Evil: A History, edited by Andrew P. Chignell. Oxford University Press, 2019. Pp. xxiv + 499. $36.95 (paperback).

Gwen Bradford has plausibly argued that one attains achievement only if one does something one finds difficult. It is also plausible that one must attain achievement to be worthy of “agential” praise, praise that is appropriately directed to someone on the basis of things that redound to their credit. These claims pose a challenge to classical theists who direct agential praise to God, since classical theism arguably entails that none of God’s actions are difficult for God. I consider responses to this challenge and commend a view according to which God’s loving character is not necessitated by God’s nature but is a contingent and difficult achievement. I argue that this view can still satisfy the explanatory ambitions of natural theology.

Alexander Pruss has recently argued on probabilistic grounds that Christian philosophers should reject Open Futurism—roughly, the thesis that there are no true future contingents—on account of this view’s alleged inability to handle certain statements about infinite futures in a mathematically or religiously adequate manner. We argue that, once the distinction between being true and becoming true is applied to such statements, it is evident that they pose no problem for Open Futurists.

There is an old and powerful argument for the claim that divine foreknowledge is incompatible with the freedom to do otherwise. A recent response to this argument, sometimes called the “dependence response,” centers around the claim that God’s relevant past beliefs depend on the relevant agent’s current or future behavior in a certain way. This paper offers a new argument for the dependence response, one that revolves around different cases of time travel. Somewhat serendipitously, the argument also paves the way for a new reply to a compelling objection to the dependence response, the challenge from prepunishment. But perhaps not so serendipitously, the argument also renders the dependence response incompatible with certain views of providence.

Disagreement, Deference, and Religious Commitment, by John Pittard. Oxford University Press, 2020. Pp xiii + 339. $80 (hardcover).

Faith and Philosophy 390 risk-free versions of providence, but that it does worse.One central issue concerning the morality of risk is how the risk is distributed among those involved in the event.Welty points out that whatever the risks are that God takes, he does not suffer from them the way human beings often do.Welty asks a series of questions such as, "Will [God] perish due to lack of food, water, shelter, and good health?No."This one question is enough to see that for all the talk of God's risks, on open theism, it is the creatures that are most vulnerable.There is at least a prima facie case that God is more morally responsible if he adopts risky providence by creating a world with an open future than if he maintains a risk-free providence.Welty's essay is simply excellent.His treatment of these themes is very careful.He draws on the writings of open theists as he lays out the details of the four relevant aspects of the problem of evil.In addition, he raises relevant objections to his assessments and answers them.This chapter will provide impetus for continued work for years to come.In a short review, I can do no more than gesture at the contents of this book.Many of the essays warrant a deeper look.The collection as a whole has several strengths that are worth mentioning.First, the papers vary widely in topic and in philosophical perspective.They range over several metaphysical issues as well as issues more central to philosophical theology.The collection demonstrates that issues related to divine foreknowledge touch a wider variety of the different fields within philosophy than might be expected.The authors also vary in their philosophical commitments.Some are compatibilists and some are libertarians.Some are atemporalists and some hold that God is temporal.This diversity strengthens the collection.Third, the quality of each essay is very good.Both open theists and critics of open theism will find much to think about.I highly recommend this work.