Three Roads to Open Theism

Faith and Philosophy 24 (1):28-51 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Open theists agree that God lacks what is normally called “comprehensive” foreknowledge, but why believe this? Open theists answer in three ways, which I call the narrow road, the wide road, and the shortcut to open theism. Here I argue that (1) the narrow road faces a difficulty concerning the doctrine of divine omniscience which doesn’t arise for the wide road, (2) the wide road is well-motivated and appealing, given certain philosophical commitments, (3) the shortcut is too simple to work, and (4) William Lane Craig’s objections to the wide road fail. I conclude with some observations about the state of the dispute between open theists and their critics.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,401

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
212 (#123,142)

6 months
20 (#136,238)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Gratuitous evil and divine providence.Alan R. Rhoda - 2010 - Religious Studies 46 (3):281-302.
Foreknowledge and Free Will.Linda Zagzebski - 2011 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:online.
Perils of the Open Road.William Lane Craig & David P. Hunt - 2013 - Faith and Philosophy 30 (1):49-71.
God, fatalism, and temporal ontology.David Kyle Johnson - 2009 - Religious Studies 45 (4):435-454.

View all 16 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Are some propositions neither true nor false?Charles A. Baylis - 1936 - Philosophy of Science 3 (2):156-166.
Neo-Molinism and the Infinite Intelligence of God.Gregory A. Boyd - 2003 - Philosophia Christi 5 (1):187-204.

Add more references