The Evangelical Dictionary of World Religions

OCCULT. The term occult is from the Latin occultus, meaning “hidden,” “secret,” or “mysterious,” referring to knowledge of what lies beyond. For many occultists, it is simply understood as the study of a deeper spiritual reality extending beyond reason and the physical sciences.

From this definition, it would seem that the whole of supernatural religion with its belief in God and reality beyond the physical should be the domain of the occult, but this is not the case. World religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam, which are supernatural in nature, are not generally considered to be part of the occult, yet some modified forms within these religions—for example, gnosticism in Christianity, some variants of kabbalah in Judaism, tantra in Hinduism, and the “folk religion” of Islam—are often connected with the occult. Such modifications are usually unacceptable to orthodox members of their religion.

Some have sought to show how various aspects of what have traditionally been considered occult, such as astrology, kabbalah, and tarot, are in fact scientific in the way that physics is scientific. Hypotheses are proposed to explain what underlies the practice and conceptually how it functions. Then the practice itself is examined, along with its effects, providing feedback for affirming or qualifying its theories. This systematic research of occult concepts has been referred to as occult science.

The term occult can apply to a broad and varied assortment of theories, practices, and rituals based on an alleged or esoteric knowledge of the world of unknown forces and spirits. It can include alchemy, a medieval “science” and speculative philosophy aimed at achieving the transmutation of base metals into gold and silver; divination, the practice of consulting beings (human or divine) or observing things (objects or actions) in an attempt to gain information about the future or discover hidden knowledge; magic or magick, the ritual performance or activity believed to influence human or natural events through access to an external mystical force or power beyond the ordinary human sphere; spiritualism, the belief that the human personality continues to exist after death and can communicate with the living through the agency of a medium (e.g., trance speaking, automatic writing) or a manifestation (e.g., poltergeist activity); and witchcraft, the human exercise of alleged supernatural or paranormal power(s) for helpful or harmful purposes. Occult can also be used to describe magical, mystical, and esoteric groups as well as a rather large body of literature classified as such. The broad usage of the word occult makes defining it more difficult than discussing aspects of it.

Theories of the Origin and Development of Occult Beliefs and Practices. Prominent in the study of the occult of the past has been the theory of an evolution of religion generated by Charles Darwin’s postulations on biological evolution. This theory places the foundational beliefs of the occult, such as animism and spiritualism, and practices, such as divination, very early in the ascent of humanity. In general it assumes that humans evolved from a presimian ancestor and that as humans appeared on the scene and developed, so did religion and the occult. Since animals have no religion, there must have been a long ascent until human beings emerged and engaged their environment and the first form of religion developed. Animatism, as it has been called, has humanity perceiving the whole world outside filled with a vague force or power that was terrifying. As humans became familiar with the world around them, they noticed distinctions and movements. Some have thought that simple forms of divination, of what was later classified as aeromancy, were present later in this stage, in which cloud formations, comets, shooting and falling stars, and thunder and lightning were taken to be omens and signs of what was to come.

Later this vague force or power became alive to humans in the form of multiple spirits, and animism became their religion. They created more simple forms of divination. As they pondered these spiritual forces, they personalized the forces, first as ancestor spirits and later as nature spirits. Animism gave way to spiritualism. As humans lived with these spirits, they learned how to appease the spirits and communicate with them by various means—namely, the practice of necromancy.

Gradually, a transition occurred from venerating finite personal spirits to worshiping them as gods, and human beings became polytheistic. They came to see their present life as entirely under the gods. To discern the revealed will and mind of the gods, people developed many forms of divination, such as examining strange happenings and studying the entrails and other parts of sacrificed birds and animals. Of special interest was the liver, which early humans believed became identified with the god to which it was sacrificed.

Then, focusing on a particular deity who appeared more powerful or helpful, people elevated this god above others in a heavenly hierarchy resembling a human kingdom. This religion was appropriately called monarchianism. While acknowledging the existence of other gods, before long people were worshiping only one god. Monarchianism morphed into henotheism. When people focused on that one god as the only god, they forgot the others, and monotheism finally appeared.

During the long development of the occult, those more proficient became teachers. Others became priests, shamans, or mediums, standing between a person or the people and the divine. Many occult activities were approved and allowed; others were not. Those approved were usually those acceptable to the deity worshiped. Some were permitted or used simply because they were believed to work.

Support for the evolutionary development of religion has dwindled considerably. The prevailing view posits monotheism as the earliest religion. Thus religions and the occult should be seen as devolving from humanity’s rejection of original monotheism. This is the view presented in the Bible, where God made everything, including the heavens and the earth and human beings (Gen. 1). He saw that all he had made “was very good” (Gen. 1:31). The goodness of human beings consisted in being what God wanted them to be. The tragedy is that humans did not stay as they were created. As Genesis 3 reports, the original pair, Adam and Eve, chose to disobey God. This act of rebellion affected Adam and Eve and all subsequent generations. Humanity became alienated from God, from others, from nature, and even from themselves.

When human beings rejected the true God, their understanding of the supernatural became corrupted and replaced by distortions of what they perceived to exist beyond. As Romans 1:21, 25 informs us, “Although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. . . . They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator.”

A re-creation of this degenerative process would begin after the fall with the descendants of Adam and Eve withdrawing more and more from worshiping the only true God and Creator. A decadent monotheism developed, followed by other degrading beliefs. Because of human evilness, God sent a flood to destroy humanity. The only survivors were Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives. When Noah emerged from the ark, he restored pure monotheism. With the introduction of different languages at the Tower of Babel, different language-names for God created something of a henotheistic religion. People worshiped God by the language-name they knew, while realizing that other language-names existed. With humanity spreading out into different parts of the world, different language-names became different gods, resulting in polytheism and polyidolatry. As people focused on the sky above, deification of the sky, of the sun, and of other heavenly bodies may have followed. Later, people deified animals (hunting societies) and plants and the earth (agricultural societies and empires). Finally, more degenerate forms appeared, such as animism, spiritualism, totemism, and fetishism.

Here beliefs and practices associated with the occult are postdiluvian formulations by fallen human beings, a result of their rejection of God. Therefore, the term occult should be defined as seeking knowledge and power from what lies beyond apart from the one true God. Since God forbids the pursuit of and service to any other god (see Exod. 20:3–5), it follows that he would also condemn the occult. In Deuteronomy 18:10–12 (NASB), God is recorded as saying to Israel: “There shall not be found among you . . . one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD.” Furthermore, the occult would also be associated with the enemy of God, Satan.

Prehistoric Times. Determining what of an occult nature existed in prehistoric times is difficult. Discoveries of the remains of early cultures have provided little in the way of understanding their religious beliefs or interest in the occult. However, deductions from objects found by archaeologists and pictures in caves have often been used to provide glimpses of the beliefs and practices of the occult prehistoric humans may have had.

Some in their quest have viewed existing undeveloped or primitive cultures as reflective of what archaic human cultures must have been like. For example, sorcerers; witches; the use of magic; belief in demons, spirits, and ancestral spirits; and all kinds of rituals have been observed in Melanesia. Should these be taken as vestiges of the earliest occult practices simply because this culture is not as advanced as others? The studies of missionary scholars, anthropologists, and others indicate otherwise. They have found that occult activity changes over time. Sometimes practices are imported; other times they are discarded. In each generation, the occult is made to fit that culture’s worldview and the present interests of those people.

Similarly, some have thought that what one sees in the present (or in recent times) is what existed in primitive times. For example, Margaret Murray, a British anthropologist, believed that the testimonies and evidence presented in witch trials were accurate. Thus, she concluded that the witchcraft of recent times was the remnant of a pre-Christian religion she called the Dianic cult. Despite criticism by several historians of witchcraft, she still became a popular authority on this subject.

Historic Times. In ancient Mesopotamia, the home of the Sumerians, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians, fascination with the occult grew. The earliest known records of human beings’ astronomical observations were found here. To satisfy the demands of their developing religion, their agriculture, and their budding scientific interest, they constructed large astronomico-religious sites. Those who were astronomers became priests and gradually recorded not only the scientific data of the heavenly bodies and their movements but also the myths that grew up around their deities. As the original meanings of the myths were lost, the priests began to associate magical elements with the heavenly gods, and astronomy began to move in the direction of magic and divination. Future events were predicted for the people. Though most of the ingredients necessary for casting personal horoscopes existed centuries before the fall of Babylon, they were not organized and used until the time of the great Greco-Roman astronomer-astrologer Claudius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy).

