What is Open Theology?

David Woodruff defines Open Theology as “a form of relational theology” that starts “with the belief that God desires to be in a relationship with creation, and uses that belief as a basis for interpretation and explanation of other aspects of the divine nature” (Woodruff, 2008, p. 53). It is in light of this desire for relationship with His creation that Open Theists believe that God voluntarily self-limits His sovereign control over mankind and grants mankind genuine freedom of will. As a result of the freewill God’s creation possesses, Open Theology posits that while God has a perfect knowledge of the past and the present, His knowledge of the future is limited. God’s limitations in regards to future-knowledge is not attributed to any weakness of His own; rather, it is impossible for God to know the future because “the future free acts of human beings are not yet reality [because they have not yet happened] and, therefore, cannot be known” (Pinnock, 2005, p. 238). Thus, Open Theology concludes that while God’s knowledge of the future is limited, it is still perfect because He knows everything about the future that can be known. Even though God knows as much as can be known, the future is still open as a result of freewill. According to Open Theology, mankind’s freewill and God’s limited knowledge of the future work together to create a relationship between Creator and creation that is real and genuine. It is a relationship that mirrors all others and includes risk and faith on the part of Deity and man.

Open Theology is an attempt to make sense of Scriptures that seem to suggest that the God of the Bible does not have an exhaustive knowledge of the future. As a system, Open Theology offers the believer a lens through which to understand why there is so much evil in the world and the impact of Christian prayer. Additionally, Open Theology makes certain assumptions concerning the nature of time. Future posts in this series will offer an examination of Open Theology as it relates to each of these issues.

Sources

Pinnock, C. H. (2005). Open theism: An answer to my critics. Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 44:3, 237-245.

Woodruff, D. M. (2008). Examining problems and assumptions: An update on criticisms of open theism. Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 47:1, 53-63. 

Title:

The Calvinism verses Armenian debate is one that has been waged for quite awhile and seems to be heating up lately. For the record, I lean towards Calvinism in my theology. If you are unfamiliar with the term, the five points of Calvinism can be summed up with the acronym TULIP:

T: Total Depravity of Mankind – Sin has infected man to his very core. Our hearts, minds, and bodies are all affected by the disease of sin. Because of this, no effort of our own will can achieve salvation.

U: Unconditional Election – God elects the saved through an act of His own gracious will. Some are elected while some are not.

L: Limited Atonement – Jesus died for the elect. While His sacrifice was sufficient for all, it is not efficacious for all.

I: Irresistible Grace – Those who are elected by God are unable to resist His calling.

P: Perseverance of the Saints – Because election is an act of God, those who are so called are eternally secure in their salvation. Once saved, they are always saved.

As I mentioned earlier, I lean towards Calvinism. This isn’t to suggest that I am entirely comfortable with the manner in which it is often expressed. For instance, while the concept of Unconditional Election may be true, I don’t feel the discourse that surrounds it is always beneficial. I also have trouble with the concept of Limited Atonement as defined by Spurgeon. The Bible teaches that while it is easy to love those who love you in return, it is more rewarding to love those who are your enemies (Read Luke, Chapter 6). It is for this reason that I reject the notion that Christ only died for the elect. The notion  that Christ only died for those who would ultimately love Him seems to suggest that He acted in a particularly “un-Christ-like” fashion. I’m not suggesting that His sacrifice achieved salvation for everyone, but merely suggesting that His sacrifice affords everyone the opportunity of salvation.  That Christ died for everyone is the beauty of the Gospel. It is for this reason that I often say I believe in Unlimited Limited Atonement (a phrase borrowed from Mark Driscoll). Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for all, but not efficacious for all.

Spurgeon vehemently disagrees with me. In this short essay, he makes an impassioned plea for Calvinism and argues that “to think [Christ] died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain.”

In my opinion, my quibble with Spurgeon seems to be one that is mostly semantic. Spurgeon, however, seems to find it a critical point of contention, “That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities.”

Certainly, Spurgeon and I would both agree there is a hell and that some will unfortunately spend eternity in it. Likewise we would agree that the elect have a responsibility to respond to that irresistible call of God. Where we deviate from one another is in my suggestion that Christ loves humanity enough to die for everyone – even those who choose to ultimately reject Him. It is because of this conviction that I can look any person in the eye and tell them that Christ died for them.

Spurgeon’s essay is beneficial for those who are struggling to define their own doctrinal beliefs. It can easily be read in one sitting and is available on the Kindle for less than a dollar.

Title:

Review: My review of this book can be summed up in four words – it blew me away! Tozer identifies one of the major problems in our Church today. As a Church, we are creating a new breed of Christian who understands doctrine better than at any point in history yet fails to understand what it truly means to be a follower of Christ.

Having identified the problem, Tozer offers a beautiful solution that is more practical and mystical than theological. His book is an invitation for the the reader to seek God above all else. While many Christian writers invite the reader to seek God to the point of making a decision for Christ, Tozers encourages the Christian to make the seeking of God the continual foundation upon which their life is built on.

Tozer’s book served to draw me closer to God and instilled in me the desire to come even closer. It is a book I am sure to read often in the future and gladly add to my list of essential reads.

