The Dangers of Open Theism
Lesson Overview
The Dangers of Open Theism with Dr. Norman Geisler
This standalone message is given by Dr. Norman Geisler, philosopher and co-founder of Southern Evangelical Seminary, delivered the morning after his talk on biblical inerrancy. His subject is what he calls “the battle for God”: the effort to defend the biblical doctrine of God, fought on two fronts. The external front is the world’s rival views of God; the internal front, which concerns him most, is a movement inside the evangelical church called open theism. Use this overview to review the key points after watching the full video. This is a more technical lesson in systematic theology, so working slowly with an open Bible will help.
Why the Battle for God Matters
Geisler begins by arguing that everything Christians believe rests on who God is. Christ can be the Son of God only if there is a God; the resurrection can be an act of God only if there is a God who acts; the Bible can be the Word of God only if such a God exists. So getting the doctrine of God right is foundational to everything else. He notes that we cannot recognize a counterfeit unless we know the genuine, and that Jesus said God must be worshiped “in spirit and in truth,” so worship built on false ideas about God is not true worship.
The External Front: Rival Views of God
Before turning to the internal battle, Geisler surveys the world’s competing views of God, defining each in contrast to biblical theism (the belief in one infinite, personal God who is beyond the world and also acts within it through miracles):
Deism holds that God created the world and its moral order but does not intervene with miracles. Geisler notes that some American founders, such as Jefferson and Franklin, were deists rather than Christians, and that Jefferson removed the miracles from his edition of the Gospels. His argument against deism: a God who could make the world from nothing could surely do lesser miracles like turning water into wine.
Finite godism holds that God is limited in power or goodness (he cites Rabbi Harold Kushner, whom he debated, saying we should “forgive God” for a world he could not make better).
Atheism denies God altogether (Nietzsche’s “God is dead”).
Pantheism holds that God is all and all is God, so evil is an illusion (he cites Christian Science).
Panentheism or process theology holds that the world is God’s “body,” and that God is changing and growing, not in control, “waiting to see how things turn out” (he traces it to Alfred North Whitehead).
Polytheism holds that there are many gods (he cites the teaching of Joseph Smith that men may become gods). Against all of these Geisler sets the Bible’s insistence on one God: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one.”
The Internal Front: What Open Theism Is
Geisler then turns to his main subject. Open theism (also called free-will theism or neo-theism) is, in his description, a hybrid that takes part of classical Christian theism and part of process theology. He names three proponents, all of whom he says he knows personally and considers sincere, nice men (Clark Pinnock, Greg Boyd, and John Sanders), stressing that the question is not their character but whether their teaching accords with the Bible.
He is careful to list where open theists agree with historic Christianity: they affirm that God is infinite, the Creator who made the world from nothing, the uncaused cause, a necessary being, supernatural and able to do miracles, and (these three men) that the Bible is infallible. The disagreement is elsewhere.
The distinctive claims of open theism, as Geisler presents them, are that God has “parts” (is not simple), that God is changeable, that God is in time, that God is reactive rather than proactive, and, most importantly, that God does not know future free choices for certain. On the open-theist view, God does not infallibly know who will be saved or exactly what any free creature will do, and therefore (Geisler argues is the implication) biblical prophecies about free acts cannot be guaranteed.
The Dangers: Geisler’s Case Against Open Theism
The heart of the talk is a series of arguments that these claims undermine the historic Christian doctrine of God. Because this is careful systematic theology, the main lines of argument are summarized here:
God is eternal, not temporal. The Bible speaks of God acting “before time began.” Geisler argues (drawing on the observation that time, space, and matter come as a package) that if God were in time He would also be spatial and material, which would make Him a creature with a beginning, not God. He uses the Kalam argument (that an infinite series of past moments cannot actually be traversed) to say the universe had a beginning, but God, as eternal, did not.
God knows the future for certain. Against the claim that God cannot know future free acts, Geisler marshals Scripture: God foreknew and predestined (Romans 8:29), chose believers before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1), declares “the end from the beginning” (Isaiah 46:9-10), and named Cyrus 150 years in advance. He contrasts God’s perfect predictions with the failed guesses of popular psychics.
