Incubator escapee wiki

Open theism

Article Discussion

Template:Short description {{ safesubst:#invoke:Unsubst||date=__DATE__ |$B= Template:Ambox }} Template:Use mdy dates Template:Historical Christian theology

Open theism, also known as openness theology,<ref>G. L. Bray, “Open Theism/Openness Theology,” in New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic, ed. Martin Davie et al. (London; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press; InterVarsity Press, 2016), 632.</ref> is a theological movement that has developed within Christianity as a rejection of the synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian theology.<ref>Clark H. Pinnock;Richard Rice;John Sanders;William Hasker;David Basinger. The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Kindle Locations 1164-1165). Kindle Edition. Location 1162</ref> It is a version of free will theism<ref>Pinnock, Clark H. “Open Theism: What Is This? A New Teaching? and with Authority! (MK 1:27).” Ashland Theological Journal 2002, Vol. 34, pp: 39–53. ISSN: 1044–6494</ref> and arises out of the free will theistic tradition of the church, which goes back to the early Church Fathers.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Open theism is typically advanced as a biblically motivated and logically consistent theology of human and divine freedom (in the libertarian sense), with an emphasis on what this means for the content of God's foreknowledge and exercise of God's power.<ref name="reknew.org">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

Open theist theologian Thomas Jay Oord identifies four paths to open and relational theology:<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

  1. following the biblical witness,
  2. following themes in some Christian theological traditions,
  3. following the philosophy of free will, and
  4. following the path of reconciling faith and science.

Roger E. Olson said that open theism triggered the "most significant controversy about the doctrine of God in evangelical thought" in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Exposition of open theismEdit

In short, open theism posits that since God and humans are free, God's knowledge is dynamic and God's providence flexible. Whereas several versions of traditional theism picture God's knowledge of the future as a singular, fixed trajectory, open theism sees it as a plurality of branching possibilities, with some possibilities becoming settled as time moves forward.<ref name="Peterson2007">Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name="Peterson2006">Template:Cite journal</ref> Thus, the future, as well as God's knowledge of it, is open (hence, "open" theism). Other versions of classical theism hold that God fully determines the future, entailing that there is no free choice (the future is closed). Yet other versions of classical theism hold that, though there is freedom of choice, God's omniscience necessitates God's foreknowing what free choices are made (God's foreknowledge is closed). Open theists hold that these versions of classical theism do not agree with the biblical concept of God; the biblical understanding of divine and creaturely freedom; and/or result in incoherence. Open theists tend to emphasize that God's most fundamental character trait is love and that this trait is unchangeable. They also (in contrast to traditional theism) tend to hold that the biblical portrait is of a God deeply moved by creation, experiencing a variety of feelings in response to it.<ref>Template:Cite bookTemplate:Full citation needed</ref>

Comparison of open and Reformed theismEdit

Template:Over-quotation The following chart compares beliefs about key doctrines as stated by open theists and Calvinists after "the period of controversy" between adherents of the two theisms began in 1994.<ref>WRS Journal 12:1 (Feb 2005), 5.</ref> During this period the "theology of open theism… rocked the evangelical world".<ref>WRS Journal 12:1 (Feb 2005), Editor's notes, inside cover.</ref>

