This is one of my latest papers for seminary. Please ignore the small grammatical mistakes. Well, I guess we will see if anyone reads this one. Blessings.....
DOES GOD RISK?
Throughout the history of Christianity, understanding of the providence of God has involved a diversity of perspectives. Two such perspectives view God as a risk-taker, while the orthodox view depicts God as risk-free. More Calvinistic scholars tend to emphasize the classical attributes of God and argue that God is risk-free, while open theist and process theist scholars contend that God often takes risks. According to a close examination of the Scriptures and their interpretation, the Calvinist perspective of trusting in the full providence of God necessitates that God need not take any form of risk.
Perspective of Open Theism and Process Theism
To grasp the perspective of God not taking risk, an exploration of the views that maintain the openness of God’s providence proves necessary. More commonly known as open theism, Dr. Bruce Ware summarizes the way in which this position argues for God lacking exhaustive divine foreknowledge when he states, “These scholars call the position they advocate ‘open theism’ because they like to make central the notion that, for God as well as for us, much of the future is ‘open’ and hence not foreknown or foreordained.”
[1] At first glance, the position of the open theists does not appear as very controversial and certainly not linked to risk, until an examination of the theological corollaries takes place, as well as a critical comparison to the teaching of Scripture. Demonstrating the link between this unknown future and risk, Dr. Ware explains the philosophical argument of open theists this way:
At the heart of the openness proposal are the formative ideas that 1) the future is open, i.e., it stands mostly unknown and undetermined, even by God; and 2) as a result, the future is risk-filled, i.e., unforeseen and unpredictable actions and events can occur, many in relation to the unknown future choices of free creatures, which may frustrate God’s purposes to such a degree that God may or may not triumph over them. God, then, accepts genuine and enormous risks when he creates the world.
[2] In other words, Dr. Ware understands open theism to teach that since the future is open; God cannot foreknow or foreordain future events. Because of his lack of power or ability to see the future, God accepts great risk by creating, as well as the potential that future events might frustrate both his will and plan. However, open theism is not the only theological perspective on whether or not God risks.
Another model of the openness of God that has risen to prominence currently is process theism. Though this view is not really new in terms of its arguments and it is similar to open theism in some respects, this model of divine providence also denies that God possesses exhaustive divine foreknowledge. Claude Stewart describes the process theist understanding of the omniscience of God when he states:
For example, God’s omniscience is affirmed in the sense that the character of the divine knowing is said to be completely and constantly adequate to its objects. But the content of divine knowledge varies (and here “varies” essentially means “increases”) with the changes in what there is to be known.
[3]Stewart’s perspective carries with it two very important connotations. First, if the content of the knowledge of God can “increase,” then his knowledge is not exhaustive. In what appears as a contradiction of terms, Stewart affirms the divine attribute of omniscience, and then denies God’s knowledge of all things. He views God’s knowledge as adequate in terms of character and the entity being known, yet God’s knowledge of the entity can change. As Frame accurately summarizes, “Open theists argue that omniscience means knowing all that is knowable, and since the free decisions of creatures are not knowable, ignorance of them does not count against God’s omniscience.”
[4] This introduction of change demonstrates the second important connotation. Process theologians inherently deny the divine attribute known as the immutability of God because they view God as one with the changing processes of the universe. If both God’s knowledge can change as time passes, then he does not have exhaustive divine foreknowledge and experiences the risk of not knowing what will come to pass.
To maintain consistency within their argument, open theists not only deny exhaustive divine foreknowledge, but also the full sovereignty of God. Gregory Boyd, professor at Bethel College and a known proponent of open theism, demonstrates the denial of sovereignty and a limiting of omnipotence when he states:
open theism and classical Arminianism hold that God chose to create this world and give agents power to resist him. Only in this way could God create a world that was capable of love, for love must be chosen. In making this decision, God temporarily limited own ability to unilaterally get his way. But, as Scripture clearly shows, God has not given away more power to creatures than he can handle.
[5]Here Boyd denies the full sovereignty of God because he argues that God had to limit himself to create a world in which a true loving relationship could exist. Similar to Arminian thought, his argument lies in a need to maintain libertarian freedom because he believes that God would not compel love from his creatures. Explaining his definition of sovereignty further, Boyd states “If we take our model of divine sovereignty from the biblical narrative, centered on the crucified Son of God, we discover that God’s sovereignty is a sovereignty of love rather than control.”
