Open Theism

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and an Elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341.

And now with today's topic, here is James White.

And good afternoon, welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is indeed James White. We're live today at 2 o 'clock Mountain Standard Time. No, Mountain, what is it? We are Mountain Standard Time, that's right.

And it's not 2 o 'clock Mountain Daylight Time or whatever time it is, I don't know. But I think that's going to change pretty soon and then everybody's going to be really confused and everybody's going to come into the channel and go, what time are you on?

You keep changing times.

And we don't know, we don't never change time. We don't even touch our clocks. No, we're not Pacific Time. No, I'm sorry. No, I'm sorry. You're wrong. No, I know that we happen to be synced up with Pacific Daylight Time.

But we are not Pacific Time. See, we are Mountain Standard Time. And we're always Mountain Standard Time because we never change. See, we never go to Daylight Time. So we're always MST. So from the rest of the world's perspective, see, it's all a matter of perspective.

The rest of the world, they get messed up with this Daylight Savings Time stuff. We don't do it. We respect time. And that actually has something to do. Yes, it did sound like Brack. I was trying to sound like Brack.

I've never seen Brack, but I've been introduced to Brack by people in the channel who play stuff by Brack. And it sounds very strange. And I've not figured out what would be so exciting about a cartoon character that sounds like an idiot from The Sticks in Tennessee someplace.

But anyways, as almost nothing to do with the topic today, though it does a little bit because I mentioned time. And time does seem to be the issue as we discuss the subject of open theism today. I have a lot of stuff going through my mind.

We've got a debate in only two weeks from this evening on the subject of open theism against one of the leading proponents of the subject, Dr. John Sanders. And so obviously that is my primary area of reading right now.

And that causes me to be thinking a lot about it. But, of course, I don't stop doing everything else that I am doing. And it's interesting when you're studying one subject, you begin to see the connections that it might have with other areas of theology.

And I'm really intending on writing a book in the not-too-distant future regarding the fact that when we reduce the doctrines of grace to a side disputation that really isn't important, when we put it off to the side and say, well, you know what, this isn't something that defines healthy theology, that you can have a healthy theology and yet have a man-centered focus, which is what Arminianism is, the results are many.

And as I've been dealing with various sundry issues, what I've decided I'm going to do is I want to write a book. I don't have a publisher for it yet, though I have one in mind, demonstrating that when one has a solid foundation in the doctrines of grace, many of the issues that trouble the Church today, you have a basis upon which to deal with them.

And certainly in the debates that are coming up two weeks from this very weekend on open theism and on inclusivism, the only real response to both of these is the Reformed perspective. And I don't even like using the term perspective there.

It sounds like, well, one perspective is equal to another perspective, and this simply isn't the case. I don't know how else to describe it, however, in regards to the fact that there are different perspectives that are expressed out there, yet God's word is not many, it is one.

God's word only teaches one truth, it does not teach many. And it has certainly been my experience that as I look at the presentations of people who have fallen into error in various areas, I am reminded of the centrality of doing consistent exegesis based upon a belief in the inspiration of Scripture.

Those two things, consistent exegesis based upon a belief in the inspiration of Scripture. And what I mean by that is it's one thing you can find people who will engage in exegesis, but if they do not believe in the subject, if they don't believe in inspiration, if they do not believe that the Scriptures are consistent with themselves and are an object of divine revelation, then you can exegete yourself forever and you're not going to ever get anyplace.

I'm trying to message the folks next door, but no one is listening to me. And so the other thing, though, is if you believe that the word is divine, but then you do not exegete it properly, then you allow for tradition to become established as your belief rather than having the word of God established as the foundation of your belief.

Your traditions override meaningful exegesis. When we listened to Adrian Rogers, we noted that strange two worlds that exist where when dealing with one subject, he would be right on because he would do proper exegesis and he would accurately deal with the text of Scripture.

But then when he'd come to those areas where his tradition conflicts with the teaching of the text, then all of a sudden exegesis goes out the door and you don't have solid exegesis taking place any longer.

