Open Theologys propositions
Open Theisms axiomatic starting point is that of the libertarian view of free-will, that is that man is essentially, and unchangeably, free to choose all his actions independent of any external, or even internal, influence. This comes directly from its Arminian roots, though such a view developed gradually and was not clearly stated in the original Five Articles of the Remonstrants. This libertarian view is extended in evolutionary versions of OT to the extreme that the whole of creation must possess this kind of freedom, or God be a despot. After this emerge the following propositions:
Gods determination of future events destroys freewill, which is in essence the view of Arminians. Predestination in Arminianism can only really mean Gods foreknowledge of our free decisions.
But Open Theism goes a step further, by saying that even Gods foreknowing future events destroys freewill because all events would be determined in advance.
In the realm of creation Gods foreknowledge, determination of events or even design within nature destroys spontaneity and creativity and is even seen as a blasphemous picture of God in the light of Jesus Christ. So one can perceive that, at the core, OTs ruling principle is that the liberty of creation is the greatest good. To my eyes that is completely fallacious.
A response to OT 1: Before mans emergence
Inanimate nature, working at random or under the necessity of natural law, cannot be said to be truly creative. Even if it were, whatever was so created would not tend to the glory of God. It would be of no more value than if random inkblots make a recognisable shape. Amusing maybe creative, not at all.
Whether it is or isnt creative nature itself will be indifferent to both its own creativity and its freedom. The much-vaunted glory of nature being allowed to exercise freedom is actually at best just rhetoric. At worst, it is animism. We have no theological or scientific reason to attribute sentience to nature, and freedom cannot exist without sentience. A rock is the same rock whether in a wild mountain or a prison wall. Randomness as a creative virtue is actually a nonsense concept, whatever lofty words are used to dress it up.
God, as the only sentient being, will gain no more pleasure from watching inanimate processes create innovation than we would work, and active participation, would be necessary, just as it is central to the Genesis creation story.
On the contrary, Gods outworking of a glorious final purpose or even, at a lower level, a series of designed ends, is his conscious work of creativity, and the expression of his divine attributes of freedom, wisdom, love and power. That is so, of course, whether the means he uses are what we like to call natural or miraculous. What counts is that the purpose is his divine will, and the outworking his sole creative work. The result is necessarily foreknown because it is the result of the outworking of his perfect and unchallenged wisdom and will.
I will not give my glory to another. Least of all to stochastic events.
A response to OT 2: After mans emergence
Gods sovereign works tend to his glory principally if they are appreciated and understood by other sentient beings. Man, created for worship, finds his fullest joy in being able to worship the Creator on his own, and on creations, behalf. He finds further cause for praise as he is able to use and adapt Gods creation to his own good. He finds even more cause for worship, and joy, as he is able to imitate Gods work by his own, subsidiary, acts of creation, even more as he sees his own works, though wonderful, are a pale imitation of Gods. This is analogous to the joy of an artist or musician or artisan who appreciates anothers genius by emulating it in some small way. This equally applies to the pursuit of understanding at a high level through science, philosophy or theology.
What is there here to suggest the innovation-quenching, insecure control-freak of Open Theisms rhetoric? Except the rhetoric itself?