Open Theism and Evangelicalism

Abstract

            When thinking about the knowledge of God or his power, humanity has struggled to find sufficient answers to how God has these attributes. The goal in this discourse is to see if a more modern option is evangelical or not. Open Theism has many proponents and has received significant backlash from its more conservative counterparts. Does Open Theism diminish the knowledge and/ or power of God? To what extent does this occur? The primary focus is to find if one can hold to an open view of God yet remain evangelical and to know if it is a viable option for Christians.

 

Outline

Introduction

Understanding Omniscience

Defining Omniscience

Views of Omniscience

Understanding the Openness of God

What does Clark Pinnock Believe

Critiques

Is Pinnock's View Evangelical

Conclusion

 

 

 

 

Introduction

            Discussing how God must or must not be is a complex topic to navigate due to the level of emotions attached to the idea of God. The goal within this discourse is to investigate the openness of God view, hopefully keeping negative emotions at bay, to discover if what they hold to be true of God has merit. The specific opinions being assessed are those put forward by Clark Pinnock; however, as one of the primary proponents of this position, his views will invariably overlap with others. The open view holds, "God, in grace, grants humans significant freedom to cooperate with or work against God's will for their lives, and he enters into dynamic, give-and-take relationships with us."[1] As Pinnock notes, the open view is based on understanding God's knowledge (and choice) and human freedom.

            The brunt of the material herein will be an analysis and attempted understanding of what would constitute the move towards the open view and if this view is a viable option for evangelical Christians. The first step will be to look at Omniscience and human freedom. One cannot take a meaningful position without understanding what constitutes both and how they relate. Second, there will be an analysis of Pinnock and his beliefs about God (specifically, God's Omniscience and human freedom). After these are reviewed, an attempt will be made to provide a thoughtful evaluation of Pinnock and how he fits into orthodox/ evangelical Christianity.

Understanding Omniscience

            Before anyone can understand the conversation, there needs to be a basic understanding of Omniscience. The goal here is to define, describe, and note any differences between the traditional and open view of God. Some sub-categories within this discussion affect how one understands it. When talking about God's knowledge, we must also understand how this relates to human freedom (if at all). The primary question in people's minds is if God knows that I will do something, do I still have freedom (in any meaningful sense)? There seems to be a fundamental difference between the traditional view of God and the open view. These are the points of discussion here, and hopefully, they can be sifted through clearly.

Defining Omniscience

            The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines Omniscience as "the property of having complete or maximal knowledge."[2] This seems to be a decent starting point for understanding God's knowledge. The problem arises when either a new definition of Omniscience is given or how one determines what classifies as knowledge. The primary issue within the discussion of God's knowledge is that the literature is not strictly consistent on what constitutes maximal knowledge or complete knowledge. This issue will take some fleshing out to get to the heart of the discussion.

            Swinburne suggests that Omniscience is "to say that P is omniscient at T if and only if he knows at T all true propositions."[3] Now, Swinburne does (throughout his chapter) provide deeper insights but also distinguishes between a strong and weak sense of Omniscience. Nuance is understood and shows a thoughtful approach, but for Christians, there seems to be the guiding principle, as laid out by Saint Anselm, that God is that which nothing greater can be conceived. This is important to keep at the forefront of our minds because if God does exist, then it seems reasonable to assume that he must necessarily be the greatest possible thing. If something could be possibly greater than God, then that thing would be God. The primary reason for bringing this issue to the fore is that considering some weakened sense of Omniscience seems to defeat the purpose of understanding God in the highest terms. This is in no way to argue for or against what was stated above but to supply a line of thinking as this process progresses.

            The difficulty in this topic is that assuming everyone agrees on a definition are the possible distinctions some will make within a particular description. For example, it may be acceptable that Omniscience is equal to maximal knowledge; however, some may distinguish between logically possible and logically impossible things. In essence, God would be unable to know logically impossible things because they could never be the case. Similarly, Hasker makes distinctions like this (along with most philosophers), "the distinction I have in mind is between knowing propositions about the future and knowing the concrete events of the future."[4] These distinctions are important, but it establishes camps that essentially do not or cannot agree on exact terms. This makes the discussion more convoluted. As a result of this, the laity is left in the dust, and polemics are high.

