God's Sovereignty and Open Theism

>>> This is yet another paste from section 4 of my undergrad dissertation. However this section is one of my key arguments against Open Theism. Namely, if God creates primarily for His glory he must be exhaustively sovereign, if he did not create for this purpose then he is guilty of idolatry. <<<

4.2 God’s Purpose and Sovereignty
If you deny the creative-purpose that God creates to magnify His glory then you must assert God is guilty of Idolatry. If you affirm the creative-purpose that God creates to magnify His glory then you must assert God is exhaustively sovereign.

Open Theism inadvertently denies this creative-purpose by allowing God’s glory to be subject to the deterministic choice of man. ‘God created for the sake of loving relationships.’ Therefore God is not seeking the greatest good, namely Himself, and must therefore be seeking something in creation; the freedom of man for instance. When man does this, God holds him guilty of idolatry, why then would God allow Himself to be guilty of this same sin? Of course we know that God does seek the greatest good, so does create to show His glory which renders an Open Theist position biblically bankrupt on this point.

However, an Open Theist cannot affirm this creative purpose, for to do so would mean affirming God’s exhaustive sovereignty. For if God allows anything to hinder His ultimate purpose then he values the thing hindering more than the purpose hindered, rendering it not His ultimate purpose. God must therefore have exhaustive sovereign control over creation. Again this challenges the fundamentals of the Open Theist position which claims a self-limited God. ‘The openness view, with its denial that God can know the free decisions and actions of moral beings, simply cannot hold the Gospel in [the] same way.’

Rom. 9:22-23 and Open Theism (again).

>>>This is another copy and paste from section four("Against Open Theism") from my undergrad dissertation.<<<

4.1 Rom.9:22-23
No key Open Theist work expounds their theology in light of Rom.9:22-23 which is a serious defect. God’s purposes to reveal His glory in vv.22-23 require showing wrath and mercy as the result of ‘God’s determinate choice.’ An Open Theist systematic would have to give this choice to man, so that God’s glory being magnified is determined ultimately by the man’s choices. This increases human control and diminishes God’s control. This does not fit with God’s creative-purpose as he wouldn’t actively be seeking the greatest good but seeking human-freedom above His glory. It further doesn’t exegetically fit with the sovereign God of Rom.9 or the divine-preparer of vv.22-23.

God’s purpose in the passage is to show climatically His Glory; and for this purpose to be achieved he must sovereignly elect vessels for destruction and for mercy. This challenges Open Theism on two levels, first God is shown to be the divine-preparer and so must be behind human choice. Second, if God dynamically relates to the vessels to the degree Open Theists claim, then he is seeking this relational dynamic over the greatest good, the riches of His glory. This drastically distorts the text.

Open Theism and Romans 9 (1)

Romans 9 for me is becoming increasingly important. I have spent some serious time these last 6-10 months trying to get to the bottom of it working with all the dominant interpretations. I feel stronger about my beliefs on elective grace, even though I think Calvin himself botches Rom.9 by going overboard on that; and I feel stronger against classic Arminian arguments as they seem to undermine the integrity of the passage.

Arminian brothers unfortunately seem to take Rom.9 to pieces, re-interpret all those pieces making them at least incompatible with each other and at most diss-jointed with the epistle to the Romans. When one does take Rom.9 as a whole, he/she either overplays the collective language, or underplays the salvific language...both set Rom.9 out of kilter with the epistles flow.

However, if one sees the exegetical hoops Arminians jump through (with all due respect, I have many friends who hold the view); it is nothing compared to an Open Theist position. Rom.9 gives the reader an unquestioning look at God's characteristics as are reflected in creation, redemption, and salvation history. It shows God's sovereignty, his wrath, his power, his hardening, his justice, his utter mercy, and above all is glory as shown through his mercy. Rom.9 gives a taste of how God's characteristics dynamically interact, even in extremes such as wrath and mercy, and Rom.9 uphold completely God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. This is a passage Open Theists need to spend serious time on in order to convince their readers of their theology. - However. - They don't.

For my dissertation I have read two dominant books by C. Pinnock (Most moved mover, and the openness of God), one by G. Boyd (God of the possible), and one by Sanders (The God who risks), several journal articles, and spoke to several advocators of the theology. Not one of the books gives an exegesis or interpretation of Rom.9 in defence of their view! Not one. No-one even mentions in my reading, vv.22-23. Surely this is a highly accountable and answerable passage? Why do Open Theists seem not to believe so? In taking to Open Theist friends about Rom.9, the way they have tackled it is by slipping back into Arminian arguments which when pushed are found to be incompatible with their Open Theist convictions.

I know this post turned into a bit of a rant, and I apologise for any offence caused. What I hope it does is encourage those who know of literature to bring it to my attention, and to provoke a detailed defence of Open Theism with Rom.9 from its advocators. I continue to find Open Theism dangerous for Christians, and feel stronger still for the immensity of God in all things as he reveals himself lovingly to be in Rom.9. Praise God.

Open Theism preliminaries

For part of my dissertation, I shall be looking at and refuting open theism. Although open theists may have no such intention, I find this view of historical Christianity and contention with the classically understood biblical God harmful for the individual Christian, dangerous for the contemporary church, and an offense to the name of our bountiful God. It is a view of God which causes tears, heart-ache, and desperate longing for God's truth to be known in His church. I pray that the Father can give me a real depth of humility, insight, and grace to expound the truth of his word in light of this view. - I'm definitely not their yet, my thoughts exist in a haze which needs to be structured and connected with much more clarity than I currently have. So this is (at the moment) just a list of books that I have found really helpful in re-assessing contemporary views of the 'open God.'

Note. I do also recommend looking at Pinnock, Sanders, Boyd, etc. to hear what they also have to say in their own tongue as modern advocators. - I am grateful to these authors (particularly Pinnock) for pointing out problems in the church in relation to the character of God. However I feel that the open theist response to these issues has created an unbiblical God. To find more helpful ways of addressing the issues of seeking emotive, beautiful ways of relating with an affection-full God, read Jonathan Edwards on the Religious Affections. A book besotted with the total love and joy of/ and in, God and the total sovereignty of God.
Anyway - the books:

J. Piper, J. Taylor, P. K. Helseth, (eds.) Beyond the Bounds
J. Frame, No Other God
D. Wilson (ed.) Bound only Once
B. A. Ware, God's lesser Glory

Extracts from John Piper on Open Theism

Open theism may help conceal deep idolatry in the soul. One of the great needs of our souls is to know if we treasure anything on earth more than we treasure Christ. Treasuring anyone or anything more than Christ is idolatry. Paul said in Colossians 3:5, "Put to death therefore what is earthly in you . . . covetousness, which is idolatry." If covetousness is idolatry, then desiring earthly things more than we desire God is idolatry. That means we must be more satisfied in Christ and his wisdom than we are in all our relationships and accomplishments and possessions on earth.

All of life is meant to be lived to reflect the infinite value of Christ (Philippians 1:20). We show his infinite worth by treasuring him above all things and all persons. Believing in his all-ruling, all-wise sovereignty helps reveal our idolatries in times of pain and loss. Not believing that God has a wise purpose for every event helps conceal our idolatries. Thus Open Theism, against all its conscious designs, tends to undermine a means of grace that our deceptive hearts need.

(for full article see http://www.desiringgod.org/library/fresh_words/2002/041002.html)