Throughout the twenty-century history of the church, various ideas about God and His nature have come and gone. Most of the ideas have been false and have been disproved with Scripture and by brilliant theological minds of the day. These minds have held to the traditional idea, that God has exhaustive, divine foreknowledge (He knows the future in every aspect). However, within the last twenty years, there has been a rise in an ideology that says God does not necessarily know the future. This point of view is called Open Theism.
The claims of Open Theism are contrary to those of the traditional view and, therefore, both views need to be brought before the guiding light of Scripture to see which one would pass the test of truth. Both claim historical, theological and Scriptural influences.
The Traditional View of God
The more prevalent traditional view of God shows Him as an all-knowing (omniscient) Creator. He is able to know and understand not just the past and present, but every detail of the future, including every action of every man. Another phrase that is used to describe His limitless knowledge of the future is Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge. The traditional view of God’s foreknowledge has received its share of criticism from people who ask, “If God knows the future, then how can man be free?” They also may ask, “If God is omniscient, then how can there be evil in the world?” While the intent is not to answer these questions directly, discussing the Scriptural foundations, a few historical examples, and current theology on the issue of Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge may shed some light.
Scriptural Foundation for the Traditional View
The traditional view is not short on Scriptural emphasis. In fact, Dr. John Hammett from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary discusses a survey by Steve Roy of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School:
164 texts teach or affirm God’s foreknowledge, 271 texts affirm God’s omniscience, 128 texts that predict what God will do through nature, 1,893 texts that speak of what God will do in or through human beings, 1,474 verses predicting what humans will do (apparently of their own volition), 622 texts that predict actions relating to unbelievers, and 143 texts that speak to God’s sovereignty over human choices.[1]
The texts supporting God’s perfect knowledge in Scripture are pervasive and overwhelming.
For instance, the verses highlighting God’s omniscience can be found in 1 John 3:20, the Bible says, “…For God is greater than our heart and knows all things.[2]” “Can anyone teach God knowledge, In that He judges those on high?” Job 21:22. Job 37:16, “Do you know about the layers of the thick clouds, the wonders of one perfect in knowledge?” In Romans 11:33, Paul says, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!” These verses are just few of the passages that highlight God’s perfect knowledge. Perfect knowledge would be defined as knowing all things, past, present and future. The various authors of the Bible were quick and unashamed to say their God knows all.
The texts also seem to abundantly support the premise that God knows what man will do in the future. David writes in Psalm 139 that God knows him completely, even what he is about to say, “Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O Lord, You know it all” (Verse 4). Micah 5:2 fortells the coming of the Christ out of Bethlehem, “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.” This prophecy was some 700 years before the birth of Christ.[3] Jesus prophesied His own betrayal, “Jesus said to him, ‘Truly I say to you that this very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times’” (Matthew 26:34). Throughout the whole of Scripture, there is an essence that God has a perfect knowledge of the whole of time, from beginning to end.
Historical Perspective from Calvin to Spurgeon
Historically, many theologians and scholars have associated themselves with the traditional view of God’s knowledge. Such scholars and theologians as C.H. Spurgeon and John Calvin have given valuable insight into this view. Almost all the reformed Christian thinkers thought God was limitless in every way. They naturally associated God with omniscience. They understood there was nothing He did not know, nothing He did not understand, and nothing past, present or future that He could not see.
John Calvin could probably be called the father of the traditional view of divine foreknowledge. After all, it is from his name the term “Calvinist” was derived as a designation for those who believe in the divine omniscience of God. Calvin basically believed that God does know all things, from the beginning of time through the end.[4] Specifically, about divine foreknowledge and man’s eternal destiny he said, “Scripture clearly proves that God, by his eternal and unchanging will, determined once and for all those whom he would one day admit to salvation and those who he would consign to destruction.”[5]
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, often referred to as the “Prince of Preachers”, always backed up what he said with Scripture. The same was true on the several occasions when he preached about predestination and foreknowledge.