            With that said, this discourse may be accused of being overly simplistic or not providing enough nuance to understand God's greatness better. However, the goal is not to be simplistic but to be as accurate as possible, and sometimes the best approach in difficult situations like this is to simplify and then build up from there. The definition of Omniscience assumed herein is God knows all possible things to know. This idea is based on God's mind and his ability to intimately understand his creatures' workings. In the

conceptualist model of divine knowledge, God does not acquire his knowledge of the world by anything like perception. His knowledge of the future is not based on his 'looking' ahead and 'seeing' what lies in the future (a terribly anthropomorphic notion in any case). Rather, God's knowledge is self-contained; it is more like a mind's knowledge of innate ideas. As an omniscient being, God has essentially the property of knowing all true propositions; there are true propositions about future contingents; ergo, God knows all true propositions concerning future contingents.[5]

 

This definition of God's knowledge seems to be the highest understanding. God, as creator and sustainer, knows how all things work together and individually because he has an innate understanding of the things he creates. This can be thought of as God can conceptualize how a project will go and see all the possible variables within that project. This understanding leads to God knowing all possible things to know based on the potential actions of everything that he made because it was based on a blueprint (i.e., gravity acts as such, humans act as such, and individuals can act in such and such ways, etc.). The definition provided here is how the evaluation portion of this paper will go, and it is the underlying assumption that pervades as moving throughout.

            One last thing that must be pointed out that can significantly affect the acceptability of one's view of Omniscience is do you think human freedom and divine knowledge are compatible or not. "Compatibilists about free will maintain that free will is compatible with determinism, and incompatibilists disagree [sic]."[6] This is one sense in which the issue can be thought of. However, Helm breaks this down into three concepts: God's knowledge causes things, God's knowledge comes after his decree, and God's knowledge is before his decree and is conditioned on that decree.[7] These include how certain aspects of reality are prioritized and what one finds most important to maintain. For example, if someone does not accept that God decrees all things (determinism), then they will not accept that God gains his knowledge based on his actions. There is a strong connection (in the literature) between God's knowledge and human freedom and how these relate. It seems that the direction one takes in developing their concept of God's knowledge is heavily based on prior assumptions/ preferences based on their understanding of Scripture or philosophy. There is not enough space to parse out all the particulars in this case, but some basic views of Omniscience will be laid out, and then a focused section on Pinnock will follow.

Views of Omniscience (Focus on Pinnock)

            A common feature of most proponents of Divine Omniscience is that they affirm that God knows all there is to know. However, this typically means different things to different people. This means that although one person may affirm that God knows all there is to know, person A may say that this knowledge includes everything, but person B states it only includes possible things. There are particular nuances that each writer in this area focuses on, and thus it makes this attribute of God a little more difficult to nail down (at least a consensus).

            William Hasker states, "God is omniscient = It is impossible that God should at any time believe what is false or fail to know any true proposition such that his knowing that proposition at the time is logically possible."[8] For Hasker, this means that what is not real or has not been decided by the free agent is not possible, at least in some sense. It essentially comes down to the person's decision ultimately determining the truth value of that proposition, in which case God must wait to know what is true, in cases dealing with free agents.

            Some view God's knowledge as essentially determinative. What God knows is what humans do. But this leads one to theological fatalism and a universe where nothing is free. Yet some hold that God knows all things, but his knowledge is based on the free choices of creatures. The muddy waters of this issue make it extremely difficult to find a resolution. Clark Pinnock states, "God has sovereignly decided to make some of his actions contingent on our requests and actions."[9] Pinnock also says, "God chooses to exercise a general rather than a meticulous providence, allowing space for us to operate and for God to be resourceful in working with it."[10] Here, one can see that Pinnock is stating that God has sovereignty, and it is through God's sovereignty that he has allowed his knowledge to be subject.

