Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes
What follows is, with minor modifications, an excerpt from my book The Evangelical and The Open Theist.
The interaction between God and man in Scripture has always been of great interest to me. I find the Bible’s depictions of these dynamic encounters of mutual influence striking in their refusal to cohere with our neat theological systems.
Disregarding our desire for an easily comprehensible picture of the divine, devoid of complexity and nuance, these narratives portray a God besieged by a disobedient and insolent people that nevertheless remain the object of his affections. The ability of the human players to influence divine action is particularly thought-provoking.
My Discovery of Open Theism
Standing in contrast to the one-dimensional teachings about God to which I had grown accustomed, I found myself repeatedly drawn to these narratives while completing my theological studies at Ouachita Baptist University. I therefore naturally focused my research on the philosophical and theological debates to which these narratives gave rise.
Studying these matters within an evangelical academic setting made it impossible to avoid the dispute then raging between traditional and open theists. I was fixated and decided to focus my senior thesis on the topic. What follows is the result of my research.
Making My Research Available
It has been seven years since I graduated from Ouachita. I have only now decided to make my research publicly available. As I do so, however, I feel I must preface the work that follows with the following points.
First, I do not claim to be a biblical scholar or theologian. As I write this preface, I am an attorney. Despite having written this book before the completion of my legal studies, its contents nonetheless primarily reflect a lawyer’s mindset.
That is, my interest lies more in the strength of arguments than the merits of one position over another. I believe this became more pronounced during the editing process.
My original purpose in writing this book was to explore whether open theism and evangelicalism are—as many have claimed—mutually exclusive. To do so, I first had to assume the foundational beliefs of evangelicalism. I then had to evaluate the arguments of open theism in their best light.
The purpose of this writing is essential to keep in mind while reading through my work. I must emphasize that its goal is not to establish the open model of God as the correct one. Instead, I seek only to show that its proponents have a legitimate claim to the title “evangelical.”
Stating the Argument
Second, as I suggested above, this book is not a treatise in support of open theism. I am sympathetic to the movement and its attempts to refocus evangelicals on Scripture. I am particularly supportive of efforts to usurp the Reformers and their successors as the definitive authorities in biblical interpretation.
Nevertheless, I eventually came to reject this school of thought. Plainly put, I am not an open theist, and I find its claims presumptuous and unpersuasive.
Indeed, I view with suspicion any theological system makings its first appearance centuries after the apostolic age. (This includes both open theism and Calvinism.)
I hope that modern proponents of traditional theism, with its long and rich theological heritage, will produce more compelling and thoughtful counterarguments against open theism than the frankly embarrassingly superficial works that have thus far littered the theological landscape.
I do not expect John Piper to be John Calvin, but we can do better than the polemics heretofore produced.
Nevertheless, my reservations regarding open theism notwithstanding, arguing for compatibility between open theism and evangelical theology is entirely different than affirming the assertions open theology makes. Without an understanding of this book’s real purpose, it will be easy to believe that I am arguing in favor of open theism.
That is simply not the case.
An honest evaluation of another point of view requires us to reflect upon it in its best possible light. We must consider its proponents’ arguments as they make them, not as we would frame them in light of our opposition to their conclusions.
Sadly, too many opponents of open theism have fallen into this trap, setting up straw men and thereby undermining the strength of their own position. This is demagoguery, not debate, and I am loath to see theological discourse reduced to the level of political theater.
Not A Definitive Work on Open Theism
Third, I originally wrote this book as an undergraduate thesis. Its purpose is therefore not to make a significant scholarly contribution to theological studies, as a doctoral dissertation might. Indeed, as I edited this book to strengthen some areas of weakness, I did so through the eyes of an attorney, not a scholar.
Nevertheless, I believe this book presents a fairly comprehensive evaluation of current sources and arguments. I, therefore, think that it should serve as a useful jumping-off point for those wishing to explore the subject further.
Modifications From The Original
Finally, I must note that I have made only minor changes to this work since it originally appeared in the library of Ouachita Baptist University under its original name A Scriptural and Philosophical Evaluation of the Open Model of God as an Ontological Necessity and Its Compatibility with Evangelical Theology.
I made some revisions in light of my removing it from a purely academic environment. The name is the most apparent modification, but other changes appear throughout as well.
For example, I originally wrote this book assuming the audience had a basic understanding of Greek and Hebrew. I edited this book without that assumption.
So, while I retained analysis of the original languages and issues in translation where appropriate, I rewrote these sections with more explanation for those unacquainted with the languages and removed quotes from the original manuscripts. I also fleshed out theological terms and concepts that I previously left unexplained.
Most other changes, however, are relatively minor. I strengthened some arguments I found weak. I also corrected some typographical errors and awkward phrasing present in the original work.
(For those who are interested, Ouachita has made my original thesis available online here.)
An Introduction to Open Theism
While the arguments are somewhat underdeveloped, I believe this short volume effectively and succinctly analyzes the abundance of applicable authorities and arguments currently available.
I hope eventually to rewrite and expand this work in light of the research and study I have conducted since graduating from Ouachita. That, however, will have to wait for another time.
I decided to make this work available now, in its current form. I hope that it can serve as a guide for those who want to dive deeper into the controversy surrounding open theism and its impact on the evangelical community and, indeed, the evangelical understanding of God and his purposes in the world.
(For an introduction to open theism itself, I recommend Greg Boyd’s God of the Possible.)
I hope this work is of value for you in your studies, whether personal or academic.
If you are interested in reading more, you may purchase my entire book on Amazon.com.
 In light of the great depth of theological thought encompassing two millennia of Christian belief and practice, I find the debate surrounding open theism to be particularly superficial. The dispute itself seems to me to be an undeveloped expression of an immature movement. (By immature I mean that, relative to Christianity as a whole, evangelicalism is a recent expression of the faith.)
While the modern appearance of open theism as a developed theological system does not necessarily undermine the answers the movement seeks to offer, it does, in my opinion, undercut the very questions both it and its opponents are asking. I believe we could learn a lot from the Eastern Church’s understanding of mystery. While I believe open theism to provide an adequate if somewhat shallow view of God as he relates to humanity, attempts to describe with certainty the divine essence in terms of theological systems—indeed, in any concrete terms at all—seems to me a foolhardy endeavor.