I do not doubt that the Lord has settled, concerning every one of his elect, the exact time when they shall pass from death unto life, the precise instrumentality by which they shall be converted, the exact word that shall strike with power on their mind, the period of conviction which they shall undergo, and the instant when they shall burst into the joyful liberty of a simple faith in Christ. It is all settled, all arranged and predetermined in the divine purpose. If the very hairs of our head are all numbered, much more the circumstances of the most important of all which can occur to us.[6]
Spurgeon was confident in knowing that His Lord was a perfect, all-knowing Creator and he preached it with passion and perseverance so the future generations would be inclined to follow in similar footsteps.
Twentieth Century Perspectives
A.W. Tozer says, because God knows everything, He cannot learn anything, and therefore nothing surprises Him. If He could learn something new, He would then be less than perfect in His knowledge. “God perfectly knows Himself and, being the source and author of all things, it follows that He knows all that can be known.” Because, Tozer concludes, God knows all things perfectly and cannot know any one thing better than any other, humans should find comfort in Him.[7]
C.S. Lewis for example wanted to make sure people grasped the ideas that God was not in human time, and that He does not live moment to moment. Instead, Lewis says, all days to God are happening presently: past, present and future; God knows what is going to happen because He is watching it happen. Even though within time, the future has not happened yet, for God it has. “Almost certainly God is not in Time. His life does not consist of moments following one another…if you picture Time as a straight line along which we have to travel, then you must picture God as the whole page on which the line is drawn.” Since all things in time are happening presently for God, He does not foresee the future; He simply sees it. Therefore, God has no history, because, “He is too completely and utterly real to have one.”[8]
There are three main views regarding divine omniscience that are all theologically well based among theological scholars.[9] These three views consistently acknowledge exhaustive divine foreknowledge to some degree.[10] Dr. Russ Bush asserts, God has exhaustive, divine foreknowledge, while fully and completely knowing His creation.[11] Paul Helseth maintains God’s exhaustive knowledge saying, “He knows all true propositions about everything that has been, is, and will be, and He does so in a manner that extends to the minutiae of past, present, and future reality.”[12] Bruce Ware, in dealing with the Gospel of Jesus Christ presents God foreseeing man’s future sin, the punishment, and set into motion a plan to save those lost souls.[13] He goes on to say God knew from the beginning of time He would need to save the sins of man and devised a plan.[14] Throughout evangelical academia, many scholars and theologians sufficiently and abundantly support the exhaustive divine foreknowledge view of God.
Within Systematic Theology, the idea of God’s perfect and divine knowledge seems to be prevalent, as opposed to the idea of God’s open knowledge. Wayne Grudem in Systematic Theology defines God’s knowledge as the following, “God fully knows Himself and all things actual and possible in one simple and eternal act.” Grudem says if God does know everything, then it makes Him omniscient, or all knowing. Grudem goes into detail about his definition. God fully knows Himself, which is astounding, considering He is an infinite Being. God knows all things actual which means He knows everything about His creation, including the future. God knows all things possible meaning, even if the events or circumstances do not come to pass, He still knows and understands what could have been. God has perfect knowledge of the millions of variations that creation could have had. God also knows all of these things in one simple and eternal act. The word simple here means, there are no other parts; God sees and is fully aware of everything at once. His knowledge never changes or grows.[15]
The Handbook of Evangelical Theology similarly says, “[The omniscience of] God means He comprehends all things- past, present and future, things actual and things possible.”[16] Also, according to Henry Clarence Thiessen, “God is infinite in knowledge. He knows himself and all other things perfectly from all eternity, whether they be actual or merely possible, whether they be past, present, or future. He knows things immediately, simultaneously exhaustively, and truly.”[17]
While a seemingly high percentage of religious professors and scholars support the idea of Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge, there are some within this same field who support a different view of God.