            One final aspect of Omniscience that is important to note is how we understand God in this sense. Many will take a strictly philosophical approach to the topic. However, as Christians, we claim to have a direct revelation from God. Christianity is fundamentally a revelatory religion. Christians need to formulate an understanding of God that is thoroughly based on Scripture. Pinnock affirms that Scripture should be the fountain from which we drink. For Pinnock, he places the authority of the Bible above other things and distinguishes between the importance of philosophy and revelation. He says, "It is one thing for philosophy to provide categories to help us say what we want to say based on revelation, but quite another thing to adopt a worldview that has been developed apart from revelation and allow it to dominate us hermeneutically."[11]

Understanding the Openness of God

            The open view of God has its presuppositions (same as the most conservative views). Before a view can be critiqued, it must be understood at the most fundamental level. So, what is it that has caused the openness proponents to take the position they have? Hopefully, some of these reasons can be parsed out here. Rice states, "love is the most important quality we attribute to God, and love is more than care and commitment; it involves being sensitive and responsive as well."[12] Love must be freely given, or else it is not true love. Openness theologians genuinely care about the love of God and the reciprocal love that humanity gives back to God. The God of the Bible is one who "desires" mankind to give love back to him meaningfully, which must be given in a libertarian sense. The most fundamental presupposition of openness theology is that God is, was, and will always be love.

            As divine love is the foundation for their theological system, the classical understanding must go through changes or at least be modified. This is not due to some misunderstanding of classical Theism but rather that if God is love, then there are implications that follow. If humans are free (libertarian), then God's knowledge will be affected, and he will know things as they happen.[13] Openness theologians also view Scripture in a slightly different light. The descriptions of God as being surprised or relenting from an already chosen judgment cannot be simple anthropomorphisms but rather are metaphors that should give the reader pause. If Christianity is based on revelation and revelation says that God repented, the openness proponent does not wave their hand at Scripture as man writing themselves into the Bible but instead describes an authentic (though imperfect) description of the nature of God.

What Does Pinnock Believe?

            Pinnock does hold to the general aspects of openness theology. There are aspects of what he thinks that is different from his cohort. However, some of those things where he differs from his colleagues are not within the purview of this paper. Pinnock does offer some insights into openness thinking that are different than the others and also takes a strong position on being biblical (he desires to adhere to Scripture). For this reason, he is the focus of openness theology in this discourse.

            At bottom, Pinnock thinks that the surrounding culture, Hellenism, marred early Christianity.[14] Greek thought is seen as the thing that detracted from biblical revelation. It was Plato and Aristotle that had the most significant impact on the culture of the Church, and because of this impact, it affected the way Scripture was read. In Pinnock's view, openness theology is a getting back to a biblical picture of Yahweh. The theologians of old had made it a point to produce a philosophically strong version of God without realizing its implications on his attributes and what that meant for humanity. As noted above, Pinnock thinks that philosophy is good when left in its lane, but it is revelation that calls the shots. Philosophy helps to define categories and allows the language of the discussion to proceed forward. However, divine revelation is the source of the informational content of the discussion, not philosophy.

            Pinnock bases his claims on the idea that classical Christian theists have allowed Greek thinking to influence their interpretation of Scripture. A more biblically accurate method of interpretation is required (according to Pinnock) if the Christian is to be faithful to God and Christ. The classical theist tends to "see the text in 'cut and dried' terms, and they emphasize the Bible's rational/ propositional character."[15] For Pinnock, this way of viewing Scripture has limits and invariably hinders the interpretation and word from God to the Church. The justification for moving beyond this type of hermeneutical method is Jesus. Pinnock points to Jesus' use of Old Testament passages about His ministry. This is called the Scripture principle.[16] All of this culminates into the view of Spirit-hermeneutics, which Pinnock thinks is the best course of action when thinking about God's word. Using this Spirit-driven hermeneutic is not simply "cut and dried" but rather "balanced and nuanced" and used by Jesus and the disciples.[17] By using the tools at your disposal (the Spirit), the Christian has more freedom to interpret God's word accurately.

