Would anyone reading this blog allow that someone who adheres to Open Theism holds to faith in Jesus Christ?
Can we answer that question using the Nicene Creed?
Feel free to post your ideas in the comments. The only thing I’m asking is that my normal Entourage refrain from any apologetic engagements.
Let’s see where this goes.
November 5th, 2009 | 10:31 pm | #1
The Nicene creed, in its historical context, presupposes classical theism.
November 5th, 2009 | 10:36 pm | #2
The notion that “God has, in sovereign freedom, decided to make some of his actions contingent upon our requests and actions.”1 is unbiblical. Anyone holding to this view needs a proper view of God.
1 – http://www.opentheism.info/
November 5th, 2009 | 10:58 pm | #3
It’s certainly possible. After all, men created the Nicene Creed. Might Jesus have codified the variations of religion practiced in his name differently? Would Jesus consider “true” Christians only those who abide by the Creed exactly as worded, or is his judgement more nuanced then currently accepted? It’s all a matter of faith – not in God, but in the inerrancy of council gathered at Nicaea in 325 AD.
November 5th, 2009 | 11:06 pm | #4
I would say of open theism what I say of the Trinity – someone could have mistaken views and still be a Christian – maybe. Someone new in the faith, still being discipled, still fairly unlearned about the Bible and Christian teaching, might buy into some false teachings but would hopefully be pulled from error as he continues to grow.
Many, however, are pursuing error that should know better and it calls into question their entire understanding of Scripture and Christ and sin and salvation.
November 5th, 2009 | 11:16 pm | #5
I think yes. The creed is vague enough to allow for varying ideas on how God operates in the world and how it is that he saves men.
November 5th, 2009 | 11:34 pm | #6
I think there are implications of a lot of views that, if followed to their logical conclusions, would amount to a denial of the gospel (or something central to it). But the fact remains that the people who hold those views often don’t follow them to those logical conclusions, and thus they don’t deny the gospel (or something central to it). I’m sure we all hold some view or other that’s in this category.
Suppose it’s true that open theism has such implications. I happen to think it does, since the gospel requires that God was able to ensure salvation, but open theism doesn’t allow for God to have ensured that anyone would freely kill Jesus. Many open theists do not deny the gospel, though. So it doesn’t matter in terms of their salvation whether they are open theists. Open theism doesn’t deny the gospel itself. I don’t see how it itself denies anything in any important creed.
November 5th, 2009 | 11:37 pm | #7
I suppose a good question might be:
Does a single creed exist that adequately explains all that is necessary to believe for salvation?
I don’t mean “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.”
More on the lines of, “These things cannot be knowingly denied if one is to be considered a Christian.” That sort of thing.
In that, I think that adherence to the Nicene Creed, only, will allow for many many (although not all) non-believing groups to adopt it.
November 5th, 2009 | 11:45 pm | #8
Sure. It’s in spite of, not because of, their professed doctrine. But holding a right doctrine doesn’t save – faith through grace saves.
As was noted above, it’s the same situation with the Trinity. For that matter, I would say that it’s likely there are a few members of various cults who are actually Christians.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t wholeheartedly proclaim the falsehood of the teachings of those cults. Likewise, we should be willing to boldly proclaim open theism a gross misunderstanding of Scripture. And if the topic moves to the Protestant/Catholic split (or the traditional/Emergent, or whatever other split you like), of course, we may be moved to say much the same. I have no doubt of the salvation of many of my Catholic friends, and they of mine, but we profoundly mistrust each other’s doctrinal outlooks on any number of important issues, not least justification and ecclesiology (in its broadest sense).
The question, in the end, is what constitutes the ultimate dividing line in the sand. I’m not sure there is one, though if I had to pick a hill to die on it’d be the hill where the cross stands and how Christ saves – but I would also argue, quite strenuously, that it’s not having a right view of the atonement that saves any more than it’s faithfully observing every Sabbath that saves. Christ saves.
November 6th, 2009 | 12:02 am | #9
Before answering, I’ll take note that you asked if an open theist can hold to faith in Christ–you did not ask if open theism is biblical or is a proper view of God. (Jeremy S., your answer was off-topic.)
Yes. Christians can have a sub-biblical view of God, and I don’t see grounds for putting confusion here in the category of damnable heresy.
Note: There might be versions of Open Theism that do rise to that level, but I’m answering in terms of the core definition–that there are some future events which God does not foreknow with certainty.
Confusion on the gospel & justification would be more apt to conflict with authentic faith in Christ–since it can mean that one is depending on something more than Christ’s work. Like your own moral accomplishments to make you acceptable to God.
