Difference between Calvinism, Open Theism, and Arminianism

[Homer]

Excellent scholarly article on this subject:

http://johnmarkhicks.files.wordpress.co ... theism.pdf

[mattrose]

That was a good article, Homer... thanks for posting it

For those who don't want to take the time to read the entire paper (though it is only 24 pages, double-spaced), I will summarize:

1. The author thinks open theism a radical revision of classical arminianism
2. Says the major difference is that Arminius believed in meticulous sovereignty (w/o endorsing determinism)
3. In other words, classical arminianism believes that God meticulously 'permits' every evil act (none are random/chaotic)
4. Claims that open theism "accepts a world filled with innumerable instances of gratuitous or pointless evil"
5. Sanders (an open theist) is wrong to say that all forms of meticulous sovereignty are calvinistic/deterministic
6. Claims that classic arminianism makes better sense of scripture than open theism (but offers no support, since it is not the subject of the essay)
7. His main point: Tragedy is NEVER meaningless in classical arminianism, but may be in open theism (though God does try to work good out of evil)

MY REACTION
Frankly, I don't see why an open theist couldn't agree with some version of 'meticulous sovereignty' in the sense that the author means it (that God specifically permits each individual act of sin knowing that he can use it for good). The author assumes the main insistence of open theists is the protection of God's character (which may be the case for many open theists). But it may be that some open theists just reject the existence of the future.

On the other hand, I think one could argue that the classical arminian position (at least as represented by the author), doesn't really let God's character off the hook. For example, the author uses some fancy wording to essentially make the point that in good things, God acts IN & WITH the agent, but in bad situations only WITH. Does this really help practically? Would we feel good about a God who worked IN Mother Teresa (to bring about her goodness) and WITH her to help her do good deeds? YES! But does it let God of the hook that he didn't work IN Hitler (to bring about his badness), but did work WITH Hitler (to help him do bad deeds) simply b/c he knew he could use the Holocaust to accomplish His good purposes?

Finally, as for the pastoral concerns, the author thinks classical arminianism is more existentially satisfying b/c it assures us that every evil act is part of a divine plan. I'm not sure if that is existentially satisfying or horrifying. I am more existentially satisfied to know that evil is evil alone... and that God is working to bring good out of bad situations. I also am inspired to know that these 'good' purposes are not automatic/guaranteed but require our participation in some way.

[dwilkins]

In my experience, people consider it more satisfying to think that there is a distinct providential mechanism behind things when they work out to their favor. When they are not to their favor it is still satisfying as long as they don't have to stare the results in the face (and presumably think about them) for some extended period of time. When I was introduced to Boyd I started to appreciate the advantage of seeing God's role as one of healing things that happened, but not necessarily causing them to happen for some particular reason.

I'll give you a personal example. Both of my kids have a type of cerebral palsy. The younger is more affected than the older, so that the younger will never be able to walk on his own and has a hard time talking clearly. My wife was terribly challenged by this, since people at church had a habit of simply saying that it was God's will that they be born that way and God must be doing this for a reason (it's a satisfying answer when you can walk away from the outcome at the end of the conversation, but no so much when you watch all of the other kids able to ride bikes and run around while your kid sits at your feet crying because he can't play). I was able keep her from punching any of them in the lip, but it has seriously strained her appreciation for God's ways over the years. When I introduced her to Boyd she changed her tune significantly. Now, it wasn't God causing our kids to be handicapped (so that they will never able to enjoy being kids, which is a crushing disappointment for both kids and parents) so that he could show off something about his essence. It was a matter of an anomaly occurring in a creation that gets it right most of the time, and a promise by God that he can use any hardship (regardless of the origin) to demonstrate his power to bring something good and healing out of it.

I can see both sides of the argument, but I don't think that closed theists put much effort into thinking through the implications of their system.

Having said all of that, I don't think that the primary point of Open Theism is providence. It seems to me that it's really a deeper observation about immutability and impassibility. Greek philosophers, and by extension Christians such as Augustine, attempted to rationally develop their perfect image of what God must be like. They did so by logic and for the most part skipped the narrative of scripture. Likewise, one of the weaknesses of Boyd's (and Sanders, etc.) explanation of Open Theism is his focus on Simple Knowledge (or, foreknowledge in general). The Bible never explains how it is that God knows the future. It simply claims that he does. The Bible doesn't describe God as unable to be affected by his creation. It simply says that he is. I can understand if a philosophy professor (attempting to solve our problems via simple logic) might want to explain how this happens. But, having read all sides in the current debate on foreknowledgeI don't think that anyone is going to be able to. In my opinion, Open Theism needs to move on to version 2.0 in which it skips worrying about how God knows the future and focuses instead on the fact that God is in a give and take relationship with people and the rest of creation. People intuitively understand the relational side of Open Theism, so it seems to me that it would be a more fertile area to explore.

Doug

[Homer]

Hi Doug,

I am sorry to hear about your children's illness and the personal pain involved for you and your family.

You wrote:

In my experience, people consider it more satisfying to think that there is a distinct providential mechanism behind things when they work out to their favor. When they are not to their favor it is still satisfying as long as they don't have to stare the results in the face (and presumably think about them) for some extended period of time.

