The debate about divine epistemology has been raging over the last 100 years in various forms and flavors. A very well written comparison called "Divine Foreknowledge / Four Views" was published in November of 2001, where four views were presented and debated in literary grace. While leading authors combined to provide a scholarly and challenging presentation, none of the contributors declared the others that disagreed with their position heretics. The challenge before us when considering the Open View is not solely a theological one.
The call to heresy should be considered a serious issue. The seriousness is not because the issue is one that should be labeled as a primary belief. I think it is clearly a secondary issue. However, the reaction of leading apologists and organizations regarding this issue makes it clear that they think it is one that should not be considered as even remotely orthodox. The truth is that this debate is not really about God's knowledge, but rather the ontological condition of our existence. Our true ontological state is one where the future cannot be known because the future is non-existent. Greg Boyd outlined this view in Divine Foreknowledge clearly and succinctly. If we accept this ontological reality, then God's omniscience and behavior must be formed within this reality. Any systematic approach to biblical interpretation must consider ontological conditions. It is a complex issue.
Call to Heresy
The accusation of heresy by many members of the Evangelical Theological Society against the Open View demands that those of the Open View respond counter-heretically by calling non-open theists the actual heretics. Yet, for purposes of grace and edification, I assume neither Boyd, Pinnock, Sanders, Hasker, Hill, Enyart, nor I would ever pursue a vote to have these "heretics" removed from fellowship. The case before the Evangelical Theological Society executive committee is for the removal and dis-fellowship of Pinnock and Sanders because of their challenge to biblical inerrancy.
This of course is a strange accusation, in so far as it is the purpose of Open Theism to provide a method of interpretation that more accurately and consistently reveals the infallibility of the scriptures.
There certainly have been many heretics in the past, and I am involved with a group of individuals that have voted on issues of the theological type. We have come to the conclusion that "Five-Point Calvinism" is beyond borderline heresy. We have rightfully discerned that Calvin was a successful sinner. He revealed his uttermost passion for God in the execution of someone who disagreed with his theology. Why should we weigh his written word over his active character? Calvin wrongly executed Servetus and attempted others. Was it just a hermeneutic slip of the sword or tongue that ultimately resulted in death? Perhaps it was Calvin's theological position that was dead wrong. In his mind, Calvin's belief that he was of the Elect gave him the ultimate authority and freedom to slaughter. Should Paul have executed Peter or Barnabas for theological differences?
There are far more Calvinists than there are Open Theists, so by sheer numbers it would seem that the ETS should focus their attention on the heresy of Calvin and Calvinism. This of course would be tremendously difficult, because so much of "orthodox" Christianity in some fashion or another has been tainted by Calvinism.
Open or New Theism
Members of the ETS and Former President of the ETS Norman Geisler must be unaware that many beliefs critical to today's orthodoxy were at one time neo-orthodox themselves.
Is the ETS binding their requests for dis-fellowship strongly to Galatians 1:6-8, thus declaring open theism to be "another gospel"? If this is the true reason for their removal, then I think that we should be vehemently concerned and perhaps aggressively challenge the real mission of the ETS. Covenant theology, Arminianism, Anabaptists and the Southern Baptist tradition have all been considered, at one point, NEW theological positions. Some of them critically violate Paul's warning in Galatians 1. We stand against those that preach another gospel. I think it is important to note that the open view isn't included in, nor is it a necessary part of, the Gospel. However, as proponents and critics enter into this debate, it will be obvious that the discussion will necessarily focus on the "character of God." If our beliefs about the character of God are errant, then it is likely that our theology will be too. It is important to remember that most Open Theists are not challenging or creating a new image or character of God that departs or is removed from standard orthodoxy. Open Theism challenges the ontological condition of that which is. It is suggested that God cannot know the future because the future does not exist to be known. The sooner critics of the Open View understand this basic principle, the more rapidly they will realize that they are attacking positions such as hyper-literalism that Open Theists do not hold to be true.
The Reformation was critical to Christian growth. Did the Reformation find something new? The Reformation renewed what was already objectively true. Martin Luther did not invent faith; he re-discovered it. I mention this because the accusation that the Open View is new is meaningless, and all it does is generate a red herring.
I personally do not accept the Westminster Confession as a driving force for my personal direction for systematic interpretations. It is obvious that the formers of this work were bound to a Covenantal Theology seduced by Calvinism.
I. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions.
III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.
The above confession of faith is only an interpretation that was declared in the early 17th Century. Of the above decrees, which of these are primary issues and necessary for salvation? Is the Westminster Confession to be added to the divine list of books and letters?
As you can see, the results of this specific debate not only drive theological issues, but they also define relationships between believers and groups of believers. This ministry has been attacked because of our willingness to strongly discuss and engage anyone on this topic.
The truth is "Neo-theism" (as detractors of the Open View like to call it) is Christianity's dirty theological secret that they wish would just go away. Those that hold the Open View must be silenced, or at least set apart from those who are really the Orthodox Christians. Discussions of the issue are discouraged and rare, because such detractors don't seem to want the typical Christian to even know of the existence of such a view, and even more purposefully they try to pigeonhole proponents of the Open View as heretics. My reaction is that I prefer a meeting of the minds while recognizing we are not majoring in the minors. Those who hold the Open View believe it is reasonable because it answers far more questions than it begs.
Biblical interpretations such as Chapter III Section IV of the Westminster Confession do not reveal biblical truth; they instead reveal agendas and presuppositions that are not exegetical. God increased the size of hell. Why? Perhaps He didn't know that men and angels would be so evil, especially when He had originally declared them "good."
So Sheol has enlarged its appetite, and opened its mouth without measure, and her glory and her multitude, and her uproar, he who exults in her, shall come down in it.
Conclusion
The drive towards the infallibility of the Word of God is critical, and the Open View provides much of the necessary framework to build a systematic approach to biblical interpretation that explores as deeply as possible into the Word to reveal the highest degree of correspondence. Theistic evolution is just one example of the result of compromising God's word when it doesn't seem to correspond to known (modern empirical science) facts. Compromising the direct communication of God to man prevents corresponding with reality, heaven and earth. As we can see from the evidence related to Saul as a short-lived king, we can extrapolate and recognize why God both wrestles and caresses His bride. Fortunately for Israel and the Body, God's ultimate repentant sacrifice is revealed in the Savior His one and only Son. In God's perfection we have the greatest gift of Christ. This gift was not given because of our supplications.
Call to Repentance
You have never believed Jesus was a literal door made from the trees of the Garden of Eden. Why start believing now that those that are near you in the faith believe such absurdities? Repent.
Terms
- Epistemology
- The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.
- Anthropomorphic
- Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.
- Anthropopathy
- The ascription of human feelings or passions to God, or to a polytheistic deity.