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
Penal Substitution View of Atonement: Did God the Father Just Need to Vent?
In this video blog, Greg outlines the penal substitution view of atonement which says that the Father poured out his wrath on Jesus instead of us so that we could be forgiven. This view is very common and you might even be nodding your head in agreement with that description. However, this view creates some…
What God Doesn’t Know (According to W.L.Craig)
Hello bloggers. Here’s Part II of my response to Bill Craig’s podcast critique of the open model of providence. As I see it, the central difference between Craig’s position (Molinism) and my own (open theism) boils down to our different assessments of futurity. As I noted in my previous blog, Craig believes that propositions asserting…
Henry’s Mom: Did God Author This?
Many of you were touched last month when we featured some reflections on little Henry’s death. Well, Henry’s mother Jess has started a blog to process through some of her thoughts and we wanted to share this amazing piece with all of you. Jess thinks ahead to the time when her two-year-old daughter will start…
SERMON CLIP: Hell in a Nutshell
Is hell for real? Is it what we have been told it is? Does an all-loving God really torture people there forever? These are a few of the questions that Greg Boyd touches on in this weeks sermon clip. In the full sermon, Greg explores the fallacy of relativism, the singular truth of Jesus as…
5 Observations about God Changing His Mind
One of the most significant passages that supports the open view of the future is found in Jeremiah 18. This is one of the numerous times where we find God changing his mind in response to events. By definition, one cannot change what is permanently fixed. Hence, every time the Bible teaches us that God…
What is the significance of Matthew 26:39?
Jesus threw himself on the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.” Scripture indicates that much about the life and death of Jesus Christ was foreordained and thus foreknown long before it came to pass. Given that this…