The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence

By John Sanders

In The God Who Risks, theologian John Sanders mounts a careful and challenging argument for positive answers to both of these profound theological questions. His powerful book not only will contribute to serious theological discussion but will enlighten pastors and laypersons who struggle with questions about suffering, evil, and human free will.

From the author:

A relational understanding of divine sovereignty. This book further develops the model of God described in a previous book: “The Openness of God.” According to the openness model (or relational theism) the triune God of love creates beings designed to enter into the divine love and to reciprocate that love. God enters into genuine give-and-take relations with us such that God not only initiates, but God also is able to receive from us and be affected by us. Because love cannot be forced, God sovereignly decides to make himself vulnerable to those he loves–God takes the risk that we may not respond to the divine love with love of our own. God risks that we may not love God, other humans and care for the creation as we should. All this is in opposition to the no risk view of divine providence in which everything that occurs in our lives is exactly what God wanted to happen. In the risk view, God has sovereignly decided not to tightly control everything. Hence, some things happen which God does not want to happen but works to redeem these situations. In the risk model, our actions and prayers, or lack of them, genuinely make a difference regarding our relationship with God.

A constructive view of God, highlighting the divine wisdom, love, responsiveness, power and faithfulness, is developed in order to show how God resourcefully works in human lives, taking into account our actions and our prayers.

The book includes lengthy chapters covering the Old and New Testament materials showing that God’s revelation teaches this understanding. It also includes an overview of church history detailing how this model of God agrees and disagrees with other Christian thinkers. Next, it interacts with philosophical sources in order to clarify what is meant by risk, sovereignty, love, omnipotence, omniscience and human freedom. The book concludes with an in-depth application of this model of God to the Christian life: salvation, suffering and evil, why our prayers really matter, and guidance.

Does God Have a Future?: A Debate on Divine Providence

By Christopher A. Hall & John Sanders

The nature of God’s knowledge of the future, sparked by the openness of God debate, is perhaps the most controversial issue in evangelical circles today. It has generated much heated discussion in venues like the Evangelical Theological Society. This book counters such intense discourse by pairing Christopher Hall, who affirms the historic Christian or classical view, with John Sanders, one of the foremost proponents of the openness view. For over a year, Hall and Sanders engaged in a friendly yet penetrating e-mail exchange responding to one another’s questions and concerns about God’s providence and foreknowledge. This book is a compilation of those inquiring e-letters, offering equal handling of both the classical and openness views. Motivated by the belief that evangelicals must learn how to disagree without becoming divisive, they display their respect for each other while vigorously disagreeing about important issues. The e-mail format has produced a series of to-the-point exchanges that make this complex topic more accessible and far more instructive and digestible than a pair of pro-con essays would have been. As such, it is the ideal introduction to the contemporary debate. This book is an expanded version of a two-part article that appeared in Christianity Today in 2001. All those interested in a serious, balanced presentation of the openness debate, without unfair caricatures, will appreciate this theologically sophisticated yet accessible book.

The Case for Freewill Theism: A Philosophical Assessment

By David Basinger

Can God intervene in this world, and if so, to what extent? If God intervenes, can we initiate such intervention by prayer? And if God can intervene, why is evil so persistent? Taking up such practical, but profound questions, a coauthor of the much-discussed The Openenness of God here offers a probing philosophical examination of freewill theism. This controversial view argues that the God of Christianity desires “responsive relationship” with his creatures. It rejects process theology, but calls for a reassessment of such classical doctrines as God’s immutability, impassibility and foreknowledge.

God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God

By Gregory Boyd

Does God really know the future? Does he ever change his mind? The questions are controversial, but the quest for answers can revolutionize your life, believes Boyd. This pastor-theologian invites you to examine the classical view of God’s foreknowledge and the alternative “open view,” referring to Scripture passages that appear to support the open-view position. 192 pages, softcover from Baker.

The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective (Overtures to Biblical Theology)

By Terence Fretheim

In this comprehensive and thought-provoking study, Terence Fretheim focuses on the theme of divine suffering, an aspect of our understanding of God which both the church and scholarship have neglected. Maintaining that “metaphors matter,” Fretheim carefully examines the ruling and anthropomorphic metaphors of the Old Testament and discusses them in the context of current biblical-theological scholarship. His aim is to broaden our understanding of the God of the Old Testament by showing that “suffering belongs to the person and purpose of God.”

God, Time, and Knowledge (Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of Religion)

By William Hasker

“This outstanding book . . . is a genuinely pivotal contribution to the lively current debate over divine foreknowledge and human freedom. . . . Hasker’s book has three commendable features worthy of immediate note. First, it contains a carefully crafted overview of the recent literature on foreknowledge and freedom and so can serve as an excellent introduction to that literature. Second, it is tightly reasoned and brimming with brisk arguments, many of them highly original. Third, it correctly situates the philosophical dispute over foreknowledge and freedom within its proper theological context and in so doing highlights the intimate connection between the doctrines of divine omniscience and divine providence.”–Faith and Philosophy

“[God, Time, and Knowledge] is an elegantly written, forcefully argued challenge to traditional views, and a major contribution to the discussion of divine foreknowledge.”–Philosophical Review

“This is a very competent, thorough analysis of the conflict between free will and divine foreknowledge (or, on some acounts, timeless divine knowledge of our future). It is exceptionally clear.”–Theological Book Review

Providence, Evil and the Openness of God (Routledge Studies in the Philosophy of Religion)

By William Hasker

“Providence, Evil and the Openness of God is a timely exploration of the philosophical implications of the rapidly growing theological movement known as open theism, or the “openness of God.” William Hasker, one of the philosophers prominently associated with this movement, presents the strengths of this position in comparison with its main competitors: Calvinism, process theism and the theory of divine middle knowledge, or Molinism.” “In this collection of essays, the author develops alternative approaches to the problem of evil and to the problem of divine action in the world. In particular, he argues that believers should not maintain the view that each and every evil that occurs is permitted by God as a means to a “greater good.” He contends that open theism makes possible an emphasis on the personalism of divine-human interaction in a way that traditional views, with their heavy emphasis on divine control, cannot easily match. The book concludes with a section of replies to critics, in which many of the objections leveled against open theism are addressed.” Proviaence, Evil and the Openness of God will be essential reading for advanced students and academics in the fields of Philosophy, Philosophy of Religion and Theology.

The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God

By Clark Pinnock

That Greek philosophy at least partially influenced Christianity is generally accepted, since it formed the foundation of the culture the first Christians lived in. Many of the early church fathers even appropriated Greek philosophy in their attempts to evangelize the pagan world they found themselves in. But was the Greek influence good or bad? The question is not new; Tertullian asked, in the second century AD, “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to do with the Church?”

This book is an attempt to show that the Greek influence was, as Tertullian felt, dangerous. Why dangerous? Because, according to the authors, the Greek concepts of what God was like and how he interacted with humans were fatally flawed, and have resulted in a Christian theology which has pagan notions of perfection at its core. These concepts include immutability, impassibility, and omniscience (particularly in terms of foreknowledge of all future events).

The authors begin with the contention that God has granted humans a significant degree of freedom, and that He chooses to enter into a genuine relationship with them. They defend this position biblically, historically, theologically and philosophically, offering a well-balanced, comprehensive look at several familiar issues from a different, and they claim, more biblical viewpoint.

The unique interplay of the five authors in this book makes it a fascinating read. Richard Rice makes a compelling biblical case for open theism, while John Sanders takes a look at just how Greek our Christian theology is, and why contemporary theologians are generally unwilling to accept the validity of open theism. Clark Pinnock offers what can be termed a systematic theology of God’s openness and William Hasker offers a cogent philosophical defense of open theism. David Basinger then offers some practical implications of open theism, and compares them to the implications of both traditional classical theism and process theology.

You may not agree with the authors of this volume, but the discussion itself about these major issues is vitally important. Learn why each of these five authors came to believe in open theism, and what it means in their lives.

Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness (Didsbury Lectures)

By Clark H. Pinnock

Openness theology roots its popular appeal in the biblical picture of a God who is passionately loving and bent on rescuing the lost creatures he loves. Open theists believe that God responds to his creation and actually changes his plans as a result of how humans respond to him. In Most Moved Mover, Clark Pinnock argues that we need to have a view of God centered on God’s open, relational, and responsive love for his creation. That picture of God has important implications for prayer, for prophecy, foreschatology, and for believers interested in thinking about God in new ways.

God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation

By Terence E. Fretheim

Fretheim presents here the Old Testament view of the Creator God, the created world, and our role in creation. Beginning with “The Beginning,” he demonstrates that creation is open-ended and connected. Then, from every part of the Old Testament, Fretheim explores the fullness and richness of Israel’s thought regarding creation: from the dynamic created order to human sin, from judgment and environmental devastation to salvation, redemption, and a new creation.Fretheim brings theology into conversation with such fundamental issues as ethics, suffering, ecology, and God’s interaction with the world.

God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Free Will

By Richard Rice

A brief treatise supporting the open view.

The post Openness Theology Proper appeared first on OpenTheism.info.

John Sanders

Briefly, the position is that God has exhaustive knowledge of the past and the present and knows as possibilities and probabilities those events which might happen in the future. God could have created a world in which he knew exactly what we would do in the future if God had decided to create a deterministic world. Consequently, God cannot know as definite what we will do unless he destroys the very freedom he granted us. Vincent Brümmer writes: “God knows everything which it is logically possible to know. But God knows all things as they are, and not as they are not. Thus he knows the future as future (and not as present, which it is not). He knows the possible as possible (and not as actual, which it is not).”[i] God does not possess exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF) of future contingent events.

Aristotle put forth the problem of the truth value of future contingent propositions (De Interprtatione 9), claiming that they could be neither true nor false. There were questions about how to interpret Aristotle’s remarks which led to lively debate among those who discussed this question. The issues involved in divine foreknowledge were much discussed by philosophers after Aristotle.

The dynamic omniscience view was affirmed by several non-Christian writers such as Cicero (first century B.C.E.) Alexander of Aphrodisias (second century C.E.) and Porphyry (third century).[ii]  Cicero  argued that if God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF) then humans cannot have libertarian freedom so Cicero denied EDF.[iii]

For the reasons used to support belief in an exhaustively definite future in both secular Greco-Roman thought and in Christianity see “Motivations for Ascribing Foreknowledge to God” by Gregory Boyd on this website.

Commenting on the work of Aristotle, Boethius and several medieval theologians held that statements about the future lack truth value yet they also held that God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF).[iv] Also, Boethius (see Consolations, 5.4), Augustine (City of God, 5.9.37-9), Bonaventure and Aquinas are familiar with the dynamic omniscience position of Cicero (see W. Craig, Problem of Divine Forekowledge, 59). Boethius also knows about Alexander of Aphrodisias who produced an argument similar to Cicero’s. Boethius and other Christians were more concerned to deflect the charge that Christianity implied fatalism rather than about Aristotle’s question regarding the truth value of future propositions. It was charged that if the God of the Bible predicts some future events, then the future must be determined.

These authors produce an array of solutions to the problem and those after them critique these answers and either modify them or offer new proposals. Most seem aware of the dynamic omniscience view but think that it either (1) fails to explain biblical predictions or (2) would imply that God has changing knowledge which would undermine their understanding of divine immutability. The great Aquinas (thirteen century) argues that if God is temporal (experiences changes of any kind) then the only options are determinism or dynamic omniscience. He says that a temporal God can only have EDF (exhaustive definite foreknowledge) if all is determined from prior causes. This is why he rejects the simple foreknowledge view because he thinks it removes human freedom. Another factor, for Aquinas, is that “the future does not exist and is therefore not knowable in itself” because it lacks being (Summa Theologica 1.89.7.3). For Aquinas, the simple foreknowledge view of the church fathers (the same view what will become dominant in Arminian and Wesleyan circles) is deterministic. He believes that if God is temporal and humans have freedom then one should affirm the dynamic omniscience view. However, Thomas argues that since God is timelessness God can know an exhaustive definite future without it being determined. The important point here is that Aquinas thought the dynamic omniscience view was a legitimate option and he thought it should be affirmed if God is temporal and humans are free.

After Boethius, the mighty river of EDF followed the channel of divine timelessness though there were a few other channels such as divine determinism. However, in recent Christian philosophy the flow in the channel of timelessness has been seriously reduced in favor of dynamic omniscience and middle knowledge

The earliest Christian proponent thus far found is Calcidius (late fourth century).[v] He wrote several books one of which is against fatalism and determinism (this work did not become well known until the middle ages). In it he says that since God knows reality as it is he knows necessary truths necessarily and future contingent truths contingently.[vi]  Some Medieval Christian writers anticipate and seem to affirm an open future: Peter Auriol (thirteenth century) and Peter de Rivo (fifteenth century).

Some Islamic scholars affirmed dynamic omniscience: some in the Qadarite school (eighth century) and Abd al-Jabbar, an important figure of the Mu’tazilite school (tenth century).[vii] In Judaism the view has been widely held. God’s statement to Abraham “Now I know that you fear me” (Gen 22:12) was much discussed by Medieval Jewish theologians, a number of whom affirmed dynamic omniscience and the open future including the renowned Ibn Ezra in the twelfth century and Gersonides (Levi ben Gerson) in the fourteenth.[viii]

John Miley claims that some of the Remonstrants (Dutch followers of Arminius) advocated it in the sixteenth century.[ix] The Anabaptist Fausto Socinus affirmed it though he, unfortunately, also denied many traditional Christian beliefs such as the deity of Christ and the trinity.[x]  If one tries to discredit open theism because a heretic affirmed the same view of omniscience then should the Reformation be discredited because this same heretic affirmed several of the key tenets of Calvin?

