A Response to Louis Midgley on Open Theism

There are not many Latter-day Saint sources that have publicly commented on Open Theism, and Louis C. Midgley is one of them. It is therefore deserving of a more careful examination. In an article published on FairMormon blog in January 2010, he makes the following comments:

“The discussion [on Open Theism] always ends up focused on whether God knows and must know everything in fine detail that ever has or will ever happen. Some insist that this has to be the case.”

That is not accurate. Open Theism is based on the assumption that the future is “open,” meaning it is unknown to God. The past is settled, and is therefore known. He continues:

“But the fact is that Latter-day Saints are strictly Open Theists, if any group of believer fit that label.”

That is a very presumptuous statement indeed. He should only speak for himself. I am Latter-day Saint, and I would not by any stretch of the imagination identify myself as “Open Theist” (for the reasons previously given). He continues:

“Why? The reason is that creedal Christians, and this includes everyone who is locked into what is often called classical theism, ends up picturing God with attributes that Latter-day Saints from day one flatly reject.”

I am uncomfortable with the way in which he makes sweeping generalizations and broad, unsubstantiated assertions. What is the basis of his making that claim, and on what evidence? I would certainly not want to commit myself to the claim of rejecting every single “divine attribute” in “classical theism,” without examining those “attributes” in detail, and judging the merits and demerits of each on scriptural grounds. He continues:

“One is an Open Theist or can be described as such, if one is uncomfortable with or rejects classical theism. What do I mean by classical theism?”

Again, very sweeping generalizations and unsubstantiated assertions. Open Theism has a very precise definition. It is the doctrine that God does not know the future exhaustively, because he has granted man freewill, and therefore he doesn’t know in advance what decisions they will make until those decisions have been made, or until he comes close to it. The assumption is that for God to be able to know the future exhaustively, the future has to be “closed” (i.e. settled, predetermined), which would be incompatible (according to them) with human freewill. He continues:

“In what I am calling classical theism, and I am following a long line of authors in using this label, the divine attributes are such that Latter-day Saints flatly reject all of them, if they are understood from the perspective of those who hold them or from what is called the worldview they ground. In no particular order, I will identify these attributes. One must sense that these are not separable, meaning that one cannot coherently accept some of them and reject others. Put another way, they fit together into what those who hold them insist is a single coherent worldview.”

That again is a doubtful assertion. There is more than one school of theology, and Christian theologians are not always in agreement on all the divine attributes, or how best they are to be defined, expressed, or classified. Then he provides his list as follows:

“In classical theism, the divine attributes consist of the following:

“1. God is Unconditioned—that is, it is the Unconditional, meaning that it is not dependent on anything else. This is sometimes called aseity, which is a word meaning, I believe, ‘from self.’”

Aseity refers to God’s attribute of self-existence, or self-sufficiency. For any (created) object(s) to exist (which means pretty much everything), something uncreated (and self-existent) must have always existed, which is the ultimate source of all other (created) objects; and that uncaused cause of all other causes is God. Aseity refers to this attribute of the Deity, of being the independent, self-existent, self-sufficient, uncaused cause of all other causes; and I don’t have a problem with that. Either creation came by chance, or it was caused; and if it was caused, then there must have been an uncaused being who was the first and ultimate cause of all other causes. You can’t be a creationist and avoid that conclusion. And there are several scriptures that support that doctrine. The following verses readily come to mind:

Colossians 1:

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

D&C 38:

1 Thus saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I Am, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end; the same which looked upon the wide expanse of eternity, and all the seraphic hosts of heaven before the world was made;

2 The same which knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes.

3 I am the same which spake, and the world was made, and all things came by me.

These, and many more similar passages that could be quoted support that doctrine. Modern scripture supports it better than the Bible does. I have no problem with the doctrine of the aseity of God from a Latter-day Saint theological point of view.

“2. God is Being. Think of the Greek word ‘on’ from which we get ‘ontology’ and remember how that word is used to qualify it in sectarian conversations. But one must understand that it is not just any old being. It is not even a being that exists somewhere–that is, is not corporeal. Instead, it is Being-Itself or the isness in everything that is. This explains why it is sometimes called the Supreme Being.”

I am not sure what he is getting at to be honest; and he doesn’t provide any sources so we can look it up. But if I have to guess, it seems that he is talking about what is known as the “ontological” argument for the existence of God. Over the centuries Christian thinkers have tried to find various kinds of “proofs” for the existence of God (one of the more interesting of which has been the “ontological” argument), and I don’t see a problem with that either. I think it is a good thing that Christians in the past have been interested in God, thinking about God, discussing God, and tried to find ways of proving the existence of God. I think it was a good thing. They could have been doing something a lot worse than that I am sure.