Doctrine Open Theism Calvinism
Scripture (the Bible). "In the Christian tradition, the Old and the New Testaments are considered Holy Scripture in that they are, or convey, the self-revelation of God."<ref>Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Westminster John Knox, 1996), 251.</ref> "Committed to affirming the infallibility of Scripture"<ref>Gregory A. Boyd, God at War: the Bible and Spiritual Conflict (InterVarsity, 1997) 106.</ref> Scripture is "the infallible Word of God".<ref>John Piper, "Why I Trust the Scriptures", http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/ConferenceMessages/ByDate/2008/2629_Why_I_Trust_the_Scriptures/ (accessed October 9, 2009).</ref>
God's Power. "God's power is limited only by God's own nature and not by any external force."<ref name="Donald K. McKim 1996">Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Westminster John Knox, 1996), 117.</ref> "God is all-powerful."<ref>Gregory A. Boyd, Is God to Blame? Moving Beyond Pat Answers to the Problem of Evil. (InterVarsity, 2003) 42.</ref> "God is all-powerful."<ref>Carl F. Ellis, Jr., "The Sovereignty of God and Ethnic-Based Suffering" in Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, ed. John Piper and Justin Taylor, 124. (Crossway, 2006).</ref>
God's Sovereignty. "God's ultimate Lordship and rule over the universe".<ref name="Donald K. McKim 1996" /> Portraying God as ordaining whatever happens reduces "humans to robots".<ref>Greg Boyd, "How do you respond to Isaiah 48:3-5?", http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-do-you-respond-to-isaiah-483-5/</ref> "Nothing that exists or occurs falls outside God's ordaining will. Nothing, including no evil person or thing or event or deed."<ref name="Talbot 2006">Talbot, "All the Good That Is Ours in Christ", in Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, ed. John Piper and Justin Taylor, 43-44 (Crossway, 2006).</ref>
God's Perfection. "God as lacking nothing and free of all moral imperfection".<ref name="Donald K. McKim 1996" /> Believes in "(because Scripture teaches) the absolute perfection of God."<ref>Greg Boyd, "A Brief Outline and Defense of the Open View", http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/essays-open-theism/response-to-critics/ (accessed October 11, 2009).</ref> Believes that, because "Scripture says" it, God "will always do what is right".<ref>Mark R. Talbot, "All the Good That Is Ours in Christ", in Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, ed. John Piper and Justin Taylor, 41 (Crossway, 2006).</ref>
God's Foreknowledge. "God's knowing things and events before they happen in history".<ref>Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Westminster John Knox, 1996), 115.</ref> "God is omniscient" about "settled" reality, but the future that God "leaves open" can be known only as open "possibility" without specific foreknowledge.<ref>Gregory A. Boyd, "The Open Theism View", in Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, ed. James K. Beilby, Paul R. Eddy, 14 (InterVarsity, 2001).</ref> Classically Augustinian-Calvinist view: "God knows the future because he preordains it."<ref>James K. Beilby, Paul R. Eddy, eds., Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, 11 (InterVarsity, 2001).</ref>
The Fall. "The disobedience and sin of Adam and Eve that caused them to lose the state of innocence in which they had been created. This event plunged them and all mankind into a state of sin and corruption."<ref>Ronald F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison, eds., Nelson's Student Bible Dictionary: A Complete Guide to Understanding the World of the Bible (Thomas Nelson, 2005), s.v. "FALL, THE".</ref> God "does not unilaterally and irrevocably decide what to do". God's decisions are influenced by "human attitudes and responses".<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> "Ultimate reason" for the Fall was "God's ordaining will".<ref name="Talbot 2006" />
Free Will. "The term seeks to describe the free choice of the will which all persons possess. Theological debates have arisen over the ways and to the extent to which sin has affected the power to choose good over evil, and hence one's 'free will'."<ref>Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Westminster John Knox, 1996), 109.</ref> Promotes incompatibilism, the doctrine that "the agent's power to do otherwise" is "a necessary condition for acting freely".<ref>Robert Kane, "The Contours of Contemporary Free Will Debates", in The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, ed. Robert Kane, 10-11 (Oxford USA, 2005).</ref> Promotes compatibilism, the doctrine that freedom of the will requires only "the power or ability to do what one will (desire or choose) to do" without constraint or impediment, even if what one wills is determined.<ref>Robert Kane, "The Contours of Contemporary Free Will Debates", in The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, ed. Robert Kane, 12, 13 (Oxford USA, 2005).</ref>
Free Will and God's Sovereignty. A "caustic debate" began about 1990 over "God's sovereignty and human free will".<ref>Roger E. Olson, The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology (Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 186-187.</ref> Saying that God governs human choices reduces "angels or humans to robots in order to attain his objectives."<ref>Greg Boyd, "How do you respond to Isaiah 48:3-5?", http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-do-you-respond-to-isaiah-483-5/.</ref> God governs "the choices of human beings", but without "cancelling [their] freedom and responsibility".<ref>Mark R. Talbot, "All the Good That Is Ours in Christ" in Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, ed. John Piper and Justin Taylor, 69 (Crossway, 2006).</ref>
Theodicy issue. "The justification of a deity's justice and goodness in light of suffering and evil".<ref>Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Westminster John Knox, 1996), 279.</ref> To meet the "conditions of love", God exercises "general rather than specific sovereignty, which explains why God does not prevent all evil".<ref>John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (InterVarsity, 1998), 268.</ref> Also, God "does not completely control or in any sense will evil" because the world is "held hostage to a cosmic evil force".<ref>Gregory A. Boyd, God at War: the Bible and Spiritual Conflict (InterVarsity Press, 1997), 20, 291.</ref> Because "Scripture says" it, God "will always do what is right".<ref>Mark R. Talbot, "All the Good That Is Ours in Christ", Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, ed. John Piper and Justin Taylor, 41 (Crossway Books, 2006).</ref>