[6] Here Boyd redefines sovereignty not as the full control of God over all things, but as the love of God typified in the love of Christ on the cross. Yet, if God did not have total sovereignty over all things and the future is open, then believers cannot trust that the loving atonement of Christ accomplished redemption of sinners from the wrath of God. Hence even something as crucial as the atonement may or may not come to fruition, and thus it constitutes risk.
Similar to open theism, process theology must also deny the full sovereignty of God to maintain consistency within their argument. John Sanders, professor of religion at Hendrix college and well-know advocate for the openness of God, explains this denial of sovereignty common to process theism when he states:
The third alternative, process theology, affirms that all things are essentially or necessarily related. God and the world are involved in an ontologically interdependent relationship. The God of process thought is pervasively conditioned by the creatures. It could not be otherwise because the God-world relationship is not of God’s choosing. God is necessarily and ontologically dependent on the world: God would not have being or be who God is apart from the world. God needs the world in order to be God.
[7]Sanders understand process theism to teach that God is not sovereign because God’s existence is contingent upon the creatures he made and the world itself for his being. He even goes so far as to say God that God is compelled to have a relationship with creation. Ontologically speaking, God could not exist without the world in this understanding. Clearly if God is conditioned by his creation and contingent upon it for existence, then he does not have full sovereignty as defined by traditional orthodoxy. Sanders also relates that process theism flatly denies the aseity of God when he notes that God needs the world. If at any point the world would cease to exist, God would cease to exist. This understanding of the sovereignty of God denies that he has any control over virtually any aspect of creation and it throws his very existence into risk.
Aside from denying the aseity of God, process theism also argues that God’s ability to act in the world is restricted. Demonstrating how process theologians do not support the full omnipotence of God, James Keller states:
In their discussion of God’s power, process theists typically distinguish between persuasive and coercive power and assert that God has only the former. God, they say, lacks the power to totally determine the behavior – more precisely; the concrescence – of any entity; God can only lure (attempt to persuade) the entity to develop in a certain way.
[8]Keller relates that God cannot act directly in creation. He can only lure or persuade, thus creation possesses the ability to frustrate God’s desire. This ability to frustrate the desires of God stems from the process theologians need to maintain libertarian freedom. Since God only has the power to persuade his creation to a certain outcome, he takes risk every time he persuades because creation can thwart his plan.
Orthodox Perspective on Why God Never Risks
Orthodox Christianity argues against open theism and process theism because it holds that God possesses exhaustive divine foreknowledge. Much of what the open models believe stems from a need to maintain libertarian freedom. Under this view, they try to separate divine foreknowledge from foreordination. Reformed theology answers:
And so, God’s knowledge of creatures must be grounded in the divine being himself. But mere knowledge of the divine being alone would not give God knowledge of the specific acts of humans, for it was possible for humans not to exist at all and, thus, not to act at all. And so, the simplest explanation of God’s knowledge of specific creaturely actions is that God knows what creatures will do because he knows what he wants them to do. That is, God know what creatures will do because form eternity he has chosen (willed, determined) what they will do.
[9]Here Robinson correctly asserts that God does have exhaustive divine foreknowledge of future events because everything He wills does ultimately come to pass. This is the clear teaching of Scripture as seen in Paul’s letter to the Romans when he says:
For those whom he foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn of many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
[10]Here Paul explains that God saves believers based on His foreknowledge. However, as mentioned earlier, God’s foreknowledge finds itself linked to His foreordination. In other words, God foreknows and predestines because, in eternity past, He willed whom He wished to save. Because of his sovereignty, God’s will cannot experience frustration, and therefore, whatever He wills must certainly come to pass and is not open to risk.
Taking a strong stance against the view of the sovereignty of God as espoused by open and process theism, evangelical Calvinism argues in favor the full sovereignty of God. John Piper gives a correct definition of sovereignty when he states, “‘Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases’ (Psalm 115:3). The implication of this text is that God has the right and power to do whatever makes him happy. This is what it means to say that God is sovereign.”
