the open view of God. It reviews some of the philosophical difficulties in Calvinism (OK to explain God’s sovereignty but struggles with the presence of evil in the world) or Process Theology (OK with explaining the presence of evil but necessarily reduces the power and activity of God) and other approaches and concludes that the open view is the most philosophically solid perspective.
Chapter 5: here we look at practical considerations - what does it mean for prayer, divine guidance, human suffering, social responsibility and evangelistic responsibility to believe in an open view of God?
If, like me, you have been a Christian for approaching 50 years, it is a good mental workout to consider views that challenge what has become almost hardwired into your brain. As mentioned, there are reviews here on Goodreads that simply dismiss this book as heretical. I prefer a "more measured approach" as a recipient of an order from Donald Trump is reputed to have said. The open view of God actually makes a lot of sense. It is a view that supports God's sovereign power but also allows human free will. In my view, as the book suggests at one point, it actually makes God bigger than we might have thought (which takes more power, more love, more involvement: to oversee a predetermined world or to oversee an undetermined world?). At the same time, it makes the role of the individual person and the church more significant.
This is, by necessity, an introduction coming in at only 176 pages. But is an introduction that gives plenty of food for thought if you are prepared to open your mind to the idea of an open God.
June 12, 2013
I always loved the Bible but hated Systematic Theology. I also hated the way the theology Department at Seminary and Bible College seemed to dominate the Bible Department. I had to read the Calvinists ones popular at the time ( 1971-1984); Louis Berkhof, Herman Bavink, A W Pink; and the Dispensational ones; Charles Ryrie, Lewis Sperry Chafer. I even read the one entitled Biblical Theology by Geerhardus Vos (which is really just another Reformed one).
I found them all to be boring or scary or both and often differing from the way God was portrayed in the Bible. They pushed God away in my mind and made it hard to have a good relationship with Him. Once during a time away from school, I read Charles Finney's Theology and found that for the first time things made some sense and actually matched up somewhat to my reading of the Bible. I was soon discouraged from this view, however, and was given the impression that Finney was way off track and not a true theologian.
I began to explore liberation theology and process theology but was never really satisfied that they took into consideration the whole of scripture as authoritative and an accurate revelation of the Triune God who became incarnate that we read about in the Bible.
Then I began to hear about Clark Pinnock and theologians who had been where I had been but took a different approach. They called themselves or were called by others Free Will Theists or Openness Theologians (an awkward term but very descriptive nonetheless). This book is a good introduction as well as a good summary of their views. After just reading Clark Pinnock's chapter on Systematic Theology for the second time (the 1st time was in the 90's) I, for the 1st time actually enjoy systematics.
Richard Rice sets the tone with the first chapter which is all about the Bible and how it talks about God. God is not at all like the unmoved mover or “perfect being” of Platonic or Cartesian philosophy but rather a God who is active in the affairs of men choosing to suffer with them and go to great lengths to establish a relationship. He is portrayed as One who grieves and repents of the evil. This is the longest chapter (48 pages). I think Rice does a fine job in making his case. His case is to take the feelings, intentions, and actions of God seriously and not just write them off as anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms.
This book is a very important contribution to our understanding of the God of the Bible. As its title suggests, it challenges the traditional view of God which is really a combination of Greek philosophical ideas of god combined with Biblical ones. It is arranged in logical fashion, from Bible to history, to systematic theology to philosophy and ending with practical considerations.
I would highly recommend this book especially to those souls who were troubled like I was with the classical approach that leaves God distant and cold. I would include many atheists as well who reject not necessarily the God of the Bible but this classical synthesis.
Like Pinnock affirms, the intent is not to overcorrect but to give a more balanced view of God as revealed in the Bible. This is not process theology. This is done by people who take the Bible very seriously and authoritative. The two Christian doctrines that I think best fit with this view are the Trinity and the Incarnation of God in Christ.
I found them all to be boring or scary or both and often differing from the way God was portrayed in the Bible. They pushed God away in my mind and made it hard to have a good relationship with Him. Once during a time away from school, I read Charles Finney's Theology and found that for the first time things made some sense and actually matched up somewhat to my reading of the Bible. I was soon discouraged from this view, however, and was given the impression that Finney was way off track and not a true theologian.
I began to explore liberation theology and process theology but was never really satisfied that they took into consideration the whole of scripture as authoritative and an accurate revelation of the Triune God who became incarnate that we read about in the Bible.
Then I began to hear about Clark Pinnock and theologians who had been where I had been but took a different approach. They called themselves or were called by others Free Will Theists or Openness Theologians (an awkward term but very descriptive nonetheless). This book is a good introduction as well as a good summary of their views. After just reading Clark Pinnock's chapter on Systematic Theology for the second time (the 1st time was in the 90's) I, for the 1st time actually enjoy systematics.
Richard Rice sets the tone with the first chapter which is all about the Bible and how it talks about God. God is not at all like the unmoved mover or “perfect being” of Platonic or Cartesian philosophy but rather a God who is active in the affairs of men choosing to suffer with them and go to great lengths to establish a relationship. He is portrayed as One who grieves and repents of the evil. This is the longest chapter (48 pages). I think Rice does a fine job in making his case. His case is to take the feelings, intentions, and actions of God seriously and not just write them off as anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms.
This book is a very important contribution to our understanding of the God of the Bible. As its title suggests, it challenges the traditional view of God which is really a combination of Greek philosophical ideas of god combined with Biblical ones. It is arranged in logical fashion, from Bible to history, to systematic theology to philosophy and ending with practical considerations.
I would highly recommend this book especially to those souls who were troubled like I was with the classical approach that leaves God distant and cold. I would include many atheists as well who reject not necessarily the God of the Bible but this classical synthesis.
Like Pinnock affirms, the intent is not to overcorrect but to give a more balanced view of God as revealed in the Bible. This is not process theology. This is done by people who take the Bible very seriously and authoritative. The two Christian doctrines that I think best fit with this view are the Trinity and the Incarnation of God in Christ.
November 12, 2011
This book is one of my life time favorites. With all our systematic theologies these authors break through the systems, discussing some of the most difficult passages, and tell us what we know but don't want to hear. Passages that others call anthropomorphic they take for face value believing that God is giving information about Himself. We just can't and will not be able to understand it all and should just except what is said about Him. In other words, the difficult passages that do not fit into our theological systems just means that God is too big for our systems and we should not explained away the passage to make our system fit what we want or think God to be.
October 27, 2010
The main idea of this book is found on the first page, "God, in grace, grants humans significant freedom to cooperate with or work against God's will for their lives, and he enters into dynamic, give-and-take relationships with us." The main idea is that God is not on His throne ordaining every single even that happens in the world. Instead, God enters into relationships with humanity, guiding, leading, and interacting with them throughout history. Humans have an effect on God.
Although they have fairly convincing arguments against foreknowledge, it goes against accepted doctrine of the church for nearly two thousand years. Suggesting something that the church has thought to be true since the beginning is false, is typically a warning sign for heresy. In their defense, they claim these thoughts are grounded in Greek philosophy instead of Scripture. Regardless, all of their biblical support cannot simply be ignored.
This book might not be for every Christian, but it is certainly an asset to anyone seriously studying the doctrine of God. The organic nature of theology is evident almost immediately. The applications and providential ideas will linger long after the book is finished. If the ideas are not convincing, they will be at a minimum unsettling, which can also be beneficial to build counter evidence. The ideas are not grounded in hypothetical abstract thought; they are grounded in biblical events where God has interacted with His people. For that reason, Christians cannot be easily dismissive of what is being said. Even if their ideas are rejected, they need to be carefully considered.
Although they have fairly convincing arguments against foreknowledge, it goes against accepted doctrine of the church for nearly two thousand years. Suggesting something that the church has thought to be true since the beginning is false, is typically a warning sign for heresy. In their defense, they claim these thoughts are grounded in Greek philosophy instead of Scripture. Regardless, all of their biblical support cannot simply be ignored.
This book might not be for every Christian, but it is certainly an asset to anyone seriously studying the doctrine of God. The organic nature of theology is evident almost immediately. The applications and providential ideas will linger long after the book is finished. If the ideas are not convincing, they will be at a minimum unsettling, which can also be beneficial to build counter evidence. The ideas are not grounded in hypothetical abstract thought; they are grounded in biblical events where God has interacted with His people. For that reason, Christians cannot be easily dismissive of what is being said. Even if their ideas are rejected, they need to be carefully considered.
March 23, 2008
This book presents a theological paradigm that will challenge many people's understanding of God and relationship with God. However, once you read it, you may realize that this is how you want to relate to God (but were afraid to frame it theologically).
September 2, 2023
One of the most confusing reads but was also super helpful to just have an overview of different theological frameworks! I read this book based off a recommendation because I wanted to better understand reformed theology and was told this book does a good job of showing both extremes of view. While I truly didn’t comprehend anything from the philosophy section, I still enjoyed trying to sift through this book! I feel like I still landed at the same conclusion that there are biblically, intellectually, and emotionally valid arguments for each side. Thankful the Lord just wants us to seek him wholeheartedly and that I don’t need to know all the answers! An extreme kindness :)
July 20, 2024
I have been reading on the subject of suffering in preparation for our upcoming small group study. Tied with this topic is the view of God, his sovereignty and providence, and the impact of human free will. This led me to want to understand open theism better and this resource was recommended by a friend. In this book, each chapter is written by a different author who has come to hold to the open theism view being described in the book.
In this review, I will highlight important concepts and quotes from the preface and each chapter. After that, I will include a quote from page 156 which gives a summary of open theism. Finally, I’ll give a few thoughts that I came away with after reading the book.
Preface
“Sometimes God alone decides how to accomplish [his ultimate] goals. On other occasions, God works with human decisions, adapting his own plans to fit the changing situation. God does not control everything that happens. Rather, he is open to receiving input from his creatures. In loving dialogue, God invites us to participate with him to bring the future into being.” p7.
Chapter 1: Biblical Support for a New Perspective by Richard Rice
One “traditional, or conventional, view emphasizes God’s sovereignty, majesty and glory. God’s will is the final explanation for all that happens; God’s glory is the ultimate purpose that all creation serves.” p11. “The view of God and his relation to the world presented in this book provides a striking alternative to the concept just described. It expresses two basic convictions: love is the most important quality we attribute to God, and love is more than care and commitment; it involves being sensitive and responsive as well.” p15. So the statement God is love embodies an essential biblical truth. It indicates that love is central, not incidental, to the nature of God.” p19.
“The notion of divine repentance plays a much larger role in the biblical writings than many people realize. … ‘The Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart’ (Gen 6:6 NRSV). ‘The Lord was sorry that he had made Saul king over Israel’ (1 Sam 15:35 NRSV).” pp26-27. “In spite of the straightforward assertion that God changed his mind (‘repented’ or ‘relented’), biblical commentators often go to great lengths to explain that this is not what occurred.” p27. “The biblical references to Jesus’ temptation thus indicate that his moral victory was a genuine achievement, not just a forgone conclusion. … This supports the conclusion that the fulfillment of God’s plans for humanity generally requires the cooperation of human agents.” p44.