Historical developmentEdit

Contemporary open theists have named precursors among philosophers to document their assertion that "the open view of the future is not a recent concept," but has a long history.<ref>Gregory A. Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil (InterVarsity, 2001), 91, n.11.</ref>

The first known post-biblical Christian writings advocating concepts similar to open theism with regard to the issue of foreknowledge are found in the writings of Calcidius, a 4th-century interpreter of Plato. It was affirmed in the 16th century by Socinus, and in the early 18th century by Samuel Fancourt and by Andrew Ramsay (an important figure in Methodism). In the 19th century several theologians wrote in defense of this idea, including Isaak August Dorner, Gustav Fechner, Otto Pfleiderer, Jules Lequier, Adam Clarke, Billy Hibbard, Joel Hayes, T.W. Brents, and Lorenzo D. McCabe. Contributions to this defense increased as the century drew to a close.Template:Efn

The dynamic omniscience view has been affirmed by a number of non Christians as well: Cicero (1st century BC) Alexander of Aphrodisias (2nd century) and Porphyry (3rd century). God's statement to Abraham “Now I know that you fear me” (Gen 22:12) was much discussed by Medieval Jewish theologians. Two significant Jewish thinkers who affirmed dynamic omniscience as the proper interpretation of the passage were Ibn Ezra (12th century) and Gersonides (14th century).Template:Citation needed

Sergei Bulgakov, an early-20th-century Russian Orthodox priest and theologian advocated the use of the term panentheism, which articulated a necessary link between God and creation as consequence of God's free love and not as a natural necessity. His sophiology has sometimes been seen as a precursor to 'open theism'.

David R. Larson claimed in 2007 that "in less detailed forms the basics of 'Open Theism' have been taught at Loma Linda University for about fifty years, beginning at least as early as long-time professor Jack W. Provonsha."<ref>David Larson, "Richard Rice Discusses Open Theism Template:Webarchive". Spectrum Blog, 11 November 2007</ref> Provonsha started teaching at Loma Linda about 1960.<ref>Template:Cite AV media</ref>

Millard Erickson belittles such precursors to open theism as "virtually unknown or unnoticed."<ref>Millard J. Erickson, What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?: The Current Controversy over Divine Foreknowledge (Zondervan, 2006), 248.</ref>

After 1980Edit

The term "open theism" was introduced in 1980 with theologian Richard Rice's book The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will. The broader articulation of open theism was given in 1994, when five essays were published by evangelical scholars (including Rice) under the title The Openness of God. Recent theologians of note expressing this view include: Clark Pinnock (deceased as of 2010), Greg Boyd, Thomas Jay Oord, John E. Sanders, Dallas Willard, Jürgen Moltmann, Richard Rice, C. Peter Wagner, John Polkinghorne, Hendrikus Berkhof, Adrio Konig, Harry Boer, Bethany Sollereder, Matt Parkins, Thomas Finger (Mennonite), W. Norris Clarke (Roman Catholic), Brian Hebblethwaite, Robert Ellis, Kenneth Archer (Pentecostal), Barry Callen (Church of God), Henry Knight III, Gordon Olson, and Winkie Pratney. A significant, growing number of philosophers of religion affirm it: Peter Van Inwagen, Richard Swinburne (Eastern Orthodox), William Hasker, David Basinger, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Dean Zimmerman, Timothy O'Connor, James D. Rissler, Keith DeRose, Richard E. Creel, Robin Collins (philosopher/theologian/physicist), J. R. Lucas, Vincent Brümmer, (Roman Catholic), Richard Purtill, Alan Rhoda, Jeffrey Koperski, Dale Tuggy, and Keith Ward. Biblical scholars Terence E. Fretheim, Karen Winslow, and John Goldingay affirm it. Others include writers Madeleine L'Engle and Paul C. Borgman, mathematician D.J. Bartholomew and biochemist/theologian Arthur Peacocke.<ref>To see documentation to verify most of the people on this list see John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence, revised edition (InterVarsity press, 2007) 166-169.</ref>

