Title Openness Theology-updated
content br>
Since the recent upheaval of openness theology, much confusion has been brought into theological debate. But its evolutionary proposal is in no way confined to the scholarly world. Many laymen have been exposed to this false notion of a better way to do theology in materials putout by well-known evangelical publishers. Note the audacity of Pinnock's presentation of the character of God, God's openness means that God is open to the changing realities of history, that God cares about us and lets what we do impact him. Our lives make a difference to God. Are they truly significant? and also, the all-powerful God delegates power to the creature, making himself vulnerable.?
The impact of openness theology has challenged not only the omniscience of God, but virtually all other attributes as well. It has seriously undermined the orthodox theology proper, resulting in a less glorious God. Among subjects that have been mishandled,immutability of God has been fiercely attacked.
Seriousness of the Issue
Open theists claim that God does not have comprehensive foreknowledge and lets humans make their own decisions. Consequently, God is affected by what happens in history. God is passive and thus he is open to change. However, this conclusion is clearly contrary to biblical teachings about God's immutability. God said in Mal 3:6, I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.If God changes, is he faithful? If God is unfaithful, the Bible must be in error for it declares, the Lord is good; his lovingkindness is everlasting, and His faithfulness to all generation(Ps 100:5). Evidently, the openness claim that God can change is a direct opposition to Mal 3:6 and Ps 100:5. If one takes away God's immutability, one is forced to negate the remaining attributes of God as well. Thus, if one attribute of God is attacked (in this case immutability), it would eventually lead to a rejection of orthodox Theology Proper altogether.
Does God change??is the question this paper seeks to answer. Since God's nature is the issue, the only logical procedure to take is to study God's Word. This will ensure an accurate and absolute solution. When a biblical answer is obtained, Augustine's doctrine of immutability will be considered for a brief check.
REDEFINING GOD'S IMMUTABILITY
The proponents of open theism denotes a negative connotation to traditional view of God. Pinnock comments that traditional theology is biased in the direction of transcendence as the result of undue philosophical influences?and blames tradition for people's failure to experience God, this is because of tradition. He also assumes that the traditional view has resulted from secular philosophical influence, I want to overcome any distortions caused by excessive Hellenization thus traditional theologies are Poor theologies that are biased.? Moreover, he calls tradition a tilt, and an ambalance, claiming that the early church fathers ?tried] to integrate current philosophical beliefs and biblical insights.? But modern culture,he says, an actually assist us in this task [of correcting traditional understanding of God] because the contemporary horizon is more congenial to dynamic thinking about God than is the Greek portrait.? He even makes a proud suggestion, let me attempt to correct the imbalance in theology,s handling of transcendence and immanence
Interestingly, the open theists recognize the passages that indicate God,s immutability (Mal 3:6; Jas 1:17; Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Ps 90:2; 1 Tim 1:17) but give a narrower definition of immutability, claiming to accept Scripture at face value and that they do not have to dismiss difficult passages as anthropomorphisms. They say that most of the biblical references to divine changelessness pertain to God,s character rather than his existence? and argue that these passages have to do with divine faithfulness rather than immutability. Thus, open theists redefine God,s immutability in an absurd way that God is both changeless and changeable.
ASSESSMENT OF THE OPENNESS VIEW OF IMMUTABILITY
The whole argument in support of the new definition of openness theologians is based on a set of philosophical premises. It starts from a lop-sided view of God,s attributes. Supporting his argument with liberal scholars such as Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, Rice claims that love is not only more important than all of God,s other attributes, it is more fundamental as well. Love is the essence of the divine reality, the basic source from which all of God,s attributes arise?(emphasis in original). This one-sided understanding of God then leads to theorizing philosophical arguments from human relationships. They reason that since Christians have a meaningful, loving relationship with God, and meaningful relationships are based on dynamism, God must also interact with humans as humans do among themselves. That is, God interacts with humans spontaneously, not knowing what humans will do in the future, because it would not be dynamic or meaningful if God knows what humans are going to do. For open theists, this then leads to an inevitable conclusion that God makes himself vulnerable and hanges plans in response to what humans do. Pinnock concludes, God] takes risks and jeopardizes his own sovereignty in order to engage in historical interactions with created reality.
This kind of reasoning is flawed because it gives new definitions to terms like dynamic relationship?and meaningful relationship.?It seems safe to assume that they define such phrases as, the relationship between two parties ignorant of each other is thoughts? as in human relationships. But is such a definition always true? Are human relationships are more dynamic or more meaningful?than man is relationship with God? It God the standard of all things? This type of reasoning assumes that God must behave like humans do. Also, is a relationship more dynamic and more meaningful?if one is ignorant of another,s thoughts and future decisions? No, not necessarily. A father,s accurate foresight of his son,s reaction to a birthday present would not take away any dynamism or meaningfulness from his relationship with his son. Therefore, dynamism and meaningfulness in a relationship does not demand ignorance.
Another flaw of the openness view of immutability is that it starts with philosophy and ends with biblical support. This method is far from being biblical, because proper theology must start with the Scripture. The openness theologians seek to rationally understand God as we understand each other, that is to pull God down to our level of thinking. This gives an impression that they are making a vain effort to limit God to human reasoning and having a difficult time accepting that God is beyond human thinking and cannot be fully understood by human experience.
Yet another assessment should be made about the openness view of immutability that human beings are in the center of their reasoning. Their understanding of God is limited to human experiences in human relationships. But relationship between God and man does not perfectly parallel with the relationship between two human beings. The relationship Christians have with God must be put in a separate category and not be confused with pure human relationships.
Biblical Doctrine of God,s Immutability
Contrary to the openness claim that God is changeable, the Bible repeatedly testifies to God,s absolute immutability in his essence and attributes. The Psalmist praises God for his immutability,
Of old You found the earth; And the heavens are the work of Your hands. Even they will perish, but You endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end.
The phrase to note here is wetta hu which can be literally translated as, you are he. This phrase occurs many times (Deut 32:39; Isa 41:4; 43:10, 13; 46:4; 48:12) elsewhere in first person. Here, it is clear that the pronoun hu expresses the uniqueness of Yahweh,s character of changelessness in contrast to things that pass away. Bruce Ware explains,
The writer purposely selects objects [heavens and earth] that were commonly thought of as constant and unchanging to emphasize the finality of God,s changeless and ongoing existence when contrasted even with that which, above all else in the finite realm, pictures true permanence. ?
Though even the most seemly unchangeable things change over time, God never changes.
Mal 3:6 reads, or I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.?Arthur Pink references this verse in his book and comments, ?God] cannot change for the better, for He is already perfect; and being perfect, He cannot change for the worse. Altogether unaffected by anything outside Himself, improvement or deterioration is impossible.? Mal 3:6 is a simple and clear proof of God,s unchangeable character.
Also, the apostle James says that very good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow?(Jas 1:17). James Ropes explains the phrase ovariation or shifting shadow?to mean, with whom is none of the variation that belongs to (consists in,s observed in the turning of the shadow. Perhaps Donald Burdick explains