Not for the faint at heart—or uninitiated in Latin or philosophy or logic. Oliphint begins and ends with a critique of open theism and all along the way seeks to show that God as essential takes on contingencies as creator, but this is not who he essentially is. Oliphint makes an eimi/eikon distinction and seeks to prove that his condescension allows him to interact, really, with his creation without abandoning who he essentially is. This condescension is, of course, through the logos—Jesus Christ. There is a lot of hard reading and interaction with many other authors and their works. A slow absorbing pace is necessary to appreciate and understand the arguments. What was most frustrating is the hint early on that he would deal with the fact that creator is not essentially who God is, yet he created anyway. He does not ultimately answer the question why. That is what I was hoping for all along. ( )

Not for the faint at heart—or uninitiated in Latin or philosophy or logic. Oliphint begins and ends with a critique of open theism and all along the way seeks to show that God as essential takes on contingencies as creator, but this is not who he essentially is. Oliphint makes an eimi/eikon distinction and seeks to prove that his condescension allows him to interact, really, with his creation without abandoning who he essentially is. This condescension is, of course, through the logos—Jesus Christ. There is a lot of hard reading and interaction with many other authors and their works. A slow absorbing pace is necessary to appreciate and understand the arguments. What was most frustrating is the hint early on that he would deal with the fact that creator is not essentially who God is, yet he created anyway. He does not ultimately answer the question why. That is what I was hoping for all along. ( )