Philosophical argumentsEdit

Open theists maintain that traditional classical theists hold the classical attributes of God together in an incoherent way. The main classical attributes are as follows:<ref>Classical theism</ref>

  • All-good: God is the standard of moral perfection, all-benevolent, and perfectly loving.
  • Simplicity: God has no parts, cannot be differentiated, and possesses no attribute as distinct from His being.
  • Immutability: God cannot change in any respect.
  • Impassibility: God cannot be affected by outside forces.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
  • Omnipresence: God is present everywhere, or more precisely, all things find their location in God.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
  • Omniscience: God knows absolutely everything: believes all truths and disbelieves all falsehoods. God's knowledge is perfect.
  • Omnipotence: God can do anything because he is all-powerful and not limited by external forces.

Alleged contradictions in the traditional attributes are pointed out by open theists and atheists alike. Atheist author and educator George H. Smith writes in his book Atheism: The Case Against God that if God existed, God cannot be omnipotent because: "If God knew the future with infallible certainty, he cannot change it – in which case he cannot be omnipotent. If God can change the future, however, he cannot have infallible knowledge of it".<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Open theism also answers the question of how God can be blameless and omnipotent even though evil exists in the world. H. Roy Elseth gives an example of a parent that knows with certainty that his child would go out and murder someone if he was given a gun. Elseth argues that if the parent did give the gun to the child then the parent would be responsible for that crime.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> However, if God was unsure about the outcome then God would not be culpable for that act; only the one who committed the act would be guilty. An orthodox Christian might try, on the contrary, seek to ground a theodicy in the resurrection, both of Christ and the general resurrection to come,<ref>N. T. Wright Evil and the Justice of God</ref> though this is not the traditional answer to evil.

Varieties of open theistsEdit

Philosopher Alan Rhoda has described several different approaches several open theists have taken with regard to the future and God's knowledge of it.

  • Voluntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because he has voluntarily chosen not to know truths about future contingents. It is thought Dallas Willard held this position.
  • Involuntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because truths about future contingents are in principle unknowable. William Hasker, Peter Van Inwagen,<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}</ref> and Richard Swinburne espouse this position.

  • Non-Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions about future contingents are neither true nor false. J. R. Lucas and Dale Tuggy espouse this position.
  • Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions asserting of future contingents that they 'will' obtain or that they 'will not' obtain are both false. Instead, what is true is that they 'might and might not' obtain. Greg Boyd holds this position."<ref name="Rhoda2006">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}</ref>

CriticismEdit

Norman Geisler, a critic of open theism, addresses the claims that the Classical attributes were derived from the Greeks with three observations:<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

  1. The quest for something unchanging is not bad.
  2. The Greeks did not have the same concept of God.
  3. Philosophical influences are not wrong in themselves.

An open theist might respond that all such criticisms are misplaced. As to observation (1), it is not characteristic of open theists to say that the quest for something unchanging is bad. Indeed, open theists believe God's character is unchanging.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> As to observation (2), open theists do not characteristically say traditional forms of classical theism have exactly the same concept of God as the Greeks. Rather, they argue that they imported only some unbiblical assumptions from the Greeks.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> They also point to theologians of the Christian tradition who, throughout history, did not succumb so strongly to Hellenistic influences.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> As to observation (3), open theists do not argue that philosophical influences are bad in themselves. Rather, they argue that some philosophical influences on Christian theology are unbiblical and theologically groundless. Consider John Sanders' statement in The Openness of God (1980):

<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />

Christian theology, I am arguing, needs to reevaluate classical theism in light of a more relational metaphysic (not all philosophy is bad!) so that the living, personal, responsive and loving God of the Bible may be spoken of more consistently in our theological reflection ...Template:RefnTemplate:Rp{{#if:|{{#if:|}}

— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries

}}

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}

Opponents of open theism, both Arminians, and Calvinists, such as John Piper,<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> claim that the verses commonly used by open theists are anthropopathisms. They suggest that when God seems to change from action A to action B in response to prayer, action B was the inevitable event all along, and God divinely ordained human prayer as the means by which God actualized that course of events.