[11] Counter to the openness models, Piper correctly asserts from Scripture that God has not limited his power in any form. Because God is covenant Lord, the Bible teaches He is omnipotent and can do anything He wishes. The corollary from the full sovereignty of God demonstrates that if God has absolute control and power to do whatever He wills, then He never risks.
Another way that Calvinism affirms the full sovereignty of God involves God’s will and human freedom. Opposite of the views of Gregory Boyd, evangelical Calvinism expresses that God does not have to limit his sovereignty in order to give humanity libertarian freedom and experience a loving relationship with His creation. John Frame describes the simultaneous sovereignty of God and humanity’s freedom when he states:
This kind of freedom is sometimes called compatibilism, because it is compatible with determinism. Determinism is the view that every event (including human actions) has a sufficient cause other than itself. Compatibilist freedom means that even if every act we perform is caused by something outside of ourselves (such as natural causes or God), we are still free, for we can still act according to our character and desires.
[12]Frame understands that just because God has full sovereignty over all things, including the human will, it does not follow that humans are not free and cannot experience a loving relationship with God. Though God ordains the love of his creatures, they still freely are following their desires. Under this model of providence, the atonement is not open to risk. God can lovingly have a relationship with his creatures while maintaining his full sovereignty without risking and giving humanity contra-causal freedom.
Stemming from a biblical understanding of the sovereignty of God, evangelical Calvinism opposes the openness models of God by affirming the full omnipotence of God. Wayne Grudem succinctly defines omnipotence when he states, “God’s omnipotence means that God is able to do all his holy will.”
[13] As Grudem here relates, God has the power to do whatever he so chooses to do. Though a plethora of evidence exists within the canon to support this concept, perhaps the most direct evidence comes from Jesus himself when he says, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
[14] If divine omnipotence means that God possesses the ability and power to bring about whatever he wills, then God never risks because what he wills must ultimately come to pass.
In addition to arguing for a compatabilist view of human freedom, orthodox reformed Christianity affirms that sovereignty of God in His divine attribute called aseity. Different from process theism’s understanding of God’s providence and existence, Wayne Grudem explains aseity when he states:
God’s independence is defined as follows: God does not need us or the rest of creation for anything, yet we and the rest of creation can glorify him and bring him joy. This attribute of God is sometimes called his self-existence or his aseity (from the Latin words a se, which mean “from himself”).
[15] According to Grudem’s understanding of Scripture, God’s existence is not contingent upon anything and He has no need of creation because of His full sovereignty. This directly contradicts the perspective of process theism that says God needs the world. For Scriptural evidence, Grudem as well as most conservative theologians turn to Paul’s famous speech to the men of Athens. Luke preserves some of this speech in Acts when he records Paul as saying:
The God who has made the world and all things in it, since He is lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things (…).
[16]Paul, in this famous sermon, expresses the idea that God does not need anything whatsoever. Paul directly and succinctly relates God’s aseity in direct contradiction to the paganism of that epoch as well as the understanding of process theism that argues God’s existence is contingent upon creation.
Classical Theism also differs from open theism and process theism in that it affirms the divine attribute of the immutability of God. Contra the view of the process theists that understands God to be evolving as the universe evolves, Bruce Ware describes the immutability of God when he states, “God is immutable not only with regard to the fact of his eternal existence but also in the very content or make-up of his eternal essence, independent of the world. He does not depend for his existence on anything external to him.”
[17] According to Ware’s view, God does not depend on the universe for his existence. In addition, he also does not change in his essence as time progresses. Ware also notes that process theists explain immutability in a different way when he states:
That God is, then, immutable, though his being depends absolutely on the eternal existence of reality other than his own. And that God’s concrete essence prehends that always the totality of the experiences of the world is immutable, though the actual make-up of who God is in reality is dependent in a large part on the input of others into his nature.
[18] Here Ware illuminates that process theists, in their true modus operandi, have redefined another classical attribute of God to support their perspective, despite the biblical evidence. For example, one of the most direct examples of the immutability of God comes from the prophet Malachi when he quotes God as saying “‘ For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.’”
