Editing Open theism

{{Short description|Christian theological movement}}
{{original research|date=August 2013}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=March 2020}}
{{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 [[Christian theology|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>{{Cite journal|url=https://repository.westernsem.edu/pkp/index.php/rr/article/view/1586|title=An introduction to open theism|first=John|last=Sanders|date=July 30, 2007|journal=Reformed Review|volume=60|issue=2|accessdate=August 13, 2021}}</ref> Open theism is typically advanced as a biblically motivated and logically consistent theology of human and divine freedom (in the [[libertarianism (metaphysics)|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">{{cite web |url=http://reknew.org/2007/12/response-to-critics/ |title=A brief outline and defense of the open view |website=ReKnew|date=December 30, 2007 }}</ref>

Open theist theologian [[Thomas Jay Oord]] identifies four paths to open and relational theology:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/theological_traditions_as_paths_to_open_and_relational_theologies |title=Paths to open and relational theologies |date=May 13, 2014 |website=thomasjayoord.com |series=For the Love of Wisdom and the Wisdom of Love |access-date=March 7, 2020}}</ref>
# following the biblical witness,
# following themes in some Christian theological traditions,
# following the philosophy of free will, and
# 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>{{cite book |first=Roger E. |last=Olson |title=The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology |publisher=Westminster John Knox Press |year=2004 |page=190}}</ref>

==Exposition of open theism==
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 [[Classical theism|traditional theism]] picture God's knowledge of the future as a singular, [[Theological determinism|fixed trajectory]], open theism sees it as a plurality of branching possibilities, with some possibilities becoming settled as time moves forward.<ref name="Peterson2007">{{cite journal |last=Tuggy |first=Dale |year=2007 |title=Three Roads to Open Theism |url=http://trinities.org/dale/threeroads.pdf |journal=[[Faith and Philosophy]] |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=28–51 |doi=10.5840/faithphil200724135 |issn=0739-7046}}</ref><ref name="Peterson2006">{{cite journal|last1=Rhoda |first1=Alan R. |last2=Boyd |first2=Gregory A. |last3=Belt |first3=Thomas G. |year=2006 |title=Open Theism, Omniscience, and the Nature of the Future |url=http://www.alanrhoda.net/papers/opentheism.pdf |journal=Faith and Philosophy |volume=23 |issue=4 |pages=432–459 |doi=10.5840/faithphil200623436 |issn=0739-7046}}</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>{{cite book |title=The Openness of God |chapter=chapter 1}}{{full citation needed|date=May 2020}}</ref>

===Comparison of open and Reformed theism===
{{over-quotation|section|many=y|date=November 2024}}
The following chart compares beliefs about key doctrines as stated by open theists and [[Calvinism|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>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! 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 (theologian)|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 [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustinian]]-[[Calvinism|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>{{cite book |first=Richard |last=Rice |article=Biblical support for a new perspective |title=The Openness of God: A biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God |editor1-first=Clark H. |editor1-last=Pinnock |display-editors=etal <!-- ¿? 30 --> |publisher=InterVarsity |year=1994}}</ref> || "Ultimate reason" for the Fall was "God's ordaining will".<ref name="Talbot 2006" />
|-
| [[Free will in theology|'''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 development==
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 [[Fausto Sozzini|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.{{efn|Retrospective lists of (approximately) open theists:

;Jowers (2005): names Audius and Socinus.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Dennis W. |last=Jowers |title=Open theism: Its nature, history, and limitations |journal=WRS Journal |url=http://www.wrs.edu/resources/wrs-journal/ |volume=12 |issue=1 |date=February 2005 |page=4 |access-date=August 8, 2014 |archive-date=April 1, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180401033745/http://www.wrs.edu/resources/wrs-journal/ |url-status=dead }} (in print and online)</ref>

