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
Sermon Clip: God In The Gallows
Greg has recently returned from a three week trip in Europe, and today he shares stories of how the Kingdom message of a Jesus-looking God, radical love and non-violence is truly spreading all over the world. You can view the full sermon here: http://whchurch.org/sermons-media/sermon/god-in-the-gallows
What is the significance of 1 Samuel 13:13–14?
Because of Saul’s rebellion, Samuel tells him, “The Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever but now your kingdom will not continue.” The biblical narrative depicting God’s dealings with Saul up to this point is predicated on the assumption that God intended to establish Saul’s descendants as the permanent heir to the throne…
Can Science Inform Our Theology?
Over the last century, we have witnessed a revolution in various areas of science that relate to how we see the world and even God. For example, the Platonic notion that time and change are less real than timeless stability is being abandoned in light of the fact that physicists work from the assumption that…
Old Testament Support for the Warfare Worldview
Rebuking Hostile Waters Satan plays a minor role in the Old Testament relative to the New Testament. Instead, the warfare worldview in the Old Testament is expressed in terms of God’s conflict with hostile waters, cosmic monsters, and other gods.Like their Ancient Near Eastern neighbors, ancient Jews believed that the earth was founded upon and…
Isn’t the World Unsafe If God Doesn’t Control Everything?
If God isn’t in control of everything, the world feels unsafe. If the future is open and if things can happen outside of God’s will, what guarantee is there that there is a point to a person’s suffering? Maybe it’s all just bad luck. My experience has been that many of those who honestly examine…
The Hexagon of Opposition
Throughout the western philosophical and theological tradition, scholars have assumed that the future can be adequately described in terms of what will and will not happen. In this essay I, Alan Rhoda and Tom Belt argue that this assumption is mistaken, for the logical contradictory of will is not will not but might not. Conversely,…