THE OPENNESS OF GOD VIEW REJECTED BY THE ETS
"The cost to doctrine and faith by open theism's denial of exhaustive
divine foreknowledge is too great to be accepted within evangelicalism"
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (BP) - After three days of heated debate, the
Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) voted November 16 overwhelmingly
to affirm what almost every Christian in the history of the church has
always believed - that God knows everything, including the future decisions
of his creatures.
The organization, professional society of biblical scholars and theologians
who affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, brought the issue to the floor
after a group of ETS charter members charged that the "openness of
God" view being articulated by some society members is outside the
boundaries of evangelical conviction.
The non-binding resolution stated that the society believes "the
Bible clearly teaches that God has complete, accurate and infallible knowledge
of all events past, present and future including all future decisions
and actions of free moral agents." The resolution passed on a vote
of 253 in favor to 66 opposed with 41 abstentions after a debate that
lasted until well after midnight the night before.
The resolution takes issue with the concept of "open theism"
held by evangelical scholars such as Clark Pinnock, Gregory Boyd and John
Sanders. God cannot know what will happen in the future, these scholars
argue, since future human decisions have not yet been made and thus do
not exist to be known. Sanders, a professor of religion at Huntington
College in Indiana, presented the open theist case before the society,
arguing that an attempt to rule the idea out of bounds could result in
an evangelical "Taliban," enforcing doctrinal orthodoxy within
the society.
Sanders' view was opposed by a competing presentation by Bruce Ware,
associate dean and professor of theology at the Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary in Kentucky. Ware pleaded with ETS members to recognize that
the denial of God's complete knowledge is a dangerous doctrine that will
damage the churches. Ware pointed to a host of Scriptures in which God
declares himself to know the future, including passages in which God contrasts
his knowledge of the future with the idols that have no such knowledge
of future events.
"By its denying of God's foreknowledge of future free creaturely
choices and actions, open theism is vulnerable to the charge of commending
as God one whom the true God declares is false and worthless," Ware
said.
The ramifications of open theism include the undermining of the gospel
itself, Ware said, since God could not have kept with certainty the prophetic
promises of the Old Testament, up to and including the crucifixion of
Jesus. Nor, Ware said, can a God ignorant of the future guarantee the
future success of his purposes. Ware took issue with statements by open
theists who argue that God has made mistakes, including statements by
Pinnock that even Jesus was mistaken at least once on a matter of predictive
prophecy.
"The cost to doctrine and faith by open theism's denial of exhaustive
divine foreknowledge is too great to be accepted within evangelicalism,"
Ware said. "Thoughtful Christians, particularly Christian leaders,
must speak out on the openness proposal to say what the glory of God;
the truthfulness of Scripture and our own consciences require."
Before the debate on the resolution, Ware pleaded with theists to repent
of their teachings and reconsider the biblical portrayal of a God who
knows the end from the beginning.
"You don't have to go this way!" Ware said. "I won't say,
'I told you so.' I will praise God! Come back to the fold."
The vote was preceded by one charter member, theologian Roger Nicole,
arguing that the founders of the organization would have been horrified
to know that the issue of God's knowledge would ever be up for debate
among evangelicals, or that anyone who held such a view would even seek
membership. Nicole argued that the society should vote to uphold foreknowledge,
thereby signaling to open theists that they should "exercise their
precious free will and resign." If the open theists refuse to voluntarily
leave the organization, Nicole said, the ETS should then move to expel
them through its constitutional process.
"Open theism is a cancer on the Evangelical Theological Society,"
Nicole said. "That cancer has not been resolved by chemotherapy or
radiation. The only remaining option is surgery."
Ware and Nicole, a member of a Florida Baptist congregation, were joined
by other Southern Baptists in opposing the open theist position. Charlie
Draper, professor of New Testament at Southern Seminary's Boyce College,
and Russ Bush, academic dean at South-eastern Baptist Theological Seminary
in North Carolina, both argued that a denial of God's foreknowledge is
a denial of the inerrancy of Scripture, since a God who cannot know the
future cannot guarantee the truth of a Bible that speaks to future events.
Draper said the debate might well be "the issue of the century"
for American evangelicals.
"If this line cannot be drawn, no line can be drawn," Draper
said. "If this view cannot be said to be a denial of inerrancy, then
no view can be said to be a denial of inerrancy."
The resolution was opposed by Clark Pinnock, who as a faculty member
at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in the 1960s, once championed
a very conservative vision of historic Christian orthodoxy, but who has
now significantly altered his convictions not only about the foreknowledge
of God, but also about the meaning of inerrancy and the necessity of conscious
faith in Christ for salvation. Pinnock argued that the ETS should not
condemn open theism, but instead should recognize that "the best
advice about a new religious movement" comes from the Pharisee Gamaliel
in Acts 5:33-39. If open theism is not of God, it will come to nothing,
Pinnock suggested.
The Southern Baptist Convention has addressed the question of open theism,
first in a resolution offered by Southern Seminary President R. Albert
Mohler Jr. at the 1999 SBC annual meeting in Atlanta. The resolution passed
by the convention affirmed that God knows all things, including the future.
The SBC then addressed the issue in the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message
statement of beliefs, revising the article on God to affirm that God's
"perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future,
including the future decisions of His free creatures."
The ETS debate was preceded by a flurry of papers presented on both sides
of the issue, and by an address by ETS President Darrell Bock, a New Testament
scholar at Dallas Theological Seminary, who argued that sharp boundaries
should not be drawn for the evangelical movement. Instead, he argued,
evangelicalism may be likened to a "village green," which is
defined more by the center than by the boundaries. After the vote, ETS
program chair Millard Erickson, a long-time opponent of open theism, predicted
that the resolution would not end the debate over these issues within
American evangelicalism.
RUSSELL D. MOORE