;Sanders (2007): names the following as “proponents” of “dynamic omniscience”: Edgar S. Brightman, Adam Clarke, Isaak Dorner, Samuel Fancourt, Gustave T. Fechner, Billy Hibbert, William James, Lorenzo D. McCabe, Otto Pfleiderer, and Andrew Ramsay.<ref>{{cite book |first=John |last=Sanders |title=The God Who Risks: A theology of providence |publisher=InterVarsity |year=2007 |pages=167, 323 note&nbsp;135}}</ref>

;Boyd (2008, 2014): names the following as “open theists”: 4th&nbsp;century Calcidius, 18th–19th&nbsp;century T.W. Brents, Adam Clarke, Isaac Dorner, Samuel Fancourt, G.T. Fechner, J. Greenrup, Joel Hayes, Billy Hibbard, J. Jones, Jules Lequier, Lorenzo McCabe, Otto Pfleiderer, D.U. Simon, and W. Taylor.<ref>{{cite web |first=Gregory A. |last=Boyd |title=Newly discovered open theists in church history |website=reknew.org |url=http://reknew.org/2008/08/newly-discovered-open-theists-in-church-history/ |date=August 2008 |access-date=August 1, 2014}} and {{cite book |title=Satan and the Problem of Evil |publisher=InterVarsity |year=2001 |at=page&nbsp;91, note&nbsp;11}}</ref>}}

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).{{Citation needed|date=August 2014}}

[[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<!--https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q94647449--> 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, "[http://spectrummagazine.typepad.com/the_spectrum_blog/2007/11/richard-rice-di.html Richard Rice Discusses Open Theism] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091020231610/http://spectrummagazine.typepad.com/the_spectrum_blog/2007/11/richard-rice-di.html |date=October 20, 2009 }}". ''[[Spectrum (magazine)|Spectrum]]'' Blog, 11 November 2007</ref> Provonsha started teaching at Loma Linda about 1960.<ref>{{cite AV media |last1=Provonsha |first1=Jack Wendell |last2=Larson |first2=David Ralph |date= May 1995 |title=A conversation with Dr. Jack Provonsha, Part 1 |publisher=Loma Linda Broadcasting Network |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaovJrzdoBM&t=669s |access-date=9 June 2023}}</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 1980===
The term "open theism" was introduced in 1980 with theologian [[Richard Rice (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), [[Gregory A. Boyd|Greg Boyd]], [[Thomas Jay Oord]], [[John E. Sanders]], [[Dallas Willard]], [[Jürgen Moltmann]], [[Richard Rice (theologian)|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 Church|Eastern Orthodox]]), [[William Hasker]], [[David Basinger]], [[Nicholas Wolterstorff]], [[Dean Zimmerman (philosopher)|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 Church|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 arguments==
Open theists maintain that traditional classical theists hold the classical [[Attributes of God in Christianity|attributes of God]] together in an incoherent way. The main classical attributes are as follows:<ref>[[Classical theism]]</ref>
* [[Omnibenevolence|All-good]]: God is the standard of moral perfection, all-benevolent, and perfectly loving.
* [[divine simplicity|Simplicity]]: God has no parts, cannot be differentiated, and possesses no attribute as distinct from His being.
* [[Theomorphism|Immutability]]: God cannot change in any respect.
* [[Impassibility]]: God cannot be affected by outside forces.<ref>{{cite book |title=Divine Impassibility |first=Richard |last=Creel |page=11}}</ref>
* [[Omnipresence]]: God is present everywhere, or more precisely, all things find their location in God.<ref>{{cite book |url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110101.htm |series=Church Fathers |title=Confessions |at=Book&nbsp;I |author=St. Augustine |author-link=St. Augustine |via=newadvent.org}}</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>{{cite book |last=Smith |first=George H. |url=https://archive.org/details/atheismcaseagain00smit/page/74 |title=Atheism: the case against God |publisher=Nash |year=1974 |isbn=0-8402-1115-5 |location=[[New York City]] |page=[https://archive.org/details/atheismcaseagain00smit/page/74 74] |oclc=991343 |author-link=George H. Smith}}</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>{{Cite book |last1=Elseth |first1=Howard R. |title=Did God Know? A Study of the Nature of God |last2=Elseth |first2=Elden J. |publisher=Calvary United Church |year=1977 |location=[[Saint Paul, Minnesota]] |page=23 |oclc=11208194}}</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 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>