You will also be glad to know the book is free on the Kindle!

Happy reading, Clark.

A.W. Tozer

In his book Pursuing God, A.W. Tozer challenges readers to identify what it is in addition to God they are seeking. Tozer puts it this way, “The evil habit of seeking God-and effectively prevents us from finding God in full revelation. In the ‘and’ lies our greatest woe. If we omit the ‘and’ we shall soon find God, and in Him we shall find that for which we have all our lives been secretly longing.”

As I read Tozer’s words for the first time the other day, I couldn’t help but fill in the ‘and’. What I discovered was frightening. It seems there has always been an ‘and’ in my life. Rather than seeking God alone, I have tended to attach other desires to Him and elevate them to equal status. Financial security, doctrine, influence, recognition, love of the world … I could probably fill this page with my list of ‘ands’.

Ironically, not all ‘ands’ are bad. For instance, there is nothing wrong with praying for and striving to achieve financial security for your family. The danger, however, is when we elevate the ‘ands’ to equal status with God. It turns us into fair-weathered Christians who recognize and praise God only when our ‘ands’ are being attended to.  Our love for God becomes contingent upon the fulfillment of those sacred desires we have attached to Him.

When our ands suffer, we find ourselves turning away from God.

God promises that He is all we need. The Bible suggests that that if we seek God first all our other needs will fall into place (Matthew 6:33). I’ve reached a point in my life where all I want is God. I want to let go of my ands and allow Him to sustain my life.

I’m not confident I can do it. But my deepest desire is to seek Him first. I want to elevate God to the proper station in my life. I want Him set above and beyond all other desires of my heart. I’m confident that if God comes first I can survive the loss of everything else.

You may ask how I plan to achieve the elimination of my ands. As I write this, I only have the vaguest of plans. I hope to begin by taking the advice of 1 Thessalonians 5:18 and offering praise to God in all circumstances. Too often, I praise God when things go well for me and curse Him when things go awry. By praising God in all things, I hope to blur the line between the secular and the sacred. I want every moment of my life, even the mundane moments, to be cast in His shadow.

I have come to realize that nothing but God will ever truly satisfy me. And my prayer is that this is the year I put things in their proper order.

How about you? What are your ands? Is there anything in your life you have placed on equal status with God? If so, pick up a copy of Tozer’s Pursuit of God and join me in eliminating them.

Fantasy author Ty Johnston’s blog tour 2011 is running from November 1 through November 30. His novels include City of Rogues, Bayne’s Climb and More than Kin, all of which are available for the Kindle , the Nook  and online at Smashwords. His latest novel, Ghosts of the Asylum, is available for e-books as of November 21. To find out more, follow him at his blog tyjohnston.blogspot.com.

The late author John Gardner defined the “proper function” of a fictional hero was to provide moral and noble examples to the rest of us, to inspire by their actions and ideals. Gardner, as well as Leo Tolstoy, came from a literary school that suggests heroes are examples of ideal characters, of those most loved by God (or gods, in the ancient sense). True art, for Gardner and Tolstoy, reflects the ideals of God.

Obviously not all works of fiction fall into such definitions, though Gardner referred to such art as “unimportant” and even “trivial.”

Some writers might find these notions limiting, but I am not such a writer. I generally prescribe to Gardner and Tolstoy’s notions of proper art, at least within my own writings. While I can imagine myself outside the boundaries suggested above, I rarely do so, at least not since fiction writing has become my career. However, my heroes do not always fall into the type who are good examples of those whom God would love. Sometimes my heroes, and other characters, are the opposite, those who are warnings of how not to behave, to live.

For a writer to utilize characters who represent God’s ideals, or the opposite, it takes some thinking about the nature of such ideals, and it takes some thinking about sin and God’s laws for humanity.

First off, what is sin? Often sin is described as a breaking of God’s law, but why are certain actions considered sins? Why did God decide to make a sin a sin? Why are certain elements of the human element disapproved of by God?

One answer is that God’s laws reflect His own holiness, that God’s laws reflect His own personal character. I cannot and do not doubt this defining, but as a fiction writer, I look at the notion of sin a bit differently. Perhaps God provided us with his laws because they are good for us, because he loves us and wants the best possible for us. Perhaps sins are forbidden because it logically makes sense for them to be forbidden.

Perhaps stealing and murder are sins not only because they are abhorrent to God, but because they are disruptive to us as humans. And maybe that’s why such sins are abhorrent to God in the first place.

Perhaps we are forbidden to worship other gods because it is not only detestable to do so, but because it is silly and illogical. From a Christian point of view, there are no other gods than God, so worshiping anything else is a worship of nothing. Worshiping a rock accomplishes nothing but self delusion, as would worshiping the sun or the ocean or any number of things often worshiped by our ancient ancestors.

I do not mean to suggest this is the only way to look at sin or God’s laws, nor that my ideas on this subject are perfect. I am not trying to make a philosophical or spiritual argument here. I merely mean to point out that these are some of the notions behind my own thoughts of sin within the contexts of my fiction.