And so you have these two different things going on. And we saw it in Adrian Rogers. The past couple of weeks, I've exchanged a few emails with David Cloud. And David Cloud, King James Only advocate, O. Timothy is one of his publications, I think is the term, the newsletter that he sends out, and wayoflife .org, I believe, is the website.

And, of course, he's taken a number of shots at me in written response to the King James Only controversy. And we've corresponded a few times in the past. And I've always had a bit of respect for Dr. Cloud.

He's one of the few people, I'm sorry, David Cloud, he's one of the few people who responded to Gail Riplinger. And he pointed out there are problems in her book and she went after him. And there's a section of one of her little books where she makes fun of his name.

That's about the best that Gail can do. And so on and so forth. So, you know, we've had some contact a number of years ago. I forget exactly when it was. I was teaching down in Tucson, I remember that.

And he was driving through the area and happened to pick up on our program, heard us discussing the Jehovah's Witnesses, something that we could agree on, and appreciated the information. I shared a few things like that.

So what I did is someone came to the channel, posted the URL, went to the URL, and I happened to notice that there was a sermon that you could listen to in Apple QuickTime format on Calvinism, who is the real enemy.

And so I downloaded it and began listening to it. And it was, you know, just this same old, same old. You know, if you listen to Adrian Rogers, if you listen to David Cloud, if you listen to Dave Hunt, if you listen to any of these folks, it's just the same old, same old.

And it's really, it's extremely frustrating because all you hear over, John 6, 44, well you go over to John 12, 32, and Jesus draws all men, so it doesn't really mean that. And you can respond, and none of these folks ever give the slightest indication that they have ever seriously listened to a refutation of their own position.

It's like there's nobody else out there, and you can just keep repeating the same surface level, shallow, eisegetical stuff, and that's supposed to be enough. And it makes you go, wait a minute. I take the time to listen to what they're saying.

I take the time to listen to what their position is, and if they somehow come up with some new way of putting things, I'll take the time to listen and to respond to it. And you go to the text, and you provide an answer based upon the text, do all that kind of stuff.

They don't seem to do that. And I don't understand the mindset of people that can just repeat the same thing over and over and over and over again without ever listening to it being refuted and then responding to that.

I do not understand that. And so I just wrote to him, and I said, I'm going to probably play some sections of your sermon on the air, and I'm going to respond to it on our program. And I just want to remind you, you've got a standing invitation.

We would very much like to debate this subject since, for some reason, it's like David Cloud and Dave Hunt, they've all decided to jump on the anti-reform bandwagon, which would seemingly indicate that we're getting through to somebody, the Lord's blessing in some way.

And I would very much like to see some public debates on these issues, because I honestly believe that this position of Arminianism cannot stand any type of cross-examination. It cannot stand public debate.

You cannot throw that kind of stuff out there without it getting shredded by someone who knows something about what they're doing. And so I would like people to see this, be able to hear both sides, instead of just going and reading something by them, then reading something about the other side.

Let the two sides get together and do the debate. So I send that off, and he sends a pretty nice little note back that says, well, you know, hey, I'm nobody, but help yourself, and so on and so forth.

And I wrote back to him a very nice letter and said, you know, very much like to debate. If you won't do a public debate, how about a written debate? How about you and I write a debate like on John chapter 6, because he mentioned it in his sermon.

He mentioned me in his sermon, for that matter. And he wrote back and said, no, you know, this is a fact here. I've got the e-mail in front of me. Hello again. I really don't want to debate, James. I have presented my position on John 6, 37 through 45 in my book, Things Hard to Be Understood.

It has been dealt with by many men who do not hold the Calvinistic position. We simply are going to have to disagree about these things, and we do disagree strongly. And, you know, I wrote back to that.

I wrote back to him and I said, I'm surprised at this statement, sir. Are you suggesting that the exegesis of John 6, 37 through 45 can produce different but equally true results? If you are correct in your exegesis, then you should be able to refute the extensive exegetical discussions I have presented and drawn by the Father and the Potter's Freedom, would not providing that kind of refutation of one of the key passages be vitally important?

