The Relationship Between Arminianism and Openness theology
Dr. John Sanders
It seems to me that the core of evangelical Arminianism is that God does not meticulously control every detail of our lives, but, instead, grants us the freewill to respond to his gracious initiatives. Though God could have refrained from giving us freewill, Arminians hold that God sovereignly choose to create a world where we could freely come to experience his love. Unfortunately, humans have revolted against God. Arminians believe we are sinners in need of divine grace and that without this grace we cannot be in proper relationship with God. God grants sinners “enabling” (rather than irresistible) grace whereby we come to the point where we understand the divine love for us and we are now faced with a decision whether to accept or spurn that love. Arminians believe that divine election for salvation is conditioned upon our response to God’s initiatives (conditional election). Although Jesus died for every single human, we are responsible to appropriate the atoning work of Christ into our lives if it is to be effective for us.
Arminians do not believe that everything that happens is decreed by God. God is not the author of murders, rapes and oppression. Humans have the freewill to inflict harm on others that God does not desire. Nevertheless, they affirm that God works with us even in the midst of our evil attempting to bring good out of our evil. God, in grace, seeks us to collaborate with him in the ministry of reconciling the world to himself. According to Arminians, God chooses, for some things such as evangelism and feeding the poor, to be dependent upon us. That is, we can let God down by not doing what he wants us to do. Hence, God takes a certain amount of risk in deciding to work through us. God does indeed guide us, but we can turn a deaf ear to the Spirit and so grieve him. God is affected by us and genuinely grieves or rejoices over what we do.
When it comes to prayers of petition, Arminians believe that our prayers can influence what God decides to do. Not that we can force God to do what we ask, but that God graciously allows us to influence him.
Overall, Arminians believe God is sovereign, all knowing, all powerful, loving, and holy and that God graciously enters into reciprocal relations with us. The crucial watershed between Calvinism and Arminianism centers in the different understanding of the divine nature. For Calvinists, God cannot be affected by us in any respect. For them, prayer is simply the means by which we come into harmony with God’s will (if God has so ordained) and our sin does not actually grieve God since he ordained it in the first place. Arminius, however, modified his view of God’s nature—God can be affected by us—and so came to vastly different conclusions about soteriology, prayer, guidance, sin and evil. Arminians, unlike their Calvinist counterparts, affirm that God responds to what we do and enters into reciprocal relations with us.
The openness of God theology agrees with everything that has just been said about Arminianism. Openness may legitimately be understood as a subset of Arminian theology and is not Pelagian nor Socinian. It is not Pelagian because Openness denies that sinners return to God without the aid of the Holy Spirit. It is not Socinian because openness affirms the trinity and the atoning of Jesus. Furthermore, openness is not process theology because openness, along with Arminianism, affirms that God did not need to create a world and that God could, if he so desired, control everything that happens. Process theology rejects both of these. However, proponents of openness are engaged in a “family squabble” with their fellow Arminians over a couple of issues. We believe that Arminians are correct to affirm such beliefs as that God grieves over our sin, that our prayers can affect God and that God responds to us. We also agree that God is sovereign, all knowing, all powerful, loving, and holy and that God enters into reciprocal relations with us. However, proponents of openness believe there are one or two weakened timbers in the theological house that need repair if Arminianism is to be logically consistent.
Some, but not all Arminians believe God is timelessness (the eternal now). We, along with some Arminians, assert that those Arminians who affirm both that God is timeless and, for instance, that God grieves, commit a logical contradiction. A timeless being cannot change in any respect for the simple reason that change (a transition from one state into another) involves temporal succession. Thus, to affirm that a timeless deity changes (e. g. grieves or responds) is incoherent. The other timber in need of aid is the belief in exhaustive definite foreknowledge. Proponents of openness believe that the Scriptures teach that God does not have exhaustive definite foreknowledge of future contingent events (what beings with freewill will do in the future). Arminians have traditionally believed that such foreknowledge helps answer the Calvinist interpretation of certain Scriptural texts. God simply “looks ahead,” sees what we are going to do and then plans his actions accordingly. What has been overlooked is that foreknowledge cannot help God govern the world. If, for instance, God timelessly sees that I will die in a car crash on my way home on a certain day, then God cannot make it come about that I not die in the car accident that day since that would make his omniscience incorrect. It is logically incoherent to claim that God can both know that something will in fact occur and then act to ensure that that event does not in fact occur. Consequently, openness theology seeks to shore-up traditional Arminianism in order to coherently affirm everything else Arminians wish to affirm. Proponents of openness seek a more logically consistent and practically relevant Arminianism.