==Criticism==
[[Norman Geisler]], a critic of open theism, addresses the claims that the Classical attributes were derived from the Greeks with three observations:<ref>{{cite book |last=Geisler |first=Norman L. |author-link=Norman Geisler |title=Creating God in the Image of Man |publisher=[[Bethany House]] |isbn=1-55661-935-9 |place=[[Minneapolis]], Minnesota |page=96 |oclc=35886058 |year=1997 }}</ref>
# The quest for something unchanging is not bad.
# The Greeks did not have the same concept of God.
# Philosophical influences are not wrong in themselves.

An open theist might respond that all such criticisms are misplaced. As to observation&nbsp;(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>{{cite web |url=http://www.jeremybouma.com/open-theism-and-most-moved-mover-changeability/ |title=Open Theism and 'Most Moved Mover': Changeability |last=Bouma |first=Jeremy}}</ref> As to observation&nbsp;(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>{{cite web |url=http://opentheism.info/information/early-church-fathers-hellenism-impassibility/ |title=The Early Church Fathers on Hellenism and Impassibility |website=Open Theism|date=January 28, 2014 }}</ref> They also point to theologians of the Christian tradition who, throughout history, did not succumb so strongly to Hellenistic influences.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://opentheism.info/information/god-moved-mover/ |title=God as Most Moved Mover |website=Open Theism|date=February 9, 2014 }}</ref> As to observation&nbsp;(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):

{{blockquote|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&nbsp;...{{refn|name=Rice1980|{{cite book |first=Richard |last=Rice |year=1980 |title=The Openness of God: The relationship of divine foreknowledge and human free will |place=Nashville, Tennessee |publisher=Review and Herald Pub. Association |isbn=978-0812703030}} {{isbn|0812703030}} – Note that the first part of this book's title was repeated by Pinnock, Rice, & Sanders (1994).}}{{rp|page=&nbsp;100}}}}

Opponents of open theism, both [[Arminian]]s, and [[Calvinist]]s, such as [[John Piper (theologian)|John Piper]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-sovereignty-of-god-and-prayer |title=The Sovereignty of God and Prayer |last=Piper |first=John |author-link=John Piper (theologian) |date=January 1, 1976 |access-date=January 30, 2014}}</ref> claim that the verses commonly used by open theists are [[anthropopathy|anthropopathisms]]. They suggest that when God seems to change from action&nbsp;A to action&nbsp;B in response to prayer, action&nbsp;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:
* {{Bibleref |Malachi|3:6|JPS}}:  For I, the Lord, have not changed; and you, the sons of Jacob, have not reached the end.{{efn|"For I, the Lord, have not changed": Although I keep back My anger for a long time, My mind has not changed from the way it was originally, to love evil and to hate good. — ''[[Rashi]]''{{full citation needed|date=May 2020}} }}
* {{Bibleref |Numbers|23:19|JPS}}: 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?{{efn|"God is not a man that He should lie": He has already promised them to bring them to and give them possession of the land of the seven nations, and you expect to kill them in the desert?  — ''[[Rashi]]''{{full citation needed|date=May 2020}} – [See Mid. Tanchuma Mass'ei 7, Num. Rabbah 23:8] – "Would He say ...": Heb. הַהוּא. This is in the form of a question. And the Targum ([[Onkelos]]) renders, "who later relent". They reconsider and change their minds.}}<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/monotheism.html |title=Monotheism |last=Singer |first=Tovia |access-date=August 19, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/seeds_of_christianity/ |title=Jewish followers of Jesus |last=Spiro |first=Ken |website=Seeds of Christianity |publisher=Simple to Remember |via=simpletoremember.com |access-date=August 19, 2013}}</ref>
* {{Bibleref |1 Samuel|15:29|JPS}}:  And also, the Strength of Israel will neither lie nor repent, for He is not a man to repent."
* {{Bibleref |Isaiah|46:10|JPS}}: [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 view{{Who|date=November 2009}} 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 [[John Calvin|Calvin]], [[Martin Luther|Luther]], [[Thomas Aquinas|Aquinas]], [[Ambrose]], and [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]]. Open theists note that there seems to be an arbitrary distinction here between those verses which are merely [[Anthropopathism|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>{{cite book |last=Boyd |first=Gregory A. |title=God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God |date=2000 |publisher=Baker Books |isbn=080106290X |location=Grand Rapids, Michigan |oclc=43589372}}</ref>

