godrulz37

Some issues not dealt with explicitly in Scripture are resolved by godly philosophy. The exact nature of God’s relation/experience of time/eternity is one such thing. There are many Scriptures where God does not seem to know as a certainty future free will choices that may or may not happen. God has voluntarily limited His knowledge by creating a universe with free moral agents. A free choice must be made by the agent. If God knows the future exhaustively and definitely, then one must appeal to determinism (at the expense of free will) or theories such as eternal now where God just somehow sees something that does not exist (4th dimension, etc.). These are far more problematic than to recognize that some aspects of the future are indeterminate and left to be settled by the agent. They may or may not happen and there is an element of uncertainty/unknowability just by the nature of this. So, God knows these things as possible, probable, but actual/certain awaits the choice in real space-time. Even if God knew the future perfectly, this offers no providential advantage because God would not be able to change the fixed future even if He wanted to (it would make His foreknowledge false, so you end up more fatalistic than free). As to Scripture again, there are hundreds of openness texts (Hezekiah is a good narrative) relating to God changing His mind, God saying ‘now I know’ after a test, etc. The problem will be paradigm vs proof text, hermeneutics, etc. The classic response is to dismiss these as anthropomorphic (yes, there are those in Scripture but take it at face value unless context demands it). The strength of Open Theism is that it can take countless verses at face value as revelatory of God’s nature and ways that are rationalized away by other views to retain a preconceived theology (that is wrong in my opinion). So, if we take a normative literal approach to Scripture (while recognizing figures of speech), we see two motifs: God knows and settles some of the future (First/Second Coming of Christ, etc. Is. 46 and 48 shows how God declares and brings to pass….it is by His ABILITY, not a supposed prescience/foreknowledge…these proof texts also are specific in context and cannot be extrapolated to prove exhaustive definite foreknowledge), while other aspects of the future are open, unsettled, indeterminate and known as such until they become certain objects of knowledge. Any limitation of God’s power or knowledge is a self-limitation by the sovereign God. If He wanted exhaustive definite foreknowledge, He would have to create a deterministic universe or eternal now would have to be true (but still problematic in light of seeing choices before the agent even exists to make a choice). So, we are both stuck with having to exegete Scripture (and Open Theists call on 100s of them to support the view) AND to wrestle with philosophical issues not resolved in Scripture: nature of free will (compatibilism vs incompatibilism vs determinism, etc.), nature of time/eternity (biblical endless time vs Platonic ‘eternal now’ will affect our view of foreknowledge, etc.), providence (God’s sovereignty as meticulous or responsive, etc.), etc. etc. It is a vast, technical subject. I have asked a few agnostics or atheists if there is anything an omniscient God (and I fully believe He is since He knows all that is an object of knowledge or correctly knows reality as it is distinguishing the fixed past, potential/anticipatory future, real present) cannot know. Within a minute they correctly answer ‘the future’. The average church goer has not begun to think about these things and is content at a spoon fed Sunday School level. The thinking Christians also often uncritically accept tradition. As you point out, not all tradition is truth. Even classical theologians are revisiting the doctrine of God on philosophically influenced things like impassibility (it is not fair to say Open Theism is philosophical…all views are a mix of Scripture and philosophy with the Bible appealed to by both…I cannot defend impassibility from Scripture so why elevate Augustine over it?!). We should not compromise truth nor slander other views as liberal, beyond the bounds, etc. (like some do) when they don’t even understand what they are rejecting. I don’t want to side track from the Calvinism debate, but if Open Theism and Molinism are credible views in the free will camp of Arminianism (as good thinkers are arguing), then I think there is some relevancy to consider it. Too often Calvinists control theological societies and politics and ad hominem attacks are the order instead of dialogue such as Cheryl is promoting.