909 - The Openness of God

Download paper_909.pdf

Referred to SCOD

Comments

[Keith R. Starkey]

In Paper #909, lines 5 and 6, this is written: "WHEREAS, the theology known as the ‘openness of God’ revises understanding of God’s attributes, particularly His omniscience," Here is where the misunderstanding of the Openness of God (more properly "Open Theism") concept begins: the belief that omniscience and other of God’s attributes are being redefined, which is not true.

Does God know absolutely everything, no questions asked, no exceptions made? Let's answer this question by addressing first God’s omnipotence (God can do everything). To affirm that God can do absolutely anything, no questions asked, we set ourselves up for a hard fall. Can God make square circles and married bachelors? Can God become evil? Can God cease to be God? Can God create another eternal God? Can God create a female God whom He can marry? Can God become finite? Can God decide to make our eternal security not so secure? And the proverbial skeptic's question, can God make a rock so big that even He cannot lift it?

These are not all illogical questions. After all, a rock is a real physical entity, and God is a real spirit being. So the question really is can a spirit make a physical entity so big that even that spirit cannot lift it? I think that is a valid question. Further, if I answer "Yes," than I am told that God is not omnipotent; He cannot lift the rock. If I answer "no," I am again told that God is not omnipotent; for He cannot make something so big that even He would be unable to lift it. But if I answer, "I could care less if God can or cannot make a rock so big He can't lift it because omnipotence is not defined by God being able to do absolutely everything, no questions asked,” then I am free from the skeptic’s trap! There absolutely must be, therefore, a qualification to the statement “God can do anything,” and that qualification is this: God can do anything that does not violate the nature of who and what God is.

If the definition of omnipotence, then, requires qualification, it isn’t unreasonable to assume that the definition of omniscience (God knows everything) may also require a qualification. Indeed, it must. After all, can God know that I am single if I am not? Can God know what it is like to be married? Can God know what's it's like to lie? Can God know what it's like to not be God? Can God know what it’s like to be finite? We can quickly see that there are many things God simply cannot know just as there are many things God cannot do. If God were able to do and to know absolutely everything, we would have a very mixed up and volatile God on our hands. No thank you!

The qualification, then, for defining omniscience is this: God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods. This is not a redefining of omniscience; it is the real facts of life about the meaning of the word. It captures perfectly the nature of who and what God is without violating both who and what He is. So it really isn’t a well-thought-out conclusion to declare that the Open Theist (someone who believes in the Open View) denies or redefines God’s omniscience. That simply is not true.

Open Theism is the doctrine that part of the future is yet to be decided; it is “open.” Why? Because of freewill. It isn’t that God could not have made a world that was fully determined (fully known), but our world is not that world. Because of freewill, every one of us has the ability to decide how some (not all, but some) of the future will turn out. We do this every day when we make choices. Our ability to choose makes it impossible for God (who created us this way) to know absolutely everything we will ever do, say, feel, think, pray, or what have you, for all of our future. For example, if the Lord appeared to you and told you, “I am the Lord, and since I know absolutely everything. I’m going to tell you exactly what you will do in the next thirty minutes, down to the amount of blinks, scratches and sneezes you will experience, down to every thought you will think and every word you will speak; I am the Lord.” All you would have to do is do something differently than what He told you. As a matter of fact (this is important), you couldn’t help but do or say differently some of the things you were told because you have freewill. This means that we can be assured that the Lord will never appear to any of us and declare He knows our futures as I described above. He made the world such that it is impossible for Him to know our futures as exhaustively settled. It would be a complete violation of who and what God is for Him to be able to know this kind of information in a freewill environment. Even Molinism cannot account for the impossibility of the Lord telling you your future as exhaustively settled. This does not mean that God does not know our thoughts, our minds, our hearts and, well, ourselves better than we know ourselves. But just because He knows these things we have no need, whatsoever, to insist that God knows absolutely everything or that our entire futures are exhaustively settled. The simple facts of life prove they are not.

