Open Theism: An Answer to My Critics . Clark H.

Pinnock

237

Open Theism: An Answer to My Critics

By Clark H. Pinnock
Abstract: Open theism is a version of historic free will theism which posits God as granting to human beings significant freedom to cooperate with or to resist the will of God for their lives. Gods goal is to make possible relationships of mutual love between God and creatures and therefore set up a dynamic give and take situation in which God can even be said to risk failure to the degree permitted by the overall plan. A debate has broken out as to whether open theism goes too far in its revision. I myself see it as a mere adjustment to standard Arminian thinking on the point of understanding the divine foreknowledge. In this article, I argue that, despite a goodly number of objections, the position deserves to be viewed as a legitimate option for Christian theology, yea even for evangelical theology. Key Terms: Open theism, libertarian freedom, present knowledge, meticulous sovereignty, divine pathos.

Open theism celebrates a triune God of love who created everything and rules over everything. In sovereign freedom, God decided to make some divine actions contingent upon our actions. In wisdom, he chose to exercise a general rather than a meticulous sovereignty and granted us libertarian freedom. According to this view, God knows all that can be known, given the kind of world he created, a world project where the future is still being settled by both divine and human agencies.1

Open Theism Explained

Open theism is a theological topic widely discussed in our day as people became aware of it. At its heart lies a vision of a relational, personal, and triune God, in contrast to a deity with abstract and determinist features. Our aim, when we first presented it in 1994, was to bring people up to speed on the issues. We knew scholars who held to the model already and thought that others might be drawn to it, if it were properly explained. We hoped it might become

a catalyst for ongoing reflection and even a source of theological renewal. Open theism is a version of free will theism which has assumed different forms since the very beginnings of Christian theology. To describe it, one might say that open theism is a relational and trinitarian doctrine with an emphasis on God as personal and interactive, both in his own immanent triune nature and in the economic relationships in which he engages and enjoys with creatures. It holds that God could control the world if he wished to but that he has chosen not to do so for the sake of loving relationships. Open theism does not believe that God is ontologically limited but that God voluntarily self-limits so that freely chosen loving relations might be possible. In giving us genuine, that is, libertarian freedom, God also gave upand had to give upcomplete control over the decisions that are made in history and chose to create a world in which humans would have significant powers of say so. This means that creatures can do things that God does not want them to do. Most centrally they can reject Gods purposes for themselves (cf. Luke 7:31).

Clark H. Pinnock is emeritus Professor of Theology at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton Ontario. His works include Most Moved Mover: A Theology of Gods Openness (Baker Academic, 2001), A Wideness in Gods Mercy (Zondervan, 1992) and Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Intervarsity Press, 1996).

238

Dialog: A Journal of Theology . Volume 44, Number 3 . Fall 2005

Whereas strict Calvinists hold to meticulous and detailed sovereignty, free will theists endorse a general or limited sovereignty, in keeping with Gods dynamic world project. Instead of it being all prescripted down to the last detail, history is a real story, still unfolding, with attendant tensions and surprises. By way of contrast, traditional Calvinists believe that whatever occurs is willed by Godnot merely permittedand that the world now is as it should be. Gods in his heaven, alls right with the world. Even terrible atrocities that occurit is saidoccur for some higher reason and some greater good. Free will theists, however, fear this would make God the author of evil and very ambiguous. We think that history is full of things that God did not and does not want to happen. Of course, God could have created a world very different from this one in which he would dominate. But by an act of self-limitation, he made a world in which he restrains his power for the sake of the creature such that, at this moment in time, Gods will is not in Jesus wordsbeing done on earth as it is in heaven (Matt 6:10). God took risks in creating this kind of a world, a truly significant world, and, although he has goals for it, he makes use of open routes.2 Although it is a version of free will theism, open theism adds a feature which sets it apart. It has something different to say about the divine omniscience. We speak of the present knowledge of God. We believe that God knows everything that can be known but that the future free acts of human beings are not yet reality and, therefore, cannot be known. Of course it is no defect for God not to know what is unknowable! God made a world with free creatures in it, creatures that can make a difference. How could they possess libertarian freedom, if God knew ahead of time exactly they would do. God could know the future exhaustively if everything was determined. This is the position of traditional Calvinism. But the biblical narrative is dynamic and cannot be interpreted in a deterministic framework. The future as something still being worked out.3 Open theism is a sub-species of non-determinist theology (free will theism) and, if one were to locate it historically, one would name it a variant of Wesleyan/Arminian thinking. Free theism itself is older than that, arising in the church fathers prior