The author addresses common objections to divine openness in the following categories: Divine Changelessness, Prophecy, and Foreknowledge and Predestination. He concludes “The view of God proposed in this book thus rests on a broad spectrum of biblical evidence. A host of biblical themes support the openness of God.” p58.
Chapter 2: Historical Considerations by John Sanders
“Where does this ‘theologically correct’ view of God come from? … Greek thought has played an extensive role in the development of the traditional doctrine of God.” p59. The author describes how these Greek philosophies influenced Christian ideas about God’s nature. “Even if Plato did not end up with a wholly consistent view of God, his ideas became the spawning ground from which came many influential schools of thought regarding divine reality.” p62. Aristotle proposed God as the “‘unmoved mover’ as the first cause of all motion.” p65. “Rejecting the Aristotelian and Epicurean denial of providence the Stoics affirmed that the logos so orders the world that nothing occurs that was not providentially ordained by God. All events in the world are placed into a single causal system amounting to absolute predestination. … From God’s perspective there is no gratuitous or pointless evil; each individual ‘evil’ – say, liver cancer or death of your child – is actually for a good purpose when it is considered as a part of God’s overall plan.” p67.
The author discusses the views of several church fathers culminating in Augustine because of his significant influence on Western Christianity. “Augustine made God’s immunity to time, change and responsiveness to his creatures axiomatic for Western theology.” p80. This chapter also examines the views of prominent theologians in the Middle Ages and Reformation including Aquinas, Anselm, Luther, Calvin, and others.
Next, he summarizes modern progressive, moderate, and conservative views. In process theology, “God is seen as an ever-changing being evolving toward the perfection that is potentially his. God is creative, but only in the sense that God ‘creates’ as we act, since this God cannot unilaterally act upon the world. God does not coerce, but ‘lures’ the world by love (eros) toward his purposes.” p93. A leading conservative evangelical theologian argues “that God is timeless, immutable and simple, and that divine omniscience is not dependent on the creation. God foreknows because he foreordains. Consequently, prayer cannot change God’s mind and divine repentance is impossible.” p95. “Moderate theology represents an emerging perspective on the nature of God standing between the classical theism of the conservatives and the radical revisions of the progressives.” p96.
Chapter 3: Systematic Theology by Clark H. Pinnock
“What we are really doing is constructing a competition between models of God. We are trying to understand the God of Christian revelation better.” p104. “What God is saying to Moses in this verse [Ex 3:14] is not ‘I exist’ or even ‘I will be present.’ God is saying that he will be a faithful God for his people.” p106. “Creation is not an event that happened and is done with. It is an ongoing process in which every particle, every atom, every molecule is held in existence by the Creator. … The whole world in which we dwell expresses God’s continuous activity.” p112. “The fall into sin was against the will of God and proves by itself that God does not exercise total control over all events in this world. Evils happen that are not supposed to happen, that grieve and anger God. Free will theism is the best way to account for this fact. To say that God hates sin while secretly willing it, to say that God warns us not to fall away though it is impossible, to say that God loves the world while excluding most people from an opportunity of salvation, to say that God warmly invites sinners to come knowing all the while that they cannot possibly do so – such things do not deserve to be called mysteries when that is just a euphemism for nonsense.” p115.
“God gives us a role in shaping what the future will be. He is flexible and does not insist on doing things his way. God will adjust his own plans because he is sensitive to what humans think and do.” p116. “We call this model of divine openness free will theism. Upholding God’s power, it understands God to be voluntarily self-limited, making room for creaturely freedom.” p117. “Furthermore, we can always rely on God to be faithful to his promises; he is not in any way fickle or capricious.” p117. “God is unchanging in nature and essence but is not in experience, knowledge and action.” p118. “When I say that God is eternal, I mean that God transcends our experience of time, is immune from the ravages of time, is free from our inability to remember, and so forth. I affirm that God is with us in time, experiencing the succession of events with us. Past, present, and future are real to God.” p120. “We should not think of God’s omniscience as a vast encyclopedia of past, present and future facts.” p120. “Thus, God does not foreknow every future choice or the outcome of every human decision. God is all-knowing in the sense that he knows all that is possible to know and powerful enough to do whatever is needed.” p124.
Chapter 4: A Philosophical Perspective by William Hasker
“It is apparent from the historical survey that philosophy bears part of the blame for observing the biblical conception of God, so it is fitting that philosophy should also have a part in the work of restoration.” p126. “… the biblical writers undeniably do present God as living, acting and reacting in time.” p128. “Plato’s argument … rests on a false dichotomy. It rests on the assumption that all change is either for the better or for the worse, an assumption that is simply false.” p132. “To say that God is omnipotent means that God can perform any action the performance of which is logically possible and consistent with God’s perfect nature.” p135. “To say that God is omniscient means that at any time God knows all propositions such that God’s knowing them at that time is logically possible.” p136.
The author examines several views on God’s knowledge/foreknowledge including Process Theology, Calvinism, Molinism, Simple Foreknowledge, and Open or Free Will Theism. In the open view of God, it “is worth stressing the point that God as so conceived is in no way deficient in power as compared with the God as viewed by Calvinism. We believe that God is completely capable of creating a universe every detail of whose history is solely determined by his sovereign decree. But it seems to us that a wise and good God would not want – and, in fact, has not chosen – to create such a universe.” p151.
Chapter 5: Practical Implications by David Basinger
“The purpose of this final chapter is to consider in a comparative manner the practical implications of conceiving of God in this fashion. Specifically, I will consider the implications of affirming the open view of God for five issues of importance to Christians: the efficacy of petitionary prayer, the discernment of God’s will, the appropriate Christian explanation(s) for evil, the appropriate Christian response to social problems and the Christian’s evangelistic obligations.” p155. “For those who believe in specific sovereignty … all evil must be viewed as a necessary means to a greater good in the sense that it is something that God causes or allows because it is a necessary component in his preordained plan.” p169. Open theists “believe that God has chosen to create a world in which individuals possess significant freedom and hence that God does not as a general rule unilaterally intervene in earthly affairs. … humanity not only can, but often does, choose less than the best option available. Thus we … believe that much of the pain and suffering we encounter may well be gratuitous – may well not lead to any greater good.” p170. “We assume for instance, that to the extent that starvation and cancer are the result of human decision-making, humanity bears primary moral responsibility for such states of affairs. Accordingly, it becomes very important for us to attempt to discover ways in which we can remedy social problems.” p173. “We [open theists] are clearly committed to the contention that a personal relationship with God is what gives this life fullest meaning.” p15. “The God to whom we are committed is always walking beside us, experiencing what we are experiencing when we are experiencing it, always willing to help to the extent consistent with our status as responsible creations of his. And we find this to be both exciting and spiritually rewarding.” p176.
Summary of Open Theism from page 156:
1. “God not only created this world ex nihilo but can (and at times does) intervene unilaterally in earthly affairs.
2. God chose to create us with incompatibilistic (libertarian) freedom – freedom over which he cannot exercise total control.
3. God so values freedom – the moral integrity of free creatures and a world in which such integrity is possible – that he does not normally override such freedom, even if he sees that it is producing undesirable results.
4. God always desires our highest good, both individually and corporately, and thus is affected by what happens in our lives.
5. God does not possess exhaustive knowledge of exactly how we will utilize our freedom, although he may well at times be able to predict with great accuracy the choices we will freely make.”
My thoughts
Thinking about the nature of God is an important component of theology, impacts our relationship with God, and is something that I think we need to consider both carefully and somewhat tentatively. I particularly like the discussion on the changeability of God and the refutation of the idea that a perfect being cannot change because then he would not be perfect. Are not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each perfect and yet not the same in every way? Does God not love each of his creatures perfectly and yet we are not each the same so this love is perfect but not identical?
God is most certainly more that we can fully know and understand and in that sense, I think any of the models discussed in this book are simplistic. Can we really know how or whether God experiences time or how much foreknowledge he possesses? Probably not. But the model of God that we hold does have implications on how we view evil and suffering. So I think this is a good book to read as part of a study on suffering and would recommend it to anyone interested in either the nature of God or God’s culpability in evil and suffering in the world.
In this review, I will highlight important concepts and quotes from the preface and each chapter. After that, I will include a quote from page 156 which gives a summary of open theism. Finally, I’ll give a few thoughts that I came away with after reading the book.
Preface
“Sometimes God alone decides how to accomplish [his ultimate] goals. On other occasions, God works with human decisions, adapting his own plans to fit the changing situation. God does not control everything that happens. Rather, he is open to receiving input from his creatures. In loving dialogue, God invites us to participate with him to bring the future into being.” p7.
Chapter 1: Biblical Support for a New Perspective by Richard Rice
One “traditional, or conventional, view emphasizes God’s sovereignty, majesty and glory. God’s will is the final explanation for all that happens; God’s glory is the ultimate purpose that all creation serves.” p11. “The view of God and his relation to the world presented in this book provides a striking alternative to the concept just described. It expresses two basic convictions: love is the most important quality we attribute to God, and love is more than care and commitment; it involves being sensitive and responsive as well.” p15. So the statement God is love embodies an essential biblical truth. It indicates that love is central, not incidental, to the nature of God.” p19.
“The notion of divine repentance plays a much larger role in the biblical writings than many people realize. … ‘The Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart’ (Gen 6:6 NRSV). ‘The Lord was sorry that he had made Saul king over Israel’ (1 Sam 15:35 NRSV).” pp26-27. “In spite of the straightforward assertion that God changed his mind (‘repented’ or ‘relented’), biblical commentators often go to great lengths to explain that this is not what occurred.” p27. “The biblical references to Jesus’ temptation thus indicate that his moral victory was a genuine achievement, not just a forgone conclusion. … This supports the conclusion that the fulfillment of God’s plans for humanity generally requires the cooperation of human agents.” p44.
The author addresses common objections to divine openness in the following categories: Divine Changelessness, Prophecy, and Foreknowledge and Predestination. He concludes “The view of God proposed in this book thus rests on a broad spectrum of biblical evidence. A host of biblical themes support the openness of God.” p58.
Chapter 2: Historical Considerations by John Sanders
“Where does this ‘theologically correct’ view of God come from? … Greek thought has played an extensive role in the development of the traditional doctrine of God.” p59. The author describes how these Greek philosophies influenced Christian ideas about God’s nature. “Even if Plato did not end up with a wholly consistent view of God, his ideas became the spawning ground from which came many influential schools of thought regarding divine reality.” p62. Aristotle proposed God as the “‘unmoved mover’ as the first cause of all motion.” p65. “Rejecting the Aristotelian and Epicurean denial of providence the Stoics affirmed that the logos so orders the world that nothing occurs that was not providentially ordained by God. All events in the world are placed into a single causal system amounting to absolute predestination. … From God’s perspective there is no gratuitous or pointless evil; each individual ‘evil’ – say, liver cancer or death of your child – is actually for a good purpose when it is considered as a part of God’s overall plan.” p67.
