Do you still hold that open theism must be examined and has some good points?
Robert Sungenis answers yes: without endorsing its current teachings, he holds that open theism rightly resists boxing God into Aristotelian cause and effect. He notes that the Church has taught four times that God is not determined, since He was not forced to create, so the concept of a free God must be taken seriously.
A viewer asks whether Sungenis still believes, as he said in a debate, that open theism must be examined and has some good points, and why.
Answer
Yes, I do, because it is one of those areas like predestination and free will. The predestinarian, following Thomas and Aristotle, tends to box God into pure cause and effect, all calculated out, which makes God the product of his own calculation with no room to move. Open theism, whatever its faults, is trying to preserve that God cannot be confined to a calculation. The free-will-versus-predestination question is even bigger than God and man, because eventually you have to ask whether God himself is determined or free, and the Church has taught four times that God is not determined, that he is free. The example she uses is that God was not forced to create; he decided to create, and a decision comes from a free will. So I am not endorsing the current teachings of open theism, but the concept of an open, free God must be taken seriously.