Journal: Reformed Baptist Theological Review
Volume: RBTR 01:2 (Jul 2004)
Article: God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God Of Open Theism
Author: Bruce A. Ware

---

RBTR 1:2 (Jul 2004) p. 186

God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God Of Open Theism

Bruce A. Ware

(Wheaton: Crossway, 2000),
reviewed by Tom Hicks1

Open Theism, a false teaching that claims that God’s knowledge of the future is limited, is gaining momentum among people claiming to be evangelicals. The recent avalanche of material published by Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger is the major factor in its growing popularity. Thankfully, Bruce Ware’s book engages and dismantles this incredibly dangerous error.

Just think about it. If God is ignorant of the future, how then can we trust him to make all things work for the good of his people? Can we really call a being “God” who is nothing more than a highly intelligent prognosticator? Is such a “God” even worth worshiping? According to Open Theists, their God is more worthy of worship than the all-knowing God of classical theism. Indeed, they say that their view of God should comfort Christians because it explains the existence of evil in the world better than any other view. They say that God didn’t know about and therefore wasn’t in control of the bad things that have happened in people’s lives, but that he did his best with what he knew at the time. Open Theism says that people can always know that God is on their side, even though sometimes things surprise him. I cannot see how this is comforting at all. Would it be comforting to see a look of “shock” and “alarm” on your doctor’s face during an examination? No, more likely it would frighten you and make you doubt the ability of your doctor. The “God” of Open Theism is not the God of the Bible, but a “diminished God,” made after the likeness of human beings. God says, “You thought that I was just like you; I will reprove you and state the case in order before your eyes” (Ps. 50:21).

Why is this deficient doctrine of God being adopted by so many? More and more, classical Arminians are starting to realize the incoherence of their

RBTR 1:2 (Jul 2004) p. 187

system: (1) Arminianism cannot “ground” God’s knowledge of the future, and (2) simple foreknowledge affords God no providential benefit. As a result of these realizations, classical Arminians gravitate into one of two camps. They either become Molinists, who affirm middle knowledge, or Open Theists, who deny God’s knowledge of the future free choices of moral agents. The openness alternative is a God who cannot and does not know what tomorrow holds because he cannot foreknow what libertarian free choice will be. In all of this, it is important to note carefully that Open Theism is...

visitor : : uid: ()