{{위키데이터 속성 추적}}
'''열린신학'''(Open theism, openness theology, free will theism), 혹은 '''열린 유신론'''이란<ref>http://opentheism.info/open-theism/ {{웨이백|url=http://opentheism.info/open-theism/ |date=20160706145101 }} (Accessed August 1, 2014)</ref> [[스콜라 철학]]과 [[기독교 신학]]을 종합한 것과 관계된 사상에 대한 하나의 응답으로 [[복음주의]] 기독교와 [[후기 복음주의]] 기독교에서 발전된 신학 운동이다. 인간과 하나님의 자유라는 지속적인 신학을 성경적으로 동기를 부여받고 철학적으로 발전되어 왔다. 강조점은 하나님의 [[예지]]와 하나님의 능력 행사에 있다.<ref name="thomasjayoord.com">{{웹 인용|url=http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/theological_traditions_as_paths_to_open_and_relational_theologies/#.U3OthdJdVI6|title=Paths to Open and Relational Theologies|work=For The Love of Wisdom and The Wisdom of Love}}</ref><ref name="reknew.org">{{웹 인용|url=http://reknew.org/2007/12/response-to-critics/|title=A Brief Outline and Defense of the Open View|work=ReKnew}}</ref> [[클락 H. 피녹]], 라이스, 샌더스, 해스커, 베이싱어가 열린신학을 옹호하는 대표적인 인물들이다.  [[로저 E. 올슨]]은 '열린신학은 후기 [[20세기]]와 [[21세기]] 초에 복음주의 사상에서 [[신론]]에 대한 매우 중요한 충돌을 일으켰다'고 말한다.<ref>Roger E. Olson, ''The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology'' (Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 190.</ref>....

== 개념 ==
열린신학은 고전적 [[유신론]]의 정적(靜的) 신관, 즉 하나님의 불변성, 전지(全知), 예지, 무감정성(impassibility), 군주적임의 대안으로 하나님의 가변성, 지식의 불확실성, 감정성, 인간적임을 제안한다.

=== 열린신학과 개혁주의 유신론 비교 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-bottom: 10px;"
! 교리
!열린신학
!칼빈주의
|-
|'''성경'''. 전통적으로 신구약 성경은 하나님의 말씀이며 하나님의 계시이다.<ref>[//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_K._McKim Donald K. McKim], ''Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms'' (Westminster John Knox, 1996), 251.</ref>
| 성경의 무오성을 확신한다.<ref>[//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_A._Boyd Gregory A. Boyd], ''God at War: the Bible and Spiritual Conflict'' (InterVarsity, 1997) 106.</ref>
| 성경은 하나님의 무오한 말씀이다.<ref>[//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Piper_(theologian) John Piper], "Why I Trust the Scriptures", http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/ConferenceMessages/ByDate/2008/2629_Why_I_Trust_the_Scriptures/ (accessed October 9, 2009).</ref>
|-
| '''하나님의 능력'''. "하나님의 능력은 하나님 자신의 본성에 의해서만 제한되고 어떤 외부의 힘에 의해서 제한되지 않는다."<ref name="Donald K. McKim 1996">Donald K. McKim, ''Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms'' (Westminster John Knox, 1996), 117.</ref>
| "하나님은 전능하다."<ref>Gregory A. Boyd, ''Is God to Blame? Moving Beyond Pat Answers to the Problem of Evil.'' (InterVarsity, 2003) 42.</ref>
| "하나님은 전능하다."<ref>Carl F. Ellis, Jr., "The Sovereignty of God and Ethnic-Based Suffering" in ''Suffering and the Sovereignty of God'', ed. John Piper and Justin Taylor, 124. (Crossway, 2006).</ref>
|-
| '''하나님의 주권''' "하나님의 궁극적 주권과 우주에 대한 통치".
