Evangelism and the Openness of God: The Implications of Relational Theism for Evangelism and Mission

By Vaughn W. Baker

In Evangelism and the Openness of God, Vaughn Baker argues that a dynamic concept of God as articulated in open theism better serves the evangelistic mission of the church than does conventional theology. Open theism affirms an ontology of love as opposed to power, and it focuses on God's kenosis in creation, allowing for the authentic freedom of creation influenced by divine persuasion. God's genuine temporal relationship with creation--one that is open, synergist, and non-coercive--provides a new perspective for evangelistic activity. In this volume the author has made a valuable contribution to the integration of new developments in theology and evangelism.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Release date: Dec 18, 2012
• ISBN: 9781621899006

Vaughn W. Baker

Vaughn Baker is Lead Pastor of Silver Creek United Methodist Church in Azle, Texas, and Senior Fellow of the Polycarp Community.

Book preview

Preface

Icebergs are a common natural phenomenon around certain parts of the world. Icebergs can do well in helping to distribute cooler water to warmer climates. Icebergs can also do harm in that they can sink ships and wreck havoc with shipping lanes of commerce. Icebergs also warn us of trends in global warming, such as in recent disintegration of the ice shelf in Antarctica. Icebergs have a way of making themselves known, and they have a story to tell, for better or for worse. Icebergs also serve by way of analogy for helping understand why things happen, particularly in the progression from thought to action.

In a very insightful and vivid portrayal of the issue at hand, S. Wesley Ariarajah notes that "there is a sense in which our understanding of evangelism is what really reveals our theological convictions. Evangelism emanates from our understanding of God, of the human person, of Christ, and of what God has done in Christ. Our understanding of evangelism is but the tip of the iceberg; underneath lies a whole theological world view."¹ Theological world views vary, and how evangelism is done reveals much of the theological assumptions beneath them.

It is my conviction that Open Theism, one of a number of emergent theologies found among North American conservative evangelicals, is necessary to provide the philosophical, biblical, and theological grounding necessary to give warrant, guidance, and justification for evangelism in our day. I also believe that traditional affirmations of God’s power and sovereignty, which deny genuine human involvement and responsibility, undermine the evangelistic imperative. To state the problem another way I have to ask, Is theological determinism counter-productive to the work of evangelism? It seems like a caricature to highlight the theological problem, meaning God’s sovereignty being misunderstood, interpreted only in a strict sense, but it is true nonetheless.

When bringing up the conversion of those who had yet to hear the gospel in India, a minister quickly rebuked a young William Carey saying Young man, sit down! When God pleases to convert the heathen, he will do it without your help or mine! Later Carey would publish his famous pamphlet entitled, An Inquiry into the Obligation of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathen. Could it be argued that what is needed for evangelism to take shape if not to take wings is a more dynamic theology, one more consistent with the biblical witness, the Christian faith and the creeds of the church? Does a determinist view of God and world, affirming that a strict understanding of God’s sovereignty and human libertarian freedom, along with a closed view of the future serve the evangelistic task of the church better, or should we be looking elsewhere? Evangelism and the Openness of God is a response to those theological attempts to support evangelistic work.

1. Ariarajah, S. Wesley. Evangelism and Wesley’s Catholicity of Grace,

138

. Emphasis my own.

Abbreviations for Reference Works

CSR Christian Scholars Review

EQ The Evangelical Quarterly

ET Evangelische Theologie

JAETE Journal of the Academy for Evangelism in Theological Education

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

LTQ Lexington Theological Quarterly

MR Modern Reformation

NRSV New Revised Standard Version of the Bible

PSTJ Perkins School of Theology Journal

RS Religious Studies of Cambridge University

SBTS The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology

SJT Scottish Journal of Theology

WTJ Wesleyan Theological Journal

Chapter 1

Introduction

Theological Background

It has been said that there are three publics or audiences to whom the theologian speaks: the wider society, the academy, and the church.¹ Every theologian, therefore, addresses these three publics. The audience of the academy is where fundamental or philosophical theology is employed; the audience of the church is where we use symbolic or dogmatic theology; and the audience of the society at large is where we use practical or applied theology. A particular theologian will, of course, principally address one of these three publics. The wider society is typically the concern of practical theologians. The academy is normally the concern of fundamental theologians, and the church is that of systematic theologians. Yet, as the common social-reality of any theologian involves an experience and participatory understanding in each of these three groups, he or she implicitly addresses all three realms. What is needed in theology, then, is a drive not towards privacy, but towards authentic public discourse.² This movement results in a convergence of the theologian’s work in addressing all three audiences.