The author discusses the views of several church fathers culminating in Augustine because of his significant influence on Western Christianity. “Augustine made God’s immunity to time, change and responsiveness to his creatures axiomatic for Western theology.” p80. This chapter also examines the views of prominent theologians in the Middle Ages and Reformation including Aquinas, Anselm, Luther, Calvin, and others.
Next, he summarizes modern progressive, moderate, and conservative views. In process theology, “God is seen as an ever-changing being evolving toward the perfection that is potentially his. God is creative, but only in the sense that God ‘creates’ as we act, since this God cannot unilaterally act upon the world. God does not coerce, but ‘lures’ the world by love (eros) toward his purposes.” p93. A leading conservative evangelical theologian argues “that God is timeless, immutable and simple, and that divine omniscience is not dependent on the creation. God foreknows because he foreordains. Consequently, prayer cannot change God’s mind and divine repentance is impossible.” p95. “Moderate theology represents an emerging perspective on the nature of God standing between the classical theism of the conservatives and the radical revisions of the progressives.” p96.
Chapter 3: Systematic Theology by Clark H. Pinnock
“What we are really doing is constructing a competition between models of God. We are trying to understand the God of Christian revelation better.” p104. “What God is saying to Moses in this verse [Ex 3:14] is not ‘I exist’ or even ‘I will be present.’ God is saying that he will be a faithful God for his people.” p106. “Creation is not an event that happened and is done with. It is an ongoing process in which every particle, every atom, every molecule is held in existence by the Creator. … The whole world in which we dwell expresses God’s continuous activity.” p112. “The fall into sin was against the will of God and proves by itself that God does not exercise total control over all events in this world. Evils happen that are not supposed to happen, that grieve and anger God. Free will theism is the best way to account for this fact. To say that God hates sin while secretly willing it, to say that God warns us not to fall away though it is impossible, to say that God loves the world while excluding most people from an opportunity of salvation, to say that God warmly invites sinners to come knowing all the while that they cannot possibly do so – such things do not deserve to be called mysteries when that is just a euphemism for nonsense.” p115.
“God gives us a role in shaping what the future will be. He is flexible and does not insist on doing things his way. God will adjust his own plans because he is sensitive to what humans think and do.” p116. “We call this model of divine openness free will theism. Upholding God’s power, it understands God to be voluntarily self-limited, making room for creaturely freedom.” p117. “Furthermore, we can always rely on God to be faithful to his promises; he is not in any way fickle or capricious.” p117. “God is unchanging in nature and essence but is not in experience, knowledge and action.” p118. “When I say that God is eternal, I mean that God transcends our experience of time, is immune from the ravages of time, is free from our inability to remember, and so forth. I affirm that God is with us in time, experiencing the succession of events with us. Past, present, and future are real to God.” p120. “We should not think of God’s omniscience as a vast encyclopedia of past, present and future facts.” p120. “Thus, God does not foreknow every future choice or the outcome of every human decision. God is all-knowing in the sense that he knows all that is possible to know and powerful enough to do whatever is needed.” p124.
Chapter 4: A Philosophical Perspective by William Hasker
“It is apparent from the historical survey that philosophy bears part of the blame for observing the biblical conception of God, so it is fitting that philosophy should also have a part in the work of restoration.” p126. “… the biblical writers undeniably do present God as living, acting and reacting in time.” p128. “Plato’s argument … rests on a false dichotomy. It rests on the assumption that all change is either for the better or for the worse, an assumption that is simply false.” p132. “To say that God is omnipotent means that God can perform any action the performance of which is logically possible and consistent with God’s perfect nature.” p135. “To say that God is omniscient means that at any time God knows all propositions such that God’s knowing them at that time is logically possible.” p136.
The author examines several views on God’s knowledge/foreknowledge including Process Theology, Calvinism, Molinism, Simple Foreknowledge, and Open or Free Will Theism. In the open view of God, it “is worth stressing the point that God as so conceived is in no way deficient in power as compared with the God as viewed by Calvinism. We believe that God is completely capable of creating a universe every detail of whose history is solely determined by his sovereign decree. But it seems to us that a wise and good God would not want – and, in fact, has not chosen – to create such a universe.” p151.
Chapter 5: Practical Implications by David Basinger
“The purpose of this final chapter is to consider in a comparative manner the practical implications of conceiving of God in this fashion. Specifically, I will consider the implications of affirming the open view of God for five issues of importance to Christians: the efficacy of petitionary prayer, the discernment of God’s will, the appropriate Christian explanation(s) for evil, the appropriate Christian response to social problems and the Christian’s evangelistic obligations.” p155. “For those who believe in specific sovereignty … all evil must be viewed as a necessary means to a greater good in the sense that it is something that God causes or allows because it is a necessary component in his preordained plan.” p169. Open theists “believe that God has chosen to create a world in which individuals possess significant freedom and hence that God does not as a general rule unilaterally intervene in earthly affairs. … humanity not only can, but often does, choose less than the best option available. Thus we … believe that much of the pain and suffering we encounter may well be gratuitous – may well not lead to any greater good.” p170. “We assume for instance, that to the extent that starvation and cancer are the result of human decision-making, humanity bears primary moral responsibility for such states of affairs. Accordingly, it becomes very important for us to attempt to discover ways in which we can remedy social problems.” p173. “We [open theists] are clearly committed to the contention that a personal relationship with God is what gives this life fullest meaning.” p15. “The God to whom we are committed is always walking beside us, experiencing what we are experiencing when we are experiencing it, always willing to help to the extent consistent with our status as responsible creations of his. And we find this to be both exciting and spiritually rewarding.” p176.
Summary of Open Theism from page 156:
1. “God not only created this world ex nihilo but can (and at times does) intervene unilaterally in earthly affairs.
2. God chose to create us with incompatibilistic (libertarian) freedom – freedom over which he cannot exercise total control.
3. God so values freedom – the moral integrity of free creatures and a world in which such integrity is possible – that he does not normally override such freedom, even if he sees that it is producing undesirable results.
4. God always desires our highest good, both individually and corporately, and thus is affected by what happens in our lives.
5. God does not possess exhaustive knowledge of exactly how we will utilize our freedom, although he may well at times be able to predict with great accuracy the choices we will freely make.”
My thoughts
Thinking about the nature of God is an important component of theology, impacts our relationship with God, and is something that I think we need to consider both carefully and somewhat tentatively. I particularly like the discussion on the changeability of God and the refutation of the idea that a perfect being cannot change because then he would not be perfect. Are not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each perfect and yet not the same in every way? Does God not love each of his creatures perfectly and yet we are not each the same so this love is perfect but not identical?
God is most certainly more that we can fully know and understand and in that sense, I think any of the models discussed in this book are simplistic. Can we really know how or whether God experiences time or how much foreknowledge he possesses? Probably not. But the model of God that we hold does have implications on how we view evil and suffering. So I think this is a good book to read as part of a study on suffering and would recommend it to anyone interested in either the nature of God or God’s culpability in evil and suffering in the world.
December 12, 2020
In the early 1990s, five evangelical theologians conspired to bring open theology to a more popular audience, collaboratively publishing a book with a major evangelical press. Richard Rice begins with biblical support for what he calls “the open view of God”, that “love is the most important quality we attribute to God” and that God’s relation to the world is “dynamic rather than static.” (15) God’s emotional life, God’s sometimes changing intentions, God’s action in response to humanity, and God’s presence in the life and death of Jesus all support this open view. John Sanders discusses the history of how a static, determinist, impassive view of God became dominant within Christendom, from the Greek influence on the early church through the present, while noting some notable, if only occasional, exceptions. After Clark Pinnock explicates a short, systematic theology in the central chapter, William Hasker and David Basinger close discussing philosophical and practical issues, respectively. David Basinger, in the final chapter, summarizes cogently the five qualities the authors share in what he calls their “open model” of God: ex nihilo creation and intervention; libertarian freedom for humans; God’s tendency to not override human volition; God’s responsiveness to humanity; and God’s non-exhaustive knowledge of the future. (156)
The strength of this text is its argument for an open and relational view of God as superior to that of mashup of neo-Platonism and Calvinism that has dominated so much of Western Christian theology and teaching. The authors successfully argue for an open view of God as more logical, more in tune with the spiritual experience of Christians, and a better reading of the biblical texts. The reasons I’ve been most drawn to open and relational theology are all covered here:
It doesn’t dismiss what the Bible, and particularly the Hebrew Scriptures, describe as the emotional life of a loving God.
It embraces our experience of real freedom and agency.
It better accounts for why intercessory prayer matters.
It engages the problem of evil more earnestly and honestly.
The authors spend some time examining how open and relational theology offers a better account of the significance of the incarnation, but this could be magnified further. Sanders’ discussion of the influence of Augustinian theology hints at this when he writes,
“He (Augustine) holds that the self-abasement of the Son is in no way a change in the divine nature since the incarnation is the assumption of an inferior human nature, not a transformation in the superior divine nature. Consequently, only the human nature of Jesus experienced emotions.” (82)
This reading of the incarnation is tragic at so many levels. Its over-bifurcation of the life of Christ into two distinct natures strains logic. Its rejection of emotion as unworthy of the Divine doesn’t exalt God as much as it abases human nature, characteristic of the shame and self-abnegation of Augustinian anthropology. And it minimizes the degree to which Jesus Christ is the fullest and most complete revelation of God. Later, Sanders discusses an Augustine analogy for our flawed views of God: people who can no longer tolerate the light of the sun. In this analogy, he argues that the real change is in people, not the ever-constant sun. In this image, Augustine unwittingly argues that the sun is a better image of the nature of God than the Son, or indeed, all humanity. And yet it is people, not stars, who most faithfully reflect God.
Three weaknesses of the book strike me. All are weaknesses characteristic of American evangelicalism. One is that the authors are so focused on showing that their open view of God is what they call biblical, that they place less emphasis on views of God that match our lived human experience. Halfway through the book, Pinnock writes, “For some reason, when we do theology we lose sight of the openness of God that we experience.” (105) At that point, I wrote in my margin, “At last,” as it was the first mention, however brief, of the experience the believer has of God through faith. I recall Monica Coleman’s comments about the Wesleyan quadrilateral, how for Wesley the Bible was the longest side of the square, whereas for Coleman - and many process theologians - they honor experience as the most significant factor in discerning what the Spirit is saying. I appreciate that Christian theology should seriously and thoroughly engage the Biblical canon. Yet for a contemporary theology to carry weight outside the church and within the minds and lives of all of us who have less inerrant and more complex engagement with the Bible, it needs to better honor our experience.
Secondly, it seems important to the authors to assert that God has the ability to intervene in Creation, to override the freedom of creation, and to control the actions of humans and other agents, even if God usually doesn’t exercise this control. One example is when Pinnock writes, “His (God’s) is the power to exist and the power to control all things…. The power of God’s love … does not command but woos and transforms us…. Yet to reduce God’s power to persuasion would make God too passive - it would be an overreaction against almightiness.” (113, 116) Frankly, I don’t follow. I think this need to assert the occasional direct control of God in creation stems from an inerrant epistemology of the Bible, where there are a number of texts that seem to imply God’s controlling power over nature or history. There are other ways of reading these texts, even if they are less literal, that better resolve this challenge.
