Open Theism

The topic of Open Theism
One imagination about how God foreknows all history.

VIEWS ABOUT GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY

There are at least 3 ways that Christians explain the inner-workings regarding the Sovereignty of God or the Omniscience of God as it relates to His knowledge or awareness of events in human future (i.e., events that are yet to happen - one might see a need to qualify that statement to say “events that are yet to happen according to our perspective in limited time”, but I am going to avoid making this already complex topic even more complex. When it comes to the concept of time and God’s relationship to it, this topic can be very complex). 

THE NEW OPTION (Is it new? Is it valid when weighed by scripture?)

Open Theism is the newest of these three ways which Christians have come to explain God and His sovereignty and omniscience as regards events which have not yet happened. I have limited knowledge of Open Theism.  I have read one book (and I recommend it, but do not necessarily think this book may be the best introduction to the topic). I have read, God of the Possible by Greg Boyd (please note regarding Greg Boyd that I find him a great thinker and a man of God. I agree with some but not all of what he says. I find his writing/thinking very challenging and I appreciate anyone who writes theology that makes me think and approach biblical thinking in new ways and grounds those new thinking patterns on biblical interpretation).  I have also read limited portions of the following:  What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? By Millard Erickson (using Google books so the amount of reading is somewhat limited; this was all I could read on my limited budget). 

ARMINIANISM EXPLAINED

The first way Christians explain God’s view of future events is Arminianism. Arminianism is usually written as in opposition to Calvinism (one would normally define Calvinism first, and then write about Arminianism by defining where they differ from Calvinists. I am choosing to do this in reverse of the traditional order here). Jacob Arminius was a Calvinist but came to disagree with at least with certain points of Calvinism. His writings came to bear his name such that now the way we write about the view which is opposed to Calvinism bears his name. (Note there are facts about Calvin/Arminius clearly glossed over here. Consider this summary only) When you speak to an Arminian about God’s knowledge of the future regarding human choice, they usually state that God knows what will happen ahead of time even though the humans made actual choices. God simply knows what and how they will choose. One might call this SIMPLE DETERMINISM; the future is known to God (hat tip to Erickson for this description of simple determinism).

CALVINISM EXPLAINED

Pure Calvinism, on the other hand, understands history as an already written script. God wrote all of history. God knows what is going to happen down to every detail. God knows because He is the author (Calvinists very typically use the author metaphor. For example, God can move as an author does from some event way in the future and see/know/interact with events in the timeline there, and then He can move to an event way in the past and interact with the timeline events there.  He can do this regardless of whether time passes (as we see it) “normally” between those times.  He is the author of history. He is not bound by the timeline of history because it is His story.  In fact, using the words future and past are slightly odd even if necessary to describe God’s “outside of time” nature.  That is, we are speaking of the timeline of history as if it must somehow play out ... even though the author is not bound by such a timeline; he can write the 9th chapter after or before the 1st chapter; he can edit any chapter whether or not he chooses to go and edit any other chapter earlier or later (never mind a perfect God would likely write it  perfectly, and asserting He would need editing is slightly absurd – all metaphors break down at some point. Just go with me).  The author might choose to have two characters meet in chapter 3, so that in chapter 12 when they work together on some specific event, those characters already have a knowledge of one another based on the earlier meeting. Here is the key: that earlier meeting of two characters was arranged by the author.  The author makes the events of the later chapter work in a certain way so as to make the story happen as the author chooses).   At any rate, to the Calvinist, God knows what he wrote or determined, and the events will happen as He determines them. THE FUTURE IS NOT FUTURE TO HIM. In the author metaphor, even future events can be seen as having occurred (past tense) to God. God knows these events because He planned them down to every detail. As opposed to simple determinism, one might call this DETERMINISM ON STEROIDS (again, credit to M. Erickson for descriptive terminology). It’s more than simple determinism; the events are not just known and determined but actually willed by God.