God does not change His mind. An all-knowing mind has nothing new to learn, so it cannot change. Where the Bible says God “repented,” Geisler explains this as God relenting when people repent, not God changing: God is eternally consistent, always opposed to sin and always merciful to the penitent. He illustrates with Niagara Falls (the falls do not change when a man turns his cup upright) and Aquinas’s image of a man moving around a pillar (the person moves in relation to the pillar, not the pillar in relation to the person). What changes is our relationship to God, not God Himself.
God is simple, not made of parts. An infinite being cannot have parts, because anything with parts could always have another part added, and nothing can be more than infinite. God is one in essence, even though we describe Him with many attributes (as one stone can be gray, round, and heavy yet remain one stone).
God cannot change. Since God has no parts, He cannot undergo the kind of change that requires gaining or losing a part, and since He is a necessary being, He cannot go out of existence. So an unchanging, necessary, infinite God who nevertheless changes is, Geisler argues, incoherent.
Prophecy proves foreknowledge. The Bible predicted Christ’s death (Isaiah 53; the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, Revelation 13:8; delivered by God’s determined foreknowledge, Acts 2:23), yet Jesus laid down His life freely (John 10:18). This shows, Geisler argues, that there is no contradiction between God’s certain foreknowledge and genuine free will: God knew for certain what Jesus would freely choose.
The false-prophet test. Scripture’s test for a false prophet is whether his predictions come true (and the penalty was severe). Geisler argues that on the open-theist view, since God’s predictions about free acts could fail, God Himself would fail His own test, which he calls an absurd result.
It undermines God’s sovereignty. If God does not control the outcome and does not know how free creatures will choose, Geisler argues, He cannot guarantee His final victory over evil or that anyone at all will be saved. Against this he sets texts on God’s sovereign rule (the king’s heart in God’s hand, Proverbs 21:1; no plan of God’s can be thwarted, Job 42:2).
He resolves the nature-versus-activity question with another Aquinas illustration: a doctor prescribes seven pills, one a day, in a single act, but they are taken across seven days. Likewise God acts from eternity in one changeless act, while the effects of that act unfold at different times in history.
The Conclusion
Geisler concludes that open theism is “unbiblical, illogical, and unorthodox”: unorthodox because it denies doctrines the historic creeds affirm, including the sovereignty, omniscience, immutability, simplicity, and eternality of God, and the infallibility of the Bible. He judges that in the historic, creedal sense it is not a Christian view of God, and he urges believers inside the church to take it seriously precisely because everything they believe depends on who God is. He closes by praying that believers would “test the spirits” and not be carried about by every wind of doctrine, however sincerely or attractively presented.
A note for students: open theism is a real position held by a small number of evangelical scholars, and Geisler here gives the classical-theist case against it in strong terms. It is worth knowing that the debate is genuine and ongoing, that open theists respond to these arguments (for example, by reading the “repentance” passages more literally and appealing to human freedom), and that most of the broader questions here (God’s relationship to time, foreknowledge and free will, divine simplicity) have been debated by sincere Christian thinkers for centuries. Geisler represents the mainstream classical position; students encountering the open-theist side should read it in its own words as well.
Key Terms
Open theism: the view, held by a few evangelicals, that God is in time and does not know future free choices for certain.
Classical theism: the historic doctrine of God as eternal, unchanging, simple, all-knowing, and sovereign.
Divine simplicity: the teaching that God is not composed of parts.
Immutability: the teaching that God does not change.
Omniscience: God’s complete knowledge, including of future free acts.
Foreknowledge and free will: God’s certain knowledge of what creatures will freely choose, which Geisler argues are compatible.
Verses to Know
Deuteronomy 6:4, the Lord our God is one. Isaiah 46:9-10, declaring the end from the beginning. Malachi 3:6, I the Lord do not change. Numbers 23:19, God is not a man, that he should repent. Romans 8:29, whom he foreknew he also predestined. Acts 2:23, delivered by the determined foreknowledge of God. Proverbs 21:1, the king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord.
Takeaway
Geisler argues that open theism, by placing God in time and denying that He knows the future for certain, trades the God of the Bible for a finite, changing, uncertain God, and that Scripture and reason together affirm instead an eternal, unchanging, all-knowing, sovereign God whose certain foreknowledge is fully compatible with genuine human freedom.