Open Theism, at its core, posits that God's knowledge of the future is not exhaustive, particularly concerning the free actions of human beings. This theological stance maintains that God knows all possibilities and probabilities but does not have definite foreknowledge of human choices. Proponents argue that this view upholds human free will and emphasizes a dynamic, relational understanding of God's interaction with creation.
However, such a view of God fundamentally undermines the classical understanding of divine omniscience, omnipotence, and immutability. Traditional Christian orthodoxy, as affirmed by the Reformed tradition, holds that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and unchangeable. These attributes are not mere philosophical constructs but are deeply rooted in Scripture. Psalm 147:5 declares, "Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit." Isaiah 46:10 asserts God's declaration, "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come." These verses, among many others, underscore the biblical witness to God's comprehensive knowledge of the future.
Leighton Flowers, in advocating for the inclusion of Open Theists within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) and local church membership, suggests that we should sympathize with their philosophical struggles and treat them as fellow believers grappling with complex theological issues. While it is true that charity and patience are virtues in theological discourse, it is equally imperative to uphold doctrinal integrity. The allowance of Open Theism within the SBC would signify a departure from foundational Christian beliefs about God's nature and sovereignty.
One of the gravest implications of Open Theism is that it effectively limits God's sovereignty and portrays a deity who is reactive rather than proactive. If God is ignorant or unaware of the future, then there would indeed be something greater than God himself—namely, the unknown future. This concept is not only theologically untenable but also diminishes the biblical portrayal of God's supreme authority and wisdom. A God who can be taken by surprise or who must adjust His plans in response to unforeseen human actions is not the God revealed in Scripture. Such a deity would be inconsistent with the God who declares in Malachi 3:6, "I the Lord do not change."
Moreover, the pastoral implications of Open Theism are concerning. Believers derive great comfort from the knowledge that God is sovereign and in control of all things, working everything according to His perfect will (Ephesians 1:11). A God who is unsure of the future cannot offer the same assurance and hope to His people. The certainty of God's promises and the fulfillment of His redemptive plan hinge on His complete knowledge and control over future events.
Including Open Theists within the SBC and admitting them as members in good standing would create doctrinal confusion and compromise the church's witness to the unchanging truth of God's Word. While we should approach all theological discussions with humility and love, we must also be firm in upholding the essential attributes of God as revealed in Scripture. The integrity of our faith and the faithfulness of our witness depend on our adherence to these core truths.
In conclusion, while we can and should engage with Open Theists in respectful dialogue, their theological position cannot be reconciled with the biblical and historical understanding of God's nature. Therefore, Open Theism should not be accepted within the SBC, nor should its adherents be regarded as members in good standing in local churches. To do so would be to compromise the very nature of the God we worship and proclaim.