Openness Wrap Up:
Much helpful analysis and reflection has occurred as the varying models
concerning God's knowledge, power, and love have been explored. There
are dangers in theology--of misinterpretation, of misunderstanding, and
even (sadly) of mischaracterization. If one is to follow the commands to
love one's neighbor, then the theological student, pastor, and Christian
must make every legitimate effort to fairly represent the view of the 'other
side.' Too often in theological debate straw men are built (which are easy
to tear down) that show the opponent in the worst light possible.
In trying to evaluate the model of God represented and taught in open
theology, one can certainly admire their desire to portray God as
completely loving and seeking out mankind for salvation. This is certainly
a biblical theme central to the God of the Bible. When incorporating
aspects of process thought--including a God whose future is open, whose
plans are either fully or largely dependent on man, and whose own nature
of knowledge and being are in flux---a radically different vision of God
seems to be taught. It is understandable that open scholars are resistant
to rigid Reformed theology and its insistence on a meticulous sovereignty
in all things. Because of their adherence to absolute and unhindered
freewill, open scholars obviously reject such a view. But they do not seem
to have given enough attention to the orthodox model of freewill theology
in the legacy of Arminius/Wesley et al. For hundreds of years these writers
have shown a God of love that honors the freewill of man, but is
simultaneously completely sovereign and whose knowledge is complete
and whose nature is unchanging. In trying to 'solve' the perennial debate
between Calvinistic and freewill views on the nature of man and salvation,
openness seems to tilt the balance too much in an unhealthy direction.