to Augustine and still held by Orthodoxy. We reject Augustines view that God is the all-determining and sole final cause of every event; we uphold instead human freedom and the idea of cooperation with Gods will. (This latter could be called evangelical synergism.) The biblical story as we read it is an action packed and tension filled theo-drama which plays itself out in complex ways through divine interaction with human agents. In this interaction, God is always the senior partner but humans also play a significant role. I see this kind of thinking in the early fathers, in Orthodoxy, in the Wesleyan/ Arminian movement, and now in the demographically enormous pentecostal surge which has its Wesleyan/Arminian roots.4 I see this way of thinking also in modern authors such as John Polkinghorne who uses the language of rgen Moltmann who focuses on kenosis for it, in Ju divine suffering, and in Paul Fiddes who develops the beliefs in a framework of social trinitarianism. Those who call themselves open theists named it and packaged it for evangelicals under that label but it is possible to use different language for it. Besides the three just mentioned, there are other modern scholars like Keith Ward, Richard Swinburne, Nicholas Wolterstorff, J. R. Lucas, ngel who employ W. H. Vanstone, and Eberhart Ju many of the same themes.

Divine Love in Relationship

The main emphasis of open theism is that God created the world for loving relations. From scripture, as from as experience, we know that genuine love must be freely chosen. One cannot love a partner programmed by a computer chip to love her back. We think that God created us with the capacity for saying yes or no to goodness and even to God, even though creating such a world spelled risk for Godthe risk that we may not choose to love and obey him. It seems that God decided that it was a risk worth taking, the kind of risk which we ourselves experience as parents, when we hope that our children will follow in good ways but cannot guarantee it. The God of Christian faith is not a

Open Theism: An Answer to My Critics . Clark H. Pinnock

239

timeless, unchanging substance, totally in control of the world, but personal, relational, and triune, characterised by self-sacrificing love. Central to the greatness of God for open theists is Gods willingness to be self-limited for the sake of love. God opens himself up to real interaction with his creatures such that they actually can have an effect on him. God opens himself to a certain vulnerability symbolised by the cross of Jesus. Although theology in the past has seldom wanted to say these things, open theists believe that we must say them. Authentic love is always vulnerable. In human life, love is inauthentic if it seeks control like a possessive parent. Real love takes risks. It is precarious and carries the risk of rejection. It is characterised by involvement rather than detachment. The God of the Bible is affected by his creation, delighted by its beauty, and grieved by its tragic aspects. Does not the life of Jesus reveal a God of love who participates in the worlds sufferings? God freely chooses self-limitation and bestows humans with free will so that it might happen that we will love God in return.5 Although it can be validated on other levels, open theism is primarily a biblical and practical theology for us. Unlike, say, process theism and even conventional theism, we do not weigh in with large assumptions about what God must be like, dictated by philosophical ideas which cause us to ignore aspects of the biblical witness (the dignus dei ). The foundation of open theism is the triune relationality of God himselfthe interactive social Trinityand the responsiveness, pathos, dynamic rule, and risk taking for the sake of love which we see in the biblical narrative. We read the biblical meta-narrative as a real and unfolding story, not as the prescripted text of some pre-historical decree in which the author decides everything and the characters nothing. We are unconvinced by theologies which deny the dynamism of salvation history. A character in a novel seems real enough but the fact is that she or he is a fictional literary figure who has no say so in the drama. She or he is not really a person but an invention of the author. She or he has no true reality and no significant freedom. In theological terms she or he is only a thought in the mind of God. The

relationship is a one-way streetthere is no real mutuality. History is a novel where the characters do exactly what the novelistGoddecides. He maintains exhaustive control. Nothing happens except what is willed by God. So that the divine/ human relation is causal not personalGod the cause, humanity the effect.6

