They also (in contrast to traditional theism) tend to hold that the biblical portrait is of a God deeply moved by creation, experiencing a variety of feelings in response to it.
[10] The following chart compares beliefs about key doctrines as stated by open theists and Calvinists after "the period of controversy" between adherents of the two theisms began in 1994.
In the 19th century several theologians wrote in defense of this idea, including Isaak August Dorner, Gustav Fechner, Otto Pfleiderer, Jules Lequier, Adam Clarke, Billy Hibbard, Joel Hayes, T.W.
David R. Larson claimed in 2007 that "in less detailed forms the basics of 'Open Theism' have been taught at Loma Linda University for about fifty years, beginning at least as early as long-time professor Jack W.
[43] Millard Erickson belittles such precursors to open theism as "virtually unknown or unnoticed.
Recent theologians of note expressing this view include: Clark Pinnock (deceased as of 2010), Greg Boyd, Thomas Jay Oord, John E. Sanders, Dallas Willard, Jürgen Moltmann, Richard Rice, C. Peter Wagner, John Polkinghorne, Hendrikus Berkhof, Adrio Konig, Harry Boer, Bethany Sollereder, Matt Parkins, Thomas Finger (Mennonite), W. Norris Clarke (Roman Catholic), Brian Hebblethwaite, Robert Ellis, Kenneth Archer (Pentecostal), Barry Callen (Church of God), Henry Knight III, Gordon Olson, and Winkie Pratney.
A significant, growing number of philosophers of religion affirm it: Peter Van Inwagen, Richard Swinburne (Eastern Orthodox), William Hasker, David Basinger, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Dean Zimmerman, Timothy O'Connor, James D. Rissler, Keith DeRose, Richard E. Creel, Robin Collins (philosopher/theologian/physicist), J. R. Lucas, Vincent Brümmer, (Roman Catholic), Richard Purtill, Alan Rhoda, Jeffrey Koperski, Dale Tuggy, and Keith Ward.
[49] Open theism also answers the question of how God can be blameless and omnipotent even though evil exists in the world.
Philosopher Alan Rhoda has described several different approaches several open theists have taken with regard to the future and God's knowledge of it.
[55] As to observation (2), open theists do not characteristically say traditional forms of classical theism have exactly the same concept of God as the Greeks.
Consider John Sanders' statement in The Openness of God (1980): Christian theology, I am arguing, needs to reevaluate classical theism in light of a more relational metaphysic (not all philosophy is bad!)
so that the living, personal, responsive and loving God of the Bible may be spoken of more consistently in our theological reflection ...[58]: 100 Opponents of open theism, both Arminians, and Calvinists, such as John Piper,[59] claim that the verses commonly used by open theists are anthropopathisms.
Open theists note that there seems to be an arbitrary distinction here between those verses which are merely anthropopathic and others which form God's character.
In other words, God's love and character is unchanging; this, however, demands that His approach to people (especially in the context of personal relationship) be flexible.