Theologians speak to these three audiences in such a way so that what is said is both internally consistent and coherent, and externally applicable and adequate.³ By internal consistency what is meant is that a system, philosophical or theological, must be free from internal self-contradictions. By internal coherence what is meant is that the various parts of the system must stick together. In order for external or empirical statements to demonstrate truthfulness they must be externally or empirically applicable and adequate. External applicability means that the system is relevant to experience, that is, the worldview must be capable of illuminating some experience naturally and without distortion.⁴ External adequacy means the system must be adequate to all possible experience if it is to succeed in being of unlimited generality.⁵ Metaphysical systems therefore must and can be tested for truth based upon their consistency, coherence, applicability, and adequacy.

Reformed philosopher Gordon Clark notes that when two or more systems of thought are found to be more or less self-consistent we must choose that system which is more self-consistent, which more adequately satisfies all the tests for truth.⁶ For Clark that system will be Christian theism. The Christian apologist begins with the assumption of the existence of God revealed in Scripture.⁷ Presuppositionalist apologetics, understood from a Reformed perspective, is what Clark was committed to in the post-war era. It began with the God of the Bible as the starting point in theological discourse. Such a view of God however assumed a particular and a historically-conditioned view of God, and is not merely scriptural. Such a view also presupposed that God was the personal, sovereign, self-sufficient, omnipotent Creator and Judge of the universe.⁸ Clark’s view of God was one conditioned and defined by conventional theology. For Clark and most conservative theologians, Reformed theology was given normative status in understanding conventional theology. To put it another way, the God of the Bible was really the God of classical theology.

Reformed theologians including Gordon Clark have therefore equated a theistic view of God in general with the classic or conventional view of God. Theism Simpliciter understands that God is a personal being, worthy of worship, self-existent, the free creator (ex nihilo) of all that is not God, separate from the world and is immaterial, sustains the world, continually active in it, perfectly good, all-powerful, all-knowing, and eternal.⁹ It meant that God could act unilaterally in and even control earthly affairs should he so desire from the theism Simpliciter standpoint.

Two additional items should be noted: first that theism Simpliciter cannot to be equated with Christianity since there is nothing in the definition regarding the person and work of Jesus. This is a generic definition of God affirmed by most Christians, Jews, Muslims, and some Hindus. Second, although this definition rules out process theology, deism, and finite godism, it does not provide us with any particular understanding of divine providence.

Classical theism normally and even predictably equates itself with theism Simpliciter. It adds to the basic theological affirmations that God is also timeless, meaning there is no before or after for God, only an eternal present. It also affirms God as immutable, meaning God does not change in any respect including thoughts, will, or emotions. God’s plan is unchanging. God is also understood to be impassible, meaning God cannot be affected by God’s creatures. God never responds or reacts to what we do. Our prayers never affect God, but rather God uses our prayers to effect what he desires to bring about through our prayers. There are no reciprocal relations between God and creatures. God is closed to us.

Classical theology also affirms a specific sovereignty, which is to say that only what God specifically ordains to occur happens, and everything which happens has been specifically ordained by God to happen. Advocates of this view typically affirm compatibilist freedom for humans in whom one is free so long as they act on their desires, but even those desires have been determined. God has a meticulous blueprint for everything that happens in history. The divine will cannot fail or be thwarted in any detail. God never takes risks. In soteriology this leads to the doctrines of unconditional election and irresistible grace. God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge because God determines what the future will be, not because God timelessly previsions the future.

As previously stated, classical or conventional theists do not conceive of a Christian Simpliciter or historic Christianity apart from conceptions of God expressed in classical or Reformed thought. To conceive of God biblically, one has no other choice but to embrace traditional views of God, particularly what have been called the divine attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and the like. It should be noted at the outset that creedal affirmations such as the Nicene and Apostles Creeds say nothing about omniscience, timelessness, or exhaustive definite omniscience. What is called the gospel or good news as found in the New Testament along with the ecumenical creeds say nothing about theological concepts that would designate their affirmations as classic.

Evangelicalism’s Theological Restrictions

North American evangelicalism emerged out of an earlier pre-World War II fundamentalism, demonstrating a theological self-limitation in employing Reformed theological categories as if there were no other viable theological alternatives. This self-limitation, regarding perceived theological alternatives, reflected the separatism of fundamentalist Christians from mainline ecclesial bodies in the United States, a phenomenon not as evident in other parts of the world, particularly in the church in Great Britain. This left conservative evangelicals in America looking for theological definition and concepts with Reformed theology being the leading if not the only serious option. Process theology was regarded as off-limits as an option available to post-war conservative evangelicals. Many evangelicals after the war accepted uncritically Reformed thought, making it their own tradition, unaware of its true character as a historically particular movement.

Classical theism conceived of God as simple, immaterial, immutable, impassible, timeless, necessary, personal, pure act, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good. Many accepted it as the ideal form of Christianity, ignorant of its limitations.¹⁰ Until the 1970s, conservative evangelical theologians had almost exclusively embraced classical or traditional understandings of God within its Reformed, Molinist,¹¹ or Arminian variations.

Many conservative evangelical theologians in the past have equated classical theism with theism Simpliciter. Their initial definition of classical theism was extremely general so that it included just about all Western theists including Arminians or free-will theists. However, the definition of classical theism was restricted to a more precise one involving divine simplicity, timeless, immutability, and impassibility. This theological umbrella became far too small to include Arminians or the entire tradition of free-will theism, thus leaving out a very large segment of historical Christian theism. This umbrella included Eastern Orthodox, Arminian, Wesleyan, and Pentecostal free-will theists. Theological latitude was practically non-existent within North American evangelicalism for the freedom necessary to conceive of a variant theology needed to address the problem which arose regarding compatibilism and libertarian freedom. How can the church evangelize if human cooperation were really superfluous in doing evangelism? Since traditional theology affirmed that we live in a closed system, i.e., that the future is already predetermined in all things, why then even evangelize? A new way of theological conceptualization was needed.

An Emerging New Theological Development

Within the last thirty years there emerged out of the Reformed tradition, particularly in North America, a different view of God, one which still remained within the Christian tradition, a Christian Simpliciter, but one that was said to be more internally consistent and coherent, and more externally applicable and adequate than was conventional theology. This particular theology was also said to be more faithful to the biblical portrait of God than that of traditional theism with less dependence upon external Hellenistic thought. It also claimed to speak consistently and coherently in a way that was adequate and applicable to all three publics of academy, church and society. That emergent theology came to be known as Open Theism or Openness theology.

A variation of free-will theology, open theism articulated a dynamic understanding of God, one which was both faithful to the Christian witness of faith and relevant to both modern everyday existence and the current scientific understandings of the universe. Open theism has sought to be more faithful to both the Bible and the Christian tradition, provided that the tradition is itself open to revision. This was due, in part, to open theism’s commitment to a relational metaphysic, one which was based upon the dynamic of love, community, and societies, rather than that based primarily upon substance. Open theism affirmed the death of substantialist philosophy and the irrelevance of closed systems of thought to modern culture. Those who are leading proponents of open theism believe this change necessitated the need of a new look at the Bible, one that takes into account all genres of scripture, and not just those selected or didactic portions of it.

Open theism is a variation of free-will theism, but unlike traditional free-will theism it rejects timelessness and exhaustive definite foreknowledge. It affirms temporality in the divine experience and a dynamic omniscience. It affirms general providence, but not meticulous or specific sovereignty. God governs the world through general strategies that are designed for the overall good of the creatures, but God does not tightly control every decision or action. God is not the direct cause of everything that happens within the openness understanding of general sovereignty.

One implication of open theism’s affirmation of general sovereignty is that God does not intend each and every instance of evil so there is gratuitous evil—evil which does not lead to a greater good. Hence, God is, for some things, a risk taker. But this risk taking is not for the sake of human freedom as though libertarian freedom was the highest intrinsic good. Instead, the risk is for the sake of love. God wants us to freely enter into a loving relationship with him in response to the divine love granted us. But since love cannot be forced, libertarian freedom is necessary as an instrumental good. Creating these sorts of conditions places great responsibility on human agents to care for one another and the creation.

Clark Pinnock, a leading theologian and advocate, states that open theism is a biblically faithful and intellectually consistent theology, one that reinforces, rather than makes problematic our relational experience with God.¹² The open view is therefore a superior paradigm in light of the relevant biblical, theological, philosophical and practical material.¹³ Open theists believe that an open view of God and the future more sufficiently speaks to all three publics of academy, church, and the larger culture than in conventional theology. Open theism is able to do this for its advocates believe that their conception of God is internally more coherent and consistent. They believe that a temporal view of God fits scientific understandings of the universe better than does a timeless view.

Open theists note that many Christians experience an inconsistency between their beliefs about God and their religious practice. Classical theism, in contrast, has believers professing one thing and doing another. Openness theologians also believe that their model of God is externally more adequate and applicable. Open theism experiences existential fit better than do conventional affirmations about God. Reciprocity, being essential to all genuine relationships, is essential to open theism’s understanding of the divine-human relationship. Open theism affirms the cooperative and reciprocal witness scripture and experience make to how believers walk with God.

The renewal of the world church has opened up discussion of how and in what ways theology can better serve the church as it seeks to understand or even redefine itself. Christians have been looking for an alternate vision of God, besides those offered by classical and process theologians, one more dynamic and relational. "Open Theism stands ‘In a middle position, between classical and Process theism.¹⁴ It seeks to be a mediating proposal and (therefore) attracts criticism from both sides."

¹⁵

Open Theism a Threat to Conventional Theology

To many conventional theologians open theism represents a threat to classical definitions of Christian theology. According to Reformed theologian Bruce Ware open theism results in a lessened confidence in God, much greater temptation to trust in our own insights and capabilities, weakened prayer lives, more confidence in our own accomplishments, effect upon evangelical institutions, more emphasis on importance of human will and work, and less confidence that God’s will or work will prevail, muted worship, and growing fear of the future.¹⁶ Conservative theologians such as Ware see nothing to be gained and everything to lose by exploring alternate ways of viewing God.

Regarding open theism, John Sanders asks, What is so repugnant about this description of God? Sanders notes:

One of the main objections has been that it is not classical theism or traditional Christian theism. The implication is that there has been only one view on these matters in the history of the church. Unfortunately, even I have helped to foster this error in my own writings speaking of the traditional view. However, what I meant by traditional was the view that affirms that God is impassible, immutable, pure act, who determines what occurs. Of course, any survey of Christian thought reveals that Christians have disagreed on these issues. Actually there exist several traditional views.

¹⁷

Conventional theology does not acknowledge various understandings of the divine attributes. Open theists believe more latitude of interpretation is necessary in articulating a revised understanding of God.

Is such conservatism and strictness of theological interpretation by conservative evangelical theologians truly helping the church in its evangelistic mission? This is the issue I seek to address in this book.

The Problem

The problem I will address is whether conventional theology, narrowly understood, is sufficient enough to support the church in carrying out its evangelistic task in a way that is coherent, consistent, adequate and applicable. Can a traditional or classical theology with its theological commitments to strict sovereignty including divine omnipotence, omniscience, immutability, impassibility and a closed future truly help the church in its evangelistic task? From the opposition within the church that William Carey encountered in the sharing of his call to convert the lost in India, to the opposition Charles G. Finney experienced in the employment of certain techniques in conducting revivals, to the opposition Billy Graham encountered from many within the Reformed church to his crusade evangelism, the question remains as to whether or not there is an inherent deficiency within classical theism.

¹⁸

The difficulty classical theologians struggle with seems to arise when their theological understanding of God contradicts evangelism actually taking place. Critique and struggle from what the Reformed tradition currently believe feeds suspicions by many that Reformed theology is prone to foster passivity within believers toward any kind of Christian action. To put it another way, can certain understandings of God actually undermine the work of the church in carrying out its evangelistic task? Has the church misunderstood what are classical definitions of God’s omnipotence and sovereignty?

Working Hypothesis

My proposal is that concepts essential to what is called conventional or classical theism have become an impediment to the church in renewal seeking to understand its experience of God from a theological perspective. What is needed in order for theology to assist the church in its evangelistic task is a revised understanding of God and how God relates to the world. Open theism provides a way forward if not a necessary revision of our idea of God and creatures in such a way that it remains within Christian faith while also articulating an understanding which recaptures the relationality found in the biblical witness. With the church experiencing renewal and growth in the world today, what is needed is a more dynamic understanding of God and world which more closely approximates both the biblical witness and the current experience of the church.

Open theist Clark Pinnock has been outspoken of the potential of spirituality for church renewal in the contemporary church. Aware of the difficulties that not only open theists, but also Pentecostals have had with many conservative evangelicals in North America, Pinnock has drawn closer to the theological positions which have defined him most. Reformed in his own initial theology, Pinnock was greatly influenced by dynamic views of God through the influences of both process theology and the charismatic movement. Pinnock’s theological journey led him to believe that open theism presents a more helpful way of understanding God in support of worldwide church renewal.

Pinnock notes that in contrast with the God of the philosophers, one for whom God was an idea or a construct, an unmoved mover, there is now a worldwide phenomena of Christians whose experience of God more closely approximates the God of the Bible. Whereas before the only activity the unmoved mover God could engage in was the activity of self-contemplation, many in the growing Christian parts of the world are having a much different encounter. Pinnock states that "with the articulation of Aristotle, God was conceived of as pure actuality, actus purus, possessing no potentiality. God was seen as unchangeable, but with the return of biblical teaching on the kingdom of God and signs of that kingdom, a reaffirmation of divine agency has returned."¹⁹ One could call it the renewal of the Christian church.

Pinnock acknowledges that much of the current growth of the church in the world is either Pentecostal or very similar in worship expression and in spirituality. The Bible is not only a text to read for Christians in renewal. It is an experience in which to enter. Biblical theology which centers on relationality is the key issue as it surfaces in renewal of the church. For example, not all things are foreordained of God. Human response matters, whether it is faith or unbelief, obedience to the leading of the Spirit of God, or quenching the Spirit. Genuine reciprocity is present in relationality which characterizes the growing church of today, much of it outside North America.

The Pentecostal pattern of thinking strongly supports a relational model of God. Pentecostals, and other similar Christian movements, do not see God as all-determining or totally immutable. Rather they see God as a loving person, who acts and interacts, who initiates and responds. God is not all-controlling or unconditioned. God is not timeless or passionless. God is the living God who gives us room to be and who delights in covenant relationships. God is one who loves us so much that he is willing even to undergo suffering on our behalf. Relationality is a model of God which represents the God of incarnate love. It affirms that God has real relations with human beings and that there are genuine give-and-take interactions between God and creatures. It holds that God acts and reacts, that God allows himself to be conditioned by creatures and that God acts in the light of what humans decide and not only unilaterally. It holds that God in grace grants us significant freedom to cooperate with or to work against God’s will for our lives.

²⁰

Pinnock warns that as the world-wide church is spiritually revived, it will look for theological definition to help interpret and to defend its experience of the Holy Spirit. Some in fact may seek the respectability of conservative evangelicals, particularly those who are in leadership positions in denominations, mission boards, and theological seminaries. In attempting to seek the approval of those who hold conventional views of God, Pentecostals, Holiness, Charismatic, Third Wave, and other Christians in renewal may accept the unhelpful influences of classical theism which are alive in the Evangelical coalition.²¹ These influences may affect the openness and fluidity of Pentecostal paradigm adversely.

As the church has reclaimed its eschatological message and nature, it also has begun to reclaim its identity not only an institution, but also as a movement: as the people of God sent into the world as a sign community of the kingdom that is both present and future. While the gospel is proclaimed, it is also lived through dynamic worship where God’s kingdom is experienced proleptically, and where young believers are initiated into the Christian faith. Mere debates regarding definitions of evangelism will no longer do. A more descriptive and experiential assessment and embrace is called for. But where do we find signs of the kingdom in our midst, and how does open theism play a role?

There can be no doubt that the church of Jesus Christ is expanding the greatest in areas where God is once again relationally. Relational theism, of which open theism is a part, stands the best chance of supporting and providing an apologetic of what God is doing in our midst. David Bosch calls the church to once again become a movement, and not merely an institution. Faith can never be a religion of the status quo. Dynamic change is to be expected since God is a dynamic being, one who is engaged in the direction of history.²² The church in mission is sacrament and sign, being a foretaste of the kingdom’s coming, the sacrament of its anticipation in history.²³ Dynamic change requires dynamic categories to understand God and God’s ways if the church is to be supported theologically by way of discernment, proclamation, initiation, and giving a defense of the gospel.

Outline

The organization of this book will include the following chapters:

Chapter 1: Introduction

This introductory section briefly states what the theological background issues are which underlie the problem of compatibilism and conventional theology relating to practical ministry including evangelism. Working hypothesis is proposed that the dynamic view of God conceived in open theism is the solution. The method employed is to compare and to contrast the compatibilism of James I. Packer with the open theology of Clark Pinnock, both significant representatives of their theological positions. The organization of the work and definition of terms are included.

Chapter 2: Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God

In this chapter I will give an historical description and development of thought of the life of J. I. Packer, leading up to his writing Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Packer is assumed in this work to be representative of theological compatibilism. Essential theological themes of Reformed thought including theological compatibilism and how they relate to the evangelistic task of the church will be examined.

Chapter 3: Understanding the Historical Development of Open Theism

In this chapter I will describe the historical, biographical, and theological background which led to the emergence of open theism from conservative evangelicalism. Clark Pinnock’s life and thought are also assumed to be consistent as a primary representative of open theism.

Chapter 4: Understanding the Theology of Open Theism

In this chapter I will review the theology of open theism. Included in this review will be comparisons between classical theology and process theology with open theism. Differences between open theism and historic free-will theology will also be examined. Major theological themes to be addressed include kenosis, Trinitarian and relational ontology, dynamic omniscience, divine temporality, an open future, libertarian freedom, theodicy, and passibilism.

Chapter 5: The Implications of Open Theism for Evangelism and Missions

In this chapter I will seek to make explicit concepts contrasting evangelism with mission. Mission is understood as missio Dei, meaning mission as God’s mission, and how such an affirmation requires both divine agency and therefore divine temporality. The history of mission theology and evangelism will be briefly examined. My argument in this chapter will be that in order to have an adequate theology of mission and evangelism open theism or something like it must be employed.

Chapter 6: The Promise of Open Theism: The Way Forward

Using Packer’s claim that only compatibilism can provide evangelism its needed assurance of ultimate victory, I will seek to argue instead that conventional assumptions of timelessness, determinism, and strict sovereignty all work against active evangelism, and that what is needed can be found in open theism.

Chapter 7: Open Theism and Essential Kenosis

In offering a critique of classical Arminianism as inconsistent there are others who, while supportive of open theism’s aims, view other inconsistencies inherent within open theism itself, namely the attempt to explain the existence of genuine evil while holding on to classical understandings of omnipotence. This brief conclusion points the way forward for open theism by utilizing what is known as Essential Kenosis.

Chapter 8: Open Theism and a Sample of Current Evangelistic Methods

In this chapter I will examine recent developments in the appreciation and application of open theism by missiologist Peter Wagner, Pastor Bill Johnson of Bethel Church, Redding, California, and George Otis, a student of church revival and CEO of the Sentinel Group. Peter Wagner studies evangelism and church growth and has moved beyond his earlier conventional theology to embrace that of open theism. My objective here is to demonstrate how open theism affects the work of this missiologist.

Author, evangelist, and conference speaker Bill Johnson shares how belief in a partially open future, reflected in a partially open present affects the way ministry is done. Like Wagner before, Johnson affirms reciprocity in God’s relationship with humanity. In this section I will seek to show how open theism affects an evangelist.

As Chief Executive Officer and founder of the Sentinel Group, George Otis has studied contemporary church growth and church awakenings. As with Wagner and Johnson, I have personally met with Otis and have found that in the light of church renewal he has come to embrace much of what open theism teaches. My objective here is to show how open theism affects Otis as a student of religious awakenings.

Appendix A: John Sander’s Taxonomy Regarding Open Theism and Christianity Simpliciter

John Sanders shows by way of comparison how open theism reflects essential Christian theology.

Appendix B: Comparison of the Attributes: A chart of the differences between Classical Theism and the two forms of Free-will Theism regarding the divine attributes and providence

Sanders show how open theism compares with conventional or classical theism regarding the attributes of God.

Contrasting Theological Compatibilism with Incompatibilism

The method I will use here in examining the implications of open theism for evangelism and missions will be to contrast the positions of theological compatibilism, as prescribed by J. I. Packer, with that of open theism as described by Clark Pinnock and others. The compatibilist support and justification Packer gives to evangelism is set forth in his book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. It is in examining open theism’s revision of some traditional interpretations of the attributes of God that I will attempt to argue openness theology makes a better contribution in the theological support of the missional and the evangelistic work of the church.

Packer states that the aim of his book is to dispel the suspicion that faith in the absolute sovereignty of God hinders a full recognition and acceptance of evangelistic responsibility.²⁴ Packer’s contention is that, on the contrary, only this faith can give Christians the strength that they need to fulfill their evangelistic task.²⁵ Theologically strict conceptions of divine sovereignty are needed for the church to carry out its evangelistic task. Packer states that no other alternate theological conception will do.

What I seek to do is to argue differently than Packer, saying that what is needed for a revitalized evangelism is a dynamic view of God, as opposed to a static view of God. Alternative models from the classical concept of Packer for understanding divine agency include the following: the Molinist view, the Arminian view, a panentheist view—one which departs from traditional understanding of God, using a process metaphysic, and a recent variation of free-will theism called open or relational theism. All of these distinguish themselves, in part, with particular understandings regarding the scope of what is called God’s omniscience or foreknowledge.

I believe, as does Packer, that our theology makes a difference in our evangelistic conceptualization and practice. It is my proposal that a view of God and reality which accommodates change, novelty, even an element of chance, is to be preferred over static understandings of God that are found in conventional theology.

Definition of Terms

During the course of this work the following words will be used frequently: Arminianism, a-temporalism, compatibilism, determinism, eschatology, evangelical, evangelism, fundamentalism, incompatibilism, immutability, impassibility, incompatibilism, kenosis, kerygma, libertarian freedom, limited omniscience, Middle Knowledge, mission, Molinism, monergism, Neo-Platonism, omnipotence, omniscience, open theism, panentheism, predestination, presentism, process theology, reciprocity, Reformed Theology, relationality, sovereignty, synergism, temporalism, theodicy, timelessness, and The Holy Trinity:

Arminianism

Arminianism is a school of thought within Protestant Christianity based on the theological ideas of the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609), and his historic followers, the Remonstrants. Contrary to the Synod of Dort, Arminians believe in universal atonement, conditional election based upon exhaustive foreknowledge, resistible grace, and the possibility of believers falling away.

A-temporalism

A-temporalism means God is timeless or outside of time. Boethius is best known in describing eternity as the totally simultaneous and perfect possession of limitless life (aeternitas igitur est interminabilis vitae tota simul et perfecta possession).

Compatibilism

Compatibilism is the idea that freedom is compatible with necessity. This term is most often used to express the idea that freedom is compatible with the kind of necessity entailed by causal determinism. It can also be used to refer to the position of someone who holds that freedom is compatible with divine foreknowledge. Proponents of this position such as Jonathan Edwards and J. I. Packer make theological determinism and human responsibility compatible by way of God sovereignly giving human beings desires upon which they freely act upon.

Determinism

Determinism in theology is the concept that the future is already settled or predetermined by God in all things.

Eschatology

Eschatology is the section of Christian theology dealing with the ‘‘last things,’’ especially the ideas of resurrection, hell, the Last Judgment, and eternal life.

Evangelical

Evangelical is a term initially used to refer to reforming movements, especially in Germany and Switzerland, in the 1510s and 1520s, but now used of a movement, especially in English language theology, which places especial emphasis upon the supreme authority of Scripture and the atoning death of Christ.

Evangelism

Evangelism has many definitions but necessarily involves the proclamation of the Kingdom of God having come in Jesus Christ, in order that individuals may personally come to a saving faith and an active discipleship.

Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism is a form of American Protestant Christianity, originating in America, which lays especial emphasis upon the authority of an