Is God ever surprised?

[Believer1997]

I am sure that there is nothing that surprises God... He has seen it all.

[e lansing]

Conjecture!!! Good answer! However, He being God knew what we would do so it was still in his will.

Conjecture? I dont think so.

Rom 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

I was joking!!! see the laugh after that!

[godrulz]

Right! but what we do with those thoughts define us. If can have thoughts of hate and reframe from acting on those thoughts it show self control and no body knows my struggle.

God knows.

unless of course you are an open theiest, then you can shock him with your thoughts and actions.

Straw man. God knows the past/present perfectly and can anticipate with great accuracy since many things are predictable, including our character and normative choices in given situations. God sees reality unfolding and does not get caught off guard in any way. He knows our thoughts as we formulate them and even in the split seconds before we speak words. This does not mean He knows non-existent thoughts and words before we exist to freely bring them into being. God does not know non-existent free choices trillions of years before things are actualized. The potential future becomes the fixed past through the present. God's knowledge is vast, knowing all that is logically knowable. He is ignorant of nothing knowable. Given 1000s of years of history with billions of people, the all-knowing God is not shocked by anything or anyone. He is also able to respond to and handle any contingency. To deny this is to humanize God, your problem, not the Open Theism view. Even the average doctor, judge, pastor, priest, policeman, etc. is not shocked/surprised by people's thoughts/actions (take a basic history, psychology, sociology course to defuse your own argument).

[godrulz]

I Sam. 15:11, 35 genuine change of mind/disposition due to changing contingencies

I Sam. 15:29; Num. 23:19 God is faithful to His Word and does not change His mind in a fickle, capricious way like men do. It does not say He cannot or never changes His mind. In specific cases, God will not change His mind. In other cases, He does change His mind to remain true to His Word (e.g. Jonah; conditional prophecies).

Hezekiah: God said that he was a dead duck. This was the truth, not a lie. In response to prayer, God changed His mind and added 15 years to his life. Open Theism takes this literally, while the settled view does mental gymnastics to explain it away to retain a flawed theology.

God relents, 'repents', changes His mind (use a concordance for about 35 x where it uses these phrases).

It is circular to say that God would not be God if we deny a Calvinistic, classical view of His attributes. The issue is the nature of creation (open vs fully closed), not whether or not He is omniscient (He is in both views, but the differences between possible vs certain objects of knowledge is not blurred in the Open view).

[Guest Butero]

Calvinism, determinism, decretalism, compatibilism is not biblical. The Bible does portray God has personal, changing His mind at times, suprised at times, omnicompetent vs omnicausal, etc. Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Thought are some of the possibilities for understanding predestination, sovereignty, free will, etc.

Eternal now/simultaneity is philosophical, not biblical. Strong vs weak immutability, impassibility, etc. are also tradition, not truth.

We need to avoid determinism like the plague since it would make God responsible for heinous evil. A denial of libertarian free will undermines love, freedom, relationship, responsibility.

This is a big can of worms, but I would not be quick to assume all of the responses so far are accurate (e.g. God macro vs micromanages, for e.g.).

After 30 years of study, I believe Open Theism is a more biblical, coherent free will theism.

www.OVT

There is only one problem with what you are saying. God created Satan, and allows him to remain in the air space tempting people. Satan is evil, and God created him. He also allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve, and the Bible seems to imply that God knew Adam would sin. In that way, one can say that God is responsible for evil because he doesn't stop it. He could easily speak the devil out of existence anytime he pleases. I have studied this issue for years, and I don't think it is clear cut how much control God takes over what happens? I was certain we had absolute free will at one time, but the more I have read the Bible and the more I have thought about the way things are, the less certain I am.

God did NOT create Satan. He created Lucifer. God did not create fallen Adam, but innocent Adam. God did not create Judas as a devil/betrayer/son of perdition (Scripture says he became these things later). God did not create Hitler the mass murderer.

The possibility of great love implies the possibility of great evil. God does not intend nor desire things contrary to His will, holiness, goodness, but freedom is a double edged sword (necessary for reciprocal love relationships, but leads to potential of evil).

God knew Lucifer would become Satan. God knew Eve would be tempted and that Adam and Eve would fall, yet he allowed the devil access. Of course God created Judas Iscariot and he knew he would be the betrayer. Yes, he did create Hitler. While we may not understand the reasons, God created everything and everyone that has ever existed and knew what they would become. The Bible states he raised up Pharoah, and look at the evil things he did. What is to stop God from destroying the devil today and setting up his Kingdom on earth without the tribulation taking place? He is sovereign. He can do anything he wants.

[godrulz]

The issue is an aloof concept of Deity or one where God is desiring love, reciprocity, vulnerability, RELATIONSHIP, etc.