| 발생하는 일들을 하나님이 정했다고 서술하는 것은 인간을 로버트로 축소하는 것이다.<ref>Greg Boyd, "How do you respond to Isaiah 48:3-5?", http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-do-you-respond-to-isaiah-483-5/</ref>
| "하나님의 정하신 의지밖에서는 존재하고 발생하는 일이 없다. 악한 사람이나 악한 일, 사건, 행동을 포함하여 아무것도 발생하지 않는다.<ref name="Talbot 2006">Talbot, "All the Good That Is Ours in Christ", in ''Suffering and the Sovereignty of God'', ed. John Piper and Justin Taylor, 43-44 (Crossway, 2006).</ref>
|-
| '''하나님의 완전성'''. 하나님은 부족한점이 없으시며, 모든 도덕적 불완전으로부터 자유롭다..
| 성경이 가르치기 때문에 하나님의 절대적 완전성을 믿는다.<ref>Greg Boyd, "A Brief Outline and Defense of the Open View", http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/essays-open-theism/response-to-critics/ (accessed October 11, 2009).</ref>
| 성경이 그것을 말하기 때문에 믿으며,하나님은 항상 올바른 일을 행하신다.<ref>Mark R. Talbot, "All the Good That Is Ours in Christ", in ''Suffering and the Sovereignty of God'', ed. John Piper and Justin Taylor, 41 (Crossway, 2006).</ref>
|-
| '''하나님의 예지''' "하나님은 역사에서 발행하기 이전에 일과 사건을 아신다G.<ref>Donald K. McKim, ''Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms'' (Westminster John Knox, 1996), 115.</ref>
| "하나님은 해결된 현실에 대해서 전지하지만, 그가 열어 놓은 미래를 특별한 예지없이 가능성을 열어 놓은 한에서만 알 수 있다.<ref>Gregory A. Boyd, "The Open Theism View", in ''Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views'', ed. James K. Beilby, Paul R. Eddy, 14 (InterVarsity, 2001).</ref>
| 전통적으로 [[아우구스티누스|아구스티누스]]와 [[칼뱅주의]] 견해: 하나님은 그가 미래를 정했기 때문에 미래를 알 수 있다"<ref>James K. Beilby, Paul R. Eddy, eds., ''Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views'', 11 (InterVarsity, 2001).</ref>
|-
| '''타락'''. "아담과 하와의 불순종과 죄로 인해 창조시 무죄의 상태를 잃게 되었다. 이 사건으로 인해 그들과 전 인류는 죄와 타락의 상태에 빠지게 되었다.<ref>Ronald F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison, eds., ''Nelson's Student Bible Dictionary: A Complete Guide to Understanding the World of the Bible'' (Thomas Nelson, 2005), s.v. "FALL, THE".</ref>
| 또한  하나님은 하시 일을 일방적으로나 철회 못할 정도로 행하지 않는다.하나님의 결정은 인간의 태도와 반응에 의해서 영향을 받는다.<ref>Richard Rice, "Biblical Support for a New Perspective" in ''The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God'', Clark H. Pinnock and others, 30 (InterVarsity,1994).</ref>
| 타락의 "궁극적 이유"는 하나님의 정하신 의지였다.