The Open View of God
Within the last two decades, there has been an increase in debate among theologians and scholars alike as to how much of the future God really knows. One side debates an all-knowing God in every aspect, while the other side debates a limited knowledge of the future. The limited knowledge is termed as the Open View of God, or Open Theism. This view limits God’s omniscience to fully knowing the past and present, but unable to fully know the future because He chose to create free will creatures. This idea of omniscience is called Divine Current Omniscience.
The Scriptural Foundation for the Open View
Open Theism argues there are counter texts in Scripture that show the future as open, which God did not know how situations would unfold.[18] Such Scriptures include God changing His mind, changing His mind if situations change, expressing regret, or showing surprise over the outcome.[19] Other examples suggest that God did not know humans would behave the way they did, and He attempted to find out through tests if His followers will remain faithful.[20] In another instance, He asked non-rhetorical questions about potential future.[21] Therefore, the idea is to emphasize and these counter texts at face value and acknowledge God’s divine ignorance.[22] Again, Open Theists affirm Scripture’s all knowing ability, but they also affirm that God knows there are potentials in the future, which may or may not happen.[23]
Some examples would include the Lord, according to Open Theists, changes His mind. “So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people” (Exodus 32:14). In 1 Chronicles 21:15, the Bible says, “And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it; but as he was about to destroy it, the Lord saw and was sorry over the calamity, and said to the destroying angel, ‘It is enough; now relax your hand.’ And the angel of the Lord was standing by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.”
In certain passages, God says He did know what humans would do. “…and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind (Jeremiah 19:5). Or in a few cases, God wants to know where people are, as in Genesis 3:9, “Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, ‘Where are you?’”
In other areas, Open Theists say the Lord asks non-rhetorical questions of the future. “The Lord said to Moses, “How long will this people spurn Me? And how long will they not believe in Me, despite all the signs which I have performed in their midst” (Numbers 14:11). In Exodus, “Now when Pharaoh had let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, even though it was near; for God said, ‘The people might change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt’” (13:17).
The Wesleyan/ Arminian Traditions
Dr. John Sanders says Open (or “freewill) Theism can be traced back to Calcidius and subsequent centuries (circa 1550-1899), mostly within Methodist circles.[24] Not until the late twentieth century did philosophers and theologians begin to recognize this as a significant doctrine.[25] Open Theism also claims to have roots within the Arminian/ Wesleyan tradition. In fact, Pinnock says, “Ninety percent of it is in agreement with these evangelically oriented theological traditions, while ten percent of it is contested.”[26]
In the ninety percent, Open Theism says, God made man for a loving relationship. Therefore, God shows His love by allowing man to choose to say yes or no to Him.[27] “There is genuine give and take with God. In love God takes risks that we will not respond appropriately to the divine love.”[28] The central element to His greatness lies in God’s desire to be limited out of love for His creation.[29] God has every desire for man to experience this love in part, by giving him the freedom to make choices, even if they are against His Will.[30] Pinnock concludes Open Theism gives humans a better reason to pursue God with all their heart, that their lives mean something, and that their prayers really do matter to God.[31]
To this degree, Arminian/Wesleyan theology would suggest that God knows all things from eternity and knows all of the possible things that could be.[32] God knowing the past perfectly and the future potential is what is often referred to as Middle Knowledge.[33] Bryant Barry quotes Arminius in his article, “God therefore understands himself: He knows all things possible, whether they be in the capability of God or of the creature; in active or passive capability; in the capability of operation, imagination, or enunciation: He knows all things that could have an existence, on laying down any hypothesis.”[34] God’s intimate knowledge of His Creation allows Him to know how that Creation would respond in any given situation.[35] Therefore, God foreknew by giving grace, some would accept it and some would not.[36] This very brief description helps to further define where the Open Theists stand, how they agree with the Wesleyans and where the other ten percent of their beliefs begin.
