A different perception of God has arisen in Evangelical Christianity that while not being new, has challenged way we have always thought about God's nature. This paradigm shift is seen by it's authors to bring us closer to biblical conception of God. The book is called The Openness Of God and is seen to be very controversial in it's perception of God and will have sweeping effects on every other area of evangelical thought and life.

The God shown in this book is not immutable monarch controlling human history and man's individual lives but rather a loving and suffering Father who has chosen to allow man's actions to affect Him in very real ways. At face value what they propose looks like Libertarian process theology with a twist of arminianism. But it seems it is actually much more. These authors introduce us to a God who is with us in time through self-limitation and does not know future in absolute detail. This new view of God is called "the open view of God," "creative-love theism," or "free-will theism." It is extreme Arminianism, but stops short of full-on process theology.

Some definitions may be helpful at this point, there are two main theological beliefs currently accepted by mainstream church, Armenianism and Calvinism. Arminianism is belief that God has given man choice to accept or reject Him. Predestination is conditioned by God's foreknowledge of who would respond to gospel. It is also possible for a believer to fall from grace. Man can neither of himself nor of his free will do anything truly good until he is born again of God.

Calvinism states that fallen man is totally unnable to save himself, and that God's electing purpose was not conitioned by anything in man. That Christ's atoning death was sufficient to save all men, but efficient only for elect. That God's grace is irresistable to elect of God and that they being regenerated and redeemed will persevere in faith.

Less commonly accepted, is Process Theology which is more philosophically than biblically or confessionally based. Process Theology is belief that God is evolving with universe and does not know future but is learning along with his creation, He is confined to time and thus knows possibilities and probabilities but He doesn't know actualities.

The Openness of God is not a new concept. In sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Socinians made same argument. "God does not know, in such a way that whatsoever he knows will surely come to pass." So in regard to human choices, God knows future possibilities but not future certainties.

Both Calvanists and Arminians, along with most part of christendom affirmed God's foreknowledge of human choices.

John Calvin wrote,"[God] foresees future events only by reason of fact that he decreed that they take place." Jacob Arminius wrote,"[God] has known from eternity which persons should believe...and which should persevere through subsequent grace."

Christian orthodoxy has never denied God's foreknowledge of human choices. Both Arminianists and Calvinists ( whole church) do not agree with Open theology.

I believe that a defective doctrine of God would affect all areas of Christian life and leadership as well as discipleship to bring about an eroding of glory due to God. Your theology will directly influence your leadership style and outworking of your salvation. After all your conceptualisation of God's nature is what is imitated and lived out in daily life.

Openness theology is not necessarily an extension of Arminianism and neither is it opposite of Calvinism, nor even a response to calvinist tradition. Instead it appears to be another tangent in quest to reconcile divine providence and human freedom with a little input from Process theology.The followers of this particular view are I believe genuinely concerned with preaching word of God and work of discipling others in Christ. Nevertheless, it does seem clear that openness theologians lack adequate scriptural grounding and are outside of theological mainstream with regard to God's omniscience and providence. Biblically, future appears to be less open than they propose.

4. Christ and Culture is in Paradox This view differs from preceding option by maintaining that while both Christ and culture claim our loyalty, tension between them cannot be reconciled by any lasting synthesis. Luther maintained that sin is universal and inside a Christian all of His earthly life, thereby making it impossible to attempt any kind of utopian society on earth. I agree that though God has dealt with our sinful nature in Christ, we are susceptible to sinful desires (sins not unto death, because our sin nature has been removed and replaced with Christ in us) and as such will never have heaven on earth.

Christ in us has fulfilled law of God on which our societies are based in order to ensure justice and law and order. The law is in play over our physical bodies and behaviour in society, which Christ affirms. We live by grace of God without law and find that we naturally fulfil law of God and affirm law of land. Christ has become to us an "eternal law" that fulfils "temporal law" of God.

These two are held in tension, we still have to account for our actions, but by God's grace we have forgiveness of sins and a new nature at work within us. The temporal law is in place not to make ungodly righteous, but as a means of limiting far-reaching effects of sin in this world. As a church we uphold law, not through self-effort but in our natural adherence to Godly principles through natural inclination to submit ourselves to Godly authority (Romans 2:12-14).

As Christians we are simultaneously subject to both nature of Christ in us and reality of an unrenewed and sinful mind,expressed through a physical and limited body. In world we are subject to temporal law, and yet in Christ we are subject to grace of God for our salvation. Jesus Christ is fulfilment of temporal law in us as believers.

The Christian life is a paradox, and keeping two realms distinct has far-reaching effects. Since we are saved by grace and not our own works, we have no grades of holiness, or any need to separate ourselves from culture. This ultimately means that any vocation provided it is a true vocation, a station in life instituted by God, can be pursued for glory of God. So we are in fact set free to serve.

All things are permissible to believer, but we do those things that are beneficial. This means that although we are not under law which is temporal and cannot save any man. The temporal law does lead man to repentance and thereby curbs extent of sin's consequences in world as a moral guide. So those who are in Christ live by grace and find that they fulfil law of God.

So whether we live by Christ or by law we find that we all keep law, one by law written on their hearts, other by obeying letter of law. So "all who sin apart from law will also perish apart from law, and all who sin under law will be judged by law" (Romans 2:12).

So this freedom of a Christian is balanced with a respect for temporal law and secular government (Romans 13:1-7). This really does create a paradox, we who are no longer under law submit ourselves to it and should not return harm for harm (Romans 13:8-9), but in time of war we may rightly be ordered to take up arms against an oppressor in order to limit a greater evil.