Yeah, yeah, I should actually read it before I criticize it, and I certainly shouldn't call it "stupid," because that's immature and totally unhelpful.
Anyway, this book is stupid. It makes lots of good points that we should address, but it basically misunderstands the contention of open theism and simply talks past it (as far as I can tell from skimming it).
Consider: if open theism is false, then God is making me write this review in the way that I am writing it. You can say that I'm "mysteriously" also responsible, but that's just a fake and arbitrary definition of freedom and responsibility. If God foreknew as an ontological reality (whatever that phrase means; I just mean that if he "looked into the future" and saw this as an actual component of the single possible course of history rather than simply having (perhaps complete) confidence that it would happen based on my character and circumstances) that I would express this incorrect opinion, well, things couldn't have been otherwise. And who's the creator of reality here, God, or me? God is the one forcing me to call him evil and insecure in his sovereignty here; I'm not a truly independent agent coming to this conclusion on my own.
But, of course, God isn't actually evil, because determinism is such obvious nonsense. (The phrase "you'd have to be intellectually disabled to believe it" comes to mind, but that's mean, so I won't say it.) My writing this wasn't an essential part of his creation, I don't think. And if I'm wrong, well, I had no real choice in the matter.
This all just provides further evidence that if Calvinism is true, then I am reprobate, and I guess I just have to be OK with that.
"John Piper wants to put me away/'Cause I believe in possibilities and that's not OK"
(Wed 04 May 2022 1:56:25 AM CDT)