The Openness writers have also failed to take into consideration profound implications of difference between created and uncreated. That is, a word must mean for God, exact same thing as it does for a human, forgetting that human words are subject to God and not God being subject to human words. That is, we must not think that we can impose our creaturely limitations onto God who made us as though we had made Him. This is otherwise known as creating God in your own image. The fact that we still do not understand mysteries of Godhead, does not mean that we can just impose our own reason and understanding onto God thinking that He will adjust to our thoughts of Him. Instead we are called to have mind of Christ and adjust our thinking to God, not Him to us. What a pathetic God He would be if He was restrained by our measly reasoning. We cannot limit God by what we are able to understand. In this way writers deny one aspect of God (His sovereignty) in favour of another (our human responsibility). One without other is God in our own image, for God by nature is both. Sadly not much can be taken seriously in their writing for this very reason.

We need to affirm God's infinite power and his sovereign love. In openness theology, prophecy is reduced to divine wishful thinking without any real guarantee that what God says is not a divine mistake in his calculations of future probabilities! It is also then an "oops theory" as it means that if plan A doesn't work God needs to turn to plan B and thus this leaves them no grounds to deal with eschatology that good will win over in end. But "open God" can never guarantee that it will!

This view of God is very far off awesome, holy, unsurprised and yet always surprising God that I know and love. I applaud authors of this book in their endeavour to make God more accessible to us in this day and age, but it seems they have devised a rather user-friendly God instead of just letting God be God.

It seems to place God in a box of time, in which He is limited to past and knows nothing of future or even in fact present where future decisions are constantly being made. If God does not know future how are we to understand Romans 8:28, how can God possibly work out all things for our good if he cannot know future or present and can only make calculated guesses of future? The answer is that He can't.

The reasoning goes like this, within limits set by God, an individual may choose to do things that are totally opposite of God's will and purpose. Thus when one person hurts or kills another, we cannot look for purposes of God in that event. That person is morally responsible for killing or hurting of other, but how can God work it out for our good if he decided to act outside of God's intended purpose. Foreknowledge is needed, in fact required for working out for our good.

Hebrews 12:3-11, teaching of this passage seems to be that persecution of Christians is a necessary discipline that God turns around for our good, teaching us and training us in Christ for a purpose. Nothing we go through is meaningless or unredeemed of God unless you disregard foreknowledge and accept death and pain as a result of erroneous exercising of anothers will. Instead (Hebrews 12:5 says of hostility by sinners) "My son, do not regard lightly discipline of Lord, nor faint when you are reproved by Him; for those whom Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every Son whom He recieves. It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons." And for what purpose? (vs.10-11) "[God] disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness. All discipline for moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields peaceful fruit of righteousness."

God is so supremely in charge of this world that all that happens too Christians are ordered in such a way that they serve our good. Tribulation and distress and persecution and famine and nakedness and peril and sword all work together for good of those who love God. So hope of believer is not that we will escape these things but that God will be faithful within them. "You meant it for evil," Joseph said to his brothers who had sold him into slavery,"But God meant it for good." In openness theology, God's knowledge is "dependant upon creature." So God cannot possibly know good or bad decisions of people He creates until He creates these people and they in turn create their decisions. This does not seem all that open when compared with mainstream Christian belief that "In God's sight all things are open and manifest, his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent of creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain."

The first statement limits God and makes a more "open" reality for man. The second statement makes God limitless and yet still leaves man with a free will with a moral obligation to God and to his fellow man. The first is primarily about us, second is primarily about God.

It seems that openness of God is an attempt to humanise God and deify man. The idea that man can ever be free of God and His will at work in world is an idea that is not supported by either history or scripture. Yes man has a free-will, but it is not free of ultimate accountability to God. Nothing can separate us or give us autonomy from love of God which is expressed in Christ Jesus, not even an idea that God is guessing at future as much as we are. God's foreknowledge of future is an intrinsic part of his glory. We seek guidance from God precisely because we believe He has a firm grasp on future. We don't pray to change God's mind, we pray to gain His mind. Prayer and meditation is being attuned to God not trying to help Him see things our way!

For we know that whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now. Romans 8:22

According to Darwin's Theory of Evolution, strong survive by a process of natural selection of most fit. Yet many of his contemporaries had questions that have never been answered and now it seems that with advent of a new understanding of Intelligent Design these problems are being compounded by unique DNA sequence information now accepted in human genome project and our understanding of irreducibly complex function of biological systems. It seems that intellectual honesty will soon force many scientists to abandon Darwin's theory of evolution of species in exchange for intelligent design or outright Biblical creation.

What Darwin did was to develop a family tree of evolution where similar organisms and creatures like man and ape were on same branch of evolutionary tree. Yet recent multi-gene comparisons of amount of divergence between different organisms now provide better support for a complex relationship between different organisms, a relationship that first looked more like a shrub, with many more early branches. Now trend seems to be toward nearly independent origins, a model more like grass. This model is consistent with independent origins of major kinds of plants, sea life, and animals described in Genesis account.

New genetic data suggests complex relationships or more independent origins for major kinds of organisms. The universe is too complex, conditions for life too exacting, to conclude that it could have developed in such a sophisticated way without help from some "external agent." Some scientists have decided that a more acceptable explanation for diversity of life is that an intelligent force has expressed itself through different stages of evolutionary process. In fact for many a scientist it is easier to believe this method of ceation than to believe that earth rotates around sun or tides are influencd by moon. Yet a select few are becoming increasingly vocal and more convinced that there is a need to change this common perception. This new paradigm shift is headed up by a small group of mathematicians, philosophers, biologists and chemists. Their belief is that an "intelligent agent" - they rigorously refute using term "God", has been prime factor in every step of creationary process and a guide to history of human existance. Many scientists have seen this new uprising as a vain attempt to dress God up in scientist's clothing and trying to push creationism as a scientific option. Even still it's adherants are making an impact in academic world. They call their unconventional argument "intellient design". Due to it's foundational values, this theory of intelligent design has been embraced by Christian colleges and Christian education which has begun teaching it as an alternative to evolutionary theory. Mainstream educational bodies have been less symapathetic, leaving it at edge of their discusions and lectures. Though more and more are finding it necessary in their students development to have informal discussions in which students can discuss theory alongside evolution.