background image
Horton
seem as if they are suppressing these dimensions of the text or, at best, making the story
sound dynamic when it really isn't?" (62).
But once again I am left wondering who might be the target of his criticism. The
discipline of biblical theology, which stresses the dynamic element of redemptive history
and refuses to reduce the Bible to a mere collection of timeless truths, was pioneered by
Reformed theology. Its recent interpreters, like Geerhardus Vos, Herman Ridderbos,
Richard Gaffin and Meredith Kline, have stressed this dynamic and interactive quality of
the biblical drama.
70[70]
And yet, all of these figures staunchly affirm at the same time
God's eternal decree and his unchangeable plan and will known only to him. It is never
the "naked God," but the "revealed God" who clothes himself in our weakness and
simplicity.
Pinnock and Sanders do not seem to think that they are standing before this mask or
that they are being hidden in the cleft of the Rock while the backward parts of God pass
by. In short, theirs is a univocal model. Pinnock defends his approach: "The model takes
Scripture very seriously, especially the dynamic, personal metaphors, while our critics
seem to consider it beneath them. Embarrassed by biblical anthropomorphisms, they are
inclined to demythologize and/or deliteralize them" (62). But not only have we shown
that the tradition has taken anthropomorphism and analogy more seriously, one detects in
Pinnock a reticence to wholly embrace his own method:
At the same time, there is a Scylla and Charybdis to be negotiated. On the one hand, there is the danger of
missing the truth of the metaphors. What are the texts of divine repentance telling us? What is it that
God's suffering implies? On the other hand, we do not have to be crassly literal. There is not always a
one-for-one correspondence in texts that tell us important things. In any analogy there is something literal
about reality that we don't want to miss and, at the same time, something different. We need to avoid both
literalism and agnosticism. The way forward is to work with the diversity of metaphors and follow the
grain of them. For example, God repents, but not as humans do; God suffers, but not exactly as we do; God
works out his purposes in time, but not subjected to the ravages of time as we are (62).

Such reservations make it difficult to determine whether open theism is really convinced
of its own methodological position.
71[71]
It does not deny outright the Creator-creature
70[70]
For instance, Ridderbos: "It is this great redemptive-historical framework within which the whole of
Paul's preaching must be understood and all of its subordinate parts receive their place and organically
cohere" (Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. J. R. DeWitt [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975], 39); cf.
Richard Gaffin, Jr., Resurrection and Redemption (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978):
"Revelation never stands by itself, but is always concerned either explicitly or implicitly with redemptive
accomplishment. God's speech is invariably related to his actions...An unbiblical, quasi-gnostic notion of
revelation inevitably results when it is considered by itself or as providing self-evident general truths...In a
word, the concept of theology is redemptive-historically conditioned" (23-4).
71[71]
Everything stated in the paragraph above would be heartily affirmed by Reformed theology--although
we would say that there is never a one-for-one correspondence (not just "not always"). But why does he
seem to refuse to "work with the diversity of metaphors," instead privileging a certain important but by no
means exclusive type?
I must confess that at the end of the day I am not exactly sure what method open theism is pursuing. On
one hand, Pinnock criticizes classical theism in general and Reformed theology in particular for appealing
to analogy. Yet, "The problem with the tradition is not that it takes the biblical language metaphorically
rather than literally but that it bypasses truths conveyed by it...Metaphors have meaning and traditionalists
owe an explanation as to what they think the meaning is. For example, what does it mean for God to
grieve, to interact, to weep, to cry out, to respond to prayer?" (63).