WHAT ABOUT OPEN THEISM?

Open Theism is a new concept which has no thought or writing in church history until about the 1990s.  This might make the theory quite suspect.  Indeed, there was (still is for some, perhaps many evangelicals) a major controversy in the late 1990s/early 2000s, but as I understand the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) did not determine that Open Theists were indeed heretical even though their thinking is novel. Further, there are very few who side with this way of thinking.  Open Theists assert that God may, in certain areas, allow for human will to be genuine; he grants actual freedom of choice (some describe this as “actual libertarian freedom”). These specific future events are neither predetermined by God nor does God (even as an omniscient God) have foreknowledge of the outcome of the human decision (again, not because God is less than able, but because He has chosen to make it so).  God chooses to allow this to happen, and God chooses to be bound by a human timeline such that, until the event occurs, He does not know the outcome of the human choice (again, it’s not all events where God’s knowledge is limited; only those events God has specifically chosen to limit his knowledge so as to allow actual human freedom).  Thus, Open Theism is NOT DETERMINISM (as opposed to both Calvinism and Arminianism). Since it’s not determinism, the future is open. 

HOW CAN OPEN THEISTS BELIEVE IN SOVEREIGNTY?

The difficulty is to explain how Open Theists can still claim to believe in the Sovereignty or Omniscience of God.  I will attempt to explain one way of reconciling this. This explanation is all my own. If I am off the mark and either heretical or do an injustice to the thinking of Open Theists, blame me not Open Theists. 

First, Open Theists claim God voluntarily allows Himself to be limited as to future knowledge. It’s not that God, in choosing to create humankind and bind humans to an existence bound by time had to also limit his knowledge of the future.  God could have chosen to create a Calvinistic or Arminian world as regards his own knowledge of the future.  Instead, He chose to limit Himself presumably because He wanted humans to live in such a world; He wanted to give humans libertarian freedom.  We accept that an all-powerful God limits himself when He freely chooses in other ways (Christ, fully God, willingly chose to live in the life of a human with human limitations; nothing speaks of God’s miracle of self-limitation as much as a helpless babe in need of a diaper change) . This does not seem an objectionable understanding of God’s nature; there might be better examples, but this seems universally accepted by Christians.  

ANSWERING OBJECTIONS

More people seem to object to Open Theism on the grounds that God might somehow be surprised.  I find this, also, to be a limited objection to Open Theism.  Asserting that God grants to humans libertarian freedom – or the ability to make choices that God neither predetermined nor ones which God already knows the outcome – does not mean that God is limited. In addition, it is not necessary to imagine that God is surprised.  Imagine that God knows every possible outcome of every possible decision, and further, He knows how to bring about His will regardless of which decision any human makes among all the possible choices.  Asserting God grants humans libertarian freedom without knowledge of how they will choose until the moment when, in time, a human makes the individual choice, does not mean that God is ever surprised by the outcome or by the choices. God knows all the possibilities, and He has plans ready to carry out His will no matter the outcome of the choice (in a sense, the script is already written as the Calvinist insists; however God has many ( innumerable) different scripts ready to implement depending upon the choice. God simply did not know which choice would be made until the moment in time when the human acted. A human is incapable of inventing a novel or unexpected choice – some choice which God did not foresee (there is no “Kobayashi Maru” scenario with an omniscient God [sorry for the Star Trek reference]).  When one thinks of all the enormous or perhaps almost infinite number of choices multiplied by the enormous number of humans, we are talking about a hugely powerful God who keeps track of infinite interacting possibilities and yet is never surprised. 

