I am currently reading (of many things) K. Scott Oliphint’s new book God With Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God. Oliphint is a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, and so I am really interested in understanding how he articulates his doctrine of God, theory of revelation, and other attendant things along the way; from his kind of ‘Reformed’ perspective. He offers a critique of Karl Barth’s critique of the classically Reformed method on articulating a doctrine of God. Barth’s critique is one that largely shapes my own critique of this ‘classic’ tradition in my personal chapter for our book. I am getting ahead of myself, though. I 
will be posting this critique of Barth made by Oliphint (who is really appealing directly to Muller’s critique of Barth) in a later post. Instead, in this post, I want to simply highlight a helpful itemization of the hallmarks of Open Theism, as offered by John Frame, who Oliphint quotes. If you are unfamiliar, open theism is a critique of classical theism; open theists believe that classical theists have, basically, made God into an impersonal, static, cold deity. The open theist wants to offer a warmer more relational and loving account of Godβunfortunately, I do not believe that they get what they want, because as Bruce McCormack has detailed, they are still, and actually, classical theists themselves (see his chapter in his edited book Engaging the Doctrine of God). Here Ben Myers offers a quick word on the basic gist of what McCormack develops in full through the rest of his chapter (which is a critique of open theism from his constructive Barthian approach):
The problem with open theism is that it is not nearly radical enough; it critiques certain features of the classical-theistic doctrine of God, but never risks a fundamental break with the metaphysical apparatus of classical theism. This is why open theists finally prove incapable of resolving the doctrinal problems which they themselves have (rightly) identified: in spite of all their criticisms of βclassical theism,β they continue to play the same game and to abide by the same metaphysical rules. [the full post from Ben is here]
Here is John Frame’s account of what he thinks constitutes the nuts and bolts of Open Theism:
- Love is God’s most important quality.
- Love is not only care and commitment, but also being sensitive and responsive.
- Creatures exert an influence on God.
- God’s will is not the ultimate explanation of everything. History is the combined result of what God and his creatures decide to do.
- God does not know everything timelessly, but learns from events as they take place.
- So God is dependent on the world in some ways.
- Human beings are free in the libertarian sense. [John Frame, No Other God, 23 cited by K. Scott Oliphint, God With Us, 11]
Oliphint doesn’t pull any punches in regard to his view on who the Open Theist is; he doesn’t believe they are Christians, he writes: “… One holding an “open” view of God, as summarized above, is not within the pale of Christian orthodoxy and should not assume to be; intellectual honesty demands otherwise.” (p. 12) And you think I’m rough on the classical Calvinist?!! I do not agree with Oliphint about the Open Theist necessarily being anathema, and not Christian; just as I do not believe that classically Reformed folk, like Oliphint, aren’t Christians. I just think both of them have started out using the wrong resources to articulate an doctrine of God, and thus these positions end up providing a Christian spirituality (for one thing) that is ultimately wanting.
Relative to the hallmarks of ‘OT’, as enumerated by Frame; I agree with McCormack, the Open view has the right intention, and the right desireβe.g. to want to articulate a view of God that sees him as Triune love and dynamic/personalβbut the Open view simply does not have the right resources to enable them to get where they want (to a robustly Trinitarian Christian doctrine of God). The Open view, in my view, is too willing to junk the traditional lineaments of a grammar for articulating a doctrine of God, and at the same time, they do not resource themselves to thinking provided by someone like Karl Barth and/or Thomas Torrance; the latter of whom utilizes a more traditional approach to God, but then does so through a constructive appropriation of some of Barth’s emphases while at the same time constructing his own grammar of onto-relations as definitive of God’s being (I am, of course, referring to Torrance, if you missed this)βI will have to do a whole post some day on what “onto-relation” means for Torrance.
Anyway, I thought it would be helpful, maybe, for some, to better understand the basics of what defines Open Theism. I think Bruce McCormack’s critique of Open Theism is the best thing I have ever read on this! You can get the bibliographic information on his edited book where his chapter on this resides, by clicking on that link under the quote I provided by Ben Myers. By clicking on that link, you will also get more insight on how McCormack critiques ‘OT’ through Ben Myers’ summarizing of McCormack’s approach.
I’m not an authority on “open theism”, but Frame’s “nuts and bolts” list is a very insufficient way to characterize it. In fact, as with “classical theism” (and the New Perspective) “open theism” is not homogeneous. Oliphant (and his ilk) should repent of his arrogance; like the rest of us, he will be very surprised at how wrong he was in much of his doctrinal articulation when he meets his master. I do not myself subscribe to Open Theology (at least not yet), but Greg Boyd has, I believe, a very interesting and sensible take on it–worth exploring, anyway.