            For Pinnock, "the main emphasis of open theism is that God created the world for loving relations."[18] Love is the quintessential component of the creative act and is found within the triune Godhead.[19] Love is based on the nature of God and is found throughout the biblical narrative. He believes that love is not love unless it is freely given, which requires that humanity has libertarian free will. Due to the relationality of reality, God, and creation, it required God to adjust the level of sovereignty that he exhibited in the world. Pinnock clearly states, "It (open theism) holds that God could control the world if he wished to but that he has chosen not to do so for the sake of loving relationships."[20] There is no question in Pinnock's mind that God is fully capable of a Calvinistic level of sovereignty, but it is within this sovereignty that God has chosen a self-limitation in his use of it. Without this limitation set by God, the world would exist as a deterministic reality, which does not work with the divine drama in Scripture.

            Openness theology seeks to be scriptural in its approach to God and his nature. Because this is the case, Jesus Christ heavily influences how Pinnock (and others) view the nature of the Father. Barth gets to the heart of openness thinking and Pinnock by saying,

Who God is and what it is to be divine is something we have to learn where God has revealed Godself. We may believe that God can and must only be absolute in contrast to all that is relative, exalted in contrast to all that is lowly, active in contrast to all suffering, inviolable in contrast to all temptation, transcendent in contrast to all immanence, and therefore divine in contrast to everything human, in short that God can and must be only the Wholly Other. But such beliefs are shown to be quite untenable, corrupt, and pagan, by the fact that God does in fact be and do this in Jesus Christ.[21]

 

The nature of God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ must be at the fore of understanding the God of the Bible (according to Pinnock). This is fundamental Christianity; without Jesus Christ, there is no Christianity. Pinnock highlights the most prominent feature within the Church and wants to bring it to the forefront of how theological thinking is done.

            The open view seeks to break the chains of old and make God accessible to humanity again. Pinnock (and others) see the classical God as this far-off designer not relationally invested in his creation. Pinnock likens the major differences between the open view and the classical view: "the designer of a machine stands back from their work, but the designer of a community works inside the project and even experiences its growing pains."[22] The transcendence of God has been manifestly overstated, and it has been at the cost of a real and loving God. This goes back to the most important point which guides open Theism, love. The thinking is that love cannot be love unless it is experienced and free. But the question is does all of this make the best sense of what we know?

Critique

            As noted above, the primary issue within this debate is definitional. "The debate over the nature of God's foreknowledge is primarily a debate about the scope or perfection of God's knowledge."[23] Even in Craig's own words, the scope and perfection of God come down to a matter of definition and understanding. When the word scope is used, it means how much of something is considered. The problem is that the debaters seem to be talking past one another. Hopefully, the critique here will be gracious but not placating. The goal is always to develop and parse out the highest view of God as possible, and Pinnock believes he has found such a view.

            Pinnock has placed the charge against the church as possessing paganism within its theological structure. Of course, "in the Mediterranean context, the dominant culture was the Greek perspective (or Hellenism) that had been spread far and wide by Alexander the Great,"[24] but this does not equate to a full submission by the church to this culture. In fact, throughout the New Testament (NT), the apostles and others often went against the culture of the time. Now, Pinnock may have in mind the progression of the church since he regards Scripture as the foundation on which we should be gaining our theological knowledge. There is some weight to the idea of Greek philosophy being used in the church with terms such as Logos being used. Writers during this time would have been influenced by Plato (Justin Martyr and Philo), and Greek categories would be the easiest way to reach those in the culture.[25] As Christians, we are not to love the world (fleshly or anti-God) things, and yet the church was given the great commission (Matt. 28). If the dominant culture was Greek, then it makes sense to translate the gospel message and understanding of God into terms the culture would understand. This has been done throughout time (e.g., Tillich, Barth, Chesterton, Calvin, Luther, etc.), and it would be difficult to prove that in every case where translation occurs, a deviation is also present. To put it simply, Pinnock has overstated his case here, and it is not that Greek philosophy has thoroughly contaminated biblical thought, instead the church used the language to further expound upon the mysteries of God the best way they knew how (Note: that one could argue that Pinnock's modern philosophy has influenced his theology).