There was also great interest in the practice of divination. The interpretation of dreams became a sophisticated art, and reading omens was particularly important since every event was thought to have a personal meaning to the observer. A special class of priests was created just to interpret omens. Tablets have been found describing many of the omens observable in the heavens, in human events, in the flight of birds, and in the organs of animals. All kinds of phenomena were included, such as the murmuring of springs, the cracking of furniture, and the “speech” of animals and even of trees. The Old Testament prophet Nahum referred to Nineveh as “the charming one, the mistress of sorceries” (Nah. 3:4 NASB). Back then, omens were understood not by causality but as communication from the gods.

In ancient Egypt, magic was taught in temple schools and by devoted priests. The early focus seems to be on the association of magic with health-related areas and the afterlife. There were also wonder-workers known as magicians. Evidence of their existence and some of their success has survived in Egyptian records. The Old Testament also records an encounter between Moses and Aaron and the magicians of Pharaoh. The magicians of Pharaoh worked their wonders, but whatever power they had (and they had some power) was limited and no match for the power of God displayed in the miracles of Moses and Aaron (Exod. 7:1–11:10).

Dreams were thought to convey divine messages, so their interpretations were important. Interpreters were not only sought by common people; they were prominent in the courts of ancient kings, including the pharaohs. The Old Testament tells of a time when Pharaoh had an unusual dream to which he attached great significance. He called for his interpreters, but none could interpret it. Hearing about Joseph’s ability with a previous dream, he called on him to give the meaning. Joseph said, “I cannot do it, . . . but God will give Pharaoh the answer he desires,” and he did (see Gen. 41:1–32, esp. vv. 8, 16).

Amulets, small objects worn or carried that were believed to magically bestow a power, were popular in the Egyptian culture. They were placed among a mummy’s wrappings to ensure a safe, healthy, and productive afterlife. Egyptians carried them for several reasons, including protection, health, and success. Small representations of animals appear to be the earliest forms, but later recognizable deities were used as charms.

Biblical Times. Surrounding Israel were nations with different beliefs and practices, including the occult. Though God’s people were to be holy and separate, the temptation to be like these nations was ever present.

When Moses addressed the people prior to crossing the Jordan River to enter the promised land and drive out the pagan nations, he warned them about any acceptance or compromise with the occult practices of those peoples. He specifically mentioned nine activities: child sacrifice, divination, soothsaying, augury, sorcery, use of charms, mediums, wizards, and necromancy (Deut. 18:9–13).

God communicated to people by several means—for example, by dreams (Num. 12:6) and by prophets. Other nations also believed in dreams as a communication from their god and had prophets proclaiming his message. So the children of the true God were instructed to use discernment (see Deut. 13:1–5; 1 John 4:1–3). Dreams and prophets were not to be placed above the commandments of God. In the New Testament, the teachings of Jesus were added.

Elsewhere in the Bible, several occult activities are mentioned, such as necromancy and mediums (Lev. 19:31; 20:6), witches and sorcerers (Isa. 8:19–20; Ezek. 13:18; Acts 8:9–13; 13:8–10), magicians or wonder-workers (Exod. 7–11), and diviners and fortune-tellers (Acts 16:16–19). Doing what God forbids can lead to death, as when King Saul consulted with a medium at Endor (1 Sam. 28:7–19) and God took his life for this (1 Chron. 10:13–14).

More Recent Times. Sorcery, charms, and fortune-telling continued to be of interest after the first century. Babylonian astrology and the horoscope began to gain popularity in the third century, and after the fall of Rome, alchemy was introduced to Western Europe.

In the Middle Ages, witches were sought out for healing and divination. Grimoires offering formulas for theurgy and thaumaturgy were collected. Astrology was given a positive status in the Roman Catholic Church in the thirteenth century when Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, recognized the influence of the stars on certain aspects of human affairs.

During the Renaissance, there was a renewed interest in occult practices and a recovery of older texts on magic, alchemy, and hermeticism. Alchemy became a serious science in the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries, with great interest in the transmutation of common metals into precious metals, such as gold and silver. Alchemists often counterfeited their results to make it appear as though they had brought about transmutation. The posthumous reputation of Nicholas Flamel (1330–1418) claimed that he decoded enough of an ancient text, Book of Abraham the Mage, to be able to replicate its meaning and produce silver in 1382 and then gold. The birth of modern chemistry in the eighteenth century put an end to alchemical theories and practices.

Attempts to uncover practitioners of witchcraft and force them to recant were fairly common during the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries in England. The most famous witch trial, however, took place in America, in Salem, Massachusetts, when more than 150 persons were accused of being witches and imprisoned. Ultimately, 19 were convicted and hanged; 1 was crushed to death.

In 1747 Emanuel Swedenborg, a Swedish seer, had his first interaction with the spirit world and became a great channel for the dispensing of spirit truth. Public interest in spiritualism did not begin until the Fox sisters, Kate and Margaret, made contact with the spirit of a murdered peddler in 1848. Spiritualists began meeting in homes for séances, in lecture halls for lectures by trance mediums, and at camp meetings. This movement grew in the nineteenth century but faded in the twentieth century due to the number of accusations of fraud.

The Theosophical Society, founded in 1875 by Madame Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott, and later perpetuated by Annie Besant, brought to the West the teaching of ascended masters—that is, spiritually enlightened teachers from the realms of spirit. An increase in the interest in astrology also developed around this time in America.

By the middle of the twentieth century, many different types of occult activities were practiced, much under the label of New Age. The occult could be found in books and magazines as well as on television and, later, on the internet. Under the guise of channeling, trance mediums have produced books by their controlling spirit (e.g., Jane Roberts, Seth Speaks; Helen Schucman, A Course in Miracles) and lectures, allowing their spirit to speak through them (e.g., Ramtha through J. Z. Knight and Lazaris through Jack Pursel). Television programs such as Charmed, Ghost Whisperer, and Medium have portrayed experiences of witches and spiritualist mediums, while books such as the Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling have introduced the younger generation to many aspects of the occult.

Bibliography. J. M. Greer, The New Encyclopedia of the Occult; C. Hawkins, Witchcraft: Exploring the World of Wicca; W. Martin, J. Martin Rische, and K. Van Gorden, The Kingdom of the Occult; L. Shepherd, ed., Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology; C. Wilson, The Occult: A History.

J. Bjornstad

ONENESS PENTECOSTALISM. Oneness Pentecostals believe that speaking in tongues is the evidence of salvation and that Jesus is the only member of the Godhead. Classical Pentecostalism from its start denounced the Oneness movement as heretical.

Within a few years of the Azusa Street Revival (1906–9) and the birth of Pentecostalism, a major theological controversy split the movement. During the International Pentecostal Camp Meeting of April 1913 in Arroyo Seco, California, Robert Edwin McAlister, a well-known Canadian evangelist, preached a baptismal sermon. In commenting on the subject, he noted that the apostolic church did not use a trinitarian formula when baptizing new believers but rather baptized in the name of Jesus only (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 19:5).

One of the attendees, John G. Scheppe, an immigrant from Danzig, Germany, pondered McAlister’s remarks late into the night. At dawn Scheppe claimed the light of God’s revelation brilliantly burst forth to illuminate his mind. He jumped up and ran throughout the campground, shouting that the Lord had shown him the truth about baptism in Jesus’s name. Relatively few people paid attention, but one who did listen was Australian-born Frank J. Ewart, a Baptist minister turned Pentecostal.

It was only a matter of time before the proponents of baptism in Jesus’s name only stepped outside the bounds of orthodoxy to embrace heresy. On April 15, 1914, Frank Ewart, now a pastor in the newly formed Assemblies of God (AG) denomination, preached a sermon comparing Matthew 28:19 to Acts 2:38. He pointed out that the Lord commanded his disciples to baptize in the “name” (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19), and Ewart concluded that “Jesus” is that name (Acts 2:38). Hence, Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Glenn A. Cook, another Canadian-born evangelist convinced by Ewart’s scriptural argument, submitted to rebaptism using the “apostolic” formula. In turn he rebaptized Ewart. The duo established a new periodical called Meat in Due Season and then embarked on a preaching tour to spread their message. The Oneness doctrine quickly spread throughout Pentecostalism, particularly among the Assemblies of God churches. By spring 1915, for example, all twelve Assemblies of God pastors in Louisiana converted to the Oneness position, or what had become known as the “New Issue.”

To combat the inroads the movement was making within AG ranks, J. Roswell Flower, a respected leader of the denomination, called for a general council to be convened in St. Louis in October 1915. Here AG pastors on both sides of the New Issue could discuss the doctrinal controversies in a civil manner. After all was said and done, the council declared Ewart’s and Cook’s teachings to be unscriptural.

Since the AG had no standardized statement of faith at the time, the condemnation carried little weight. The problem persisted. In October 1916, another general council was held, where a “Statement of Fundamental Truths” was adopted and the classical doctrine of the Trinity was officially affirmed. This action culminated with 156 of the 585 ordained delegates withdrawing fellowship from the AG. They immediately formed the General Assembly of Apostolic Assemblies (GAAA). In 1918 the GAAA merged with the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (PAW) and retained the PAW name.