===Literary debate===
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>{{cite book |first=Tyron |last=Inbody |title=The Faith of the Christian Church: An introduction to theology |publisher=Eerdmans |year=2005 |at=page&nbsp;98, note&nbsp;31}}</ref> This period of controversy began in 1994 with the publication of ''The Openness of God''.{{refn|name=PinnockRiceSanders1994| {{cite book |title=The Openness of God: A Biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God |first1=Clark H. |last1=Pinnock |first2=Richard |last2=Rice |first3=John |last3=Sanders |publisher=Inter Varsity Press, Academic |date=September 22, 1994 |isbn=978-0830818525}} Note that this later book has the same short title as Rice (1980).<ref name=Rice1980/>}}<ref name=JowersWRS12>{{cite journal |first=Dennis W. |last=Jowers |title=Open Theism: Its nature, history, and limitations |journal=WRS Journal |volume=12 |issue=1 |url=http://www.wrs.edu/resources/wrs-journal/ |access-date=August 8, 2014 |archive-date=April 1, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180401033745/http://www.wrs.edu/resources/wrs-journal/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>{{rp|page=&nbsp;3}} The debate between open and classical theists is illustrated by their books as in the following chart.{{refn|Cited by Jowers:<ref name=JowersWRS12/>{{rp|page=&nbsp;5}} {{cite encyclopedia |first=James |last=Risler |title=Open Theism |encyclopedia=[[The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] |url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/o-theism/ |via=www.iep.utm.edu |publisher=University of Tennessee at Martin |issn=2161-0002}}}}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Open theism books and comments
! Classical theism books and comments
|-
| 1980
| {{cite book |year=1980 |first=Richard |last=Rice |title=The Openness of God: The relationship of divine foreknowledge and human free will |place=Nashville, Tennessee |publisher=Review & Herald}} – Rice was the "pioneer of contemporary evangelical open theism."<ref name=JowersWRS12/>{{rp|page=&nbsp;5}}
|rowspan=2;| Critical acclaim, but public mostly unaware of open theism; the controversy had not yet begun.<ref name=JowersWRS12/>{{rp|page=&nbsp;5}}
|-
| 1989
| {{cite book |year=1989 |first=William |last=Hasker |title=God, Time, and Knowledge |series=Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of Religion |publisher=Cornell University Press |place=Ithaca, New York}}
|-
| 1994
| {{cite book |year=1994 |first1=Clark |last1=Pinnock |first2=Richard |last2=Rice |first3=John |last3=Sanders |first4=William |last4=Hasker |first5=David |last5=Bassinger |title=The Openness of God |publisher=InterVarsity}} – "ignited a firestorm of controversy".<ref name=JowersWRS12/>{{rp|page=&nbsp;5}}
| "Provoked numerous hostile articles in academic and popular publications."<ref name=JowersWRS12/>{{rp|page=&nbsp;5}} The "conservative backlash" was "quick and fierce".<ref>{{cite book |editor1-first=Timothy |editor1-last=Larsen |editor2-first=Daniel J. |editor2-last=Treier |title=The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2007 |page=25}}</ref>
|-
| 1996
| {{cite book |year=1996 |first=David |last=Basinger |title=The Case for Freewill Theism: A philosophical assessment |publisher=InterVarsity}} – Considers divine omniscience, theodicy, and petitionary prayer in freewill perspective.<ref name=BackCover>Back cover of cited book.</ref>
| {{cite book |year=1996 |first=R. K. |last=McGregor Wright |title=No Place for Sovereignty: What's wrong with freewill theism |publisher=InterVarsity}} – Sees open theism as wrong biblically, theologically, and philosophically.<ref name=BackCover/>
|-
| 1997
| {{cite book |year=1997 |first=Gregory |last=Boyd |title=God at War: The Bible & spiritual conflict |publisher=InterVarsity}} – Made open theism the centerpiece of a theodicy.<ref name=JowersWRS12/>{{rp|page=&nbsp;6}}
| {{cite book |first=Norman |last=Geisler |title=Creating God in the Image of Man? |publisher=Bethany |year=1997}} – Asserts that open theism should be called ''new theism'' or ''neotheism'' because it is so different from classical theism.{{rp|page=&nbsp;78}}
|-
| 1998
| {{cite book |first=John |last=Sanders |title=The God who Risks: A theology of providence |publisher=InterVarsity |year=1998}} – "The most thorough standard presentation and defense of the openness view of God."<ref>{{cite journal |title=Review of ''The God who Risks'' |journal=WRS Journal |volume=12 |issue=1 |date=February 2005 |pages=31–33}}</ref>
| {{cite book |first=Millard |last=Erickson |title=God the Father Almighty: A contemporary exploration of the Divine attributes |publisher=Baker |year=1998}} – Accuses open theists of selective use of Scripture and caricaturing classical theism.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Mike |last=Stallard |title=The open view of God: Does he change? |journal=The Journal of Ministry & Theology |volume=5 |issue=2 |date=Fall 2001 |pages=5–25}}</ref>
|-
| 2000