            Love is the most fundamental component of God, and it determines what he will choose to do with creation and his being. The fact that God is love is a point of non-contention; this is a pervasive theme throughout the biblical canon. Many can and probably should sympathize with this understanding of God. It does seem that if God is perfectly loving, then this would impact what he does and how he does it. This does not mean that he will adhere to some standard of decision-making as established by a human being (Rom. 9:20). Rather, it is based on a full-orbed but imperfect understanding of God as encompassing many attributes, love being one of them. The only issue here is that it is difficult to see why love should be the attribute that is elevated above the rest. It appears that Pinnock has arbitrarily established love as God's greatest and guiding attribute.

            Pinnock's answer for how God does not know future realities is that God has sovereignly decided not to know these things.[26] This kenotic theory of Omniscience seems to be marred in problems. It appears that Omniscience (or any "omni-quality") would be something a person has or does not have. For example, the thought experiment of God being able to create a stone too heavy for him to lift is a close representation of what Pinnock is attempting. If God can create a stone too heavy for him to lift, then he is not omnipotent. Similarly, it seems that if God can create a world in which he (though freely chooses) not to know all things, then he is not omniscient. If we were trying to give someone a surprise and tell them to cover their eyes and not peek, it is not that the person lacks the ability to see the surprise because all that must be done is for them to move their fingers. Are we to think of God as putting up his metaphorical hands to cover his eyes (knowledge in this case) so he can be surprised by the goings-on of creation? This seems quite an absurd vision of the great creator God who sustains the universe.

            However, Pinnock's most convincing thought in favor of his view is that, "we might say that who God is does not change but what God experiences changes. God's nature does not change but his activities and relationships are dynamic. God's character is stable [sic] but God is not static when it comes to associating with creation."[27] Here, one can see the intention of Pinnock in keeping the solidarity of God intact. The issue seems to be marrying the idea of a dynamic and revelational God with that of a transcendent God. There is an appreciation that should be given to Pinnock in this case because most theologians are not so bold as to list the things they find difficult; he is willing to lay it out there for the community to see.

            Pinnock does offer a method for biblical interpretation but fails to do so within the primary source on Open Theism (Most Moved Mover). Failing to place this in the primary source hindered the arguments he was attempting to make. Pinnock notes that he advocates for a Spirit-hermeneutic, which allows the reader more freedom when finding the meaning in the text. The problem with this methodology is that it is not thoroughly explained in his article. Pinnock provides examples of Jesus or the disciples using this method but fails to delineate what procedures are in this method. I am not suggesting that a Spirit-hermeneutic is invalid. The issue is that even if we allow Spiritual gifts, checks and balances need to be in place and a specified method for determining if each particular instance of a Spirit-hermeneutic is valid.[28]

Is Pinnock's View Evangelical

            First, there needs to be a definition of evangelicalism that will satisfy all participants to understand if Pinnock fits into it (neatly or otherwise). Trueman provides a good rendition of what evangelicalism consists of, "four hallmarks: (1) biblicism (a high regard for the Bible as the primary course of spiritual truth), (2) crucicentrism (a focus on the atoning work of Christ on the cross), (3) conversionism (a belief in the necessity of spiritual conversion), and (4) activism (the priority of publicly proclaiming and living out the gospel)."[29] Given this understanding of what it means to be an evangelical, we can proceed with trying to understand if Pinnock falls within its bounds.