Dr. John Sanders
It seems to me that the core of evangelical Arminianism is that God does not meticulously control every detail of our lives, but, instead, grants us the freewill to respond to his gracious initiatives. Though God could have refrained from giving us freewill, Arminians hold that God sovereignly choose to create a world where we could freely come to experience his love. Unfortunately, humans have revolted against God. Arminians believe we are sinners in need of divine grace and that without this grace we cannot be in proper relationship with God. God grants sinners “enabling” (rather than irresistible) grace whereby we come to the point where we understand the divine love for us and we are now faced with a decision whether to accept or spurn that love. Arminians believe that divine election for salvation is conditioned upon our response to God’s initiatives (conditional election). Although Jesus died for every single human, we are responsible to appropriate the atoning work of Christ into our lives if it is to be effective for us.
Arminians do not believe that everything that happens is decreed by God. God is not the author of murders, rapes and oppression. Humans have the freewill to inflict harm on others that God does not desire. Nevertheless, they affirm that God works with us even in the midst of our evil attempting to bring good out of our evil. God, in grace, seeks us to collaborate with him in the ministry of reconciling the world to himself. According to Arminians, God chooses, for some things such as evangelism and feeding the poor, to be dependent upon us. That is, we can let God down by not doing what he wants us to do. Hence, God takes a certain amount of risk in deciding to work through us. God does indeed guide us, but we can turn a deaf ear to the Spirit and so grieve him. God is affected by us and genuinely grieves or rejoices over what we do.
When it comes to prayers of petition, Arminians believe that our prayers can influence what God decides to do. Not that we can force God to do what we ask, but that God graciously allows us to influence him.
Overall, Arminians believe God is sovereign, all knowing, all powerful, loving, and holy and that God graciously enters into reciprocal relations with us. The crucial watershed between Calvinism and Arminianism centers in the different understanding of the divine nature. For Calvinists, God cannot be affected by us in any respect. For them, prayer is simply the means by which we come into harmony with God’s will (if God has so ordained) and our sin does not actually grieve God since he ordained it in the first place. Arminius, however, modified his view of God’s nature—God can be affected by us—and so came to vastly different conclusions about soteriology, prayer, guidance, sin and evil. Arminians, unlike their Calvinist counterparts, affirm that God responds to what we do and enters into reciprocal relations with us.
The openness of God theology agrees with everything that has just been said about Arminianism. Openness may legitimately be understood as a subset of Arminian theology and is not Pelagian nor Socinian. It is not Pelagian because Openness denies that sinners return to God without the aid of the Holy Spirit. It is not Socinian because openness affirms the trinity and the atoning of Jesus. Furthermore, openness is not process theology because openness, along with Arminianism, affirms that God did not need to create a world and that God could, if he so desired, control everything that happens. Process theology rejects both of these. However, proponents of openness are engaged in a “family squabble” with their fellow Arminians over a couple of issues. We believe that Arminians are correct to affirm such beliefs as that God grieves over our sin, that our prayers can affect God and that God responds to us. We also agree that God is sovereign, all knowing, all powerful, loving, and holy and that God enters into reciprocal relations with us. However, proponents of openness believe there are one or two weakened timbers in the theological house that need repair if Arminianism is to be logically consistent.
Some, but not all Arminians believe God is timelessness (the eternal now). We, along with some Arminians, assert that those Arminians who affirm both that God is timeless and, for instance, that God grieves, commit a logical contradiction. A timeless being cannot change in any respect for the simple reason that change (a transition from one state into another) involves temporal succession. Thus, to affirm that a timeless deity changes (e. g. grieves or responds) is incoherent. The other timber in need of aid is the belief in exhaustive definite foreknowledge. Proponents of openness believe that the Scriptures teach that God does not have exhaustive definite foreknowledge of future contingent events (what beings with freewill will do in the future). Arminians have traditionally believed that such foreknowledge helps answer the Calvinist interpretation of certain Scriptural texts. God simply “looks ahead,” sees what we are going to do and then plans his actions accordingly. What has been overlooked is that foreknowledge cannot help God govern the world. If, for instance, God timelessly sees that I will die in a car crash on my way home on a certain day, then God cannot make it come about that I not die in the car accident that day since that would make his omniscience incorrect. It is logically incoherent to claim that God can both know that something will in fact occur and then act to ensure that that event does not in fact occur. Consequently, openness theology seeks to shore-up traditional Arminianism in order to coherently affirm everything else Arminians wish to affirm. Proponents of openness seek a more logically consistent and practically relevant Arminianism.