The Heresy Explained. Modalism is a belief that God is one person only, although he manifests himself in three different roles or modes. He appears as the Father in creation and the giving of the law, as the Son in his humanity and redemption, as the Spirit in his activity in the church and the world—hence, one God in three modalities.

The first recorded modalist was Praxeas, who lived at the end of the second century in Asia Minor and later in Rome. He taught that Jesus not only revealed the Father but was the Father. Tertullian (ca. 155–ca. 220) responded to this teaching in Against Praxeas by saying that Praxeas had “put the Holy Spirit to flight and crucified the Father.”

Noetus of Smyrna (fl. ca. 200) also carried the banner of modalism by saying that Jesus Christ was the Father, and thus the Father himself was born, suffered, and died. Known as Patripassianism, the heresy was condemned by the Synod of Smyrna in 200.

Sabellius, another teacher at the beginning of the third century, said that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the one God, without distinction of person. To Sabellius God was merely called by different names, just as this author is called a husband by his wife, a father by his children, and a son by his mother—one person with three roles. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds both condemned Sabellianism.

Oneness Pentecostals believe that Jesus is the only true God. He manifests himself as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This concept is entirely different from the scriptural doctrine of the Trinity, which teaches there is one God who subsists as three coeternal and coequal persons, of the same substance, but distinct in function.

The Apostolic Formula. Many Oneness Pentecostal groups have the word “Apostolic” in their title because they believe they alone teach salvation based on the apostolic formula as found in Acts 2:38: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” All Oneness groups believe that God is a unipersonal being and that one must follow the “Apostolic” formula to be saved. They reject the Trinity as unscriptural and believe Acts 2:38 to represent the true baptismal formula. Speaking in tongues is the evidence that one has scripturally repented and received the Holy Spirit.

The United Pentecostal Church International. With the growth of Pentecostalism many new Oneness groups sprang up. The two largest were the Pentecostal Church, Inc., and the Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ. In 1945 the two merged to form the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI).

Headquartered in Hazelwood, Missouri, northwest of St. Louis, UPCI is the largest Oneness Pentecostal group in the world, with 4,400 churches in America and Canada and another 36,804 located in 203 other countries as of 2012. Each local church is autonomous and owns its own property. An estimated three million people regularly attend worship services. The UPCI operates six Bible colleges and one graduate school. It publishes seven magazines, including Forward and Pentecostal Herald. Over 850 foreign missionaries and national workers serve on the field in 100 countries. Its annual foreign missionary budget runs approximately $12 million. Over 31,000 licensed clergy serve the churches worldwide.

The church holds to traditional Oneness Pentecostal doctrines but also practices foot washing. Adhering to a strict code of holiness, members are admonished not to participate in mixed bathing or dancing. They must wear modest clothes (no sleeveless blouses for women) and refrain from patronizing movie theaters, joining secret societies, smoking tobacco, and drinking alcoholic beverages. Additionally, women must not cut their hair.

The Modern Oneness Revival. With many Oneness preachers gaining access to the airwaves, there has been a recent numerical explosion within the ranks of Oneness Pentecostalism. The most famous proponent of Oneness doctrine is T. D. Jakes, pastor of The Potter’s House in Dallas, Texas, whom Time magazine proclaimed to be one of the most influential and innovative religious leaders in the US. Jakes serves as a bishop in the Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies, a black Oneness Pentecostal denomination. The first two points of his official doctrinal statement read (emphasis added):

We believe that there are three dimensions of one God. . . .

We believe in one God who is eternal in his existence, Triune in his manifestation.

Others with Oneness Pentecostal connections include Tommy Tenney, author of the best-selling book The God Chasers; songwriter Geron Davis, known for the praise choruses “In His Presence” and “Holy Ground”; and singing group Phillips, Craig and Dean. As Christian media outlets provide opportunities for modalists to espouse their views, many orthodox believers are exposed to the Oneness heresy.

Other Influential Groups. The following discussion includes only denominations with 25,000 members or more.

Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (PAW). PAW is the oldest of the Oneness groups. When whites withdrew en masse from its membership in 1924, PAW was reorganized with Garfield Thomas Haywood elected its first bishop. The group practices foot washing, uses wine for its communion meal, and stresses pacifism. Headquartered in Indiana, PAW has a worldwide membership of 500,000 in 1,400 churches scattered throughout the 50 states, plus Africa, Asia, the West Indies, and Europe. It operates Aenon Bible College and Pentecostal Publications, both in Indianapolis, and publishes Christian Outlook magazine. Missionaries serve in Africa, Jamaica, and England.

United Church of Jesus Christ (Apostolic) (UCJC). Randolph Carr left PAW in 1945 to start the UCJC. In 1957 Bishop Monroe Saunders Sr. succeeded him as presiding bishop, and he served in that office until 2004. He stepped down that year, and his oldest son, Monroe Saunders Jr., now serves as presiding bishop. Headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland, UCJC has seventy-five churches spread throughout the country with a total membership of one hundred thousand. The Center for More Abundant Life and the Institute of Biblical Studies sit on a large Baltimore campus offering nearby residents social and educational assistance.

Way of the Cross Church of Christ International (WCCC). Founded in Washington, DC, by Henry Brooks in 1927, as an independent “Jesus Only” church, the WCCC has grown to sixty-four congregations, mostly on the east coast of the US, with a total membership exceeding fifty thousand. Missionary efforts are conducted in western Africa. A presiding bishop leads the church, assisted by a bishopric of twelve other men.

Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith (CLJCAF). Robert C. Lawson, a former PAW pastor, started the CLJCAF in Columbus, Ohio. Through his outreach program and organizational skills, the congregation not only grew but reproduced itself. Today there are five hundred churches. Lawson opened a Bible school in New York City to train parishioners. The Contender for the Faith magazine keeps the worldwide membership of thirty thousand informed and inspired.

In 1933 the CLJCAF splintered over the liberalization of the moral code. Sherrod C. Johnson, a local pastor, was particularly upset over women wearing jewelry and makeup and over the observation of Christmas, Lent, and Easter. He took a group of followers and started the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith (Philadelphia). The doctrines of the New York and Philadelphia sects are similar, except the latter does not allow remarriage after divorce, women preachers, or worldly dress.

The Bible Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ World-Wide. In 1957 another split occurred within the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith (Brooklyn, NY). Members from seventy affiliated churches, concerned over the dictatorial rule of its leaders and desiring a more democratic church government, withdrew and asked Smallwood E. Williams of Washington, DC, to be their new bishop. Williams proved to be a worthy leader. The Bible Way Church has twenty-five thousand members and 250 congregations. The Bible Way News Voice serves as the primary periodical of the church.

After Williams passed away in 1991, the church sought a successor. Two leaders, Bishop Huie Rogers and Bishop Lawrence Campbell, were each given temporary assignments, but the governing boards could not decide, so the church split yet again in 1997. The larger group became the International Bible Way Church of Jesus Christ, Inc. (with headquarters in Baltimore, MD). It currently claims to have over 350 churches in the US and another 250 overseas. A smaller number of people stayed with the parent body, which retained its original name. The current presiding bishop of Bible Way (in Brooklyn) is apostle Huie Rogers.

Conclusion. Dozens of smaller denominations and thousands of independent churches make up the Oneness Pentecostal network. In a culture that views all forms of spirituality as equal and truth as less important than experience, Oneness Pentecostalism is finding acceptance among the masses. It is even gaining favor within the ranks of evangelicalism, as believers in orthodox denominations become less circumspect and discerning. Christian television makes even the absurd seem normal. Given the times in which we live, Oneness Pentecostalism may soon be looked upon as part of mainline Christianity, simply another variation from which to choose.

According to Dr. Gregory Boyd, a former Oneness advocate, approximately one in four Pentecostals embraces Oneness. Boyd also claims that Oneness Pentecostalism trails only behind the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses in size among groups that have nonorthodox teachings on the Trinity.

See also MODALISM

Bibliography. References. E. C. Beisner, Jesus Only Churches; G. A. Boyd, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity; J. L. Grady, “The Other Pentecostals,” https://forerunner.com/orthodoxy/cu197123.htm; F. S. Mead, Handbook of Denominations in the United States; J. G. Melton, ed., The Encyclopedia of American Religions, vol. 1; D. Reed, “Oneness Pentecostalism,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology; R. Riss, A Survey of 20th Century Revival Movements in North America. Organization Websites. Bible Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ World-Wide, http://www.bible waychurch.org; International Bible Way Church of Jesus Christ, Inc., http://www.intlbibleway.com; Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, http://pawinc.org; United Church of Jesus Christ (Apostolic), http://www.unitedchurchjc.org; United Pentecostal Church International, http://www.upci.org; Way of the Cross Church of Christ International, http://wotcc.net.