In the early eighteenth century, Samuel Fancourt published several works defending the dynamic omniscience view including Liberty, Grace and Prescience and latter, in 1730, What Will Be Must Be. He argues that the issue is not about the scope of God’s knowledge but about the nature of reality: are contingencies real or not? Andrew Ramsay (1748) put forth a variant of this position, claiming that though the future is knowable and so God could know it, God has chosen not to exercise this ability in order to preserve human freedom. John Wesley (1785) reprinted Ramsay’s material on this in Wesley’s Arminian Magazine.[xi]

The position became much discussed in Methodism from the latter eighteenth into the twentieth century.[xii] In the early nineteenth century the well known Methodist biblical commentator, Adam Clarke (1831), defended it as did the well-known circuit preacher Billy Hibbard (1843).[xiii] Hibbard says that he learned of the view from an article in a Methodist magazine but he develops the position much more than the Methodists before him. In the latter nineteenth century Lorenzo D. McCabe, a Methodist theologian, wrote two large, detailed works covering every biblical text relevant to foreknowledge (for example, Peter’s denial) as well as numerous theological arguments.[xiv] According to McCabe, dynamic omniscience was widely affirmed by British and German theologians of his day and he cites other Methodists who held the view. In America, McCabe’s publications sparked a significant discussion in Methodist circles that lasted several decades.[xv] John Miley, an influential Methodist and contemporary of McCabe, speaks highly of McCabe’s work in his Systematic Theology (which was widely used well past the middle of the twentieth century). Though Miley affirmed prescience (foreknowledge) he recognizes a key problem that he does not know how to answer: How can God interact with us in reciprocal relationships if God has prescience? He says that if belief in an interactive God is contradictory to prescience then he will give up prescience. He goes on to say that belief in dynamic omniscience would not undermine any vital Methodist doctrines and would, in fact, free Methodism from the perplexity of divine foreknowledge and human freedom.[xvi]

Quite a number of articles and books affirming open theism from people in various denominations appeared in the nineteenth century (see the “Open Theism Timeline” chart). These folks affirmed traditional Christian orthodoxy and were generally evangelical in orientation. Edward Pearson (1811). Verax (1818), James Bromley (1820), John Briggs (1825), James Jones (two books 1828, 1829), Onesimus (1828), John Bonsall (1830), Richard Dillon (1834), Robert Bartley (1839), Joseph Barken (1846), William Robinson (1866), James Morison (1867), William Taylor (1868), Hans Martinsen (1874), J. P. LaCroix (1876), J. J. Smith (1885), Thomas Crompton (1879), Isaiah Kephart (1883), B. F. White (1884), J. J. Miles (1885), Joseph Lee (1889), J. S. Brecinridge (1890), W. G. Williams (1891), H. C. Burr (1893), William Major (1894), S. Hubbard (1894), J. Wallace Webb (1896), D. W. Simon (1898), and H. J. Zelley (1900).

In the mid nineteenth century, the great German theologian, Isaak Dorner, argued that “the classical doctrine of immutability” is inconsistent with Scripture, sound reason, and spiritual living because it rules out reciprocal relations between God and creatures. He argues for dynamic omniscience saying that a consistent view of God working with us in history requires that God knows future free acts of creatures as possibilities, not actualities.[xvii]

In 1890 Joel S. Hayes published The Foreknowledge of God, a lengthy volume examining the scriptural evidence and theological arguments for foreknowledge and concluded that dynamic omniscience was a superior explanation.[xviii]  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.” T. W. Brents of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement dedicated a chapter of his “biblical” theology to the defense of dynamic omniscience. His book was influential in the Churches of Christ for many decades.[xix]

In the latter nineteenth century many people defended the view including Rowland G. Hazard and the Catholic writer Jules Lequyer.[xx] Proponents also include less orthodox thinkers such as Gustave. T. Fechner, Otto Pfleiderer, William James, and Edgar S. Brightman.[xxi]

Theologians include Jürgen Moltmann, Paul Fides, and Michael Welker.[xxii] Contemporary Dutch Reformed theologians such as Vincent Brümmer, Hendrikus Berkhof and Adrio König affirm it as do the American Reformed thinkers Nicholas Wolterstorff and Harry Boer.[xxiii] Other theologians include Thomas Finger (Mennonite), W. Norris Clarke (Roman Catholic), Brian Hebblethwaite, Robert Ellis, Kenneth Archer (Pentecostal) Barry Callen (Church of God), German theologian Heinzpeter Hempelmann and perhaps Albert Truesdale (Nazarene).[xxiv] Major Jones claims that the position is well known in the African-American tradition.[xxv]

The dynamic omniscience view is exceedingly popular among analytic philosophers who affirm orthodox Christianity. Quite a number of the luminaries among Christian philosophers assert it: Richard Swinburne (Oxford), William Hasker, David Basinger, Peter Van Inwagen (Notre Dame), J. R. Lucas, Peter Geach, Richard Purtill, A. N. Prior, and Keith Ward.[xxvi]  It is also affirmed by Nicholas Wolterstorff (formerly of Calvin and Yale) and Vincent Brümmer (Dutch Reformed).[xxvii] Several philosophers contributed to a book on open theism and science: Dean Zimmerman, Robin Collins, Alan Rhoda, David Woodruff, and Jeffrey Koperski.[xxviii]  Timothy O’Connor (Indiana University) also affirms the openness model.[xxix] Though there remain defenders of both theological determinism and simple foreknowledge, it seems that the majority of Christian philosophers who publish on the subject today believe that the main options are middle knowledge and dynamic omniscience.

Acclaimed physicist and theologian, John Polkinghorne, holds it as does mathematician D. J. Barholomew and physicist Arthur Peacocke.[xxx]

For those interested in biblical support for the dynamic omniscience view, the most important work is by Hebrew Bible scholar, Terrence Fretheim, who has over a dozen publications that document in detail the biblical support for this view of omniscience.[xxxi] John Goldingay, professor of Old Testament at Fuller Seminary, has defended it in his Old Testament Theology.[xxxii] The work of Boyd and Sanders also contains biblical support.

A number of theologians, philosophers and writers have affirmed the position. Clark Pinnock, Gregory Boyd, Richard Rice, and John Sanders have produced several volumes on the topic.[xxxiii] Other notable scholars include Dallas Willard, Gabriel Fackre, William Abraham, Paul Borgman, Henry Knight III, Alan Padgett, Tom Oord, and Peter Wagner.[xxxiv] Researchers and popular writers include Michael Saia, William Pratney, H. Roy Elseth, Gordon C. Olson, Madelline L’Engle, and Brother Andrew.[xxxv]

The position is affirmed by many YWAM leaders and leaders of the Ichthus church movement in England. Many Pentecostals are supporting it.[xxxvi] Some leaders in a couple of denominations have spoken in favor of it: the Evangelical Covenant Church and Independent Christian Churches. The organization, Evangelical Educational Ministries, publishes copies of the works of L. D. McCabe and Gordon Olson: http://www.eeminc.org/prodserv.html.

In sum, the dynamic omniscience view was held by a smattering of people until the nineteenth century when serious scholarship begins to be published on it.[xxxvii] In the latter twentieth century the number of proponents and the amount of quality works setting forth the position has grown exponentially. In part, the view is increasing in popularity in the freewill tradition due to its ability to better explain the biblical texts and give greater intellectual coherence as to how God relates to us.

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.

[i] Brümmer, What Are We Doing When We Pray? A Philosophical Inquiry (London: SCP, 1984), p. 44.

[ii] Cicero, De Divinatione (On Divination), 2.5-8. See my “Historical Considerations,” p. 68. On Alexander see R. T. Wallis “Divine Omniscience in Plotinus, Proclus, and Aquinas” in H. J. Blumenthal and R. A. Markus eds. Neoplatonism and Early Christian Thought (London: Variorum Pub., 1981), pp. 223-5 and J. Den Boeft, Calcidius On Fate: His Doctrines and Sources (Leiden: Brill, 1970), p. 54. On Porphyry see ibid., p. 56.

[iii] Amonius came close in that he distinguished between definite and indefinite truths about the future. However, he seems to claim that the indefinite truths are only so for humans. Hence, they are indefinite only in an epistemic sense, not ontologically. Greg Boyd has suggested to me that Proclus emphasized the idea that God’s knowledge must be defined by the nature of divinity rather than by the nature of what is known (this allows God to know future contingents as necessities). Those after him, such as Augustine, presume that divinity must have exhaustive definite foreknowledge. Also, they assume that if one denies exhaustive definite foreknowledge then bivalence is denied. But there are ways to affirm bivalence without affirming exhaustive definite foreknowledge (see my The God Who Risks, revised edition, pages 335-6 note 133).

[iv] Gregory Boyd argues that both non-Christian and Christian thinkers on this issue were shaped by widely held assumptions about the nature of truth and divination. See his “Two Ancient (and Modern) Motivations for Ascribing Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge to God: A Historic Overview and Critical Assessment.” Religious Studies 45 (2009): 1-19.

[v] Erickson, What Does God Know?, pp. 111-2, claims that Celsus, a Greek philosophical critic of Christianity, and the Christian heretic Marcion held to dynamic omniscience. This is not the case, however. Erickson cites Origen’s book, Against Celsus, 2.20, to prove that Celus rejected foreknowledge. In this text Celsus critiques what he considers to be an incoherence in Christian teaching. He argues that Jesus was not able to turn Judas and Peter from their wicked acts by forecasting what they were about to do. Surely, a true God could accomplish that. Elsewhere Celsus asks why God became a human. “Does he want to know what is going on among men? If he does’t know, then he does not know everything. If he does know, why does he not simply correct men by his divine power?” In Celsus on the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians, R. Joseph Hoffmann trans. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 76. His point is that a true God would both know and be in control. Celsus believes in providence, but not the sort that interacts with creation. Rather, God orders the universe for the good of the whole (Celsus, p. 85). He says (p. 103) that a true God is strongly immutable in all respects (that would include no change in knowledge), impassible (no sorrow or change of mind as the Christians hold), and is anonymous, beyond predication and human knowing. Celsus was a Middle Platonist for whom God was beyond being. For him, the Christian assertions regarding God’s involvement in history are grossly anthropomorphic. He rejects Origen’s notion that God “sees ahead” what we will do and then takes appropriate action not because he rejects foreknowledge, as Erickson claims, but because that way of thinking is beneath the grandeur of God. As for Marcion, Erickson cites Tertullian’s Five Books Against Marcion (2.5). Tertullian says that Marcion raised the traditional problem of evil: Can God be good, omnipotent and omniscient if evil exists? Tertullian then proceeds to argue that God is indeed completely good, prescient, and all powerful even though evil exists due to the freewill of humans. God, prior to creation, saw that humans would sin and so God made preparations in response. In this and the following chapters Tertullian argues against Marcion’s claim that God cannot be involved in the world the way the Old Testament describes. Marcion said that Yahweh (the God of the Jews) was a screwed up deity who was either capricious or lacked foreknowledge (2.23). For Marcion, a true God has prescience but Yahweh lacks it. Tertullian seeks to explain biblical texts where God is said to change his mind in a way that avoids Marcion’s criticism and thus affirm that Yahweh is the true God. Also, note that the Gnostic text, The Testimony of Truth, argues that the God of the Old Testament lacks foreknowledge and so cannot be fully divine. The Nag Hammadi Library, ed. James Robinson (New York: Harper and Row, 1978), p. 412.

[vi] See Boeft, Calcidius, pp. 52-6. Calcidius’ works did not become well known until the twelfth century.

[vii] See Michael Lodahl, “The (Brief) Openness Debate in Islamic Theology” in Thomas J. Oord ed., Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science (Pickwick, 2009), 55, 59.

[viii] On Ibn Ezra see his Commentary on Genesis 22:1 (I am grateful to Marc Brettler for his translation). On Gersonides see Feldman, Seymour. “The Binding of Isaac: A Test-Case of Divine Foreknowledge.” Ed. Tamar Rudavsky. Divine Omniscience and Omnipotence in Medieval Philosophy: Islamic, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (Boston: D. Reidel, 1985), p. 114. See also, Richard Purtill, “Foreknowledge and Fatalism” Religious Studies 10 (1974): 319.

[ix] Miley, Systematic Theology (New York: Eaton & Mains, 1892), vol. 1 p. 181.

[x] On Socinus see Charles Hartshorne and William Reese, eds. Philosophers Speak of God (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), 225-227; and Joshua Toulmin, Memoirs of the Life, Character, Sentiments and Writings of Faustus Socinus (London: J. Brown, 1777), pp. 230-1. Some evangelical critics of open theism attempt to smear us by calling our view “Socinianism.” There is no historical linkage between open theists and Socinus. A more likely historical link is with McCabe.

[xi] Andrew Ramsay, The Philosophical Principles of Natural and Revealed Religion (Glasgow: Robert Foulis, 1748).

[xii] See Randy Maddox “Seeking a Response-able God: The Wesleyan Tradition and Process Theology” Bryan Stone and Thomas Oord eds., Thy Nature and Thy Name is Love: Wesleyan and Process Theologians in Dialogue (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), pp. 111-142.

[xiii] Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with a Commentary and Critical Notes (London: J & T. Clarke, 1810), his comment on Acts 2:47 is in his Christian Theology, Arranged, with A Life of the Author by Samuel Dunn, (New York: Lane and Scott, 1885), 69-74; and “Some Observations on the Being and Providence of God,” in Discourses on Various Subjects Relative to the Being and Attributes of God, and His Works in Creation, Providence, and Grace, (New York:  B. Waugh and T. Mason, 1832), 298. In his survey, Erickson fails to mention any of these passages from Clarke and so erroneously concludes that Clarke did not affirm dynamic omniscience. See Maddox, “Seeking a Respond-able God,” for a discussion of the controversy surrounding Clarke’s views in Methodism. Billy Hibbard, Memoirs of the Life and Travels of B. Hibbard, second edition (New York: Pierchy & Reed, 1843), pp. 373-5. Erickson chides open theists for mentioning little known figures such as Hibbard. Erickson scoffs that he was unable to locate the book. I had no trouble finding it. The point in listing these people is to show that there has been a minority tradition among even orthodox Christians on this topic.