Finally, God has determined how some of the future will go, and that cannot be changed. Further, Some things are going to be the way they are because they cannot be changed (e.g., God will always be God). And finally, God is never, ever at a loss because of our freewill choices, and neither is He ever without complete control of our world. No one is ever going to catch God off guard! He’s fully aware of everything, and He can never be found without the ability to run this world as only He can do. It’s like the often used chess analogy: Since God knows absolutely every combination of moves that can be made in the game, no matter what choices His opponent makes, that opponent can never win. In other words, God wins the game no matter what moves His opponent makes.

I pray that the Council give serious thought before tossing the Open View off into heresy. Open Theism does not violate any doctrine that is foundational to the Christian faith. It would show the Council’s prudence and wisdom to think this matter through thoroughly and thoughtfully.

Sincerely,

Keith R. Starkey
Lay person, FMC in Alexandria, MN

P.S. For whatever reason, this post has run all my sentences together. I apologize that I do not know how to correct this.

[Chuck Thompson]

In reguards to the omnience of God, in that He is all-knowing. I believe He is all-knowing, but not in the sense that He knows that you are going to scratch your nose in 5 seconds.
I believe that He is all-knowing in the sense of things that relate to man's future.
The Bible code that has been discovered is evidence that God is all-knowing of future events because they were encoded in the Bible, and God knew that one day man would be able discover the code.
I believe too, that if God was all-knowing as to every aspect of our lives, and he controlled us like puppets, He would never have put the the "tree of knowledge of good and evil." in the Garden of Eden.
So, there must be an understanding of what God's omniesence is.

[Pastor Susan Wynn]

Open theism (openness of God) tries to make a case that God is unknowing of the future (according to Wikipedia). This theology runs contrary to the Scriptures. If we accept openness theology, I believe we have to discount Revelation 13:8, which says the "Lamb has been slain from the foundation of the world." God doesn't have future knowledge, openness theologians would say, so He can't have known from before the foundation of the world that a Lamb would be needed!

I also believe we would have to discount the fact that God announced through the prophet Isaiah that He chose Cyrus to free the Jews from Babylonian captivity, 150 years before Cyrus was King of Persia (see Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1-7). How can we say that He sometimes knows, but not always? He sits above time, my brothers and sisters in the Lord! He gives us free will, but He sees all time at once, from His heavenly perspective. We must remember YHWH's words, from Isaiah 46:8:

"Remember this, and be assured, recall to mind, you transgressors. Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying 'My purpose will be established, and I will accompish all My good pleasure.'"

[Keith R. Starkey]

Greetings all,

This post is to the Council, though I am addressing Pastor Susan Wynn's recent post.

Pastor Susan begins her post (above) with, "Open theism (openness of God) tries to make a case that God is unknowing of the future (according to Wikipedia). This theology runs contrary to the Scriptures." If this is what Wikipedia states, than I whole-heartedly agree with Pastor Susan, since the Open View does not try to make the case that God is unknowing of the future. How foolish that would be!

Pastor Susan closes her post by quoting Isaiah 46:8: "Remember this, and be assured, recall to mind, you transgressors. Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying 'My purpose will be established, and I will accompish all My good pleasure.'" Again, Open Theism supports this verse, for God is God and there is no other; He declares the end from the beginning and will accomplish His good pleasure. No disagreement or contradiction here between the Bible and Open Theism.

Pastor Susan quotes Revelation 13:8 to support her conviction that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. Once again, Open Theism supports this, for God did know the Lamb as slain from the foundation of the world. How foolish it would be to think that God didn't think of the Lamb until the Fall!.

In further consideration of Pastor Susan's concerns, Open Theism has no conflict with God calling Cyrus before He was born to save the Jews. Further, when Pastor Susan rhetorically asks, "How can we say that He sometimes knows, but not always?" Open Theism is in complete agreement; one cannot say that God sometimes knows but not always.

