Does Occam's Razor Apply to Theology?

I often end up reading theology because of all of the other reading I do. Most recently, I ended up reading a two-part lecture defending "Classical Theism" in light of "Open Theism" I ran into this from a post by Jeffrey Meyers whom I find to be provoctive and thoughtful.

In a layman's nutshell (as I understand it) "Open Theism" allows for God to be changeable. Joel Garver summarizes it as this:

[1] that God's love requires his being responsive to his creatures
[2] that creatures therefore truly influence God
[3] that human freedom sets a limit on God's sovereignty
[4] that God learns the future at it comes to pass, and
[5] that God is thereby dependent upon the world in various respects.

"Classical Theism" holds that God is "immutable, impassible, independent of his creation" i.e. he can't change.

I read through the first lecture and followed it easily. The language is clearly college level, but overall the ideas are concise and don't require an MDiv to follow. In fact, the ideas could be characterized as ordinary; anyone who has experienced love or given love could conclude that in some sense love "changes" the parties in the relationship and hence if "God is love" he must "change".

The second lecture on the other hand (so it seems) is almost impenetrable to all but the elite theologians. It's packed with words like transcendence, immanence, intra-trinitarian, etc. The lecture is at least twice as long and over half is setting the scene for the argument. So when you come to:

This discussion of the revelation of God in Scripture, culminating in the revelation of God as Trinity, and its connection with the claims of classical theism, now enables us to address the important questions raised by the proponents of open theism.

it's a bit disheartening, and the remainder of the lecture is still mind-bending (not in the good way). It concludes with:

The Trinitarian God of Scripture, therefore, is also the God of classical theism who, as being itself and pure act, remains immutably and impassibly transcendent over creation as Trinity. It is precisely in the plentitude of the intra-Trinitarian relations that God already is passionate, loving, and responsive to his creation, even, in some sense, taking up the suffering of his creatures for their redemption. This divine weakness and vulnerability is, paradoxically, the fullness of the saving power of God, that dynamic and over-abundant love that lies beyond passibility and, indeed, beyond any shadow of turning.

Contrast that with the outline above or a simple statement like this from the same author setting the background for what "Open Theism" posits:

If we present a theology in which God is incapable of [love, compassion, mercy, tenderness, delight or pity] in any sense, in which God is inert and dispassionate, unmoved and aloof, then we are not being faithful to the teaching of Scripture. This biblical language of God’s passion and responsiveness cannot be set aside simply as “anthropomorphism” or divine condescension to human limitations in order that we might somehow conceive and relate to a God who, in reality, possesses a character or nature other than what he reveals himself to be. On the contrary, God’s self-revelation in Scripture and, above all, in the Person and work of Jesus Christ, shows us who God truly is in himself. This biblical language of divine compassion, mercy, grief, tenderness, and so on is, in some manner or another, literally true of the God of Holy Scripture.¹² On that much, the open theists are correct.

As I was wrestling through the second lecture I had the asked myself the question which is the title of this post. All other things being equal, is the simplest explanation the best theology? It certainly *feels* that way.

For the record, I don't think I totally endorse "Open Theism" as presented in this article (not that I've ever though about it before... this may be the first time I've ever read the terms), specifically points [3] and [4] above. When we talk about the sovereignty of God I think we need to be careful because if He loses his sovereignty then there is no certainty in His plan for redeeming creation and finally establishing the new heaven and earth.

Also, for the record... I'm a total hack, and while I may sound like I have a clue, I'm sure that God is preparing some words for me when we meet in person ;)