Lastly, it is troubling that the authors need to treat process theology as the bogeyman that they do. In his discussion of process theology, Sanders presents what I suspect is a straw man definition, when he writes of the “stray from any biblical moorings” and the “God who cannot act or communicate.” (93-94) Pinnock buries substantial criticism of process in a footnote, when he argues defensively that his open view is not to be confused with process theology. (194) And he writes, “Let us seek a way to revise classical theism in a dynamic direction without falling into process theology.” (107) Apart from the merits of process or lack thereof, one reads the usual evangelical fear and suspicion of slippery slopes and ideas that emerge from more liberal or more science-engaged corners of the church and the academy, without a fair and thorough, non-defensive engagement.
The strength of this text is its argument for an open and relational view of God as superior to that of mashup of neo-Platonism and Calvinism that has dominated so much of Western Christian theology and teaching. The authors successfully argue for an open view of God as more logical, more in tune with the spiritual experience of Christians, and a better reading of the biblical texts. The reasons I’ve been most drawn to open and relational theology are all covered here:
It doesn’t dismiss what the Bible, and particularly the Hebrew Scriptures, describe as the emotional life of a loving God.
It embraces our experience of real freedom and agency.
It better accounts for why intercessory prayer matters.
It engages the problem of evil more earnestly and honestly.
The authors spend some time examining how open and relational theology offers a better account of the significance of the incarnation, but this could be magnified further. Sanders’ discussion of the influence of Augustinian theology hints at this when he writes,
“He (Augustine) holds that the self-abasement of the Son is in no way a change in the divine nature since the incarnation is the assumption of an inferior human nature, not a transformation in the superior divine nature. Consequently, only the human nature of Jesus experienced emotions.” (82)
This reading of the incarnation is tragic at so many levels. Its over-bifurcation of the life of Christ into two distinct natures strains logic. Its rejection of emotion as unworthy of the Divine doesn’t exalt God as much as it abases human nature, characteristic of the shame and self-abnegation of Augustinian anthropology. And it minimizes the degree to which Jesus Christ is the fullest and most complete revelation of God. Later, Sanders discusses an Augustine analogy for our flawed views of God: people who can no longer tolerate the light of the sun. In this analogy, he argues that the real change is in people, not the ever-constant sun. In this image, Augustine unwittingly argues that the sun is a better image of the nature of God than the Son, or indeed, all humanity. And yet it is people, not stars, who most faithfully reflect God.
Three weaknesses of the book strike me. All are weaknesses characteristic of American evangelicalism. One is that the authors are so focused on showing that their open view of God is what they call biblical, that they place less emphasis on views of God that match our lived human experience. Halfway through the book, Pinnock writes, “For some reason, when we do theology we lose sight of the openness of God that we experience.” (105) At that point, I wrote in my margin, “At last,” as it was the first mention, however brief, of the experience the believer has of God through faith. I recall Monica Coleman’s comments about the Wesleyan quadrilateral, how for Wesley the Bible was the longest side of the square, whereas for Coleman - and many process theologians - they honor experience as the most significant factor in discerning what the Spirit is saying. I appreciate that Christian theology should seriously and thoroughly engage the Biblical canon. Yet for a contemporary theology to carry weight outside the church and within the minds and lives of all of us who have less inerrant and more complex engagement with the Bible, it needs to better honor our experience.
Secondly, it seems important to the authors to assert that God has the ability to intervene in Creation, to override the freedom of creation, and to control the actions of humans and other agents, even if God usually doesn’t exercise this control. One example is when Pinnock writes, “His (God’s) is the power to exist and the power to control all things…. The power of God’s love … does not command but woos and transforms us…. Yet to reduce God’s power to persuasion would make God too passive - it would be an overreaction against almightiness.” (113, 116) Frankly, I don’t follow. I think this need to assert the occasional direct control of God in creation stems from an inerrant epistemology of the Bible, where there are a number of texts that seem to imply God’s controlling power over nature or history. There are other ways of reading these texts, even if they are less literal, that better resolve this challenge.
Lastly, it is troubling that the authors need to treat process theology as the bogeyman that they do. In his discussion of process theology, Sanders presents what I suspect is a straw man definition, when he writes of the “stray from any biblical moorings” and the “God who cannot act or communicate.” (93-94) Pinnock buries substantial criticism of process in a footnote, when he argues defensively that his open view is not to be confused with process theology. (194) And he writes, “Let us seek a way to revise classical theism in a dynamic direction without falling into process theology.” (107) Apart from the merits of process or lack thereof, one reads the usual evangelical fear and suspicion of slippery slopes and ideas that emerge from more liberal or more science-engaged corners of the church and the academy, without a fair and thorough, non-defensive engagement.
February 6, 2013
An under-rated, sadly not-widely-known book that makes a rationally, philosophically and logically consistent and honest case for moving beyond conservative, limited understandings of God. It exposes the distortions of the traditional, Western understanding of the nature of God that have resulted from the synthesis of Hellenism and Biblical concepts by the early church fathers and many subsequent theologians (namely Augustine and John Calvin) which are so widely taken for granted as to be confused with an accurate depiction instead of the caricature that is so poorly suited to the hard facts of the real world.
August 10, 2020
Open theism is a topic that tends to rustle a lot of feathers, especially in conservative camps where the view often gets immediately labeled as unorthodox or even blasphemous. When I was in seminary, it was always quickly dismissed as just the problematic view of a small minority of contemporary theologians, and the professors quickly rushed us back to the books & statements of their preferred Reformed/Calvinist guys. Yet, the open view has come to be supported by a great many Christian philosophers and a growing number of biblical scholars, theologians, and influential pastors. I finally decided to make the time to start reading primary sources arguing for this view, and I'm glad I started with The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. It was an excellent primer on the subject.
In The Openness of God, five different authors set out to introduce open theism, offer a brief defense of it on biblical, theological, and philosophical grounds, and explain why it should at least be considered as an orthodox Christian viewpoint. Open theism (also referred to as the "open view" of God or "free will theism") challenges traditional understandings of God as absolutely immutable, impassible, and eternally decreeing everything that comes to pass. Instead, it posits that God is inherently relational, choosing to extend significant freedom of choice to his creations, and open to accepting new developments and even taking risks as part of that loving freedom.
On an even more fundamental level, open theism makes an important claim about the nature of the future. While God's omniscience means he knows everything that can possibly be known, the future cannot be known because it does not yet exist. God is therefore "open" to the future as something that has not yet come into being. This means that human choices (along with God's actions and reactions) help determine what kind of future comes into being, and God can therefore be genuinely affected by our choices -- experiencing joy and sorrow, learning, and even changing his mind. The future is thus neither eternally foreknown nor eternally foreordained; instead, God interacts with the decisions of people to bring about his desired ends.
Such an interpretation of God's nature and his interaction with the world sounds very counterintuitive to modern readers who are so inherently used to the idea that God knows everything that will happen in the future. And yet, openness theologians claim, this popular preconception is not drawn straight from Scripture, but rather has been filtered down to us by centuries of tradition rooted in Greek conceptions of God as a timeless, changeless entity. The open view of God stands as a challenge to go back to Scripture and consider whether the tradition got it right. In this sense, openness theologians continue the project instigated by the Protestant Reformers of always going back to the sources and measuring even the most cherished interpretations against Scripture.
Each of the five chapter-length essays in The Openness of God does a good job covering its topic clearly and concisely. The authors state their case well, summarizing the weaknesses of alternate views and anticipating potential objections to their arguments. However, since this book is intended as an introduction to the subject for a popular audience, it doesn't go into exhaustive detail or extensive argumentation. Readers who are already staunchly opposed to open theism won't have their minds changed, and others like me who are at least open (pardon the pun) to the idea but not fully persuaded will likely need more convincing. I still had many lingering questions after reading, but thankfully there are many resources furnished in the extensive endnotes.
That aside, in my opinion the authors do succeed at making the case for at least seeing open theism as a valid doctrinal option. They demonstrate a clear concern for remaining faithful to the essentials of Christian orthodoxy and have a high regard for the authority of Scripture when forming their theological viewpoints. They also do a good job of pointing out the key problems inherent in the other main Christian approaches to the nature of God's relationship to creation and time (Calvinism, Molinism, Classical Arminianism, and Process Theology).
And they raise a very good point that's well worth considering when they argue that, no matter what theological conclusion we come to regarding God's relationship to time and the future, on a practical level nearly every believer lives, prays, and worships as if they really do have a genuine, give-and-take relationship with God and as if their choices genuinely do matter and affect him personally. While by no means settling the issue, it should at least give us pause and invite us to consider whether such concrete realities tell us something important about how God has, in his unmatched wisdom and love, decided to structure his creation.
All in all, The Openness of God is a great introduction to an important topic and also a great exercise in practical theology. I found it greatly informative and enjoyable, even if not ultimately persuasive enough to shift my position at the moment. Highly recommended to anyone interested in theology and wanting to better understand the nature of God.
In The Openness of God, five different authors set out to introduce open theism, offer a brief defense of it on biblical, theological, and philosophical grounds, and explain why it should at least be considered as an orthodox Christian viewpoint. Open theism (also referred to as the "open view" of God or "free will theism") challenges traditional understandings of God as absolutely immutable, impassible, and eternally decreeing everything that comes to pass. Instead, it posits that God is inherently relational, choosing to extend significant freedom of choice to his creations, and open to accepting new developments and even taking risks as part of that loving freedom.
On an even more fundamental level, open theism makes an important claim about the nature of the future. While God's omniscience means he knows everything that can possibly be known, the future cannot be known because it does not yet exist. God is therefore "open" to the future as something that has not yet come into being. This means that human choices (along with God's actions and reactions) help determine what kind of future comes into being, and God can therefore be genuinely affected by our choices -- experiencing joy and sorrow, learning, and even changing his mind. The future is thus neither eternally foreknown nor eternally foreordained; instead, God interacts with the decisions of people to bring about his desired ends.
Such an interpretation of God's nature and his interaction with the world sounds very counterintuitive to modern readers who are so inherently used to the idea that God knows everything that will happen in the future. And yet, openness theologians claim, this popular preconception is not drawn straight from Scripture, but rather has been filtered down to us by centuries of tradition rooted in Greek conceptions of God as a timeless, changeless entity. The open view of God stands as a challenge to go back to Scripture and consider whether the tradition got it right. In this sense, openness theologians continue the project instigated by the Protestant Reformers of always going back to the sources and measuring even the most cherished interpretations against Scripture.
