Editing Open theism (section)

==Varieties of open theists==
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 [[Subjunctive possibility|alethically]] settled but nevertheless [[epistemic]]ally 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>{{Cite web| title=Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion | url=http://andrewmbailey.com/pvi/Omniscient_Being.pdf | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120325021320/http://andrewmbailey.com/pvi/Omniscient_Being.pdf | archive-date=2012-03-25}}</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 (theologian)|Greg Boyd]] holds this position."<ref name="Rhoda2006">{{Cite web |url=http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2006/02/four-versions-of-open-theism.html |title=Alanyzer: Four Versions of Open Theism |last=Rhoda |first=Alan |date=February 21, 2006 |access-date=January 30, 2014}}</ref>