[xiv] McCabe, Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies a Necessity (New York: Phillips and Hunt, 1882) and The Foreknowledge of God (Cincinnati: Cranston and Stowe, 1887). For reprints of these works see http://www.eeminc.org/prodserv.html).  For a summary of McCabe’s arguments see William McGuire King, “God’s Nescience of Future Contingents: A Nineteenth-Century Theory,” Process Studies9 (Fall, 1979): 105-115 and Tiessen, David Alstad. “The Openness of Model of God: An Evangelical Paradigm in Light of Its Nineteenth-Century Wesleyan Precedent.” Didaskalia (Spring, 2000):77-101. The most thorough study of McCabe and the discussion in latter nineteenth Methodism is the, as of yet, unpublished paper by George Porter, “Things That May Be Only? Lorenzo Dow McCabe and Some Neglected Nineteenth Century Roots of Open Theism in North America” (available online: https://opentheism.info/pages/information/porter/things_only.php

McCabe says that Isaak Dorner wrote him a letter affirming McCabe’s thesis. Divine Nescience, p. 29.

[xv] See Maddox, “Seeking a Respond-able God.”

[xvi] See his Systematic Theology, vol. 1 pp. 180-193.

[xvii] Dorner, Divine Immutability: A Critical Reconsideration, Robert Williams and Claude Welch trans. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), pp. 149-153. Dorner also set forth this position in several other publications. Lengthy quotes from several of Dorner’s other publications appear in Lornzo McCabe, Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies a Necessity (New York: Phillips and Hunt, 1882), pp. 27-29, 285-7.

[xviii] Joel S. Hayes, The Foreknowledge of God (Nashville: Publishing House of the M[ethodist] E[piscopal] Church, South, 1890).

[xix] T. W. Brents, The Gospel Plan of Salvation first edition (Cincinnati: Chase & Hall, 1874), pp. 92-108.

[xx] Rowland G. Hazard, Freedom of Mind in Willing (New York: Appleton, 1865), chapter 12. On Jules Lequyer (name is sometimes spelled differently) see Donald Wayne Viney, “Jules Lequyer and the Openness of God,” Faith and Philosophy 14, no. 2 (April, 1997): 212-235 and Hartshorne and Reese, Philosophers Speak of God, pp. 227-230.

[xxi] See Hartshorne and Reese, Philosophers Speak of God, for Fechner (243-254), Pfleiderer (269-270), James (335-350), and Brightman (358-362). Brightman, The Problem of God (New York: Abingdon, 1930), pp. 101-3. Brightman belonged to the school of thought known as “Boston personalism,” which tended to affirm dynamic omniscience.

 [xxii] On these scholars see their chapters in The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis, John Polkinghorne ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001). Though most of the contributors in this volume endorse dynamic omniscience I have not listed those from a process theology persuasion. Fiddes’, The Creative Suffering of God (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988) is a first rate work discussing passibility and conditionality in God.

[xxiii]Brümmer, What Are We Doing When We Pray?, pp. 43-5; Berkhof, Christian Faith, trans. Sierd Woudstra (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1979); König, Here Am I (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982); Wolterstorff, “Unqualified Divine Temporality,” Gregory Ganssle ed. God & Time: Four Views (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press), p. 188; and Boer, An Ember Still Glowing (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990).

[xxiv] Finger, Christian Theology: An Eschatological Approach, 2 vols. (Scottsdale, PA: Herald, 1989), 2.481-508; Hebblethwaite, “Some Reflections on Predestination, Providence and Divine Foreknowledge,” Religious Studies 15.4 (Dec. 1979): 433-448; Clarke, God Knowable and Unknowable, p. 65; Ellis, Answering God: Towards a Theology of Intercession (Waynesboro, Ga.: Paternoster, 2005), pp. 187-9; Archer, “Open Theism View: Prayer Changes Things,” The Pneuma Review 5.2 (Spring 2002): 32-53; Callen, Discerning the Divine :God in Christian Theology, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004). Though Callen does not fully endorse the view in his book, he has informed in me in a letter that he does affirm it. Heinzpeter Hempelmann, Wir haben den Horizont weggewischt Die Herausforderung: Postmoderner Wahrheitspluralismus und christliches Wahrheitszeugnis (Wuppertal 2008).  Albert Truesdale speaks approvingly of the view though it is not clear if he himself affirms it. See his “The Eternal, Personal, Creative God,” Charles Carter ed., A Contemporary Wesleyan Theology: Biblical, Systematic and Practical (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1983), 1.126.

[xxv] Jones, The Color of God: The Concept of God in Afro‑American Thought, (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987), p. 95.

     [xxvi]Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977); Hasker has published an enormous amount on the subject, see Providence, Evil and the Openness of God (New York: Routledge, 2004) and God, Time, and Knowledge (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989); Hasker and Basinger have chapters in The Openness of God; Basinger has collected a number of his essays in The Case for Freewill Theism: A Philosophical Assessment (Downers Grove, Ill.: 1996); Van Inwagen, “The Place of Chance in a World Sustained by God.” Ed. Thomas Morris. Divine and Human Action: Essays in the Metaphysics of Theism. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988); A. N. Prior (“The Formalities of Omniscience,” Philosophy 32 (1962), pp. 119-29); J. R. Lucas (The Freedom of the Will, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970, and The Future:  An Essay on God, Temporality, and Truth, London:  Basil Blackwell, 1989); Peter Geach (Providence and Evil, Cam­bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Richard Purtill (“Fatalism and the Omnitemporality of Truth,” Faith and Philosophy 5 (1988), pp. 185-192); and Keith Ward Divine Action (San Francisco: Torch, 1991). Frederick Sontag also affirms the view though he is significantly less orthodox than the other philosophers in this list. See his “Does Omnipotence Necessarily Entail Omniscience? Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34 (1991): 505-8.

[xxvii] Wolterstorff, see his essay in God & Time: Four Views, p. 188 and his “God Everlasting.” Brümmer see Speaking of a Personal God  (Cambridge University Press, 1992) and What are We Doing When We Pray? A Philosophical Inquiry (London: SCM, 1984).

[xxviii] Each of these persons has an essay in God In an Open Universe: Science, Metaphysics, and Open Theism, eds. William Hasker, Thomas Jay Oord, and Dean Zimmerman (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011).

[xxix] Timothy O’Connor, Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Necessary Shape of Contingency (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012).

[xxx]Polkinghorne, Science and the Trinity: The Christian Encounter with Realilty (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), pp. 108-9; Barholomew, God of Chance (London: SCM, 1984), chap. 7.

[xxxi] Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation. (Abindon, 2005), The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective (Fortress, 1984), The Book of Genesis in The New Interpreter’s Bible (Abingdon, 1994), Exodus (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, and “The Repentance of God: A Study of Jeremiah 18:7-10. Hebrew Annual Review  11 (1987): 81-92.

[xxxii] See vol. 1 pages 136-8, 60-4, 168 and 98.

[xxxiii] Their key works are: Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2001); The Openness of God; Boyd, God of the Possible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2000) and God at War: The Bible & Spiritual Conflict (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997), Rice, God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Freewill (Eugene, Ore.: WipfandStock, 2005), Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence, revised ed. (IVP, 2007).

[xxxiv] Willard, The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering our Hidden Life in God (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998), pp. 244-253. Willard does not elaborate on whether he means (1) that God could have determined all future events (no libertarian freedom) and thus had exhaustive foreknowledge of them (what proponents of dynamic omniscience believe) or (2) that God could know the future actions of creatures with libertarian freedom but somehow chooses not to.  Fackre, The Christian Story, rev. ed. in three volumes (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1984), 1.257-8; Abraham, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1985); Borgman, Genesis the Story We’ve Never Heard (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001); Knight, A Future for Truth: Evangelical Theology in a Postmodern World (Nashville: Abingdon, 1997), pp. 168-179; Padget, God, Eternity and the Nature of Time, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992), and Tom Oord, The Nature of Love (chalice, 2010) .

[xxxv] Saia, Does God Know the Future? A Biblical Investigation of Foreknowledge and Free Will (Fairfax, Virginia: Xulon Press, 2002); Pratney,The Nature and Character of God (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998); Elseth, Did God Know?: A Study of the Nature of God (St. Paul, Calvary United Church, 1977); Gordon Olson, The Foreknowledge of God and The Omniscience of the Godhead  (Arlington Heights, IL: The Bible Research Corporation); L’Engle, Bright Evening Star: Mystery of the Incarnation (28-30).

and Brother Andrew And God Changed His Mind (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Chosen Books, 1999).

[xxxvi] See the Pentecostal, Kenneth J. Archer, “Open Theism View: ‘Prayer Changes Things’,” The Pneuma Review vol. 5 no. 2 (Spring 2002), 32-53).

[xxxvii] Millard Erickson (What Does God Know? p. 131) claims that the dynamic omniscience view stems from “the tradition of Celsus, Marcion and Socinus” (a non Christian and two heretics) rather than from the “orthodox” tradition. However, Erickson misreads Celsus and Marcion since they did not affirm dynamic omniscience. Even if they did, however, the position could just as well stem from the tradition of Cicero, Calcidius, and McCabe (a respected non Christian and two orthodox Christians). Several articles have been written giving evidence that McCabe is the main historical source for the contemporary openness movement (see the paper by George Porter on this website’s Information page). The dynamic omniscience view is a minority tradition among orthodox Christians and is widely accepted today. It is disappointing that Erickson fails to mention the contemporary theologians and philosophers cited above and that in his chapters on the biblical material fails to engage the detailed biblical studies of Terence Fretheim. Instead of dealing with the evidence Fretheim amasses Erickson simply casts aspersions on Fretheim’s credibility. He casts proponents of dynamic omniscience alongside “heretics” and “liberals” in order to claim they are outside “the mainstream of orthodox Christian thought” (131). Does he really want to say this about people such as Dallas Willard, Jürgen Moltmann, John Polkinghorne, Peter Van Inwagen and Barry Callen? Why does he not mention these and other proponents of dynamic omniscience? Does he want to make it seem that only a few people, from a suspect heritage, affirm it? Erickson ignores the connections between open theism and the freewill tradition. For him, “the God of traditional theism” is the Calvinist God who exercises meticulous control. Hence, “traditional Christian theism” means the no risk tradition of Augustine and Calvin. That is indeed a tradition in Christian thought but so is the older freewill tradition.

The post Who has affirmed dynamic omniscience and the open future in history? appeared first on OpenTheism.info.

This bibliography is arranged in five categories: (1) multi-views works, (2) works supporting open theism, (3) works engaging open theism, (4) works against open theism, and (5) doctoral dissertations and masters theses engaging open theism.

See also:

•   The bibliography compiled by Thomas Oord on this website.
•   The “History of Open Theism” on this website.
•   Taylor, Jusin. “A Bibliography on Open Theism.” Eds with John Piper, Beyondthe Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity. Chicago:Crossway, 2003: 385-400.
•   Swanson, Dennis M “Bibliography of works on open theism”. Master’s SeminaryJournal, 12 no 2 Fall 2001, p 223-229.

1. Multi-views books:
   •   Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: 4 Views, edited by Bruce Ware(Broadman & Holman, 2008), includes a defense of open theism by Sanders, a defense of the traditional Arminian view by Roger Olson, a “classical Calvinist perspective” by Paul Helm and a “modified Calvinist perspective” by Bruce Ware.
   •   Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views ed. James Beilby and Paul Eddy (IVP, 2001). Contains Boyd on the open view, David Hunt for a modified simple foreknowledge view, William Lane Craig for middle knowledge, and Paul Helm for theological determinism.
   •   God and Time: Four Views ed. Gregory Ganssle (IVP, 2001). Wolterstorff defends a temporal conception of God, Helm the atemporal view, while Padgett and Craig affirm divine temporality since creation.
   •   Predestination and Free Will: Four Views, ed. David Basinger and Randall Basinger (IVP, 1986) contains Pinnock on open theism.
2. Works supporting open theism:

Archer, Kenneth. “Open Theism View: Prayer Changes Things.” The Pneuma Review 5.2 (Spring 2002): 32-53.

_________. “How Much Does God Control? Open View Response to the Arminian View,” The Pneuma Review 1/1(Winter 2004): 60-64;

Baker, Vaughn. Evangelism and the Openness of God: The Implications of Relational Theism for Evangelism and Missions (Pickwick, 2013).
Barholomew, D. J. God of Chance (London: SCM, 1984), chap. 7
Basinger, David. The Case for Freewill Theism: A Philosophical Assessment. Downers

Grove, IL: IVP, 1996.
________. ‘Can an Evangelical Christian Justifiably Deny God’s Exhaustive

Knowledge of the Future?’ Christian Scholar’s Review 25/2 (1995): 135-145. ________. ‘Divine Control and Human Freedom: Is Middle Knowledge the Answer?’

