Notes for Sunday School Class: Open Theism

Open Theism

I.               Defining Openness

A.   God does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge

1.     God knows as much as he can know

2.     God knows per quantity

3.     Redefines omniscience

B.    God experiences time as we do

1.     Experiences change

2.     Can be surprised

C.    God experiences emotions as we do

1.     Can change his mind

2.     Denies anthropopathism as an explanation of God’s emotions

II.             History

A.   Classical Arminianism

1.     “Simple foreknowledge”

a)     God looks ahead to see what will take place

b)    God knows concretely the future free actions of moral beings

2.     A Problem

a)     Creatures are free to do a or non-a

b)    God knows the future

                                                                              i.         “Looking ahead” presumes God is subject to time

                                                                             ii.         “The Future” exists apart from God

c)     Logical inconsistency

B.    Process Theology

1.     Liberal, non-evangelical

2.     God is static in classical theism

3.     They say God is dynamic, he is constantly changing

III.           Scripture references

A.   Gen 22:1-19

1.     God gives Abraham a task to see his response

2.     The test is an “actual” test

3.     God doesn’t know what Abraham’s response will be

B.    1 Sam 15:11, 35

1.     Saul commanded to destroy everything

2.     Saul spared the king and some animals

3.     Lord regrets he made Saul king

C.    Gen 6:6

1.     Violence fills the earth, man is evil continually

2.     The Lord regrets making man

3.     The Lord decides to send a flood

D.   Jonah 4:2

1.     Jonah sent to Ninevah to deliver message of repentance

2.     Jonah knew they would, and that God would forgive

3.     Jonah attempted to flee to Tarshish

4.     God sent the fish, Jonah relented, and Ninevah repented

IV.           Theology

A.   Linear temporality

1.     Focus on the economic Trinity

2.     Dismissal of the ontological Trinity

3.     Limitation of Eternality

a)     God experiences time

b)    God’s knowledge is not exhaustive

B.    God is like us

1.     Openness denies Biblical anthropomorphisms

a)     Anthropomorphism- giving human attributes to a non-human

b)    Anthropopathism- giving human emotions to a non-human

c)     In order for God to relate with us, he needs to have “actual” feelings

2.     Passibility

a)     God exhibits, and has, “actual” emotions

b)    Circumstances “actually” affect God

C.    Omniscience

1.     God knows everything he can know

2.     “Quantitative”

3.     No qualitative difference

D.   Counseling

1.     God changes his plans based on changes in time

2.     God can will one thing, and then something different

3.     God can “write a new song”

4.     God is not ultimately responsible for any evil

Orthodox Beliefs

I.               Scripture

A.   Is 40-48

1.     41:21-22

a.     Declaration of the future

b.     Purpose of the past

2.     46:8-11

a.     God has declared the future

b.     God brings it to pass

c.     God has purpose in events

d.     God will do as he has decreed

e.     God does whatever he desires

B.    Ps 139:4

C.    Rom 8:29-30

D.   Gen 22:1-19

a.     Heb 11:19

b.     If God knows all he can know, then he knows what people are thinking- how did he not know Abraham’s resolve?

E.    1Sam 15

a.     1Sam 15:29

b.     1Sam 13:13-14

c.     Gen 49:10

F.    Gen 6:6

G.   Jonah 4:2

II.             Theology

A.   Ontological Trinity

1.     Must be able to discuss God apart from his works

2.     Must be able to discuss God as he is in himself

3.     His knowledge of future events is directly linked to his existence outside of time

B.    Theology Proper

1.     Ex 3:14

a.     “I am who I am”

b.     Self- definitional

c.     Self- reliant

d.     Present

2.     Modalistic Governmentalism

a.     Attributes exist in modes of one another

b.     Certain attributes are communicably subjective

1.     God must be objective

2.     Moral attributes must be objective in particular

c.     Certain attributes must govern the definitions of other attributes

3.     Aseity

a.     Necessary, non-contingent

b.     Self-determining

4.     Infinite

a.     Simple

                                                                              i.         Not comprised of parts

                                                                             ii.         Indivisible

b.     Eternal

1.     Timeless

2.     Not constrained by time

3.     Non-linear temporality

4.     Exists wholly in an indivisible, non-successive, comprehensive present

c.     Love

1.     Objective vs. Subjective

                                                                                       i.         “Dr. Evil” scenario

                                                                                      ii.         Limited vs. Unlimited atonement

d.     Must be governed by holiness, and ultimately aseity

5.     Omniscient

a.     Simple

b.     Indivisible

c.     Eternal

d.     Present

e.     Necessary knowledge

1.     God’s knowledge of what must be

2.     God’s knowledge of himself

f.      Free or contingent knowledge

1.     God’s knowledge of what could be

2.     God’s knowledge of possible and actual

3.     Knows his works as contingent, dependent upon his choices and could be otherwise than it is

The Blaze: Covenant Theology and Supercessionism

Hi all!

Today, Billy Hallowell penned an article in "The Blaze," where he highlighted some points made by Grant Barry on the issue of Israel's place in the end times. I don't really want to get into the minutia of end times prophecy, but I do want to highlight an inaccuracy in the article. 

We here at Pressing On Podcast have identified ourselves as dispensationalists. We see a distinction between the Church and Israel within the one people of God, each having its own distinct purpose in, and relationship to, the New Covenant in Christ. However, we do part ways with most of our dispensationalist brothers and sisters in that we don't find any benefit in having our fists eternally raised at what is often treated as the false idol of replacement theology. In the ongoing discussion of how Israel and the Church relate to one another, both sides must be committed to honesty and integrity in how we represent the other side. No progress will ever be made if misrepresentation is the norm.

That said, I want to kind of stand up for my Covenant Theology brethren. The article in The Blaze paints an "either or" picture of the Church and Israel.

 Either you see a distinction, or the Church has replaced Israel. A couple of problems here:

1) If the Church has replaced Israel, then you still see them as two distinct groups. If both groups are actually one group, then no one has actually replaced anyone. True "Replacement Theology" requires a distinction (if not entire separation) between the two. If one is making the assertion, like Holloway seems to assert by saying, "...“Israel” actually refers to the contemporary Christian church...," that someone who holds that view is holding to "Replacement Theology," then what you've done is imposed Dispensational distinctives onto a system that does not recognize them.

2) Enter Covenant Theology. While Dispensationalism focuses on discontinuity, CT focuses on continuity. This means that while dispensationalists see a discontinuity in the people of God, CT sees only continuity. So, "Replacement Theology" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because the Church is Israel, and Israel is the Church. There can be no replacement if there is no difference. I don't want to go over the minutia of this subject right now, but if you want a deeper look at this, try here. The main thing that I want to express is that Covenant Theology does not see two distinct groups, but rather, two manifestations of the same group- the one Elect people of God.


Over the years, there have been many back and forth battles between Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians, a ton of unnecessary mud flinging. However, if we are to all take part in the wonderful history of theology, and keep the flow of doctrine flowing onwards, purifying and refining ever further- then we have got to start addressing each other's points of view as it they are expressed by each party, not as we would like to address them in our own pejorative way. This especially goes for articles written for larger news/religion/theology blogs. The conversation will go no further if the major points are not being addressed properly. Each one of us is responsible for our own words.


In Him,

Mike Senders