Reforming the Reformation

Open theism calls for change in dogmatic theology. The Reformation needs to be taken farther in the doctrine of God. Specifically the tilt towards divine hyper-transcendence in the doctrine of God has to be corrected. We must overcome feelings of aloofness and inertness in God and get away from what Walter Kasper calls the solitary narcissistic God who suffers from his own completeness.7 We require a more coherent, non-determinist model than is on offer. We are not rationalists but we do seek a little more conceptual intelligibility, even in the midst of what we know is a mysterious complexity. Theological confusion has been created by the merger of the Christian confession of God as compassionate, suffering, victorious love with speculative ideas about what must constitute true divinity such as immutability, impassibility, eternity, unchangability. Theology, for example, has often given the impression that God cannot grieve over the suffering of the world and cannot experience compassion within his being, etc. As a result, certain of the traditional attributes of God need to be re-formed in the light of the gospel. The God and Father of Jesus Christ is not the God of the worlds philosophers (or at least many of them). We have to speak differently and say the unity of God is not a mathematical oneness but a living unity which includes diversity. We have to say that God does not have a dead immutability but a dynamic constancy of character and purpose which includes movement and change. We have to say that Gods power is not raw omnipotence but a sovereignty of love which is strong even in weakness. We have to say that Gods grace is righteous and his

240

Dialog: A Journal of Theology . Volume 44, Number 3 . Fall 2005

righteousness always gracious. We have to say that Gods omniscience is not a trivial know-it-allness but a deep wisdom accompanied by infinite resourcefulness. Open theists strive to learn who God is from God himself in the scriptures and not speculate so much about what God must be in contrast to the world.8 Though not primarily speculative, open theism also enjoys a certain fit with contemporary concerns. For example, it is apologetically promising in that it entertains a vision of God which yields a dynamic cosmology and may facilitate a better dialogue between science and theology. It is also existentially fruitful in positing a real human say so. It gives people a reason to live passionately because our lives can make a difference and our prayers can change things. Practical implications in fact are often what tip the balance for people in favour of open theism. People are already living this way.

The Controversy over Omniscience

The thing about open theism that attracts attention and controversy is the view we take toward divine omniscience.9 Our model affirms omniscience but denies exhaustive definite foreknowledge. It grants that God knows everything that can be known but holds that the future free actions of creatures, including even Gods own future actions, are not yet actual and, therefore, cannot be known with complete certainty. God is free, for example, to do something new as he interacts with us in history. We do not see this as limited foreknowledge because it views God as knowing everything that can be known. On the other hand, open theists know, that while this move may seem intelligible to some people, to others it is an unwise and even a dangerous idea. It seems for some to involve far-reaching implications, the extent of which may seemat least initially disturbing. Even though for us, the notion causes no great distress, it draws fire from critics and constitutes a point of vulnerability. Though not a new topic in the Wesleyan tradition, even our theological allies

are often disturbed by the move. So, why do open theists think that the idea of current omniscience is important? Is it not a bit of a millstone around our necks? The most important (if not the only) reason why open theists believe in the category of current omniscience or present knowledge is the scriptures which refer to aspects of the future, some of which are unsettled and to possibilities not yet actualised. Time and again, God is seen as confronting the unexpected or a being surprised by something that has happened or as experiencing regret, or a changing of his mind, or a showing of anger and frustration. God also speaks in conditional terms, tests people to know their character, and appears to be flexible. Are we wrong to take this line of teaching seriously? Does anyone doubt that such material exists? Of course, we also celebrate passages which extol Gods massive knowledge of the future. What an infinity of intelligence God must have to be able to anticipate anything and everything that might come to pass or might not come to pass. Our case rests, not on a few odd texts, strangely interpreted, but on an important biblical theme. If our critics choose to suppress this evidence, they may, but let them not charge us with treating scripture lightly. At the same time, I do not suppose that the issue can be resolved by proof-texting. What people think about it will also be influenced by broader considerations.10 Scripture aside, we are drawn to this way of thinking because it makes good sense. The biblical narrative assumes and our own experience confirms that we have libertarian freedom. How then could genuinely free decisions, which are unpredictable by nature, be foreknown in their entirety? If libertarian freedom is what God gave us, how can the hypothesis of exhaustive definitive foreknowledge be true? On this point we agree with the Calvinists that it just doesnt add up. What could the ontological grounding be for believing in exhaustive definite foreknowledge? The future is not a reality that already exists the future has not yet happened. Wesleyan/ Arminians ought to see it. If God created the world and if human beings possess free will, it will not be possibleeven for Godto know precisely how freedom will be used.

