quote:

---

GOD’S DEFINITION OF FREEDOM
Dr. Royce Gordon Gruenler

There is a larger question at stake in the open theist view that genuine personal relationships can be experienced only by persons who possess autonomous freedom and alone can actualize the openness of an unknown future. Laying aside for a moment the fact that this definition of freedom is philosophical and not biblical, one would have to point out that since God has created us in his image (Gen. 1.26-27), the triune God would necessarily have to be structured so that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit would be separate individuals who do not know what the others will freely choose to do as each moves serially forward in some sort of divine time sequence. There would be no shared will or fundamental unity in the Godhead, but three individual Gods. This is tritheism, and I do not know how open theists can escape the logic of this implication.

But Scripture does not portray God the Father and the Spirit in the unfolding of history as hanging on with suspense as to what the Son might do with his libertarian freedom. The interpretation of open theism that Jesus’ wavering over the cup in the Garden of Gethsemane was a real possibility of alternate choice, and that he was not truly free unless he had the genuine option of choosing to abandon the divine plan of redemption altogether, is not a view that is scripturally viable. That Jesus voices the temptation of the tempter and feels the power of the temptation is clear, as is the case in all his other temptations, but he never chooses to sin by succumbing to temptation. The reason is that as the first embodiment of the new humanity and as the first fruits of the new creation, he is not able to sin because he is more powerful than sin and can last out its enticements. This is why the salvation of humanity requires the incarnation of God himself as the second and last Adam.

Moreover, if being able to make mistakes or sin is necessary to the meaning of freedom by definition, and if being able to sin is a necessity for Jesus in order for him to make genuine choices, then it follows that being able to err and to sin must also be necessary for each individual person of the Trinity, since the Trinity is the pattern on which the creation of free humans and genuine human relationships are modeled.

In fact, open theists do allow that God makes mistakes, has regrets, and creates the conditions of evil by emptying himself of the knowledge of the future actions of human beings. This presses the logic of open theists to concede that each individual person of the Trinity would have to be able to sin (against each other, or against some Platonic standard of right and wrong independent of God) in order that each of the divine persons be truly free to engage in genuine relationships. For each of the three autonomous deities, their divine futures would have to be truly open to chance for the definition of freedom and genuine relationships to be played out in the schema of open theism.

As incarnate Logos, however, Jesus is not wondering whether the Father and Spirit will be faithful in supporting his mission, or whether Judas may not betray him, which would abort the sequence of events leading to Jesus’ death and resurrection. If that were a possibility, the openness of chance might have brought about a final defeat of the divine plan for victory over evil. To imply that this was even a remote possibility would undercut Jesus’ definite prophecies concerning his death and resurrection (Matt. 16.21; 17.22-23; 20.17-19 and parallels), and impugn the sovereign plan of salvation designed before the laying of the foundations of the world (Eph. 1.4-5, 11; 1 Pet. 1.20; Rev. 13.8). Peter observes that Pilate and his conspirators condemned Jesus by their own choices as valid secondary agents whose actions converged with God’s sovereign decree: “They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.” (Acts 4.28)…

---

quote:

---

TGB: Can God put who he is on the table [of risk]? If what we believe to be the result of Christ’s sinning is admitted to be impossible, then how can we affirm Christ could possibly have sinned?

Doc: Bingo.

Summary: From where I sit, here's what I'm seeing:
a) The "risk incarnation" folk have not offered any attempt at rendering intelligible what would have happened had Christ fallen.
b) The "risk incarnation" folk have not offered any explanation for how Jesus as God could have fallen.
c) The "risk incarnation" folk have not offered any suggestion as to why the 'experiential" understanding of temptation is inadequate to account for Jesus' full humanity.
d) The "risk incarnation" folk have not shown why an openness theology requires the "risk incarnation" model.

What is interesting is that, outside of this board, every openness person I meet defends the "risk incarnation" model. Come on! I'm hoping my summary aggravates /challenges/ motives some "risk incarnation" folk to step up and take a swing.

Someone give John Sanders and Clark Pinnock a call.! Seriously. I'd love their input, and the input of any other "risk incarnation" people, to jump in this discussion.

Blessings
Doc

---

quote:

---

GregBoyd
Posted - 12/04/2001 : 12:05:50 AM
-------------------------------------------------
In his address at the ETS conference, Bruce Ware raised about 20 objections to the Open View. All of them have been adequately addressed by openness proponents in one venue or another (mostly omitted in Ware's address) except one. It has to do with Christology.

Since we hold that humans possess libertarian freedom, Ware assumed that Openness advocates must hold that Jesus could have sinned. He thus pointed out that this implies that the incarnation could have failed, which in turn raises serious questions about the whole of the biblical narrative. What of all the messianic prophecies? What would have happened to the plan of salvation? Could God's over all plan to have a redeemed bride have failed? Doesn't the possibility of Jesus falling imply that it was possible for God's whole project to fail?

Though he didn't go into the classical view, the assumption is that the classical view which embraces a compatiblistic view of freedom avoids these difficulties. Jesus, like the rest of us, had compatibilistic freedom -- freedom to do what God ordains we do. Hence Jesus could not have fallen, though he experienced real temptation as a full human being. God's plan for world history was thus not "at risk" in the incarnation, according to classical theology.

So, here's the million dollar question: Did God take a genuine risk in the Incarnation? Could Jesus have fallen? If you say yes, does this imply that all the biblical prophecies about the messiah could have failed to come to pass? Does it imply that God's whole project for world history could have flopped? Indeed, does it not imply a "Nestorian" christology (Nestorius basicallyheld that Jesus had two "persons" in him), for it seems that the all holy divine Son of God would have abandoned the human Jesus if he sinned. If the incarnation could have been "aborted," as it were, it seems the union of God and man in Jesus was not the union of one person.

If you say no, however, does this not compromise the full humanity of Jesus? Is it the case that those who hold that humans must possess libertarian freedom must hold that Jesus possessed libertarian freedom if they are to hold that Jesus was a full human being?

This is an area Openness advocates have not yet worked through, and it seems to me that this board is the place to do it. Now, as you may have suspected, I have a proposal in my back pocket -- though its not one most of my openness friends like. But rather than me blurping out right now, I'd like others to pipe in and lets wrestle with it together. Maybe after a couple of pages I'll have revised my proposal.

Lets have at it.

Doc

---