Hi Jason,
There is definitely more to be said about OT, I prefer Bruce McCormack’S Perspective and critique of it, which theologically I think is devestating! But I still think Frame gets us into a defining feature and premise of OT, and that is that God is love. I know Boyd has made OT rather popular, but some times I think people confuse devotion and personality for material substance; not saying you are necessarily doing this with Boyd. For ypur comment to be more fruitful it would be better if you would elaborate on the nuance available in OT. And yes, Im not a fan of Oliphint or Frame either.
Hey Bobby,
Thanks for the response. It’s been a while since I’ve personally interacted with Boyd’s OT, so I think I will refresh myself with his stance before I “elaborate”. I will say that Frame is right in that “love” is the key, though I’m not so sure that Frame, uh…”frames” it correctly. π
Jason, yeah, I think Bruce McCormack still offers the most trusted and best description and critique of Open Theism that I have read. I’ll look forward to your elaboration at a later date. Frame might not “frame” it with the right tone, but I don’t think he misrepresents some of the basic tenets of OT. Anyway, thanks for the feedback, brother.
Thank you, for your work, Bobby– gathering these varied opinions on Open Theism! A friend asked me about open theism and I’m so glad to have wise & time-saving pointers toward more detailed study. I’m especially pleased about the tips & link re McCormack (& Myers); I was not readily finding critiques with scopes focused beyond 17th C–present Calvinism.
If I might make two non-substantive points:
(1) Dr Gregory Boyd, perhaps the most famous of OT exponents is, in academic philosophy & theology circles, seen as profoundly confused (see this from philosopher Wm Lane Craig: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/gregory-boyds-neo-molinism).
(2) Speaking intuitively/anecdotally–those I’ve known from lay youth workers to Bible profs who’ve become enamored of OT:
β’ They exhibit symptoms of infatuation–ascribing all kinds of intellectual value to the idea far beyond OT’s possible reach–even if it were true (e.g., glowing that now all atonement theory conflicts are solved.)
β’ They’ve seemed to me to be preoccupied and not [by my lights] properly interested in basic truths (say–the Nicene-Constantinipolitan assertions)
Hi Todd,
I will have to read the link from William L. Craig; thank you. Boyd is gaining more and more influence among Evangelicals.
And I agree that their approach is just a symptom of classical theism, or a philosophical theological approach.
What do you mean by them being preoccupied with “basic truths?”
There’s much more stuff on Open Theism at WL Craig’s site.
>Sorry if I wasn’t clear w my lay, armchair psychologizing.
OT folks I’ve known have seemed, to me to be, preoccupied with/excited about OT–& placing CENTRAL doctrines (or “basic truths” such as the doctrines of the Trinity & Incarnation) on their mind’s back burner.
That was one clue they were wrong; if they were right about OT, wdn’t they be more focused and pumped about what God and all-stars like Athanasius and Greg Naz are pumped about–e.g., the Trin & Incarn? OT did Not come to my friends by way of their asking, “Who is Jesus–and what did He come to accomplish?” They’ve been REACTionaries–finding a theology that contradicts the post-Dordt, 5-point, more-Calvinist-than-Calvin heartless boilerplate they [understandably] despise.
Another related tip-off–even when I knew little about OT–was it had few historical roots, as far as I cd tell.
My “too-good-to-be-true” warning lights have turned on when Christians have spoken of OT being a doctrinal panacea.
Waxing even more subjective: I also remember high-school experience. I was intensely bummed if I, class-comedian/artist, couldn’t have a dynamic relationship w God–nor TRULy create anything (because I couldn’t surprise–and thereby hugely impress God.) After several weeks of stewing, I thought God told me–through Ps 131, “…I do not occupy myself w things too marvelous for me. But I have calmed and quieted my soul…”–to take a chill pill.
Todd,
I agree with you. It does not seem to start with typical Christian Dogmatic questions; it is very anecdotally driven, with philosophical sophistication, in my opinion. So I agree with you. Thanks for the clarification.
I think in re. to your experience, that there are parameters to work within and from as Christians. And that ultimately we will bottom out as we work from within these parameters of getting to know God, but this is why I see theology as worship, really. But we have space to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ; this is what I see theology as the mechanism for. It can obviously be abused and misused, but that should not tarnish the whole venture (which I know you aren’t implying).