There are two statements Pastor Susan made that are problematic. One of them is when she said,"God doesn't have future knowledge, openness theologians would say, so He can't have known from before the foundation of the world that a Lamb would be needed!" This is not at all what Open Theism teaches, and if any Open Theist does claim this, consider that teaching erroneous. That person has gone into some unknown territory that is not at all Open Theism. The second problem Pastor Susan creates is one of plain and simple logical contradiction when she said, "He gives us free will, but He sees all time at once, from His heavenly perspective." One simply cannot claim that we have freewill and yet at the same time claim that God knows everything from eternity past (EVERYTHING!) that will ever happen.

Council, brothers and sisters, and Pastor Susan, think about this very, very carefully. If God knows everything (and I mean ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING) you will ever say, do, think, feel, if He knows every prayer you will ever pray, every tear you will ever cry, every conversation you will ever have, every step you will ever walk...everything, then it is settled forever that you will do all that He already knows you will do. Now think about what that means. It means that there is no way you could change a thing (not an iota) if God ever told or showed you any of your future. You would HAVE to do everything as you heard and saw it. Now I ask you, is that reality? No, not in the slightest. Reality is that we not only can and do make choices, but we couldn't help but change things that anyone, including God told us would be done exactly (I mean EXACTLY) as we were told. What does all this mean? It means that God, who created the world like this, is never going to be foolish enough to try to tell anyone all of their future (I know, "their" - plural pronoun with a singular verb. Oh well!).

God could have made the world such that He would know everything that everybody would ever do, but this can never be once He interjects freewill into the world. It is simply a contradiction to the facts of life as we live them to say that we have freewill (the ability to choose in many different situations) when it is supposedly already known what we will do. Amazingly, even all Calvinists (Arminianists and, yes, Free Methodists as well) live their daily lives as if the Open View is true, as if part (not all, but some) of the future is yet to have been decided and that that part is thus unknown. Just try for a minute to imagine the opposite of how we live, a world where everything...EVERYTHING you will ever think, say and do is already known! When you pray, God would say, "I already know every word you will say, and every word I will say in return - you're entire prayer life is as if it's already been recorded." Maybe this is the reality of some other world God has created, but it sure isn't our reality.

Please, my brothers and sisters, Council and Pastor Susan, study carefully what the Open View is. Ask questions, and please don't listen to the cock and bull that's out there adding only confusion to the matter. The View is very, very simple. It's nothing more or less than this: Part of the future is "open," meaning that God has made this world such that neither He nor we can know that part of the future as exhaustively settled and final until we get to that time in the future or sometime near it.

It is "the nature of the future" that we are talking about, not God's omniscience. Many Calvinisists believe that absolutely everything is determined. Arminianists believe God has Simple Foreknowledge, meaning He just knows absolutely everything that will ever happen. Neither of these is sufficient, however, to explain how we daily exercise freewill. Again, I ask us, if the Lord appeared to us and told us that He was going to tell us or show us our future (everything!), how is it not true that we would NOT have to say or do everything we saw and heard? For that matter, how would we not even be able to stop ourselves from saying or doing things differently than what He told or showed us? You couldn't help it. You'd do something differently, I can tell you that! exactly as we heard and saw it! This is why the Lord will never be foolish enough to attempt this feat, since He's the one who has made it impossible for anyone, including Himself, from being able to tell anyone ALL of their future EXACTLY as it will happen, step by step, prayer by prayer, thought by thought, word by word. I really hope the reality of all this is hitting home here. Freewill is God's way of ensuring that we will have a choice and say in many matters (not all, but many), and it is His way of protecting anyone from ever taking that away from us.

And, again, I stress that Open Theism whole-heartedly affirms that God is in complete control, and those things He has determined will happen just as He said. He is never caught off guard, and He's always one hundred percent aware and knowledgeable of everything at all times. He knows everything...EVERYTHING that is not in violation of who and what He is (see my first post in this blog).

