Program / Course 15: The Problem of Evil and Suffering / Lesson 4.3
What you will learn
- State the main claims of open theism and what it says about God’s knowledge of the future.
- Explain how the openness view bears on the problem of evil and the idea of divine risk.
- Describe the classical objections from Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant theologians.
- Distinguish open theism from process theology.
The big idea
Open theism is a view, defended since the 1990s mainly by evangelical Protestants, that God’s love and the reality of human freedom are best understood if the future free choices of creatures are not yet settled facts for God to know. God is all-knowing, but there is nothing yet to know about what free beings will freely do. On this view God takes real risks, responds to events and grieves over evil he did not will. Critics argue that it conflicts with Scripture, with the tradition of God’s perfect knowledge, and with comfort in suffering.
Key terms
- Open theism
- The view that God knows all that can be known, but that future free decisions are not yet there to be known, so God’s knowledge of the future is open.
- Foreknowledge
- God’s knowledge of events before they happen. Classical theism teaches that it is exhaustive.
- Classical theism
- The mainstream account of God in the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant traditions, in which God is eternal, unchanging, all-knowing and all-powerful.
- Divine risk
- In open theism, the idea that God, by giving creatures freedom, takes a chance on how they will use it.
- Impassibility
- The classical teaching that God is not subject to changing emotions or suffering imposed from outside.
- Process theology
- A philosophy rooted in Alfred North Whitehead that holds that God is changing and limited in power, persuading and not controlling the world.
- Eternity
- In one classical sense, God’s timeless existence, in which all moments are present to him at once.
Background
If God is all-powerful and knows everything that will happen, it can seem that nothing can happen except as he foresees. Philosophers have long asked how this fits with freedom. Boethius, in the sixth century, argued that God lives in an eternal present, and sees the human future as people see events that are happening, without causing them. Aquinas followed him. Others held that God’s knowledge is the cause of things. Still others, like Molina, offered middle knowledge.
In 1994 a group of evangelical authors, including Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker and David Basinger, published The Openness of God. They proposed a different solution. The future, they argued, includes things that are not yet determined. For God to know them as facts is not possible, because they are not yet facts. This is not a limit on God’s power, but a result of the kind of world God chose to make.
The proposal drew strong reactions. Some evangelical bodies judged it outside their boundaries. Others have kept dialogue with its authors. This lesson describes the view and its criticisms. It is a minority position, and it is described here as its defenders would state it, along with the arguments against.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: The central claims
Open theists hold that God is personal, loving and relational, and that real relationships involve give and take. If God already knows everything people will do, they say, prayer and obedience seem to change nothing. They point to biblical passages in which God seems to change plans: he relents from sending disaster on Nineveh when the people repent (Jonah 3:10), and tests Abraham, then says, “now I know that thou fearest God” (Genesis 22:12).
They hold that God knows the past and the present perfectly, knows all that could happen, and is able to bring about his chief purposes. But for events that depend on free choices not yet made, they say that God has no certain knowledge. He knows the probabilities and his own plans, and he is never caught by surprise in a way that defeats him. He is ready to respond.
Step 2: What this means for evil
Open theists argue that their view helps with the problem of evil. If God did not foresee, as certain, every act of cruelty, then he did not plan it or choose to allow it for a known reason. A parent who gives a child freedom does not know that the child will fall. God gave creatures freedom out of love, and took the risk that they would misuse it. When a tragedy happens, he grieves with creatures, and works to bring good out of it.
Defenders say this gives a more honest answer than saying that every evil has a hidden purpose. They also say it fits the cries of the Psalms and the tears of Jesus. Critics reply that it only partly helps. God still creates a world in which he knows that terrible things are likely, and could have limited the risk. Open theism makes God less able to guarantee that evil will be defeated, and the comfort of Romans 8:28 is then harder to hold. Defenders respond that God’s wisdom and power are enough to assure the final outcome, though not each detail.
Step 3: The classical response
Critics from many traditions argue that the openness view departs from the common witness of the church. Scripture speaks of God declaring the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10) and of events foretold long before. Jesus foretells Peter’s denial (Luke 22:34), which depended on Peter’s free act. Defenders of openness answer that such cases may be explained by God’s control of circumstances or by his knowledge of character. Critics find those answers strained.
The deeper objection is philosophical and theological. Classical theism holds that God is not in time as creatures are, so that for him nothing is future. It also holds that God is perfectly actual and unchanging, and that learning would mean lacking something. Open theists reply that this picture borrows too much from Greek philosophy and too little from the God of the Bible who speaks and listens. Classical theists reply that the God of Scripture and of the Fathers is the God of Moses, who said I am that I am (Exodus 3:14), and that the tradition is a reading of Scripture and not a corruption of it.
Step 4: Open theism and process theology
Open theism is sometimes confused with process theology, but they differ. Process thinkers hold that God is limited by nature and cannot do otherwise than persuade, so that God did not create out of nothing and cannot prevent evil. Open theists affirm creation from nothing, miracles, the resurrection of Jesus and God’s power to act in the world. They hold that God freely chose to give freedom and to relate to creatures in time. The two views both stress persuasion and relationship, but open theists do not say that God is unable to intervene.
Evaluate carefully. Whether one calls the open view a development or a departure depends on how one reads Scripture and the tradition. A student can learn from the view’s emphasis on God’s relationship with creatures, while examining its claims about knowledge.