METAPHOR TO DEMONSTRATE - CHESS

One might think about a metaphor of chess (interestingly after writing one draft of this, I heard NT Wright speak briefly on Open Theism - not as advocate, but in explanation. He used a metaphor of a chess master).  I’m going to mix this metaphor slightly. When computers first started being programmed to play chess, they first programmed the computers to choose among all of the possible options as the game played out. This proved impossible; the computer was not fast enough. After only a few moves, the number of possibilities in chess is enormous such that it takes scientific notation to number the possible moves after only a few moves by the players.  No computer could try out all possibilities to find the best option the time one would play a game of chess. Clearly, a chess master does not think through all the possible choices (good players know patterns and predict intuitively what kind of game is being played). Computers had to be programed to play in some other way other than choosing among all the possibilities; the computer was too slow. Even a supercomputer cannot evaluate that many choices in such a short time.  To return from the chess metaphor, what is impossible for a supercomputer is not impossible for God. 

I once remember watching a documentary about the American chess champion, Bobby Fischer.  What I remember watching (I was quite young, but remember this scene) is a college gym during the time when Fischer was an American folk hero of sorts.  In this gym, he played against 150 other players at the same time. One hundred fifty games at one time with tales encircling the floor of the gymnasium and crowds watching from the stands.  He would make one move and go on to the next table and make a move and then move on.  By the time he came all around the whole gym, he would make the next move and all the players had the entire time to think about their move while he made 149 other moves in 149 different games with 149 different people.  Although I only barely remember watching this documentary, I looked up and I think I did actually find some information about the movie I watched as a child. That night, Bobby won 147 games and lost zero games. Three of the college’s chess champions managed to play Bobby Fischer to a stalemate. So that night he was 147-0-3 (147 wins; zero losses; three ties).  This feeble metaphor shows an extraordinary human juggling multiple games at one time. This is a comparison to God, and it falls far short (all metaphors break down).  God is no mere chess champion (and human history is far larger than a gym with 150 chess gams going on simultaneously). Yet where Bobby Fischer was fallible even as a great chess champion, God is not fallible. God is infinitely more able than Bobby Fischer. God never loses track of anything, and (unless God wanted it to be done), no one would play God to a draw.  God can – unlike the computers and the chess champions – keep track of every possibility and never lose track or need more time to figure out His options.   This is a view of a Big God who can grant to all individuals true freedom of choice without knowing the outcome of human choice ahead of time. And because He is God and infallible, He can still bring about His will without losing a step, being startled or challenged in any way; He never even needs to pause to contemplate His next move. 

A DIFFERENT METAPHOR - AUTOR OF MULTIPLE BOOKS

It seems to me the God of Open Theism might present us with a God who is bigger than the limited God of the Calvinist or the Arminian understanding.  Comparing this idea to the Calvinist model, in which God wrote the story.  In the Open Theism model, God still wrote the story and provided for one outcome, even though he allowed the human to have free choice and limited himself many times to not knowing what the human's choice would be. Even in this scenario, God still knows all of the possibilities (past, present, and future) without being limited by time (except that He waits for the human choice to be made before implementing any one of a multiplicity of plans that will carry out His will). In the same way that the Calvinist presupposes God to be outside of time, the Open Theist can presuppose the same, except for certain instances where God waits upon a human to act (not because He is limited, but because He willingly chose to operate this way to give His creatures actual freedom to choose). The Open Theist simply knows that GOD MAY HAVE WRITTEN MULTIPLE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF HISTORY, all of which might have happened. God is still the author, and God still knows what will happen, though He has allowed, in certain instances, the human to decide certain events to unfold. God is ready with a version of history (a different version of the book He has written) which will unfold the way he intends history to unfold. God never loses a step in bringing about history the way He always intended it such that it turns out to be the same result the Calvinist imagines in that God wrote the story and knows every detail; He knows all the possibilities and when they play out, He still knows all the possibilities until such time as He brings history to a conclusion.  

AN ILLUSTRATION FROM PHYSICS?

