To many Christians, there is still that though runs wild that sense of doubt that lingers beneath their mind. The unanswered questions which they so much wish would be answered. This question is on how much God knows and whether everything that happens is all within His knowledge. We learn of God as the Supreme Creator, the beginning and the end, who is able to hear and see everyone’s thought. He holds the future of every living being within and knows the outcome of every situation even before it starts. Yes, that is how powerful God is. However, we still learn about man’s free will and how much God allows a man to do so much that would at times end up being harmful to them. We are left to make choices and decisions which have consequences some of which are catastrophic to man. Here is where the confusion is because if God knows the future for man then why does he still let the man choose a path of destruction one that would even make them lose their lives or perish completely. Therefore from these questions, we intend to study deeply and research to understand better God’s knowledge for man and why He acts as He does.
Thesis Statement
Open Theism is one aspect of theology that has become very important to study in the present day since it is one of the three kinds of theology that tries to explain God’s character. We are studying the subject of Open Theism especially the one by Clack Pinnock with the intentions of understanding why our dear Lord and Father above acts as he does and of what benefit it is to mankind. We shall first have a look up at what Open Theism is and its definition according to theologians. Then from the description take a step back and study from where the idea of Open Theism arose and how much it has evolved in the near future. From studying that, then we can look at different analysis by different theologians pertaining to this topic and what is fact and what can be disputed. From the analysis by past researchers, we can come up with our new analysis and make a conclusion.
The Definition of Open Theism
The term Open Theism is a type of thesis in which it tries to explain how because of God’s love for man, He has bestowed upon them the free will to choose their paths with minimal interference. Though God is omniscient and knows everything: the past, the present and the future, He has decided to take a back seat and let the man choose his path whether towards Him or away from Him. No matter what path one decides on taking in order to lead them to their future even if destructive, God does not interfere. This is because of His great love for us, He decides to let things flow and let us choose on what way we can love Him back without being imposing or dictatorial (Rissler, 2018). Rissler goes on further to explain how even though God knows all and is able to see all the possible outcomes that arise from man’s actions, it is difficult to discern on what man would eventually choose and the path he most likely would take (Rissler, 2018).
This is His plan for us that we would at no point feel coerced to loving Him because of his greatness but instead have pure love for Him that arises from loving our Dear Lord as a choice a true love Him just as He shows to us.
The Evolution of Open Theism
Initially, in the past, there existed only two thoughts of theology. The first one being Classical Theism while the second, Process Theism. Classical Theism believes in the rigidity of God’s aspects and how they are never changing. Those who follow this thought believed that from the beginning God was supreme and all His aspects were perfect. He, therefore, cannot in any way change or improve since he is already completely perfect. It further to expound on how God knows everything from the past that we have dwelt in, the present we are dwelling and into the future we are going to dwell in. Therefore there is no point in time that God’s knowledge could be said to develop with time since it is already well developed (Pozzi, 2016). However, the Process Theism theologians differ in thinking in that they believe that God’s knowledge cannot be rigid and still developing. The reason behind this thought is that if God has prior knowledge to all the happenings in the future and every bad thing that takes place, why then does He let them happen. Therefore, process theologians believe that God’s knowledge of the future develops with the occurrence of man’s choices and the path that they take to lead them (Pozzi, 2016). These two thoughts are what divided the ancient school of thoughts in theology concerning God’s knowledge of mankind and His perfect will for us. The Open Theism was developed trying to act as a bridge between the two totally separate beliefs. It agreed on Gods infinite and unchanging knowledge but also still focused on God’s love for mankind and how this let him lay back a bit in imposing His will over mankind in order to influence them to their destiny as He has knowledge of. However the Open Theism agreed with the Process Theism in that although God has perfect knowledge of the past, the present and the future of every man and the entire mankind, it is somewhat difficult that he specifies the outcome of a particular individual because of the free will that He bestowed upon. Therefore God’s knowledge of one future is influenced by the path that one decides to take in the present (Pozzi, 2016).