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36/1 (1993): 55-64.
________. ‘Divine Omniscience and the Soteriological Problem of Evil: Is the Type of

Knowledge God Possesses Relevant?’ Religious Studies 18/1 (1992): 1-18. Borgman, Paul. Genesis: The Story We Haven’t Heard. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity

Press, 2001.
Boyd, Gregory. God of the Possible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.
________. “Two ancient (and modern) motivations for ascribing exhaustively definite foreknowledge to God: a historic overview and critical assessment.” Religious Studies 46 no 1 Mr 2010, p 41-59.
________. Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare

Theodicy. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
________. God At War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict. Downers Grove: IVP, 1997. ________. Is God to Blame? IVP 2003
_________. Trinity and Process: A Critical Evaluation and Reconstruction of

Hartshorne’s Di-Polar Theism Towards a Trinitarian Metaphysics. American University Studies Series VII, Theology and Religion vol. 19. New York: Peter Lang, 1992.

_________. (2001) “The Open-Theist View.” James Beilby and Paul Eddy eds. Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
Boyd, with Alan Rhoda,and Thomas Belt “Open Theism, Omniscience, and the Nature of the Future” Faith and Philosophy, 23(4), 432-459, October 2006.

Brents, T. W. The Gospel Plan of Salvation. 12th Edition. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1928 [1st Edition, 1874].

Brümmer, Vincent. Speaking of a Personal God: An Essay in Philosophical Theology. Cambridge: University Press, 1992.

________. What Are We Doing When We Pray? A Philosophical Investigation. Revised edition, Ashgate, 2008.

Callen, Barry. Discerning the Divine :God in Christian Theology, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004

Carasik, Michael. “The Limits of Omniscience.” Journal of Biblical Literature 119.2 (summer 2000): 221-232

Clayton, Philip. “Kenotic Trinitarian Panentheism,” Dialogue, 44/3 (2005). Cobb, John B. Jr., and Clark H. Pinnock, eds., Searching for an Adequate God: A

Dialogue Between Process and Free Will Theists, William B. Eerdmans, 2000 Culp, John. “From Criticism to Mutual Transformation? The Dialogue Between Process and Evangelical Theologies.” Process Studies, pp. 132-146, Vol. 30, Number 1, Spring- Summer, 2001
Dorner, Isaac. Divine Immutability: A Critical Reconsideration, Robert Williams and

Claude Welch trans. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), pp. 149-153
Ellis, Rober. Answering God: Towards A Theology of Intercession. Paternoster, 2005 Elseth, H. Roy. Did God Know? A Study of the Nature of God. St Paul: Calvary United

Church, 1977.
Ellington, Scott. “Who Shall Lead them Out? An Exploration of God’s Openness in Exodus 32:7-14.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 14/1 (2005): 41-60.
Fiddes, Paul S. The Creative Suffering of God. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.
Fretheim, Terence. The Book of Genesis. The New Interpreter’s Bible. Nashville,TN:

Abingdon, 1994.

________. “Creator, Creature, and Co-Creation in Genesis 1-2.” Word and World. Supplement 1 (1992): 11-20.

________.”Divine Foreknowledge, Divine Constancy, and the Rejection of Saul’s Kingship.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 47, no. 4 (Oct. 1985): 595-602.

________. Exodus. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1991.
________. God and Violence in the Old Testament,” Word & World 24/1 (Winter 2004): 18-28.
________. “Prayer in the Old Testament: Creating Space in the World for God.” Ed. Paul

Sponheim. A Primer on Prayer. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
________. “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.
________. “Suffering God and Sovereign God in Exodus: A Collision of Images.”

Horizons in Biblical Theology 11 no. 2 (Dec. 1989): 31-56.
________. The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective. Overtures to Biblical

Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
________. First and Second Kings, Westminster John Knox, 1999.
Geach, Peter. Providence and Evil, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977 Goetz, James. Conditional Futurism: New Perspective of End-Time Prophecy. Wifp n

Stock 2012. Argues that all biblical covenants and predictive prophecies conditional. Does not discuss the open theism debate but is compatible with openness.

Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology, vol. 1 (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003)

Gould, James B. “Bonhoeffer and Open Theism.” Philosophy and Theology: Marquette University Quarterly, 15/ 1, pp. 57-91, 2003

Gregersen, Niels Henrik. “Faith in a World of Risks: A Trinitarian Theology of Risk- Taking.” Eds. Else Pedersen, Lam Holger and Peter Lodberg, For all People: Global Theologies in Context: Essays in honor of Viggo Morterson (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002): 214-233.

Harvey, Sharron. Open Theism and Environmental Responsibilities: A Promotion of Environmental Ethics. (Original publication 2007) AV Akademikerverlag, 2012.

Hasker, William. Providence, Evil, and the Openness of God, London: Routledge, 2004. _________. God, Time, and Knowledge, Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of Religion.

Cornell University Press, 1989.
_________. The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional

Understanding of God, with Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, and

David Basinger, Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994. _________. “Is Free-Will Theism Religiously Inadequate? A Reply to Ciocchi,”

Religious Studies, .
__________.“The Antinomies of Divine Providence,” Philosophia Christi, 4:2 (2002),

pp. 361-75.
__________.“Counterfactuals and Evil: A Reply to Geivett,” Philosophia Christi, . __________. “The God Who Takes Risks,” in Michael Peterson, ed., Contemporary

Debates in Philosophy of Religion, Oxford: Blackwell, 2003.

_________.“Response to Helm,” in Michael Peterson, ed., Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion, Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.

_________. “The End of Human Life: Buddhist, Process, and Open Theist Perspectives.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 32:2 (June 2005).

_________. “The Problem of Evil in Process Theism and Classical Free Will Theism,” Process Studies 29:2 (Fall/Winter 2000), pp. 194-208.

__________. “The Foreknowledge Condundrum.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 50, Numbers 1-3 ( December 2001 ): 97 – 114

___________. “Bitten to Death by Ducks’: A Reply to Griffin,” Process Studies 29:2 (Fall/Winter 2000), pp. 227-32.

___________. “An Adequate God,” in John B. Cobb, Jr., and Clark H. Pinnock, eds.,

Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue Between Process and Free Will

Theists, Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 2000, pp. 215-45 __________.“In Response to David Ray Griffin,” in Searching for an Adequate God, pp.

39-52.
__________.“The Openness of God,” Christian Scholar’s Review 28:1 (Fall 1998), pp.

111-23.
__________. “Tradition, Divine Transcendence, and the Waiting Father,” Christian

Scholar’s Review 28:1 (Fall 1998), pp. 134-39.
_________. “Providence and Evil: Three Theories,” Religious Studies 28 (1992), pp. 91-

105.
__________. The Triumph of God Over Evil: Theodicy for a World of Suffering.

Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2008.
_________. “Why Simple Foreknowledge is Still Useless,” Journal of the Evangelical

Theological Society, 52/3 (September, 2009): 537-544.
Hasker, William, Thomas Oord, and Dean Zimmerman eds. God in an Open Universe:

Science, Metaphysics, and Open Theism (Pickwick, 2011).
Hayes, Joel S. The Foreknowledge of God; Or, The Omniscience of God Consistent with

His Own Holiness and Man’s Free Agency. Nashville: Publishing House of the

M[ethodist] E[piscopal] Church, South, 1890.
Hempelmann, Heinzpeter. Wir haben den Horizont weggewischt Die Herausforderung:

Postmoderner Wahrheitspluralismus und christliches Wahrheitszeugnis

(Wuppertal 2008).
________. Unaufhebbare Subjektivität Gottes. Probleme einer Lehre vom concursus

divinus, dargestellt anhand von Karl Barths “Kirchlicher Dogmatik”, (Wuppertal

1992).
Kapitan, Tomis. ‘Acting and the Open Future: A Brief Reply to David Hunt.’ Religious

Studies 33/3 (1997): 287-292.
_______. ‘Agency and Omniscience.’ Religious Studies 27/1 (1991): 105-120. Knight, Gordon. “Universalism for Open Theists.” Religious Studies: An International

Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, 42(2), 213-223. 11 p. June 2006 Krump, David. Knocking on Heaven’s Door: A New Testament Theology of Petionary

Prayer (Eerdmans, 2006)
Lucas, J. R. The Freedom of the Will. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.
_________. The Future: An Essay on God, Temporality, and Truth. Blackwell, 1989. McCabe, Lorenzo Dow. ‘Does God’s Foreknowledge Embrace All Future Futuritions?’

Western Christian Advocate [Cincinnati], 23 May 1894: (Photocopy in Personal

Library Collection of Gordon C. Olson.)
_________.‘Prescience of Future Contingencies Impossible.’ Methodist Review

(September 1892): 760-773.
_________. Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies a Necessity, Being an

Introduction to ‘The Foreknowledge of God and Cognate Themes’. New York:

Phillips and Hunt, 1882.
_________. The Foreknowledge of God and Cognate Themes in Theology and

Philosophy. Cincinnati: Cranston and Stowe, 1887 [original copyright 1878]. Moberly, R. W. L. “God is Not a Human That He Should Reptent: Numbers 23:19 and 1

Samuel 15:29,” in eds. Tod Linafelt and Timothy F. Beal, God in the Fray: A

Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), pp. 112-123. Nichols, Jason. “Openness and Inerrancy: Can They be Compatible?” JETS 45/4 (Dec.

2002) 629-649.
Olson, Gordon. The Foreknowledge of God and The Omniscience of the Godhead

(Arlington Heights, IL: The Bible Research Corporation
Oord, Thomas Jay. “The Divergence of Evangelical and Process Theologies: Is the

Impasse Insurmountable?” ARC: Journal for the McGill Faculty of Religious

Studies, 51, 2003: 99-120.
_________. The Nature of Love: A Theology (Chalice, 2010)
Oord, Thomas Jay editor, Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science

(Pickwick, 2009).
Paulsen, David. “The God of Abraham, Isaac and (William) James.” The Journal of

Speculative Philosophy 13.2 (1999) 114-146
Pinnock, Clark H. and Cobb, John B. Jr., eds., Searching for an Adequate God: A

Dialogue Between Process and Free Will Theists, William B. Eerdmans, 2000 _________. ‘Open Theism: “What is this? A new teaching? – and with authority! (M[ar]k 1:27).’ University of Calgary, 03 February 2003. http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/faculties/HUM/RELS/chairs/cchair/crsrc/Pinnock.OpenTh eism.pdf
_________. ‘There Is Room for Us: A Reply to Bruce Ware.’ Journal of the Evangelical

Theological Society 45/2 (June 2002): 213-219.
_________. Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness. Grand Rapids: Baker

Academic, 2001.
_________. ‘Divine Relationality: A Pentecostal Contribution to the Doctrine of God’

Journal of Pentecostal Theology 16 (2000):3-26.
_________. ‘Between Classical and Process Theism.’ In Process Theology, ed by Ronald

[H.] Nash (309-327). Grand Rapids, Baker, 1987.
Pinnock, Clark and David Paulsen, “Open and Relational Theology: An Evangelical

Dialogue with a Latter-day Saint.” BYU Studies 48, no. 2 (2009): 50-110. Polkinghorne, John. Ed. The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis. Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 2001.
________. Science and Creation (Boston: Shambala, 1988)
_________. Science and the Trinity: The Christian Encounter with Realilty (New Haven:

Yale University Press, 2004
Pratney, Winkey. The Nature and Character of God (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998

Prior A. N. “The Formalities of Omniscience,” Philosophy 32 (1962), pp. 119-29
Purtill, Richard “Foreknowledge and Fatalism” Religious Studies 10 (1974): 319. _______. “Fatalism and the Omnitemporality of Truth,” Faith and Philosophy 5 (1988), pp.

185-192
Putt, Keith. “Risking Love and the Divine ‘Perhaps’: Postmodern Poetics of a Vulnerable

God.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 34.2 (2007): 193-214. (compares and

contrasts Caputo, Kearney, and open theism).
Rice, Richard. The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and

Human Free Will. Nashville: Review and Herald Publishing Assoc, 1980. Reimer, David J. “An Overlooked Term in Old Testament Theology—Perhaps,” eds. A.

D. H. Mayes and R. B. Salters, Covenant and Context: Essays in Honour of E. W.

Nicholson (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003),
Rhoda, Alan. [Most of his work is available at: http://www.alanrhoda.net/papers.htm ________. “The Fivefold Openness of the Future.” In William Hasker, Thomas Oord,

and Dean Zimmerman eds. God in an Open Universe: Science, Metaphysics, and

Open Theism (Pickwick, 2011).
_________. “Gratuitous Evil and Divine Providence,” Religious Studies, 46(3), 281-302,

September 2010.

________. “Probability, Truth, and the Openness of the Future: A Reply to Pruss.” Faith and Philosophy, 27(2), 197-204, 8 p. April 2010.

________. “Presentism, Truthmakers, and God.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 90(1), 41-62, March 2009.

_______. Beyond the Chessmaster Analogy: Game Theory and Divine Providence, in Thomas Jay Oord (ed.), Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2009).

________. “Generic Open Theism and Some Varieties Thereof,” Religious Studies, 44.2 (May, 2008).

_________. “The Philosophical Case for Open Theism.” Philosophia, 35(3-4), 301-311, September-December 2007.

________. Open Theism, Omnisciece and the nature of the Future. Faith and Philosophy 23 (2006): 432–459.

Rhoda, Alan Greg Boyd and Thomas Belt “Open Theism, Omniscience, and the Nature of the Future” Faith and Philosophy, (2007)

Thomas Renz, “Proclaming the Future: History and Theology in Prophecies Against Tyre,” Tyndale Bulletin 51 (2000): 17-58

Saia, Michael R. Does God Know the Future? A Biblical Investigation of Foreknowledge and Free Will. Fairfax, VA Xulon Press, 2002.

