Discussion Board Forum (2) “Openness”
Doctrine of God (THEO 626-B01)!
By A.C. Donahue
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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.
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.
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]
Biblical love looks like this:
“This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved usand sent his Son
as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.” (I Jhn. 4:10 NIV)
“For God so lovedthe world that he gavehis one and only Son,that
whoever believesin him shall not perish but have eternal life.For God did
not send his Son into the worldto 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 bookLove 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.
