Pah
Uber all member
"Scholars stir heated debate over open theism"
by Kristin Holmes ("Knight Ridder Newspapers," February 5, 2003)
An age-old religious debate about fate vs. freedom has taken on a new urgency among evangelical Christian scholars and may result in the expulsion of two established theologians from a biblical research organization.
The question: Are all events predestined by God or do human beings have a free will that shapes their future?
One on side of the debate are traditionalists who believe that God controls everything and has planned the future, knowing completely what will happen as time goes by.
On the other side are scholars such as Clark H. Pinnock and R. William Hasker, proponents of a viewpoint called open theism. For them, the future is somewhat open. God elects to give people free will and therefore cannot know everything that will happen in the future, they maintain.
"We say, yes, God has the power but He gives room for human and creaturely freedom. God's sovereignty is general over the world, but not meticulous," said Pinnock, a professor of theology at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario. "God wants free creatures to have some say."
Pinnock is the co-author with Hasker and three other scholars of "The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God." The seminal book came out in 1992, and the debate about it has only escalated.
Pinnock and his co-writers argue that God has goals - not endless, predetermined outcomes - and can't know everything if He lets creatures choose alternatives that can affect the future. They cite various scripture for support, such as God's statement after Abraham showed willingness to sacrifice Isaac: " ... now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son" (Gen. 22:12).
Critics argue that open theism is a "false teaching" that undermines the glory of God and the faith of Christians.
"The God of open theism makes plans, but realizes things may go differently than anticipated?" scoffed theologian Bruce Ware, senior associate dean at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., and author of "God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. "This is beneath the God of the Bible."
Scott Oliphint, a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary in Glenside, Pa., argues that open theism's view of God has no Biblical or historical precedent in orthodox Catholic or Protestant theology.
In open theism, God "is not independent. He's now dependent. He doesn't know everything, just a few things. He's subject to the processes of time instead of transcending time," Oliphint said.
To Pinnock, believers can have a more interactive relationship with the God that allows free will. Prayer becomes very important when events are not predestined.
"God wants a relationship where there is some change going on, including in Him," Pinnock said.
Ware disagrees.
In open theism, "you are praying to God to do things He may not believe are best," Ware said. "The God in the Bible is all-wise and all-knowing. I'm supposed to advise God? Who do I think I am? Who do I think God is?"
"The Openness of God has stirred strong debate among evangelicals partly because its champions are fellow traditionalists who directly challenge the prevailing perspective, said co-author David Basinger, a philosophy professor at Roberts Wesleyan College in Rochester, N.Y.
The opponents have been outspoken. Some may even take action later this year to expel Pinnock and Hasker, chairman of the Division of Humanities and Bible at Huntington College in Indiana, from the Evangelical Theological Society. The society is an association of Christian scholars who believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible.
The group hosted a forum on open theism at its 2001 convention. All but three of the 35 papers presented opposed the view, said James A. Borland, secretary-treasurer and past president of the group.
"Many of our people thought that this was heresy and false doctrine and had been answered in the church centuries ago," Borland said.
At the meeting, members voted that God has infinite, complete foreknowledge of all future events, including the actions of free moral agents. The vote: 253 in favor, 66 no and 41 absentions.
The next year, evangelical theologian Roger Nicole charged that Pinnock and Hasker had violated the organization's inerrancy doctrine by questioning God's ability to prophesy.
Pinnock and Harker are scheduled to argue their case before a society panel in the fall. If the committee finds them in violation of the inerrancy doctrine, a vote on expulsion will be taken up at the group's convention several weeks later.
"We are not contesting inerrancy, which they don't define in their statement of faith," Pinnock said. "I'm saying that the Bible teaches that God responds and is affected by us. The Bible teaches what I am saying so I am as much an inerrantist as they are."
Last year, more than 100 evangelical theologians signed a statement urging that evangelical scholarship remain open to debate and the discussion of new ideas.
Although the statement, called "The Word Made Fresh," did not refer specifically to the controversy, it was a factor, said Roger E. Olson, the group's spokesman.
"Some of us are disillusioned with the direction in which conservative evangelical theology is going," said Olson, a professor of theology at Baylor University's George W. Truett Theological Seminary. "We perceive it is becoming too narrow and restrictive."
Olson said a conservative wave is affecting everything from politics to religion, and has ignited a fear among evangelicals that any fresh idea could lead the faith down the slippery slope to liberal theology, and therefore must be squelched.
Jon Pahl, a professor of American religions at Lutheran Theological Seminary in Mount Airy, said the open-theism debate is peculiarly evangelical because of the struggle to reconcile an all-powerful, all-knowing God with human freedom. Mainline Protestant denominations allow fate and freedom to coexist to varying degrees, Pahl said.
Pinnock said he became an adherent of open theism while reading Hebrews 4:2. "For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." (This citation and others is on the Web site www.opentheism.org.)
"It just didn't make sense that God predestined everything, because that would mean everyone going to hell is there because God wants them there," Pinnock said.
Open theism claims to offer a more comforting view of a God who allows free will and therefore is not necessarily responsible for the bad things that happen, Ware said.
"But I find it devastating to have a God that doesn't know, in light of what is happening now, what is going to happen in the future," Ware said.
Olson said he is still making up his mind.
"I'm open to open theism, and so are many evangelicals," Olson said. "We may never make our minds entirely. But I think we can listen, study and keep the conversation going."