There are many books on Open Theism on the shelves, but most of them are from a theological or philosophical perspective. This makes it difficult for many of us to follow closely the contents of those books. So I decided to write a book in plain and simple English on the Open View from the perspective of reality as we live it daily. This is not to put a plug in for my book, but to alert many of you that I know how easy it is to misunderstand the Open View, and I wish to do something about this. Even well-respected scholars are to blame for not thinking more carefully and obtaining a more accurate perspective of what the View is before they condemn it. The book will be called "The Open View in Plain English," and will, hopefully, be published soon. In the interim, please consider well what the Open View is and what it is not.

Sincerely,

Keith R. Starkey

[Keith R. Starkey]

Greetings all,

This post is to the Council, though I am addressing Pastor Susan Wynn's recent post.

Pastor Susan begins her post (above) with, "Open theism (openness of God) tries to make a case that God is unknowing of the future (according to Wikipedia). This theology runs contrary to the Scriptures." If this is what Wikipedia states, than I whole-heartedly agree with Pastor Susan, since the Open View does not try to make the case that God is unknowing of the future. How foolish that would be!

Pastor Susan closes her post by quoting Isaiah 46:8: "Remember this, and be assured, recall to mind, you transgressors. Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying 'My purpose will be established, and I will accompish all My good pleasure.'" Again, Open Theism supports this verse, for God is God and there is no other; He declares the end from the beginning and will accomplish His good pleasure. No disagreement or contradiction here between the Bible and Open Theism.

Pastor Susan quotes Revelation 13:8 to support her conviction that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. Once again, Open Theism supports this, for God did know the Lamb as slain from the foundation of the world. How foolish it would be to think that God didn't think of the Lamb until the Fall!.

In further consideration of Pastor Susan's concerns, Open Theism has no conflict with God calling Cyrus before He was born to save the Jews. Further, when Pastor Susan rhetorically asks, "How can we say that He sometimes knows, but not always?" Open Theism is in complete agreement; one cannot say that God sometimes knows but not always.

There are two statements Pastor Susan made that are problematic. One of them is when she said,"God doesn't have future knowledge, openness theologians would say, so He can't have known from before the foundation of the world that a Lamb would be needed!" This is not at all what Open Theism teaches, and if any Open Theist does claim this, consider that teaching erroneous. That person has gone into some unknown territory that is not at all Open Theism. The second problem Pastor Susan creates is one of plain and simple logical contradiction when she said, "He gives us free will, but He sees all time at once, from His heavenly perspective." One simply cannot claim that we have freewill and yet at the same time claim that God knows everything from eternity past (EVERYTHING!) that will ever happen.

Council, brothers and sisters, and Pastor Susan, think about this very, very carefully. If God knows everything (and I mean ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING) you will ever say, do, think, feel, if He knows every prayer you will ever pray, every tear you will ever cry, every conversation you will ever have, every step you will ever walk...everything, then it is settled forever that you will do all that He already knows you will do. Now think about what that means. It means that there is no way you could change a thing (not an iota) if God ever told or showed you any of your future. You would HAVE to do everything as you heard and saw it. Now I ask you, is that reality? No, not in the slightest. Reality is that we not only can and do make choices, but we couldn't help but change things that anyone, including God told us would be done exactly (I mean EXACTLY) as we were told. What does all this mean? It means that God, who created the world like this, is never going to be foolish enough to try to tell anyone all of their future (I know, "their" - plural pronoun with a singular verb. Oh well!).

God could have made the world such that He would know everything that everybody would ever do, but this can never be once He interjects freewill into the world. It is simply a contradiction to the facts of life as we live them to say that we have freewill (the ability to choose in many different situations) when it is supposedly already known what we will do. Amazingly, even all Calvinists (Arminianists and, yes, Free Methodists as well) live their daily lives as if the Open View is true, as if part (not all, but some) of the future is yet to have been decided and that that part is thus unknown. Just try for a minute to imagine the opposite of how we live, a world where everything...EVERYTHING you will ever think, say and do is already known! When you pray, God would say, "I already know every word you will say, and every word I will say in return - you're entire prayer life is as if it's already been recorded." Maybe this is the reality of some other world God has created, but it sure isn't our reality.