November 6th, 2009 | 3:10 am | #10
Hmm, I guess there’s a couple different issues to consider:
While I would agree with those that would say open-theism is an heretical teaching – the question is whether all heresy is equally damning.
Or, perhaps some heresies are by their very nature damning (such as the Mormon’s view of Christ or Arianism, though I’m not sure there’s a difference between the two) while others (perhaps open-theism or Donatism) are of a different nature because their teachings do not strike at the core beliefs of Christ’s atoning work at the cross and subsequent resurrection.
Thoughts?
November 6th, 2009 | 7:41 am | #11
So far, these are not the answers I thought I’d see, but that’s OK. Everybody learns when that happens.
I was actually asking how the Nicene Creed could be used to show or prove Open Theism is false. It is a false belief, isn’t it?
November 6th, 2009 | 7:56 am | #12
If “maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen” means events and their contingencies then “no”, an open theist could not hold to it and the Nicene Creed would say that they are false. But that is probably making the creed say more than it intended.
The writers of the creed did not and likely could not envision a view of God that maintained some of the things that Open Theism maintains. They wrote the creed out of a different battle. If the sovereignty of God in all things had been the battle then I suppose the creed would have said something about it.
November 6th, 2009 | 9:57 am | #13
I do not think Open Theism contains implications that undermine the gospel. The arguments have been made, and there is little that demonstrates that Jesus is unable to save those who call upon his name in faith in Open Theism. Open Theism is a conception about the future, how counterfactuals obtain their truth value, and a possibility that some will be necessarily unknown given certain creational parameters. Certainly these things bear upon a doctrine of salvation, but they do not undermine it.
So in short, I would like to see Dallas Willard or Greg Boyd invited to the blog :)
November 6th, 2009 | 10:38 am | #14
{rolls eyes}
November 6th, 2009 | 10:51 am | #15
…he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures…
I think this statement in the Nicene Creed could be used to disprove open theism. Details of Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection were revealed in Scriptures before they happened.
November 6th, 2009 | 11:23 am | #16
Can you hold to open theism and have saving faith in Christ? I think so. Though open theism is wrong, I don’t see in it an understanding of God’s nature so unbiblical that it precludes truly knowing, loving, and trusting in Christ.
As others have pointed out, the Nicene Creed was meant to answer different issues. However, the statement God chose to create a universe in which the future is not entirely knowable, even for God I think is refuted by the worldview and nature of God presupposed in the creed.
Can an open theist affirm the Nicene Creed? I would think so, and with no difficulty.
An implication of the creed (absolute foreknowledge of Christ’s return to judge and rule in glory) I’m sure would be seen as a part of the future which is knowable. It’s handy having an elastic ruler, no?
November 6th, 2009 | 11:54 am | #17
Paul, I don’t think the creed is talking about the scriptures revealing it before it happened but simply that we believe that it happened because the scriptures now tell us about it. I’m not sure open theism conflicts with that creed at all.
Since open theists insist that God can plan what he will do, and no potential human action can interfere with the things God will surely do that don’t depend on human choice, those predictions are fine. Most of what the creed says about the future is like that. There could be a conflict with the belief in the eternal kingdom, because for all we know everyone who makes it into the kingdom might eventually rebel and then it will be a kingdom of just God, which isn’t what the creed meant. But an open theist can still affirm the words.
There’s a conflict with the implications of open theism and what was originally meant by “he has spoken through the prophets”. What the creed’s authors meant by that is that the prophets, when speaking of human actions beforehand, were infallible, and open theism doesn’t allow that. But open theists will still affirm the words but deny their original intent.
So an open theist can maintain everything actually in the creed as written.
November 6th, 2009 | 12:37 pm | #18
Jeremy Pierce – you may very well be right. But I think you could make a case that “according to the Scriptures” is referring to something like 1 Corinthians 15:4. And that all the “human choice” surrounding those events is included in what was planned by God.
November 6th, 2009 | 12:40 pm | #19
oops: 1 Cor 15:3-4
November 6th, 2009 | 12:41 pm | #20
I think the “You are saved by grace through faith and not by holding correct doctrine” sentiment is a complete evasion and embodies a false dichotomy between doctrine and faith.
Everybody here believes that a correct understanding of doctrine is not sufficient for salvation.
Everybody here also believes that there is doctrinal content to the faith through which God saves. We may not divorce doctrine and faith. We cannot be saved by grace through faith in a Unitarian God named Jesus. (Right?)
Ecclesiology matters. Maybe God in his sovereign freedom can save folks apart from the church and the proclamation of the gospel and conveyance of doctrine. It doesn’t matter for the purposes of the church. What matters is that God commands the church to use evidence to decide whether a person may be welcomed to the table as a Christian, disciplined as a Christian, or excommunicated as an apostate. Evidence includes what doctrine the person holds, whether he has been baptized, what sins are being committed and/or repented of, other works and fruits of the Spirit. Some evidence is decisively positive, some decisively negative.