Saul was not God's choice, but he gave the people what they wanted. He knew Saul's heart and the likelihood that he would be a bad king. He gave in then regretted doing so when things panned out as He figured. Likewise, we see God delighting in His very good creation, then changing His mind/disposition (it was not in His heart in the beginning when things were different), going so far as to regretting making man and wanting to wipe us out! But NOAH....and He again relented/changed.

Pinnock:

"We may think of God primarily as an aloof monarch, removed from the contingencies of the world, unchangeable in every aspect of being, as an all-determining and irresistible power, aware of everything that will ever happen and never taking risks.

Or we may understand God as a caring parent with qualities of love and responsiveness, generosity and sensitivity, openness and vulnerability, a person (rather than a metaphysical principle) who experiences the world, responds to what happens, relates to us and interacts dynamically with humans."

The last paragraph is biblical, open theism. Classical theism/Calvinism/determinism and Deism or Process Thought are the extremes to avoid, not moderate Open Theism.

[godrulz]

Don't underestimate a God who does not have crystal-ball prescience, by His own choice (voluntary, inherent, self-limitation by creating a non-deterministic universe).

God is omnicompent, but you are making a straw man that He would be impotent if He does not have exhaustive definite foreknowledge (He knows reality as it is, knows all that is knowable, but He chose to have some of the future indeterminate so we would have free will to love in relationship vs mechanistic, deterministic universe). God is infinitely intelligent, creative, responsive, able. A being who is omnipotent is able to govern without being omnicausal (if he was omnicausal, there would be no evil in the world, so we should reject determinism even if it means God's knowledge of the future relates to possibilities vs certainties; this is not a problem since EDF offers no providential advantage anyway: God would not be able to change the fixed future without it making His foreknowledge false).

God was vulnerable during the incarnation, was He not? Vulnerability relates to humility, not a forfeiture of sovereignty, power, ultimate control. A risk free universe is only possible if determinism is true. Since men and Satan reject God's will and introduce grief to the heart of God and damage to the cosmos, it is obvious that God does not tightly control everything, even at the expense of His divine 'happiness' (God was grieved after the fall; Christians can even grieve and quench the Spirit, warfare vs blueprint model seen in the ministry of Jesus).

God cannot lose. How can puny man and Satan overthrow God when God could snuff us in an instant (he does not do so due to issues of irrevocable free will, justice, etc. He will triumph over evil in the end; can man or Satan stop God from throwing them in the lake of fire? You underestimate God's omnipotence to even suggest a denial of EDF means that God could fail His ultimate project, be wrong, be caught off guard, etc.).

The Open Theist view has a God who is fully eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, sovereign. This contrasts with impotent false gods/idols that are none of these things. We are differing about models of providence (macro vs micromanage, etc.), not whether God has these great attributes (He does).

Our assurance comes from His great CHARACTER (you are exalting power over love/holiness), not from EDF. God is good, holy, faithful, etc. He is not fickle like a man nor evil like Satan that He would arbitrarily change His mind.

The Flood is an e.g. of God changing His mind. He has now promised He would not do that again, so we have His faithfulness, truthfulness to depend on. He does not have to know the non-existent future in detail to be true to His Word, since He is in control of whether to send another global Flood or not.

Saul's destiny was not fixed, but God knew it was a bad idea and would likely turn out bad. Knowing this, should He not have refused? This illustrates that God is vulnerable by giving us a significant say-so and Him not always getting His way, even letting us have things that are not the highest good. There was a possibility that Saul would turn out better than expected. When God says 'NOW I know...' about testing in Scripture, this is a face value statement. Until free will choices are finalized, there is still an element of uncertainty, even for an omniscient God (the issue is the nature of reality, not God's ignorance).

Of course God knows that creating Lucifer or Adam could lead to rebellion. You and I know with kids that there is a possibility that they will turn out good or bad. The greater the capacity for love, the greater the capacity for hate/evil. What you want is for God to create robots that He can control and thus know for sure what will happen. You seem to be unaware of modal logic that rightly distinguishes possibility, probability, necessity, certainty/actuality, etc. You blur these distinctions to retain a preconceived idea.

The plan of redemption was formulated in eternity past. It was not implemented until AFTER the Fall in Gen. 3. It did not become actual until centuries later. It was not a last second plan because God did not even think of the possibility of Adam going rogue (more straw man, strident ignorance of the Open view).

It is not matter of God not thinking of something and fallen man informing God. It is a matter of relationship and love and God being willing to be influenced by creatures through prayer. If you are a parent, you would understand this. My children have influenced me to do things I would not automatically do. Hezekiah illustrates this as does the times Moses and others dialogue with God (will you spare the city if find 20 righteous? Yes. It could have stopped there, but then it goes down to fewer and fewer with God conceding, though he could have said no and unilaterally done what he wants).