|-
| '''Free Will'''. '''자유의지'''. "모든 사람이 가진 의지의 자유로운 선택을 묘사하는 용어이다. 죄가 얼마나 및 어떤 방식으로 악에 대하여 선을 선택하는 능력 즉 인간의 자유의지에 영향을 미쳤는지에 대한 신학적인 논쟁이 일어났다."''<ref>(Westminster John Knox, 1996), 109.</ref>
| Promotes incompatibilism, the doctrine that "the agent's power to do otherwise" is "a necessary condition for acting freely".<ref>Robert Kane, "The Contours of Contemporary Free Will Debates", in ''The Oxford Handbook of Free Will'', ed. Robert Kane, 10-11 (Oxford USA, 2005).</ref>
| Promotes [[양립주의|compatibilism]], the doctrine that "freedom" of the will requires only "the ''power'' or ''ability'' to do what one will (desire or choose) to do" without constraint or impediment, even if what one wills is determined.<ref>Robert Kane, "The Contours of Contemporary Free Will Debates", in ''The Oxford Handbook of Free Will'', ed. Robert Kane, 12, 13 (Oxford USA, 2005).</ref>
|-
| '''Free Will and God's Sovereignty'''. A "caustic debate" began about 1990 over "''God's'' sovereignty and human free will".<ref>Roger E. Olson, ''The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology'' (Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 186-187.</ref>
| Saying that God governs human choices reduces "angels or humans to robots in order to attain his objectives."<ref>Greg Boyd, "How do you respond to Isaiah 48:3-5?", http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-do-you-respond-to-isaiah-483-5/.</ref>
| God governs "the choices of human beings", but without "cancelling [their] freedom and responsibility".<ref>Mark R. Talbot, "All the Good That Is Ours in Christ" in ''Suffering and the Sovereignty of God'', ed. John Piper and Justin Taylor, 69 (Crossway, 2006).</ref>
|-
| '''Theodicy issue'''. "The justification of a deity's justice and goodness in light of suffering and evil".<ref>Donald K. McKim, ''Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms'' (Westminster John Knox, 1996), 279.</ref>
 | To meet the "conditions of love", God exercises "general rather than specific sovereignty, which explains why God does not prevent all evil".<ref>John Sanders, ''The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence'' (InterVarsity, 1998), 268.</ref> Also, God "does not completely control or in any sense will evil" because the world is "held hostage to a cosmic evil force".<ref>Gregory A. Boyd, ''God at War: the Bible and Spiritual Conflict'' (InterVarsity Press, 1997), 20, 291.</ref>
| Because "Scripture says" it, God "will always do what is right".<ref>Mark R. Talbot, "All the Good That Is Ours in Christ", ''Suffering and the Sovereignty of God'', ed. John Piper and Justin Taylor, 41 (Crossway Books, 2006).</ref>
|}

== 철학적 논증 ==
열린신학자들은 전통적인 신학자들이 하나님의 속성에 대하여 일관성이 없는 주장을 한다고 한다. 아래와 같은 속성들이다:<ref>[//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism Classical theism]</ref>

* All-good: God is the standard of moral perfection, all-benevolent, and perfectly loving.
* Simplicity: God has no parts, cannot be differentiated, and possesses no attribute as distinct from His being.
* [[불변객체|Immutability]]: God cannot change in any respect.
* Impassibility: God cannot be affected by outside forces.<ref>Divine Impassibility by Richard Creel p. 11</ref>
* [[편재|Omnipresence]]: God is present everywhere, or more precisely, all things find their location in God.<ref>{{웹 인용|url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110101.htm|제목=CHURCH FATHERS: Confessions, Book I (St. Augustine)|웹사이트=newadvent.org}}</ref>
* Omniscience: God knows absolutely everything: believes all truths and disbelieves all falsehoods. God's knowledge is perfect.
* [[전능|Omnipotence]]: God can do anything because he is all-powerful and not limited by external forces.

