TO KNOW OR NOT TO KNOW!

[EricH]

This closer to the truth, except that God did not intent nor know as a certainty (vs possibility) that man would Fall. He formulated a plan of redemption before creation, but it was not implemented and actualized until after the Fall. God did not intend nor desire the Fall nor was it a foregone conclusion. God created things with the possibility of rebellion, but He also set things up with provision that it was not necessary nor likely.

This is an interesting assertion. Namely that God did not know outcomes, only possibilities. COuld you domenstrate how you arrived at this idea from scripture. Namely that God has created an open system of which He is unaware of the final result.

[EricH]

God knows all things. Everything about everyone all the ins and outs of this world. God knows the past, present and future... that we all acknowledge, yes?

The best would be to put it straight forward:

1 - Did God create Lucifer knowing that he was going to rebel? So in a sense did God not create sin?

2 - Eventhough God gave Adam and Eve a fair warning about what would happen if they disobeyed Him... why did He create them in knowing what would happen?????????

3 - Scriptures are very clear in saying that Satan is the ruler of this world we live in (earth), that this is his prison. Why were humans placed on Earth then to be tempted?

4 - When a new baby is created... God knows that person's future. Why does He create someone knowing that they will NOT choose Him oneday and go to Hell?????????????????????????????????

The first issue is the nature of time and eternity. The common 'eternal now', timelessness view of God has Greek philosophical roots. Presentism vs eternalism is more coherent. God experiences an endless duration of time, which is simply duration/sequence/succession. The Hebraic view is that God is from everlasting to everlasting, not experiencing reality in one simultaneous moment (Ps. 90:2; Rev. 1:4, 8).

There are 4 major views with scads of academic papers on this issue. Wolterstorff's view, in my mind, is the most biblical. Wrong assumptions on this area will lead to errors in other areas of doctrine:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0830815511...926#reader-link

intro) God knows the past and present exhaustively. He knows the hearts and minds of men moment by moment. God knows the future as possible, not actual/certain. There are two motifs in Scripture. He knows some of the future as certain (Is. 46; 48). These are the things that He unilaterally brings to pass by His ability, not a supposed foreknowledge. St. Worm would proof text these passages. The other set of verses show that some of the future is open/unsettled due to free will contingencies (may or may not happen). Worm would take these verses figuratively or anthropomorphically (expressing God in human terms though he is not really like that). We should take both sets at face value, a strength of the Open view. An open future is the type of creation God chose rather than one that is closed/settled due to determinism (st. worm). The problem with internalflame's simple foreknowledge view (usually Arminian) is that exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is a logical absurdity/contradiction (this gets technical, but complete foreknowledge would lead to a closed, fatalisitic future at the expense of freedom).

1) God is holy. He is not responsible for sin or evil. He did not intend it nor did He desire it. It serves no good purpose and is not necessary for His glory. He opposes evil (Jesus) and never affirms it as His mysterious will.

God knew it was possible for Lucifer to use his free moral agency to sin. In light of the God and glory He knew, it is shocking that Lucifer allowed pride and evil to enter His heart. This grieved God and was not known as a certainty that it would happen. After it did happen, God had a plan and project to redeem man. This did not apply to Satan and demons who sinned from innocence against great light and privilege.

2) You are wrongly assuming that God knew as a certainty that Adam and Eve would Fall. He knew it was possible, unless He created automatons/robots who could not enter into give-and-take reciprocal love relationships. Significant freedom was necessary to be able to have love relationship, but at the risk of misuing freedom. He had a potential plan of redemption if they fell, but this was not a foregone conclusion if they did not fall.

The historical narrative is that God created things perfect ('very good'). In Gen. 3, after the Fall, God changed His mind (which is not possible in the traditional view), was grieved, and regretted making man. He was going to wipe man out, until 'But Noah....'. We see God responding in history (His Story) as things unfold (a timeless god could not interact with us and would be impersonal without will, intellect, emotions which all require time).

3) Satan is on a leash. His ultimate destiny is the lake of fire with unregenerate man. God did not place man here to be tempted. This is a consequence of Lucifer and Adam's fall. God originally intended for man to live in paradise and walk with God forever. The Fall introduced new contingencies and consequences. God has provided a way out for temptation. We do not need to give into it and are responsible if we do. God did not destroy Satan, Hitler, you and me instantly due to justice issues. He set the parameters at creation, and does not rescind them immediately. Justice will take place in the end. In the mean time, grace and mercy can triumph over it. The cross and resurrection of Christ is God's primary response to evil.