The Open view has exciting implications for prayer, relationship, social responsibility, evangelism, etc. God has sovereignly chosen to work cooperatively with man. This is vulnerability (which does NOT mean weakness, but strength) in that angels or divine writing in the sky might have been more effective for world evangelization, millions of Jews could be alive if Hitler was not allowed to live, millions would not be in hell if God would predestine by decree everyone to be saved (TULIP is wrong), etc.

[e lansing]

Don't underestimate a God who does not have crystal-ball prescience, by His own choice (voluntary, inherent, self-limitation by creating a non-deterministic universe).

God is omnicompent, but you are making a straw man that He would be impotent if He does not have exhaustive definite foreknowledge (He knows reality as it is, knows all that is knowable, but He chose to have some of the future indeterminate so we would have free will to love in relationship vs mechanistic, deterministic universe). God is infinitely intelligent, creative, responsive, able. A being who is omnipotent is able to govern without being omnicausal (if he was omnicausal, there would be no evil in the world, so we should reject determinism even if it means God's knowledge of the future relates to possibilities vs certainties; this is not a problem since EDF offers no providential advantage anyway: God would not be able to change the fixed future without it making His foreknowledge false).

God was vulnerable during the incarnation, was He not? Vulnerability relates to humility, not a forfeiture of sovereignty, power, ultimate control. A risk free universe is only possible if determinism is true. Since men and Satan reject God's will and introduce grief to the heart of God and damage to the cosmos, it is obvious that God does not tightly control everything, even at the expense of His divine 'happiness' (God was grieved after the fall; Christians can even grieve and quench the Spirit, warfare vs blueprint model seen in the ministry of Jesus).

God cannot lose. How can puny man and Satan overthrow God when God could snuff us in an instant (he does not do so due to issues of irrevocable free will, justice, etc. He will triumph over evil in the end; can man or Satan stop God from throwing them in the lake of fire? You underestimate God's omnipotence to even suggest a denial of EDF means that God could fail His ultimate project, be wrong, be caught off guard, etc.).

The Open Theist view has a God who is fully eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, sovereign. This contrasts with impotent false gods/idols that are none of these things. We are differing about models of providence (macro vs micromanage, etc.), not whether God has these great attributes (He does).

Our assurance comes from His great CHARACTER (you are exalting power over love/holiness), not from EDF. God is good, holy, faithful, etc. He is not fickle like a man nor evil like Satan that He would arbitrarily change His mind.

The Flood is an e.g. of God changing His mind. He has now promised He would not do that again, so we have His faithfulness, truthfulness to depend on. He does not have to know the non-existent future in detail to be true to His Word, since He is in control of whether to send another global Flood or not.

Saul's destiny was not fixed, but God knew it was a bad idea and would likely turn out bad. Knowing this, should He not have refused? This illustrates that God is vulnerable by giving us a significant say-so and Him not always getting His way, even letting us have things that are not the highest good. There was a possibility that Saul would turn out better than expected. When God says 'NOW I know...' about testing in Scripture, this is a face value statement. Until free will choices are finalized, there is still an element of uncertainty, even for an omniscient God (the issue is the nature of reality, not God's ignorance).

Of course God knows that creating Lucifer or Adam could lead to rebellion. You and I know with kids that there is a possibility that they will turn out good or bad. The greater the capacity for love, the greater the capacity for hate/evil. What you want is for God to create robots that He can control and thus know for sure what will happen. You seem to be unaware of modal logic that rightly distinguishes possibility, probability, necessity, certainty/actuality, etc. You blur these distinctions to retain a preconceived idea.

The plan of redemption was formulated in eternity past. It was not implemented until AFTER the Fall in Gen. 3. It did not become actual until centuries later. It was not a last second plan because God did not even think of the possibility of Adam going rogue (more straw man, strident ignorance of the Open view).

It is not matter of God not thinking of something and fallen man informing God. It is a matter of relationship and love and God being willing to be influenced by creatures through prayer. If you are a parent, you would understand this. My children have influenced me to do things I would not automatically do. Hezekiah illustrates this as does the times Moses and others dialogue with God (will you spare the city if find 20 righteous? Yes. It could have stopped there, but then it goes down to fewer and fewer with God conceding, though he could have said no and unilaterally done what he wants).

The Open view has exciting implications for prayer, relationship, social responsibility, evangelism, etc. God has sovereignly chosen to work cooperatively with man. This is vulnerability (which does NOT mean weakness, but strength) in that angels or divine writing in the sky might have been more effective for world evangelization, millions of Jews could be alive if Hitler was not allowed to live, millions would not be in hell if God would predestine by decree everyone to be saved (TULIP is wrong), etc.

Intresting! you got me thinking. I dont fully agree, however, I have not read such context. hummm

[godrulz]

We should have some familiarity with Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism before we get too dogmatic. All claim biblical support, but some views are stronger than others.

[e lansing]

We should have some familiarity with Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism before we get too dogmatic. All claim biblical support, but some views are stronger than others.

Agreed!