This is the third in a series of posts on the advantages claimed for open theism that I identified in the first post at Open Theism, “An Introduction to Open Theism.” It expands on this statement in that post:
Proponents of open theism also claim…that it has significant theological…advantages over alternative views. Examples…are: it frees God from appearing responsible for atrocities like the Holocaust and for the creation of damned individuals.
It frees God from appearing responsible for atrocities like the Holocaust.
In “O God, Why Did You Let Esther Die?” I described my personal search for a solution to what is known as the problem of evil. I concluded that the best solution was the free will defence, about which I said:
“The free will defence is rooted in the Genesis account of the creation and fall of man. According to that account, God made the first man and the first woman ‘in his own image’ (1:27). However, unlike Him, they did not ‘know good and evil’ (3:6,22). God provided them opportunity for such by commanding them not to eat of ‘the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,’ at the same time warning them that they would ‘surely die’ if they did eat of it (2:17). Tempted by the serpent (Satan, according to Revelation 20:2), Adam and Eve disobeyed, bringing moral and physical evil into man’s world (chapter 3). Thus, evil exists in the world, according to the Genesis account of the creation and fall of man, because God gave man a choice between obeying or disobeying Him and man chose to disobey Him.
“Why would God give man a such a choice, knowing that man could choose to disobey Him, thus bringing evil into the perfect world that He had created? Certainly, being all-powerful, He not only could have prevented introduction of evil into the human world but also could banish it from our world or at least make a new home for us where it could not enter (Revelation 21-22). And, surely, being wholly good, He did not and does not want evil. The answer to this question, according to the proponents of the free will defence, is that God wanted to create the best possible world that He could and a world containing free, moral creatures is better, all else being equal, than a world not containing free moral creatures. Accordingly, God created a world in which there originally existed no evil and He created human beings capable of free moral choice.”
Subsequently I demonstrated in “God’s Omniscience and Man’s Freedom” that if human beings have the free will referred to in the free will defence at least part of the future is not determined as held by traditional theists but is open as held by open theists. Thus according to open theism atrocities like the Holocaust occur because God gave people free wills and sometimes they choose to perform such atrocities. In other words people, not God, are responsible for atrocities like the Holocaust. Surely this puts God in a better light that the view of traditional theism that God foreordained or at least foreknew but did nothing about such atrocities!
It frees God from appearing responsible for the creation of damned individuals.
According to traditional theism, God foreknew or even foreordained before He created Adam and Eve which of their descendants would be damned to eternal suffering in Hell. According to open theism, all people are born with the possibility of going to Heaven but some reject God’s offer of eternal life and end up in Hell. Surely having just the possibility of being damned to Hell is better than being certain of being damned to it!
For fuller explanations of each of the above advantages of open theism over other views, see “Evil” in John Sanders’ The God Who Risks (pages 251-268) and “Creating Damned Individuals” in Gregory A. Boyd’s God of the Possible (pages 100-101).
In my next post I’ll give the fourth (and last) in this series of posts on the advantages claimed for open theism.