They also point to verses that suggest God is immutable, such as:

  • Template:Bibleref: For I, the Lord, have not changed; and you, the sons of Jacob, have not reached the end.Template:Efn
  • Template:Bibleref: God is not a man that He should lie, nor is He a mortal that He should repent. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill?Template:Efn<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

  • Template:Bibleref: And also, the Strength of Israel will neither lie nor repent, for He is not a man to repent."
  • Template:Bibleref: [I] tell the end from the beginning, and from before, what was not done; [I] say, "My counsel shall stand, and all My desire I will do."

Those advocating the traditional viewTemplate:Who see these as the verses that form God's character, and they interpret other verses that say God repents as anthropomorphistic. Authors who claim this can be traced back through Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, Ambrose, and Augustine. Open theists note that there seems to be an arbitrary distinction here between those verses which are merely anthropopathic and others which form God's character. They also note that the immediate sense of the passages addressing God's inalterability ought to be understood in the Hebrew sense of his faithfulness and justice. In other words, God's love and character is unchanging; this, however, demands that His approach to people (especially in the context of personal relationship) be flexible.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Literary debateEdit

In the early 18th century, an extended public correspondence flourished around the topic of open theism. The debate was incited by Samuel Fancourt's 1727 publication, The Greatness of Divine Love Vindicated. Over the next decade, four other English writers published polemical works in response. This led Fancourt to defend his views in six other publications. In his 1747 autobiography, in response to some who thought that this controversy had affected his career, Fancourt wrote, "Should it be suggested, that my religious principles were a prejudice unto me—I answer: so are those of every Dissenting Protestant in the [United] Kingdom with some, if he dares to think and to speak what he thinks." Fancourt also names other writers who had supported his views.

In 2005, a "raging debate" among evangelicals about "open or free-will theism" was in place.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> This period of controversy began in 1994 with the publication of The Openness of God.Template:Refn<ref name=JowersWRS12>Template:Cite journal</ref>Template:Rp The debate between open and classical theists is illustrated by their books as in the following chart.Template:Refn

Year Open theism books and comments Classical theism books and comments
1980 Template:Cite book – Rice was the "pioneer of contemporary evangelical open theism."<ref name=JowersWRS12/>Template:Rp Critical acclaim, but public mostly unaware of open theism; the controversy had not yet begun.<ref name=JowersWRS12/>Template:Rp
1989 Template:Cite book
1994 Template:Cite book – "ignited a firestorm of controversy".<ref name=JowersWRS12/>Template:Rp "Provoked numerous hostile articles in academic and popular publications."<ref name=JowersWRS12/>Template:Rp The "conservative backlash" was "quick and fierce".<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
1996 Template:Cite book – Considers divine omniscience, theodicy, and petitionary prayer in freewill perspective.<ref name=BackCover>Back cover of cited book.</ref> Template:Cite book – Sees open theism as wrong biblically, theologically, and philosophically.<ref name=BackCover/>
1997 Template:Cite book – Made open theism the centerpiece of a theodicy.<ref name=JowersWRS12/>Template:Rp Template:Cite book – Asserts that open theism should be called new theism or neotheism because it is so different from classical theism.Template:Rp
1998 Template:Cite book – "The most thorough standard presentation and defense of the openness view of God."<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Template:Cite book – Accuses open theists of selective use of Scripture and caricaturing classical theism.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>
2000 Template:Cite book – "The most passionate and articulate defense of openness theology to date."<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation CitationClass=web

}}</ref>
Template:Cite book – "A genuinely evangelical portrayal of the biblical God."<ref>On back cover of Brueggemann</ref>

