7 Things that I appreciate about John Frame on Open Theism

I've just finished John Frame's No Other God: A Response To Open Theism (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2001). Here's 7 things that I appreciate about it:

1) Frame gives a clear outline of what Open Theists are arguing for, in contrast with what classical traditional theism teaches (p.22-23):

Traditional Theism:

a. emphasises God's sovereignty, majesty, and glory

b. God's will is the final explanation of everything

c. His will is irresistible

d. He is caring and benevolent, but he is glorified equally in the destruction of the everything.

e. He is supratemporal

f. He knows everything in the past, present, and future.

g. He is essentially unaffected by human events and experiences.

Open Theism:

a. Love is God's most important quality

b. Love is not only care and commitment, but also being sensitive and responsive

c. Creatures exert an influence on God

d. God's will is not the ultimate explanation of everything. History is the combined result of what God and his creatures decide to do.

e. God does not know everything timelessly, but learns from events as they take place.

f. So God is dependent on the world in some ways

g. Human beings are free in the libertarian sense

2) While some proponents of Open Theism portray it as something new and as a contemporary option for a "new model" of the doctrine of God (e.g. John Sanders, Clark Pinnock), Frame shows us Open Theism is actually rooted in the classical doctrinal error of Socinianism (from Lelio Socinus (1525-62) and Fausto Socinus (1539-1604)), who denied not only that God foreordains events, but that he also has foreknowledge of these events.

3) Frame reminds us that while love is an important attribute of God, it is another thing to make love the single central attribute of God, like what the Open Theists have done. In fact, the kind of love they want to see in God is one of "vulnerability". Frame instead argues that the essential attributes of God are "perspectival" (his goodness, his wisdom, his eternity, his love, his lordship) - each of them describes everything that God is, from a different perspective. He states, "In one sense, any attribute may be taken as central, and the others seen in relation to it. But in that sense, the doctrine of God has many centres, not just one." (p.52).

4) While armed with a strong systematic theological and philosophical background, Frame nonetheless begins and anchors his arguments in exegesis of Scripture passages. This is seen for example in his impressive listing and exegesis of Scriptural passages where he argues for God's will as the ultimate explanation over everything incl. the natural world; human history; individual human lives; human decisions; (even) sins (in terms of God's foreordination of it); and faith and salvation (chapter 5). He even highlights the exegesis of the Open Theists, outlining their presupposition in the passages which they exegete, and their silence in those key passages which they have left out.

5) Where key decisions regarding presuppositions and definitions have to be made (especially when considering the accusations Open Theists throw at us), one appreciates Frame's robust defence of classical reformed theology or philosophical concepts that support the reformed theological framework. For example:

• Addressing the question raised by Open Theists that God's will seems to be able to be "thwarted" at times, Frame helpfully distinguishes between Reformed Theology's distinction of God's decretive will and his preceptive will, where God's decretive will is his eternal purpose by which he foreordains everything that comes to pass, while his preceptive will is his valuations, as revealed to us in His Word. God's decretive will cannot be successfully opposed, while it is possible for creatures to disobey God's preceptive will - as we often do. Another simpler way of putting it, "God does not intend to bring about everything he values, but he never fails to bring about what he intends." (p.113)


• In rejecting libertarian freedom (a major presupposition for Open Theists where true freedom is devoid of influences of anything or anyone), Frame instead proposes compatibilist freedom (p.131-132), a freedom that takes into account how our actions arise from the deepest desires of our hearts. Such freedom is compatible with determinism which is the view that every event has a sufficient cause other than itself. Compatibilist freedom means that even if every act we perform is caused by something outside ourselves, we are still free, for we can still act according to our character and desires. What is insightful is Frame's analysis of how libertarian freedom ultimately destroys moral responsibility (p.126), while compatibilist freedom provides a genuine condition for moral responsibility.

One must not think that Frame simply jumps to his philosophical framework immediately in order to defend his Reformed theological framework, but instead he supports his philosophical suggestions from Scripture as much as he can. And at all times, Scripture guides his philosophical framework, rather than vice-versa. This is seen especially in his honest treatment of the question of evil. Rather than try to provide a robust philosophical defence against the Open Theists' argument that libertarian freedom provides a logical and 'tighter' answer to the problem of evil (i.e. God took a 'risk' with evil in granting humankind libertarian freedom), Frame acknowledges Scripture does not lead us down a path towards a water-tight logical answer to the problem of evil, but instead leaves it as an ultimate mystery, focusing instead on the hope of its elimination in the consumation.

6) While relying on a strong reformed framework of traditional theism, Frame is no blind slave to it either. Instead, guided by the voice of Scripture, Frame 'modifies' traditional theism where necessary. This is seen clearly in Frame's treatment of:

• the question of whether God is in time? Based on Scripture, Frame argues that because God is both transcendent and immanent, God is both the Lord in time and the Lord above time. Because God's redemptive actions in Scripture are temporally successive (worked out in salvation history), it not only testifies to his sovereignty, but also to the importance of temporal relationships in the divinely ordained course of history. God is both 'inside and outside of the temporal box - a box that can neither confine him nor keep him out. That is the model that does the most justice to the biblical data (p.159)'


• the question of whether God changes? Once again, in a similar approach to above, Frame affirms that God is unchanging in his essential attributes; in his decretive will; in his covenantal faithfulness, and in the truth of his revelation. However, because God exists both above and within time, God is unchangeable in his atemporal or supratemporal existence, but 'when he is present in our world of time, he looks at his creatures from within and shares the perspective of his creatures' (p.176). In this sense, I think Frame's proposal offers the best explanation to those passages in Scripture where God relents. God's 'relenting' (seen from the perspective within time) is the means by which his decretive will is carried out (seen from the perspective outside of time). Frame's analogy is interesting: "History is like a novel written by God. In a great novel, the author brings about everything that happens, but events can also be explained within the world that the author creates. God's historical novel is a logical, temporal sequence, in which one event arises naturally out of the one before. When God himself becomes an actor in the drama, he acts in accordance with that sequence." (p.178)


• the question of whether God Suffers? Frame suggests that God has feelings and emotions, and in this sense he objects to portrayals of classical theism which portray God's impassibility as him being devoid of emotions of feelings. But God's emotions and feelings do not cause him to suffer injury or loss, unlike us. Frame also suggests that because the person of Jesus suffered on the cross (and what suffered was not the human "nature" but the person of Jesus), and because the persons of the Godhead are in perichoretic relationship, you could say God suffered as well, though not having the same exact experiences of suffering and death that the Son has.

7) Frame's last chapter in the book where he shows how Open Theism (while being located under the Doctrine of God), inevitably affects all other doctrines like biblical inspiration, sin, redemption, Assurance, Heaven and Hell and Guidance. He also provides an honest sharing of how Open Theism has helped him see that there is more "give-and-take" between God and his creatures than traditional theology has generally acknowledged, but cautions against what Open Theism has destroyed - divine sovereignty and human responsibility before God. His conclusion is worth remembering:

"A gospel of grace is a gospel of divine sovereignty. That message may be distasteful to modern people, but it is the word of God, and without it we have no hope. Free will leaves us in despair. Only sovereign grace can bring salvation, faith, and hope" (p.212)