Feinberg, in comparing his view to that of process and open theologians
said, “The God I present is absolutely sovereign, but he is no tyrant, nor is
he the remote and unrelated God of classical theism. He is instead the
king who cares!”[1]%From this position he launches his study and
comparison of classical, process, and open theology of God.
%
Feinberg is accurate in his assessment of openness theology. One reason
to believe so is his statement about the position those who propagate the
open view take. He wrote, “Open view proponents believe that their
depiction of God is more true to the Bible at the same time that it offers a
religiously adequate view of God.”[2]%Douglas H. Arbour and Douglas K.
Blount agree, “Open theists claim that their view deals more honestly
than the tradition with the data of Scripture and thus holds the
hermeneutical high ground. As this suggests, such theists turn their backs
on almost two millennia of biblical interpretation in order to advance a
novel understanding of God.”[3]
%
Arbour and Blount identify three characteristics which typify open theists’
interpretive practices. “First, they develop a model of God driven by
assumptions derived from experience. Second, they reject as antithetical
to a properly Christian understanding of God interpretations of Scripture
that in their view arise from Greek philosophy.”[4]%This is indicative of
their belief that they occupy the hermeneutical high road. “Third, open
theists advocate a literal interpretive approach to certain texts but decline
so to treat other texts.”[5]
%
Feinberg cites another area of concern with open theology, the idea that
God lacks knowledge about the future. If this is the case then Isaiah
missed the mark in saying, “Declaring the end from the beginning, and
from ancient times%the things%that are not%yet%done, saying, My counsel
shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure (Is 46:10,%KJV).”[6]%Believing that
God is limited in foreknowledge would also necessitate the removal the
book of Revelation as well as all other prophecy from the Bible or all
prophecy must be looked at as “only possible, not absolute.” This in turn
would make God a liar and this does not comport with Scripture as noted
in Numbers 23:19, “God is not a man that He should lie.”
%
Feinberg also notes that a third claim of the open theology camp is that
while God does have the power to overturn evil in this world, He rarely
does so because He granted free will. In their eyes, God would be
eliminating human freedom if He intervened.[7]%Paul Kjoss Helseth
believes this about the open theology understanding about God and His
dealing with evil, “revision put forward by%openness%theologians is not
necessary either to preserve genuine human freedom or to safeguard God
from the problem of%evil,%and%that it actually raises far more serious
questions about the character of God than do the traditional
interpretations that it claims are less than compelling.”[8]
%
Wells and Feinberg agree in one way. They each believe God loving,
present, and sovereign without being a tyrant. In fact, Feinberg says God
is “the king who cares.”[9]%Wells speaks of God’s character as holy-love.
“The truth is that his love comes as part of his holiness and his holiness
likewise permeates all that he is, including his love.”[10]
%
May the Lord Richly Bless You!
%
[1]%John S. Feinberg,%No One Like Him%(Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), 31.
%
[2]%Ibid., 69.
%
[3]%Douglas H. Arbour and Douglas K. Blount, “The Camel’s Nose: Open
Theism and Biblical Interpretation,”%Bibliotheca Sacra, BSAC 171:683 (Jul
2014) 275.
%
[4]%Ibid., 276.
%
[5]%Ibid.
%
[6]%“Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in
the%King James Version.”
%
[7]%Feinberg, No One Like Him, 72.
%
[8]%Paul Kjoss Helseth, “On Divine Ambivalence: Open Theism and the
Problem of Particular Evils,”%Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society,
JETS 44:3 (Sep 2001), 497.
%
[9]%Feinberg, No One Like Him, 32.
%
[10]%David F. Wells,%God in the Whirlwind: How the Holy-Love of God
Reorients our World%(Wheaton: Crossway, 2014), 86.
