background image
2
theology, not simply for issues of soteriology. Theology, as J. I. Packer reminds us is a
"seamless robe, a circle within which everything links up with everything else through its
common grounding in God."
2
Theological doctrines, in other words, are much more organically
related than we often realize and that is why a reformulation in one area of doctrine inevitably
effects other areas of our theology. This is important to remember, especially in evaluating old
and new proposals regarding the doctrine of God.

In this regard, there are at least two complementary ways to evaluate theological
proposals. First, does the proposal in question do justice to all of Scripture? After doing all the
hard exegetical work and seeking to relate texts with other texts into a coherent reading of the
canon, any theological proposal may be evaluated as to whether it does justice to all of the
textual data. But there is also a second and complementary way to evaluate theological
proposals. And it is this: Is the proposal, along with its implications and entailments, consistent
with other theological doctrines, especially with those doctrines that we consider central to our
theological system? If the answer is yes to both of these ways, then we may be assured that our
theological proposal is on track and warranted. However if our answer is negative on both
counts, then it should encourage us to reject our proposal or, at least, re-think it through very
carefully before embracing it as a correct view. In this paper, I want to apply the latter option to
the theological proposal of open theism. In particular, I want to investigate whether the open
theist construal of the divine sovereignty-omniscience and human freedom relationship will be
able to support a high view of Scripture as reflected in the doctrine of inerrancy as represented
by ETS.
3
In other words, granting the open theist's construal of divine sovereignty and
omniscience, what, then, are the logical entailments of such a position for our belief in the
inerrancy of Scripture? Will the openness proposal, at the end of the day, uphold or undermine
our view that Scripture is nothing less than God's Word written, the product of God's mighty
action through the Word and by the Holy Spirit whereby human authors freely wrote exactly
what God intended to be written, without error?
4

How do I propose to carry out my investigation? In two main steps. First, I will outline
and describe the open theist construal of divine sovereignty, omniscience, and human freedom.
Second, I will attempt to evaluate whether the openness proposal is supportive of or detrimental
2
J. I. Packer, "Encountering Present-Day Views of Scripture," in The Foundation of Biblical Authority, ed. James
M. Boice (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 61.
3
In this paper I am taking "a high view of Scripture" and the doctrine of inerrancy as my given. By the phrase "high
view of Scripture" I am referring to the orthodox, historic view of Scripture held by the church throughout the ages,
at least up until the present time. This is also the view of Scripture that is endorsed by the Evangelical Theological
Society (ETS). For a sample defense of this view of Scripture see the following two works edited by D. A. Carson
and John Woodbridge, Scripture and Truth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983) and Hermeneutics, Authority, and
Canon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986). One may also refer to the number of books published in the late 1970's
and early 1980's by the ICBI (International Council for Biblical Inerrancy).
4
This view of Scripture is what Kevin J. Vanhoozer calls the "Received View." See his article, "God's Mighty
Speech-Acts: The Doctrine of Scripture Today" in A Pathway Into the Holy Scriptures, ed. Philip E. Satterthwaite
and David F. Wright (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 143-81.