Reply:

The answers will undoubtedly be different for different ones of us. So here goes:

My own trajectory towards open theism started with a childhood in a fundamentalist, dispensationalist, Baptist church. Over time I gradually fought free of the dispensationalism and some of the more negative aspects of fundamentalism, and arrived at what I would term a mainstream orthodox Protestant position. In the process I studied a lot of theology, much of it Reformed, and I developed a strong conviction that theological determinism and absolute predestination are incompatible with the love and justice of God. I became convinced by philosophical argument that comprehensive divine foreknowledge is inconsistent with genuine free will for human beings, and for a while I was attracted to the doctrine of divine timelessness. I came to see, however, that timelessness has serious problems of its own; furthermore, it is of no real help theologically and is also lacking in biblical support. Like many others, I had been conditioned to read Scripture in a way that did not take seriously the kinds of passages that provide support for the open view, and it is only recently that I have begun to realize how much biblical support that view really has.

A bit more on the development of my position will be found in the article on the "Information" page of this web site.

William Hasker
Huntington College

Reply:

Lilly raises two very important questions.

1. She says that one phrase commonly commandeered to quiet and put to rest any alternate view is the phrase "the historic Christian faith once delivered to the saints". The intimation is that one particular interpretive tradition is the only obvious and reliable truth. It's right up there with "the Bible clearly says", a phrase touted by every opposing fellowship in town.

Those who assert such things are often unaware of just how diverse "the" tradition has been. They seem to assume that the tradition is monolithic--as though there is no variation. Of course, one has simply to look at the varieties of Protestantism or even to take a close look at varieties of views with the Catholic church. For instance, in the Middle Ages you had differences between big names such as Ockham, Aquinas, Abelard (who wrote Yes and No, a book where he lines up the different views of the fathers on key issues); not to mention the dozens of lesser movements and figures. Consider the following. The Jerusalem church around 37 AD is virtually all Jewish and practiced circumcision, followed the dietary regulations and scrupulously kept the Sabbath. The church leaders have families--often large ones. They are a tight knit social group for whom Jesus, as the Messiah, transforms their lives. They are debating whether Gentiles can be Christians without becoming Jewish. Now zoom ahead to 325 AD to Nicea. Hardly anyone in the church is Jewish. In fact, Jews are regarded with disdain. Church leaders are not to marry as that is considered an inferior state. These Christians are debating deep metaphysical issues such as whether the divine Son is homoousios (of the same substance) with the father. Now go to Ireland in 650 AD where you find monks standing neck deep in icy water reciting Psalms. Some of these folks reproduce beautiful manuscripts of what the Nicene Christians wrote--though they themselves are not very interested in metaphysical issues. They are interested in the ascetic life and the spirituality it produces. Move ahead to contemporary American evangelicalism where people are said to be "born again," enjoy hearty singing and generally seem uninterested in theology, let alone metaphysics. They are not interested in ascetic lifestyles. One could continue by visiting contemporary expressions of Christianity around the globe, from central Africa to South Korea, but I suspect you get the point.

Hence, the issue as to what is meant by "the" historic Christian faith is not so easily answered. It is popular today to quote Vincent of Lerin (fifth century) that we should "hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all." His admirable intention was to show how to distinguish authoritative from heretical viewpoints. But if one takes his statement literally then what about Christians in the apostolic era or the first two centuries before the ecumenical councils? They did not state their Christianity in terms of, for instance, the two natures of Jesus. If one allows that in the early centuries genuine Christians were defending various positions regarding the person of Jesus as the Son of God or on the nature of the Holy Spirit, then real Christians have disagreed over substantial matters of doctrine. Moreover, what about those Christians who lived prior to the formulation of the two natures doctrine or the Trinitarian formula? Are they not Christians? Some would say that they were Christians who lived prior to the Councils but after the Councils we must believe the pronouncements of the Councils to be genuine Christians. To this, I have several things to say. First, then present day followers of Jesus Christ who proclaim him as their savior and lord but disagree, for instance, with the two natures formula (e. g. Coptic Christians) cannot be considered Christians. Perhaps one would wish to soften this by saying they are Christians, but unorthodox Christians. But then we would be saying that genuine Christians may not affirm the decrees of the Councils. In that case we have forfeited the Creeds as tools by which to adjudicate genuine Christians--which was the original intention. Second, if one must agree with the Councils in order to be considered a genuine Christian, then what is one to do with Luther, Calvin and Menno Simons who had problems with these statements? Luther said, "If my soul hates the homoousion and refuses to make use of it, this does not make me a heretic." Calvin refused to sign either the Nicean or Athanasian creeds (though he agreed with them) as they go beyond scripture. Meno Simons rejected the Chalcedonian formula because he believed it: (1) implies that the divine Son did not suffer and die for us, only the human Jesus; and (2) it leads to a lack of transformation in the Christian life. Thus I come to the conclusion that "the" historic Christian faith has been quite broad ranging. Those who wish to rule others out on the basis of tradition have to select and sanctify only small segments of the tradition, ignoring segments, so that one can claim to affirm "the" tradition. In my view, there is a center to the historic Christian faith focused on the redemption found in the death and resurrection of the lord Jesus. If one goes through the story of Christian theology I think one finds a common core of accepted beliefs, values and actions delineating Christianity even though they may explicate the details differently (see Roger Olson's The Story of Christian Theology, IVP). Please don't misunderstand me. I affirm the Nicean Creed and the Trinitarian formula. My point is simply that those who want to proclaim THE historic Christian faith had better do their homework and arrive at something upon which all Christians at every time in history and in every place agree.

