Analyze Feinberg's assessment of openness theology.
f f f f f f f f f According to Feinberg, openness theology is a corrective mediating
to classical and process theism (Feinberg 2019, 69). Openness theology may
have agreements with both classical and process theism; there are many
differences in which Feinberg fleshes out. Openness theology may hold to the
standard that God has all the traditional attributes, but in hopes not to create
a finite and impotent God, chooses not to exercise them to leave room for
human free will (Feinberg 2019, 69). f Therefore, the denial of God's divine
foreknowledge provides a significant difference to those who hold to the
classic model (Ware 2001, Chapter 4). The classic model, which has been the
dominant doctrine in past church history, states that God is overall immutable
and unchangeable, knowing that future, including all of the actions of His
created beings (Feinberg 2019, 65). This would then hold that openness
theology denies the standard of God's omniscience and omnipotence.
f f f f f f f f f Feinberg lays the foundational assessment that when it comes to
open theology, the two basic concepts center around the idea of God's love
and are established initially by Richard Rice's book, The Openness of God.
These two convictions state, "love is the most important quality we attribute to
God, and love is more than care and commitment; it involves being sensitive
and responsive as well (Feinberg 2019, 69)." Therefore, through the Old and
New Testament, this would give the reader the understanding that love is the
prominent attribute of God, who is, therefore, able to be moved to do the thing
that He has not planned to do through prayer and petitions (Feinberg 2019,
72).
Discuss at least three theological reasons for agreement or disagreement with
Feinberg. These reasons should not be given as mere personal preferences but
should instead reflect solid biblical/theological data that support the position.
f f f f f f f f f Feinberg comments that the open view is a distinct alternative to
both process and classical models and that openness theology establishes that
those two models are not the only choices (Feinberg 2019, 72). I could not
disagree more with this statement, and there are three theological reasons why
openness theology should not be considered an option, as Feinberg alludes to.
f f f f f f f f f First, unlike the belief of open theists, God is absolute and is
entirely immutable. This states that God is not capable of "being acted upon or
affected emotionally by anything in creation (Elwell 2001, 599)." God is
absolute perfection, and it would be impossible for Him to improve or change.
We see this in Malachi 3:6, in which God states that He does not change, and
in James 1:17, James writes that there is no variation with God. There may be
change in this world, but God does not change in His response to His creation
(Enns 2014, 193). This would prove that God's love does not change, and
Christians can stand firm in His promises like John 3:16.
f f f f f f f f f Second, God's omniscience is not thwarted by human will. Feinberg
states, "Hence, the open view rejects attempt to synthesize divine
foreknowledge and libertarian free will and claims that God does not know the
future. He has a thorough knowledge of past and present, and He knows us
completely. This often enables him to have a good idea of what we will do,
but until we do it, there are no guarantees (Feinberg 2019, 71)," I disagree,
God knows past, present, and future events. Future events are eternal now's to
God. We see throughout the Old and New Testaments that God knows the
future. For example, God knew that other nations would dominate Israel in
Daniel 2 and 7. We also see from Scripture that God knows the events that
will transpire during the end times found in Matthew 24 and Revelation 6-19
(Enns 2014, 198-199).
f f f f f f f f Thirdly, God's omnipotence and sovereign control over the world.
Feinberg states about open theists hold to the belief that humans have free
will, and regardless of what the agent chooses, it is just as possible to choose
or do something else, and therefore, God does not determine our actions. This
is dangerous because it approaches the standing of human reason without the
adequate use of the Bible. Open theists leave open the mindset that God
possibly fails, can change, or is worried and unhappy can therefore humanize
God and are unbiblical (Enns 2014, 216). We see that God is in sovereign
control in passages such as, Proverbs 16:9.
Does Wells agree with Feinberg? Explain.
No, Wells disagrees with Feinberg because God's omniscience and
omnipotence have not changed and cannot be changed by human will. Wells
writes about God's plan for redemption and that God's plan has not changed.
"It is that he is for us, that he has always been for us. He was for us in the
far reaches of eternity… it was there that he planned to act for us (Wells 2014,
134)." God's foreknowledge is not hindered only by current events but extends
into eternity. God is not dependent on our actions, and He has acted before
we could act (Wells 2014, 135). Wells opposes openness theology by
establishing that God's power is limitless, as stated in Isaiah 40:25. Through
the gospel, we see that God's power, presence, and knowledge are "utterly
beyond our mere human capabilities (Wells 2014, 79)."
References:
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Books, 2001.
Enns, Paul I., and John MacArthur. The Moody Handbook of Theology: Revised
and Expanded. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2014.
Feinberg, John S. No One like Him: the Doctrine of God. Wheaton. Illinois:
Crossway Books, 2019.
Ware, Bruce A. “Chapter 4.” Essay. In God's Lesser Glory: a Critique of Open
Theism. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2001.
Wells, David F. God in the Whirlwind: How the Holy-Love of God Reorients Our
World. Nottingham: IVP, 2014.
