Reply:

By John Sanders

This view of omniscience was held by the preChristian Cicero as well as Medieval Jewish theologians (e.g. Ibn Ezra, 12'th century and Gersonides, 14'th century).

The earliest work I've found by a Christian promoting this understanding of omniscience is Calcidius (fifth century). He wrote several books one of which is against fatalism and determinism. It is in this book that he says God knows necessary truths necessarily and future contingent truths contingently.

It is true that Socinus (a heretic after the Reformation) affirmed this view, but he rejected the deity of Christ, the trinity, the atonement , etc. If one tries to discredit open theism because a heretic affirmed its view of omniscience then should the Reformation be discredited because this same heretic affirmed several of the key tenets of Calvin?

The view has been especially prominent in Methodism (see the essay by the Wesley scholar, Randy Maddox, "Seeking a Responsible God" in Thy Nature and Thy Name is Love eds Bryon Stone and Thomas Oord). Andrew Ramsay (one of John Wesley's contemporaries) held it. The great Methodist biblical commentator, Adam Clarke (18'th century), defended open theism in some of his commentaries. It begins to be seriously discussed in the nineteenth century. Billy Hibbard, a Methodist circuit preacher, promoted it in his writings in 1843. Lorenzo D. McCabe (1817 - 1897) was a Methodist theologian and professor at Ohio Wesleyan University. He wrote two large works on the subject of foreknowledge covering every biblical text that addresses foreknowledge as well as all the theological arguments (Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies a Necessity, 1862 and The Foreknowledge of God, 1887 [For reprints of McCabe's books see Revival Theology Promotion]. Many Methodist journal articles and books of this period discuss the open view. John Miley's systematic theology (vol. 1 pp. 180ff) addresses McCabe's arguments. Miley says that a number of Arminians held the view (though not Arminius himself). He says that McCabes' arguments are good ones even though he is not finally convinced-he spends 13 pages on the subject showing that he thought it important and nowhere does Miley call McCabe and others "heretics" or bad names. He says that it would not undermine any vital Methodist doctrines and would, in fact, free Methodism from the perplexity of divine foreknowledge and human freedom.

In the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement-Churches of Christ, Christian Churches, and Disciples of Christ-there has always been a stream of "open theism" (if you'll allow the anachronism). The most notable representative from the 19th century is Dr. T. W. Brents (d. 1905). His book, The Gospel Plan of Salvation (first edition in the 1874) has been deeply influential in this movement and in it Brents spends an entire chapter defending the open view.

Joel S. Hayes (non Methodist evangelical), wrote: The Foreknowledge of God - or, The Omniscience of God Consistent with His Own Holiness and Man's Free Agency published in 1890. In the opening chapter, he writes "The design of this treatise is to deny and disprove the commonly received doctrine that God, from all eternity, foreknew whatsoever has come to pass. This doctrine, it seems to me, is contrary to reason and Scripture, and is in the highest degree dishonoring to the high and holy One that inhabiteth eternity."

Also, 19'th century: Rowland G. Hazard and the Catholic writer Jules Lequyer.

Note: the term "open theism" is of recent vintage so most of the people listed here do not use the term to identify themselves. The question is whether one affirms dynamic omniscience.

Several leading twentieth century evangelicals have affirmed the openness view of omniscience: Dallas Willard, The Divine Conspiracy, pp. 244-253. Paul Borgman (Gordon College) Genesis the Story We've Never Heard (IVP). Richard Foster, the great writer on spirituality, affirms it. Henry Knight III (evangelical Methodist), A Future for Truth. Gabriel Fackre, William Abraham and Alan Padget (both evangelical Methodists). Many YWAM leaders affirm it as does the Ichthus church movement in England. Many Pentecostals are supporting it and some leaders of the Evangelical Covenant Church denomination are favorably disposed towards the view.

Theologians include Jurgen Moltman, Paul Fides, Michael Welker and the philosophical theologian, Keith Ward. On these scholars see The Work of Love edited by John Polkinghorne (most of the contributors endorse dynamic omniscience). Thomas Finger (Mennonite). [For other proponents see my God Who Risks, pp. 162-4; p. 311 n. 106; p. 313 n. 122; p. 324 n. 125]

A large number of contemporary philosophers who are orthodox Christians affirm it: Richard Swinburne, William Hasker, J. R. Lucas, Peter Geach, Richard Purtill, A. N. Prior, David Basinger (for documentation see my God Who Risks, 313 n. 122). In addition to those listed there: Randy Basinger (Messiah College), Robin Collins (Messiah), Dean Zimmerman (Rutgers), Peter Van Inwagen (Notre Dame). Nicolas Wolterstorff (formerly of Calvin and Yale) has recently put it forward (see his essay in God & Time: Four Views, p. 188).

Award winning physicist and theologian, John Polkinghorne. The physicist, Arthur Peacocke does as well.

The biblical scholar, Terrence Fretheim, has produced the most thorough biblical work on the topic (see the list of his writings below). John Goldingay, who teaches Old Testament at Fuller Seminary, has defended it in his Old Testament Theology, vol. 1 pages 136-8, 60-4, 168 and 98.

Some evangelicals do not embrace the open view of omniscience but do arrive at views that have great similarity to it. Gilbert Bilezekian, professor of theology at Wheaton and theological pastor at Willow Creek (he has been Hybels mentor since college) puts forward a view similar to the open view. He claims that God can know what we will do in the future but decides not to know. See his Christianity 101 (Zondervan). Arminian theologian, John Tal Murphy (Taccoa Falls College), interacts with open theism and suggests that though God knows all that will occur in the future God has the ability to "block out of his consciousness" knowledge of what will happen. God can, in effect, "forget" what he knows is going to happen.God does this in order to enter into genuine dialog and interpersonal relations with us. See his, Divine Paradoxes: A Finite View of an Infinite God (Christian Publications, Camp Hill, PA 1998), pp. 49-56. Though I see problems with the views expressed by Bilezekian and Murphy, I am pleased that they understand the problems with simple foreknowledge and, as evangelical Arminians, attempt to find a plausible solution that arrives, for all practical purposes, at a position quite similar to the open view.

In addition, the evangelical Arminian theologian, Jack Cottrell has recently affirmed a temporal version of incremental simple foreknowledge. This view, in my opinion, arrives at precisely the same practical implications for divine providence as the open view. See John Sanders "Is Open Theism a Radical Revision or Miniscule Modification of Arminianism?" Wesleyan Theological Journal 38.2 (Fall 2003): 69-102.

Fretheim, Terence.

• The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
• The Book of Genesis. The New Interpreter's Bible. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1994.
• Exodus. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1991
• "Divine Foreknowledge, Divine Constancy, and the Rejection of Saul's Kingship." Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 47, no. 4 (Oct. 1985): 595-602.
• "The Repentance of God: A Key to Evaluating Old Testament God-Talk." Horizons in Biblical Theology 10, no. 1 (June 1988): 47-70.
• "The Repentance of God: A Study of Jeremiah 18:7-10. Hebrew Annual Review 11 (1987): 81-92.
• "Creator, Creature, and Co-Creation in Genesis 1-2." Word and World. Supplement 1 (1992): 11-20.
• "Prayer in the Old Testament: Creating Space in the World for God." Ed. Paul Sponheim. A Primer on Prayer. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
• "Suffering God and Sovereign God in Exodus: A Collision of Images." Horizons in Biblical Theology 11 no. 2 (Dec. 1989): 31-56.
• First and Second Kings, Westminster John Knox, 1999.