Abstract

The openness of God movement has engendered heated debate within evangelicalism over the last few years. Many opponents of open theism have criticized the movement based on its most dramatic conclusion: God does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge. Highlighting openness' denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge is obvious and correct.

This dissertation, however, seeks to critique open theism at a more basic level. The denial of a traditional view of divine prescience is not the most systemic issue. The most fundamental issue with open theism is its view of human freedom. Open theism holds that man's decisions are free in the libertarian sense; man's decisions cannot be determined in any sense. Open theists' assumption of libertarian human freedom directs their theological task and forces their denial of the traditional understanding of omniscience. The best approach to analyzing open theism, then, must begin with its notion of human and divine freedom.

This dissertation argues for a different understanding of freedom, an understanding that fits best with the biblical data. Any notion of freedom must start with the scriptural witness. If the Bible assumes God's foreknowledge of human decisions, then the nature of human freedom must somehow be compatible with God's sure knowledge of the future. Rather than precisely describing the relationship between divine and human freedom, biblical fidelity demands that the believer affirms a nature of freedom which fits with God's providence. Only when this version of human freedom is defended, can open theism be properly understood as a failed attempt at theology proper.

Primary openness literature is considered throughout the dissertation. Open theism as a movement is described more or less as a unitary program. There are, of course, differing opinions between certain open theists; these differences are noted throughout the study when needed. A variety of sources, most of them by Calvinist/Augustinian writers, are used to build an argument that opposes open theism's view of human and divine freedom.

The principal conclusion defended by this dissertation is that open theism fails to provide and adequate understanding of the relationship between providence and anthropology because its notion of human freedom does not fit within the biblical description of God's freedom.