R. A. Streett

OPENNESS OF GOD. The “openness of God view” has several names. From its starting point in the libertarian view of free will, it is called free will theism. In contrast to traditional theism, it is labeled neotheism. One noted proponent, Clark Pinnock, has described it as “between classical and process theism” in his article of the same title.

Proponents of the View. Those who embrace this view include Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, David Basinger, and Gregory Boyd. Several authors collaborated on a volume titled The Openness of God (edited by Clark Pinnock). Many have written volumes of their own. These include William Hasker, God, Time and Knowledge; Stephen T. Davis, Logic and the Nature of God; Richard Rice, God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Free Will; Greg Boyd, Trinity and Process and God of the Possible; J. R. Lucas, The Freedom of the Will and The Future. Perhaps the frankest and most radical presentations of open theism are found in Clark Pinnock’s The Most Moved Mover. Others show affinities with the view, such as Peter Geach, Providence and Evil; Richard Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism; Thomas V. Morris, Our Idea of God; and Linda Zagzebski, The Dilemma of Freedom and Foreknowledge. A. N. Prior, Richard Purtill, and others have written articles defending open theism.

The Distinctives of Open Theism. Proponents of open theism list five characteristics of their position:

1. God not only created this world ex nihilo but can and at times does intervene unilaterally in earthly affairs.

2. God chose to create us with incompatibilistic (libertarian) freedom—freedom over which he cannot exercise total control.

3. God so values freedom—the moral integrity of free creatures and a world in which such integrity is possible—that he does not normally override such freedom, even if he sees that it is producing undesirable results.

4. God always desires our highest good, both individually and corporately, and thus is affected by what happens in our lives.

5. God does not possess exhaustive knowledge of exactly how we will utilize our freedom, although he may very well at times be able to predict with great accuracy the choices we will freely make. (Basinger, 156)

A Contrast with Theism and Panentheism. Theism contends that God created all. Pantheism affirms that God is all. Panentheism (process theology), which is a kind of halfway house between the two, asserts that God is in all in a way similar to how a soul is in a body. Open theism is positioned between panentheism and theism, leaning in the direction of the former.

Similarities with Traditional Theism. Like classical theism (as in Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin, and Arminius), open theism believes God is uncaused, eternal, necessary, infinite, omnipotent, and even omniscient in a qualified sense. Likewise, open theists agree that God created the world ex nihilo (out of nothing), is sovereign over the world, and even supernaturally intervenes in the world. Indeed, Pinnock, Sanders, and Boyd all profess belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.

Similarities with Process Theology. Unlike traditional theism and like panentheism (process theology), open theism contends that God is not simple (without parts), not omniscient, not unchangeable, and not atemporal, but is in time. Indeed, Pinnock has confessed: “Maybe modern influences, which create a distorting tilt in the direction of divine immanence, are present in my work” (Pinnock, Most Moved Mover, 141). He frankly admits that

there are things about process theism that I find attractive and convictions that we hold in common. We: make the love of God a priority; hold to libertarian human freedom; are both critical of conventional [classical] theism; seek a more dynamic model of God; contend that God has real, and not merely rational, relationships with the world; believe that God is affected by what happens in the world; say that God knows what can be known, which does not amount to exhaustive foreknowledge; appreciate the value of philosophy in helping to share theological convictions; connect positively to Wesleyan/Arminian traditions. (Pinnock, Most Moved Mover, 142–43)

Pinnock, quoting Alfred North Whitehead, the father of radical liberal process theology, says, “Here is a theology that tries to work with modern science and has a dynamic metaphysic that doesn’t equate God with everything superior and the world with everything inferior. I find the dialectic in its [process theology’s] doctrine of God helpful, for example the idea that God is necessary and contingent, eternal and temporal, infinite and finite. I think it is right about God affecting everything and being affected by everything. I agree with it that God is temporally everlasting rather than timelessly eternal.” Finally, he concludes: “Candidly, I believe that conventional theists are more influenced by Plato, who was a pagan, than I am by Whitehead, who was a Christian” (Pinnock, Most Moved Mover, 143–44).

Biblical Arguments Offered by Open Theism. Open theists offer several biblical arguments in support of their view. The following are the major ones.

God’s Change of Mind. The Bible often speaks of God as “repenting” or changing his mind (cf. Gen. 6:6; 1 Sam. 15:11; Jon. 3:10). Open theists insist that this implies that God does not have infallible foreknowledge of human free choices.

However, since the Bible declares that God cannot change (1 Sam. 15:29; Mal. 3:6; Heb. 6:18; Titus 1:2; James 1:17), classical theists respond by pointing out that these are anthropomorphisms: the representation of God (or more accurately, his actions) using human attributes or affections. Further, the Bible says God “forgets” our sins (Job 11:6) and has arms, legs, eyes (Deut. 7:19; Job 40:9; Gen. 3:8; Deut. 11:12; 2 Chron. 6:40), and even wings (Pss. 17:8; 36:7), yet open theists do not take these verses literally. Indeed, to do so would contradict the clear statement of Scripture that God is immaterial (Luke 24:39; John 4:24). Further, Genesis 6:6 does not use the same Hebrew word for “repenting” as does 1 Samuel 15:29. Samuel uses shaqar, which means that God will not cheat, lie, deceive, break a covenant, act falsely, or be untrue. But the Hebrew word (nacham) used in Genesis 6:6 is translated “sorry” (NRSV). It means to be “grieved” (NIV), to sigh, breathe strongly, groan, be sorry. It reflects God’s feeling toward humankind’s sin, not a change in his thinking. What is more, since the contrast in this text is between a state of innocence in which God created humans (cf. Gen. 3:5, 22) and their perverted state just before the flood (Gen. 6:5), it is speaking about God’s feelings toward different things. Or, better yet, it is speaking not about different feelings God has about the same thing but about different feelings he has toward different things. God always has the same consistent feeling toward the same thing. As an unchangingly holy God, he always feels grieved about sin and unvaryingly good about his perfect creation (Gen. 1:31). So the change is not in God but in man. Thus this alleged proof text for open theism fails to accomplish its purpose.

Abraham Negotiated with God. According to Genesis 18, Abraham negotiated with God until God reduced the number of righteous persons required to save Sodom and Gomorrah from fifty to ten. This, open theists claim, reveals that God did not determine in advance what the outcome would be but entered into genuine negotiation with Abraham.

In response traditional theists point out that every good negotiator knows his bottom line before he begins the negotiation, and surely an all-knowing God knew how far he would go with Abraham. The Bible says clearly that God can declare “the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46:10) and even sometimes answers our prayers before we call on him (65:24). Indeed, God even chose the elect before the foundations of the world (Eph. 1:4; cf. 1 Pet. 1:2). So certainly God knew this bottom line with Abraham before he began the discussion.

The Allegation That God Learns. Open theism contends that the Bible sometimes describes God as learning through experience. For instance, God said to Abraham after he proved his willingness to offer Isaac: “Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son” (Gen. 22:12). According to open theism, this verse implies that God did not know how Abraham would respond to his command since it was only after Abraham obeyed that God said, “Now I know that you fear God.”

However, the problem with this interpretation is twofold. First, look at the context. The passage begins by stating that “God tested Abraham” (v. 1). There is nothing here about God’s desire to learn anything. Rather, God wanted to prove something (cf. 2 Chron. 32:31). What God knew by cognition, he desired to show by demonstration. After Abraham passed the test, he demonstrated what God always knew, namely, that he feared God. For example, a math teacher might say to her class, “Let’s see if we can find the square root of 49,” and then, after demonstrating it, declare, “Now we know that the square root of 49 is 7,” even though she knew the answer from the beginning. Even so, God, who knows all things cognitively from the beginning, could appropriately say after Abraham had proved his faith, “now I know [demonstratively] that you fear God.”

Second, since the Bible does not contradict itself, what might otherwise be a possible interpretation of this text is eliminated by the clear teaching of Scripture elsewhere. Namely, God’s “understanding has no limit” (Ps. 147:5); he knows “the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46:10) and has foreknown and predestined us from the foundation of the world (Rom. 8:29–30). So in his omniscience God knew exactly what Abraham would do before he tested him since he knows all things (cf. Ps. 139:2–4; Jer. 17:10; Acts 1:24; Heb. 4:13).