Sanders, John. “Open Theism.” Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online, 2013. _________. “Divine Reciprocity and Epistemic Openness in Clark Pinnock’s Theology,”

The Other Journal: the Church and Postmodernity (January 2012). _________.“Open Theistic Perspectives—The Freedom of Creation” in Ernst Conradie

ed., Creation and Salvation: Essays on Recent Theological Movements. LIT

Verlag, Berlin, 2012.
_________. “Open Creation and the Redemption of the Environment,” Wesleyan

Theological Journal, Spring 2012.
_________. “The Eternal Now and Theological Suicide: A Reply to Laurence Wood,”

Wesleyan Theological Journal 45.2 (Fall, 2010): 67-81.
_________. “Theological Muscle-Flexing: How Human Embodiment Shapes Discourse

About God,” in Thomas Jay Oord ed., Creation Made Free: Open Theology

Engaging Science (Pickwick Publications, 2009).
_________. “Divine Providence and the Openness of God” in Bruce Ware ed.,

Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: 4 Views. Broadman & Holman. Nashville,

2008.
_________. “Divine Suffering in Open Theism” in D. Steven Long ed., The Sovereignty

of God Debate (Wipf and Stock Publishing, 2008).
_________The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence. Revised edition, IVP, 2007. _________. “An Introduction to Open Theism,” Reformed Review, Vol. 60, no. 2 (Spring

2007). The issue includes three articles responding to my article.

http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/john%20sanders%20article.pdf

_________. “No Way to Settle the Matter: the Criteria We Use to Develop Different Models of God.” in And God saw that it was good: Essays on Creation and God in Honor of Terence E. Fretheim, ed. Fred Gaiser, (forthcoming Word and World supplement, January 2006).

_________. “Response to the Stone Campbell Movement and Open Theism,” in Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Movement, Vol. 2, ed. William Baker (Abilene Christian University Press, 2006).

_________With Chris Hall, Does God have a Future? A Debate on Divine Providence. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.

_________. “On Heffalumps and Heresies: Responses to Accusations Against Open Theism” Journal of Biblical Studies 2, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 1-44.

__________"Historical Considerations" and “Introduction” in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. IVP, 1994. _________“On Reducing God to Human Proportions” in Semper Reformandum: Studies

in Honour of Clark Pinnock, eds. Anthony Cross and Stanley Porter (Paternoster,

U.K. and Eerdmans, U.S. 2003).
_________ "Why Simple Foreknowledge Offers No More Providential Control than the

Openness of God," Faith and Philosophy 14, no. 1 (Jan. 1997): 26-40. __________.“Is Open Theism a Radical Revision or Miniscule Modification of

Arminianism?” Wesleyan Theological Journal (Fall 2003).
__________.“The Assurance of Things to Come” in Looking to the Future, ed. David

Baker, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2001.
_________. “On Heffalumps and Heresies: Responses to Accusations Against Open

Theism” Journal of Biblical Studies 2, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 1-44 Online journal. __________.“Be Wary of Ware: A Reply to Bruce Ware” Journal of the Evangelical

Theological Society (June 2002): 221-231.
_________. “A Tale of Two Providences.” Ashland Theological Journal 33 (2001): 41-

55.
_________. With Chris Hall, “Does God know your Next Move?” Christianity Today,

May 21, 2001, pp. 38-45 and June 7, 2001, pp. 50-56.
_________. “Truth at Risk,” Christianity Today, April 23, 2001, p. 103.
_________. “Theological Lawbreaker?” Books and Culture (January, 2000) pp.10-11.

Reprinted in Daniel Judd, ed. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial

Issues in Religion. McGraw-Hill, 2002.
Sanders with J. Aaron Simmons. “A Goldilocks God: Open Theism as a Feuerbachian

Alternative?” Element: The Journal for Mormon Philosophy and Theology

(2013).
Sontag, Frederick. “Does Omnipotence Necessarily Entail Omniscience?” Journal of the

Evangelical Theological Society 34 (1991): 505-8.
Studebaker, Steven M. “The Mode of Divine Knowledge in Reformation Arminianism

and Open Theism,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 47.3

(September, 2004): 469-480
Swinburne, Richard. The Coherence of Theism. Revised Edition. Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1993.
Truesdale, Al God Reconsidered: The Promise and Peril of Process Theology (Beacon

Hill, 2010).
Tuggy, Dale. “Three Roads to Open Theism,” Faith & Philosophy (2006).
Udd, Kris. “Only the Father Knows: A Response to Harold F. Carl,” Journal of Biblical

Studies [http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org]. 1.4 (Oct-Dec 2001):
________. “Prediction and Foreknowledge in Ezekiel’s Prophecy Against Tyre,” Tyndale

Bulletin 56.1 (2005): 25-41.
Van Inwagen, Peter. “What Does an Omniscient Being Know About the Future?” in Oxford

Studies in Philosophy of Religion (2008): 216-230.
_______. “The Place of Chance in a World Sustained by God.” Ed. Thomas Morris. Divine

and Human Action: Essays in the Metaphysics of Theism. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press, 1988)
Viney, Donald Wayne. “Jules Lequyer and the Openness of God.” Faith and Philosophy,

14 Ap 1997, p 212-235
_________. “The Varieties of Theism and the Openness of God: Charles Hartshorne and

Free-Will Theism.” Personalist Forum, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 199-238, Fall 1998. Wagner, C. Peter. Dominion! How Kingdom Acton can Change the World. Chosen

Books, 2008.
Ward, Keith. “Cosmos and Kenosis,” John Polkinghorne ed. The Work of Love: Creation

as Kenosis, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001
_________. “The Temporality of God,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion

50 (Dec. 2001): 153-169.
________. Religion and Creation (Oxford, 1996) pages 275-277.
White, C. Jason. “An Accommodating and Shunning Culture: Evaluating the Cultural

Context of the Evangelical Theological Society in the United States.” Scottish

Journal of Theology 65, no. 2 (2012): 192-2011.
Witham, Larry. The God Biographers: Our Changing Image of God from Job to the

Present (Lexington Press, 2010). Provides a history of the debate in

evangelicalism.
Woodruff, David. “Being and Doing in the Concept of God.” Philosophia 35 (3-4), 313-

320. September-December 2007.

_________. “Examining Problems and Assumptions: An Update on Criticisms of Open Theism.” Dialogue, 47.1 (2008): 53-63.

Woterstorff, Nicholas. “Unqualified Divine Temporality” in Gregory Ganssle ed. God & Time: Four Views (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Yong, Amos. ‘Divine Omniscience and Future Contingencies: Weighing the Presuppositional Issues in the Contemporary Debate.’ Evangelical Review of Theology 26/3 (July 2002):240-264.

Yerxa, Donald A. “A Meaningful Past and the Limits of History: Some Reflections Informed by the Science-and-Religion Dialogue.” Fides et Historia, 34.1 2002: 13-30.

Zimmerman, Dean. [several of his articles are available at http://fas- philosophy.rutgers.edu/zimmerman/index1.htm
_______. “Open Theism and the Metaphysics of the Space-Time Manifold”, in God in an

Open Universe: Science, Metaphysics, and Open Theism, ed. by William Hasker, Thomas Jay Oord, and Dean Zimmerman (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2011), pp. 125-57

_______. “Time and Open Theism”, in Science and Religion in Dialogue, Vol. 2, ed. by Melville Stewart (Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), pp. 791-809 _______. “God Inside Time and Before Creation,” Gregory Ganssle and David

Woodruff eds., God and Time: Essays on the Divine Nature (New York: Oxford

University Press, 2002), pp. 75-94
_________. For more of Zimmerman’s papers on God, time, and foreknowledge see:

http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/zimmerman/index1.htm

3. Works engaging open theism:
Christianity Today, 1995, Vol. 39 Issue 1 contains reviews by Roger Olson, Doug Kelly,

Alister McGrath and Tom Oden of the book, The Openness of God.
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45/2 (June 2002): the entire issue. Master’s Seminary Journal, 12 no 2 Fall 2001, entire issue.
Bouma-Prediger, Celaine. “Toward a Reformed Theology of Prayer and Spiritual Direction: A Response to John Sanders. Reformed Review, vol 60, no. 2 (Spring 2007), Boyd, Gregory & Paul R Eddy. Across the spectrum: understanding issues in evangelical

theology. Baker Academic, 2002.
Cottrell, Jack. “Understanding God: God and Time” in Evangelicalism and the Stone- Campbell Movement, Vol. 2, ed. William Baker (Abilene Christian University Press, 2006).
Dorrien, Gary. The Remaking of Evangelical Theology (Westminster John Knox, 1998). Fackre, Gabriel “An evangelical megashift? The promise and peril of an `open’ view of

God.” Christian Century, 5/3/95, Vol. 112 Issue 15, p484, 4p
Keepers, Brian. “My Only Comfort in Life and in Death: A Pastoral Response to Open Theism.” Reformed Review, vol 60, no. 2 (Spring 2007),
Kurka, Robert. “Open Theism and Christian Churches (Independent)” in Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Movement, Vol. 2, ed. William Baker (Abilene Christian University Press, 2006).
Robinson, Michael The Storms of Providence: Navigating the Waters of Calvinism,

Arminianism and Open Theism. (University Press of America, 2004).
Tiessen, David Alstad. “The openness model of God: an Evangelical paradigm in light of its nineteenth century Wesleyan precedent.” Didaskalia (Otterburne, Man.), 11 no

2 Spr 2000, p 77-101

Warden, Duane. “Open Theism and Churches of Christ (a cappella)” in Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Movement, Vol. 2, ed. William Baker (Abilene Christian University Press, 2006).
________. “Openness of God,” Restoration Quarterly, 46 no 2 2004, p 65-78

Yerxa, Donald A. “A Meaningful Past and the Limits of History: Some Reflections Informed by the Science-and-Religion Dialogue,” Fides et Historia, 34.1 Winter/spring 2002: 13-30.

4. Works Against Open Theism:
Beckman, John C. “Quantum Mechanics, Chaos Physics and the Open View of God.”

Philosophia Christi, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 203-213.
Bloesch, Donald. God the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love. (IVP, 1995)
Bray, Gerald. The Personal God. Patternoster, 1999.
Caneday, A B, “Critical comments on an open theism manifesto” Trinity Journal, ns 23

no 1 Spr 2002, p 103-107
________. “Putting God at Risk: a Critical Analysis of John Sanders’ The God Who

Risks.” 1999. Trinity Journal, ns 20 no 2 Fall 1999, p 131-163

Ciocchi, David. “The Religious Adequacy of Free-will Theism,” Religious Studies 38 (2002): 45-61.

Cole, Graham A. “The Living God: Anthropomorphic of Anthropopathic?” Reformed Theological Review, 59 no 1 Ap 2000, p 16-27.

Davis, William. “Does God Know the Future?” Modern Reformation 8/5 (September, 1999) 20-27.

Erickson, Millard. God the Father Almighty. Baker, 1998.
________. What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? Zondervan, 2003 Feinberg, John. The One True God. Crossway Books, 2001
Flint, Thomas. Divine Providence: The Molinist Account. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

Press, 1998.
Frame, John. No Other God: A Response to Open Theism. Presbyterian and Reformed,

2001.
George, Timothy. “What God Knows.”. First Things (June-July 2003): 7-9
Geisler, Norman and House, Wayne. The Battle for God. Kregel 2001.
Geisler, Norman. Creating God in the Image of Man? Bethany, 1997.
Helm, Paul. “Does God Take Risks in Governing the Universe?” in Michael Peterson ed.

Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion. Blackwell, 2003. _______ The Providence of God. InterVarsity Press, 1994.
Helseth, Paul Kjoss. ‘On Divine Ambivalence: Open Theism and the Problem of

Particular Evils.’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44/3 (2001):

493-511.
Hesselink, I. John. “A Response to John Sanders on Providence: Your God is Too

Small.” Reformed Review, vol 60, no. 2 (Spring 2007),
Highfield, Ron. ‘The Function of Divine Self-Limitation in Open Theism: Great Wall or

Picket Fence?’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45/2 (June 2002). _______. Great is the Lord (Eerdmans, 2008)
_______. “The Problem with the ‘Problem of Evil’: A Response to Gregory Boyd’s Open

Theists Solution,” ResQ 45 (2003): 175-76,
Horton, Michael. “Hellenistic or Hebrew? Open Theism and Reformed Theological

Method.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 45.2 (June 2002): 317-

342
________. “Is the New News Good News? Modern Reformation 8/5 (September,

1999) 11-19.
Huffman, Douglas and Johnson, Eric. eds. God Under Fire. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan, 2002.
Hunt, David P. “The Providential Advantage of Divine Foreknowledge” in Kevin Timpe,

ed. Arguing About Religion (Routledge, 2009).
Lamerson, Samuel. “The openness of God and the historical Jesus” American

Theological Inquiry, 1 no 1 Ja 15 2008, p 25-37

MacArthur, John. Open theism’s attack on the atonement” Master’s Seminary Journal, 12 no 1 Spr 2001, p 3-13.

Master, Jonathan. “Exodus 32 as an Argument for Traditional Theism,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45.4 (2002), pp. 585-598.

McCormack, Bruce, “The Actuality of God: Karl Barth in Conversation with Open Theism,” in McCormack ed. Engaging the Doctrine of God (Baker, 2008).

Middelmann, Udo. The Innocence of God (Paternoster, 2007).
Mordomo, Joao.”Missiological Misgivings about the Openness of God Theology.”