The ten percent where Open Theism disagrees with the Arminian/ Wesleyan view is in divine foreknowledge. Rather, Open Theism holds to divine omniscience but denies exhaustive divine foreknowledge. So, there is a different level of foreknowledge which Open Theism terms divine current omniscience. The divine current omniscience theory suggests that God can know everything that can be known through the present. As for future events, the actions of His creation, or His actions, God cannot know those with certainty. Pinnock says, “If God created the world, and human beings in it possess free will, it will not be possible even for God to know precisely how they will react to their freedom.” In other words, God is free to do something new, and even He does not know what that something will be.[37]
John MacArthur pointed out in his article that Open Theism began to be championed in 1990 after the article, “Evangelical Megashift” was published in Christianity Today. This article outlined what Open Theism is today by saying there was a major change on the horizon of Christianity. This change, or “megashift” was the old theism giving way to a new model theology. MacArthur says the new theology outline was giving new perspective on how to think about almost every aspect of evangelicalism.[38]
As the historical context has come into view, another important aspect would be to look at the contemporary scholarly and theological framework of each view. Again, amongst theologians and scholars alike, a traditional, all knowing God view is pervasive in academia.
Twentieth Century Perspectives
In academia, Open Theism is described as a system in which God set up the universe purposefully so some things would be contrary to what He thought would happen. The primary thesis of Open Theism is the following, “God maintains a genuine, authentic relationship between Himself and mankind.” Open Theists say if God knows everything in the future as both Calvinism and Arminianism state, then there cannot be any direct interaction between God and man.[39]
Among the major proponents of Open Theism, there is a consensus saying that God accepted certain limitations upon Himself when He created man.[40] Pinnock continues by proposing that God regulated power of choice to His Creation, thereby becoming vulnerable.[41] Specifically, he says, “Though ontologically strong, God chooses to become ‘weak’ by the decision to create a significant world God would not control. God decided to work within a history whose outcome is not predetermined and to rule over a world that is able to resist.”[42] In other words, part of God’s decisions are based on what His creatures decide, which is libertarian freedom.[43]
So, the question is asked, “Does God know for certainty the future?”[44] The basic short answer is no.[45] According to Sanders, the open view rejects divine foreknowledge and adopts the view of presentism.[46] While God does have an exhaustive knowledge of the past and present, God does not know with absolute certainty what His free will agents will decide.[47] God can do this because, while His character is immutable, His will and emotions He can change.[48]
Therefore, Open Theists affirm several ideals about the nature of God. They affirm the absolute all knowing Scripture, but part of the reality consists of possibilities. They affirm God’s omnipotence, but He chooses to limit His power through free will. They affirm God’s absolute perfection, but the absolute perfection does not supersede human freewill. They affirm God can and does predict the future and even determines it when He needs to, but they deny that all of the future is determined or predictable.[49]
Refutation of Open Theism
Voltaire correctly wrote, “If God made us in His image, we have certainly returned the compliment.”[50] This statement is especially true in regards to Open Theism. Open Theism is a man made philosophical metaphysic, not a God centered theology. The beliefs of Open Theism have portrayed the sovereign, all-knowing Creator of the Universe as basically a ghostly phantom with human emotions. Within the context of history, theology, and Scripture, this ideology does not pass the test.
Scriptural Refutation
Open Theism is paving a very dangerous road. It acknowledges that even though the character of God does not change, His will does. However, certain Scripture passages additionally refute this idea. First, if Jesus Christ is God then, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end’” (Revelation 22:13). There does not seem to be an adequate argument against this. God does not change.
Historical Refutation
In regards to history, there is no conclusive evidence of any prominent church father taking the view of Open Theism. In fact, Dr. Hammett discusses the historical evidence showing no major church father or theologian in the two thousand year church history has ever adopted the view Open Theists view of God’s foreknowledge.[51] They have simply regarded the Lord as knowing all things past, present and future.