Disclaimer: WWRN does not endorse or adhere to views or
by Kristin Holmes ("Knight Ridder Newspapers," February 5, 2003)
An age-old religious debate about fate vs. freedom has taken on a new urgency among evangelical Christian scholars and may result in the expulsion of two established theologians from a biblical research organization.
The question: Are all events predestined by God or do human beings have a free will that shapes their future?
One on side of the debate are traditionalists who believe that God controls everything and has planned the future, knowing completely what will happen as time goes by.
On the other side are scholars such as Clark H. Pinnock and R. William Hasker, proponents of a viewpoint called open theism. For them, the future is somewhat open. God elects to give people free will and therefore cannot know everything that will happen in the future, they maintain.
"We say, yes, God has the power but He gives room for human and creaturely freedom. God's sovereignty is general over the world, but not meticulous," said Pinnock, a professor of theology at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario. "God wants free creatures to have some say."
Pinnock is the co-author with Hasker and three other scholars of "The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God." The seminal book came out in 1992, and the debate about it has only escalated.
Pinnock and his co-writers argue that God has goals - not endless, predetermined outcomes - and can't know everything if He lets creatures choose alternatives that can affect the future. They cite various scripture for support, such as God's statement after Abraham showed willingness to sacrifice Isaac: " ... now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son" (Gen. 22:12).
Critics argue that open theism is a "false teaching" that undermines the glory of God and the faith of Christians.
"The God of open theism makes plans, but realizes things may go differently than anticipated?" scoffed theologian Bruce Ware, senior associate dean at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., and author of "God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. "This is beneath the God of the Bible."
Scott Oliphint, a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary in Glenside, Pa., argues that open theism's view of God has no Biblical or historical precedent in orthodox Catholic or Protestant theology.
In open theism, God "is not independent. He's now dependent. He doesn't know everything, just a few things. He's subject to the processes of time instead of transcending time," Oliphint said.
To Pinnock, believers can have a more interactive relationship with the God that allows free will. Prayer becomes very important when events are not predestined.
"God wants a relationship where there is some change going on, including in Him," Pinnock said.
Ware disagrees.
In open theism, "you are praying to God to do things He may not believe are best," Ware said. "The God in the Bible is all-wise and all-knowing. I'm supposed to advise God? Who do I think I am? Who do I think God is?"
"The Openness of God has stirred strong debate among evangelicals partly because its champions are fellow traditionalists who directly challenge the prevailing perspective, said co-author David Basinger, a philosophy professor at Roberts Wesleyan College in Rochester, N.Y.
The opponents have been outspoken. Some may even take action later this year to expel Pinnock and Hasker, chairman of the Division of Humanities and Bible at Huntington College in Indiana, from the Evangelical Theological Society. The society is an association of Christian scholars who believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible.
The group hosted a forum on open theism at its 2001 convention. All but three of the 35 papers presented opposed the view, said James A. Borland, secretary-treasurer and past president of the group.
"Many of our people thought that this was heresy and false doctrine and had been answered in the church centuries ago," Borland said.
At the meeting, members voted that God has infinite, complete foreknowledge of all future events, including the actions of free moral agents. The vote: 253 in favor, 66 no and 41 absentions.
The next year, evangelical theologian Roger Nicole charged that Pinnock and Hasker had violated the organization's inerrancy doctrine by questioning God's ability to prophesy.
Pinnock and Harker are scheduled to argue their case before a society panel in the fall. If the committee finds them in violation of the inerrancy doctrine, a vote on expulsion will be taken up at the group's convention several weeks later.
"We are not contesting inerrancy, which they don't define in their statement of faith," Pinnock said. "I'm saying that the Bible teaches that God responds and is affected by us. The Bible teaches what I am saying so I am as much an inerrantist as they are."
Last year, more than 100 evangelical theologians signed a statement urging that evangelical scholarship remain open to debate and the discussion of new ideas.
Although the statement, called "The Word Made Fresh," did not refer specifically to the controversy, it was a factor, said Roger E. Olson, the group's spokesman.
"Some of us are disillusioned with the direction in which conservative evangelical theology is going," said Olson, a professor of theology at Baylor University's George W. Truett Theological Seminary. "We perceive it is becoming too narrow and restrictive."
Olson said a conservative wave is affecting everything from politics to religion, and has ignited a fear among evangelicals that any fresh idea could lead the faith down the slippery slope to liberal theology, and therefore must be squelched.
Jon Pahl, a professor of American religions at Lutheran Theological Seminary in Mount Airy, said the open-theism debate is peculiarly evangelical because of the struggle to reconcile an all-powerful, all-knowing God with human freedom. Mainline Protestant denominations allow fate and freedom to coexist to varying degrees, Pahl said.
Pinnock said he became an adherent of open theism while reading Hebrews 4:2. "For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." (This citation and others is on the Web site www.opentheism.org.)
"It just didn't make sense that God predestined everything, because that would mean everyone going to hell is there because God wants them there," Pinnock said.
Open theism claims to offer a more comforting view of a God who allows free will and therefore is not necessarily responsible for the bad things that happen, Ware said.
"But I find it devastating to have a God that doesn't know, in light of what is happening now, what is going to happen in the future," Ware said.
Olson said he is still making up his mind.
"I'm open to open theism, and so are many evangelicals," Olson said. "We may never make our minds entirely. But I think we can listen, study and keep the conversation going."
Disclaimer: WWRN does not endorse or adhere to views or