Each of the five chapter-length essays in The Openness of God does a good job covering its topic clearly and concisely. The authors state their case well, summarizing the weaknesses of alternate views and anticipating potential objections to their arguments. However, since this book is intended as an introduction to the subject for a popular audience, it doesn't go into exhaustive detail or extensive argumentation. Readers who are already staunchly opposed to open theism won't have their minds changed, and others like me who are at least open (pardon the pun) to the idea but not fully persuaded will likely need more convincing. I still had many lingering questions after reading, but thankfully there are many resources furnished in the extensive endnotes.
That aside, in my opinion the authors do succeed at making the case for at least seeing open theism as a valid doctrinal option. They demonstrate a clear concern for remaining faithful to the essentials of Christian orthodoxy and have a high regard for the authority of Scripture when forming their theological viewpoints. They also do a good job of pointing out the key problems inherent in the other main Christian approaches to the nature of God's relationship to creation and time (Calvinism, Molinism, Classical Arminianism, and Process Theology).
And they raise a very good point that's well worth considering when they argue that, no matter what theological conclusion we come to regarding God's relationship to time and the future, on a practical level nearly every believer lives, prays, and worships as if they really do have a genuine, give-and-take relationship with God and as if their choices genuinely do matter and affect him personally. While by no means settling the issue, it should at least give us pause and invite us to consider whether such concrete realities tell us something important about how God has, in his unmatched wisdom and love, decided to structure his creation.
All in all, The Openness of God is a great introduction to an important topic and also a great exercise in practical theology. I found it greatly informative and enjoyable, even if not ultimately persuasive enough to shift my position at the moment. Highly recommended to anyone interested in theology and wanting to better understand the nature of God.
May 6, 2022
Excellent material. I felt like it got rather repetitious at points, but I think that's just because I already basically knew and agreed with everything it was saying from a theological perspective (though not the historical details, but I didn't find those particularly relevant to me). I guess I see now that adhering to the maxim "I only read books I disagree with" is more a way to avoid getting bored than a sign of open-mindedness. Someone who strongly disagrees with the open view would likely feel more engaged. But I think I've read enough on the subject.
I really like the '90s aesthetic of the cover.
And I just really don't see what all the fuss from Calvinists is about. No one is saying (well, maybe process theologians are) that God lacks the power to actualize a Calvinistic or otherwise fully determined creation. Open theists just believe that his love led him to do otherwise; see page 151: "God as so conceived is in no way deficient in power as compared with God as viewed by Calvinism. We believe that God is completely capable of creating a universe every detail of whose history is solely determined by his sovereign decree. But it seems to use that a wise and good God would not want—and, in fact, has not chosen—to create such a universe." Seriously, why is it reprehensible to suggest that God takes risks? And why do Calvinists even waste their energy arguing about it when they believe that God, for some bizarre reason, decided before creation that open theists would be wrong in the particular way that they are? Ugh, now I'm ranting about how stupid Calvinism is again. 'Cause that's what it is: stupid. If you're a Calvinist, please don't be offended, because it's nothing personal, but you have to be incredibly blinded to believe that garbage. (And again, if you're right, God is making ("compatibilism" is a sham) me type this, so it's not like you have any grounds for complaining.) Is that uncharitable? It's just the truth. I suppose you could say that I'm not "speaking it in love," but what do you want me to do, lie?
Now, for a brief summary, as I sometimes write for nonfiction books I read.
The preface basically sums up the main theme, though without Greg Boyd's emphasis on possibilities and the will/will-not vs. might/might-not distinction (but that does get mentioned eventually in the body of the book). I found there to be more of an emphasis on the implications of the open view for God's character than is necessary, but of course it doesn't detract from any of his essential attributes (to the extent that he can legitimately be said to have "attributes").
"Biblical Support for a New Perspective" basically makes the point (on page 18) that "[f]rom a Christian perspective, love is the first and last word in the biblical portrait of God" and argues from there that the open view makes the most sense in light of that fact. The Tanakh depicts God's feelings, intentions, and actions existing in and influenced by interactive relationship with his creation, and Jesus further reveals that reality. God's character, but not necessarily his knowledge, is changeless, and his foretelling or predetermining certain aspects of the future does not imply that the future does not remain partially open and uncertain.
"Historical Considerations" was clearly thoroughly researched. I wouldn't say it's boring, but…I don't personally need all those details; I'm content to observe that the view of God requiring exhaustive definite foreknowledge has a lot in common with extrabiblical Greek philosophical notions and leave it at that—though opponents of open theism have argued in Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity that that's not actually the case, which is weird, because Sanders is so convincing.
"Systematic Theology" repeated some details from the first chapter and in general wasn't terribly enlightening, but again, that's because I already agreed with all of it. Basically, as already established, God's omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect sovereignty don't require him to control or foreknow the future exhaustively and still allow him to interact meaningfully with his creation, experiencing the passage of time and continually learning and reacting to our free choices. He chose to create this way because its how he can best display his love (which, I might add, is the same as his justice: no hell needed).
"A Philosophical Perspective" just reinforces that "God is open and responsive" and that open theism provides the best account of divine providence.
"Practical Implications" provides final reinforcement of the fact that open theism makes the most sense of our world and therefore seems like the most likely view to be correct.
I really like the '90s aesthetic of the cover.
And I just really don't see what all the fuss from Calvinists is about. No one is saying (well, maybe process theologians are) that God lacks the power to actualize a Calvinistic or otherwise fully determined creation. Open theists just believe that his love led him to do otherwise; see page 151: "God as so conceived is in no way deficient in power as compared with God as viewed by Calvinism. We believe that God is completely capable of creating a universe every detail of whose history is solely determined by his sovereign decree. But it seems to use that a wise and good God would not want—and, in fact, has not chosen—to create such a universe." Seriously, why is it reprehensible to suggest that God takes risks? And why do Calvinists even waste their energy arguing about it when they believe that God, for some bizarre reason, decided before creation that open theists would be wrong in the particular way that they are? Ugh, now I'm ranting about how stupid Calvinism is again. 'Cause that's what it is: stupid. If you're a Calvinist, please don't be offended, because it's nothing personal, but you have to be incredibly blinded to believe that garbage. (And again, if you're right, God is making ("compatibilism" is a sham) me type this, so it's not like you have any grounds for complaining.) Is that uncharitable? It's just the truth. I suppose you could say that I'm not "speaking it in love," but what do you want me to do, lie?
Now, for a brief summary, as I sometimes write for nonfiction books I read.
The preface basically sums up the main theme, though without Greg Boyd's emphasis on possibilities and the will/will-not vs. might/might-not distinction (but that does get mentioned eventually in the body of the book). I found there to be more of an emphasis on the implications of the open view for God's character than is necessary, but of course it doesn't detract from any of his essential attributes (to the extent that he can legitimately be said to have "attributes").
"Biblical Support for a New Perspective" basically makes the point (on page 18) that "[f]rom a Christian perspective, love is the first and last word in the biblical portrait of God" and argues from there that the open view makes the most sense in light of that fact. The Tanakh depicts God's feelings, intentions, and actions existing in and influenced by interactive relationship with his creation, and Jesus further reveals that reality. God's character, but not necessarily his knowledge, is changeless, and his foretelling or predetermining certain aspects of the future does not imply that the future does not remain partially open and uncertain.
"Historical Considerations" was clearly thoroughly researched. I wouldn't say it's boring, but…I don't personally need all those details; I'm content to observe that the view of God requiring exhaustive definite foreknowledge has a lot in common with extrabiblical Greek philosophical notions and leave it at that—though opponents of open theism have argued in Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity that that's not actually the case, which is weird, because Sanders is so convincing.
"Systematic Theology" repeated some details from the first chapter and in general wasn't terribly enlightening, but again, that's because I already agreed with all of it. Basically, as already established, God's omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect sovereignty don't require him to control or foreknow the future exhaustively and still allow him to interact meaningfully with his creation, experiencing the passage of time and continually learning and reacting to our free choices. He chose to create this way because its how he can best display his love (which, I might add, is the same as his justice: no hell needed).
"A Philosophical Perspective" just reinforces that "God is open and responsive" and that open theism provides the best account of divine providence.
"Practical Implications" provides final reinforcement of the fact that open theism makes the most sense of our world and therefore seems like the most likely view to be correct.
June 10, 2010
So far, a thorough introduction; I appreciate the logical approach, and the honest attempt to address the main opposition charitably.
At just a few points, I was concerned Rice (the first essay) doesn't make a clear enough distinction between creator and created, for example when he says that God's action involves change because he experiences the changes he makes to the world. And in a very well-comprehensive consideration of God's will and what it means for our own, he jumps to saying God's power can be "thwarted," rather than being consistent with his argument and saying that God sometimes ALLOWS his INTENTIONS to be thwarted. Also, Rice states that God cannot entirely predict people's own actions -- this sounds more like Process Theology to me.
That said, it's nice to see a reasonable look at how/why God is relational, responsive, and still sovereign. I don't get the feeling they are trying to make God more human, but instead look at what God created in us and say, "This is what it means for us to understand God by being made in the divine image."
The historical considerations are entertaining to me; they trace not just the inklings of relationality but the causes of extra-biblical understandings, so that it's very clear that God, though still and always God, is always willing to bring his people along through time from a certain capacity of understanding to the next -- much like the giving of the Mosaic Law in the Torah is to Christ's explanations of it when on Earth. While not surprised to see my own influences (particularly Luther), I was especially surprised at how philosophical intrusions into some theologians led them to outright heresy (for example, the idea for Tillich that God does not even "exist," because existence is limitation).
Very much enjoy Pinnock's attempt to root his theology in experience of God -- after all, without experience of life, God and language, the Bible itself would make no sense to anyone; even if we didn't believe it, we could understand it. And so it should be with theology. It's a compelling argument: why do we act one way, as if God can be affected by prayers, and yet adamantly claim God is always and forever and only changeless? I find merit in the idea that God is not always one way all the time, except in His essence: divine, loving, communal, sovereign, and free. It is true that God is often times "both-and": both transcendent and immanent, both sovereign and servant, both gracious and just. Why not both timeless and open to time? The only thing I tend to take issue with is how quickly a few of the writers jump to a bit of an extreme. It only happens a few times (which is something for such a book, being something of such "new ground"), but Pinnock does need to watch against the panentheism of Tillich. I think he would have done better to quote Ephesians 4:6 instead of Acts 17:8, for example, when talking about God being immanent. I absolutely love his willingness to be honest and realistic about taking what the Scripture says as what it means, and that God is truly unlimited -- limited neither by our false dichotomies nor by our fear. I wish he would have addressed a potential logical issue with regard to God's knowledge, as I think he may explore a bit of a pigeon hole when saying God's foreknowledge would mean the future is already determined. And that also yields a bit of a question: if God is unlimited enough to be both-and in all of these areas, why is he limited by the "can be known"? To say that something cannot be known is to say it is subject to a limitation; thus the one who does not know it is subject both to its existence and the condition that subjects its existence to itself. This, I think, is one of the only places I part with Pinnock and agree more with Molinism (God knows everything that can be known... including all possibilities, and what is freely chosen without regard to his intenions). Still, it is a joy to hear biblical concepts admitted for their full logical reality, such as: "Creating free creatures and working with them does not contradict God's omnipotence but requires it," and "God gives us room to rebel against him, and when that happens patiently waits for the prodigal to return."