The Historical Review of God’s Foreknowledge and Its Significance to Open Theism
In his thesis, Pozzi divides the history of God’s Foreknowledge into four distinguishable eras. These eras are ancient era, the medieval era, modern era and contemporary era. Each of this has had a role in defining what God’s Foreknowledge is as we know it today and even understand God’s unique aspects better.
Ancient Era
The documented works from this period concerning God’s Foreknowledge are very limited. However, there are three church fathers who tried to expound broadly on the topic. Most of the views on God’s Foreknowledge in this era are drawn from the Jewish Origins and the Biblical scriptures. There are none that are drawn from present-day philosophical thoughts by theologians. We shall base our study concerning the ancient era from the views of the three Church Fathers (Pozzi, 2016).
Clement believed that God had foreknowledge of all situations and future occurrences. To add on to that, he believed that God showed this foreknowledge to some human beings. He gives one instance of where God shared foreknowledge with a man. The story in the Old Testament where God instructed the Israel elders to collect their stuff in order to choose a priest is one example. He already knew that He wanted the priest to come from the house of Levi. He, therefore, instructs all elders to throw their staff down and says that whoever’s staff has buds growing from it would be a priest. Clement believes prior to this God had shared with Moses who He wanted as His priest. However, in order to make sure that no wrangles arose, He came up with a way that gave everyone a fair chance. Eventually, the buds grow from the staff of Aaron and therefore He is chosen as God’s priest for Israel (Pozzi, 2016).
With relation to Open Theism, Clement opposes that God gives man complete free will to act as he pleases. He further goes on to state how every action has its reciprocating consequence and therefore God has the foreknowledge that for every sinful action there is a punishment. The story of Lot and his wife seems the best analogy for Clement. He tells of how due to Lot’s obedience, his life is saved while his wife perishes due to her disobedience. They both had choices but the choices were followed by contrasting repercussions (Pozzi, 2016).
Justin Martyr is the second theologian. He sees God’s Foreknowledge as how everything that He prophesied through prophets took place in the end. All that He says happens. One good instance of this is the Bible how God foretold of Abraham’s wife pregnancy even though all odds seemed against. Then there is the prophecy through Elisha where he foretells of the Shunemite woman that she would give birth a year after then. Then there is where He tells David of the throne never leaving his household. In here, He has knowledge of Jesus's descending to earth as an everlasting King and saving man from his sinful nature (Pozzi, 2016).
With regards to Open Theism, Justin Martyr feels that for even Open Theists agree of God’s Foreknowledge over future occurrences. This is shown by them agreeing that God has knowledge of what happens in the future. The only disputable fact between him and Open Theists is that God has minimal knowledge of man’s future actions.
The last theologian during the ancient era was Irenaeus. In his belief, he connected Foreknowledge to prophesy. Prophesies are God’s knowledge of the future passed to mankind through prophets (Pozzi, 2016). On the matter of Open Theism, Irenaeus argued that free will was bestowed upon to make them responsible for the choices they made. He further went on to say that if man had no free will then he wouldn’t be accountable for his action. Moreover, he adds on and says that having Foreknowledge does not mean necessarily mean that God predestines one. Instead, He gives a chance to man to make choices that would influence their destiny.
Medieval Era
The Medieval Age gave man a chance to dig deeper into the Bible since there was a decrease in the condemnation of man. The question that really was the hot seat of this era was the compatibility of free will with God’s Foreknowledge.
Augustine of Hippo agreed entirely in God’s complete knowledge of the future and its occurrence. He knew what exactly was to take place since His knowledge went beyond time and nature. He however, goes further and adds an aspect of foreordination where he says that God predestines every future occurrence. Therefore God knows that man will sin and therefore since He knows it comes to pass. The aspect of foreordination was a controversy to what we know as freewill since if God foreordained then how exactly did man have a choice. This thought by Augustine contrasted the belief by Open Theist that man had a choice in choosing hence laying out his future (Pozzi, 2016).