I provide exegetical refutation of the misuse of such passages as 1 Timothy 2, 4, 2 Peter 3, 9, Matthew 20 through 37, and have seen Reformation break out on campuses and in ministries as a result. Surely showing where I have erred in my exegesis would be a worthwhile effort.

Would it not? Then I said, of course, I have never seen a consistent or defensible exegesis of John 6, 37 through 45 by a non-reformed person. I honestly have not. I have looked high and low. I have debated Roman Catholics about it, Arminians, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons, and have never found anyone who could deal with the text as it stands without abandoning it and running to other passages to try to get away from the teaching of the Lord.

And so then I went through what he sent me. He sent me the text to his dealing with John 6, and I refuted his exegesis, provided the text from the Potter's Freedom, where I go into the meaning of the words, provide the exegesis, so on and so forth.

So his response was very short. Each email response got shorter and shorter and shorter. Here is the response. I have seen how dishonestly you dealt with Dave Hunt and also how you have dealt with the Bible version issue.

I have no hope that you will listen to the truth. I am sure you feel the same about me. What purpose, then, is all of this? Now, now, wait a minute. I said, excuse me, excuse me. How do you get there?

How do you come up with a response like that? I responded to him and said, Sir, please document a single dishonesty in my response to Dave Hunt. You have made the accusation. I am sure you will exercise the temerity to document.

I am sorry you choose to ignore the exegesis of the Scriptures. I thought more highly of you, it seems, than I ought to have. Because here you provide. What must it be like? You send your exegesis to someone.

They respond fully, and their only response is to say, Well, you know, you're dishonest anyways. And so he wrote back, and he says, James, I regret the use of the term dishonest. I am sure you are reporting things as you see it, though I believe you are taking things out of context and misusing Hunt's statements.

Beyond that, I am just not interested in any kind of dialogue. Dave Hunt already pointed out the errors in your critique of his work, and having read his book carefully, I agree with what he has said.

And you just, you have to step back and go, Well, wait a minute. What was one of the main things we demonstrated? Hunt's misrepresentation of Charles Haddon Spurgeon. So is he defending that? I cannot believe that David Cloud would defend anything in regards to that issue.

He knows what Spurgeon believed about that. And I'm just asking for specifics. I mean, when someone says you've dishonestly dealt with someone, then don't you think you have some level of responsibility to respond and be able to provide some type of specifics?

So I wrote back to him and I said, Again, I ask you to back up the statement. When he said, taking things out of context, misusing, or at least have the honesty and temerity to admit that you cannot do so, and will not make such statements in public since you have failed to back them up in person-to-person discussion.

And then when he says, Dave Hunt already pointed out the errors, I responded, Again, that is simply not true. Mr. Hunt has been shown to be utterly dishonest in his handling of the Spurgeon issue, for example.

And his response to my open letter did not provide a single bit of exegetical response. I again ask you to document your accusation or withdraw it. Admit that you cannot substantiate it. I take accusations of dishonesty or of out-of-context citation very seriously.

If you cannot be specific, I ask that you admit this and withdraw that allegation. Thank you. And the last note that I got, and I didn't bother to respond to it, is three sentences. And I can't believe that you would write such nonsense.

I had very little respect for you before. Now I have none. That's it. That was the last bit. Well, you know, I'll probably hear about that in the not-too-distant future on some... You know, I get people who write me, Hey, I just attended this conference and David Cloud spoke and he talked about you saying this, this, and this.

And it always mutates over time, at least now having read it to all you folks. You will at least know where to look to find out what was actually said without having to bother me for the emails. But, of course, I'll keep the emails too.

But I just found it absolutely amazing that there's just no willingness on David Cloud's part, Dave Hunt's part, Adrian Rogers' part, to really interact with anything. And if I had written what David Cloud has written on John chapter 6 and put that out there, and someone says, No, wait a minute.

You see, you're inaccurate here, you're inaccurate here. The word doesn't mean this here. You leapt over a logical problem here.