Hasker is obviously a philosophe. He scatters terms around that make a lot of sense, but at the same time isn't too heavy with them, so as to deter an interested reader. His philosophical treatment of the various, what I would call major, theological systems as it relates to God's level of determinism is comprehensive, and concise enough to avoid disappointment. That said, despite the accurate treatment of each system, he does seem to avoid a few key points; he reduces Calvinism to inadequate due simply to the inability to explain evil in the world; he ignores the commonly understood point that simple foreknowledge is not determining things actively, only that actions are set when viewed from an eternal perspective due to those actions being determined in-the-present by free agents (much like filming real life: just because you can watch the home-movie and know that Bobby will throw Sue in the pool in five minutes, that does not mean Bobby did not freely determine his behavior, much less that you determined it at any time whatsoever). What Hasker does is establish Free Will Theism as a completely viable option -- he does not refute all other systems to the point that FWT is a clear "winner."
For example, a few questions still lingered for me at this point: (1) There's plenty of evidence that God responds to creatures who are his own, but where is the Scriptural evidence that people who are not yet his own can really have a free choice to relate to him? (2) Surely there are some limits to how we can respond to anything; we are not infinite creatures. How does being finite relate to "libertarian free will"? (3) And though I know this isn't an exhaustive text, I'm wondering how they would interpret 1 Cor. 2:14-15; at least according to the various translations I have, none seem to allow the idea that we are so significantly free as to accept/choose/receive God himself if we're limited by a natural mindset. This brings other questions: (4) what's the heart of the gospel, if we weren't freed from something? (5) But if we were freed from something, were we then not liberitarian-ly free before the gospel? Explain. Bottom line: sounds nice, but I still need some explanation about where the freedom really comes from, and whether or not we really need to be freed, or can be free in any and all circumstances before the gospel.
This became even more clear to me in the final chapter, where -- in the attempt to maintain the position -- a number of seeming contradictions sprang. It is the "open view of God," but the view actually CLOSES God's ability to know or determine anything. They claim God can "unilaterally act" within time, but this is never explained, except in a way that only maintains HUMANITY'S ability to "unilaterally act" instead; in other words, God cannot unilaterally act unless we unilaterally act. God has apparently chosen to lock himself into a cage (if this locking is merely for show, I would question their view of God's integrity), whereby we have the key. When pressed, even this view of God "unilaterally intervening" isn't affirmed in its true sense: that God still maintains the right to exercise control over his own creation, whether or not he chooses to exercise it. I also find it troubling that in a system where it is claimed God wants us to be "morally mature," that there is no address of what God does when we are not yet mature enough to freely decide or act in a beneficial way. All forms of Calvinism end up being characterized as hyper-Calvinism (which Calvinists themselves repudiate), and the denial of middle-knowledge is frightening, since that would mean God could never know possibilities until we did -- and in that case, who is subject to whom? I saw absolutely no explanation of the gospel according to this system, which bothers me since it is clear that we are "freed" to live the gospel from something that keeps us in bondage (namely, sin). And finally, I also read no address of potentially troubling texts to them, like Acts 17:28 where God seems to determine exact places for people. To be frank, at times the position feels hollow, as if they are arguing apriori to ensure that they have the freedom they want, and not true to the kind of "both-and" theology (or the acknowledgment of an absolutely free God) that I would hope.
At just a few points, I was concerned Rice (the first essay) doesn't make a clear enough distinction between creator and created, for example when he says that God's action involves change because he experiences the changes he makes to the world. And in a very well-comprehensive consideration of God's will and what it means for our own, he jumps to saying God's power can be "thwarted," rather than being consistent with his argument and saying that God sometimes ALLOWS his INTENTIONS to be thwarted. Also, Rice states that God cannot entirely predict people's own actions -- this sounds more like Process Theology to me.
That said, it's nice to see a reasonable look at how/why God is relational, responsive, and still sovereign. I don't get the feeling they are trying to make God more human, but instead look at what God created in us and say, "This is what it means for us to understand God by being made in the divine image."
The historical considerations are entertaining to me; they trace not just the inklings of relationality but the causes of extra-biblical understandings, so that it's very clear that God, though still and always God, is always willing to bring his people along through time from a certain capacity of understanding to the next -- much like the giving of the Mosaic Law in the Torah is to Christ's explanations of it when on Earth. While not surprised to see my own influences (particularly Luther), I was especially surprised at how philosophical intrusions into some theologians led them to outright heresy (for example, the idea for Tillich that God does not even "exist," because existence is limitation).
Very much enjoy Pinnock's attempt to root his theology in experience of God -- after all, without experience of life, God and language, the Bible itself would make no sense to anyone; even if we didn't believe it, we could understand it. And so it should be with theology. It's a compelling argument: why do we act one way, as if God can be affected by prayers, and yet adamantly claim God is always and forever and only changeless? I find merit in the idea that God is not always one way all the time, except in His essence: divine, loving, communal, sovereign, and free. It is true that God is often times "both-and": both transcendent and immanent, both sovereign and servant, both gracious and just. Why not both timeless and open to time? The only thing I tend to take issue with is how quickly a few of the writers jump to a bit of an extreme. It only happens a few times (which is something for such a book, being something of such "new ground"), but Pinnock does need to watch against the panentheism of Tillich. I think he would have done better to quote Ephesians 4:6 instead of Acts 17:8, for example, when talking about God being immanent. I absolutely love his willingness to be honest and realistic about taking what the Scripture says as what it means, and that God is truly unlimited -- limited neither by our false dichotomies nor by our fear. I wish he would have addressed a potential logical issue with regard to God's knowledge, as I think he may explore a bit of a pigeon hole when saying God's foreknowledge would mean the future is already determined. And that also yields a bit of a question: if God is unlimited enough to be both-and in all of these areas, why is he limited by the "can be known"? To say that something cannot be known is to say it is subject to a limitation; thus the one who does not know it is subject both to its existence and the condition that subjects its existence to itself. This, I think, is one of the only places I part with Pinnock and agree more with Molinism (God knows everything that can be known... including all possibilities, and what is freely chosen without regard to his intenions). Still, it is a joy to hear biblical concepts admitted for their full logical reality, such as: "Creating free creatures and working with them does not contradict God's omnipotence but requires it," and "God gives us room to rebel against him, and when that happens patiently waits for the prodigal to return."
Hasker is obviously a philosophe. He scatters terms around that make a lot of sense, but at the same time isn't too heavy with them, so as to deter an interested reader. His philosophical treatment of the various, what I would call major, theological systems as it relates to God's level of determinism is comprehensive, and concise enough to avoid disappointment. That said, despite the accurate treatment of each system, he does seem to avoid a few key points; he reduces Calvinism to inadequate due simply to the inability to explain evil in the world; he ignores the commonly understood point that simple foreknowledge is not determining things actively, only that actions are set when viewed from an eternal perspective due to those actions being determined in-the-present by free agents (much like filming real life: just because you can watch the home-movie and know that Bobby will throw Sue in the pool in five minutes, that does not mean Bobby did not freely determine his behavior, much less that you determined it at any time whatsoever). What Hasker does is establish Free Will Theism as a completely viable option -- he does not refute all other systems to the point that FWT is a clear "winner."
For example, a few questions still lingered for me at this point: (1) There's plenty of evidence that God responds to creatures who are his own, but where is the Scriptural evidence that people who are not yet his own can really have a free choice to relate to him? (2) Surely there are some limits to how we can respond to anything; we are not infinite creatures. How does being finite relate to "libertarian free will"? (3) And though I know this isn't an exhaustive text, I'm wondering how they would interpret 1 Cor. 2:14-15; at least according to the various translations I have, none seem to allow the idea that we are so significantly free as to accept/choose/receive God himself if we're limited by a natural mindset. This brings other questions: (4) what's the heart of the gospel, if we weren't freed from something? (5) But if we were freed from something, were we then not liberitarian-ly free before the gospel? Explain. Bottom line: sounds nice, but I still need some explanation about where the freedom really comes from, and whether or not we really need to be freed, or can be free in any and all circumstances before the gospel.
This became even more clear to me in the final chapter, where -- in the attempt to maintain the position -- a number of seeming contradictions sprang. It is the "open view of God," but the view actually CLOSES God's ability to know or determine anything. They claim God can "unilaterally act" within time, but this is never explained, except in a way that only maintains HUMANITY'S ability to "unilaterally act" instead; in other words, God cannot unilaterally act unless we unilaterally act. God has apparently chosen to lock himself into a cage (if this locking is merely for show, I would question their view of God's integrity), whereby we have the key. When pressed, even this view of God "unilaterally intervening" isn't affirmed in its true sense: that God still maintains the right to exercise control over his own creation, whether or not he chooses to exercise it. I also find it troubling that in a system where it is claimed God wants us to be "morally mature," that there is no address of what God does when we are not yet mature enough to freely decide or act in a beneficial way. All forms of Calvinism end up being characterized as hyper-Calvinism (which Calvinists themselves repudiate), and the denial of middle-knowledge is frightening, since that would mean God could never know possibilities until we did -- and in that case, who is subject to whom? I saw absolutely no explanation of the gospel according to this system, which bothers me since it is clear that we are "freed" to live the gospel from something that keeps us in bondage (namely, sin). And finally, I also read no address of potentially troubling texts to them, like Acts 17:28 where God seems to determine exact places for people. To be frank, at times the position feels hollow, as if they are arguing apriori to ensure that they have the freedom they want, and not true to the kind of "both-and" theology (or the acknowledgment of an absolutely free God) that I would hope.
July 19, 2024
THE BEST INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCEPT OF "OPEN THEOLOGY”
This 1994 book begins by stating in the Preface, "This book presents an understanding of God's nature and relationship with his creatures, which we call the openness of God. In broad strokes... God does not control everything that happens. Rather, he is open to receiving input from his creatures... God invites us to participate with him to bring the future into being."
Richard Rice (author of 'God's Foreknowledge and Man's Free Will') suggests in the opening essay, "The will of God... is not an irresistible, all-determining force. God is not the only actor on the stage of history. Other agents, too, play a role. Creatures who bear the image of God are capable of deciding and acting, and God takes their decisions and actions into account as he determines what course to follow." (Pg. 38) Rice later argues that "If God knows the future exhaustively, then conditional prophecies lose their integrity... They are nothing more than hypothetical assertions that God fully knows will never be realized." (Pg. 52)
Clark Pinnock (author of 'Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness') states that "dozens of examples... throughout Scripture establish that the Bible thinks of an open future that is not completely certain. The popular belief in God's omniscience is not so much a biblical idea as an old tradition." (Pg. 122) He adds, "if choices are real and freedom significant, future decisions cannot be exhaustively foreknown." (Pg. 123)
John Sanders (author of 'The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence'), William Hasker (author of 'Providence, Evil and the Openness of God'), and David Basinger (author of 'The Case for Freewill Theism: A Philosophical Assessment') contribute other essays.
