Southern prof in middle of growing open theism debate

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)--The debate over open theism has intensified in recent months, and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professor Bruce Ware has emerged as one of its more vocal opponents.

Ware and his position on open theism are the subject of much discussion in the latest journal published by the conservative Evangelical Theological Society, a group of theologians who affirm biblical inerrancy. The journal is basically a spillover from debate at last November's ETS meeting, when Ware presented a paper with spirited arguments against open theism -- the belief that the future is "open" in that God does not and cannot know the future free choices and actions of his creatures. ETS members then overwhelmingly passed a non-binding resolution saying that open theism is unbiblical.

Three open theists took exception to Ware's argument and wrote responses that are published in the June edition of the quarterly "Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society." The entire issue, in fact, is devoted to the debate over open theism. It includes the original paper Ware presented, responses by three open theists -- Clark Pinnock, John Sanders and Gregory Boyd -- and a rejoinder by Ware. It also includes an article by Southern Seminary professor Stephen Wellum on the incompatibility of the open view with a commitment to inerrancy.

Pinnock, Sanders and Boyd all argue that evangelicalism is a big enough tent to include open theism, with Pinnock simply saying, "There is room for us."

But Ware -- whose book "God's Lesser Glory" critiques and opposes open theism -- says evangelicalism must have boundaries.

"[O]pen theism's denial of what Scripture teaches and what all historic views affirm constitutes a departure that is biblically, theologically, and practically so serious in nature, that Christian leaders should declare open theism unacceptable as a viable, legitimate model within evangelicalism," he writes.

Rejecting open theism, he continues, is "not only justified, but, before God and in clear conscience, required."

The Southern Baptist Convention has twice rejected open theism. The revised Baptist Faith and Message, passed in 2000, says that God's "perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures." In 1999 convention messengers passed a resolution with similar language that was presented by Southern Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr.

Debate over open theism has surfaced this summer in Baptist circles. The Baptist Standard, the state newspaper of the Baptist General Convention of Texas, ran a two-page spread about the open theism debate in June.

Also in June, theologian Fisher Humphreys helped lead a breakout session on open theism at the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship General Assembly. He said that while he's not fully persuaded that open theism is biblical, "it should be given serious consideration in our churches and schools."

In the June issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Boyd takes exception to the paper Ware presented last November, saying that he is "saddened and frustrated" by the "political agenda" that lies behind it.

"I enjoy healthy dialogue and robust scholarly debate," Boyd writes. "But try as I might, I cannot imagine this essay fitting into this category. ... Casting a position in its weakest possible form and using alarmist and inflammatory language is not the way to deepen the understanding and to further academic and Christian dialogue."

But Ware rejects any notion that his motivation was political and asserts that such charges serve simply as "diversionary tactics."

"Granted, it is always easier to welcome a new friend than it is to confront and exhort an old one," he writes. "... But are there not times when faithfulness to God, Scripture and divine calling require the harder course of drawing the lines and calling something out of bounds?

"... [W]ithout possible rejection of some views, unavoidable acceptance of any view follows, and this will contribute to our undoing. Before us is a question of enormous theological and practical importance, clearly one of the most critical for our generation and those to follow."

Ware argues that open theism runs counter to what Christians have believed for centuries.

"For countless generations and millions of Christian believers, great strength and hope has been founded on the truth that God knows every detail of what will happen in the future," he writes. "... Christian theology has said that this view is essential to our understanding of God, and Christian faith has leaned on it during dark and stormy days."

Pinnock, Sanders and Boyd all submit detailed defenses of open theism, presenting what they consider biblical evidence and asserting that God does not know the future because there is nothing to know.

Boyd, in fact, argues that Ware's argument denies "God's infinite intelligence" because it limits God to only one outcome for each future event. Boyd says that while God does not know the outcome of specific events, he knows the countless possibilities of future events and is prepared to react to each one.