| {{cite book |first=Clark |last=Pinnock |title=Most Moved Mover: A theology of God's openness |publisher=Baker and Paternoster |year=2000}} – "The most passionate and articulate defense of openness theology to date."<ref>{{cite web |title=Publisher's description |publisher=Baker Academic |url=http://www.bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/most-moved-mover/226320 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170629073610/http://www.bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/most-moved-mover/226320 |archive-date=June 29, 2017}}</ref><br />{{cite book |first=Gregory |last=Boyd |title=God of the Possible: A Biblical introduction to the open view of God |publisher=Baker |year=2000}} – "A genuinely evangelical portrayal of the biblical God."<ref>On back cover of [[Walter Brueggemann|Brueggemann]]</ref>
| {{cite book |first=Bruce |last=Ware |title=God's Lesser Glory: The diminished God of open theism |publisher=Crossway |year=2000}} – "The most influential critique of open theism."<ref name=JowersWRS12/>{{rp|page=&nbsp;6}}
|-
| 2001
| {{cite book |first=Gregory A. |last=Boyd |title=Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a trinitarian warfare theodicy |publisher=InterVarsity |year=2001}} – "A renewed defense of open theism" and a theodicy grounded in it.<ref>{{cite web |website=dts.edu |type=review |title=Gregory A. Boyd and the problem of evil |url=http://www.dts.edu/reviews/gregory-a-boyd-satan-and-the-problem-of-evil |access-date=August 8, 2014 |archive-date=June 29, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170629222006/http://www.dts.edu/reviews/gregory-a-boyd-satan-and-the-problem-of-evil |url-status=dead }}</ref>
| {{cite book |first=John |last=Frame |title=No Other God: A response to open theism |publisher=P & R |year=2001}} <br />{{cite book |first1=Norman |last1=Geisler |first2=Wayne |last2=House |first3=Max |last3=Herrera |title=The Battle for God: Responding to the challenge of neotheism |publisher=Kregel |year=2001}} – "Debate seemed to turn somewhat in favor of classical theism."<ref name=JowersWRS12/>{{rp|page=&nbsp;6}}
|-
| 2002–2003
| {{cite book |first=Gregory A. |last=Boyd |title=Is God to Blame? Beyond pat answers to the problem of evil |publisher=InterVarsity |year=2003}} – Attacked classical theists as "blueprint theologians" espousing a "blueprint world view".{{rp|pages=&nbsp;47, 200}}
| {{cite book |editor1-first=Douglas |editor1-last=Huffman |editor2-first=Eric |editor2-last=Johnson |title=God under Fire: Modern scholarship reinvents God  |publisher=Zondervan |year=2002}} <br />{{cite book |first=Millard |last=Erickson |title=What does God Know and When does He know it?: The current controversy over divine foreknowledge |publisher=Zondervan |year=2003}} – Attacked "open theism as theologically ruinous, dishonoring to God, belittling to Christ, and pastorally hurtful".{{rp|page=&nbsp;371}} <br />{{cite book |editor1-first=John |editor1-last=Piper |editor2-first=Justin |editor2-last=Taylor |editor3-first=Paul |editor3-last=Helseth |title=Beyond the Bounds: Open theism and the undermining of Biblical Christianity |publisher=Crossway |year=2003}}
|-
| 2004–2012
| {{cite book |first=William |last=Hasker |title=Providence, Evil, and the Openness of God |series=Routledge Studies in the Philosophy of Religion |publisher=Routledge |year=2004}} – Contains appendix titled "Replies to my critics".{{rp|pages=&nbsp;187–230}}
| {{cite journal |editor-first=Craig |editor-last=Branch |title=Open Theism: Making God like us |journal=The Areopagus Journal |volume=4 |issue=1 |publisher=The Apologetics Resource Center |year=2012}} – Book's stated purpose is to "demonstrate the errors of open theism".
|-
| 2013–2014
| {{cite book |first=Garrett |last=Ham |title=The Evangelical and the Open Theist: Can open theism find its place within the evangelical community? |publisher=Kindle |year=2014}} – Argues that proponents of open theism have a right to be called "evangelical".
| {{cite book |first=Luis |last=Scott |title=Frustrating God: How open theism gets God all wrong |publisher=Westbow |year=2013}} – Declares that "open theists get God all wrong".{{rp|page=&nbsp;xviii}}
|-
| present
| The Internet brought open theists and their debate with classical theists into public view.<ref name="eleshacoffman">{{cite magazine |url=http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/february19/3.42.html?paging=off. |title=Open debate in the openness debate |last=Coffman |first=Elesha |magazine=Christianity Today}}</ref> – An internet site supporting open theism is {{cite web |website=reknew.org |date=May 2014 |url=http://reknew.org/2014/05/open-theism-a-basic-introduction |title=Open theism – a basic introduction}}
| The Internet brought classical theists and their debate with open theists into public view.<ref name="eleshacoffman"/> Two internet sites supporting classical theism (from the Calvinist perspective) are: {{cite web |website=desiringgod.org |url=http://www.desiringgod.org/all-resources/by-topic/the-foreknowledge-of-god |title=The foreknowledge of God}} and<br />{{cite web |website=frame-poythress.org |url=http://www.frame-poythress.org/open-theism-and-divine-foreknowledge/ |title=Open theism and divine-foreknowledge|date=June 5, 2012 }}
|}