Patrick Henry College, Global Journal of Classical Theology, 3.2 (Nov. 2002). Mohler, Albert. “The Eclipse of God at Century’s End” Southern Baptist Journal of

Theology, 1.1. (Spring, 1997) 6-15.
Murphy, Ganon. Consuming Glory: A Classical Defense of Divine-Human Relationality

Against Open Theism (Wipf & Stock, 2006)
Picirilli, Robert. “An Arminian Response to John Sanders’s The God Who Risks: A

Theology of Providence.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 44/2

(September 2001): 467-491.
________. “Foreknowledge, Freedom, and the Future.” Journal of the Evangelical

Theological Society, 43/2 (June 2000): 259-271.
Piper, John. ed. Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical

Christianity. Chicago: Crossway, 2003.
Pyne, Robert and Spencer, Stephen. “A Critique of Free-Will Theism.”, in two parts

Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (July 2001): 259-286 and (October 2001): Richards, Jay Wesley. The Untamed God: A Philosophical Exploration of Divine

Perfection, Immutability and Simplicity, IVP 2003
Robinson, Jason. “Freewill Theism: Doing Business in a Free-Market Society.” Theology

Today 62 (2006): 165-175.
Robinson, Michael. “Why Divine Foreknowledge?” Religious Studies 36: 251-275. Roy, Steven. “God as Omnicompetent Responder? Questions about the Grounds of

Eschatological Confidence in Open Theism” Looking Into the Future, ed. David

W. Baker (Baker Academic, 2001): 263-280. ______. How Much Does God Foreknow? IVP, 2006.

Stallard, Michael D. A dispensational critique of open theism’s view of prophecy” Bibliotheca sacra, 161 no 641 Ja-Mr 2004, p 27-41.

Schreiner, Thomas and Ware, Bruce. eds. The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will, Baker, 1999.

Thompson, Matthew K. “Does God Have a Future? A Pentecostal Response to Christopher Hall’s and John Sanders’ Recent Book.” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies; Spring2004, Vol. 26 Issue 1, p130, 8p

Tiessen, Terrence. Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work in the World? (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000)

Tracy, Steven. “Theodicy, Eschatology, and the Open View of God” Looking Into the Future, ed. David W. Baker (Baker Academic, 2001): 295-312.

Ware, Bruce. God’s Lesser Glory. Crossway Books, 2000.
________. “Despair amidst suffering and pain: a practical outworking of open theism’s

diminished view of God.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 4 no 2 Sum

2000, p 56-75.
_______. Ware, Bruce. Their God is Too Small: Open Theism and the Undermining of

Confidence in God (crossway, 2003).
______. God’s Greater Glory (Crossway, 2004).
Webster, Loring C. The End from the Beginning; Or, Divine Prescience vrs. Divine

Nescience of Future Contingencies. Cincinnati: Cranston & Curts, 1895.
Wellum, Stephen. “Divine Sovereignty-Omniscience, Inerrancy, and Open Theism” JETS

45/2 (June 2002): 257-278.
Williams, Stephen N. “More on Open Theism” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 22 (2004): 32-50.
_______. “What God Doesn’t Know,” Books & Culture, November/December 1999. vol.

5, no 6, p.16.
Wood, Laurence. “Divine Omniscience: Boethius or ‘Open Theism?’” Wesleyan

Theological Journal 45/2 (Fall 2010): 41-66.
________. “Does God Know the Future? Can God be Mistaken?: A Reply to Richard Swinburne.” Asbury Theological Journal 56 (Fall 2001): 5-47.
Wright, R. K. McGregor. No Place for Sovereignty., IVP, 1996.
Yuille, Steven. “How Pastoral is Open Theism? A Critique from the Writings of George

Swinnock and Steven Charnock.” Themelios 32/2 (Jan. 2007): 46-61.

5. Doctoral Dissertations and Masters Theses: Doctoral Dissertations:

1. Park, Dong Sik. The God-World Relation Between Joseph Bracken, Phillip Clayton, and Open Theism. Claremont Graduate School, 2012.
2. Baker, Vaughn. Evangelism and the Openness of God: The Implications of Relational Theism for Evangelism and Missions. University of South Africa, 2011.
3. Holtzen, William Curtis. Dei Fide: A Relational Theology of the Faith of God. University of South Africa, 2007.

4. Ham, T. C. Relational Metaphors and Omniscience in the Hebrew Bible (PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2007).
5. Holland, Richard. God and Time: Rethinking the Relationship in Light of the Incarnation of Christ (PhD, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, 2007).
6. Ostrom, William Bruce. Divine Sovereignty and the Religious Problem of Evil: An Evaluation of Evangelical Models (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2007).
7. Rissler, James D. Divine providence and human libertarian freedom: Reasons for incompatibility and theological alternatives. University of Notre Dame, 2006, 322 pages.
8. Calvert, Michael. Paradox Lost: Open Theism and the Deconstruction of Divine Incomprehensibility—A Critical Analysis (PhD, Trinity Theological Seminary, 2005).
9. Harmon, Jerry. Exodus 24.6-7: A Hermeneutical Key in the Open Theism Debate (PhD, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005).

10. Moore, Scott. The Problem of Prayer (PhD, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2006).

11. Campbell, Travis. The Beautiful Mind: A Reaffirmation and Reconstruction of the Classical Reformed Doctrines of the Divine Omniscience, Prescience, and Human Freedom. Westminster Theological Seminary (2004).

12. Gilbert, Kevin James. The rule of express terms and the limits of fellowship in the Stone-Campbell movement: T. W. Brents, a test case. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2004.

13. Robinson, Franklin Webster. Adversity, crisis counseling, and the openness of God: An evaluation of open theism for pastoral response to victims of violence. Azusa Pacific University, 2002.

14. Kersey, Kent Allen The freedom of God and man: A critical analysis of the relationship between providence and anthropology in Open Theism. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002.

15. Ladd, Steven Willis Theological indicators supporting an evangelical conception of eternity: A study of God’s relation to time in light of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002.

16. Steven Roy, How Much Does God Foreknow? An Evangelical Assessment of the Doctrine of the Extent of the Foreknowledge of God in Light of the Teaching of Open Theism, Trinity International University, 2000. Now published.

17. Tae Soo Park, A Biblical Response to Open Theism: Christology in the Four Gospels. Bob Jones University 2004.

Masters Theses:

1. Conn, Jeremy. Developing Doctrinal Criterion for Evaluating Orthodoxy andHeresy: Open Theism as a Test Case. Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary,2011.
2. Belt, Thomas G. A Critical Evaluation of the Religious Adequacy of OpenTheism: Toward an Open Theistic Theology of Petitionary Prayer. University of Wales, 2007

3. Manning, John. Does God Suffer? Australian College of Theology, November 2006.
4. McLaughlin, Ryan Patrick. God of Authentic Rapport: A Tale of MeinIgenes. Ashland Theological Seminary, August 2006.
5. Lim, Joung Bin. A Thomistic Account of Divine Providence and Human Freedom. Texas A&M University, 2005.
6. Verhage, Kara Elizabeth. Prayer and a Partially Unsettled Future: A Theological Framework for Prayer From the Perspective of Open Theism Emphasizing Prayers of Supplication. Luther Seminary, 2004.
7. Thompson, Matthew K., Openness and Perichoresis: An Analysis of Pentecostal Spirituality Toward a Pentecostal Doctrine of God. Saint Paul School of Theology, 2003.
8. Nichols, Jason. Omniscience in the Divine Openness: A Critical Analysis of Present Knowledge in God. Trinity International University, 1997.
9. Jason Brian Santos, Jean Calvin’s classical divine providence juxtaposed with John Sanders’s Risk theology and the pastoral implications of Theodicy. Wheaton College Graduate School, 2002.
10. Pillai, Jessica D. God’s Change of Mind. Denver Seminary, 2004.
11. Joseph Holt: Predicating Infinity of God: An Open Theist Perspective. BethelSeminary, St. Paul, MN, 2001.
12. Craig W. Thompson. John Sanders’s Philosophy of Religious Language: anAnalysis of Divine Predication in the God Who Risks, Dallas TheologicalSeminary, 2002.
13. Jonathan L. Master, Exodus 32 as an Argument for Traditional Theism. CapitolBible Seminary, 2002.
14. Irwin, Ben. The Sovereignty of God and the Biblical Narrative: A Response toOpen Theism. Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, May, 2002.

15. Dana Arledge, Does Scripture teach libertarian Freedom? Grand Rapids Baptist

Seminary, 2003. News articles:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Bollag, Burton. “Can God see the future? Some evangelical scholars are taking worldly heat for suggesting that divine knowledge has its limits.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov 26, 2004 v51 i14 pA11-A14.
Bollag, Burton. “Peer Review,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 2/18/2005, Vol. 51 Issue 24, pA8, 1/2p, 3c;

“One God, Hold the Omniscience,” Michael Valpy. Toronto Globe and Mail 9/3/2005. F7.

“Redfining Omniscience.” Bill Broadway; The Washington Post; Nov 8, 2003; pg. B.09

“2 Escape Expulsion by Evangelical Group” Bill Broadway. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Nov 22, 2003. pg. B.09
“Process, Open Theologians Debate” Thomas Oord, Science and Theology News. 4.5 (Jan 2004), pp. 2, 32.

Smith, James. “What God Knows,” Christian Century 7/12/2005, 122.14, p30-33.

8. “College to close out ‘open theism’ scholar.” By: Dart, John. Christian Century, 12/28/2004, Vol. 121 Issue 26, p13, 2/3p,
9. “Open Theism Scholars Retained,” Christian Century, 12/13/2003, 120.25, p14.

10. “Evangelicals in the dock” Leithart, Peter J. First Things, 141 Mr 2004, p 9-11.

11. “Cracks in the Ivory Tower,” Allen Guelzo. Books & Culture (Summer, 2005).
12. “Does God know what you’re thinking now?” Richard N. Ostling, Halifax DailyNews 08-03-2003

13. “Theological society won’t oust two ‘open theists’” Adelle Banks Religion News

Service 12-05-2003

14. “Society Keeps Open Theists,” San Antonio Express-News 11-22-2003
15. “Evangelical theologians reject ‘open theism’” Gorski, Eric The Christian Century118.34 12-12-2001 p. 10
16. “Theologians Divided over Free Will,” Eric Gorski, Colorado Springs Gazette11/24/2001.
17. “How Much Control Does God Have? Ray Waddle Tennessean 01-20-2001 3B
18. “Area Religious Colleges Wrestle With Orthodoxy.” Rebecca Green, Fort WayneJournal Gazette May 21, 2005, Page 1C.

19. “Love is the Answer,” Kevin Kilbane. Fort Wayne News Sentinel. 3/5/ 1999, 20. Open or Closed Case? Controversial theologian John Sanders on way out at

Huntington. Stan Guthrie Christianity Today, 12/22/2004
21. “Open to Healing,” Neff, David. Christianity Today, Jan2004, 48.1, p21.
22. “Closing the Door on Open Theists?” Doug Koop Christianity Today, Jan2003,

p24.
23. “Foreknowledge Debate Clouded by ‘Political Agenda.’” Neff, David.

Christianity Today 11/19/2001
24. “God at Risk” By: Zoba, Wendy Murray. Christianity Today, 03/05/2001, 45.4,

p56-9.
25. “Did Open Debate Help the Openness Debate? Christianity Today, 2/19/2001 26. “God vs God” Christianity Today, 2/7/2000
27. “Do Good Fences Make Good Baptists? Christianity Today, 8/8/2000

The post Bibliography on Open Theism appeared first on OpenTheism.info.

Below are titles of books, articles, essays, and dissertations pertaining to “relational theology.” The list includes works on open theism, process theology, and others that are either for or against a relational understanding of God. The list is limited to materials published about a decade prior to 2002.

Basinger, David. The Case for Freewill Theism: A Philosophical Assessment. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1996.

________. “Practical Implications.” In The Openness of God. Pinnock, et. al. InterVarsity Press, 1994.

________. “Can a Christian Justifiably Deny God’s Exhaustive Knowledge of the Future?” Christian Scholar’s Review. 25 (December, 1995): 133-145.

Bauman, Whitney. “God’s Creation, God’s Created, and God’s Creating: A Process View of Eschatology,” in the CTNS Bulletin, vol 21, no 4 (Fall 2001): 12-17.

Beckwith, Francis. “Limited Omniscience and the Test for a Prophet: A Brief Philosophical Analysis.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 36 no. 3 (Sept. 1993): 357-62.

Beilby, James and Eddy, Paul. Eds. Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2001.

Berthrong, John H. All under Heaven: Transforming Paradigms in Confucian-Christian Dialogue. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1994.

Berthrong, John H. Concerning Creativity: A Comparison of Chu Hsi, Whitehead, and Neville. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1998.

Bloesch, Donald. God the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love. Christian Foundations. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995.

Boyd, Gregory. God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

________. God of the Possible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.
________. Letters From a Skeptic. Colorado Springs, Co: Chariot Victor, 1994.
________. Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Warfare Theodicy. Downers Grove,

IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
________. Trinity and Process: A Critical Evaluation and Reconstruction of Hartshorne’s Di-

polar Theism Towards a Trinitarian Metaphysics. New York: Peter Lang, 1992. Bracken, Joseph and Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, eds. Trinity in Process: A Relational Theology

of God. New York: Continuum, 1997.
________. The One in the Many: A Contemporary Reconstruction of the God-World

Relationship. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001.
________. Bracken, Joseph. “Proposals for Overcoming the Atomism Within Process- Relational Metaphysics.” Process Studies 23:1 (Spring 1994): 10-24.
Bray, Gerald. The Personal God. Patternoster, 1999.
Breazeale, Kathlyn A. “Don’t Blame It on the Seeds: Toward a Feminist Process Understanding

of Anthropology, Sin and Sexuality.” Process Studies 22, no.2 (summer, 1993): 71-73. _____. “Marriage After Patriarchy?: Partner Relationships and Public Religion.” In Religion in

a Pluralism Age: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Philosophical Theology, eds. Donald A. Crosby and Charley D. Hardwick. Peter Lang Press, 2001.

_____. “Process Perspectives on Sexuality, Love and Marriage.” In Chalice Handbook on Process Theology, eds. Jay McDaniel and Donna Bowman. Chalice Press, forthcoming.

Brummer, Vincent. The Model of Love: A Study in Philosophical Theology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

_____Speaking of a Personal God. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Callen, Barry L. God as Loving Grace: The Biblically Revealed Nature and Work of God.

Nappanee, Ind.: Evangel, 1996.
________. Journey Toward Renewal: An Intellectual Biography. Nappanee, Indiana: Evangel

Publishing House, 2000.
Carson, D. A. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in

Tension. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994.
Ciocchi, David. “The Religious Adequacy of Free-will Theism,” Religious Studies 38 (2002): 45

61.
Cobb, John B. Jr. Grace and Responsibility: A Wesleyan Theology for Today. Nashville:

Abingdon, 1995.
________. The Process Perspective: Frequently Asked Questions about Process Theology. St.

Louis: Chalice Press, 2003.
________. Reclaiming the Church. Westminster John Knox, 1997.
________. Transforming Christianity and the World. Orbis, 1999
________. Postmodernism and Public Policy: Reframing Religion, Culture, Education,

Sexuality, Class, Race, Politics, and the Economy. Albany, N.Y.: State University Press

of New York, 2001.
________. and Clark H. Pinnock eds. Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue between

Process and Free Will Theists. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000. Coleman, Monica A. “The World At Its Best: A Process Construction of a Wesleyan

Understanding of Entire Sanctification.” Wesleyan Theological Journal. 37.2 ( Fall

2002) 130-152.
Daniell, Anne. “The Spiritual Body: Incarnations of Pauline and Butlerian Embodiment Themes for Constructive Theologizing toward the Parousia,” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion. 16:1 (Spring 2000): 5-22.
Dean, William. “Historical Process Theology: A Field in a Map of Thought.” Process Studies.

28:4 (Fall-Winter 1999): 244-266.
Dombrowski, Dan. Analytic Theism, Hartshorne, and the Concept of God Albany: State

University of New York Press, 1996.
________. Kazantzakis and God Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997. ________. Divine Beauty: The Aesthetics of Charles Hartshorne (Nashville: Vanderbilt

University Press, 2003).
________.Being Is Power,” American Journal of Theology & Philosophy 16 (1995): 299-314. ________. “God As Absolute and Relative,” Encounter 56 (1995).
Doud, Robert. “The Biblical Heart and Process Anthropology,” Horizons 1996 (23/2: 281 – 95). ________. “Ereignis in Heidegger and Concrescence in Whitehead.” Existentia, 2001 (XI/1-

2: 1 – 12).

________. “A Whiteheadian Interpretation of Baudelaire’s Poetry.” Process Studies 2002 (31.2)

Durie, Robin. “Immanence and Difference: Toward A Relational Ontology.” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 40:2 (Summer 2002): 161-189.

Erickson, Millard. God the Father Almighty. Baker, 1998.
Erickson, Millard. What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan, 2003.
Farley, Edward. Divine Empathy: A Theology of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.
Farmer, Ronald L. Beyond the Impasse: The Promise of a Process Hermeneutic. Macon, Ga.:

Mercer University Press, 1997.
Feinberg, John. The One True God. Crossway Books, 2001.
Flint, Thomas. Divine Providence: The Molinist Account. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,

1998.
Ford, Lewis S., Review: Clark Pinnock, et. al. The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the

Traditional Understanding of God. International Journal of Philosophy of Religion 41

(February 1997): 63-65.
________. Transforming Process Theism. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press,

2000.
Frame, John. No Other God: A Response to Open Theism. Presbyterian and Reformed, 2001. Franklin, Stephen T. The Dying of the Sacred Light: An Essay on Religion and Culture in

America. Unpublished manuscript presented at The Enlightenment in Evangelical and

Process Perspectives Conference, Claremont, California, 20-22 March, 1997. Fretheim, Terrence. The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective (Philadelphia:

Fortress, 1984).
________. Exodus (Westminster/John Knox, 1991).
________. “The Book of Genesis,” in New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. I, ed. L. E. Keck, et al.

(Nashville: Abingdon, 1994).
________. First and Second Kings (Westminster/John Knox, 1999). ________. Jeremiah (Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 2002).

________. “Theological Reflections on the Wrath of God in the Old Testament.” Horizons in Biblical Theology. 24:2 (December, 2002).

________. “Law in the Service of Life: A Dynamic Understanding of Law in Deuteronomy.” In

A God So Near: Essays in Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller

(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003): 183-200.
________. “Old Testament Foundations for an Environmental Theology,” in Currents in Biblical

and Theological Dialogue, ed. J. Stafford (Winnipeg: St. John’s College, Univ. of

Manitoba, 2002): 58-68.
________. “The Character of God in Jeremiah.” In Character and Scripture: Moral Formation,

Community and Biblical Interpretation, ed. W.P. Brown (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

2002): 211-230.
________. “Hearing God from the Other,” Word and World. 22:3 (Summer 2002): 304-306. ________. “The Earth Story in Jeremiah 12,” in Readings from the Perspective of Earth, ed. N.

Habel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000): 96-110.
________. “God,” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000): 510-514.
________. “Divine Judgment and the Warming of the World: An Old Testament Perspective,” in

God, Evil, and Suffering: Essays in Honor of Paul R. Sponheim, ed. T. Fretheim and C.

Thompson (St. Paul, MN: Word and World Supplement Series 4, 2000): 21-32. ________. “Christology and the Old Testament.” In Who Do You Say That I Am: Essays on

Christology, ed. M. Powell and D. Bauer (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1999):

201-215.
________. “To Say Something–About God, Evil, and Suffering.” Word and World. 19:4 (Fall

1999): 339, 346-350.
________. “Some Reflections on Brueggemann’s God,” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter

Brueggemann, ed. T. Linafelt & T. Beal (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998): 24-37. ________. “Divine Dependence upon the Human: An Old Testament Perspective.” Ex Auditu.

13 (1997): 1-13.
________. “The God Who Acts: An Old Testament Perspective.” Theology Today. 54:1 (April

1997): 6-18.
________. “God in Exodus.” Creative Transformation. 4/1 (Autumn 1994): 1, 3-5.

________. “Salvation in the Bible vs. Salvation in the Church.” Word and World. 13:4 (Fall 1993): 363-372.

Geisler, Norman and House, Wayne. The Battle for God. Kregel 2001.
Geisler, Norman. Creating God in the Image of Man? Bethany, 1997.
Grenz, Stanley J. The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago

Dei. Westminster John Knox, 2001.
Griffin, David Ray. Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the Conflicts. Albany: State

University of New York Press, 2000.
________. Scientific Naturalism and Christian Faith: A New Synthesis. Louisville: Westminster

John Knox Press, 2004 (forthcoming)
________. “Process Theodicy, Christology, and the Imitatio Dei,” in Jewish Theology and

Process Thought, ed. Sandra Lubarsky and David Ray Griffin (Albany: State

University of New York Press, 1996), 95-125.
________. “A Naturalistic Trinity,” Trinity in Process: A Relational Theology of God, ed. Bracken Joseph A. and Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki (New York: Continuum, 1997), 23-40. ________. “Reconstructive Theology,” The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology, ed.

Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 92-108. ________. “Panentheism: A Postmodern Revelation,” In Whom We Live and Move and Have

Our Being: Reflections on Panentheism for a Scientific Age, ed. Philip Clayton and

Arthur Peacocke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).
________. “Liberal But Not Modern: Overcoming the Liberal-Conservative Antitheses.”

Lexington Theological Quarterly. 28 no. 3 (Fall 1993): 201-222.
________. “Process Theology and the Christian Good News: A Response to Classical Free Will

Theism.” Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue between Process and Free Will Theists. John B. Cobb, Jr., and Clark H. Pinnock, eds. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000.

________. Reenchantment Without Supernaturalism: A Process Philosophy of Religion. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2001.

Hallman, Joseph M. The Descent of God: Divine Suffering in History and Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.

Hardy, Douglas S. “A Winnicottian Redescription of Christian Spiritual Direction Relationships: Illustrating the Potential Contribution of Psychology of Religion to Christian Spiritual Practice,” Journal of Psychology and Theology. 28/4 (2000):251-263.

___________. “A Response to Haynes,” Journal of Psychology and Theology. 28/4 (2000): 268- 269.

Hasker, William. “An Adequate God.” Searching for An Adequate God. John B. Cobb, Jr. and Clark H. Pinnock, eds. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000.

________. Providence, Evil, and the Openness of God. London: Routledge, forthcoming 2004. ________.”Is Free-Will Theism Religiously Inadequate? A Reply to Ciocchi,” Religious

Studies, forthcoming.
________. “The Antinomies of Divine Providence,” Philosophia Christi, 4:2 (2002): 361-75. ________. “Counterfactuals and Evil: A Reply to Geivett,” Philosophia Christi, forthcoming. ________. “The God Who Takes Risks,” in Michael Peterson, ed., ContemporaryDebates in

Philosophy of Religion, Oxford: Blackwell, forthcoming 2003.
________. “Response to Helm,” in Michael Peterson, ed., Contemporary Debates in Philosophy

of Religion, Oxford: Blackwell, forthcoming 2002.
________. “The Problem of Evil in Process Theism and Classical Free Will Theism,” Process

Studies 29:2 (Fall/Winter 2000): 194-208.
________. “‘Bitten to Death by Ducks’: A Reply to Griffin,” Process Studies 29:2 (Fall/Winter

2000): 227-32.
________. “In Response to David Ray Griffin,” in Searching for an Adequate God, 39-52. ________. “The Openness of God,” Christian Scholar’s Review 28:1 (Fall 1998): 111-23. ________. “Tradition, Divine Transcendence, and the Waiting Father,” Christian Scholar’s

Review 28:1 (Fall 1998): 134-39.
________. “Providence and Evil: Three Theories,” Religious Studies 28 (1992): 91-105. ________. “A Philosophical Perspective.” The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the

Traditional Understanding of God. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1994. Helm, Paul. “Does God Take Risks in Governing the Universe?” in Michael Peterson ed.

Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion. Blackwell, 2003.
Highfield, Ronald. “The Function of Divine Self-Limitation in Open Theism.” Journal of the

Evangelical Theological Society, 45.2 (June 2002): 279-300.
Holt, Joseph. Predicating Infinity of God: An Open Theist Perspective. M.A. thesis, Bethel

Seminary, St. Paul, MN, 2001.
Horton, Michael. “Hellenistic or Hebrew? Open Theism and Reformed Theological Method.”

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 45.2 (June 2002): 317-342.
Howell, Nancy. A Feminist Cosmology: Ecology, Solidarity, and Metaphysics. Humanity Books,

2000.
Huffman, Douglas and Johnson, Eric. eds. God Under Fire. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,

2002.
Inbody, Tyron L. The Transforming God: An Interpretation of Suffering and Evil. Louisville:

Westminster John Knox, 1997.
Johnson, Elizabeth A. She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse. New

York: Crossroad, 1996.
Judd, Daniel. ed. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Religion. McGraw

Hill, 2002.
Keller, Catherine. From a Broken Web, Beacon Press, Boston, 1986 ________.Apocalypse Now and Then, Beacon, 1996.
________. and Daniell, Anne. Process and Difference: Between Cosmological and

Poststructuralist Postmodernisms. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002. ________. Face of the Deep, Routledge, New York, 2003.
Korsmeyer, Jerry D. Evolution and Eden: Balancing Original Sin and Contemporary Science.

New York: Paulist Press, 1998.
Lamp, Jeffrey S. Review: Clark H. Pinnock, et. al. The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge

to the Traditional Understanding of God. Wesleyan Theological Journal. 31 (Spring

1996): 229-231.
Lodahl, Michael Eugene. “Creation out of Nothing? Or is Next to Nothing Enough? Thy Nature

and Thy Name is Love: Wesleyan and Process Theologies in Dialogue. Bryan P. Stone

and Thomas Jay Oord, eds. Nashville, Tenn.: Kingswood, 2001.
________. The Story of God: Wesleyan Theology and Biblical Narrative. Kansas City: Beacon

Hill, 1994.

________. God of Nature and of Grace: Reading the World in a Wesleyan Way. Nashville: Kingswood/Abingdon, 2004.

________. “‘And He Felt Compassion’: Holiness Beyond the Bounds of Community.” In Embodied Holiness, eds. Samuel M. Powell and Michael E. Lodahl. Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 1999.
Lorenzen, Lynne F. The College Student’s Introduction to the Trinity. Collegeville, MN:

Liturgical Press, 1999.
Maddox, Randy L. Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology. Nashville: Abingdon,

1994.
Master, Jonathan L. Exodus 32 as an Argument for Traditional Theism. Th.M. thesis, Capitol

Bible Seminary, 2002.
McLachlan, James. “The Mystery of Evil and Freedom: Gabriel Marcel’s Reading of Schelling’s Of Human Freedom “ in Philosophy and Theology, 12 (2) 2000.
________. “Fragments for a Process Theology of Mormonism” in Element: The Journal of

Mormon Philosophy. (Forthcoming).
________. “The Desire to be God: The Theological Character of Sartre’s Atheology” in Epoché: A Journal for the History of Philosophy, Winter 1998
________. “Mythology and Freedom: Nicholas Berdyaev and the Ungrund” in Philosophy

Today, Winter 1996
________. “The Idealist Critique of Idealism: Bowne’s Personalism and Howison’s City of

God,” in The Personalist Forum, Winter 1998.
________. “George Holmes Howison: The Conception of God Debate and the Beginnings of

Personal Idealism” The Personalist Forum, Vol. X no. 4 (Fall) 1995.
________. “Persons, Creativity, and God: Some Mormon Thoughts about Process Thought” in

Mormonism and Contemporary Christian Theology, David Paulsen, ed. State University

of New York Press and Brigham Young University Press. (forthcoming)
________. “Berdyaev’s Uses of Jacob Boehme’s Ungrund Myth.” in McLachlan, James, ed.