[19]Objections From the Openess Models
When open theists and process theists object to the orthodox evangelical understanding of God’s providence, they formulate their arguments on misunderstood or redefined divine attributes and on Scripture, albeit incorrectly interpreted. In on example that typifies their entire viewpoint, Boyd attempts to argue for the openness of God by showing that God can change. He makes his argument from Jonah when he states, “The people of Nineveh repented and believed that ‘God may relent and change his mind’ (Jonah 3:9). Consequently, ‘God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring on them.’(Jonah 3:10)”
[20] Here Boyd attempts to use this section of Jonah as a prooftext that God has expressed that he can change and is mutable. While Boyd’s arguments appear sound, they are centered on a definition of immutability that evangelicals do not hold. Answering most of the texts and interpretations that open theists and process theists use to justify their argument, Bruce Ware counters when he states:
So, although God may have known that the world would become morally corrupt (Gen. 6:5-6), that Nineveh would repent (Jonah 3:5-10), that Moses would plead for his people (Ex. 32:11-14), and that Saul would fail as king (1 Sam. 13:8-14; 15:1-9), nonetheless God may experience internally and express outwardly appropriate moral responses to these changed situations when they occur in history. That is, he may literally change in emotional disposition and become angry over increasing moral evil and flagrant disobedience, or he may show mercy in relation to repentance or urgent prayer. And, this may occur in historical interaction with his human creatures, even though he knows, from eternity past, precisely what would occur and what his response would be.
[21] Here Ware gives the correct definition of immutability whereby evangelicals believe that God can show real emotion or regret to actual situations because this does not constitute a change in His essence. In addition, Ware explains that God can show an emotive change while simultaneously maintaining his foreknowledge of particular events. Hence, evangelicals would argue that the bulk of Scripture argues that God never appears depicted as a risk-taker.
Though open theism and process theism strongly argue that God takes risks, a survey of the both theological and Scriptural evidence proves this concept as false. Both sides of this argument, the openness proponents and Reformed evangelical Christians, cite Scripture to support their perspective. Yet, as the evidence espouses, the Scriptures demonstrate that God never risks because of the many attributes that support his providence: his wisdom, his omnipotence, his exhaustive foreknowledge, and his full sovereignty.
Bibliography
Boyd, Gregory, William Lane Craig, and Paul Helm. Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. Edited by James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy. Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 2001.
Frame, John M. The Doctrine of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2002.
Frame, John M. No Other God: A Response to Open Theism. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2001.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.
Keller, James A. “The Power of God and Miracles in Process Theism.” Journal for the American Journal of Religion 63 (1995): 105-126.
Piper, John. Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. New York, NY: Multnomah Books, 2003.
Robinson, Michael D. The Storms of Providence: Navigating the Waters of Calvinism, Arminianism, and Open Theism. New York, NY: University Press of America, 2003.
Sanders, John. The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2007.
Stewart, Claude Y. “Process Theology: An Alternative Model for Christian Thinking.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 9 (1982): 113-130.
Ware, Bruce A. “An Evangelical Reformulation of the Doctrine of the Immutability of God.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29 (1986): 431-446.
Ware, Bruce A. God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000.
[1] Bruce A. Ware, God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), 18.
[2] Ibid, 143.
[3] Claude Y. Stewart, “Process Theology: An Alternative Model for Christian Thinking,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 9 (1982): 120.
[4] John M. Frame, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2001), 34.
[5] James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy eds., Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, by Gregory A. Boyd, David Hunt, William Lane Craig, Paul Helm. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 43-44.
[6] Ibid, 44.
[7] John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2007), 162.
[8] James A. Keller, “The Power of God and Miracles in Process Theism,” Journal for the American Academy of Religion 63 (1995): 106.
[9] Michael D. Robinson, The Storms of Providence: Navigating the Waters of Calvinsim, Arminianism, and Open Theism (New York, NY: University Press of America, 2003), 33.
[10] Romans 8: 29-30 NASB.
[11] John Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist ( New York, NY: Multnomah Books, 2003), 32.
[12] John M. Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2002), 136.
[13] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 216.
[14] Matthew 19:26b NASB.
[15] Ibid, 160-161.
[16] Acts 17: 24-25 NASB.
[17] Bruce A. Ware, “An Evangelical Reformulation of the Doctrine of the Immutability of God,” JETS 29 (1986): 436.
[18] Ibid, 435.
[19] Malachi 3:6 NASB.
[20] Gregory Boyd, Divine Foreknowledge, 36.
[21] Bruce A. Ware, God’s Lessor Glory, 91-92.