"God's intelligence is not limited," Boyd writes. "... God can consider and anticipate each of trillion billion possibilities as though each one was the only possibility he had to consider. ... In other words, for a God of infinite intelligence, there is virtually no distinction between knowing a certainty and knowing a possibility."

But Ware disagrees that his view limits God's intelligence.

"[H]istoric models of God have seen God's consideration of this vast realm of possibilities as taking place in eternity past, in relation to the formation of his decision of just what world to create," he writes. "... All the celebration Boyd gives to this notion of infinite intelligence seems a bit overdrawn in light of the fact that even God, with 'virtually certain' knowledge of possibilities, can get it wrong."

Ware argues that the implications of open theism are enormous. One of the bigger implications, he asserts, is the compromise to the doctrine of the atonement -- the belief that Christ died for future sinners.

"Scripture has always been understood very personally here: Christ died for you and he paid for your sins," Ware writes before quoting 1 Peter 2:24, "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross."

"This [doctrine] is lost in open theism, and more importantly, the open view here is not what the Bible teaches."

Boyd argues that Christ paid the price for "possible" future sins and that he "over-paid" for all the sins of the world.

Sanders and Boyd both argue that Ware's arguments against open theism can be equally applied to Arminianism, a model accepted within evangelicalism that, among other things, holds that God's election of sinners is based on foreknowledge.

Ware, though, asserts that all his arguments against open theism apply to it and it alone. He adds that even Arminianism rejects the open theistic view of God's knowledge.

Ware argues that in open theism God looks back on his past actions and determines that what he "previously decided may not in fact have been the best decision."

"What is unique to open theism ... is God learning now, in this moment as choices are made and actions are performed, that perhaps what he thought would be best turns out, in retrospect, not so to have been," he writes. "... But these are not problems faced in classic Arminianism, where God knows fully and certainly all that the future holds and what consequences follow from any and every action and event."

Both Ware and Wellum assert that open theism undermines the inerrancy of Scripture.

Boyd, though, disagrees, saying that "since open theists hold that God is able to unilaterally settle as much of the future ahead of time as he desires, there is nothing in principle preventing us from affirming any specific decree of God.... Our view simply holds that God leaves open whatever aspects of the future he sovereignly chooses to leave open."

But Wellum asserts that open theism does in fact undermine "any kind of guarantee that either the human authors will freely write precisely what God wanted written, or that what God predicts will in fact come to pass. ... I do not see how any coherent and rational defense of an inerrant Scripture can be made on the foundation of open theism."
--30--
(BP) photos posted in the BP Photo Library at http://www.bpnews.net. Photo titles: BRUCE WARE and JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

"Scripture has always been understood very personally here: Christ died for you and he paid for your sins," Ware writes before quoting 1 Peter 2:24, "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross."

"This [doctrine] is lost in open theism, and more importantly, the open view here is not what the Bible teaches." Boyd argues that Christ paid the price for "possible" future sins and that he "over-paid" for all the sins of the world.

Sanders and Boyd both argue that Ware's arguments against open theism can be equally applied to Arminianism, a model accepted within evangelicalism that, among other things, holds that God's election of sinners is based on foreknowledge.

Yep, you open theists, xzins and wc, have Jesus blood spilled in vain, the Father having the Son murdered in a willy nilly haphazard way where creation runs out of God's control.

Of course, I agree with Boyd in that "Ware's arguments against open theism can be equally applied to Arminianism."

***Boyd, though, disagrees, saying that "since open theists hold that God is able to unilaterally settle as much of the future ahead of time as he desires, there is nothing in principle preventing us from affirming any specific decree of God.... Our view simply holds that God leaves open whatever aspects of the future he sovereignly chooses to leave open."***

It seems that both Open Theism and Arminianism believe God chooses to leave man free to accept or reject salvation. Open Theists want to leave many more things open.

