Biblical Theology and Openness – 3

In my last post, I pointed out the distinction that I observe between the systematic doctrine of Open Theism, championed by men like John Sandars and Clark Pinnock, and what I would like to call the biblical theological paradigm of “Openness Theology” (or just “Openness”), what I believe I am seeing in the works of John Goldingay, Terence Fretheim, and Peter Enns.

It may be unfair to distinguish Open Theism and Openness by labeling one “systematic theology” and the other “biblical theology.” (I am sure that many would say it is superficial to distinguish them at all!) I do so because I am learning of more and more people who are no more persuaded by Open Theism than of traditional Arminianism or Calvinism. From my observations, these people see in Open Theism similar absolute claims or presupposed assumptions that are equally dismissive of certain biblical images of God as Arminianism and Calvinism tend to be.

The terminological distinction between Open Theism and Openness Theology is a calculated move on my part and attempts to capture the move from a systematically driven paradigm to a biblical theologically driven paradigm. Open Theism, both in name and in theory, makes a connection between the open view of the future with the God of theism. If God is to be God, then the future is to be open. While Openness is not without its own presuppositions and assumptions, these do not require that the God of theism be inseparably linked to the type of ontological future promoted by Open Theists.

That there are biblical occasions where God is portrayed as not knowing how the future will play out is simply without question. Do these unequivocally define our theism? Or rather, do occassions where God is portrayed as not knowing how the future will play out when the actions of freewill creatures are involved unequivocally define our theism? This seems to me to be one crucial distinction between Open Theism and Openness. Both are more than willing to say that there are times where God does not know how things will play out. (Calvinists and Arminians alike must recognized that this is how God is portrayed a great deal of the time.) For Openness, however, this does not indicate something about the nature of the future or of what God will or will not do in his dynamic relationship man.

In other words, Openness does not hang on the future always being open, not even when the future of freewill creatures in involved. It simply makes the observation that the biblical portrait is often that this is true for God. It shares many of the same convictions about God’s foreknowledge and prophecy that is held by Open Theism. But it does not arrive at the same philosophical conclusions that Open Theism does. Goldingay, in his article “Does the God of the Bible Have Surprises” (available here) makes this clear:

God sometimes knows how things will turn out on the basis of making the decisions about them, or because of possessing in spades the kind of great insight a human being can possess in extrapolating into the future.  Open theism stresses both these aspects of God’s capacity to know the future.  But attempting to explain all examples of foreknowledge in these ways seems to be forced.  It is a theory driven by the philosophical conviction of open theism that by its nature the future cannot be known until it happens.  As scripture sees it, God sometimes knows how things will turn out, simply on the basis of some supernatural capacity to do so.

Notice here that Goldingay believes there to be occasions where God can tap into a “supernatural capacity” to see the future, occasions where the biblical text simply cannot be explained any other way. What I find all the more intriguing, though, is how Goldingay, by taking this approach, manages to overcome one of the frequent criticisms directed at Open Thesim. If we take God literally in verse A, where God does not know the future, do we take him literally in verse B, where God does not know the present? The quintessential example is that of Gen 18:20-21.

Then the LORD said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.”

There is nothing about the system of Open Theism so far as I have been able to detect that requires this verse to be understood literally. Goldingay points out that according to some Open Theists, this type of statement does not reflect the reality of God’s knowledge, since, according to the system of Open Theism, God knows all things that can be known, including the past and the present. For them, a God who does not know the future is a reality, but a God who ascertains knowledge of the present by empirical means is inconceivable.  Goldingay challenges this assumption and accepts the plain meaning of the verse as an accurate portrayal of God. This is the same approach that Fretheim took of passages related to God’s knowledge of the future back when he wrote The Suffering of God, and though he has not in my experience addressed the issue of the past and present as Goldingay has, I have my suspicions that he would applaud such a treatment of the text.

What I see happening with Openness proponents that distinguishes them from Open Theists is the consistency of their approach to the biblical text. They take the text at face value, not because they can construct a superior philosophical understanding of God, freewill, and the future, but because it is the theology being articulated in the Bible. This should explain why I understand Openness to be a biblical theological paradigm distinguished from the systematic paradigm of Open Theism.

But what does this mean about systematic theology? Is there a way of systematizing the biblical theological paradigm of Openness? One of my friends would say, “Is there really even a need?” This type of response could be understood as a rejection of systematic theology all together, but it also could be an admission that, “for now, we see in a mirror dimly” (1 Cor 13:12). The latter admission has been that of Arminians and Calvinists when their philosophical system ultimately gives way to contradiction “mystery.” Perhaps the willingness of Openness to tolerate mystery coupled with the consistent approach to the biblical text (not to mention the willingness to allow unpredtermined foreknowledge back into the picture) will win it more support than Open Theism has. As for me, I am still trying to work all of this stuff out myself.

This brings me to an end of my “Biblical Theology and Openness” series.” In my next post, I will return to Fretheim and discuss the oft cited anthropomorphic/pathic argument against Open Theism, which is likely to be used against Openness as well.  I also plan to address some of my own thoughts about  Openness and kenotic Christology in the near future. (BTW, I don’t intend for this to be an “Openness” blog, it just happens to be at the moment.)