Please, my brothers and sisters, Council and Pastor Susan, study carefully what the Open View is. Ask questions, and please don't listen to the cock and bull that's out there adding only confusion to the matter. The View is very, very simple. It's nothing more or less than this: Part of the future is "open," meaning that God has made this world such that neither He nor we can know that part of the future as exhaustively settled and final until we get to that time in the future or sometime near it.

It is "the nature of the future" that we are talking about, not God's omniscience. Many Calvinisists believe that absolutely everything is determined. Arminianists believe God has Simple Foreknowledge, meaning He just knows absolutely everything that will ever happen. Neither of these is sufficient, however, to explain how we daily exercise freewill. Again, I ask us, if the Lord appeared to us and told us that He was going to tell us or show us our future (everything!), how is it not true that we would NOT have to say or do everything we saw and heard? For that matter, how would we not even be able to stop ourselves from saying or doing things differently than what He told or showed us? You couldn't help it. You'd do something differently, I can tell you that! exactly as we heard and saw it! This is why the Lord will never be foolish enough to attempt this feat, since He's the one who has made it impossible for anyone, including Himself, from being able to tell anyone ALL of their future EXACTLY as it will happen, step by step, prayer by prayer, thought by thought, word by word. I really hope the reality of all this is hitting home here. Freewill is God's way of ensuring that we will have a choice and say in many matters (not all, but many), and it is His way of protecting anyone from ever taking that away from us.

And, again, I stress that Open Theism whole-heartedly affirms that God is in complete control, and those things He has determined will happen just as He said. He is never caught off guard, and He's always one hundred percent aware and knowledgeable of everything at all times. He knows everything...EVERYTHING that is not in violation of who and what He is (see my first post in this blog).

There are many books on Open Theism on the shelves, but most of them are from a theological or philosophical perspective. This makes it difficult for many of us to follow closely the contents of those books. So I decided to write a book in plain and simple English on the Open View from the perspective of reality as we live it daily. This is not to put a plug in for my book, but to alert many of you that I know how easy it is to misunderstand the Open View, and I wish to do something about this. Even well-respected scholars are to blame for not thinking more carefully and obtaining a more accurate perspective of what the View is before they condemn it. The book will be called "The Open View in Plain English," and will, hopefully, be published soon. In the interim, please consider well what the Open View is and what it is not.

Sincerely,

[Pastor Susan Wynn]

It is important that we, as children of God, understand that God has given us free will, but that, because He sits above time, everything that ever was has already happened; that is why He is able to have foreknowledge regarding Cyrus being appointed King of Persia. Imagine how many free will decisions had to be made between Isaiah's prophecy and the placement of Cyrus on the throne! But God saw that, and sees everything that ever will be, through all of eternity. As I quoted from Isaiah, He knows the end from the beginning. Here is a quote from Theopedia, another resource, on what open theism is:

"Open theism, also called free will theism and openness theology, is the belief that God does not exercise meticulous control of the universe but leaves it "open" for humans to make significant choices (free will) that impact their relationships with God and others. A corollary of this is that God has not predetermined the future. Open Theists further believe that this would imply that God does not know the future exhaustively. Proponents affirm that God is omniscient, but deny that this means that God knows everything that will happen.
"Our rejection of divine timelessness and our affirmation of dynamic omniscience are the most controversial elements in our proposal and the view of foreknowledge receives the most attention. However the watershed issue in the debate is not whether God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF) but whether God is ever affected by and responds to what we do. This is the same watershed that divides Calvinism from Arminianism" - John Sanders
Open Theists argue that people are created to be in meaningful relationships with God and others and as moral beings must have the ability to make real, responsible choices in their lives. Open Theists argue that this cannot be accomplished as long as God exercises exhaustive control of the universe or predetermines the future because this would remove humanity's free will.
The counter point to this is that critics of Open Theism say that if God is not exercising meticulous control of the universe, or does not exhaustively know the future, then this would imply that He is not in control and we are not able to completely trust in God's sovereignty. Furthermore, the question remains, will God actually be able to triumph over evil? Open Theists answer these critiques by noting that while God does not exercise meticulous control, he is "ultimately" in control."

