Richard Rice opens with an exegetical case for the notion that God's immutability is restricted only to His character and ultimate plans; He experiences change in His actions, experiences and knowledge.  Both the Old and New Testament are briefly (but carefully) mined to bring out both the pathos and openness of God to His people and the future respectively.  Already in Rice's chapter, one of the pioneering Scriptural defenses of open theism, we see a reasonable refutation of the only two verses in the OT - 1Sam 15:29 and Num 23:19 - stating that God does not change His mind (which Rice convincingly argues when taken in context is synonymous with "God does not lie").  He contrasts this with the more than thirty(!) which make the opposite point (e.g. Jer18, Isa, Hosea, etc.).  Rice then discusses the life of Jesus and shows how the intense pathos and dynamic personhood of God is revealed through the Incarnate Son's ministry and, ultimately, His death on the Cross.  How the doctrine of immutability can claim to be Scripturally derived in the light of the life of Christ is truly a mystery.  Rice's work is passionate, meticulous and unassuming, and lays down the arguments in the Scriptural arena, within which the debate (this must be reemphasized over and over again) needs to take place.  I heartily recommend him.

Next, I don't like saying this but I'm afraid that I found John Sanders' contribution a little on the boring side at the time I read him.  His chapter is a very comprehensive look at what theologians throughout history believed about divine immutability, relationality, etc.  Sanders shows the undeniable continuity between Platonic ideals and early Christian thought, and makes a strong case for the non-ability of much theological thinking to break free from the un-Biblical notions carved by this early influence.  Sanders produces a very text-book-like chapter consisting less of an argument than a survey of a remarkably persistent trend to equate 'Perfection' in terms of 'Unchangeability', a trend which is steadily changing.  Hopefully more people will find it more interesting than I did, but if not, Sanders' chapter of a similar nature in his God Who Risks will more than compensate for any disappointment with his work this time around.

Clark Pinnock then whips the storm back up again with his powerful and systematic proposal for a RELATIONAL view of God as the foundation of everything else we understand about Him.   His experiences, actions and - most saliently for the book - His knowledge is dynamic and undergoes
progress and change by the very nature of the Person He is and the Creation He's brought into existence.   Like Sanders' piece, this chapter doesn't so much argue a case for open-theism as much as it elaborates a particular understanding of God, given the authors' assumptions.  I've found this
approach to be characteristic of Pinnock's work in which, in effect, he seems to be saying, "I'm not going to try hard to prove you wrong and I right; I'm just going to show you the theological beauty and benefits of my view of God and its congruity with Scripture, and you tell me if you prefer this to traditional (mainly Reformed) theology".

William Hasker's philosophical perspective (my favourite, next to Rice's) begins by highlighting problems with the notion of divine timelessness and scrutinizing the traditional equation of divine 'perfection' with divine immutability.  His essay begs us to reconsider, "What is 'perfection' in a Personal Being, anyway?  And why have we traditionally associated it with 'changelessness'?"  He, like Sanders, pinpoints Neo-Platonic philosophy as the major influence on classical theologians for their bias against change.  He then briefly discusses the major theistic viewpoints of divine providence and omniscience: Calvinism (which makes God logically responsible for all evil), Molinism (which, though removing many problems associated with Calvinistic divine sovereignity, still eventually makes God the 'Arch Manipulator'), Simple Foreknowledge (which sorta 'imprisons' God in His foreknowledge, making Him helpless to intervene), Process Theology (which is panentheism in Biblical packaging), and  Open Theism (which Hasker sets forth as showing God to be a loving risk-taker who desires creatures who voluntarily love and befriend Him and has thus actualised a universe with incredible contigencies, beauty and surprise - but also terrible potential).

Finally, we come to David Basinger's spelling out of the explanatory and experiential superiority of open-theism as compared to Calvinism and Process Theology on the following aspects: petitionary prayer, divine guidance, suffering, social responsibility and evangelistic responsibility.  Like Hasker, he presents open-theism as the redeeming 'middle ground' between the divine helplessness of process theology and the all-determining Control Deity of Calvinism.  Only with open-theism can there be a meaningful notion of human responsibility (contra Calvinism, which leaves one wondering what the point is resisting evil/sin since everything's been foreordained) without the need to state that God has already done 'all that He can' (contra process theology, which gives us a powerless God).
Though insightful and honest with regard to existing non-resolved issues, I wouldn't recommend this chapter to anyone not at least open to the possibility that the Bible teaches the openness of God.
 

Although the book, being a pioneering 'ground-breaker' for open theism, certainly needs more elaboration and work, I'd have to say that I agree with its overall thesis.  Critics often fail to note that open theists employ solid Biblical epistemology and evidence to derive the back-bone of the view, particularly the non-exhaustive understanding of God's omniscience (the Sriptural evidence for immutability is pitifully scant; the number of 'divine repentance' passages itself, like I've mentioned, is a staggering 30-plus which was the major factor forcing me to rethink my theology.  I can't help but wonder why God would say so often in His very own Word that He experiences genuine changes of mind and thus knowledge, if this is a completely false ontological notion).  Unfortunately, academic backlash is usually focused on the philosophical and experiential implications of open theism, all the whilst seemingly ignorant or dismissive of the powerful Scriptural case in favour of it.

With that said, I would propose that this book be read only AFTER one absorbs either John Sanders' God Who Risks or Gregory Boyd's more accessible God of the Possible.  All in all, the book IMO represents an inspiring work and a necessary provocation to the Christian (especially the Reformed) community to relook at its Biblical foundations and traditional presuppositions about the nature of God.  And in closing, allow me to quote from Pinnock's chapter, which eloquently sums up the picture of God the book puts forth:

"...God is so transcendant that he creates room for others to exist and maintains a relationship with them...God is so powerful as to be able to stoop down and humble Himself...(and) God is so stable and secure as to be able to risk suffering and change."