18
And yet another, perhaps the most, troubling area implicated by open theism is our
understanding of God himself. Now, is it legitimate to ask whether changes in understanding
God relate to the evangelical boundary question? The answer must be, yes. Evangelicals have
not declared their distinctiveness or identity on the question of God, simply because this has been
an area of substantial agreement with the broader orthodox and universal church. But now,
within our own ranks, the openness proposal makes it incumbent for evangelicals to declare
whether the open view of God is acceptable. Well, where does open theism leave us here? In
short, it leaves us with a God who lacks massive knowledge of future human affairs, who
possesses innumerable false beliefs about that future, whose wisdom is less than perfect, whose
plans can prove faulty, whose actions might be regrettable, whose word may be mistaken, whose
self-claim to deity is undermined, a view of God whose inability to declare future free human
actions renders him strikingly similar to the pretender deities denounced by God himself.
My conclusion is this. The cost to doctrine and faith by open theism's denial of
exhaustive divine foreknowledge is too great to be accepted within evangelicalism. It would be
easier to say, let the discussion continue (which it will regardless, to be sure) and allow
difference of opinion here as we do in other matters. After all, drawing the lines will no doubt be
perceived by some as narrow, perhaps "fundamentalistic," and unloving, though these
perceptions will be unfounded. Yet, to fail to challenge a proposal as massive in its harmful
implications for theology and for the church as found in the openness proposal would be utterly
irresponsible, and by its neglect, our failure would constitute complicity in the harmful effects
these doctrinal innovations have for our evangelical theology and for the life of the church. So,
with deep and abiding longings to honor God and his Word, to see the church strengthened, and
to retain whatever integrity evangelicalism has through its core commitments, I would urge this
conclusion: open theism, by its denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge, has shown itself to
be unacceptable as a viable, legitimate model within evangelicalism. May God grant mercy,
wisdom, strength of character, fidelity, and love as we endeavor to follow him and his word in
days ahead.