Open Theism: An Answer to My Critics . Clark H. Pinnock

241

Philosopher Keith Ward writes:

God acts in such a way as to make creaturely freedom possible. It may seem that God could know the future completely and in every detail but in fact God renounces such knowledge in order for finite creativity to exist. There are necessities of the divine nature which mean that God cannot exist in a state of unmixed bliss, of all-determining power, and unrestricted knowledge, if there is to be a world of free and creative personal agents.11

John Polkinghorne finds such an idea implied by modern science. The passing of mechanistic theory, signalled by the rise of quantum physics and chaos theory, yields a vision of the universe which is open to both divine and human agency. It reveals a supple and subtle world of true becoming and a world whose future is open. We did not need science to tell us this but neither do we decline its witness. The future is not yet formedin significant ways it is being made as we go along. Of course, God knows what can happen and what he would have to do in reply. God is prepared for whatever may be but he can also accomplish his purposes by contingent paths.12 Ironically, belief in exhaustive definite foreknowledge is a negative. Knowing exactly whats to come doesnt allow God to change anything. Its too late for that. Not only are our hands tied but Gods hands are bound too. Exhaustive definite foreknowledge offers God nothing by way of providential control. Even God cannot regulate a future which is already settled. Present knowledge is in keeping with the dynamic universe which God so wonderfully made.13

Replying to Criticism
Open theists have had to put up with a lot of criticisms, ranging from the outrageous and the ignorant to those which are serious and thoughtful. Our views have not gone unnoticed. Apparently we have struck a chord or perhaps at least a nerve. Let me reply to a bakers dozen of the criticisms.14

1. The sharpest criticisms emanate from theological determinists, usually Calvinists of the old school, conservative Presbyterians, self-designated evangelicals, who see (correctly, I might add) a serious threat to their own paradigm. For centuries, they have battled Arminians and now a new version of what is to them an old heresy has reared its ugly head. They are appalled by ideas such as God taking risks, such as Gods will being thwarted, such as prayer affecting Gods actions, such as the divine/human cooperation, and the like. These people belong to a tradition which has opposed free will theism (of which open theism is a fresh example) from day one and here they are at it again. In recent years, given the evangelical coalition from the 1940s in America where Calvinists and Arminians have coexisted rather harmoniously, there hasnt been much open warfare but now feathers are being ruffled anew. Its partly due, I think, to anxiety. Their own strict determinist position seems to have become more vulnerable in recent years, leading even most of the worlds Presbyterians to reform the Reformed faith in less harsh and more lenient directions. Calvinism today in fact is a contested notion and some Calvinists are more agreeable than others to get along with. 2. More sympathetic criticism comes from fellow free will theists who prefer a more classical stance. For example, they may prefer to think of God as a-temporal and/or of Gods foreknowledge as exhaustive and definite, in which case they are not enamoured with our proposal in these respects. On the issue of divine temporality, many free will theistsin fact many Calvinists evenhave given up on divine timelessness as an incomprehensible idea, so on this matter we do not feel pressured because we are not alone. As for divine foreknowledge, it is a more rare bird but, I believe its flight is picking up speed. (I will speak to simple foreknowledge here since it is the important rival in terms of numbers.) Present knowledge is gaining support because, first, simple foreknowledge lacks ontological grounding. How can the future in its detail be known when it is not actual and available? Second, how can libertarian freedom be sustained if all free actions