I would want to know what they had to say.

But they don't want to deal with these things. They will not interact with these things. It is absolutely amazing. And some people say, Well, you know, okay. Adrian Rogers is not known as a person who teaches exegesis, okay?

And Norman Geisler, he's a philosopher and a theologian. Dave Hunt, you know, what's his famous quote that I've heard more than once? I cannot read the New Testament in Greek. It might as well be in Chinese, but I can read English.

You know, look at Dave Hunt. He's King James, or David Cloud, he's King James only. What do you expect? Why don't you find some folks that could really dig into this? Why don't you find some real scholars?

Well, it's fascinating. Because if you look at... Oh, my. Someone just... Now, here is the value of doing this live. Someone just quoted from the Berean Call. Got the Berean Call today. In questions, Dave says, Sadly, with few exceptions, most of the Calvinists who write to me make similar unsupported charges.

For example, see James White's response to my book, What Love Is This? Oh, my goodness. I don't understand that kind of statement. How can anyone read my open letter and make the kinds of statements that I just...

It boggles my mind. I do not understand it. Well, anyways. Some folks might say, Well, deal with some scholarly Arminians. Well, okay. So you look at the issue today of open theism. And the writers in the field of open theism...

When I've been telling people about this debate, people go, So what are you debating? Open theism. They look at you like, What? What in the world is that? They've not heard much of it, which basically means they haven't been reading Christianity today very much, that's for sure.

But open theism is a big and hot topic today. I'm going to be making some... For those of you who like bibliographies and book recommendations and stuff like that, they're spread out all around me here on my desk at the moment.

So I'll give you some recommendations and some stuff you can dig into because I think it is definitely important. It's another one of those areas where, as I said, the Reformed position, the biblical understanding of God's freedom is the only foundation upon which you can respond to this.

Arminians, who are historical Arminians, and I would like to differentiate here. Open theists openly call themselves Arminian. They're one of the few groups that do. You've noticed there are a lot of folks, I'm not Arminian.

A lot of the King James... I'm not Arminian. I believe in eternity. Once saved, always saved. I ain't no Arminian. Well, actually, that just means you're an inconsistent Arminian. That's all. You don't have any basis for that, but you believe in it anyways.

But they will openly say, we are Arminian. We truly believe in libertarian freedom. We deny that God has a decree. They believe in what's called simple foreknowledge. Historical Arminians believe that God does know the future.

They believe that God knows the future, however, in such a way that His decree does not form the future. And, hey,.

You gotta admit,.

The open theists have got him on this one. The open theists have identified a clear inconsistency in the view of the future that is part and parcel of Arminianism. There's no two ways about it. The open theists are not wrong on this point, and their point is that if you are an Arminian and you believe in libertarian free will, and you believe that autonomous creatures make free choices that are not a part of a divine decree, that they, when faced with choice A, are free outside of any kind of decree on God's part of choosing A or B or C or whatever.

If you believe that, then you don't have a basis upon which to believe that God truly knows the future. How would God know what free creatures are going to do? And if he does know what free creatures are going to do, how can they do anything other than that?

And the open theists emphasize that argument in all of their works. And let me just mention, for those of you who aren't familiar with it, open theism.

Is.

In essence the teaching.

That.

God's knowledge of the future.

Is.

Divided into two compartments, and that would be God's knowledge of that which is certain of the future and that which is not certain of the future. The future is partially open and partially closed. Now, that's more Greg Boyd's emphasis.

There's a spectrum here.

When you make a.

Certain statement,.

Especially when you've read all their books and you're becoming more familiar with the way of how one person will nuance it, they'll spin it this way, another person will spin it that way, and then you recognize, you know, Boyd says things that I don't think Sanders would ever say, and Sanders says things that Pinnock wouldn't say, and Pinnock says a lot of things that nobody else would ever say.

And these guys each have their own little perspectives. For example, Boyd sort of dropped a little mini-bomb with his response to Bruce Ware where he said, I believe Jesus had compatibilist freedom. And that blew everybody away because it raises all sorts of issues and you go, well, what's compatibilist freedom?

