We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
Open Theism Timeline
Open Theism Timeline by Tom Lukashow
An argument that is frequently raised against the open view is that it is a recent innovation. Paul Eddy had discovered Calcidius, a fifth century advocate, and I and others knew of L.D. McCabe and Billy Hibbard, two 19th century advocates. But that was about it – until I met Tom Lukashow.
Tom is a lawyer in Florida who has spent much of his spare time over the last thirty years researching the history of the open view. And what he has discovered is, at least to me, absolutely amazing! In preparation for the Open2013 Conference that will be held at Woodland Hills Church next week, I asked Tom if he could bring all his research together into one single annotated time line, and he has graciously obliged.
And now I share it with you. On this chart you will find that from 1642 up to the 1941, there has been a steady stream of scholars advocating the open view. I have not read all of these works, but those I have read– e.g. Fancourt (1720’s-30’s) Ramsey (1748), Bromley (1820), McCabe (1870’s), Brents (1874) and a few others – defend this view using many of the same arguments that advocates of openness today use. In fact, I’ve found in several of the works Tom has sent me several arguments I’ve not seen before. More importantly, this chart demonstrates that the open view is just about as old as Protestantism is! It can therefore no more be dismissed as an innovation than can Lutheranism, Calvinism or any other expression of the Protestant faith.
We should all tip our hats to Tom Lukashow. His tireless labor has done us all a tremendous service! Thank you Tom!
Category: Essays
Tags: Essay, Open Theism, Tom Lukashow, Woodland Hills Church
Topics: Open Theism
Related Reading
What is the significance of 1 Samuel 15:35?
“…the Lord was sorry that he made Saul king over Israel.” (see 1 Sam. 15:12). Once again, the Lord expresses his regret over having made Saul king of Israel, an emotion which is inconsistent with the classical view of God’s foreknowledge. It’s important to note that Samuel had prayed all night trying to change the…
Why do you claim that everybody, whether they know it or not, believes that the future is partly open?
Whatever a person may theoretically believe, they act like the future is partly open. For, as a matter of fact, there’s no other way to act. Think about it. Every time we deliberate between options on the way toward making a decision, we assume (and we have to assume) that a) the future consists of…
Can you have an Anabaptist Mega-Church?
Several times over the last few years I’ve heard statements like this: “Boyd may embrace an Anabaptist theology, but his church (Woodland Hills) cannot be, by definition, an Anabaptist church because an Anabaptist church can’t be a mega-church.” I’ve heard similar things about our sister church, The Meeting House, in Toronto Canada. The reasoning behind these…
How do you respond to Isaiah 53:9?
Speaking of the suffering servant Isaiah says, “[T]hey made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich…” As with most evangelical exegetes, I believe that Isaiah 53 constitutes a beautiful and stunning prophetic look at the person of Jesus Christ. The most impressive feature of this prophecy is that the suffering servant…
How NOT to be Christ-Centered: A Review of God With Us – Part II
In Part I of my review of Scott Oliphint’s God With Us we saw that Oliphint is attempting to reframe divine accommodation in a Christ-centerd way. Yet, while he affirms that “Christ is the quintessential revelation of God,” he went on to espouse a classical view of God that was anchored in God’s “aseity,” not…