Aquinas agreed with the Classical Theism that saw God as completely omniscient. His knowledge of the past, the present and the future is perfect and therefore cannot be changed. He, however, went further and clarified that from the scripture man had the freedom to do whatever he wanted (Pozzi, 2016). From this view, Aquinas stated that God’s knowledge existed externally from time and therefore from free will whatever action man did from his free will was not in any way influenced by God’s knowledge.
William of Ockham thought of God’s Foreknowledge differently. He believed that the past had two facts: one that is hard and the other soft. Hard facts are those that are fixed while soft are those that can change since they are related to the future. He further went and expressed God’s Foreknowledge as soft facts. By this, he meant that God could move over future and past events and tune them according to man’s free will and the choices they made. This was a contrast to the Open Theism beloved that the past was unchangeable and fixed. Therefore Open Theists see that it makes no sense that God could move through past and future events streamlining the past to the future that man chose (Pozzi, 2016).
John Calvin claimed that God’s Foreknowledge was absolute. He, therefore, knew everything that would be in the past, the present and the future. Therefore the future was already preordained. He claimed that man’s free will was relative. God has plans for man and they have to come to pass according to ordination. However, though man was compelled by God to take the path to the right destiny, he could decide to opt for a different path. However, God’s foreordination came to pass since He made sure to tune it to the destiny (Pozzi, 2016).
Modern Era
The period for the modern era was between the sixteenth century period and the Second World War period. Three main ideologies shaped up the thoughts on God’s on Foreknowledge as we know it today (Pozzi, 2016).
The first ideology was by Luis de Molina. He struggled with the thought of how man’s free will and God’s Foreknowledge really could coexist in the same niche. It is from this that he came up with the theory that there were three forms of knowledge: knowledge of what we know, knowledge of what is possible and then in between knowledge of the contingent future. The contingent future is knowledge of the possible outcomes in the future. Molinism argued that God’s Foreknowledge was contingent in that He has knowledge of so many possible outcomes in the future. These outcomes are determined by the choice one decides to take. Therefore, God’s Foreknowledge is a conditional loop where an event can only happen if a relating event precedes it (Pozzi, 2016).
After Molina came Jacobus Arminius. His argument was that God’s Foreknowledge and human free will could exist in one niche and in no way did one depend on the other. Arminius thought was that God having prior knowledge of an occurrence did not necessarily mean that it was necessary. A good instance is the story of Jonah and Nineveh. God had prior knowledge of the destruction of Nineveh if the city still lived in sin but the destruction was not necessary but only was determined by the decision they took. In contrast to Molina is that God had no future contingents but instead his knowledge was on what man does but what man would have done if he had done. Open Theism contrast the theory by Arminius in that it sees it impossible for God to have Foreknowledge for man with his free will (Pozzi, 2016).
Contemporary Era
The Contemporary Era was characterized by the theology of Open Theism. Open Theist ruled out the authenticity of Classical Theism since it was based upon the philosophy of Hellenists and that those on Classical Theism were greatly under the influence of those Hellenist views. Pozzi goes further to suggest that even theologians had some insights on the Open Theism. Heratilicus, for instance, believed that the world was changing and therefore even God’s knowledge was subject to alteration with the wave of change. The other was anatomist by the name Epicurus who argued that the world as it is as a result of atomic interactions. He claimed that the path of atoms was not straight and therefore this led to collusion and changes (John, 2015). Therefore showing how the world was subject to change. These were the first influences for the Open Theism view. It is from these theories of the changing nature of the world that the definition of Foreknowledge came to pass with regards to Open Theism. God’s Foreknowledge and Omniscient nature means that he has knowledge of all that he presently can. Theologians in the future have tried to exclude God from the activities of the world in order to accommodate human free will into the picture.
Open Theism by Clark Pinnock
Clark Pinnock is one of the greatest contributors to Open Theism (Paulsen, 2006). In his work, Clark Pinnock said that God was unchanging only in two of His aspects: His essence and Trustworthiness but His other aspects were mutable. So Pinnock further claims that to some extent human decisions and choices influence some aspects of God. A good example is the book of Genesis where God is enraged with mankind and therefore is filled with regret for creating them; the rage is what results in the great flood that wiped out the world during the time of Noah. Pinnock further goes ahead and tries to explain why God bestowed upon man free will to do as they wished (John, 2015). He claims that it was because of God’s undying love for man that He bestowed upon him the will to love Him back as man saw fit (Paulsen, 2006). This free will bestowed upon man gave him the right to do as he pleased and as for that set his own destiny whether it drew him closer to our Heavenly Father or further from Him. Then Pinnock also covers the point of during creation where God created the world from nothing and molded it into something beautiful (Zeeb " Louis, 2015). Even then God really would not have settled on a particular future and therefore this fact limited His Foreknowledge to some deal. For if he had prior knowledge on the future, would He have allowed man to go so much astray while he sat back (Paulsen, 2006). Pinnock tries to explain this by saying that that some aspects of the future are settled while some are unsettled. In the same way, some parts of the future are already determined while others are not determined. Therefore this limits God’s prior knowledge of the future instead God decides to know all that can be known at the time or all that He chooses to know at the time.
Clark Pinnock focused on six main points as he gave his insights of Open Theism and the reason as to why it was the most logical thing to believe him while understanding what we mean by God’s forethought.
The first point we look at is that of God’s love. Clack Pinnock seemed to suggest that the main reason God has limited foreknowledge on man’s actions of the future is for no other reason but His love. God loves man excessively that He decides to give him a free will to make his own choices (John, 2016). Therefore, man is able to choose whether He wants to love God and stay close to God or not. It is because of His great love for man, that God decides not to be imposing on man. We all know that God is Supreme and He would have chosen to impose all He wanted on man and therefore plan out man’s whole life like a puppeteer but decides no let man decide for himself. So here is where the theory of Open Theism comes in. God has no actual foreknowledge of man because He can not really tell what road man will go because there is the issue of the future not definite. Therefore though the future is clear to God, it would still be indefinite since man might make a choice that takes a path that would alter the future completely. In simple terms, we can say that God loves man. He, therefore, is moved or affected by man’s choices and decisions that alter his destiny and ways of the Future (Frame, 2018).
The next point of view on Clark's contribution to Open Theism was focused on God’s sovereignty over man and the whole world. Pinnock comes up with one neat argument that seems rather sensible and well explaining. He focuses on how God decided to give up His sovereignty over all actions of man because He loved them. Sovereignty is simply the state of making laws and imposing them on the relevant audience without considering their input into it. This can not be said to be God’s action since man has a choice in all that he does. God allows man to decide whether he’ll take path A or path B. Therefore making his own future. Moreover, God allows that His future actions be dictated by man’s decisions in the present. He, therefore, makes laws and acts while considering the choices that were made by man at the time. Sovereignty as defined does not allow the consideration of others into the general decision-making process. By restraining some of His power and might in order to loosen His full grip and the rigidity of man’s future as He wishes is one the perfect actions by which God demonstrates His undying love to His creation especially man. He shows man completely that he has the freedom to choose the path that he sees best to be followed and therefore allows man to learn and grow more and more towards in not an imposing way but a way that seems most effective. This is because man does not love God because he has to but instead, man shows God actual and real love because he feels the urge to. However, though God gave free will to man, He still exercises his duty as man’s guide and tries to coerce them to make the right decision and make them follow the path that leads them from man’s general destruction. By doing this, man is returned to the path that was intended for man even in his tender age. So, in the end, God’s plan for the future is executed.
The other aspect of Open Theism that Pinnock sees it important that we understand, is that of time. Most theologians in the Modern era try to explain God’s Foreknowledge by saying that God existed and lived out of time. By that, they meant that God moved in the past, present, and future trying to alter the happenings of now having seen what the actions of the past brought to the future (Luter, 2004). By doing that there’s no real past, present, or future since God does a rewind giving room to change the future. Pinnock comes up with a different opinion of how time relates to Open Theism. He seems to suggest that there is no real future. God has let what we call the future to be as a result of any actions that are undertaken by both man and God together. It is, therefore, a collective action. By collective, I mean that for there to be a future, man has to make a decision in the present. This decision sets him on a path that leads towards a certain destiny. Then from the decision, God reacts since we all know that God is emotionally moved by all human actions by man in the present. This reaction lets him alter the action and results of time after the present time. Therefore, the time called future becomes that as a result of two things: man’s decisions and God’s reactions. This suggestion would make sense even looking at a couple of Biblical accounts. The first being in Genesis, God intended that man would live in the garden all his life. He expected that they would stay together and fellowship with each other. He had provided, every possible thing that man would possibly need in that Garden and therefore had a foreknowledge of man’s future being on that their relationship would be close (John, 2016). However, man disobeys God and eats from the forbidden fruit. There is an altered future for man since after this God punishes man and removes him from the beautiful garden He had created for man’s presence. Even then we see the free will to eat or not to eat the fruit. Man eating the fruit is a decision which leads to a reaction where God decides to punish man. Therefore instead of man’s future being there dwelling in the garden and being in fellowship with God, a new future is set where he has to work for whatever he eats and also has to struggle to commune with God (Frame, 2018).
Another major point that Pinnock seems to focus on is that of God’s willing to take risks with His creation. Even when He created man, He did not want to create beings that He could puppet or let them bore down to His need. God created unique beings and even created them in a more complex way. The first accounts of creation are all by word of mouth “Let there be” and whatever was spoken by God. However, when it comes to man’s creation, it’s a bit more different. The first is a communion of the Holy Trinity which decides on making man in its own image. Then man is first moulded to dust to the physical being he is right now. After moulding him, God breathes into him to give man air. This is the first demonstration of love. He then puts man in the garden and gives Him authority over all the beings in the garden. He further gives man the free will to eat whatever he wanted in the garden. God does not decide that since He loves man, He will be overprotective. On the contrary, due to this love, He gives man the freedom to choose. This is a risky move since God knew well that whatever action man took be it positive or negative would affect Him in a positive or negative manner respectively. He knew that actions by man could hurt Him or even make Him regret His decisions. He still decides to have man to choose his way and let him make his everyday decisions. This is a real act of love (John, 2016). By taking this risk, God draws some of His grip on the future. The future is therefore open and can only be closed only when man takes an irreversible decision. Pinnock's point on God being able to take risks compliments the theory of Open Theism since this ability is what allows free will on man. Free will on man, therefore, limits Foreknowledge of the future (Levi, 2014). The future can not really become certain since man actions will always alter whatever shape the future will take.
Another focus was that of God’s vulnerability. Pinnock claims that God’s love for man makes Him vulnerable. He loves man so excessively that whatever his actions are in the present affects what God has shaped the future for. Man’s future could be that of damnation, however; he turns his ways and makes a decision that brings him closer to God. In this situation, God would change the future to suite the path that man had taken then. Furthermore, God is filled with emotions such as love, sympathy, and anger which we can clearly see from the Bible. Each of these emotions males God’s vulnerable to man’s decisions. If man’s decisions are those of immorality and sin, God becomes enraged. One such case is the story of Noah where He floods the whole world due to man’s disobedience. This alters the future as it was to be since the future is somewhat shaped up from Noah’s account. The fall of Israel is also another Biblical demonstration of how man's decisions move God’s emotions. Israel turned away from God and then God decided to let them get captured in Babylon. This was not a future that had already been set. There is no way God would have let Israel become captives of Babylon if they truly had abided by His rules and followed his law. This clearly explains how God is vulnerable, like any loving Father, to man’s actions and decisions. For every action, He has to have a reciprocating reaction and it is from this vulnerability that the future is set.