Is that different than libertarian freedom? Yeah, it is. I think it's one of the reasons that some of the real arguments haven't gotten overly popular on the lay person's levels because it's utilizing terms that actually, you know, it doesn't take a lot in the way of brain power to understand what the differences are.

They're just using words that aren't normally used by folks. You could demythologize scholarship if you just simply let people know what various and sundry terms meant. And so there's different perspectives.

If you want to sort of grab the big books, you can go back to David Basinger and you can go back to Richard Rice in the 80s and they're really the ones who started the modern resurgence of this. This is not a new position.

It's not that there haven't been people in the past who said God doesn't know the future because the future does not yet exist. Fundamentally what open theism is saying is that the future doesn't exist so God can't know it.

Now, God has intentions that he is going to establish the things he's going to do in the future. And Boyd will want to talk about how God knows those things, even though I really don't think he has a basis for saying that.

And Bruce Weir, I think, has done an excellent job in pointing out that okay, well, God may know that an earthquake is going to take place at such and such a time, but.

Anything.

Whatsoever in the future that has to do with the free choices of free creatures cannot on open theistic grounds be truly known because God cannot know what a truly free creature is going to do. What you need to understand is that the central assertion of open theism is libertarian free will.

The autonomy of the.

Creature.

The autonomy of the creature. And that is so central that open theists are willing to remove from God his ability to know exhaustively all future events. God cannot know the future because man must be free.

So God learns things each day. God in some way experiences this progression of time. The future doesn't exist to him. And he learns what happens. And he is frequently surprised by what happens. In fact, they will cite passages where God will talk about Israel, and I thought Israel returned to me, but no, she has continued in her idolatry.

They'll say, see, see, God thought Israel was going to repent, but God didn't, and God was surprised. And they will point to Genesis 22, and now I know, he says to Abraham, that you truly have faith, that you truly believe in me, and God didn't know that before Abraham raised the knife.

Now, the problem is that at least up until this point in time,.

That.

Open theists continue to say that God has exhaustive knowledge of the past and the present. And I believe there is good basis for saying that. I just don't see how open theism is going to be able.

To.

Someone just came in and mentioned it's got to be, what, 1999.

Dan.

Corners thing about the skull and crossbones, so old folks, go to our website, look it up, we've dealt with that a long time ago. I don't see how open theism is going to be able to.

Continue.

To assert that God has exhaustive.

Knowledge.

Of the past and the present. Their hermeneutic leads to problems in that area. I just don't see how they're going to be able to continue to do it. I think it's going to eventually develop into something beyond what it is right now.

But, be that as it may, the assertion is God has exhaustive knowledge of the past and the present, and of course that raises all sorts of issues. If he exhaustively knows us better than we know ourselves.

In fact, let me just give you an example. I'm probably not doing this in the best order. Well, let me try to remember and give you this example. Let me first give you the books you want to look at. Let's start with the ones from open theism.

Oh yeah, I'm almost out of time. Look at that.

Alright,.

When I come back, get your pen and pencil out, and I will give you the listing of what books you want to be looking at from the pro and con side here on the subject of open theism. Then we'll dive into a couple of them and do stuff like that here on The Dividing Line.

We'll be right back.

Can a man your pencil grace myself to die in some religious place by weeping hard on your face.

Justification by Faith and the Heart of the Gospel

The history of the Christian church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the Reformation, the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine. In his book, The God Who Justifies, theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of, understanding of, and dedication to the great doctrine of justification, and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme.

Justification is the heart of the gospel. In today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute, James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith.

Dr. J. Adams says, I lost sleep over this book. I simply couldn't put it down. James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates. This is no book for casual reading.

There is solid meat throughout. An outstanding contribution in every sense of the words. The God Who Justifies by Dr. James White. Get your copy today at AOMN .org. More than any.

Time in the past, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder to shoulder against social evils. They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements.