== 비판 ==
열린신학은 고전적 유신론의 하나님을 철학적 하나님과 동일시하고 있으며, 하나님의 거룩성을 간과하고, 전지성을 제한하고 하나님의 예정과 예언을 부정한다는 비판을 받는다. 열린신학은 과정신학의 신관이 하나님을 역동적으로 이해한다는 점에 있어서 후자에 우호적이다. 그러나 후자가 신을 인격적으로 보지 않고 창조론을 인정하지 않는 점에서 비판적이다. 열린신학은 그래서 고전적 유신론과 과정신론과의 중간 길을 제시하면서, 창조론의 비판적 수용. 하나님의 개방성을 강조한다. 열린신학은 인간의 자유의지와 하나님의 예지에 관하여, 그리고 악과 고난에 관하여 깊은 성찰을 가져왔다. 그러나 열린신학은 종교개혁의 기독교가 말하는 하나님의 주권과 인간의 철저한 무능, 하나님의 전적 구원과 은혜의 필요성을 부인하고 있다. 열린신학은 기독교 하나님을 현대인에게 만족스러운 사용자 편의 하나님(user friendly deity)으로 왜곡한다는 비판을 받는다.<ref>[http://www.worldview.or.kr/library/article/566 김영한, 열린 유신론의 신관에 대한 비판적 고찰 : 현대사회학과 한국 사회학의 위기, ]</ref>

해외에서는 존 프레임, 존 파이퍼, 브루스 웨어, 톰 스크리너와와 같은 칼뱅주의 신학자들에 의해서 비판을 많이 받는다.<ref>{{웹 인용|url=http://anopenorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2014/03/27/god-going-it-alone/|제목=God—going it alone?|웹사이트=An Open Orthodoxy}}</ref>
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-bottom: 10px;"
! Open theism books and comments
! Classical theism books and comments
|-
| 1980. Richard Rice, ''The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will'' (Nashville: Review & Herald, 1980).
| Rice was the "pioneer of contemporary evangelical open theism."<ref name="wrs.edu">Dennis W. Jowers, "Open Theism: Its Nature, History, and Limitations,” ''WRS Journal'' 12:1, 5. (in print and online at http://www.wrs.edu/resources/wrs-journal/ {{웨이백|url=http://www.wrs.edu/resources/wrs-journal/ |date=20180401033745 }})</ref>
|-
| 1989. William Hasker, ''God, Time, and Knowledge'' (Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of Religion; Cornell University Press, 1989).
| Critical acclaim, but public mostly unaware of open theism, so controversy had not begun.
|-
| 1994. Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, David Bassinger ''The Openness of God'' (InterVarsity, 1994). "Ignited a firestorm of controversy."
| "Provoked numerous hostile articles in academic and popular publications." The "conservative backlash" was "quick and fierce."<ref>Timothy Larsen, Daniel J. Treier, eds., ''The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology'' (Cambridge University, 2007), 25.</ref>
|-
| 1996. David Basinger, ''The Case for Freewill Theism: A Philosophical Assessment'' (InterVarsity, 1996). Considers divine omniscience, theodicy, and petitionary prayer in freewill perspective.<ref name="Back cover of book">Back cover of book.</ref>
| 1996. R. K. McGregor Wright, ''No Place for Sovereignty: What’s Wrong with Freewill Theism'' (InterVarsity, 1996). Sees open theism as wrong biblically, theologically, and philosophically.
|-
| 1997. Gregory Boyd, ''God at War: The Bible & Spiritual Conflict'' (InterVarsity, 1997). Made open theism the centerpiece of a theodicy.<ref name="ReferenceA">Dennis W. Jowers, “Open Theism: Its Nature, History, and Limitations,” ''WRS Journal'' 12:1, 6. (in print and online at http://www.wrs.edu/resources/wrs-journal/ {{웨이백|url=http://www.wrs.edu/resources/wrs-journal/ |date=20180401033745 }})</ref>
| 1997. Norman Geisler, ''Creating God in the Image of Man?'' (Bethany, 1997). Asserts that open theism should be called "new theism" or "neotheism" because it is so different from classical theism (78).
|-
| 1998. John Sanders, ''The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence'' (InterVarsity, 1998). “The most thorough standard presentation and defense of the openness view of God.”<ref>Review in ''WRS Journal'' 12:1 (February 2005), 31-33.</ref>
| Millard Erickson, ''God the Father Almighty: A Contemporary Exploration of the Divine Attributes'' (Baker, 1998). Accuses open theists of selective use of Scripture and caricaturing classical theism.<ref>Mike Stallard, “The Open View of God: Does He Change?” in ''The Journal of Ministry & Theology'' 5:2, Fall 2001, 5-25.</ref>
|-
| 2000. Clark Pinnock, ''Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness'' (Baker and Paternoster, 2000). “The most passionate and articulate defense of openness theology to date.”<ref>Baker Academic at http://www.bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/most-moved-mover/226320 {{웨이백|url=http://www.bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/most-moved-mover/226320 |date=20170629073610 }}</ref> and Gregory Boyd, ''God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God'' (Baker, 2000). “A genuinely evangelical portrayal of the biblical God.”<ref>[//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Brueggemann Walter Brueggemann] on back cover.</ref>
| 2000. Bruce Ware, ''God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism'' (Crossway, 2000). “The most influential critique of open theism.”
|-
| 2001. Gregory A. Boyd, ''Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy'' (InterVarsity, 2001). “A renewed defense of open theism” and a theodicy grounded in it.<ref>http://www.dts.edu/reviews/gregory-a-boyd-satan-and-the-problem-of-evil {{웨이백|url=http://www.dts.edu/reviews/gregory-a-boyd-satan-and-the-problem-of-evil |date=20170629222006 }}.</ref>
| 2001. John Frame, ''No Other God: A Response to Open Theism'' (P & R, 2001) and Norman Geisler, Wayne House, and Max Herrera, ''The Battle for God: Responding to the Challenge of Neotheism'' (Kregel, 2001). “Debate seemed to turn somewhat in favor of classical theism.”
|-
| 2002-2003. Gregory A. Boyd, ''Is God to Blame? Beyond Pat Answers to the Problem of Evil'' (InterVarsity, 2003). Attacked classical theists as "blueprint theologians" espousing a "blueprint world view" (47, 200).
| 2002-2003. Douglas Huffman and Eric Johnson, eds., ''God under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents God'' (Zondervan, 2002), Millard Erickson, ''What does God Know and When does He know it?: The Current Controversy over Divine Foreknowledge'' (Zondervan, 2003), and John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Helseth, eds., ''Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity'' (Crossway, 2003). ''Beyond the Bounds'' attacked “open theism as theologically ruinous, dishonoring to God, belittling to Christ, and pastorally hurtful” (371).
|-
| 2004. William Hasker, ''Providence, Evil, and the Openness of God'', Routledge Studies in the Philosophy of Religion (Routledge, 2004). Contains "Replies to my Critics" appendix, 187-230.
| 2012. Craig Branch, ed., ''Open Theism: Making God Like Us.  The Areopagus Journal of the Apologetics Resource Center. 4:1'' (The Apologetics Resource Center, 2012). Book’s stated purpose is to “demonstrate the errors of open theism.”
|-
| 2014. Garrett Ham, ''The Evangelical and The Open Theist: Can Open Theism Find Its Place Within The Evangelical Community?'' (Kindle, 2014). Argues that proponents of open theism have a right to be called “evangelical.”
| 2013. Luis Scott, ''Frustrating God: How Open Theism Gets God All Wrong'' (Westbow, 2013). Declares that “open theists get God all wrong” (xviii).
|-
| The Internet brought open theists and their debate with classical theists into public view.<ref name="eleshacoffman">{{웹 인용|url=http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/february19/3.42.html?paging=off.|제목=Open Debate in the Openness Debate|성=Coffman|이름=Elesha|웹사이트=Christianity Today}}</ref> Two Internet sites supporting open theism are http://reknew.org/2014/05/open-theism-a-basic-introduction and https://web.archive.org/web/20160706145101/http://opentheism.info/open-theism/.
| The Internet brought classical theists and their debate with open theists into public view. Two internet sites supporting classical theism (from the Calvinist perspective) are http://www.desiringgod.org/all-resources/by-topic/the-foreknowledge-of-god and http://www.frame-poythress.org/open-theism-and-divine-foreknowledge/.
|}

== 같이 보기 ==
* [[클락 H. 피녹]]

== 각주 ==
{{각주}}
[[분류:기독교 용어]]
[[분류:신적 개념]]
[[분류:복음주의]]
[[분류:기독교의 신]]