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:

I was fortunate to read Idleman’s book immediately after Tozer’s The Pursuit of God. I say this because “Not a Fan” is the perfect counterpart to Tozer. Idleman challenges the reader to identify themselves as a follower of Christ or a mere fan and presents the argument that many who identify themselves as the former are actually the latter.

Idleman presents a wonderful argument against the “cheap” Christianity that runs rampant in the Church and encourages his readers to “get to a place where following Jesus is so important to them, that if they lost everything it would still be worth it” (p. 66).

This book causes the reader to reflect upon his own faith. In my case, I was convicted in several areas of my life. I was able to recognize those parts of my life that I simply wasn’t prepared to surrender to Christ. It’s a simple concept really. When Christ asks us to give up everything to follow Him, what is the one thing you would refuse to let go of? This may be a simple concept but is difficult in practice. If Christ isn’t want we hold most dear, we are a fan – not a follower.

While Tozer’s book placed in me the desire to pursue Christ daily, Idleman’s gave me a practical vision of what such a pursuit entails.

This book will certainly be added to my list of recommended reading.

When choosing a translation it helps to be familiar with the methods translators use; basically, there are two methods – formal equivalence (word for word) and functional equivalence (thought for thought). Formal translations are accurate in that they translate word for word from the original, but they are difficult to read because they follow the sentence structure of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Functional translations increase reader comprehension because they translate the thoughts of the original text into a form that can be easily read.

Here is a list prominent (and reliable) translations:

Formal Translations: King James, New American Standard, English Standard.

Functional Translations: The Message, Contemporary English Version, New International Version and the New Living Translation.

The best advice I can offer is to have several translations at hand. For my studies I like to have one of each type. I prefer using the New American Standard along with the New International. While I listed the NIV as a functional translation, its editors made an attempt to strike a balance between formal and functional. Having access to both types will help with your comprehension. I frequently consult various translations and you may find that you prefer to read from different translations than your friends – that’s okay. The important thing is that you are reading the Bible.

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.