Philosophical and Religious Conceptions of the Person and Their Implications for Ethical, Political, and Social Thought. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2003.

Meeks, M. Douglas. God the Economist: The Doctrine of God and Political Economy. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.

Miller, Patrick D. “Prayer as Persuasion: The Rhetoric and Intention of Prayer.” Word and World 13, no. 4 (1993): 356-362.

________. They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer. Minneapolis, Fortress, 1994.

Nichols, Jason. Omniscience in the Divine Openness: A Critical Analysis of Present Knowledge in God. M.A. thesis, Trinity International University, 1997.

Nobuharu, Tokiyuki. “God and Emptiness: Cause, Reasons, and the World’s Abyss. Forms of Panentheism in Religion and Nature” in: Sybille Fritsch-Oppermann, ed. Zufall, Notwendigkeit, Bestimmung: Der Dialog zwischen Naturwissenschaft und Religion ueber Schoepfung und Naturangesichts der Fragen von Kausalitaet und Determination, Loccumer Protokolle 15/01, Evangelische Akademie Loccum, Germany, 2001.

________. “Portraying ‘Authentic Existence’ By the Method of Analogy: Toward Creative Uses of the Analogy of Attribution Duorum Ad Tertium for Comparative Philosophy of Religion.” Bulletin of Keiwa College. 1 (February 1992): 61-83; 2 (February 1993): 127- 50: 3 (February 1994): 1-19.

________. “How Can Experience Give Rise to Religious Self-Awareness and Then to the Topological Argument for the Existence of God Cogently? Nishida, Whitehead and Pannenberg.” Process Thought. 6 (September 1995): 125-150.

________. “Hartshorne and Hisamatsu on Human Nature: A Study of Christian and Buddhist Metaphysical Anthropology.” Bulletin of Keiwa College. 5 (February 1996): 1-49.

________. “Christ As the Problem of Analogy: Concerning the Theological-Analogical Significance of Q and the Gospel of Thomas.” Bulletin of Keiwa College. 6 (February 1997): 25-51.

________. “A New Possibility for Logos Christology Through Encounter with Buddhism: Tillich and Takizawa Critically Considered and Compared.” Bulletin of Keiwa College. 7

(March 1998): 91-118; 9 (March 1999): 107-137.
________. “Toward a Global Ethic of Loyalty/Fidelity/Truthfulness.” Bulletin of Keiwa

College. 9 (February 2000): 1-27.

Olson, Roger E. “Whales and Elephants: Both God’s Creatures But Can They Meet?” Pro Ecclesia 4.2 (Spring 1995): 165-89.

Olson, Roger. “Has God Been Held Hostage by Philosophy? A forum on free- will theism, a new paradigm for understanding God.” Christianity Today, 39 (Ja 9 1995): 30-34

Oord, Thomas Jay. “The Divergence of Evangelical and Process Theologies: Is the Impasse Insurmountable?” ARC: Journal for the McGill Faculty of Religious Studies. Forthcoming.

________. “Divine Love” and “Theodicy.” Philosophy of Religion: Introductory Essays. Thomas Jay Oord, ed. Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill Press, 2003.

________. “Evil, Providence, and a Relational God.” Quarterly Review. 23:3 (Fall 2003): 238- 250.

________. “Boston Personalism’s Affinities and Disparities with Wesleyan Theology and Process Philosophy,” Wesleyan Theological Journal. 37:2 (Fall 2002): 115-129.

________. Matching Theology and Piety: An Evangelical Process Theology of Love. Ph.D. Thesis. Claremont Graduate University, 1999.

________. “Evangelical and Process Theologies.” Chalice Handbook of Theology. St. Louis, Mo.: Chalice. Forthcoming.

________. “Divine Power and Love: An Evangelical Process Proposal.” Koinonia: The Princeton Theological Seminary Graduate Forum. X.1 (Spring 1998): 1-18.

________. “A Postmodern Wesleyan Philosophy and David Ray Griffin’s Postmodern Vision.” Wesleyan Theological Journal. 35.1 (2000): 216-44.

________. “A Process Wesleyan Theodicy: Freedom, Embodiment and the Almighty God.” Thy Nature and Thy Name is Love: Wesleyan and Process Theologies in Dialogue. Bryan P. Stone and Thomas Jay Oord, eds. Nashville, Tenn.: Kingswood, 2001.

Park, Andrew Sung. “Self-Denial for Racists and Their Victims in Japan,” in Surviving Terror: Hope and Justice in a World of Violence (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2002), edited by Victoria Lee Erickson and Michelle Lim Jones

________. “A Theology of the Way (Tao),” in Interpretation (October 2001): 389-399. ________. The Other Side of Sin (New York: State University of New York Press, 2001), co-

editor: Susan Nelson

________. “A Theology of Transmutation,” in A Dream Unfinished, edited by Eleazar Fernandez & Fernando Segovia. Maryknoll: Orbis, 2001.
________. “God Who Needs Our Salvation,” in The Changing Face of God, edited by Frederick

W. Schmidt (Morehouse Publishing, 2000)
________. “Asian-American Theology,” in Dictionary of Third World Theologies edited by V.

Fabella and R. S. Sugirtharajah, (Orbis, 2000)
________. “Sin and Han–the Pain of a Victim,” The Living Pulpit ( October-December 1999):

22-23.
________. “Theo-Orthopraxis,” Journal of Theology 1993
________. The Wounded Heart of God: The Asian Concept of Han and the Christian Doctrine of

Sin. Nashville: Abingdon, 1993.
Peters, Ted. God as Trinity: Relationality and Temporality in Divine Life. Louisville, KY:

Westminster/John Knox, 1993.
Picirilli, Robert. “An Arminian Response to John Sanders’s The God Who Risks: A Theology of

Providence.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 44/2 (September 2001):

467-491.
Picirilli, Robert. “Foreknowledge, Freedom, and the Future.” Journal of the Evangelical

Theological Society, 43/2 (June 2000): 259-271.
Pinnock, Clark. Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity,

1996.
________. Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker

Academic, 2001.
________, et. al. The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding

of God. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1994.
________, and R. Brow. Unbounded Love: A Good News Theology for the 21st Century.

Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1994.
Piper, John. ed. Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity.

Chicago: Crossway, 2003.
Placher, William C. Narratives of a Vulnerable God: Christ, Theology, and Scripture.

Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.

Polkinghorne, John, ed. The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001.

Pratt, Douglass. Relational Deity: Hartshorne and Macquarrie on God. Lanham: University Press of America, 2002.

Pyne, Robert and Spencer, Stephen. “A Critique of Free-Will Theism.”, in two parts Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (July 2001): 259-286 and (October 2001).

Rice, Richard. “Biblical Support for a New Perspective.” The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional understanding of God. Clark H. Pinnock, et at. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1994.

________. “Process Theism and the Open View of God: The Crucial Difference,” in Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue between Process and Free Will Theists, ed. John B. Cobb, Jr. and Clark H. Pinnock (Eerdmans, 2000).

________. “The Openness of God: A New Level of Discusion,” Spectrum: The Journal of the Association of Adventist Forums, Summer 2001, pp.56-63.

Robinson, Franklin Webster. Adversity, Crisis Counseling, and the Openness of God: An Evaluation of Open Theism for Pastoral Response to Victims of Violence. Doctoral dissertation, Azusa Pacific University, 2002.

Robinson, Michael. “Why Divine Foreknowledge?” Religious Studies 36: 251-275.
Roy, Steven. “How Much Does God Foreknow? An Evangelical Assessment of the Doctrine of

the Extent of the Foreknowledge of God in Light of the Teaching of Open Theism,”

Trinity International University (2000).
Sanders, John. The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1998. ________. With Chris Hall, Does God have a Future? A Debate on Divine Providence. Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.
________. “Historical Considerations” and “Introduction” in The Openness of God: A Biblical

Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1994. ________. “Why Simple Foreknowledge Offers No More Providential Control than the

Openness of God,” Faith and Philosophy 14, no. 1 (Jan. 1997): 26-40.
________. “Is Open Theism a Radical Revision or Miniscule Modification of Arminianism?”

Wesleyan Theological Journal (Fall 2003).

________. “The Assurance of Things to Come” in Looking to the Future, ed. David Baker, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2001.

________. “On Heffalumps and Heresies: Responses to Accusations Against Open Theism” Journal of Biblical Studies 2, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 1-44

________. “Be Wary of Ware: A Reply to Bruce Ware” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (June 2002): 221-231.

________. “A Tale of Two Providences.” Ashland Theological Journal 33 (2001): 41-55. ________. With Chris Hall, “Does God know your Next Move?” Christianity Today, May 21,

2001, pp. 38-45 and June 7, 2001, pp. 50-56.
________. “Truth at Risk,” Christianity Today, April 23, 2001, p. 103.
________. “Theological Lawbreaker?” Books and Culture (January, 2000) pp.10-11.

Reprinted in Daniel Judd, ed. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial

Issues in Religion. McGraw-Hill, 2002.
Sarot, Marcel. “Omnipotence and Self-Limitation.” Eds. Gijsbert van den Brink et. al.

Christian Faith and Philosophical Theology: Essays in Honour of Vincent

Brümmer. Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1992.
Schreiner, Thomas and Ware, Bruce. eds. The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will, Baker,

1999.
Sponheim, Paul R. Faith and the Other: A Relational Theology. Minneapolis:

Fortress, 1993.
Stone, Bryan P. and Thomas Jay Oord, eds. Thy Nature and Thy Name is Love: Wesleyan and

Process Theologies in Dialogue. Nashville, Tenn.: Kingswood, 2001.
Stratton, S. P. “Selfhood, Attachment, and Agency: Love and the Trinitarian Concept of

Personhood.” The Loss of Self in a Postmodern Therapeutic Culture. Paul P. Vitz, ed.

Forthcoming.
________. “Trinity, Attachment, and Love.” Catalyst. 29:4 (2003): 1-3.
Sturm, Douglas, ed. Belonging Together: Faith and Politics in a Relational World. Claremont,

CA: P&F Press, 2003.
________. Solidarity and Suffering: Towards a Politics of Relationality. Albany: State

University of New York Press, 1998.

Suchocki, Marjorie Hewitt. The Fall to Violence: Original Sin in Relational Theology. New York: Continuum, 1994.

________. In God’s Presence: Theological Reflections on Prayer. St. Louis: Chalice, 1996. ________. Divinity & Diversity: A Christian Affirmation of Religious Pluralism. Abingdon,

2003.
________. The Whispered Word: A Process Theology of Preaching. Chalice Press, 1999. ________. Suende: Ein Unverstaendlich Gewordenes Thema. Co-edited with Sigrid Brandt and

Michael Welker. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1997.
________. Co-Edited with Joseph Bracken Trinity in Process: A Relational Theology of God.

New York: Continuum, 1997.
Swinburne, Richard. The Coherence of Theism. Revised ed. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1993.
Thompson, Craig W. John Sanders’s Philosophy of Religious Language: An Analysis of Divine

Predication in ‘The God Who Risks’. Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2002. Tiessen, Terrance. Providence and Prayer. Downers Grove, IL. IVP, 2000.
Timpe, Kevin. “Toward a Process Philosophy of Petitionary Prayer.” Philosophy & Theology.

12.:2 (2000): 397-418.
Tupper, Frank. A Scandalous Providence: The Jesus Story of the Compassion of God. Macon, GA:

Mercer University Press, 1995.
Vacek, Edward Collins. Love, Human and Divine: The Heart of Christian Ethics. Washington,

D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1994.
________. “Love, Christian and Diverse.” Journal of Religious Ethics 24.1 (Spring 1996): 29- 41.
Viney, Donald Wayne. “Jules Lequyer and the Openness of God,” Faith and Philosophy. 14, no. 2

(April, 1997): 212-235.
________. The Life and Thought of Charles Hartshorne. Pittsburgh, Kans.: Logos-Sophia, 1997. Voskuil, Duane. “Hartshorne, God and Metaphysics: How the Cosmically Inclusive Personal

Nexus and World Interact Process Studies, 28/3-4, Fall-Winter 1999. Ware, Bruce. God’s Lesser Glory. Crossway Books, 2000.

Wheeler, David. “Toward a Process-Relational Christian Eschatology.” Process Studies 22:4 (Winter 1993): 227-237.

White, Carol Wayne. “Recreating Ourselves: Valuing the Material, Relational Self.” In Belonging Together: Faith and Politics in a Relational World, ed., Sturm, Douglas. Claremont, CA: P&F Press, 2003, pp. 45-59.

Williams, Stephen N. “What God Doesn’t Know,” Books & Culture, November/December 1999. vol. 5, no 6, p.16.

Wright, R. K. McGregor. No Place for Sovereignty. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP, 1996.
Yerxa, Donald A. “A Meaningful Past and the Limits of History: Some Reflections Informed by

the Science-and-Religion Dialogue.” Fides et Historia, 34.1 Winter/spring 2002: 13-30. Yong, Amos. “Divine Knowledge and Relation to Time.” In Philosophy of Religion:

Introductory Essays. Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill, 2003.
________. “Possibility and Actuality: The Doctrine of Creation and Its Implications for Divine

Omniscience,” The Wesleyan Philosophical Society Online Journal

[http://david.snu.edu/~brint.fs/wpsjnl/v1n1.htm] 1:1 (2001).
________. “Divine Knowledge and Future Contingents: Weighing the Presuppositional Issues in
the Contemporary Debate,” Evangelical Review of Theology 26:3 (2002): 240-64.

The post Open and Relational Theologies Bibliography appeared first on OpenTheism.info.