==See also==
{{div col|colwidth=22em}}
*[[Arminianism]]
*[[David Basinger]] <!-- Alphabetized by surname -->
*[[Gregory A. Boyd]] <!-- Alphabetized by surname -->
*[[Robin Collins]] <!-- Alphabetized by surname -->
*[[Conceptions of God]]
*[[Samuel Fancourt]] <!-- Alphabetized by surname -->
*[[Terence E. Fretheim]] <!-- Alphabetized by surname -->
*[[William Hasker]] <!-- Alphabetized by surname -->
*[[Libertarianism (metaphysics)]]
*[[John Lucas (philosopher)]] <!-- Alphabetized by surname -->
*[[Thomas Jay Oord]] <!-- Alphabetized by surname -->
*{{format link|Panentheism#Christianity}}
*[[Philosophical theology]]
*[[Philosophy of space and time]]
*[[Clark Pinnock]] <!-- Alphabetized by surname -->
*[[John Polkinghorne]] <!-- Alphabetized by surname -->
*[[Process theology]]
*[[Richard Rice (theologian)]] <!-- Alphabetized by surname -->
*[[John E. Sanders]] <!-- Alphabetized by surname -->
*[[Richard Swinburne]] <!-- Alphabetized by surname -->
*[[Keith Ward]] <!-- Alphabetized by surname -->
*[[Dean Zimmerman (philosopher)|Dean Zimmerman]] <!-- Alphabetized by surname -->
{{div col end}}

