Analyze Feinberg's assessment of openness theology.
d d d d d d d d d d 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). d 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.
d d d d d d d d d d 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.
d d d d d d d d d d 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.
d d d d d d d d d d 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.
d d d d d d d d d d 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).
d d d d d d d d d d 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.