242

Dialog: A Journal of Theology . Volume 44, Number 3 . Fall 2005

are settled and decided, as foreknowledge would imply? Third, what use, practically speaking, is simple foreknowledge? If God knows the future in its entirety, he can do nothing about it. Its too late for that. I agree with Ware: if you want libertarian freedom, you cant have exhaustive definite foreknowledge; and if you want exhaustive definite foreknowledge, you cant avoid determinism.15 3. It is quite common among critics who want a simple way to dismiss us to hold us guilty by association. They say we are process theists, which to the conservative evangelical mind, is tantamount to calling us wolves in sheeps clothing. Some prefer to call us Socinians. I admit it, we have things in common with process thoughtjust as Calvin had things in common with astrology. We agree with them on the point about divine present knowledge and the conviction that God suffers. But if critics really care about this, they should ask a card-carrying process theist about this, not me. John B. Cobb and David R. Griffin certainly do not think we are process theists. They have serious misgivings about our work: for example, they wonder, whats this creatio ex nihilo and supernaturalism doing here?16 4. Some complain that open theists are not classical theists because we question how some of the socalled attributes of God should be defined and understood. At least, we are in very good company, considering that most theologians today seek to understand the divine perfections better, whether it be immutability, impassibility, or timeless eternity, all of which are basic to classical theism. So why are they innocent and we guilty? To take up the controversial subject of foreknowledge, why are Molinists free to maintain Molinism (an arcane medieval proposal which reconsiders omniscience), while open theists are not free to maintain present knowledge, without being declared heretical? We all agree that Gods knowledge is as great as it can possibly be. Open theists are only exploring how it might work if God had created a truly dynamic and historical project, as the Bible seems to say he has done? I must say that the fear and anxiety we

encounter from critics on this subject is baffling to me. 5. Some object that open theists reduce God to human proportions, creating God in the image of man. In our denial of exhaustive definite foreknowledge, they say, we bring divine omniscience down to the human level. On the contrary, we believe that God knows everything that can be known and all true propositions. In the case of future free acts of creatures, they too are known to God, some as settled actualities and others as possible outcomes, depending on what in fact they are. The key pointGod knows certainties as certain and contingencies as contingent. The open God actually knows more than the God of determinist knowing in that he knows not only will occur but also what might occur. He knows a whole set of facts other models do not consider, namely, might counter factuals, that is, things which might or might not occur. Surprising as it may seem, the God of open theism knows more than the God of classical theism and Molinism.17 6. Some complain that we assume libertarian freedom and make it a controlling presupposition. (By way of definition, a deed would be libertarianly free, if the person could have done other than he did. Just how many of our actions are free in this way is unknowncertainly not all of them.) It is safe to say that open theists, along with most others in the world, find it difficult not to assume such libertarian freedom simply because it is a sturdy common sense notion. It is a category that can be denied intellectually if you are very clever but cannot be easily denied in practice. How, for example, can there be moral responsibility, if our choices are determined? It seems to me that libertarian freedom is universally presupposed in practice, even if verbally denied. The alternative, compatibilist freedom is, of course, no freedom of all.18 7. One particularly vociferous critic has charged that open theism has no room for sovereignty. This would be true if this term sovereignty required a certain definitionfor example, meticulous control over everything that happens. But this limits God to a certain kind of sovereignty, the kind which involves exhaustive control. Such

Open Theism: An Answer to My Critics . Clark H. Pinnock

243

sovereignty cannot stand, however, if God seeks truly personal relationships and wants creatures who can decide to love him freely or not. If love is in, then determinism is out. Love cannot be scripted, not if you want mutual love. Open theists, like all free will theists, understand Gods sovereignty in the context of a creation in which give-and-take relationships occur and where God is not into manipulation. We open theists use the language of general sovereignty.19 8. Thomistic critics especially find fault with the way in which open theists think of God as everlasting in time. We ask in reply: is God not represented in scripture as a God with a history of acting and responding in time? Is God not One who is and was and is to come (Rev 1:8)? Clearly, God has a temporal dimension, at least as he relates to the creation. How to think of God apart from creation and whether God would be timeless then or not, I do not claim to know. I do not think anyone knows. I would simply say that the Bible presents God in ways that are very difficult to understand in any a-temporal framework. God is the everlasting God, not a timeless God.20 9. Some accuse open theists of interpreting the Bible too literalistically, as when it says that God repents or that God is not 100% sure how something will work out. (A funny thing is that I was always told by some of these very critics that one should interpret texts literally unless there were good reason not to do so! Apparently there is an amendment nowwe take it literally if it agrees with our dogmatic stance.) This is how it works. One distinguishes weak texts from strong texts, so that if a text says, God cannot repent, that text is literally true and clear, but if it says, God repents, that text is anthropomorphic and unclear. Paul Helm tells us that in these matters we are confronted with incompatible data and are forced to choose between them on the basis of your dogmatic theology. Open theists try to take all the texts seriously and deal with the impression that the whole scripture creates. We try to reject ideologies which require some texts to be authoritative and other texts to be disregarded. We may not always succeed but we do not make a virtue out of it.21