            Based on Pinnock's own word, he believes he is adhering better to the biblical record than classical theists. Pinnock does seem to attempt to take the biblical record at face value. In his book, Most Moved Mover, he decries that many who approach the uncomfortable biblical text tend to attribute what is being said to anthropomorphisms and the like.[30] He points out this common exegetical thread within the conservative Christian community, and it is worth noting. With that said, does his pointing this fact out prove that he is right? The answer is no. It could be the case that due to the uniquely human aspects of Scripture (being inspired but written in each author's style) that the modern person gets those writers' best understanding of God's character. It does not seem out of bounds to suggest that we can keep the integrity of the Word, yet say the author (the human) tried to convey a truth about God that was difficult to understand. But to argue that Pinnock is straight anti-biblical would be a mischaracterization. We can say that Pinnock is wrong in his exegetical method, but suggesting he is not trying his best to adhere to the biblical record would be false.

            Pinnock seems to be defined by his centrality of Jesus Christ. Pinnock points people to the person of Christ in his writings, and Christ seems to be an interpretative tool for him. It is not that we could not understand God in any sense without Christ, but it is through Christ that humanity better understands God. If God is revelational, then as Christians, Jesus Christ is part of that revelation. Barth (quoted above) points this out well, all the things we think God cannot be, he became those things in Jesus Christ. Understanding Christ is no small matter, and it should have an impact of how we view God (in some sense). Pinnock tries to do this in his understanding of God's knowledge.

            The other two hallmarks of evangelicalism are not covered in enough detail in Pinnock's works, but some could be inferred. If Pinnock places such stock in Christ and his life/ work, it can be assumed that Pinnock would view the Great Commission as vitally important (i.e., conversionism). Activism would be more difficult to pin down since the primary focus is on his understanding of Omniscience. Most human beings are activists in some sense. It is not common for someone to hold a position and not defend it. With that said, even though some may disagree with his insights and thoughts on God and his knowledge, it does appear that Pinnock would fit within evangelicalism (perhaps not so neatly).[31]

Conclusion

            Omniscience is a difficult concept to understand since human beings lack any "omni" type of qualities. The problem becomes more pronounced when there are definitional disputes over what would count as the best type of quality to have. It has been shown that the primary problem in understanding the Omniscience of God is how it is defined and what qualities it possesses. Side A may see side B as a lower view of God's knowledge, but the reverse is also true. Before any progress can be made at mending bridges of understanding, there needs to be a common understanding of all the things being discussed.

            Pinnock has the view that God has willingly relinquished his ability to know the future in full detail (what I labelled Kenotic Omniscience). The deficiencies were pointed out in his view based on the definition provided herein. It was noted that Pinnock does attempt to be as biblical as possible and holds Scripture in high regard. Though there will be disagreement with the conclusion in this paper, it is safe to say that Pinnock does care about the Christian faith and hold Christ at the center. Evangelicalism is a broad community that encompasses a treasure trove of views on the nature and character of God. Hopefully, with time there can be an expansion of understanding in these areas. I believe the Church Catholic should always seek to find the highest possible view of God and work out from there. Unity in the Church is important, but so is understanding God and his being, but we should not sacrifice one for the other.

Bibliography

Arbour, Benjamin, ed. Philosophical Essays Against Open Theism. New York: Routledge, 2019.

 

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics IV/1, edited by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. New York: T & T Clark, 2010.

 

Beilby, James K. and Paul R. Eddy, eds. Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2001.

 

Gaston, Thomas E. "The Influence of Platonism on the Early Apologists." (2009): 573-580.

 

Hasker, William. God, Time, and Knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989.

 

Litfin, Bryan. Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016.

 

Mele, Alfred R. "Free Will and Luck: Compatibilism versus Incompatibilism." The Monist 103, (2020): 262-277. Doi: 10.1093/monist/onaa003.

 

Moreland, J.P. and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003.

 

Pinnock, Clark. Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2001.

 

Pinnock, Clark. “The Work of the Spirit in the Interpretation of Holy Scripture from the Perspective of a Charismatic Biblical Theologian.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18 (2009): 157-171.

Pinnock, Clark, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger. The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. Downers Grove: IVP, 1994.

