Date
12-19-2024
Department
Rawlings School of Divinity
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy in Theology and Apologetics (PhD)
Chair
Ronnie Campbell
Keywords
Open Theism, problem of evil, theodicy, theism, omni-attributes, Thomas Oord, Kenosis, Kenotic text, kenotic act, love, uncontrolling love, openness theology, Reformed, Molinism, free will, evil, logical problem of evil, evidential argument from evil
Disciplines
Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion
Recommended Citation
Apata, Olaoluwa, "A Study of Thomas Oord’s Open Theism and Theodicy" (2024). Doctoral Dissertations and Projects. 6365.
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/6365
Abstract
Open theism’s opposition to the traditional Christian view and its rejection of the classical definitions of God’s attributes, character, and divine impassibility continually creates a point of contention between the two worldviews. As one of the leading voices in this movement, Thomas Oord offers what can be described as a refined argument in support of Open theism in contemporary theological and philosophical studies. His open theism holds that due to God’s kenotic act and uncontrolling love, his ability to know the future is limited and he cannot prevent evil. Oord introduces his version of open theism with the goal of redefining it by what he calls “essential kenosis.” His essential kenosis is derived from the kenotic text in Philippians 2:7. His theodicy relies essentially on his interpretation of the kenotic text in Phil 2:5-11 and his preferred description or definitions of God’s omni-attributes. According to Oord, God’s kenotic act reveals that he is uncontrolling and non-coercive. Unlike other open theologians’ position, Oord argues that God did not voluntarily place limitation on his omni-attributes, but it is his intrinsic nature. Furthermore, he argues that his theodicy completely solves the problem of evil while rejecting traditional and classical theodicies. This research explores the inconsistencies in Oord’s theodicy and holds that his use of the kenotic act of Christ as the basis for his openness theology is systematically problematic, theologically deficient, and theoretically insufficient in his attempt to make a case for God’s inability to know the future or prevent evil. While open theism ascribes God’s inability to know the future on the limitations on his omni-attributes, this research argues that human epistemic limitation makes it difficult for man to determine the scope of God’s knowledge or to know the reason why God could not prevent evil.