There is only a difference in degree between Arminianism and Open Theism. They are clearly fraternal twins but not Siamese Twins. IMO both diminiish man's depravity and God's sovereignty in an unsuccesful attempt to rescue God from bad press and to soothe pastoral couseling perplexities.

Arminians who want to retain predictive prophecy and inerrancy stop short of a fully open view of God. Arminian is not Open Theology, but it is Theology Ajar!

It seems that both Open Theism and Arminianism believe God chooses to leave man free to accept or reject salvation. Open Theists want to leave many more things open.

That is a simplistic and misleading way of describing Arminianism's hamartiology and soteriology.

There is only a difference in degree between Arminianism and Open Theism. They are clearly fraternal twins but not Siamese Twins. IMO both diminish man's depravity and God's sovereignty in an unsuccesful attempt to rescue God from bad press and to soothe pastoral couseling perplexities.

As long as you are stating that that's your "opinion" of Arminianism, I'm not going to bother debating it.

Arminians who want to retain predictive prophecy and inerrancy stop short of a fully open view of God. Arminian is not Open Theology, but it is Theology Ajar!

You seem to think that predictive prophecy and inerrancy demands causation. Foreknowledge isn't necessity; in other words, just because God knows something will happen doesn't mean that God has caused (at least, actively) it to happen.

When Paul wrote Romans did God know he would write it or did God breathe it through Paul?

Both. And this is irrelevant to a discussion of the main issue with "predictive prophecy," which is that 'foreknowledge' somehow interferes with one's free agency.

I thought we'd start with inerrancy.

That's one of the few points that we agree upon. I fail to see how it tips the scales of debate in Calvinism's favor to say that Arminians often hold positions of biblical inerrancy.

The SBC rejects open theism, while the CBF gives it "serious consideration".

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. - I John 2:19

Good riddance to old (and new) rubbish!

My point is that the desire to retain inerrancy keeps some Arminians from walking down the OT path.

First, thanks to dittojed2 for posting the interesting article.

As to your specific comment above, I would appreciate your fleshing out how you see open theism as negating or diminishing a commitment to inerrancy.

I have thought that one of the OT proponents' strongest cases is the OT ability to accept the 'plain meaning' of many important Old Testament passages on God relenting and changing His mind, i.e. interacting with mankind. So, at least in the respect of accepting the plain meaning of Scripture, OT seems to make a pretty strong case for inerrancy.

CBF is the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship- the liberal wing of the Southern Baptist Convention. They got themselves kicked out of places of power in the convention in the mid-eighties and refuse to support the Cooperative program which funds our missionaries, helps pay for ministers tuition, etc., Some have gone the way of mainline churches. Inerrancy was a key issue in the 80s. CBFers do not support it.

"This [doctrine] is lost in open theism, and more importantly, the open view here is not what the Bible teaches." Boyd argues that Christ paid the price for "possible" future sins and that he "over-paid" for all the sins of the world.

The doctrine that the atonement was "payment" for sin is Calvinist doctrine. There is not one word of Scripture that says sin is payed for. This fact is completely ignored by Cavlinists.

The consequences of sin are never described as a debt, but rather a wage or payment one receives. The wages of sin is death. It is a sentence that must be born, not a payment that can be made to make the sin OK.

The idea that sin can be paid for is the basis of RC indulgences and Calvinist heresy, but is totally unBiblical.

So long as you continue to misunderstand this very basic idea from Scripture, there is no hope you will understand the rest of it.

"CBF is the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship- the liberal wing of the Southern Baptist Convention."

They are not a "wing", but have "flown the coop", and are a new convention in place of the SBC for the liberals.

Please explain why I should even consider a single word you say concerning the nature of the Atonement.

Please do not consider anything I say about the atonement, only what God says about the atonement. Why should you do that? Because the fate of your immortal soul depends on it.

I am not your enemy? I do not use the same words you do, because I am suspiscious of what the Catholics invented outside the Word of God, and you are not. The truth is the truth, no matter who speaks it.

Hank

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.