The openness model of Christian theism is one that has attributes of both the
classical model and the process model.[1] The openness model is also known as
free-will theism because central to their concept is the belief that humans have
libertarian free-will.[2]
e e e e e e e e e e Like the process model, the openness model believes that God loves His
creation and is responsive to it. The openness model, however, rejects the
process model’s dipolar God.[3] The openness model accepts the process view’s
claim that God can be contingent, but reject their pure actuality.[4]
e e e e e e e e e e Just as the classical model advances an incorporeal metaphysically
distinct God, the advocates of the open view accept that view, as long as the
classical’s remoteness and unrelatedness are not included. Like the classical
model, the openness model state that God has all power. Even so, God chooses
not to always exercise His power in favor of human libertarian free-will.[5]
e e e e e e e e e e There are two primary points espoused by the open view. First, the
primary attribute of God is love. Second, God’s love is caring, committed, sensitive
and responsive.[6] For instance, the open view acknowledges God’s absolute
sovereignty, but out of His love for creation, He has granted some power to His
creation and refrains from exercise His power all the time.[7] From the Old
Testament through the New Testament, love is God’s governing attribute.[8]
e e e e e e e e e e Finally, the openness model – like the classical model – adheres to the
modified rationalist metaphysics.[9] Additionally, those that promote an open view
accept postmodernism’s process theology.[10]
e e e e e e e e e e Feinberg finds the openness model helpful to the discussion of Christian
theism because it alerts theologians that there are options other than the classical
model or the process model. That said, Feinberg rejects all three models and later
advocates his own proposal – that like the openness model – is a mediating view
between the classical and process models.[11]
e e e e e e e e e e The initial problem with the openness model is its promotion of God’s
love above all other divine attributes. Requiring the preeminence of God’s love
dictates every other aspect of His being including His immutability, impassibility,
timelessness, omnipotence, and omniscience. In so doing, however, it distorts
humanity’s view of God and denies God’s true character.
e e e e e e e e e e One of the openness model’s key beliefs is that humans have a
libertarian free-will. While humans do have free-will, that free-will is not capable of
trumping God’s omnipotence. Man is incapable of altering God’s master plan.
Otherwise, God-spoken prophecies could possibly not be fulfilled, and that is
simply not plausible.
e e e e e e e e e e Finally, openness view evangelicals that subscribe to process theology
are misguided. As Feinberg notes, “process theology poses a formidable threat to
traditional Christian understanding of God”.[12] Failing to miss the critical
understanding of who is God is to miss God and His plan for not only humanity
but for the individual as well.
e e e e e e e e e e While love is a central component of the openness model, Wells’ “holy-
love” is something entirely different.[13] Wells argues that the church’s promotion
of ‘God is love’ does so while completely abandoning God’s holiness.[14] Worse,
the love promoted by the modern church is that promoted by today’s culture
instead of God’s divine love. God’s holiness is relegated to a political kind. Neither
are representative of God’s love or holiness from a biblical perspective.[15]
e e e e e e e e e e Biblical love looks like this:
“This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an
atoning sacrifice for our sins.” (I Jhn. 4:10 NIV)
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever
believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son
into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” (Jhn.
3:16, 17 NIV)
Instead, the modern church’s representation of God’s love is, “one that asks for no
atonement and needs no atonement”.[16] A perfect example of this mindset is
Rob Bell’s popular, but controversial book
Love Wins
. In it, God’s love triumphs all,
regardless of one’s sins or their (initial) failure to accept Jesus as Lord and
Savior, all humanity will have an escape clause(s) – second, third or fourth
attempts to accept Jesus – that all will eventually accept and make it to heaven.
To advocate such a position is to render Christ’s spilt blood, suffering and
crucifixion void of any value.
[1] John S. Feinberg, ed.,
No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God
(Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 2001), 62 and 69.
[2] Ibid., 62 and 71.
[3] Ibid., 69.
[4] Ibid., 70
[5] Ibid., 69
[6] Ibid. 70.
[7] Ibid., 71.
[8] Ibid., 70.
[9] Ibid., 74 and 75.
[10] Ibid., 142.
[11] Ibid., 73.
[12] Ibid., 142.
[13] Wells admits that his “holy-love” is a shortened version of the more correctly
stated, “God’s-holiness-and-God’s-love-in-their-union-with-each-other”. (35) Later, he
equates God’s severity and kindness to “holy-love”. (86)
[14] David F. Wells,
God in the Whirlwind
(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014), 34.
[15] Ibid., 86.
[16] Ibid., 88.
