here, so I won't dive back into that.
However, what bothered me were the other essays by Dave Hunt, William Lane Craig and Paul Helm. I am not opposed to philosophy and find the entire realm fascinating, like a kid watching a magician perform card tricks. However, this is where I find the open view of God far more compelling.
Frankly, it starts in Scripture. The text itself seems to speak in ways that suggest God being not only flexible but also willing to change His mind. The charge of anthropomorphisms is a side charge, even though the same folks that would make this charge would happily prescribe attributes and actions of God said in anthropomorphic terms ie God is mad, God punished etc.
I end this with a response Boyd made to R.C. Sproul, who famously claimed that "if there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose...then we have no gurantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled" (1).
Boyd said: "there is, I submit, no conceivably weaker view of divine sovereignty than one that is threatened by a single maverick molecule" (2).
1. Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, pg43 n.23.