I can see both sides of the argument, but I don't think that closed theists put much effort into thinking through the implications of their system.

John Mark Hicks is not one who has escaped suffering. His first wife died unexpectedly of a pulmonary embolism at about 20 years old. He remarried and his first born son suffered from a terminal genetic condition for years before dying as a teen. He is one who has thought very deeply about suffering and written movingly about the subject and God's providence. His "Yet Will I Trust Him" is an excellent book.

[dwilkins]

If I get the time, I'll take a look at his book. My experience is that he'd be in the minority.

Doug

[mattrose]

If I had to guess, I'd say whether someone is classically Arminian or open theist is a somewhat minor factor in how they cope with loss... even for the theologically minded.

But even if it were a major issue... how different a paradigm are we really talking about here? The author argues that classical arminianism guarantees that God gave evil the go ahead b/c he KNEW he could work good out of it. Open theists argue that God is so awesome in knowledge and wisdom that He can ALWAYS work good out of bad situations. The only thing missing is some sort of absolute certainty (which I'm not sure how classical arminians... as defined in this article... accomplish without becoming determinists. The insistance on absolute certainty is, in my opinion, in opposition to the life of faith that we are called to.

Nevertheless, I'm glad that the author found some comfort in his theology during his grief. And I'm glad Sanders did also... in his openness theology.

[RICHinCHRIST]

The only thing missing is some sort of absolute certainty (which I'm not sure how classical arminians... as defined in this article... accomplish without becoming determinists. The insistance on absolute certainty is, in my opinion, in opposition to the life of faith that we are called to

Matt, so have you decisively become open theist? The last I remember you said you were impressed by the view as described by Pinnock, but not yet convinced.

[mattrose]

Matt, so have you decisively become open theist? The last I remember you said you were impressed by the view as described by Pinnock, but not yet convinced.

Decisively enough to be fine with that label But I remain open to correction

My main reason is I don't think the future exists. The seeming weakness of this view would be its explanation for predictive prophecy, but as I read Pinnock, Boyd, and Sanders it didn't seem like much of a problem at all since they all allow for God's controlling of some things... just not most/all things.

I still think it is possible that things God foreknows aren't determined. I just can't make much sense of it in my own mind. Open theism makes more sense to me and I have no outstanding objections to it.

Another thing I'll add... The accusation against open theism, generally, seems to be that it limits God's gloriousness in some sense. I can only say that, for me, it has heightened it. I love the idea of a God who risks, continually works with, responds, etc. This sort of God seems more alive, more real, more active, more passionate, etc.

[Paidion]

Matt, I appreciate the fact that you are moving in the direction of open theism (if you have not yet fully accepted it).
However, I was wondering about the following statement:

Frankly, I don't see why an open theist couldn't agree with some version of 'meticulous sovereignty' in the sense that the author means it (that God specifically permits each individual act of sin knowing that he can use it for good).

I know that God often brings good out of evil. But I don't think we can infer that He "allows" the atrocities which occur in this life for that reason. That seems to make Him the author of evil. For example, what possible "greater good" will God bring out of the thousands if not millions of rapes and murders of little girls? Does he allow those horrible, outrageous acts in order to bring to pass some greater good? If so, does that not imply that He was the indirect author of those atrocities? And isn't there some way He could have brought to pass that greater good without "allowing" these heinous acts?

Perhaps the "solution" I offer is not satisfying, but I think it's all related to the fact that God created man in His image, with libertarian free will—with the ability to choose. He wants man to choose Christ, and to live lovingly and righteously. But if man refuses and chooses evil, God still respects those choices because they were made out of libertarian free will which He granted him. If God should remove that ablitiy to choose, people would be mere robots, and not acting from choice. God wants us to act FREELY and CHOOSE to submit to His authorty— to CHOOSE the right over the wrong.

If I were doing it, maybe I would turn those particular men (and women) into robots.

(Hmmm... I've just returned to edit my post). On further thought, if God did that, then many of the normal men and women who still possessed free will, would do the right things from fear of becoming robots, and not out of love for God and their fellow man. Then we'd have "Christians" being ruled by fear as in the middle ages when they tortured "heretics" and burned them at stake.

[mattrose]

But I don't think we can infer that He "allows" the atrocities which occur in this life for that reason. That seems to make Him the author of evil.

When I said that open theism was compatible with the kind of 'meticulous sovereignty' mentioned in the article, I wasn't endorsing the connection. I just don't think there's any logical reason why they couldn't be connected. Personally, I think God's reason for 'allowing' atrocities is His commitment to relating to real (free agent) persons. From there, God is able to use bad choices for good.

The furthest I would go is to say that if God, in His omniscience, could discern that absolutely nothing good could come from an atrocity about to be committed, He might intervene to prevent such an atrocity. I'm not even sure if such a hypothetical is possible, though. Even in cases like the Holocaust or sex trafficking... there are some, small, redemption stories that come out of them. But no, I agree with you, He doesn't allow them SO THAT a greater good will come about. The greater good would have been if they never happened in the first place!