4) It is a wrong assumption to say that God knows a baby's future. He knows the possibilities, but not the certainties/actualities until the life is lived. Hitler did not have to become Hitler. Judas did not have to betray Jesus. Prayer does change things. Islam and Calvinism have a fatalisitic worldview. The Bible shows that we start life at conception with a blank slate. God has plans and intentions for us, but these can be resisted or thwarted on an individual basis. His global project and purposes will come to pass without God having His way in every detail. Unless God elects some to salvation and non-elects others to damnation (this is Calvinism's TULIP and makes God's love and holiness arbitrary vs impartial), then a person's destiny is not fixed. If God knew Hitler would turn out the way He did, why not kill Him at birth? If the future is fixed like the past (it is not), then why pray, preach, evangelize, etc.? A wrong theology has practical implications.

This overview is more coherent than the alternatives. I used to rack my brain with confusion trying to reconcile these issues with a loving, holy God. The problem was a faulty, uncritically accepted theology. There are objections to my view, but also good answers to the isolated proof texts against it. When I understood this biblical view, the lights went on and it made my relationship with God come alive and removed a barrier for unbelievers who could not accept a God that would send people to hell for no fault of their own.

May you have wisdom as you search out these things.

The system you propose is certainly logically consistent within itself, but Open Theism (which you are proposing here) is not without its problems from a biblical perspective.

[st. Worm]

'You are wrongly assuming that God knew as a certainty that Adam and Eve would Fall."

My Bible says that God is all knowing and that includes the past present and future. Of course he knew Adam would sin. God does not just know "possibilities" as if he were playing a cosmic lottery. God knows all down to the most minute detail. There is nothing God does not know. If he did not know everything he would not really be God. Further he ordains all things that happen. If we wish to know God's secret will we merely have look at what has actually happened. In terms of the future only God knows. We are given His Word as his revelation to us. Not a Calvinist, but Calvin wisely noted that God stokes the fires of hell for those waste their time wanting to peer into the business of why God does what he does.

[godrulz]

This is a big topic. "God of the Possible" (see link) by Boyd gives a variety of Scriptures to demonstrate an open future. The verses that talk about God changing His mind are part of the equation. Calvin explained them away as figurative without warrant. Calvin also said that double predestination was a horrible doctrine, yet he blindly believed it anyway.

A quick comment on Boyd. Boyd admits that at the end of the day, the issue he is trying to overcome (namely Divine responsibility for evil) is difficult to address even with his theory: He says,

[godrulz]

God knows all things. Everything about everyone all the ins and outs of this world. God knows the past, present and future... that we all acknowledge, yes?

The system you propose is certainly logically consistent within itself, but Open Theism (which you are proposing here) is not without its problems from a biblical perspective.

Scripture is the primary issue. Some of the issues are more logical (modal logic is about necessities, certainties, possibilities, probabilities, etc.) or philosophical (e.g. the exact nature of time vs eternity is not exhaustively dealt with in Scripture, nor is the nature of the Trinity or incarnation). I also feel that Calvinism is logically consistent within itself, but is based on deductive reasoning that does not stand up to biblical scrutiny. What is your world view?

Open Theism is not fully developed yet. The 'problems' are being wrestled with in academic circles. I feel it is less problematic than the alternative views and is a mediate position between extreme views. The anti-open theism books I have read generally misunderstand and misrepresent the view. They confuse it with Process Theology/finite godism, which is simply not true (any similarity in a few areas does not negate the numerous differences).

I appreciate that it is hard to think outside the box if one thinks that a view limits God.

e.g. Omniscience does not have to mean that God knows everything. It can mean that He knows everything knowable. Likewise, omnipotence does not mean that God does everything. It means He can do all that is doable (He cannot create a square circle too heavy to lift?! This is a logical absurdity, not a limitation on God). Sovereignty can mean providential vs meticulous control.

I propose this as a possible solution to the confusion of the opening post. It merits consideration, since I think the other views inadequately deal with the issue from a biblical perspective. They assume mystery where there is incoherence or tradition that is blindly accepted.