Step 5: Sovereignty and freedom, again
The topic returns to a question of the previous lessons: how can God govern a world full of real freedom? Strong Calvinists place the weight on sovereignty. Open theists place it on freedom and relation. Thomists, Molinists, Orthodox and Arminians offer other ways of holding the two. No tradition has eliminated the tension, and each locates it in a different place. The issue for the sufferer is not the same as the issue for the philosopher, and the lessons of the final module return to that point.
- Why do open theists think that God’s knowing the future in every detail conflicts with real freedom?
- How do Genesis 22:12 and Jonah 3:10 support the openness view, and how could a classical theist read them?
- Does the idea of divine risk make God more or less trustworthy as a comfort in suffering?
- What is the difference between open theism and process theology?
- What classical teachings about God’s nature are at stake in the dispute?
- How should a church treat a view that a minority of its members hold?
Examples
A chess master and a chess teacher
Open theists sometimes compare God to a master playing a beginner: he cannot know each move in advance but is sure to win. Classical theists compare him to an author who knows the whole story. Each image highlights one aspect and strains at another.
Nineveh
God sends Jonah to warn Nineveh of destruction. The people repent and God spares them (Jonah 3:10). Open theists read this as a real change of course. Classical theists read it as God speaking in human terms about his consistent mercy to the penitent, a language called anthropomorphic.
Prayer
A woman prays daily for a wayward son. Open theists say that her prayer can change what God does, because the future includes her prayer. Classical theists say that her prayer was part of God’s plan from eternity and is also truly effective. In practice both ask her to keep praying.
Different perspectives
Catholic
Catholic teaching holds that God knows all things, past, present and future, including the free acts of creatures. The First Vatican Council taught that God is infinite in intellect. Catholic theologians have generally rejected open theism as incompatible with this teaching, while exploring how to speak of God’s relation to time.
Orthodox
Orthodox theologians affirm that God knows all things and is beyond time, and they have generally rejected open theism, citing writers such as John of Damascus on God’s foreknowledge. They affirm at the same time that God truly relates to creatures, a mystery often expressed by saying that God is beyond human categories.
Protestant
Protestants are divided. Reformed and most Lutheran theologians reject open theism as contrary to the confessions. Some Arminian and evangelical writers, such as Pinnock and Sanders, accept it. In 2001 the Evangelical Theological Society adopted a statement affirming that God has complete knowledge of the future, and in 2004 its members declined to expel two open theists, so the matter remained contested.
Philosophical views
Philosophers disagree about whether future contingents have truth values. Some, like Hasker, argue that they do not yet. Others, like Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig in different ways, defend God’s exhaustive knowledge. Secular critics hold that the debate shows the strain of defending an all-knowing, all-powerful God and free creatures together.
Why it matters
Open theism shows how much the problem of evil presses on the doctrine of God itself. Even those who reject it have to consider what they mean when they say God knows, rules and loves. The discussion also trains a student to represent a view that he or she may reject in terms its defenders would accept.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Open theists say that God is ignorant or weak.
Correction: They say God knows everything that can be known and is able to accomplish his purposes. They deny only that future free acts are already facts to be known.
Misunderstanding: Open theism is the same as process theology.
Correction: They differ. Process theology denies creation from nothing and holds that God cannot coerce. Open theists affirm creation from nothing and God’s power to act.
Misunderstanding: Every evangelical or Protestant church accepts open theism.
Correction: It is a minority view, and many Protestant bodies reject it. Some have formally declared it out of line with their confessions.
Knowledge check
What is the central claim of open theism?
It claims that God knows everything that can be known but that future free choices are not yet facts to be known, so that the future is partly open even for God. God is all-powerful and has plans, but responds to what creatures do. Defenders see this as protecting both freedom and real relationship between God and creatures.
How does open theism address the problem of evil?
It says God did not foresee, and so did not plan or choose, each evil act. He gave freedom out of love, took a risk, grieves over evil and works to bring good from it. Critics say it only partly helps, since God still made a world in which terrible outcomes were likely, and it weakens the comfort that every event is under God’s control.
What are the main objections of classical theists?
They hold that Scripture speaks of God declaring the end from the beginning and foretelling free acts, and that the church’s tradition teaches God’s exhaustive knowledge. They add that God is timeless and unchanging, so that nothing is future to him. They see open theism as borrowing from modern ideas of time and agency more than from Scripture.
How does open theism differ from process theology?
Process theology holds that God is limited by nature, did not create from nothing, and can only persuade. Open theism affirms creation from nothing, miracles and God’s ability to act in the world, but holds that God has chosen to give real freedom and to relate to creatures in time. Open theists reject the charge of being process thinkers.
Think it through
- Does the idea that God does not already know every future choice make God more or less close to you?
- Which images of God’s knowledge, the chess master, the author or the eternal observer, seem helpful to you, and which mislead?
- How would you discuss this issue with a friend from a church that rejects open theism?
Independent assignment
Two readings of one text
In your own notebook, write about 400 words. Choose Jonah 3:10 or Genesis 22:12. Write one paragraph reading it as an open theist would, and one reading it as a classical theist would. Then say in a third paragraph which reading you find more natural, and what other passages you would need to examine before deciding. Keep the work private.
Further study
- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Look up the question on God’s knowledge of future contingents in the First Part.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Problem of Evil Read for the context of freedom and divine knowledge in discussions of evil.
- James Arminius, The Works of James Arminius Read selectively on God’s foreknowledge and human freedom for the classical Arminian view.
- Jonah 3:10 God sees the works of Nineveh and repents of the evil he said he would do.
- Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning.