f f f f f f f f f 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]
f f f f f f f f f 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]
f f f f f f f f f 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]
f f f f f f f f f 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]
f f f f f f f f f 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]
f f f f f f f f f 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]
f f f f f f f f f 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.
f f f f f f f f f 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.
f f f f f f f f f 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.
f f f f f f f f f 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]
f f f f f f f f f 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.