Eric: Which denomination do you pastor in? I used to pastor the equivalent of an Assemblies of God church in Canada (my denomination rejects Open Theism).

[godrulz]

'You are wrongly assuming that God knew as a certainty that Adam and Eve would Fall."

My Bible says that God is all knowing and that includes the past present and future. Of course he knew Adam would sin. God does not just know "possibilities" as if he were playing a cosmic lottery. God knows all down to the most minute detail. There is nothing God does not know. If he did not know everything he would not really be God. Further he ordains all things that happen. If we wish to know God's secret will we merely have look at what has actually happened. In terms of the future only God knows. We are given His Word as his revelation to us. Not a Calvinist, but Calvin wisely noted that God stokes the fires of hell for those waste their time wanting to peer into the business of why God does what he does.

This is begging the question and circular reasoning. You are assuming what you are trying to prove. The future is fundamentally different than the past and present. The potential/possible future becomes the fixed past through the present. God correctly knows reality as it is. He knows all that is knowable. The future is not there yet to know. It is not a deficiency in omniscience to not know a nothing.

A decreetal (ordains everything...is it infra or supralapsarianism?) system is an assumption based on deduction, not inductive, biblical exegesis. It is Augustinian/Calvinistic flowing out of a hyper-sovereignty view that forgets about God's love and holiness. Your mystery and secrecy is incoherence in light of His revelation of His character and ways. We cannot know God exhaustively, but what we can know from His revelation is true. It is the glory of a King to search out a matter. Theology is the study of God. Let us do it well with excellence.

[EricH]

Godrulz,

I accidentally edited your post rather than responding to it (my bad) Could you repost the verses that support your position again?

Thanks

Eric

[EricH]

This is a big topic. "God of the Possible" (see link) by Boyd gives a variety of Scriptures to demonstrate an open future. The verses that talk about God changing His mind are part of the equation. Calvin explained them away as figurative without warrant. Calvin also said that double predestination was a horrible doctrine, yet he blindly believed it anyway.

A quick comment on Boyd. Boyd admits that at the end of the day, the issue he is trying to overcome (namely Divine responsibility for evil) is difficult to address even with his theory: He says,

[EricH]

Scripture is the primary issue. Some of the issues are more logical (modal logic is about necessities, certainties, possibilities, probabilities, etc.) or philosophical (e.g. the exact nature of time vs eternity is not exhaustively dealt with in Scripture, nor is the nature of the Trinity or incarnation). I also feel that Calvinism is logically consistent within itself, but is based on deductive reasoning that does not stand up to biblical scrutiny. What is your world view?

Open Theism is not fully developed yet. The 'problems' are being wrestled with in academic circles. I feel it is less problematic than the alternative views and is a mediate position between extreme views. The anti-open theism books I have read generally misunderstand and misrepresent the view. They confuse it with Process Theology/finite godism, which is simply not true (any similarity in a few areas does not negate the numerous differences).

I appreciate that it is hard to think outside the box if one thinks that a view limits God.

e.g. Omniscience does not have to mean that God knows everything. It can mean that He knows everything knowable. Likewise, omnipotence does not mean that God does everything. It means He can do all that is doable (He cannot create a square circle too heavy to lift?! This is a logical absurdity, not a limitation on God). Sovereignty can mean providential vs meticulous control.

I propose this as a possible solution to the confusion of the opening post. It merits consideration, since I think the other views inadequately deal with the issue from a biblical perspective. They assume mystery where there is incoherence or tradition that is blindly accepted.

Eric: Which denomination do you pastor in? I used to pastor the equivalent of an Assemblies of God church in Canada (my denomination rejects Open Theism).

I pastor in an Evangelical Free Church. Please post the verses you supplied again. Intead of responding to your post, I hit the edit button by mistake. I would greatly like to review the verses you provided

Sorry about the error

[godrulz]

Godrulz,

I accidentally edited your post rather than responding to it (my bad) Could you repost the verses that support your position again?

Thanks

Eric

If you are a moderator, that was a lot of work?! Arggg.

I do not have time now.

I am not happy!

Jeremiah 18

Jonah

Hezekiah

Genesis 3

(I had comments to support these....arggg).