And many Evangelicals are finding the history, tradition, and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing. This newfound rapport has caused many Evangelical leaders and lay people to question the age-old disagreements that have divided Protestants and Catholics.

Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture. The papacy, the mass, purgatory and indulgences, and Marian doctrine.

James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the Gospel itself that cannot be ignored. Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at AOMN .org.

This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the Gospel of the Grace of God. The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of His worship in His Church.

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day. The morning Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m. and the worship service is at 10 .45.

Evening services are at 6 .30 p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7 .00. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26-GRACE.

If you're unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

How the pilgrims progress is not an easy way. It's a journey into the sun.

Day by day.

It's a walk of grace.

And welcome back to The Dividing Line. We're talking about open theism today and as I promised and I actually remembered all the way through the break that's an amazing thing given my advanced age.

That.

What books you want to look at? I've mentioned this book before. We've got a check the date here. Copy right of 2000 on Gregory Boyd's book God of the Possible. Does God ever change his mind? God of the Possible a biblical introduction to the open view of God.

Now if you probably just wanted to read just one.

That's.

Probably where you want to start. Boyd of course is the one up in Minnesota he's the main one that John Piper has been concerned with because they're both in the same denomination Bethel Seminary etc. etc. etc.

And he's the senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church Baptist General Conference professor of theology at Bethel College. It's a Baker book. I've been looking at some of the very strange exegesis that is offered there.

My opponent this coming the weekend after next is Dr. John Sanders. Dr. Sanders is associate professor of philosophy and religion Huntington College Huntington, Indiana and two books that he and I are going to be debating.

No Other Name An Investigation of the Destiny of the Unevangelized is his presentation of inclusivism the idea that while everyone who will be saved will be saved only in Jesus Christ, you can be saved by Jesus Christ without knowing who Jesus Christ is.

And so a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu that makes a true move of faith toward God can be saved.

But.

He is saved only through Jesus Christ. Only to discover he is saved through Jesus Christ forever after death. And the inclusivists get into some wild stuff including post-mortem evangelism and all sorts of stuff like that.

It's different than universalism but it's a spectrum and I think for example someone like Clark Pinnock gets as close to universalism as an inclusivist can to the point where he's not only into post-mortem evangelism and annihilation, no hell,.

But.

Also says that as you're.

Walking.

Into the point of being annihilated, up to that point you can still repent. There's just no limits on that. But back to the subject of theism, John Sanders, The God Who Risks a Theology of Providence this is an IVP book University Press seems to be very very happy about open theism for some strange reason.

This is one of the larger works but again I think if you were to carefully read Sanders and Boyd you'd go. I sense some differences in approach, differences in emphasis and that's certainly, I'm not making that an argument of course, but you will find them.

Sanders I think is a good bit to the left of Boyd. I think Pinnock is to the left of Sanders. Boyd is in a Baptist conference Pinnock has gone way way out there and Sanders for example says, God the Father did not know that Christ would go to the cross until the garden.

The incarnation.

Was.

Predestined in the sense of foreknown, but the cross was not and God did not know that Christ would die until the garden and that God did not expect Adam and Eve to fall. He was surprised that they did and in fact.

God.

God looked back upon the flood.

And.

He honestly.

Felt.

I think I overreacted that he regretted what he did in bringing the flood upon the earth, though I will admit in his response it's another source I'm going to look at in just a moment that's really good.

He I think sort of tried to modify that because that causes all sorts of issues to be raised. But anyways The God Who Risks, The Theology of Providence by Sanders and then you have on Pinnock's part, one of his newest books The Most Moved Mover that's a Baker academic book.

His inclusivism work, for those of you who are interested is called A Wideness in God's Mercy, that's Zondervan well you just pretty much, everybody is throwing stuff out here. And if you want another open theism book that's a little bit more complex from Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil that's an IVP book that has come out.

So IVP, Zondervan, Baker it seems that everybody is being infected with this stuff and then if you want another, what was really I think a very important book earlier on 1994, The Openness of God, A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, it's another IVP book.