This thread purports to be a discussion of whether holding to the doctrine(s) of open theism is a decisively negative piece of evidence for being a Christian. But depending on what “being a Christian” means, it may or may not fall under what the church’s actual responsibility of discerning is. Only God knows the heart. The church’s job is to use evidence to identify who is permitted to the table under an actual church authority and discipline, and who is to be excommunicated from the body. The church could make the wrong decision.
But, an answer to this discussion of believing open theism as decisively negative evidence is impossible apart from the context of an actual church body which exercises the authority to exclude. Obviously, this is much harder if not impossible for us evangelicals who do not share an authority structure and generally do not think (well) in terms of church authority and discipline. This abstraction of the question out of the context of a church body is why there is so much hmming and hawwwing and indecision about making a judgment on a particular doctrine. People are hung up on an abstract, hypothetical “Well, maybe…” false view of what a church is doing when it says someone is a Christian.
My view is that if I were an elder, I would vote to excommunicate an open theist from my congregation because, unless I’m mistaken, it undermines the prophetic nature of God’s words and deeds in history. Unrepentant open theism would constitute decisive negative evidence, even if he exhibited what looked like other fruits of the Spirit. “Lord, Lord didn’t I do miracles in your name,” etc.
November 6th, 2009 | 12:47 pm | #21
Frank,
After your restated question, I was going to come back with a comment saying something like this:
No, we can’t use the Nicene Creed as the sole & final litmus for saving faith. It wasn’t even intended to do that. It’s written in response to particular theological questions in a particular context; it’s an important summary of Biblical teaching, but it doesn’t even claim to summarize everything that’s essential.
But it looks like that was your point.
November 6th, 2009 | 10:25 pm | #22
Yes, I think someone can hold to faith in Christ as an open theist. It is a heretical belief, but I don’t know that all heresy is damning. In fact, I think Calvinism is heretical in some respects. But their heresy is minor enough that I don’t particularly worry about their salvation.
As for whether or not open theism can be disproven from the Nicene Creed, no. The creeds were meant to be “yardsticks” of right belief, but they aren’t exhaustive on every topic which one might go astray on. (Actually, the original Nicene Creed-after the council of Nicea, not the new and improved version from Constantinople-might be useful for disproving open theism, because it called anathema on anyone who claims Christ has “changed”. Pretty hard to remain unchanged if you are as surprised by the future as everyone else.)
November 7th, 2009 | 10:41 pm | #23
It’s clear that Open Theism is not Christian. To say, for example, that the Son of God is “eternally begotten of the Father” assumes atemporality. For if the Son were eternally begotten of the Father in time, which is what the open theists must believe, then the Father and the Son would have had to traverse an infinite number of moments to reach today. But that’s impossible for any being limited by time to accomplish.
Moreover, consider this: “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.” That either refers to some states of affair or it doesn’t. If the future is unknowable, then this claim is neither true nor false, such as the claim “The number 3 is blue.” A “creed” is what one believes is true. Since one cannot believe as true that which refers to nothing, then open theism is inconsistent with the Nicene Creed.
November 7th, 2009 | 11:14 pm | #24
Dr. Beckwith –
I am pleased that we agree that Open Theism is not at all Christian. I hope that particular example will the basis for some other productive conversations in the future.
In writing my last several posts for this blog, I’ve had a chance to review the origins of the Nicene Creed, and some of the commentary of church historians about that document has had me thinking about this post some more.
The consensus, it seems, is that the men assembled at Nicea were at first very concerned to use only the words the Scriptures used to describe the Father, Son and Spirit — but they found that the Arians has already explained away what the texts meant. In that, they weren’t trying to invent something new to teach the church — they were trying only to affirm what they received (as Schaff says).
This leads me to a question about your answer here, and please forgive me if it comes across as combative — it is not intended that way at all. Your view takes a systematic view of the Creed, which is of course what many of us do with what we know about the faith. So as I ask my question, please receive it as a question I am also asking myself.
While we could quibble, I think, about the state of contafactual information as explained by Open Theism (for example, whether information about future events is “true” or “false” or “indeterminate” since they have not yet happened), should we interpret something like the Nicene Creed to mean something that the writers did not intend it to mean? Surely they did mean, in this case, that the parusia would certainly come, and that Christ would set all things right — but isn’t that a statement of their confidence in God’s promise more than it is a statement of the state of contrafactuals in the mind of God? Did they intend or consider this when they wrote those words?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact