Following my earlier series of posts on Open Theism, and a reference to an article on it by John M. Frame* that I had made in one of them, I became more interested in his views, and read his article more carefully, and then read some more of his articles, and watched some of his videos as well, and found him to be a refreshingly honest, intelligent, articulate, analytical, and clear-thinking theologian—which makes it all the more surprising that he still adheres to the abominable heresy of Calvinism. In this post I am going to examine his article on Open Theism a bit more carefully. He begins his article as follows:
“Open theists deny that God knows the future exhaustively. In their view, God is often ignorant about what will happen, sometimes even mistaken. He ‘expresses frustration’ when people do things he had not anticipated. He changes his mind when things don’t go as he had hoped. In these contentions, open theists admittedly differ from ‘the classical view of God worked out in the western tradition’ that prevailed from the early church Fathers to the present with a few exceptions (such as the Socinian heresy). This classical view has been the position of all Christian theological traditions: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and all forms of Protestantism. It affirms that God has complete knowledge of everything that happens in the past, present, and future. Thus open theism denies the historic Christian view of God’s omniscience. The present article will discuss the major issues in the controversy between the classical view and the open view.”
That is not a very accurate statement of the “historic Christian view of God’s omniscience”. While it may be true that in “all Christian theological traditions: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and all forms of Protestantism,” the full omniscience of God has been affirmed; the theological basis of that affirmation in the pre-Reformation and post-Reformation periods have not been the same. While in the Protestant tradition God’s foreknowledge has been equated with predestination, in the pre-Reformation period that has not been the case. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, believed in full libertarian freewill, while at the same time acknowledging God’s omniscience and exhaustive knowledge of the future. He does not see a conflict between the two.
St. Thomas also believed in some form of predestination; but his idea of predestination is not the same as the Calvinist one (although Calvinists like to claim it to be). What Thomas means by predestination is that God, in his providence, has ordained all things that shall come to pass. Nothing happens “by chance” that he is not aware of, or that is contrary to his will. He is not “caught by surprise” by anything. But that does not translate into predestination as Calvinism understands it.
Both Calvinism and Open Theism are based on the false assumption that God’s foreknowledge is incompatible with libertarian freewill. Calvinism resolves that (apparent) dilemma by denying libertarian freewill. Open Theism resolves it by denying the foreknowledge of God. St. Thomas does neither. He stirs a course between the two, and does not see a conflict between them. In my earlier posts I have explained how it is possible to reconcile divine providence and foreknowledge with libertarian freewill. It is possible for man’s choices to be freely made in the libertarian sense, and still being known to God in advance. John M. Frame then continue his article as follows:
“Libertarianism
“Why this radical divergence from the almost universal consensus of professing Christians? Open theists offer various reasons for their position, but the most fundamental, in my judgment, is that the classical view is inconsistent with human freedom in the libertarian sense. Since open theists (also called ‘freewill theists’) want to affirm human freedom in this sense, they must abandon the classical view of God’s omniscience.”
Again, that is not entirely correct. It depends on what he means by the “classical view of God’s omniscience”. If by that is meant Calvinism, then yes; but not if you mean the pre-Reformation idea of God’s omniscience. He continues:
“A free act in the libertarian sense is an act that is utterly uncaused, undetermined. It is not caused by God, nor by anything in creation, nor even by the desires and dispositions of the one who performs the act. Such causes may ‘influence’ or ‘incline’ us to a certain choice, but they never determine a choice, if that choice is free in the libertarian sense. At the moment of choice, on this view, we are always equally able to choose or not to choose a particular alternative. For this reason, libertarian freedom is sometimes called ‘liberty of indifference,’ for up to the very moment of choice nothing is settled; the will is indifferent.
“Now if people are free in the libertarian sense, then human decisions are radically unpredictable. Even God cannot know them in advance. If in 1930 God knew that I would be writing this article in 2000, then I would not be writing it freely. I could not avoid writing it. So if my writing is a free choice in the libertarian sense, even God cannot have been certain of it in advance. Libertarian freedom excludes the classical view of God’s foreknowledge.”
That is where both Calvinism and Open Theism err in their theologies. It is possible to reconcile libertarian freewill with the foreknowledge of God. The idea that the two are logically irreconcilable is a false notion that underpins both Calvinism as well as Open Theism. They may appear to be far apart, but in reality they are very close. He then continues:
“On this view, the future is of such a nature that it cannot be known exhaustively. So open theists claim that on their view God is indeed omniscient, in the sense that he knows everything that can be known. That he lacks exhaustive knowledge of the future is no more of a limitation than his inability to make a square circle. Just as his omnipotence enables him to do everything that can be done, so his omniscience enables him to know everything that can be known. That includes knowledge of the past and present, but not the future, so open theists name their view presentism.
“For open theists, therefore, libertarian freedom is a fundamental premise, a standard by which all other theological statements are judged. Typically, open theists do not argue the case (such as there is) for libertarian freedom; rather, they assume it. It is their presupposition. So God cannot have exhaustive knowledge of the future. Pinnock says,
“‘However, omniscience need not mean exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events. If that were its meaning, the future would be fixed and determined, much as is the past. Total knowledge of the future would imply a fixity of events. Nothing in the future would need to be decided. It also would imply that human freedom is an illusion, that we make no difference and are not responsible.’
“He is saying that God cannot know the future exhaustively, because if he did we would not have libertarian freedom.”
That is a false assumption that underpins not only Open Theism but also Calvinism. They both draw their inspiration from the same source, but presented as it were from two opposite ends of the scale. John M. Frame then continues his article as follows:
“In my view, however, libertarianism is both unscriptural and incoherent. Scripture does speak of God determining the choices of human beings.
“In Proverbs, the writer declares, ‘To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue… In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps’ (Prov. 16:1, 9). God’s counsel, indeed, brings everything to pass: Christians are predestined to eternal life ‘according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his own will’ (Eph. 1:11; compare Rom. 11:36, Lam. 3:37-38).”
What he reads into those verses is not what they imply, and he completely ignores innumerable verses of scripture which imply the opposite (e.g. Deut. 30:15-20; Josh. 24:14–15). He continues:
“Open theist Gregory Boyd seeks to mitigate the implications of the fact that Jesus predicted Judas’ betrayal (John 6:64, 70-71, 13:18-19, 17:12). But he concedes the heart of the matter:
“‘Scripture elsewhere teaches that a dreadful time may come when God discerns that it is useless to strive with a particular individual or a group of people any longer. At this point, he withdraws his Spirit from these people, hardens their hearts, and thus seals their destinies (e.g. Gen. 6:3; Rom. 1:24-27).’
“Clearly Judas’ decision to betray Jesus was not free in the libertarian sense. He was not then equally able to choose either alternative. Boyd implies that many human decisions are not free in this sense.”
Boyd is wrong, and so is he! Firstly, God never hardens anybody’s heart. I have already discussed that in another post. People harden their own hearts. Secondly, the fact that Judas’ choices and decisions were foreseen, foreknown, and had been prophesied of in advance does not mean that they could not have been freely made in a libertarian sense. Calvinism and Open Theism may appear to be far apart outwardly, but inwardly they are very close. They both drink from the same fountain of error, that libertarian freewill is incompatible with the foreknowledge of God, which is not the case. He then continues:
“But what human decisions are free in the libertarian sense? Scripture never teaches libertarianism or even mentions it explicitly. Libertarians do try to derive it from the biblical view of human responsibility, but Scripture itself never does that. Judas is fully responsible for his betrayal of Christ, though we saw above that it was not a free act in the libertarian sense.”
Judas’ decision to betray Jesus was a free act in the libertarian sense. If it had not been, he could not have been held responsible for it. The fact that it was known and prophesied of in advance does not make it any less free in the libertarian sense. That is a false assumption that both Calvinism and Open Theism share. Both theologies are dependent on it. He continues:
“Nor does Scripture ever judge anyone’s conduct, as we might expect on the libertarian view, by showing that the conduct was uncaused. If only uncaused actions were morally or legally responsible, how could anyone prove moral or legal guilt? For it is impossible to prove that any human action is uncaused. Indeed, courts today as in biblical times rightly assume the opposite of libertarianism: that morally responsible actions (as opposed, for example, to accidents or insane behavior) are determined by motives. Lack of a motive diminishes or abrogates responsibility. So libertarianism, which open theists regard as the foundation of moral responsibility, actually destroys moral responsibility.”
I am not a judge, lawyer, or attorney by profession; but that sounds way out wrong to me. To say that “motives” cause people to do something is a tautology, because the word “motive” is defined in the dictionary as the “cause for doing something”. The real question is, Do people have a moral compass which tells them whether a certain course of action is morally right or morally wrong? If they do, and they choose to follow the wrong course, what motivates them to do it is not what makes them culpable; but the fact that they knew it was wrong, and went ahead and did it anyway, and were able to do otherwise if they had wanted to. He then continues:
“These considerations show, in my view, that libertarian freedom does not exist. Therefore it provides no barrier to our confession that God knows the future exhaustively. And so important is libertarianism to the open theist position that without it, the open theist position entirely lacks credibility.”
What these considerations show is how someone as intelligent, articulate, and apparently as well-intentioned as him could be so mightily deceived by the abominable heresy of Calvinism. For the reminder of his article he does a good job of refuting Open Theism on scriptural grounds, or refuting their scriptural arguments, and therefore no further comment is required.
________________________
* Open Theism and Divine Foreknowledge
by John M. Frame. June 4, 2012. Link.