==Footnotes==
{{notelist|1}}

==References==
{{Reflist|25em}}

==Sources==
;Pro
{{Refbegin|2}}
* ''Trinity and Process'', G.Boyd, 1992
* "Satan & the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy", Greg Boyd (2001) {{ISBN|0-8308-1550-3}}
* ''The Case for Freewill Theism: a Philosophical Assessment'', David Basinger, 1996, InterVarsity Press, {{ISBN|0-8308-1876-6}}
*''The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will'', Richard Rice, 1980, Review and Herald Pub. Association, {{ISBN|0-8127-0303-0}}
* ''The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God'', Clark Pinnock editor, et al., 1994, InterVarsity Press {{ISBN|0-8308-1852-9}}, Paternoster Press (UK), {{ISBN|0-85364-635-X}} (followup to Rice book includes contribution from him)
*''The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence'', John Sanders, revised edition, 2007. InterVarsity Press, {{ISBN|978-0-8308-2837-1}}
*''The Nature of Love: A Theology'', Thomas Jay Oord, 2010. Chalice Press, {{ISBN|978-0-8272-0828-5}}
*''God, Time, and Knowledge'', William Hasker, 1998, Cornell University Press, {{ISBN|0-8014-8545-2}}
* ''God of the Possible'', Gregory A. Boyd, 2000 reprint, Baker Books, {{ISBN|0-8010-6290-X}}
*''Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness'' (The Didsbury Lectures), Clark Pinnock, 2001, Baker Academic, {{ISBN|0-8010-2290-8}}
*''Providence, Evil, and the Openness of God'', William Hasker, 2004, Routledge, {{ISBN|0-415-32949-3}}
*''Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science,'' Thomas Jay Oord ed., 2009, Pickwick, {{ISBN|978-1-60608-488-5}}
{{Refend}}

;Con
{{Refbegin|2}}
* ''God's Lesser Glory'', [[Bruce A. Ware]], 2000, [[Crossway Books]], {{ISBN|1-58134-229-2}}
* ''Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace'', [[Thomas R. Schreiner]] and [[Bruce A. Ware]] (editors), 2000, Baker Academic, {{ISBN|0-8010-2232-0}}
* ''Bound Only Once: The Failure of Open Theism'', [[Douglas Wilson (theologian)|Douglas Wilson]] editor, et al., 2001, [[Canon Press]], {{ISBN|1-885767-84-6}}
* ''No Other God: A Response to Open Theism'', [[John M. Frame]], P & R Publishing, 2001, {{ISBN|0-87552-185-1}}
* ''Consuming Glory: A Classical Defense of Divine-Human Relationality Against Open Theism'', Gannon Murphy, Wipf & Stock, 2006, {{ISBN|1-59752-843-9}}
* ''Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity'', [[John Piper (theologian)|John Piper]] et al., 2003, Crossway Books, {{ISBN|1-58134-462-7}}
* ''What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?: The Current Controversy over Divine Foreknowledge'', [[Millard J. Erickson]], [[Zondervan]], 2006, {{ISBN|0-310-27338-2}}
* ''How Much Does God Foreknow?: A Comprehensive Biblical Study'', Steven C. Roy, [[InterVarsity Press]], 2006, {{ISBN|0-8308-2759-5}}
* ''The Benefits of Providence: A New Look at Divine Sovereignty'', James S. Spiegel, Crossway Books, 2005, {{ISBN|1-58134-616-6}}
{{Refend}}

