o in any particular situation. The first is that "the world in which agents relate must be regular, predictable and orderly," so "God can't suspend the laws of nature whenever they might work against us" (Boyd 125). The second is that "agents must possess irrevocable freedom" in that "God simply can't override free wills whenever they might conflict with his will" (Boyd 125). To clarify his point further, Boyd (130) draws an illustration from Paul Billheimer, who suggests that "God's will is like a business check that must be cosigned in order to be validated" and that "We the church are the cosigning party, and prayer is our signing." While it is true that God has created a world designed to be regular, predictable, and orderly, it is certainly not true that He is incapable of suspending the laws of nature whenever they might work against us. Boyd has apparently forgotten the many instances in the Bible when God has, in fact, deliberately suspended the laws of nature to benefit His children. The parting of the Red Sea, for example, was an obvious suspension of the laws of nature specifically intended to save the Israelites from Pharaoh and his men. The raising of the dead occurred in many places throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments, and that can certainly be deemed a suspension of the laws of nature. Many smaller examples such as the floating of the axe head, the issuing of water from a rock, and the turning of water into wine abound throughout the Bible, as well. God seems to have no problem using His supernatural abilities to step in and stop the laws of nature whenever He wants to assist His people. Therefore, from the beginning, Boyd's argument is questionable.
Ware (32) points out that "proponents of open theism...object to the notion that the divine omniscience includes comprehensive knowledge of the future," as they feel that "the doctrine that God knows all that can be known or is knowabl...