Moses’s Prayer Changed God’s Mind. According to Exodus 32:7–14, God declared that he would destroy the children of Israel, and Moses interceded on their behalf and changed God’s mind. Some open theists take this as proof that God has not determined the future completely but that it is open to change by our free actions, even to the point of changing God’s mind. Open theists reason, “The fact is that God relents in direct response to Moses’s plea, not as a consequence of the people’s repentance of their apostasy.” Thus “the repentance mentioned in this case clearly applies to a change that took place in God, not in his people” (Rice, “Biblical Support,” 28). Further, they argue that “the assurance that God will not repent presupposes the general possibility that God can repent when he chooses” (Rice, “Biblical Support,” 33).

This objection, however, falls short of its mark for a number of reasons. First of all, it is contorted logic to affirm, as they do, that God’s unchangeableness implies that he could change. Does this mean that God’s faithfulness to his nature and to his Word implies that he could be unfaithful to it? Does this mean that when the Scriptures affirm that “God never lies” (Titus 1:2 NRSV; cf. Heb. 6:18), it implies he can lie? What about when the Word of God declares that when “we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself” (2 Tim. 2:13)? Does this mean God could be unfaithful?

Second, even open theists admit that “God’s essential nature and his ultimate purpose did not change—Moses’s appeal presupposes this” (Rice, “Biblical Support,” 28). But if God’s “essential nature” did not change (which is precisely what classical theists contend), then God did not change in his essence. For “essential nature” is precisely what classical theists mean by “essence.” “Nonessential nature,” whatever that may mean, is not part of the essence of God. Indeed, it would seem that the only sense in which God has what is nonessential to his nature is his acts. And classical theists readily admit that God engages in different and changing actions. But all these flow from his unchanging nature as occasioned by the changing conditions in his creation (see Pinnock, Openness, chaps. 5–6).

Third, open theists even acknowledge that God’s “ultimate objectives” did not change. So neither God’s nature nor purpose changed. Why, then, speak of a change in God? Ironically, they hint at the answer themselves when they add, “His [God’s] ultimate objectives require him to change his immediate intentions” (Rice, “Biblical Support,” 28). Had they used the word “tactics” instead of “intentions,” no classical theist would object. With unchanging nature and unvarying ultimate intention, God uses various means to accomplish his immutable will. In this case, it was Moses’s prayer that God ordained as the means by which he would accomplish his ultimate will to deliver his people. There is no need to say that God’s essence changed to fully explain this (or any other) passage of Scripture. God has ordained that his mercy is released through those calling on him to help. Like any good parent, he wants to be asked. Suppose, for example, that a concerned mother knows in advance that her fevered child will awake later in the night crying for help. In anticipation she places water and aspirin by her bedside. But she does not administer the help until the child awakes and cries for it. Even so, our heavenly Father, who knows “the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46:10), often waits for us to call on him before he responds, whether it is for ourselves or for someone else.

Finally, even in the case of Moses’s intercession there is evidence of God’s unchanging will. For Moses reminded God of his promise to Israel, saying, “Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever’” (Exod. 32:13). No conditions were attached to this promise. Indeed, Abraham was not even conscious when God’s promise was unilaterally ratified by God (Gen. 15). So Moses was simply praying the promise of God, reminding God of what he had promised to do. Effective prayer is, as Jesus said, asking in God’s will (John 15:7). Prayer is not a means by which we get our will done in heaven. Rather, it is a means by which God gets his will done on earth. We do not change God by our prayers. Rather, our prayers are a means by which God changes others and us.

The Argument from Modern Linguists. Open theists appeal to current trends among linguists to interpret Exodus 3:14 as “I will be who I will be.” This, they believe, supports their view that God can and does change.

However, this linguistic possibility must be rejected for many reasons.

1. The context opposes it since God is asked to give his “name” (which equates to his character or essence).

2. The history of both Jewish and Christian interpretation of this text is overwhelmingly in favor of the classical interpretation. Nearly all the great patristic, medieval, and Reformation theologians understood Exodus 3:14 as an affirmation of God’s self-existence.

3. The Greek translation of the Old Testament (Septuagint, or LXX) translates the Hebrew “I Am Who I Am” (ehyeh ‘asher ehyeh) as “he who is” (ho on).

4. The rendering “I will be who I will be,” while grammatically possible, is contextually implausible and historically late, emerging in the wake of process theology.

5. The very name Yahweh (YHWH), usually translated LORD in the Old Testament, is probably a contraction of “I Am Who I Am.” Old Testament commentator R. Alan Cole says, “This pithy clause is clearly a reference to the name YHWH. Probably ‘Yahweh’ is regarded as a shortening of the whole phrase, and a running together of the clause into one word” (69). Even The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament acknowledges that “the name is generally thought to be a verbal form derived from the root hwy [hayah], ‘be at hand, exist, come to pass’” (500). Joseph Pohle sums it up well: “The more general and more ancient opinion among theologians favors the view that aseity constitutes the metaphysical essence of God. Hence, we shall act prudently in adopting this theory, especially since it is well founded in Holy Scripture and Tradition, and can be defended with solid philosophical arguments. . . . Sacred Scripture defines [Yahweh] as [the One being, ho on in the Greek of the LXX], and it would seem, therefore, that this definition is entitled to universal acceptance” (172).

6. This process and open theist understanding is contrary to Jesus’s use of Exodus 3:14 in John 8:58 (NRSV): “Before Abraham was, I am.” Notice Jesus did not affirm: “Before Abraham was, I will be who I will be,” as he should have if the process understanding of this text is correct. For a follower of Christ, Jesus’s understanding of this text should be definitive. Finally, even if it could be proven that Exodus 3:14 does not support the claim of God for self-existence, there are plenty of other texts and good arguments that do. The very concept of God as uncreated Creator (Gen. 1:1) who brought all other things into existence (John 1:2; Col. 1:15–16; Heb. 1:2) is sufficient to prove his self-existence. And even open theists claim to believe in ex nihilo creation, affirming that “the triune God is the Creator of the world out of nothing” (Pinnock, “Systematic Theology,” 109). Reason demands that if God is Creator of all things, then he was uncreated. And if he did not get his existence from another, then he must exist in and of himself (aseity).

Philosophical Arguments Offered by Open Theism. The extrabiblical arguments for open theism are rooted in several assumptions. The primary one is their libertarian view of free will.

Truly Free Acts Eliminate Unqualified Omniscience. According to open theists, God cannot have infallible foreknowledge of truly free actions. According to the libertarian view, a genuinely free act is one that could have been otherwise. But if God has infallible foreknowledge of an event, then it cannot be otherwise. If it were, then God would have been wrong. But an omniscient mind cannot be wrong about what it knows. Hence, it would follow that even God cannot know for sure what free creatures will choose to do.

In response to this argument, classical theists from the earliest times have maintained that there is no contradiction in God knowing for sure (determining) what a person chooses to do (freely). One and the same act can be determined from the standpoint of God’s foreknowledge and yet free from the vantage point of our choice. The law of noncontradiction is only violated when both are from the same vantage points, which they are not.

Indeed, the Bible gives examples of events that are both determined from all eternity yet freely chosen. The cross is an example. God determined it from eternity past (Acts 2:23; Rev. 13:8), yet Jesus said, “I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (John 10:17–18).

Further, God does not have to “look ahead” in order to see the future. From his lofty perch beyond time, he sees the whole course of time (past, present, and future) laid out for him in his eternal Now. Indeed, since all effects preexist in their cause, the entire course of history preexisted in him. Thus he knew it “in himself” as the Cause before it ever occurred.

God’s Actions in Time Show That He Is Temporal. Open theists also reject the concept of a nontemporal God, which has been part of theism from the earliest times. This they do based on the fact that God is continually referred to in Scripture as acting in time. God’s acts of creation were in time (Gen. 1–2), as were his acts of redemption (cf. Exod. 12:1–2 and John 1:10–14). But if God was in time at the exodus, then there was a time before that and a time after that. But whatever being has a before and after is a temporal being. What is more, the Bible sometimes refers to God as having a past, present, and future. He is “the one who is, and who was, and who is to come” (Rev. 1:8). Indeed, the very words used to describe God as being eternal (aiōn, aiōnios) can mean “age” or “ages.” So, it would seem, God is “eternal” in the sense of being in endless time.

In response several comments are in order. First, these objections to God’s timelessness are based on a confusion of his actions with his attributes. God’s essence is beyond time, but his actions are in time. This should not be difficult for open theists to understand since they believe God is infinite yet acts in the finite world. God is Creator yet acts in creation without being a creature. Why, then, cannot God act in time without being temporal? What is more, the origin of the world is not an instance of creation in time; it was the creation of time. For time did not begin until there was a changing world in which it could be measured. Further, this objection overlooks the fact that the Bible clearly affirms that the God who is the Creator of time is, by that very fact, beyond time. Hebrews 1:2 speaks of God “framing the ages,” or time. But if he is Creator of time, then he cannot be in time. Jude 25 says Christ was “before all ages.” But clearly he who was before the temporal world is not himself temporal. Jesus spoke of the glory he had with the Father “before the world began” (John 17:5). The Bible also uses parallel phrases such as “before the creation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). Paul spoke emphatically of grace “given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (2 Tim. 1:9, emphasis added). But if time began, then God is not part of it since admittedly he has no beginning or end.

Classical Theism Is Rooted in Greek Philosophy. Open theists often argue that traditional theism is rooted in Greek philosophy, not in the Bible. It is more Platonic than Christian. It follows from Greek ideas imported via the Greek translation of the Old Testament and early Christian philosophers who were steeped in Greek philosophy rather than from biblical exegesis. This is particularly evident, they claim, in the theist’s understanding of God’s statement in Exodus 3:14 (“I Am Who I Am”) as referring to a self-existent being (aseity) (see Sanders, 99).

However, besides being a genetic fallacy, the charge is a double-edged sword. For as Pinnock has admitted (see above), open theism is based in philosophy as well—the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, who was not a “Christian” (as Pinnock claimed) in any orthodox sense of the term. Whitehead denied every major attribute of God as held by orthodox theology down through the ages (see Geisler and House, 8–11, 90, 216, 268, 272, 319). Further, simply charging that something is wrong because it is Greek in origin will not do since even open theists accept many things taught by the Greeks—for example, the basic laws of logic. The question is not whether it is Hellenic but whether it is authentic.

An Evaluation of Open Theism. Open theism has many positive features. These include belief in (1) God’s infinity, (2) his ontological independence from the world, (3) ex nihilo creation, (4) God’s unchanging character, (5) God’s intimate interaction with his creation, (6) God’s ultimate victory over evil, (7) human free choice, and, for many, (8) the divine authority of the Bible.

However, in significant ways open theism falls short of the standard of orthodoxy in its view of God. For example, its denial of (1) God’s complete sovereignty, (2) his absolute simplicity, (3) his immutability, (4) his nontemporality, (5) his pure actuality, (6) his impassibility, (7) his infallible foreknowledge of free choices, and (8) the inerrancy of the Bible. Whether measured by orthodox fathers or the creeds, confessions, and councils, a denial of any of these, to say nothing of all of them, is contrary to the historic orthodox view of God (see Geisler and House, chap. 11).

In addition to failing the historic test, open theism has many inconsistencies as illustrated in one of its chief proponents, Clark Pinnock. These are found in his book The Most Moved Mover. Insofar as other open theists hold to many of these same things, the critiques apply to them as well. First, Pinnock claims that God is “above time” (96) but not “outside of time” (98). But how can he be both?

Second, Pinnock claims that God’s time and ours differ (Most Moved Mover, 99). But how does God’s being “beyond time” and having a “different time” than ours really differ from God’s being eternal? To claim that God’s time is uncreated does not help since an infinite number of moments is not possible, as the Kalām argument for God has shown (see Craig). How does an uncreated, eternal time that is “beyond time” in the created sense differ from saying God is not in time?

Third, Pinnock claims that God has limited “omniscience” (Most Moved Mover, 138). But how does this differ from saying God is not omniscient, since omniscience means unlimited knowledge, and a limited unlimited is contradictory?

Fourth, Pinnock affirms that “God is necessary and contingent, eternal and temporal, infinite and finite” (Most Moved Mover, 143). But how can opposites both be true? Positing a dipolar nature of God does not solve the problem, for two reasons. First of all, it is an admission that open theism is really a form of dipolar theism or process theology, which open theists deny it is. Further, even on the dipolar view, one nature is nontemporal and immutable—the very thing they deny to traditional theism. Finally, the other “pole”—being contingent, temporal, finite, and so on—is not really part of God but is the created universe. But if this is so, then open theists have backed into the very classical theistic view they are attempting to avoid.

Fifth, Pinnock decries the classical view of God’s unchangeable nature, yet he holds that God is unchangeable in essence. He states that “God’s essential nature remains the same” and that “nothing at all in His essential nature changes” (Most Moved Mover, 86). Why then is the traditional theist vilified for believing in an immutable God?

Sixth, Pinnock claims that God is “unchangeable in changeable ways” (Most Moved Mover, 86). “God is changeless in nature but ever changing in His experience.” That is, “God changes in relation to creatures” (86). But how can God change without changing in his nature? How can God be separated from his experience, which admittedly changes? And if it is posited that he has an unchanging part of his nature and a changing activity, then this reduces to the dreaded view of classical theism open theists wish to avoid.

Seventh, according to Pinnock God has an unchanging nature or essence in contrast to his relationships with creatures, yet “the essence of a thing now depends on its relationships with other things” (Most Moved Mover, 121). But if essence is determined by changing relationships, how can it remain unchanged? In fact, if essence is determined by changing relations, then there is no essence at all. But this is a denial of orthodox teaching affirmed in the ecumenical creeds that God has an “essence.”

Eighth, open theists affirm that God is ontologically independent from the world. He is a necessary being, and the world is contingent (Pinnock, Most Moved Mover, 85–86). But if God is necessary, then he has no potentiality to be other than he is. But without potentiality one cannot change. Pinnock believes God can and does change, but how, if he has no potential for it?

Ninth, on the one hand, Pinnock condemns classical theism for its ancient influence from the Greeks (Most Moved Mover, chap. 2). On the other hand, he admits an influence from modern process theology on his view (141). He even acknowledges that a synthesis with philosophy can be good (7, 113). Apparently it is wrong for opponents of his view to be influenced by philosophy but right for proponents of his view.

Tenth, Pinnock claims to believe in inerrancy (signing the Evangelical Theological Society’s statement annually). Yet he asserts that the Bible has errors in it and has affirmed that there were mistaken predictions in the Bible (Most Moved Mover, 50, 51). For example, the city of Tyre was not destroyed as Ezekiel said it would be (29:17–20), and “the city continued to be inhabited right up until Jesus’s own day.” Pinnock declares flatly, “Nebuchadnezzar did not do to Tyre exactly what Ezekiel had predicted” (50, emphasis added). In a revealing footnote, Pinnock adds, “We may not want to admit it, but prophecies often go unfulfilled—Joseph’s parents never bowed to him (Gen. 37:9–10); the Assyrians did not destroy Jerusalem in the eighth century (Mic. 3:9–12); despite Isaiah, Israel’s return from exile did not usher in a golden age (Isa. 41:14–20)” (51). Shockingly, he adds, “Despite Jesus, in the destruction of the temple, some stones were left on the other (Matt. 24:2)” (51). In short Jesus was wrong in what he predicted! Under pressure of being expelled from the ETS, Pinnock changed the wording “in certain problematic language” regarding these predictions. However, no substantial change was made in his essential view that God does not have infallible knowledge of future free acts (see Geisler, “Did Clark Pinnock Recant?”).

Open theists cannot avoid this criticism by redefining truth as intention and not correspondence. For on an intentionalist view of truth, almost any mistake could be true, thus undermining almost all Scripture. Further, Pinnock elsewhere claims to embrace a correspondence view of truth (Most Moved Mover). Indeed, such a view is both biblical (see Geisler, Systematic Theology) and undeniable since any denial of correspondence claims to correspond with reality.

Eleventh, Pinnock exhorts classical theists to avoid caricatures of others’ views. Yet he repeatedly calls the opposing view “fatalistic” and “deterministic.” He even dubs the classical God “a solitary narcissistic being” (Most Moved Mover, 6; quoting Walter Kasper)!

Twelfth, Pinnock claims that viewed from one vantage point (namely, process theology), his position is that of “Classical Theism” (Most Moved Mover, 145). Yes, and viewed from one vantage point, the pope is Protestant!

Finally, open theism claims that God is not simple (indivisible). Yet it affirms that God is infinite. But an infinite number of parts is impossible since no matter how many parts there are, there could always be one more, and more than an infinite is impossible. Further, many open theists agree with the Intelligent Design movement that whatever is irreducibly complex must have a cause. If God is irreducibly complex, then he must be caused.

Books Evaluating Open Theism. Numerous books critique open theism from across the theological spectrum, including various forms of Calvinism and Arminianism. These works include Millard Erickson, God the Father Almighty; John Feinberg, No One like Him; John Frame, No Other God; Norman L. Geisler, Creating God in the Image of Man; Norman L. Geisler and H. Wayne House, The Battle for God; Douglas Huffman and Eric L. Johnson (eds.), God under Fire; Robert Morey, The Battle for the Gods; John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Kjoss Helseth (eds.), Beyond the Bounds; Bruce Ware, God’s Lesser Glory; R. K. M. Wright, No Place for Sovereignty.

This is to say nothing of the untold number of books written in defense of classical theism, which are thereby indirect criticisms of crucial premises held by open theists. These include all relevant works by Augustine (e.g., The City of God), Anselm, and Aquinas (Summa Theologica), as well as those who follow in their tradition, such as Luther, Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion), Arminius, modern Thomists like Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (God: His Existence and Nature), H. P. Owen (Concepts of Deity), James D. Collins (God in Modern Philosophy), and numerous others.

Summary and Conclusion. In summary open theism fails its own test for “coherence” and “internal consistency” (quotations in this paragraph are from Pinnock, Most Moved Mover; here, 22). It has constructed the gallows on which it has hanged itself. Some open theists, like Pinnock, have gone so far into process theology that they admit that God has a body and suggest evangelicals rethink the Mormon view of God. Pinnock wrote: “If he is with us in the world, if we are to take biblical metaphors seriously, is God in some way embodied?” (33). He answers positively, “I do not believe that the idea is as foreign to the Bible as we have assumed” (33). “Is there perhaps something in God that corresponds with embodiment? Having a body is certainly not a negative thing because it makes it possible for us to be agents. Perhaps God’s agency would be easier to envisage if he were in some way corporeal” (33, emphasis added). He adds, “I do not feel obligated to assume that God is a purely spiritual being when his self-revelation does not suggest it” (34, emphasis added). Surely Pinnock has read John 4:24 (“God is spirit”) and Luke 24:39, when Jesus said, “Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have” (ESV). In view of Pinnock’s startling and heretical view that God is corporeal, one must take more seriously the suggestion that there are possible similarities between Pinnock’s view and that of the Mormons (35, 141).

See also CHRISTIAN; ORTHODOXY

Bibliography. R. A. Greer, ed., Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer, and Selected Works; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines; J. B. Russell, Satan: The Early Christian Tradition; J. Stevenseon, ed., A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church to AD 337.

R. V. Huggins

ORTHODOXY. A term of Christian origin, orthodoxy, in contrast to heresy, is ascribed to those teachings that constitute the foundational doctrines of the historic Christian faith. Etymologically, the word is the English version of the Greek word orthodoxia, which combines orthos (right) and doxa (teaching). Essentially, orthodoxy is doctrine, but not just any doctrine. Care must be taken not to ascribe to orthodoxy those beliefs on which there can be more than one legitimate interpretation and application.

The importance of establishing and maintaining an orthodox body of doctrine is derived from one’s worldview, the nature of truth, and epistemology. The logical starting point for establishing an orthodox body of truth is the Christian theistic worldview, which states that God exists and has revealed himself to us by means of general and special revelation. God’s self-disclosure is the epistemological means by which truth both is made known and is knowable. Therefore, God, through propositional revelation, provides us with those doctrinal truths that constitute orthodoxy.

The New Testament amply instructs us in sound doctrine, beginning with the Gospels. In Luke 24:44–48, Jesus explains his atoning work to the disciples. John 1:1 explicitly teaches the orthodox doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ. In John 14:6, Jesus Christ points out that he is the way, the truth, and the life exclusively.

According to Acts 2:42, the early church committed itself to a body of doctrine that originated with the apostles. In 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul states that the church is the pillar and support of the truth, undoubtedly apostolic doctrine.

In contrast to orthodoxy, there also exist heretical teachings. Second Corinthians 11 and Galatians 1 warn of false gospels and those who spread them. Bowman (78) identifies nine enemies of truth: false doctrines (Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 1:3), false miracles (Matt. 24:24; 2 Thess. 2:9), false deities (Deut. 13:2; 2 Thess. 2:4), false Christs (Matt. 24:24; 2 Cor. 11:4), false spirits (1 John 4:1–2), false prophets (Matt. 24:24; 2 Pet. 2:1), false apostles (2 Cor. 11:13; Rev. 2:2), false teachers (1 Tim. 1:7; 2 Pet. 2:1), and false gospels (Gal. 1:6–9).

Orthodoxy is that which was taught by the apostles and embraced by the church (Acts 2:42), entrusted to the church—which is to serve as a steward of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)—and defended by able overseers (Titus 1:9).

Those who are considered orthodox or unorthodox may vary among different religious bodies. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant branches of Christianity may hold many points in common and declare those who differ or reject these to be unorthodox, but may differ among themselves as to the orthodoxy of one another’s teaching. For example, all three major branches hold to the Nicene Creed and would declare those who reject the doctrine of the Trinity, in which all three eternal persons of the Trinity are indivisibly the one divine being, to be unorthodox. On the other hand, Roman Catholics would declare the rejection of transubstantiation regarding the Eucharist to be unorthodox, though Protestants would view the Roman Catholic doctrine as unorthodox; Eastern Orthodox would declare the acceptance of the phrase “and the Son” regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit to be unorthodox, but Roman Catholics consider the phrase required; Protestants would say that rejection of “faith alone” is unorthodox, while Roman Catholics believe that faith must be accompanied by works.

Doctrinal Categories. Doctrine is divided into two distinct categories: nonnegotiable and negotiable. An example of a negotiable doctrine is baptism. Scripture does not set forth a definitive procedure for administering baptism. Lutherans sprinkle, Baptists immerse, but neither practice can be labeled either orthodox or heretical. Regarding Communion, some Christian traditions believe it is a sacrament, while many traditions view it as simply an ordinance. Premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism are three distinct schools of eschatology, but none is considered orthodox or heretical.

Nonnegotiable doctrines are teachings that are properly identified as orthodox, that define the historic Christian faith, and to which there are no legitimate alternatives. In the history of the Christian church, trinitarianism, and by extension Christology, have been the litmus test for orthodoxy. Though Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are the three great monotheistic religions, Christianity holds to trinitarian monotheism, which asserts that the three persons of the Godhead form the Trinity, comprises a distinct Christology (that Jesus was both God and man), and establishes Christianity as exclusively the one true faith. Every aspect of Christian theology is impacted by Christology, so the doctrine of Christ is what Carl Braaten calls the “christological tripod,” upon which the gospel rests (9).

Doctrinal categories are not established arbitrarily. Doctrinal truth is established on the basis of four sources that carry varying degrees of authority. They are the Scriptures, apostolic fathers, creeds, and catechisms.

The Scriptures. The Scriptures constitute foundational authority to which all other authorities are subject and upon which all other authorities are founded. This is not to discount that revelation from God is found in general revelation and in statements of God through the prophets, apostles, and Jesus, but that the written revelation of God is propositional, is equated in Scripture as the very words of God (e.g., Rom. 9:17; 1 Tim. 3:16), and is the truth (John 17:17)—it is accorded a unique status as the written and infallible Word of God. This is clearly because the Scriptures are propositional revelation from God. Scripture is not the product of human effort or collusion but is revealed truth by means of divine inspiration, recorded by human beings moved by the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures are therefore infallible and inerrant in all that they teach regarding doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in right behavior (2 Tim. 3:16) and never subject to revision.

The Church Fathers. The early church fathers were faithful to the apostolic faith (Acts 2:42), defended it against vigorous attacks, and propagated it throughout the known world. Given their close proximity to the apostolic era, from the standpoint of historiography the church fathers would undoubtedly be quite familiar with the work and teachings of the apostles. These leaders not only ministered to churches established by the apostles; some were contemporaries of and discipled by John.

The apostolic fathers distinguished themselves as leaders deeply committed to the fidelity of the apostolic faith, and their tireless efforts to articulate the truths of Christianity contributed greatly to the ongoing geographical spread and numerical growth of Christianity.

One contemporary heretical offshoot of Christianity, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses), appeals to the early church fathers in support of its teachings regarding Christ. What is particularly noteworthy about this is the Watch Tower’s posture toward the early church fathers. In 1992 the organization’s official periodical, the Watchtower, stated:

“Apostolic fathers” is the designation used for churchmen who wrote about Christianity in the late first and early second centuries of our Common Era. Some of them were Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, and Papias. They were said to be contemporaries of some of the apostles. Thus, they should have been familiar with apostolic teachings. Regarding what those men wrote, The New Encyclopedia Britannica says: “taken as a whole the writings of the Apostolic Fathers are more valuable historically than any other Christian literature outside the New Testament.” If the apostles taught the Trinity doctrine, then those Apostolic Fathers should have taught it too. It should have been prominent in their teaching, since nothing was more important than telling people who God is. (“Trinity Doctrine,” 19)

Ecumenical Creeds. These symbols, though not inspired, are the culmination of extensive theological debate and reflection that stand in congruence with one another, with biblical theology, and with the early church fathers. Philip Schaff points out that, to this day, Protestants, Roman Catholics, and the Orthodox Church embrace one or more of the major creeds. Creeds are important instruments in the service of orthodoxy in three areas: history, theology, and teaching. Their historical value resides in the fact that they testify to the church’s commitment to specific doctrinal truths and the continuity of orthodox doctrine. Theologically, they represent careful theological and biblical reflection and encapsulate those doctrines deemed by the church to be consistent with apostolic doctrine. They also serve as valuable teaching tools, given their concise statements on those doctrines considered essential to orthodoxy.

Creeds reflect the core beliefs of the historic Christian faith and serve as a litmus test for orthodoxy. Heretical groups such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses not only deny the legitimacy of the creeds but mistakenly assert that Christians put them on par with Scripture.

John Leith points out that the early orthodox statements (creeds) countering heretical views are to be understood as an attempt to articulate the Christian faith in an intelligent manner.

The creed is simply the Church’s understanding of the meaning of Scripture. The creed says, Here is how the Church reads and receives Scripture. . . .

The rise of heresy was still another situation that created the need for creeds. . . . As was said long ago, creeds are signposts to heresies. The task of the creed was to defend the church against heresy. The creed has the negative role of shutting the heretic out and setting the boundaries within which authentic Christian theology and life can take place. . . .

Creeds are also a standard, a battle cry, a testimony and witness to the world. (Leith, 8–9)

The New Testament contains a number of basic statements that scholars consider to be early creeds. In 1 Corinthians 15:3–7, Paul reminds the Corinthian believers of their spiritual roots and of his ministry in their lives by reiterating a basic statement encapsulating the gospel of salvation on which they stand. Romans 1:1–4 is an introduction of Paul’s letter to Roman Christians in which he explains in concise terms the gospel of God and its relationship to Christ. First Timothy 3:16 is an excellent example of the structure and content of an early creedal statement that was in circulation prior to Paul’s ministry. It reveals the high Christology present in the apostolic church and its importance as a succinct statement of orthodoxy. Philippians 2:6–11 is the premier theological exposition of Christ’s preexistence, incarnation, and eventual exaltation. Though considered a hymn, it nevertheless exhibits creedal qualities and is used as a creed. Matthew 28:19 presents an early trinitarian formula that Jesus Christ himself gave to his disciples as the basis for the baptismal event.

In the post–New Testament period, creeds continued to develop, and they served as definitive statements of orthodoxy that gave detailed and fresh expression to the apostolic tradition. Two important or chief creeds of the church embraced by Roman Catholicism, the Orthodox Church, and Protestantism are the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. They mainly deal with the orthodox doctrines of God and Christ or the dogmas of the Trinity and the incarnation. Schaff writes that these creeds (or symbols) are a brief statement of the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith, essential and sufficient for salvation. The Apostles’ Creed, also known as the Old Roman Creed, is the earliest of the post–New Testament creeds. It was used in the Western church around the late second century into the early years of the third century. Though it has undergone numerous changes, the Apostles’ Creed represents the early codification of the core beliefs of the early church. Regarding Jesus Christ, it states he is the Son of God, Lord, conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, virgin born, who suffered and died, was resurrected on the third day, ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. With the rise of heretical teachings repudiating the deity of Christ, the church was forced to articulate its Christology in a more sophisticated way, eventually producing the more refined, definitive Nicene Creed in response to the heresy of Arianism. Lesser known but of equal importance is the Athanasian Creed. There is no evidence that Athanasius penned the creed to which his name is attached, and since the seventeenth century, Catholic and Protestant authorities have not ascribed authorship to Athanasius. Nevertheless, this creed comprises the doctrinal conclusions of the four ecumenical councils and is explicitly trinitarian. Regarding the Trinity, it explicitly states that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are uncreated, incomprehensible, eternal, almighty, God, and Lord.

Challenges to Orthodoxy. Historically, the early church fathers, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and post-Reformation Protestantism agree that the doctrine of the person and work of Jesus Christ (Christology) constitutes a litmus test for orthodoxy. Specifically, to be orthodox on Christology one must acknowledge that Christ is God, is the second member of the Trinity, took on human flesh (incarnation), atoned for our sins, and was raised on the third day in a literal, physical body. Furthermore, the early church and later ecclesiastical traditions (Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy) agree that the deity of Christ is clearly presented in the New Testament. In John 1:1, Jesus is declared to be God. John 1:18, referring back to the prologue, refers to Jesus as the only-begotten God. Though this translation has been challenged on the basis of textual variants (some manuscripts read “only-begotten Son”), the best evidence supports “only-begotten God” (probably best translated “God the only Son,” as in the NRSV). Thomas, who initially doubted the resurrection and declared he would accept it only if he could physically touch the resurrected Christ, was given the opportunity to touch Christ, to which he responded by declaring Christ to be his Lord and God (John 20:28). Paul declares Christ to be God in Romans 9:5 and Titus 2:13. The writer of Hebrews refers to Christ when he refers to the eternality of the throne of God (Heb. 1:8–9). Second Peter 1:1 speaks of Christ as both God and savior, and 1 John 5:20 speaks of Christ as God, which is consistent with John’s Gospel, which explicitly affirms the deity of Christ.

In the centuries following the close of the New Testament period, christological and trinitarian heresies began to make inroads into the Christian community, questioning the deity of Christ and, by extension, the Trinity, thus constituting a pervasive challenge to orthodoxy.

Significant challenges to Christian orthodoxy came from numerous sources, the earliest being the gnostics, who taught that salvation is achieved by the acquisition of secret, special knowledge, that the supreme God is unknowable, and that all that is physical is evil and the spiritual realm is good (dualism). This had serious implications for Christology, given that in his incarnation Christ took on human flesh, which from a gnostic perspective would constitute corruption. Heresies such as Docetism denied the literal, physical suffering of Christ on the cross and, because of their dualism, rejected the doctrine of Christ’s incarnation. Given its dualistic view of spirit and matter, Docetism has strong affinities with gnosticism. Apollinarianism, which gets its name from Apollinarius of Laodicea (ca. 310–ca. 390), was a heretical strain of Docetism that denied Jesus had a human mind and soul. The Second Ecumenical Council (381) condemned this teaching as unorthodox.

Ebionism taught that Jesus was the Messiah but not the Son of God. Furthermore, he overcame sin by exercise of his will, an ability Ebionites claimed was available to anyone willing to develop it. Though Jesus was not initially divine, he was adopted into divinity. The heresy of Adoptionism taught that Jesus was not the incarnation of the Son of God but was a great teacher who, at his baptism, was adopted by God. However, his adoption did not confer on him divinity.

Eutychianism, which denied that Jesus had two natures, gets its name from a monk named Eutyches (ca. 378–ca. 452). Given its denial of Christ’s physical nature, Eutychianism manifested Docetic tendencies. The Fourth Ecumenical Council, held in 451, declared that Jesus was one person who possessed both a divine nature and a human nature, rendering Eutychianism heretical.

One of the most pervasive challenges to the doctrine of Christ in history is Arianism, a christological heresy that originated with Arius (ca. 256–336). He rejected the divinity of Jesus Christ and taught that Jesus was a created being, not fully God or fully human. In 325 the Council of Nicaea was convened to address this serious problem. The outcome of Nicaea’s position on Christ revolved around two important terms, homoousios (of the same substance), proposed by Athanasius, and homoiousios (of like or similar substance), preferred by Arius. The Council of Nicaea dealt a blow to Arianism by declaring its view of Jesus Christ to be heretical. Arianism is quite prevalent today, finding its most vigorous expression in the teachings of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses).

With the aid of Greek philosophy and a more technical terminology, the person of Christ and his relationship to the Trinity were developed with greater clarity and reasoned logical constructs. In its confrontation with heretical challenges to the deity of Christ and the Trinity, the church universal came to a consensus on what constituted true orthodoxy and codified doctrinal orthodoxy in the ecumenical creeds.

Bibliography. C. L. Blomberg, “The New Testament Definition of Heresy,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; R. M. Bowman Jr., Orthodoxy and Heresy; C. Braaten, “The Gospel for a Neopagan Culture,” in Either/Or: The Gospel or Neopaganism, edited by C. Braaten and R. W. Jenson; G. Bray, Creeds, Councils and Christ; H. O. J. Brown, Heresies; J. H. Leith, ed., Creeds of the Churches; “Trinity Doctrine,” Watchtower, February 1, 1992.

S. J. Rost and H. W. House

OVERSEER. The term overseer often translates the Greek word episkopos, rendered as “bishop” in some translations. Several Christian denominations, such as Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican/Episcopalian, Methodist, and so on, use the latter term, while some other Protestant groups also use the former. Overseer is used also by heterodox organizations such as Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs), who use the term to designate those who are appointed to supervise various activities in their organization. A local congregation of JWs may have a number of overseers directing the affairs of that congregation, while circuit overseers are those who have authority over several congregations in a geographical region.

Bibliography. C. Brown, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology; G. Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.

E. Shropshire