This viewpoint will not appeal to all evangelicals (Norman Geisler resigned from the Evangelical Theological Society over their failure to expel Pinnock from membership, for example), or even all Christians. But it is a tightly-argued, broad-based approach, that is well worth study by anyone interested in contemporary theology.
This 1994 book begins by stating in the Preface, "This book presents an understanding of God's nature and relationship with his creatures, which we call the openness of God. In broad strokes... God does not control everything that happens. Rather, he is open to receiving input from his creatures... God invites us to participate with him to bring the future into being."
Richard Rice (author of 'God's Foreknowledge and Man's Free Will') suggests in the opening essay, "The will of God... is not an irresistible, all-determining force. God is not the only actor on the stage of history. Other agents, too, play a role. Creatures who bear the image of God are capable of deciding and acting, and God takes their decisions and actions into account as he determines what course to follow." (Pg. 38) Rice later argues that "If God knows the future exhaustively, then conditional prophecies lose their integrity... They are nothing more than hypothetical assertions that God fully knows will never be realized." (Pg. 52)
Clark Pinnock (author of 'Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness') states that "dozens of examples... throughout Scripture establish that the Bible thinks of an open future that is not completely certain. The popular belief in God's omniscience is not so much a biblical idea as an old tradition." (Pg. 122) He adds, "if choices are real and freedom significant, future decisions cannot be exhaustively foreknown." (Pg. 123)
John Sanders (author of 'The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence'), William Hasker (author of 'Providence, Evil and the Openness of God'), and David Basinger (author of 'The Case for Freewill Theism: A Philosophical Assessment') contribute other essays.
This viewpoint will not appeal to all evangelicals (Norman Geisler resigned from the Evangelical Theological Society over their failure to expel Pinnock from membership, for example), or even all Christians. But it is a tightly-argued, broad-based approach, that is well worth study by anyone interested in contemporary theology.
May 7, 2019
If one is looking for a concise presentation of the Open Theist position, this is a great place to look. If one is looking to be convinced, it may be best to search elsewhere. This book is characterized by fallacious argumentation, poor exegesis, and problematic theological assumptions and conclusions.
The contributors frequently made use of subtle mischaracterizations of Classical Christian Theism by describing that model as presenting a "static" and "inert" God. On multiple occasions CCT was rejected on the basis of false dichotomies or because of its assertion of divine incomprehensibility. Often the alternatives put forward were, in reality, no better.
The hermeneutical contributions to this volume are terribly weak. Texts like Num 23:19 are flattened to get around their plain meaning; others, like Isa 55:8-9, are unwarrantedly restricted to their immediate context so that they cannot be taken as general rules. Many texts that might present great difficulty for the openness position, like Gen 50:20, Deut 18:20-22, or Isa 41:21-24, go completely untouched.
Though the authors want to present themselves as orthodox, certain statements leave room for confusion about the unity of the biblical witness to God's nature, or about soteriological issues like inclusivism. Some conclusions drawn in the final chapter are also concerning, such as the assertion that, since God doesn't have exhaustive knowledge of the future, He really could lead someone to make decisions that might turn out poorly in the long-run. Finally, the authors want to be clear that they aren't presenting a different God from the longstanding Christian tradition but rather a different way of understanding. However, when the ontology of God is so drastically modified as it is here, one is left wondering if they can truly claim to be worshiping the same Being.
If you want to understand open theism, this is book is great for that. If you want sound theology, all you will find here is blasphemy and heresy.
The contributors frequently made use of subtle mischaracterizations of Classical Christian Theism by describing that model as presenting a "static" and "inert" God. On multiple occasions CCT was rejected on the basis of false dichotomies or because of its assertion of divine incomprehensibility. Often the alternatives put forward were, in reality, no better.
The hermeneutical contributions to this volume are terribly weak. Texts like Num 23:19 are flattened to get around their plain meaning; others, like Isa 55:8-9, are unwarrantedly restricted to their immediate context so that they cannot be taken as general rules. Many texts that might present great difficulty for the openness position, like Gen 50:20, Deut 18:20-22, or Isa 41:21-24, go completely untouched.
Though the authors want to present themselves as orthodox, certain statements leave room for confusion about the unity of the biblical witness to God's nature, or about soteriological issues like inclusivism. Some conclusions drawn in the final chapter are also concerning, such as the assertion that, since God doesn't have exhaustive knowledge of the future, He really could lead someone to make decisions that might turn out poorly in the long-run. Finally, the authors want to be clear that they aren't presenting a different God from the longstanding Christian tradition but rather a different way of understanding. However, when the ontology of God is so drastically modified as it is here, one is left wondering if they can truly claim to be worshiping the same Being.
If you want to understand open theism, this is book is great for that. If you want sound theology, all you will find here is blasphemy and heresy.
October 17, 2024
What consitutes a view of God as being heretical? After questioning all of my beliefs, one by one, and thoroughly researching the scriptures, I'm convinced that a heretical theology is one that either:
-Diminishes Gods sovereignty or love, or;
-Preaches a different gospel, or;
-Contains information that is 'obviously' not taught, or taught against in the scriptures.
However, lots of views which are written off as traditionally heretical, actually aren't clearly defined in scripture. Modalism? Universalism? Annihilationism?
Lots of views are possible, and as they aren't totally clear in scripture, I think God is happy for us to explore and (probably) get things wrong. I've seen lots online of the heavy weight theologians calling Open theism blatant heresy.
Open Theism doesn't tick any of the heretical boxes above. In fact, I believe it fixes a lot of problems. Can God change his mind? (40 verses indicate he does) Was God really surprised by Israel? (Jer 3.7) Does God have emotions? How can he experience emotions if he has foreknowledge of everything?
In my opinion, open theism presents a God, just as Sovereign, just as powerful, but more personal, loving and caring. A God who is reactive to our prayers and suffering and cares deeply for us.
I'm convinced... I could be wrong, of course, but I think this is him. I loved this book and will be reading it again soon.
-Diminishes Gods sovereignty or love, or;
-Preaches a different gospel, or;
-Contains information that is 'obviously' not taught, or taught against in the scriptures.
However, lots of views which are written off as traditionally heretical, actually aren't clearly defined in scripture. Modalism? Universalism? Annihilationism?
Lots of views are possible, and as they aren't totally clear in scripture, I think God is happy for us to explore and (probably) get things wrong. I've seen lots online of the heavy weight theologians calling Open theism blatant heresy.
Open Theism doesn't tick any of the heretical boxes above. In fact, I believe it fixes a lot of problems. Can God change his mind? (40 verses indicate he does) Was God really surprised by Israel? (Jer 3.7) Does God have emotions? How can he experience emotions if he has foreknowledge of everything?
In my opinion, open theism presents a God, just as Sovereign, just as powerful, but more personal, loving and caring. A God who is reactive to our prayers and suffering and cares deeply for us.
I'm convinced... I could be wrong, of course, but I think this is him. I loved this book and will be reading it again soon.
February 7, 2018
Does God Have Feelings?
A set of five essays presenting the concept of the Openness of God, an attempt to account for the full capacity of the Creator God to enter into normal relationships with humans.
They deal directly with the logical challenge avoided in classical theology that the biblical revelation speaks of God in terms we understand of the emotional give and take definitive of relationships between human beings. This is the only model or analogy we have for understanding how God relates to his human creation.
These theologians attempt to overcome the logical limitations of classical western philosophical theology and its inadequate accounting for the interactive God of Covenant revelation. This was very stimulating. I wrote all over these essays!
A set of five essays presenting the concept of the Openness of God, an attempt to account for the full capacity of the Creator God to enter into normal relationships with humans.
They deal directly with the logical challenge avoided in classical theology that the biblical revelation speaks of God in terms we understand of the emotional give and take definitive of relationships between human beings. This is the only model or analogy we have for understanding how God relates to his human creation.
These theologians attempt to overcome the logical limitations of classical western philosophical theology and its inadequate accounting for the interactive God of Covenant revelation. This was very stimulating. I wrote all over these essays!
November 25, 2023
Incredibly helpful book on exploring how classical theism has influenced the development of Christian theology to an alarming extent.
A great deal of Christianity’s earliest and most prolific thinkers (not apostles) were making theological stipulations and interpreting God’s being as compatible with the intellectualism of the times.
Open theism is the attempt to return to see God as depicted in the Bible, not as Plato, Aristotle and the Hellenistic thinkers did.
Even if you don’t walk away with a belief in open theism, I believe this book could challenge notions of a believer’s perspectives and question where they come from - a pursuit of genuine faith in Jesus.
The book can be very, very, heady at times so brace yourself!
A great deal of Christianity’s earliest and most prolific thinkers (not apostles) were making theological stipulations and interpreting God’s being as compatible with the intellectualism of the times.
Open theism is the attempt to return to see God as depicted in the Bible, not as Plato, Aristotle and the Hellenistic thinkers did.
Even if you don’t walk away with a belief in open theism, I believe this book could challenge notions of a believer’s perspectives and question where they come from - a pursuit of genuine faith in Jesus.
The book can be very, very, heady at times so brace yourself!
October 16, 2021
Sometimes we need to read books that will challenge our status quo. The challenge may confirm or change our understandings and beliefs in good ways. For me, this is one of those books.
The premise is that “The will of God … is not an irresistible, all-determining force” (38). In some ways, this book went too far.
My position is that God’s purposes will not and cannot be frustrated or defeated. This invariable reality still allows for genuine human free will—even to the extent that God does not know (some of) the future.
This book should be read critically with biblically-grounded conversation partners.
The premise is that “The will of God … is not an irresistible, all-determining force” (38). In some ways, this book went too far.
My position is that God’s purposes will not and cannot be frustrated or defeated. This invariable reality still allows for genuine human free will—even to the extent that God does not know (some of) the future.
This book should be read critically with biblically-grounded conversation partners.
September 27, 2020
I was reading this text as supplemental reading for a course where I was to defend the Open Theist position.
Open Theism is a relatively new theology within Christianity and this book is the seminal presentation of this theology to the broader public. While Open Theism has developed since its inception, I found it helpful to understand how current theologians have understood the original works and expanded and further developed ideas.
Open Theism is a relatively new theology within Christianity and this book is the seminal presentation of this theology to the broader public. While Open Theism has developed since its inception, I found it helpful to understand how current theologians have understood the original works and expanded and further developed ideas.
September 6, 2021
Clearly presented case for open theism (as opposed to Calvinism, molinism, and process theism) from multiple perspectives. A classic text. Kinda late to be getting to this now. I still remain myself a bit unsure of how to relate classic theism of more advanced varieties - Rowan Williams, DBH, and others - to open theism. But something *like* this stuff must be the case, or at least, is closer than other stuff...
May 25, 2024
What if the scriptures describing God’s remorse, repentance, and changing were just as authoritative as the scriptures we use to negate them?
“Things do not always turn out as expected or desired. But the God to whom we are committed is always walking beside us, experiencing what we are experiencing when we are experiencing it, always willing to help to the extent consistent with our status as responsible creations of his. And we find this to be both exciting and spiritually rewarding.”