In physics, there is a concept or a theory of many worlds. Imagine every time something could go (two or more) ways. The easiest way is to imagine a coin flip, which could be either heads or tails. The universe splits into two copies. In one copy, the coin lands heads, and if you are the person flipping the coin, you see heads (or any other choice option - such as you turned left). In the other universe that split, the coin came up tails (or you turned right). Both universes are real and exist side-by-side (so to speak). You experience the one reality, and "another you" experiences the other reality. Now turn that on its head. God, the author, writes multiple options of events and what the response is, so that his will comes out no matter the human choice. As opposed to science, which says this happens every time there is an event that can happen according to random chance, in the Open Theism explanation, which I am attempting, this only happens in the events in which God chooses to limit himself so that he does not know the outcome ahead of time. God chooses which events he wants the human's choice to be an actual outcome of libertarian freedom (not all events, just those select events, however many there may be). God, the author, has multiple plots ready when he chooses to limit himself to see how a human will choose; when God elects to allow humans actual libertarian freedom of choice.

I am a school librarian.  We had, for a short time, some open-ended or interactive e-books. In these books, the students could make decisions about what the characters did. The story ended differently -- according to the choices the student made when reading the story. (In this way, my comparison here is different than how I have laid out God bringing about the same ultimate end even though the choices of humans differed; nevertheless, allow me this comparison). The idea behind these interactive books was novel and fun, and yet they fell flat. They were not popular. They became flat and predictable.  The programmer could not make these stories have enough choices and the outcomes to be different enough for students to get engaged in the idea. They failed to be entertaining.  But imagine if the choices really could be real and numerous. Every reading of every story would be different. Even if one student re-reads a story and tries to make the same choices, something would be different, as one would not choose the same even if one purposefully tried. Some small change in even a trivial matter might make the story work a whole different way.  Yet the author wrote all the possible ways this story would or could play out. The author brings it to his intended conclusion, no matter the choices of the reader.

The God of the Possible (hat tip to Greg Boyd’s book) creates a world where humans have actual choice, and the God who limited Himself does not know what choice His created beings will make.  And yet that God can make the world such that it is as if He wrote the history or as if He intimately knew the predetermined future.  It is the very same outcome which God desires, even though the human makes a real and seemingly unpredictable choice (unpredictable as to which choice was made in a particular situation; not unpredictable to God, who knew even that unpredictable choice was one of the possibilities).

God wrote the history, almost as if in a still deterministic fashion.  God is so great that despite the granting of human actual freedom in addition to HIs willing limitation of foreknowledge of the human choice – He still knows the end; it is still His Story.  The events play out by human choice, but God still causes the plot to occur as He wills it. What the Calvinist -- who insists the future is determined and written ahead of time by God is true.  What the Arminian -- who insists God knows the outcome even if humans make unpredetermined choices -- is also true.  God is all-powerful and all-knowing. He grants human freedom without knowing the outcome of the individual human choice.  And yet, He knows what He will do when the choice is made, such that He knows exactly how He will bring about the future He wishes to bring about.  This is indeed a big and powerful God.   This is also a conflict of human logic, and it’s a mystery.  What the Calvinist and Arminian imagined – God knowing the outcome – is still true even though God chose to limit His knowledge of each individual choice. It’s not determinism, and yet God is still just as in control as a deterministic universe. 

It seems to me to be a conflict of logic. At the same time, this can be a picture of just how powerful the sovereignty, omniscience, and omnipotence of God really are. I find the concept of Open Theism both intriguing and fascinating.  I like to think about God's awesome power.
Whether this is how God actually operates, I am, as of now, not fully convinced. Perhaps, however, this might illustrate how complex the world actually is, with our God, the creator, fully still in control.

It is amazing to imagine God in new ways and to take those thoughts to scripture and see if they still fit within the context of the ultimate authority. Does this concept of God fit within the outline of the text of scripture? If so, isn't it amazing that this is the very same God who left the 99 (Matthew 18:12-14; Luke 15:4-7) sheep to go and find me? He did this because he wanted to cultivate a relationship with me.