;Multiple views
{{Refbegin|2}}
*''The Sovereignty of God Debate,'' D. Steven Long and George Kalantizis editors, 2009 Cascade Books, {{ISBN|978-1-55635-217-1}}
*''Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: 4 Views,'' [[Bruce Ware]] editor, 2008, Broadman and Holman Academic, {{ISBN|978-0-8054-3060-8}}
* ''Divine Foreknowledge: 4 Views'', James Beilby and Paul Eddy (editors), et al., 2001, InterVarsity Press, {{ISBN|0-8308-2652-1}}
* ''God and Time: Essays on the Divine Nature'', Gregory E. Ganssle and David M. Woodruff (editors), 2002, Oxford University Press, {{ISBN|0-19-512965-2}}
* ''God & Time: Four Views'', Gregory E. Ganssle (editor), et al., 2001, InterVarsity Press, {{ISBN|0-8308-1551-1}}
* ''Predestination & Free Will'', David and Randall Basinger (editors), et al., 1985, Intervarsity Press, {{ISBN|0-87784-567-0}}
* ''Searching for an Adequate God'', John Cobb and Clark Pinnock (Editors), et al., 2000, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, {{ISBN|0-8028-4739-0}}
{{Refend}}

==Further reading==
{{Refbegin|2}}
* ''The Nature of Love: A Theology'', [[Thomas Jay Oord]] (2010) {{ISBN|978-0-8272-0828-5}}
* ''God, Foreknowledge, and Freedom'', John Martin Fischer (editor), 1989, Stanford, {{ISBN|0-8047-1580-7}}
* ''The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge & Human'', [[William Lane Craig]], 2000, Wipf & Stock Publishers, {{ISBN|1-57910-316-2}}
*''The Dilemma of Freedom and Foreknowledge'', Linda Zagzebski, 1996, Oxford, {{ISBN|0-19-510763-2}}
* ''Eternal God : A Study of God without Time'', [[Paul Helm]], 1997, Oxford, {{ISBN|0-19-823725-1}}
* ''Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time'', William Lane Craig, 2001, Crossway Books, {{ISBN|1-58134-241-1}}
* ''Time and Eternity'', Brian Leftow, 1991, Cornell, {{ISBN|0-8014-2459-3}}
* ''Travels in Four Dimensions: The Enigmas of Space and Time'', Robin LePoidevin, 2003, Oxford, {{ISBN|0-19-875255-5}} * ''The Ontology of Time'', L Nathan Oaklander, 2004, Prometheus Books, {{ISBN|1-59102-197-9}}
* ''Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time'', Theodore Sider, 2003, Oxford, {{ISBN|0-19-926352-3}} * ''Real Time II'', Hugh Mellor, 1998, Routledge, {{ISBN|0-415-09781-9}}
* [[The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective]]''The Suffering of God'', Terence E. Fretheim, 1984, Fortress Press, {{ISBN|0-8006-1538-7}}
{{Refend}}

==External links==
* {{cite encyclopedia |url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/o-theism/ |title=Open Theism |encyclopedia=[[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] |via=www.iep.utm.edu |publisher=University of Tennessee at Martin |issn=2161-0002}}
* {{cite web |url=http://reknew.org/search/open+theism |first=Greg |last=Boyd |title=Open Theism |website=Reknew.org}} – A website maintained by Open Theist Boyd
* {{cite magazine |url=http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/002/30.34.html |title=God vs. God |date=February 2000 |type=editorial |magazine=[[Christianity Today]]}}
* {{cite magazine |url=http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/003/3.42.html |title=Did open debate help the openness debate? |date=February 2001 |magazine=Christianity Today}} – magazine article

{{Clear}}
{{Theism}}
{{Theology}}

[[Category:Evangelical theology]]
[[Category:Christian terminology]]
[[Category:Conceptions of God]]
[[Category:God in Christianity]]
[[Category:Christian theological movements]]
[[Category:Protestantism-related controversies]]