Therefore the future changes constantly due to this two aspects of God, His love and His vulnerability (Levi, 2014). This claim by Pinnock further adds to the understanding of what really is Open Theism and why we could say that God has limited Foreknowledge for the future.
The last point that Pinnock focused was the aspect of God’s essence only being immutable. By essence, we mean his character. God’s character could never change that’s why He is said to be the beginning and the end, and He is today just as He was yesterday. However, He is not immutable in all aspects such as His plans and decisions are not really immutable but instead are affected by man’s conduct and actions. If man sons then God will be angered hence punishing man. If man pleases God, then God is happy and therefore He blesses man. Therefore man’s actions alter God’s plans and decisions for the future and shapes up the future that God sees fit (Levi, 2014).
We could say that Clark Pinnock intensively explained the aspect of Open Theism and why the love of God limits His ability to have Foreknowledge of everything in the future as of right now. He decides to let his most precious beings, man, to take their course of action and from that course, He shapes up the future for them.
Author’s Statement
The aspect of God being omniscient but still bestowing upon man free will is really complex. For we know God as the Supreme Being and that with infinite wisdom and power. Therefore, it is complicated to understand why He lets us find our own path to Him or why He lets us walk a path that would lead us to destruction. From the above work, God has immense love for us and that we cannot doubt and that He knows the past, the present, and the future. In agreement with Pinnock, God sometimes just lets us walk the path to loving him with no interference that the love may be pure.
Work Cited
Adeboye, Godwin Oriyomi. "A Critique Of Open Theists’solution To Divine Foreknowledge- Freewill Dilemma In The Light Of Augustinian Freewill Theory." American Journal of Biblical Theology 17 (2016): 12.
Dane, Tim. "Front Range Bible Institute." (2018).
Frame, J. “ Open theism and divine foreknowledge.” http://www.framepoythress.org,
accessed on 09.10.2018
Griffin, David Ray. Searching for an Adequate God: A dialogue between process and free
will theists. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.
Grössl, Johannes, and Leigh Vicens. "Closing the Door on Limited-Risk Open Theism." Faith and Philosophy (2014).
Hasker, William, Thomas Jay Oord, and Dean Zimmerman, eds. God in an open universe:
science, metaphysics, and open theism. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2011
Holden, Joseph M. "Open Theism, Analogy, and Religious Language." I Am Put Here for
the Defense of the Gospel: Dr. Norman L. Geisler: A Festschrift in His Honor (2016): 204.
John, Peckham. "The Love Of God: A Canonical Model.". Seminary Studies 54 (Spring 2016), vol 1, no. 1, 2015, pp. 182-186., Accessed 6 Nov 2018.
Johnson, Gary. "Thy Will Be Done". The Heidelberg Catechism, no. 89, 2016, pp. 1-4., Accessed 6 Nov 2018.
Levi, Don. "Philosophy and the Bible: The Case of Open Theism." Philosophy and Literature 38.1 (2014): 169-187.
Luter, A. Boyd. “From Bad to Worse: A Potrait of Open Theism as a Theological
System.” Faculty Publications and Presentations (2004): 287.
Paulsen, David. "Are Christians Mormon?: Reassessing Joseph Smith's Theology In His Bicentennial". BYU Studies Quarterly, vol 45, no. 1, 2006, pp. 1-94., https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol45/iss1/3. Accessed 5 Nov 2018.
Pozzi, Michael. "The Knowledge Of God". For Bend Christians Honors Apologies, vol 1, 2016, pp. 1-47. Google Scholar, https://scholar.google.com/scholar?OpenTheismbyClarkPinnock2014. Accessed 5 Nov 2018.
Rissler, James. "Open Theism | Internet Encyclopedia Of Philosophy". Iep.Utm.Edu, 2018, https://www.iep.utm.edu/o-theism/. Accessed 5 Nov 2018.
Zeeb, Janelle Louise. An Analysis of Clark Pinnock's Open Theism as a Potential Solution
to Theodicy. Diss. Tyndale Seminary, 2015.
