I have been recently studying a growing theological trend entitled Openness Theology (Open Theism). After writing an 11 page paper on the subject I felt the need to blog.
A simple definition of Open Theism is the belief that God DOES NOT know the events of the future. Major proponents of this idea include Clark Pinnock, John Sanders and Boyd among others. In reading the opinions and views of these 'theologians' it seems that their beliefs are based out of misconceptions of man's relation to God. For example, in his book
The God Who Risks John Sanders states:
"Thus God does not have a specific divine purpose for each and every occurrence of evil. The 'greater good' of establishing the conditions of fellowship between God and creatures does not mean that gratuitous evil has a point. Rather, the possibility of gratuitous evil has a point but its actuality does not. ... When a two-month-old child contracts a painful, incurable bone cancer that means suffering and death, it is pointless evil. The Holocaust is pointless evil. God does not have a specific purpose in mind of these occurrences."
There are many problems with this statement. I see two main inconsistencies with Sanders' statement in light of scripture.
The first is that of Sanders' un-biblical view that mankind does not deserve death or suffering. Paul quotes Psalm 14 in Romans 3 when he says, "None is righteous, no, not one..." Because of our unrighteousness we are deserving of death. The idea in Sanders' statement is that if God knew the future He would never let a two-month-old contract an incurable cancer. This assumes that a small child deserves life from God. Sanders fails to recognize that everything that mankind does, without being completely and utterly destroyed, is made possible by the grace of God. James 1:15 says, "Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings for death." Because of the fall all are sinners, and all are deserving of death. Another example of this is seen in Luke 13:1-5. A group of people ask Jesus to explain why a group of people were murdered by Pilate. They seemed to expect an apology or a logical explanation for the unfortunate event. Instead, Jesus turns the question around on them and tells them that they will likewise perish unless they repent. He also reminded them of another disaster where a tower fell and killed eighteen people. Jesus tells them that they were just as guilty and deserving. Why would Jesus say something like that? Isn't that harsh? NO!! It's true! Sinners deserves death and we are all sinners.
The second inconsistency with scripture is Sanders assumption that his two examples (the two-month-old and the Holocaust) can not be used for God's glory. The story of Joseph in Genesis is an example of a life of unfortunate events that would never appear to be used for God's glory. A faithful servant, Joseph, was beaten and sold by his brothers, sent to a foreign land as a slave, falsely accused of adultery, and separated from his loving father. At the end of Genesis Joseph speaks of his trials: "But Joseph said to them, 'do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant good" Genesis 50:19-20 (ESV). This is just one of many biblical examples in which God uses something that appears to be evil as a part of his foreordained plan to glorify Himself.
2 Timothy 4:3 is a reminder that many will not endure sound doctrine but will instead hold to what their itching ears want to hear. It's important for us to hold strong to sound doctrine and refute the heretical beliefs that seem to solve the "problems" of scripture.
Holding Fast to the Truth of God's Word
Kevin
Labels: Doctrine, Theology