2. You also ask, "in light of the myriad of opposing theological views, how do we as believers find the common ground that would facilitate real and meaningful fellowship?" I would say that it has to be centered on the gospel of Jesus as that is the core dogma of the faith. Catholics, Orthodox, Reformed, and Wesleyans can fellowship around our common savior even though we might explicate the details differently.

3. You also inquire as to the history behind the openness view. Let's take this in two parts. First, a core belief of the open view is that God has freely decided to be, for some things, conditioned (affected) by his creatures. God has established things in such a way that some things God desires may not happen. For example, God wants all to experience the divine love but we can refuse it. Hence, we affirm that God does not control every single thing which happens in history. In this, we are in agreement with virtually all the fathers prior to Augustine, the Eastern Orthodox Church, many thinkers of the Middle Ages, Arminians, Wesleyans, the majority of Pentecostals, etc. Second, regarding our view that God is omniscient (knows all that can be known) but does not have exhaustive foreknowledge of future contingent events (i. e. what creatures with libertarian freedom will do), this particular understanding of omniscience has not been widespread. Cicero held it as did Socinus (who was a heretic who rejected the divinity of Jesus and the trinity). It did not receive widespread discussion until the nineteenth century when the Roman Catholic Jules Lequyer and the Methodists Billy Hibbard and Lorenzo McCabe expounded it. McCabe's writings are most thorough and address all the relevant scripture passages. The latter half of the twentieth century has seen an explosion of adherants to this view. Some of the biggest names in Christian philosophy (e. g. Richard Swinburne), biblical studies (e. g. Terence Fretheim) and Theology (e. g. Clark Pinnock) affirm it. The past thirty years have seen the number of proponents rise dramatically--indicated by the number of people affirming it in their publications. The theological background of its proponents includes Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Dutch Reformed, Christian Reformed, etc., so you see that it is not tied to any particular tradition. (If you have a copy of my God Who Risks please see pp. 161-164 and the endnotes p. 311 #106, 313 #122 and 324 #125 for more details on the history of openness proponents).

Appended Reply:

Early in my studies at an evangelical college a problem arose for my theology. Church life had conveyed to me that our prayers of petition could influence what God decided to do. Not that God has to do what we ask, but that God graciously decides to take our concerns into account in formulating his responses. However, my systematic theology textbooks described the nature of God as “impassible” (could not be affected by creatures in any way) and “immutable” (could not change in any respect). These authors acknowledged that there are biblical texts that seem to say that God is affected by the prayers of humans but, they claimed, these texts do not really mean this since they are anthropomorphisms. I was thrown into a quandary. Were the people in my church wrong or were the theology books wrong on these points?

Hence, the piety I had been taught was a key factor as was the problem of evil. Had God ordained all the evil and suffering that transpires in the world? Was everything working out exactly as God wants? My reading of Scripture concluded that many events in the world are not those God desires. A close friend of mine gave birth to twins but after one day one of the twins died. At the burial our pastor said, “God must have had a good reason for taking her home.” I shuddered at the theological implication of this euphemism. About a month later, the euphemism had worn off and my friend asked me, “Why did God kill my baby?” Such questions are part of the needs that we are called upon to meet as part of pastoral counseling.

Consequently, my reflection on the issues of sovereignty and omniscience was motivated by Christian practices rather than by theoretical concerns. My praxis led to questions about the satisfactoriness of the theory of providence I was being taught. My study of the matter led me into serious engagement with biblical studies, theology and philosophy. It was out of much reading and thinking that I came to adopt the view, now known as open theism. It seemed to me to be the best solution to a number of problems in Arminian theology. Of course, no theory is free from all problems or questions, so I continue to humbly work on the topic.

John Sanders
Professor of Philosophy & Religion
Huntington College
2303 College Ave Huntington, IN 46750