“3. God is Eternal. This does not mean, in classical theism, that God just goes on and on, but that it is timeless. There is no time for it, meaning no past or future; it does not experience temporal sequence. If there [w]as a past and future, then it would not be unconditional and would not has [sic] aseity and so forth.”

I am not sure that is an accurate expression of the theological concept; but to cut it short, the Book of Mormon affirms the timelessness of God: “all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men” (Alma 40:8). There are also many other passages in modern scripture (especially) which affirm the infinite and eternal nature of God. A couple of examples will be sufficient (punctuation revised):

D&C 20:

17 By these things we know that there is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth and all things which are in them;
• • •
28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

Moses 1:

3 And God spake unto Moses, saying, Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?

I have no problems with that doctrine either.

“4. God is Pure Actuality, meaning for it there is no potentiality. God is everything that it can possibly be.”

That is a very crude reference to the doctrine of the impassibility of God. Without going into detail, modern revelation affirms the doctrine of the impassibility of God. It essentially means is that God acts, but cannot be acted upon, which is affirmed by modern scripture (2 Nephi 2:13-14, 26).

“5. God is Simple, meaning that it has no parts or is not a compound of anything.”

That might not be correct from a Latter-day Saint theological perspective; although, depending on how it is perceived or expressed, an element of truth may be in it. Modern scripture teaches that “intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be” (D&C 93:29). It also teaches that “The glory of God is intelligence, or in other words, light and truth” (D&C 93:36). Combined together, those verses suggest the existence of an uncreated, uncaused, primordial something called “intelligence, or light of truth” which has the attribute of light (i.e. simplicity), which underpins the attributes of divinity. If so, then underlining that as an attribute of divinity may not be too far off the mark. But assuming that it does contain an error, such an error would not make the whole of traditional Christian theology a “bad thing” or a worthless exercise. There are more good and true principles in traditional Christian theology than bad; and Latter-day Saints can benefit from the good bits, while at the same time using the greater knowledge gained through modern revelation to improve on and correct its errors. The great theologians of the past have made the contributions to it that they could. Latter-day Saints should acknowledge their good work, and add to it to make it better; not dismiss the whole thing as though it were all useless and of no value.

“6. God is Self-sufficient, meaning that it does not need anything, including us.”

That is a continuation of the “aseity” of God previously discussed; which, when it is correctly formulated, is sound Christian doctrine.

“7. God is Incorporeal or Immaterial, meaning It is not embodied, however one thinks of bodies or material things.”

That would not be correct; but that is a score of 2 against 14 so far in favor of classical theism! I am impressed (by classical theism!) 😀

“8. God is Impassive, meaning that it is wholly apathetic about everything.”

Not sure where that comes from; but it appears to be an incorrectly formulated extension of the doctrine of the impassibility of God, which when correctly formulated is true Christian doctrine.

“9. God is Wholly Other, meaning it is not like anything we can possibly experience.”

The trouble here is that he is rattling off these descriptions without reference to any source, and there is no guarantee that they are correctly or accurately formulated, or that all theologies and theologians are in agreement on them. There is more than one school of theology, and all theologians are not always in agreement, or would formulate a concept in the same way. Unless we know the source of his information, it is hard to judge.

“10. God is Omnipotent, meaning that God has all power.”

Definitely correct and sound doctrine, no question about it.

“11. God is Omniscient, meaning God knows everything.”

Also correct on all accounts. (And omnipresent too, which he seems to have forgotten about.)

“12. God is Creator and we are mere creature, meaning it created everything out of nothing and at that moment determined everything that can ever possibly happen.”

That contains three separate statements that need to be differentiated and dealt with separately:

(a) God is the creator of all things—absolutely correct!

(b) “Out of nothing” would not be correct, but a less important issue than (a). The most important consideration is that God is indeed the creator and upholder of all things according to scripture; which is repeatedly attested to and affirmed in those terms in scripture. The scriptures (ancient and modern) repeatedly testify that God is the creator and upholder of “all things”. How that “all things” is perceived is a less important issue than the fact that God is affirmed as the creator of “all things” in scripture.

(c) “At that moment determined everything that can ever possibly happen” is questionable, and sounds more like hyper Calvinism.

“13. God is really Real, while everything that it created is only real depending on the degree to which it participates in the ground of what is the only ultimate Reality.”

Again, he is expressing things imprecisely in his own words, which theologians may not agree with. Theologians usually try to be precise in their expressions. I would need to know what the source of his information is before passing judgement. But in general, I would say that I have no difficulty accepting God as the ultimate source of all created reality.

“14. God is Changeless.”

Absolutely correct and sound doctrine, and fully attested in the Bible as well as in modern scripture. God is indeed immutable and unchangeable according to scripture. That is one of the great attributes of the Deity, no doubts about it. He then continues:

“In the various often competing and conflicting theologies that rest on classical theism, there are, of course, a host of disagreements about fine points. But it is clear that no petition addressed to God can really be heard, and none can possibly be answered, since that would entail a future and change and so forth.”

That is entirely incorrect and unjustified on all accounts. I don’t know of any respectable theologian or theology book that would teach such a doctrine. Even hyper-Calvinists, who believe in absolute predestination, would shy away from teaching such a doctrine, which goes contrary to everything taught in the Bible. He continues:

“The future for human beings, understood as mere creatures, is wholly determined by the Sovereign God at the moment of creation. This explains why classical theists insist that God must not be involved with a plan, since planning and working to achieve what is planned runs directly in the face of about half of the what classical theists attribute to God.”

The first sentence describes Calvinism, which is not a majority opinion; and the rest is questionable. I did a search, and found several Christian sites that talk about a “plan of salvation”. “Classical theism,” which he keeps referring to, does not translate into Calvinism. He seems to be confusing the two.

“One final note: the passion with which classical theists have pushed their picture of the divine attributes can be seen in those instances in which theologians have insisted that nothing can be affirmed about God. One can only say what God is not. This is called the via negativa (or negative way). After insisting on this notion, theologians then write fat books about Divine things.”

Again, he is teaching very questionable stuff without providing a source. Christian theologians have a lot to say about God, as he has noted, which they wouldn’t be able or want to do if they believed that nothing could be known about God. He continues:

“Conclusion: what is called Open Theism is a challenge to several of the divine attributes as set out above. This is good news for Latter-day Saints, since we need allies in our own conflict with classical theism.”

LOL! That is the craziest thing I ever heard. Open Theism is bad news for everybody, because it is false; and I see no “conflict” between “classical theism” and Mormonism. There is a lot more good and true principles in “classical theism” than bad; so I want to keep the good bits, and correct the incorrect bits with the help of modern revelation and make it better. He continues:

“This does not mean that every Open Theist has a single way of seeing things or that we agree with any of the various versions of Open Theism. But the fact is that we simply must agree with much of what Open Theists believe, since what Joseph Smith taught flies in the face of classical theism. …”

That makes absolutely no sense. He is saying that because what Joseph Smith taught “flies in the face of classical theism” (assuming it does), therefore Open Theism must be correct, or it must be a good thing, and should be supported by Latter-day Saints. Where is the logic in that? And how does embracing one false theology helps you “combat” another false theology (assuming it is false)? The truth of course is that Open Theism is false, period. And what Joseph Smith taught does not “fly in the face of classical theism”. This is what Joseph Smith himself actually said:

“Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true ‘Mormons.’”

The same applies to “classical theism”. There are bits in it that are correct and true, and bits that are not. There is more good in it than bad. I want to accept the good bits (and learn from them), and at the same time correct the bits that are not correct with the help of modern revelation and make it better. He continues:

“For the record, I believe that God knows everything that such a being can know, but I must admit that I have no idea what that means, since I am not all that sure about much of what I think I know or exactly how I know it.”

I know for sure what God knows, because he has told us. He knows everything—including the future exhaustively. That is the bit of information that is relevant to the discussion.

In conclusion: I had heard of Louis Midgley by name before, but I had never read any of his writings until I came across his blog post on FairMormon, and decided to respond to it. So in order to become better acquainted with his views, I read some more of his writings on theological matters that I was able to find online. I found that he had written an article on theology for the Encyclopaedia of Mormonism which can be seen online.

I also found that he had written an article on theology for the Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 8 (2014): vii-xxi, titled, “A Plea for Narrative Theology: Living In and By Stories,” which can be seen here.

After reading those I came to the conclusion that Louis Midgley is anti-theological! He is an anti-theologian! (if there is such a thing). I am trying to invent a new word for something that has probably never existed before. He is allergic to the word theology. Doing theology for him is a sin! Anything that is labelled theology, or has the word theology written on it or in it, is bad news as far as he is concerned. I have nothing against him personally. I am sure he is a very good, honest, decent, honorable individual. But he is the last person on earth I would trust to advise Latter-day Saints on matters pertaining to theology. Asking him to write an article for the Encyclopaedia of Mormonism on theology would be like asking Pontius Pilate to write an article on Jesus Christ. Latter-day Saints will never be able to make the great contributions to the development of Christian theology, which they otherwise would be able to make, if they are going to start off with that kind of wrong attitude towards Christian theology that he is advocating.