In Knowledge of the Holy, A.W. Tozer writes, “The heaviest obligation lying upon the Christian Church today is to purify and elevate her concept of God until is once more worthy of Him.[52] This can be applied to the current debate. The church would be wise to concede Tozer’s challenge and maintain that view of God. Tozer goes further, “We do the greatest service to the next generation of Christians by passing on to them undiminished that noble concept of God which we received from our Hebrew and Christian fathers of generations past.”[53]
Current Theological Refutation
If the Open view is true, then omniscience cannot apply to God. After all, if God does not know the future, then how did He know that Jesus’ mother would be going to Bethlehem in the first place?[54] How could God have known the only reason for her and Joseph’s going to the City of David was due to a census?[55] Afterall, the prediction for both of these events took place 400 years before the birth of Christ. Could it be the divine ignorance pasages are really communicative tools to get His point across in Scripture?[56] God knows how people will and would respond to situations and questions, He is not ignorant.[57] He enjoyed showcasing faith and was deeply pleasured when the event transpired.[58]
Bruce Ware sums up Open Theism this way, “Open theism affirms God’s exhaustive knowledge of the past and present, but it denies exhaustive divine foreknowledge, in that it denies that God knows-or even can know- the future free decisions and actions of his moral creatures, even while it affirms that God knows all future possibilities and all divinely determined and logically-necessary future actualities.”[59] John MacArthur writes, “But in effect, open theists have denied the deity of God Himself, by humanizing Him and trying to reconcile Him with modern methods of political correctness.”[60]Open Theism has made God more human with human emotions and therefore has tried to bring God down to man’s level.[61] This results in a dependence upon human methods of knowing God without relying on Scripture and the Holy Spirit.
Conclusion
There comes a point when it does not matter what title can be held of a certain doctrine. Whether a pastor is a Calvinist, Arminian, or Open Theist does not matter, what does matter, however, is whether or not he is a Christ follower. What matters is if that pastor’s view of the world is consistently held within the light of Scripture. Anything other than what the Bible teaches is false.
Pinnock says, “Evangelicals like to be thought of as ‘biblical’ Christians when in fact they are often stubborn traditionalists who strongly resist fresh insight into Scripture.”[62] A traditional approach versus the Open approach is not a matter of being stubborn or resistant. Rather, when there are two views that are essentially contradicting each other, then it comes down to being right or wrong. There is an old saying, “Scripture will always interpret Scripture.” So when both sides claim to be resting upon the foundation of God’s Word, then stubbornness is no longer the issue: heresy is.
[1] John Hammett, “Divine Foreknowledge and Open Theism,” Faith & Mission,The Journal of Southeastern Theological Baptist Seminary 21, no. 1 (Fall 2003): 20.
[2] All Scripture Quotations are taken from The New American Standard Bible. 1995 Update (Lockman Foundation, 1995) unless otherwise noted.
[3] John Hammett, “Divine Foreknowledge”: 22.
[4] John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Two Volumes in One. Trans. By Henry Beveridge.1959. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Company, 1559: 3.21.2.
[5] Ibid. 3.21.1, 3, 5.
[6] C.H. Spurgeon, “The Minister’s Farewell,” Sermon. Music Hall, Surrey Gardens, England: December 11, 1859.
[7] A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins: 1961, 57.
[8] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins, 1952: 168-170.
[9] In his article, Dr. Hammett describes three primary views of God’s divine foreknowledge. First, he says one of the earliest views to be developed was from a Roman philosopher, Boethius. Boethius’ view claims that time is not sequential for God, because He is an eternal being, so God can know the future without causing or determining it. A second view, Middle Knowledge, asserts, God knows every man and woman so personally He knows what each would do in any given situation; He knows the potentials in life. The third view, Calvinism says God foreordains all, therefore, foreknows everything. This view does not cancel human responsibility, nor does it make God to be approving of sin. Man’s freedom would be considered “combatibilist” (24).
[10] Ibid.
[11] Russ L. Bush. “Open Theism: Good Try, But No Dice,” Faith & Mission: The Journal of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary 21, no. 2 (Spring 2004): 6.
[12] Paul Kjoss Helseth, “What is At Stake in the Openness Debate? The Trustworthiness of God and the Foundation of Hope” Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, ed. John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Kjoss Heseth, Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2003: 275.