10. Some ask about predictive prophecies in scripture and question how open theism can explain them if God has only present knowledge. How could God give these prophecies, if his foreknowledge is curtailed in any way? This introduces us to the complex nature of biblical prophecy. Open theists point out that a majority of the predictions are conditional in nature. They take the form: I will do X, if you will do Y. Such texts would not require God to possess exhaustive definite foreknowledge. They tell us more about Gods plans rather than about Gods knowledge. They tell us that this or that might happen depending on what people decide. It is important also to note that God knows everything that could possibly happen in the future and stands ready to handle it whatever it may be. Other predictions are made because of what God is planning to do, and still others, on the basis of trends that are already developing in the present.22 11. Process theologians fault us on theodicy. Open theists, like all free will theists, appeal to the free will defence in regard to the problem of evil. In a significantly free universe, we argue, things can go wrong and God may not get his way. This is a risk God takes. God is not to blame for all the evils that we encounter. So far, so good. But our process colleagues still complain. Open theists, Our process colleagues complain, reserve the possibility that God might and could intervene in history to stop gratuitous evils and should do so if he can. (Funny how they want God to intervene though it goes against their normal pitch.) Process theists hold that God cannot do this and is always doing everything he can. I think that open theists are vulnerable on this pointas all free will theists arewhen they appeal to the free will defence. It is arguable, however, that the process deity could do more himself to minimise evil. For my part, I would appeal both to a covenant of creation which commits God to not prevent that which results from freedom, and to a dysteleological factor in the universe symbolised by Satan.23 12. Some complain that, if open theism were true, God would be unable to provide the kind of

244

Dialog: A Journal of Theology . Volume 44, Number 3 . Fall 2005

detailed guidance we are entitled to. This assumes, however, that God regularly doles out detailed guidance, like the name of the one we should marry and where to park the car. But this is neither Gods promise or our ordinary experience. It also ignores the downside of the assumption, namely that, if God actually has exhaustive definite foreknowledge, then whom you should marry and where you should park are already settled and in the crystal ball, and completely beyond any possibility of changing. Qe sera sera. Whatever will be, will be. To this line of reasoning open theists say, use the intelligence God gave you and get on with your life.24 13. I grant that open theism might appeal to those with a certain sort of spiritual makeup. Some believers seem to derive comfort from the thought that God has a reason for all the terrible things that happen to people. Open theists, by contrast, think it appalling to say, for example, that God had any reason for Auschwitz. We think that God the Fatherlike Jesuswept over it. Open theists celebrate the give and take relationships that we have with God and take energy from the idea that our lives can change history. I suppose that open theism appeals more to activists than to mystics.25

Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994). More recently, Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of Gods Openness (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001). 2. This happy phrase goals with open routes comes from John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 6366, 23035. 3. On the divine maybe, the divine if, and the divine questions, see Terence Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), ch 4. See James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, editors Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views with contributions by Gregory A. Boyd, David Hunt, William L. Craig, and Paul Helm (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2001). 4. For a sample of the kind of theology I refer to, see Bryan P. Stone and Thomas J. Oord, editors The Nature and Thy Name is Love: Wesleyan and Process Theologies in Dialogue (Nashville: Kingswood Books, 2001) and John B. Cobb Jr. and Clark H. Pinnock, editors Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue Between Process and Free Will Theists (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). 5. Might it not be that the long history of creation signals a gentleness on Gods part and his preference for a non-coercive creative process? Nancey Murphy and George Ellis, On the Moral Nature of the Universe: Theology, Cosmology, and Ethics (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996). 6. How a Calvinist sees the author and characters in a story deterministically: John M. Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P. & P. Publishing, 2002), 15659. 7. Walter Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ (New York: Crossroad, 1986), 306. Hendrikus Berhof, The Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Study of the Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), ch 1822. 8. Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeks Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 7274. 9. Viewing God as temporal is a new element too and would be a centre of controversy were our critics mainly Thomists rather than Calvinists. As it is, the Calvinists do not use it against us because so many of them have already conceded it (like Feinberg, Reymond, and Tiessen). See Gregory E. Ganssle, editor God and Time: Four Views (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2001), Gehard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of Creation out of Nothing in Early Christian Thought (Edinburgh: T&T Calark,1994), and Williama Lane Craig, Time and Eternity: Exploring Gods Relationship to Time (Wheaton Ill: Crossway Books, 2001). 10. An exhaustive presentation of the biblical data supporting of current omniscience is found in Lorenzo D, McCabe, The Foreknowledge of God and Cognate Themes in Theology and Philosophy (Cincinnati, OH: Hitchcock and Walden, 1878) and Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies a Necessity (New York: Phillips and Hunt, 1882). See also Gregory S. Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000). 11. Keith Ward, Cosmos and Kenosis in John Polkinghorne, editor The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,2001), 161. 12. John Polkinghorne, Serious Talk: Science and Religion in Dialogue (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995), ix, 41, 54. 13. For the logic, see Bruce A. Ware, The Diminished God of Open Theism (Wheaton, Ill: Crossways Books, 2000), ch 12 and Richard L. Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), ch 10. 14. Severely critical works include Norman L. Geisler (aka stormin Norman), Creating God in the Image of Man? The New Open View of GodNeotheisms Dangerous Drift (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1997); Bruce A. Ware, Gods Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2000); Douglas S. Huffman and Eric L. Johnson, editors God Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002); John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul K. Helseth,

Conclusion
Open theism belongs to a family of free will theists and makes a contribution to theology proper. It has attracted multiple objections which will keep a fruitful discussion going. We have to face a number of objections, some of which I have referred to here. Some of them are serious while others are not particularly telling. Let the reader be the judge and, of course, the respondents.26

Endnotes
1. For the definition and logic of open theism, see The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the traditional Understanding of God, by Clark H.

Open Theism: An Answer to My Critics . Clark H. Pinnock

245

editors Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Way Books, 2003); and John Frame, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2001). These evangelicals have at least this to their credit that they care about orthodox doctrine. 15. Ware, Gods Lesser Glory, 3438. Is this agreement between Ware and open theism not remarkable? Open theism is natural fresh growth in the field of free will theism. It deserves a place at the table. 16. David Ray Griffin, Traditional Free-Will Theism in Evil Revisited: Responses and Reconsiderations (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1991), 1422. Cobb and Pinnock, editors In Search of an Adequate God, ch 1 (Griffin and Hasker). 17. Gregory S. Boyd, Unbounded Love and the Openness of the Future: An Exploration and Critique of Pinnocks Theological Pilgrimage in Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross, editor Semper Reformandum: Studies in Honour of Clark H. Pinnock (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 2003), 3858. 18. Paul Helm observes that what compatibilist freedom is compatible with, is precisely determinism: The Providence of God (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 6668. 19. R. K. McGregor Wright, No Place for Sovereignty: Whats Wrong with Free Will Theism? (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1996).

20. For the debate, see Gregory E. Ganssle, editor God and Time: Four Views (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2001). On the Thomistic stake in timelessness, see Norman L. Geisler and H. Wayne House, The Battle for God: Responding to the Challenge of Neotheism (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2001), ch 3. Some critics arent happy if there is no one to battle with theologically. 21. Paul Helm, The Providence of God, ch 2. 22. See John Sanders, Excursus on Predictions and Foreknowledge The God Who Risks, 12937. 23. David Basinger argues that the God of process theism could do more and hence faces the same criticism: Power in Process Theism (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1988). David R. Griffin acknowledges that he now hols a stronger doctrine of evil and a more robust doctrine of divine power: Evil Revisited, 2. This narrows the gap between us. Also Gregory A. Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 2001). 24. Sanders, Divine Guidance The God Who Risks, 27578. 25. Pinnock, The Existence Fit, Most Moved Mover, ch 4. 26. John J. Feinberg places open theism in a middle position, between classical and process theism. It seeks to be a mediating proposal and (therefore) attracts criticism from both sides. No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2001), 6273.