 

Rice, Richard. "Biblical Support for a New Perspective," in The Openness of God. Downers Grove: IVP, 1994.

 

Trueman, Carl. The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2011.

 

Swinburne, Richard. The Coherence of Theism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

 

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Omniscience." Accessed June 16, 2023. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omniscience/#:~:text=Omniscience%20is%20the%20property%20of,of%20the%20central%20divine%20attributes.

---

[1] Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove: IVP, 1994), 14. Resource does not have page numbers but location numbers. All references to this source will provide location numbers via Kindle.

 

[2] “Omniscience,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, last modified April 16, 2021, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omniscience/#:~:text=Omniscience%20is%20the%20property%20of,of%20the%20central%20divine%20attributes.

[3] Richard Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 175. Note: he does spend some time arguing to some degree against this definition, but it is the starting point for his discussion on omniscience.

[4] William Hasker, God, Time, and Knowledge (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989), 59. Hasker is making this distinction in reply to the idea of simply foreknowledge.

[5] J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003), 182. The eBook reference used states this section starts on page 182 but does not provide pagination after that. Information located in Chapter 26, section 1.

[6] Alfred R. Mele, “Free Will and Luck: Compatibilism versus Incompatibilism,” The Monist 103, (2020): 262, doi: 10.1093/monist/onaa003.

[7] Paul Helm, “The Augustinian-Calvinist View,” in Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, eds. James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2001), 163.

[8] Hasker, God, Time, and Knowledge, 187.

[9] Clark Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2001), 4.

[10] Ibid. FN 9 and 10 are from his list of the main points of the openness model. Pinnock states that John Sanders put forward the four points from which the two listed here are taken from.

[11] Pinnock, Openness, 22.

[12] Richard Rice, “Biblical Support for a New Perspective,” in The Openness of God (Downers Grove: IVP, 1994), 106. Location number in Kindle.

[13] Ibid, 119.

[14] Pinnock, Openness, 1186.

[15] Clark Pinnock, “The Work of the Spirit in the Interpretation of Holy Scripture from the Perspective of a Charismatic Biblical Theologian,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18 (2009), 158.

[16] Ibid, 159-161.

[17] Ibid, 161.

[18] Clark Pinnock, “Open Theism: An Answer to My Critics,” Dialog: Journal of Theology 44, no. 3 (Sept 2005), 238.

[19] Ibid, 237. Pinnock states that he believes in a Triune God of love.

[20] Ibid. Emphasis mine.

[21] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV/1, eds. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance (New York: T & T Clark, 2010), 186.

[22] Pinnock, Mover, 120.

[23] William Lane Craig, “A Middle-Knowledge Response,” in Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, eds. James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2001), 55. This is Craig’s response to Greg Boyd.

[24] Bryan Litfin, Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 50.

[25] Thomas E. Gaston, “The Influence of Platonism on the Early Apologists,” (2009): 573-575 and Litfin, Fathers, 41-56. Both sources reference those influence by Plato but not that it was a matter of the language used in that cultural setting to understand certain categories that were not normative within Jewish thought.

[26] Pinnock, Moved, 5. In this source, he actually states that God sovereignly decided to make his actions contingent on our free actions. He has stated elsewhere, precisely that God set aside his knowing abilities (almost a kenosis of omniscience).

[27] Pinnock, Moved, 85.

[28] The critique is against the lack of method which can assist the Church or interpreter from skewing or not accurately determining what each text means. In the OT, Israel was provided information on how to determine if a prophet was from God. The NT Christians had a similar idea. But if we allow what Pinnock has provided in his article, there is no way to check and validate any interpretation. This is the problem.

[29] Carl Trueman, The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2011), 14. Trueman get this information from historian David Bebbington and uses it for his case.

[30] Pinnock, Moved, throughout.

[31] It should be noted, this evaluation of Pinnock is solely based on his understanding of omniscience. There are other aspects of Pinnock that should give a reader pause. For example, Pinnock makes passing statements about God potentially having a body and these kinds of small statements throughout his work can be somewhat concerning because of their implications.