Open Theism discussed

I've stumbled across another interesting discussion on Open Theism at The Sign of Jonah blog. The original blogger is critiquing Open Theism (although I didn't feel he was particularly successful in this. He seems a little confused about distinction between OT and the problem of evil/suffering, which although connected is not really the same question) and provokes some excellent (although very lengthy) discussion in the comments. I was particularly impressed by the contribution of a commenter called Wesley Brainard who is generally articulate and intelligent in his arguments for Open Theism - although I'm not sure I agree with everything he says about the way God has limited himself (e.g. spacially).

Here's a couple of examples of things which got me thinking:

...This began to take shape around the discussion of God’s freedom. Jim B admitted that God was free to create or not to create. If He was free to choose, then there was a time when God hadn’t yet foreknown. This demonstrates that foreknowledge is not eternal or essential. God is still God without exhaustive foreknowledge.

The open view says that God was free to create the kind of world you propose he created. Does the CV allow that God could have created a world with freedoms like His as the open view suggests?

Keith: I feel like you really ducked the issue with Cyrus. Your basic answer was, "I don’t know how God predicted Cyrus but I’m absolutely sure that it wasn’t through exhaustive foreknowledge". In all candor I think that’s pretty weak.

Wesley: Straw dummy... My argument was that what you offered does not prove exhaustive foreknowledge. I thought Will D.’s post was especially good on this point. If we use your argument for proving exhaustive foreknowledge, my wife would certainly qualify since she knows what I’m going to do or not do before I do or don’t do it. Knowing something does not prove that He knows everything. ...