Evangelicals Now
Christian news worldwide
magnifying glass Search archives
home Home check the archives Archives Subscribe Subscriptions Advertising Information & booking of classifieds Adverts Find a local evangelical Church Find a church for the search engines and extremely curious! About us Contact us Site Map
Printable
Version

The Openness of God

A challenge to the traditional understanding of God

The Openness of God
Edited by Clark Pinnock
IVP (USA), The Paternoster Press. 202 pages
UK ISBN 0 85364 635 X
US ISBN 0 8308 1852 9

This symposium is presented as a 'Biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God'. In the preface, it is likened to 'a five-course dinner prepared by five chefs'. In fact what we have is the same dish served up on five different plates - the same theme viewed from several perspectives.
By the traditional view of God, the authors mean that doctrine which sees God as eternal (in the sense that he is not subject to temporal limits or to time sequence), unchanging in his being and ways, omniscient (all-knowing), absolutely sovereign and predetermining the course of history - so that he can say: 'I am God ... declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying: 'My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure'.' (Isaiah 46.9-10). Those words should be kept in mind as we consider this book.

Denying the Confessions

This doctrine of God is clearly stated in the historic Protestant Confessions, both Lutheran and Reformed. So the challenge of this book is real; it remains to be seen if it is biblical. Because the same points are made in each chapter (albeit from different standpoints such as the historical, philosophical and theological), it is best to assess the volume as a whole, concentrating on the central issues at stake - and they are of fundamental importance, for the doctrine of God is basic to theology as a whole. It is impossible to have an unsound doctrine of God and have sound doctrine in other areas. Providence, prophecy, sin, redemption, last things - all are radically affected if a false doctrine of God is held.
This book denies every one of those attributes of God already noted.

God in time

God is said to be temporal and the concept of divine timelessness is rejected. William Hasker, Professor of Philosophy at Huntington College, Indiana, asks: 'If God is truly timeless, so that temporal determinations of 'before' and 'after' do not apply to him, then how can God act in time, as the Scripture says that he does? How can he know what is occurring on the changing earthly scene? How can he respond when his children turn to him in prayer and obedience? Above all, if God is timeless and incapable of change, how can God be born, grow up, live with and among people, suffer and die, as we believe he did as incarnate in Jesus?' (p. 128). This kind of confused reasoning is typical of the book as a whole; it lacks clarity of thought and precision of statement. If God created time, and he did, then he can control time and is not to be seen as a temporal being like man. Hasker and his colleagues fail to see the purpose of the incarnation as clearly stated in Hebrews 2.14: 'Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. (compare Romans 8.3). Yet the plain truth that Christ suffered in his human nature is strenuously denied by these authors as they seek to uphold the idea of a suffering God.
With reference to the divine title I am (Exodus 3.14), Clark Pinnock, Professor of Theology at McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, comments: 'What God is saying to Moses in this verse is not 'I exist' or even 'I will be present'. God is saying that he will be a faithful God for his people'(p. 106). Certainly there was comfort for Moses and Israel in the thought of God's faithfulness; but there is more to the title than that. Geerhardus Vos points out that this title 'gives expression to the self-determination, the independence of God, that which ... we are accustomed to call his sovereignty ... Thus taken, the name Jehovah signifies primarily that in all God does for His people, He is from-within-determined, not moved upon by outside influences.' (Biblical Theology, pp. 133-134). That truly biblical view of God is repeatedly and flatly denied in the volume under review.