Template:Cite book – "The most influential critique of open theism."<ref name=JowersWRS12/>Template:Rp
2001 Template:Cite book – "A renewed defense of open theism" and a theodicy grounded in it.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation CitationClass=web

}}</ref>

Template:Cite book
Template:Cite book – "Debate seemed to turn somewhat in favor of classical theism."<ref name=JowersWRS12/>Template:Rp
2002–2003 Template:Cite book – Attacked classical theists as "blueprint theologians" espousing a "blueprint world view".Template:Rp Template:Cite book
Template:Cite book – Attacked "open theism as theologically ruinous, dishonoring to God, belittling to Christ, and pastorally hurtful".Template:Rp
Template:Cite book
2004–2012 Template:Cite book – Contains appendix titled "Replies to my critics".Template:Rp Template:Cite journal – Book's stated purpose is to "demonstrate the errors of open theism".
2013–2014 Template:Cite book – Argues that proponents of open theism have a right to be called "evangelical". Template:Cite book – Declares that "open theists get God all wrong".Template:Rp
present The Internet brought open theists and their debate with classical theists into public view.<ref name="eleshacoffman">Template:Cite magazine</ref> – An internet site supporting open theism is {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation CitationClass=web

}}

citation CitationClass=web

}} and
{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

CitationClass=web

}}

See alsoEdit

Template:Div col

Template:Div col end

FootnotesEdit

Template:Notelist

ReferencesEdit

Template:Reflist

SourcesEdit

Pro

Template:Refbegin

  • Trinity and Process, G.Boyd, 1992
  • "Satan & the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy", Greg Boyd (2001) Template:ISBN
  • The Case for Freewill Theism: a Philosophical Assessment, David Basinger, 1996, InterVarsity Press, Template:ISBN
  • The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will, Richard Rice, 1980, Review and Herald Pub. Association, Template:ISBN
  • The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, Clark Pinnock editor, et al., 1994, InterVarsity Press Template:ISBN, Paternoster Press (UK), Template:ISBN (followup to Rice book includes contribution from him)
  • The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, John Sanders, revised edition, 2007. InterVarsity Press, Template:ISBN
  • The Nature of Love: A Theology, Thomas Jay Oord, 2010. Chalice Press, Template:ISBN
  • God, Time, and Knowledge, William Hasker, 1998, Cornell University Press, Template:ISBN
  • God of the Possible, Gregory A. Boyd, 2000 reprint, Baker Books, Template:ISBN
  • Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness (The Didsbury Lectures), Clark Pinnock, 2001, Baker Academic, Template:ISBN
  • Providence, Evil, and the Openness of God, William Hasker, 2004, Routledge, Template:ISBN
  • Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science, Thomas Jay Oord ed., 2009, Pickwick, Template:ISBN

Template:Refend

Con

Template:Refbegin

Template:Refend

Multiple views

Template:Refbegin

  • The Sovereignty of God Debate, D. Steven Long and George Kalantizis editors, 2009 Cascade Books, Template:ISBN
  • Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: 4 Views, Bruce Ware editor, 2008, Broadman and Holman Academic, Template:ISBN
  • Divine Foreknowledge: 4 Views, James Beilby and Paul Eddy (editors), et al., 2001, InterVarsity Press, Template:ISBN
  • God and Time: Essays on the Divine Nature, Gregory E. Ganssle and David M. Woodruff (editors), 2002, Oxford University Press, Template:ISBN
  • God & Time: Four Views, Gregory E. Ganssle (editor), et al., 2001, InterVarsity Press, Template:ISBN
  • Predestination & Free Will, David and Randall Basinger (editors), et al., 1985, Intervarsity Press, Template:ISBN
  • Searching for an Adequate God, John Cobb and Clark Pinnock (Editors), et al., 2000, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Template:ISBN

Template:Refend

Further readingEdit

Template:Refbegin

Template:Refend

External linksEdit

|CitationClass=web }} – A website maintained by Open Theist Boyd

Template:Theism Template:Theology

Retrieved from "https://zalansite.site/mediawiki/index.php?title=Open_theism&oldid=164695"