(Orginally posted on TOL in a thread that has since been deleted)
[FONT="]Open theists frequently like to use historical arguments in attempts to undermine classical theism, arguing that classical theism depends upon Greek philosophical traditions that have somehow undermined what only the open theist thinks about the doctrine of God they have crafted.[/FONT]
[FONT="]This is what is so ironic about Open Theism, in that open theism decries the supposed influence of the Greeks,
yet builds its theology atop the same philosophies, such as the assumed, but never proven, open theist philosophical assumption that
determination erases
relationship.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Open theist Pinnock states that Augustine allowed neo-Platonic ideas to influence his interpretation that put God in “a kind of box” (see Pinnock’s
Most Moved Mover). Boyd writes that classical theism became misguided “under the influence of Hellenic philosophy” (see Boyd’s
The God of the Possible). Finally, Sanders writes that “Greek thought” and “neo-Platonic metaphysics” were a significant influence on the classical doctrine of God (see Sanders’
The Openness of God). Sanders even lumps Luther and Calvin into the camp of neo-Platonic influence that continues to “dominate conservative theology”.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Thus, with a few swipes at the Greeks and the reformers, the doctrines of God’s immutability, impassibility, and timelessness are declared paganism by the open theist trinity of Pinnock, Boyd, and Sanders (
PBS). Unfortunately, a good deal of those outside of any serious theological forum making these same claims
have not spent any significant time studying theological history or philosophy. Instead they merely parrot what they have seen elsewhere (in the texts of PBS) as if saying something more shrilly and loudly will make it so.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Yet, in the next breath open theist Sanders writes that, “Philosophical theology can lend clarity to concepts about the divine nature of providence that can be useful to biblical scholars” (See Sanders’
The God Who Risks). In fact, the Greeks, Epicurus, and his follower, Lucretius, spent lots of time dealing with the kind of freedom open theist would like to claim--libertarian free will. This tells me open theists clearly don’t appreciate the Aristotelian influence on the limited divine foreknowledge open theism claims. Aristotle’s views on the truth-value of future-tense statements is the philosophical basis for the open theist's views of God’s omniscience (see
De Interpretatione, Ch. 9).[/FONT]
[FONT="]But, what of these claims? A closer look reveals something very different.[/FONT]
[FONT="]No one will dispute that the early Church theologians read the Greek philosopher’s and even used Greek terms to communicate biblical truths efficiently to their generation
. What is significantly overlooked by open theists is that these early church theologians transformed the meanings and contents of the terms they used so as to be faithful to the truths of Scripture. I’ll say more about this below, but for those seeking to truly learn about the doctrines of God and Greek thought, see John Piper’s
Beyond the Bounds, Gerald Bray’s
The Personal God, and Millard Erickson’s
God the Father Almighty: A Contemporary Exploration of the Divine Attributes. Moreover,
rabbinic authorities confirm that the attributes of God in Judaism have been developed from the bible and not Greek thought. See D.G. Montefiore’s
A Rabbinic Anthology.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Orthodox Christian doctrine history also denies the notion of open theists that classical theism is a pagan mixture.
Even Boyd writes that the history of orthodox Christian doctrine has always been on the side of classical theism, concluding “I must concede that the open view has been relatively rare in church history” (see
The God of the Possible, pg. 115). Such a perspective is in keeping with the Church fathers, Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, the Puritans, as well as Spurgeon, Edwards, and Hodge, all of whom confirmed the classical doctrine as God’s deposited truth.[/FONT]
[FONT="]As noted above, some open theists will trot out their barbs about Augustine’s or Aquinas’ influence by the Greeks in the development of theology. That is about the extent of what they can say, since very few have studied these theologians or Greek philosophers carefully and formally.
There is no disputing that Augustine owed much to Platonic thinking. In fact, it was his studies of Plato and Plotinus that led Augustine to his conversion to Christianity.
The more Augustine read these thinkers the more Augustine realized that the whole of Greek thought had to be recast within the light of the Scriptures.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Likewise, Aquinas spent much of his free time in 1268 and the next five years writing commentaries about Aristotle. These were not the task of a Dominican theologian, which he was at the time (in Paris), and they were not written to twist the texts of Aristotle into a Christian purpose.
It was afterwards, when Aquinas had more fully developed understandings of the Greeks, that he began composing his “errors of Aristotle”. Few persons who have not formally studied Aquinas realize that in all his thinking,
Aquinas held to the intellectual policy that a genuine conflict between what the human mind can know and the truths of the Christian faith can never arise. There are many
seeming conflicts, as Aquinas’ “errors of Aristotle” plainly showed.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The fact is that the open theist's charges against classical theism are not new. In fact they are a repetition of liberal theology. Open theists are parroting the liberal theologians of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. These claims originated in nineteenth century Germany, and were connected to Ferdinand Christian Baur (1869) and August Neander (1850). They were picked up later by Albrecht Ritschl (1889). The exposition of these claims that resurrected them all over again came from Alfred (Adolph) von Harnack (1930) published as “What is Christianity?” Walter Bauer (1960) further developed Harnack’s thesis.[/FONT]
[FONT="]For example, open theists will frequently mock the classical theist’s doctrine of the immutability of God as being wholly derived from the Greeks. But what is the real truth of the matter? In Greek thought immutability of “god” meant not only
unchangeability but also the ability to be affected by anything in any way, i.e.,
the unmoved mover. The Greek word for this primary characteristic of “god” was
apatheia, from which we get our word “apathy”.
Apathy means indifference, but the Greek term goes far beyond that idea. It means the inability to feel any emotion whatsoever. The Greeks believed “god” possessed this quality because we would otherwise have power over him to the degree that we could move him to anger or joy or grief. He would cease to be absolute and sovereign. Thus the “god” of the philosophers was lonely, isolated, and compassionless.
This all makes for good, logical, philosophy, but it is not what God reveals about Himself in the Scriptures and classical theists categorically reject it.[/FONT]
[FONT="]So, if these arguments by open theists are not new, then what are they really about? I will let Pinnock describe the motivation by open theists to claim ancient thoughts have polluted classical theism:[/FONT]
[FONT="]
“Modern culture can actually assist us in this task because the contemporary horizon is more congenial to dynamic thinking about God than is the Greek portrait. Today it is easier to invite people to find fulfillment in a dynamic, personal God than it would be to ask them to find it in a deity who is immutable and self-enclosed. Modern thinking has more room for a God who is personal (even tripersonal) than it does for a God as absolute substance. We ought to be grateful for those features of modern culture, which make it easier to recover the biblical witness.”
[FONT="]“We are making peace with the culture of modernity.” (The Openness of God. 107) {emphasis mine}[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT="]In Pinnock we see the real motivation of open theism:
mixing a theological system with contemporary culture which appeals to our modern world. After all, ours is a world nowadays that needs a feel-good God in its culture of egalitarianism, extravagance, and self-absorption. Philosophical humanism, liberalism, and modernism packaged up in the guise of a supposed enlightened re-thinking of the doctrine of God.[/FONT]