[13] Ware, Bruce A. “What is at Stake in the Openness Debate? The Gospel of Christ,” Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, ed. John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Kjoss Heseth. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2003: 309.
[14] Ibid, 310.
[15] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994: 190-92.
[16] Robert P Lightner, Handbook of Evangelical Theology, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1995: 52.
[17] Henry Clarence Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1949: 81.
[18] Gregory A. Boyd, “God and the Future.” http://www.opentheism.info (accessed: September 16, 2008).
[19] Larry D Pettigrew, “Is There Knowledge in the Most High? (Psalm 73:11),” The Master’s Seminary Journal 12, no. 2 (Fall 2001): 140.
[20] Gregory A Boyd, “God and the Future.”
[21] Ibid.
[22] Larry D. 2001 Pettigrew, “Is There Knowledge in the Most High? (Psalm 73:11)”: 140
[23] Gregory A. Boyd, “God and the Future.”
[24] John Sanders, “Is Open Theism Christian Theism?” http://www.opentheism.info (accessed: September 16, 2008): 6.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Clark H Pinnock, Open Theism: “What is this? A New Teaching?- And With Authority!” (Mk1:27). Ashland Theological Journal 34, no. 0, 2002: 44.
[27] Ibid.
[28] John Sanders, “Is Open Theism Christian Theism?” : 6
[29]Clark H. Pinnock, “Open Theism: ‘What is this? A New Teaching?’”: 45.
[30] John Sanders, “Mapping the Terrain of Divine Providence” http://www.opentheism.info (accessed: September 16, 2008): 2.
[31] Clark H. Pinnock, “Open Theism: ‘What is this? A New Teaching?’” : 46.
[32] Barry E Bryant, “Molina, Arminius, Plaifere, Goad, and Wesley On Human Free Will, Divine Omniscience, and Middle Knowledge,” Wesley Center for Applied Theology of The Northwest Nazarene University. 2000. http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/26-30/27.4.htm (accessed October 4, 2008).
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid.
[35] John Hammett, “Divine Foreknowledge and Open Theism,”: 24.
[36] Barry E. Bryant, “Molina, Arminius, Plaifere, Goad, and Wesley,”
[37] Clark H. Pinnock, “Open Theism: ‘What is this? A New Teaching?’”: 47, 48.
[38] MacArthur, John, “Open Theism’s Attack On The Atonement.” The Master’s
Seminary Journal 12, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 3.
[39] Pettigrew, Larry D. 2001. “Is There Knowledge in the Most High? (Psalm 73:11),”: 135.
[40] Clark H. Pinnock, “God’s Sovereignty in Today’s World.” Theology Today 53, no. 1 (April 1996): 16.
[41] Ibid. 17
[42] Ibid.
[43] John Sanders, “Mapping the Terrain of Divine Providence”: 6.
[44] Ibid: 10.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Ibid.
[48] John Sanders, “Is Open Theism Christian Theism?”: 11
[49] Gregory A. Boyd, “God and the Future.”
[50] Voltaire quoted in, Richard L. Mayhue, “The Impossibility of God of the Possible,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 12, no. 2 (Fall 2001): 203-20.
[51] John Hammett, “Divine Foreknowledge,”: 20.
[52] A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: 9.
[53] Ibid: 10.
[54] John Hammett, “Divine Foreknowledge,”: 22.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Larry D. Pettigrew, “Is There Knowledge in the Most High?”: 141.
[57] Ibid, 142.
[58] Ibid.
[59] Bruce A. Ware, 2002. “Defining Evangelicalism’s Boundaries Theologically: Is Open Theism Evangelical?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45, no. 2 (June): 194.
[60] John MacArthur, “Open Theism’s Attack On The Atonement,”: 12.
[61] Larry D. Pettigrew, “Is There Knowledge in the Most High?”: 148.
[62] Clark H. Pinnock, “Open Theism: ‘What is this?’”: 48.