“Things do not always turn out as expected or desired. But the God to whom we are committed is always walking beside us, experiencing what we are experiencing when we are experiencing it, always willing to help to the extent consistent with our status as responsible creations of his. And we find this to be both exciting and spiritually rewarding.”
November 6, 2021
An excellent introduction the idea of the openness of God, or “free will theism.” I find the emphasis on God’s unfolding experience of history refreshing and exciting. As this was written over twenty years ago, I’m interested to look into how the idea of the openness of God has developed in contemporary theology.
December 28, 2023
Very interesting and thought provoking. Challenged a lot of my thinking about God in a very positive way - in the sense that I had to figure out where things I'd always believed came from and whether I actually agree.
May 10, 2020
More Open
This is a biblical challenge to Christian traditionalism. It gives definition to creator, depth to relationship, and right understanding of the Trinity.
This is a biblical challenge to Christian traditionalism. It gives definition to creator, depth to relationship, and right understanding of the Trinity.
May 16, 2020
William Hasker's contribution is the only good thing about this book. Far too philosophical for me.
July 2, 2021
I just finished "The Openness of God" by Pinnock. It was fantastic. The chapter I thought was really amazing was John Sanders writing on the Hellenistic thought and the early church fathers.
March 8, 2025
Great book!
August 12, 2015
This was a fascinating read. The authors attempt to make a clear distinction between a biblical portrayal of God’s relationship with the world and the influence of Greek philosophy upon Christian theology, specifically in regard to God’s experience of things like time, change, emotion, and knowledge.
[all while rejecting the over-correction that is called “process theology”]
They conclude that God has granted a measure of true freedom to creation and genuinely experiences the future as it occurs, instead of existing somewhere outside of time and possessing deterministic foreknowledge of everything that will happen.
Still, they affirm that God is omni-capable and reserves the right and power to intervene at any point in the free history of nature and humanity.
For them, God experiences real emotions: real surprise, joy, anger, and delight in God’s multi-faceted creation. Evil isn’t in God’s plan and, though God’s overall purposes for creation will come to pass, creatures have significant freedom to choose or not-choose to respond to those purposes. When God says things like “I regret I made them” (Gen 6:6) these aren’t anthropomorphisms, but genuine emotions; when God tested Abraham to see whether he would be faithful, God was actually waiting to see what Abraham would do, etc. etc.
Instead of using neo-platonism (an historically influential Greek philosophy) to divide Scripture, they opt for other, more faithful ways of reading. They craft in this book a varied and compelling approach to open theism — providing arguments which will require another post or podcast episode to discuss in detail.
If their conclusions about God are correct (or at least more plausible than alternatives), then I think free-will theism stands to invigorate Christian faith, prayer, Scripture-reading, personal agency, and responsibility in significant ways.
In short, this kind of theology seems to restore to me my human dignity.
Though Kurt Vonnegut was an atheist and has nothing to do with this book, I couldn’t help but think of Breakfast of Champions as I read Clark Pinnock’s chapter:
"When God gave creatures freedom, he [sic] gave them an open future, a future in a degree to be shaped by their decisions, not a future already determined in its every detail. We do not limit God by saying that he can be surprised by what his creatures do. It would be a serious limitation if God could not experience surprise and delight. The world would be a boring place without anything unexpected ever happening" (The Openness of God, 123).
In Breakfast of Champions, Vonnegut wrote about a fictional character who wrote a fictional book about a fictional planet, man, and creator:
"The book was in the form of a long letter from The Creator of the Universe to the experimental creature. The Creator congratulated the creature and apologized for all the discomfort he had endured. The Creator invited him to a banquet in his honor in the Empire Room of the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City, where a black robot named Sammy Davis, Jr., would sing and dance. And the experimental creature wasn’t killed after the banquet. He was transferred to a virgin planet instead. Living cells were sliced from the palms of his hands, while he was unconscious. The operation didn’t hurt at all. And then the cells were stirred into a soupy sea on the virgin planet. They would evolve into ever more complicated life forms as the eons went by. Whatever shapes they assumed, they would have free will. Trout didn’t give the experimental creature a proper name. He simply called him The Man. On the virgin planet, The Man was Adam and the sea was Eve. The Man often sauntered by the sea. Sometimes he waded in his Eve. Sometimes he swam in her, but she was too soupy for an invigorating swim. She made her Adam feel sleepy and sticky afterwards, so he would dive into an icy stream that had just jumped off a mountain. He screamed when he dived into the icy water, screamed again when he came up for air. He bloodied his shins and laughed about it when he scrambled up rocks to get out of the water. He panted and laughed some more, and he thought of something amazing to yell. The Creator never knew what he was going to yell, since The Creator had no control over him. The Man himself got to decide what he was going to do next—and why. After a dip one day, for instance, The Man yelled this: 'Cheese!' Another time he yelled, 'Wouldn’t you really rather drive a Buick'" (Breakfast of Champions, 139).
Of course, the authors of The Openness of God would not say that God never exercises control over us, just that God restrains God’s own self and rarely acts unilaterally, that human freedom is real, and the future is open.
Cheese.
[all while rejecting the over-correction that is called “process theology”]
They conclude that God has granted a measure of true freedom to creation and genuinely experiences the future as it occurs, instead of existing somewhere outside of time and possessing deterministic foreknowledge of everything that will happen.
Still, they affirm that God is omni-capable and reserves the right and power to intervene at any point in the free history of nature and humanity.
For them, God experiences real emotions: real surprise, joy, anger, and delight in God’s multi-faceted creation. Evil isn’t in God’s plan and, though God’s overall purposes for creation will come to pass, creatures have significant freedom to choose or not-choose to respond to those purposes. When God says things like “I regret I made them” (Gen 6:6) these aren’t anthropomorphisms, but genuine emotions; when God tested Abraham to see whether he would be faithful, God was actually waiting to see what Abraham would do, etc. etc.
Instead of using neo-platonism (an historically influential Greek philosophy) to divide Scripture, they opt for other, more faithful ways of reading. They craft in this book a varied and compelling approach to open theism — providing arguments which will require another post or podcast episode to discuss in detail.
If their conclusions about God are correct (or at least more plausible than alternatives), then I think free-will theism stands to invigorate Christian faith, prayer, Scripture-reading, personal agency, and responsibility in significant ways.
In short, this kind of theology seems to restore to me my human dignity.
Though Kurt Vonnegut was an atheist and has nothing to do with this book, I couldn’t help but think of Breakfast of Champions as I read Clark Pinnock’s chapter:
"When God gave creatures freedom, he [sic] gave them an open future, a future in a degree to be shaped by their decisions, not a future already determined in its every detail. We do not limit God by saying that he can be surprised by what his creatures do. It would be a serious limitation if God could not experience surprise and delight. The world would be a boring place without anything unexpected ever happening" (The Openness of God, 123).
In Breakfast of Champions, Vonnegut wrote about a fictional character who wrote a fictional book about a fictional planet, man, and creator:
"The book was in the form of a long letter from The Creator of the Universe to the experimental creature. The Creator congratulated the creature and apologized for all the discomfort he had endured. The Creator invited him to a banquet in his honor in the Empire Room of the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City, where a black robot named Sammy Davis, Jr., would sing and dance. And the experimental creature wasn’t killed after the banquet. He was transferred to a virgin planet instead. Living cells were sliced from the palms of his hands, while he was unconscious. The operation didn’t hurt at all. And then the cells were stirred into a soupy sea on the virgin planet. They would evolve into ever more complicated life forms as the eons went by. Whatever shapes they assumed, they would have free will. Trout didn’t give the experimental creature a proper name. He simply called him The Man. On the virgin planet, The Man was Adam and the sea was Eve. The Man often sauntered by the sea. Sometimes he waded in his Eve. Sometimes he swam in her, but she was too soupy for an invigorating swim. She made her Adam feel sleepy and sticky afterwards, so he would dive into an icy stream that had just jumped off a mountain. He screamed when he dived into the icy water, screamed again when he came up for air. He bloodied his shins and laughed about it when he scrambled up rocks to get out of the water. He panted and laughed some more, and he thought of something amazing to yell. The Creator never knew what he was going to yell, since The Creator had no control over him. The Man himself got to decide what he was going to do next—and why. After a dip one day, for instance, The Man yelled this: 'Cheese!' Another time he yelled, 'Wouldn’t you really rather drive a Buick'" (Breakfast of Champions, 139).
Of course, the authors of The Openness of God would not say that God never exercises control over us, just that God restrains God’s own self and rarely acts unilaterally, that human freedom is real, and the future is open.
Cheese.
June 3, 2013
I was introduced to some of these concepts through the writings of G. Campbell Morgan, Terence Fretheim, George MacDonald and Winkie Pratney. (If it's true, it isn't new, and if it's new, it isn't true.) My thoughts on this book in particular:
This book is like an introduction to the "open theology" material. As such, it feels somewhat like a fly by. The biblical chapter did not have many new things to say to me, but the "historical considerations" was much more relevant to me since I am weak in that area. The research probably benefits from multiple authors, but I also felt that it made the discussion feel slow, and sometimes repetitive.
If you want to think about ideas like the suffering of God and how we see God's activity in time, I would recommend something more practical and biblical. Many authors (as I mentioned above) have written on these topics without making dogmatic arguments that tend to remove focus from the application of biblical truth. This is an important debate, but it is primarily important because we need to balance our metaphors about God in the same way that the Bible does and live in light of that truth. Expository writing can meet those goals. However, this book is intended as a theological introduction to a way of thinking, and I guess it would meet that goal pretty well if you wanted a clear introduction "open theology."
This book is like an introduction to the "open theology" material. As such, it feels somewhat like a fly by. The biblical chapter did not have many new things to say to me, but the "historical considerations" was much more relevant to me since I am weak in that area. The research probably benefits from multiple authors, but I also felt that it made the discussion feel slow, and sometimes repetitive.
If you want to think about ideas like the suffering of God and how we see God's activity in time, I would recommend something more practical and biblical. Many authors (as I mentioned above) have written on these topics without making dogmatic arguments that tend to remove focus from the application of biblical truth. This is an important debate, but it is primarily important because we need to balance our metaphors about God in the same way that the Bible does and live in light of that truth. Expository writing can meet those goals. However, this book is intended as a theological introduction to a way of thinking, and I guess it would meet that goal pretty well if you wanted a clear introduction "open theology."
January 21, 2009
I would say for the most part I enjoyed this book. Due to the fact that there are five separate authors it was little up and down for me. The basic point of the book is to set out the theological view of God known as Open Theism and convince the reader that they should also believe it to be true. As far describing open theism the book does very well, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in the topic. On the other hand I found the arguments to be unconvincing for the most part. I have sympathy with a lot of what they say but I think they take it in the wrong direction in the end. That is just my opinion, others might find it to be very convincing. Anyways, I think is defiantly worth taking the time to read if for no other reason but to make you think bout your beliefs and the beliefs of others.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews