OPEN THEISM REVISITED AT THE ETS

About a year ago theosebes looked at the theological position known as "Open Theism". Open Theism endorses the Biblical doctrine of free will against Calvinistic rejections of the doctrine. Last year, formal charges were brought against two of its leading proponents by the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), which finds the doctrine heretical:

Open Theism claims that God created human beings with complete free will, that in doing so he took on genuine risks, that because of human freedom the future is indeterminate, and that God cannot know the future precisely, but only with varying degrees of probability. Most members of the ETS believe such teaching not only departs from the overwhelming testimony of Christian thinkers through the ages, but also calls into question God's own accuracy in biblical prophecy. And if God can't be counted on to be accurate as he speaks through his prophets, how can such beliefs be reconciled with the ETS's commitment to biblical inerrancy?

This year the ETS seemed less hot to expel the two (Clark Pinnock and John Sanders), and in fact both escaped expulsion. Of course, the ETS is a private, voluntary organization and they can set up whatever creeds and rules they want to set up. And one must applaud their willingness actually to take their stated beliefs seriously. But the "Open Theism" position forces them to deal with issues of free will (did they really choose not to expel the two, or was it predetermined?).

Of course the "Open Theism" position also runs the risk of setting up a "system" just as Calvinism does. It makes wonderful sense as long as you live in the rarefied world of the system. But does it jibe with Biblical teaching? Open Theism does seem to have its problems as the investigation into John Sanders' beliefs pointed out:

Like Clark Pinnock, Sanders clarified and retracted certain things he had written in The God Who Risks. But the October 3 discussion centered on his belief that biblical prophecies were not certain (since God does not actually know the future), but were instead probabilistic.

Open Theism falls into the trap of insisting that free will cannot be compatible with God's foreknowledge. Yes, that might seem to make sense on a surface level to man's thinking. But God is in heaven and we are on earth, His ways are not our ways. Both Calvinism and Open Theism are guilty of trying to fill in all the gaps to man's satisfaction, which is not the purpose of Scripture. I trust that God can know the future absolutely if He so chooses. I also trust that He has made me a creature of free will, so that I can make the choice to serve or reject Him. I rest that faith on God's revealed word, what God has Himself chosen to reveal. But my own speculations can never take me beyond what God wants me to know. And that needs to be enough for me despite my curiosity to the contrary.