Thought I might post a reply I gave to a sincere-hearted
letter expressing some (not uncommon and not unimportant) concerns with the
Open View of God…
Perhaps
the crux of the problem lies in…finite man’s need to comprehend infinite
God. We try to see God, who is not
constrained by time or space, from a perspective both constrained by time and
by space. We try to understand how God
can know us in the future, when to God all time is no time is infinite, where
He is not limited, but the Sovereign, the Creator, the beginning AND the
end. Once we realise God as infinite,
the God that can access yesterday today and tomorrow without travelling in
constraints of time (otherwise He would be finite, definable, in one point of
time only, which is definitely not a characteristic of an infinite Being)… once
we let God be God, then all these things will perhaps fall into place easier,
and become no longer paradoxes.
I’m afraid the Open God theory may unintentionally lead to a controllable God
in the end, or a God out of control, although I doubt that was the starting
point (care to clarify, Al?). For an
Open God as defined by the article would become a finite God. Yet the bible
clearly gives the picture otherwise: A sovereign God, almighty, infinite,
glorious, working and sustaining creation and human history in grace, without
which disorder would have fallen into chaos eons ago (see Thomas Aquinas´
writings). The reassurance and knowledge that God is infinite is essential for
faith, which is for things to come, the substance (reality), of what we hope
for. Therefore we treasure Revelations, we see God in prophecy and in the fulfilling
of them, amidst suffering in the limited world we know we have unlimited hope,
for we hear His promises to His children and our hearts are heartened, for He
KNOWS and is able to carry out all His promises.
So we must remember God, and let God be God.
For He IS, after all. J
in His
grace,
TK
Dear TK,
I hope to offer three quick 'reflection points' below which may or may not have
been covered already in the article...
1. The issue of God facing an open future is primarily (if not
predominantly) an exegetical
issue. How do we deal with the texts in Scripture teaching of God's
repentance, His surprise, His expressions of uncertainty, etc.? As such,
in a strange way, I'd have to agree with your implication that the Open View
(OV) represents 'finite’s man's need to comprehend an infinite God', except I
would insist that it is because we are finite we therefore must read
carefully what our infinite God says about Himself(!), *smile*... here I'd
only remind us that our Bible 'clearly' speaks of God repenting more than 30
times...I dare not treat these as mere 'poetical' flourishes (for nothing
except the presupposition that God knows all the future requires this), I dare
not come to these passages with the thought that, "No, God, there is NO
WAY You can ever change Your mind"...
“(If) we simply accept the plain
meaning of Scripture, we learn that God sometimes regrets how decisions
he’s made turn out. He sometimes questions
how aspects of the future will go.
Other times he confronts the unexpected and experiences
frustration because free agents choose unlikely courses of action. We learn that many times God tests his
children ‘to know’ their character, which is being formed by their
decisions. Often God speaks and
thinks in terms of what may or may not occur. And…many times he genuinely changes his mind about
intended courses of action.”(God of the Possible, Gregory Boyd
p.87. I
strongly recommend this book if only to be acquainted with the full range of
Scriptural texts affirming/implying the openness of God to the future. See also Openness of God, Clark Pinnock
et al, chapt.1 and God Who Risks, John Sanders, chapt. 3 and 4).
“God is often presented (in the
Bible) as the husband of his people and father of children, who nurtures,
raises, and calls them to participate with him dynamically in an open future…It
may turn out that it is the conventional, not the openness model, which has
trouble with the Bible. It is hard to
avoid the impression that, whereas openness theists are comfortable with
biblical terms such as love, patience, wisdom and repentance, traditional
theists prefer abstract philosophical terms like aseity, simplicity,
immutability and impassibility…the open view of God is at least as biblical as
its competition, maybe more so.” (Most Moved Mover, Clark Pinnock, p.25-26)
So, indeed,
this is the 'starting point' for the OV: 'Sola Scriptura' (it's really Prima
Scriptura in practice, but that’s another subject altogether, *grin*). For if God wanted to tell us that He does
change His mind, how would He do it (if a few dozen citations/declarations
isn't enough)?
2. The OV teaches a God who sovereignly enters into our finitude (so it
won’t be accurate to call Him a 'finite' God)...Love – and God is Love -
requires some form/degree of limitation from the Lover (it would be
tough for anyone of us to deny this, no?)...
“Without
having to do so metaphysically, God seeks fellowship with us, out of grace and
overflowing love. Sovereign and free,
God chooses to be involved with us…In the incarnation God stoops down,
shares our lives and involves himself in our joys and sorrows. God chooses to express his deity not in the
mode of aloofness, independence and total control but in creating free beings
on the finite level and entering lovingly into their lives. (Openness of
God, p.110)
“Though
no power can stand against him, God wills the existence of creatures with the
power of self-determination.
Condescension is involved in God’s decision to make this kind of a
world. By willing the existence of
significant beings with independent status alongside of himself, God accepts
limitations not imposed from without…Yet this does not make God ‘weak’, for it
requires more power to rule over an undetermined world that it would over a
determined one. Creating free
creatures and working with them does not contradict God’s omnipotence but
requires it.” (ibid., p.113)
So we have
a God who enters into personal relation with His creatures, granting them the
ability to love and surprise Him yet promising the faithful ones among them
that He WILL take them home to be with Him forever... that is power, that
is glory, that is praiseworthiness (smile)...the power to dare to risk,
to love, to be hurt (even dismally so)...
“The all-powerful God delegates power to the creature, making himself
vulnerable…(Though ontologically strong), God gives room to creatures and
invites them to be covenant partners, opening up the possibility of loving
fellowship but also of some initiative being taken away from God and creatures
coming into conflict with His plans…By His decision to create a world like
ours, God showed His willingness to take risks and to work with a history whose
outcome He does not wholly decide.” (Openness of God, p.115) (Note: This book, though not without problems, is
in my opinion a theological ‘must-read’; see my review of it here.)
I'm often
in awe at how God redefines our notions of power and greatness...the
Cross was one incredible act of 'new meaning', don'tcha think? The word
‘victory’ will never be the same again.
So too His life, His nature, His love - they tend to explode our
'semantic axioms' away.
3. We perhaps need to rethink why we feel we need Exhaustive
Definite Foreknowledge to be reassured that God can achieve ultimate
victory...really, it is we who would need to control everything in order
guarantee anything, it is we who are afraid of facing an uncertain
future. We need to be careful lest, in our
sincerity and piety, we create God 'in our own image'. Commenting on such an approach, Boyd writes:
“It
brings God’s wisdom and power down to the level of finite human thinking. We would need to control of possess a
blueprint of all that is to occur ahead of time to steer world history
effectively. But the true God is far
wiser, far more powerful, and far more secure than we could ever imagine…” (God
of Possible, p.68)
Of course
lots more work remain to be done but I hope to have shown that we ought not be
too reluctant to consider the view for its merits, and also reconsider our
objections against it.
In His love, For His Glory
AL