Ignorant and bendable

It is not surprising, then, that these authors restrict the omniscience of God. He is represented as knowing what is knowable, the past and the present, but not the future. Given that these men reject the idea of a divine decree and refuse to believe that predestination involves the salvation of individuals, it follows that absolute foreknowledge on the part of God is also rejected. Even his omnipotence is qualified and seen as his ability to cope with situations as they arise (p. 114). So God is said to 'learn', to take 'risks', to be 'frustrated', to be 'vulnerable', 'surprised', and to have 'restricted ability' - such terms are repeatedly applied to God in these pages. As a result, prophecy is viewed as largely conditioned by human response.
A dominant note in this book is interaction between God and man. They are presented as 'partners'. Many examples could be given, but let one suffice. Clark Pinnock writes: 'The future is determined by God not alone but in partnership with human agents. God gives us a role in shaping with the future will be. He is flexible and does not insist in doing things his way. God will adjust his own plans because he is sensitive to what humans think and do.' 'God has the power and ability to be ... an 'ad hoc' God ... God sets goals for creation and redemption and realises them ad hoc in history. If Plan A fails, God is ready with Plan B.' (pp. 113, 116). Professor Richard Rice of La Sierra University, California, sees 'God's activity' consisting 'in large measure in responding to human decisions and actions. What he actually decides to do depends on the actions of human beings' (p. 25).
Thus a book that is supposed to be about God turns out to be largely man-centred. This book presents the case for what is termed 'free will theism'. It sees what it terms the traditional doctrine of God as static and this so-called 'open' view as dynamic. The traditional view is portrayed as seeing a God who is aloof, unmoved and remote. This straw man is built up and demolished with zeal. The orthodox doctrine of God is said to be of Greek origin, having entered the thinking of the church via Church Fathers like Origen, Clement and Augustine. Thus it is seen as essentially unbiblical. However, the great Confessions of the Church are clearly, consciously and demonstrably based on Scripture.

Freedom & sovereignty

These authors labour under the misconception that the absolute sovereignty of God is a threat to human freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. This may be illustrated by a consideration of the inspiration of Scripture. Here we see God's sovereign control and complete freedom as the writers used their own style and vocabulary and did so with obvious feeling and conviction. The sovereignty of God and human responsibility run side by side throughout Scripture. To our finite minds they are like parallel lines that never meet. Any attempt on our part to make them meet in terms of our reasoning inevitably results in a distortion of both truths. We find them in clear conjunction in Acts 2.23: 'Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.'
These 'free will theists' fail to take into account the consequences of the Fall: total depravity, human inability and the wrath of God abiding on the impenitent. In these pages, we find no discussion of these facts or the need for regeneration. It is assumed throughout that God and man interact and co-operate. The doctrine of the Cross is absent. The whole ethos of the book is decidedly non-evangelical. There is a total failure to see that what threatens man's freedom is not God's sovereignty but man's sin. Man remains a free agent, but his heart is sinful and his will is governed by that fact - the trouble is with the willer. The Bible make this clear. 'The carnal (or sinful) mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be' (Romans 8.7). Again: 'The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned' (1 Corinthians 2.14).

Does God take risks?

Clark Pinnock can write: 'Evil may have its day, but it will not finally triumph' (p. 116). But given the kind of God described in this book, we must ask how and why? Pinnock immediately goes on to say: 'By his decision to create a world like ours, God showed his willingness to take risks and to work with history whose outcome he does not wholly decide.' It is ironical in a work where every effort is made to explain the ways of God by the rules of logic and the principles of philosophy, and where the authors are at pains to distinguish between the credible and the incredible, that when faced with the possibility that on this conception of God and man no-one might turn to God and no human being might ever be in heaven, the possibility of such a risk is termed 'negligible' (p. 153). That response is incredible!
Hyper-Calvinism and Hyper-Arminianism, although poles apart, have one thing in common, an attempt to comprehend the ways of God - there is an underlying rationalism. True, we may know God, but we can never comprehend the One whose ways and thoughts are higher than ours as the heavens are higher than the earth (Isaiah 55.9). In this book not only do we have Arminianism taken to the nth degree, but even more seriously there are clear elements of Socinianism with its denial of substitutionary atonement, of divine foreordination and divine foreknowledge. For a discussion of this aspect of 'free will theism' see 'What Does God Know?' by Professor Robert B. Strimple in the excellent symposium The Coming Evangelical Crisis (Ed. John H. Armstrong, Moody Press, 1996).

Hybrid theology

Thus we have before us a hybrid theology - ultra-Arminianism grafted onto a Socinian root-stock and planted in the barren soil of human autonomy: an idea dear to the heart of fallen man, the belief that he is independent and self-determining, master of his fate and captain of his soul. It is with sorrow that one reads this book with its enfeebled deity, a God who only is what man wants him to be and who only does what man wants him to do - a God made in man's image. Space forbids a point by point refutation; only the salient features have been noted. The average church member will not be reading these pages, but some ministers will and so its false teaching could be propagated. It is sad, too, that an evangelical press that had a reputation for biblical faithfulness should publish such material. May God grant his people discernment in a day when within the ranks of evangelicalism alarming trends become increasingly evident.

Professor Frederick S. Leahy