I believe that open theism is a case of man's philosophy blended with solid biblical theology. Historically, this blending has resulted in heresy in the church. Let us not try to out-think God, or try to figure Him out entirely; we cannot! As the heavens are above the earth, so are His ways higher than our ways, and His thoughts than our thoughts. Let us, however, have the mind of Christ, and keep our focus on our role as His disciples and ambassadors.

[Keith R. Starkey]

Greetings, Council and brothers and sisters,

This will be my last post on this subject, as I believe there is little more I have to say here…that is, of course, unless God knew from eternity past that on such-and-such date in the future I would be writing another post. In that case, I have no choice but to be here again! Sorry, I can’t change that!

If I haven’t said so yet, let me say so now. I believe that part of the future is open. The label “Open Theist” has been given to those who believe such, but for the remainder of this post, I’m going to toss out that label and just talk as if part of the future is open.

Wikepedia, Thopedia, and every other edia are often the wrong places to turn to in order to learn about many things, the future being one of them. One need only turn to reality to realize that a natural and inescapable bi-product of freewill is a partly open future. In other words, it is the very reality we live in that is proof enough of the future being partly open. Reality is the best resource for learning about a partly open future.

Let’s be clear about the difference between saying “exhaustive knowledge” and “exhaustively settled or definite foreknowledge.” The former means God knows the future exhaustively, which He absolutely must know as such or He wouldn’t be God. The latter means that God knows absolutely everything…EVERYTHING that will ever happen and, therefore, none of it…NONE of it can be changed from how God already knows it will happen. It is this latter understanding that cannot be true if part of the future is open. God knows the future for what it is, every bit of it, but with freewill around, He cannot know everything as completely settled and finalized, unchangeable, once-and-for all. That’s simply ludicrous to believe, because, as I have demonstrated in my past posts, if this is true, then were God to show or tell you ANY of your future, you’d be unable to ANY of it differently than what you saw or heard (last time I think I’ll say that!), and that’s just not reality. We would be able to change some things.

Here’s a quote from Pastor Susan: “Open Theists argue that people are created to be in meaningful relationships with God and others and as moral beings must have the ability to make real, responsible choices in their lives. Open Theists argue that this cannot be accomplished as long as God exercises exhaustive control of the universe or predetermines the future because this would remove humanity's free will.” Think about this for one minute and ask yourself this: Can ANYONE have a meaningful relationship with anybody if God is exercising complete control, that meaning if God has exhaustively settled foreknowledge, not just exhaustive knowledge, of the future)? Consider the following dialogue if everything we will ever say and do is already known. The parentheses are the husband thinking to himself.

HUSBAND: “Hi, honey, I’m home.” (Hmm. God already knew zillions of years ago that on this day, hour, minute and second that I would say that. So whatever my wife says back to me is also already known. This is amazing!)
WIFE“ Oh, Hi honey. You’re home. How was your day?”
HUSBAND (‘How was my day?’ she asks. Now, whatever I say back to her, once again she will already be saying what God has already known. I wonder what it is that I will say back to her, which God already knows I will say?) “Oh, yes, my day. Sorry about that, dear. I was thinking about something. Um…yes, my day. It was fine. Could you tell me what you are going to say next so that I know what God already knows you’re going to say?”
WIFE: “Huh?”
HUSBAND: “Ah, I see. You’re going to say, ‘Huh?’. Okay, well, go ahead now and say it.
WIFE: “What are you talking about? Did you get fired today or something?”
HUSBAND: “Hey, wait! That’s not what you said you were going to say.”
WIFE: “Ooookay, so you did get fired today. That’s okay…”
HUSBAND: “No, I didn’t get fired, I just…you’re just to supposed to say ‘Huh?’”
WIFE: “Ok: Huh?” How’s that?”
HUSBAND: “Oh, forget it now. It’s too late. Maybe you weren’t supposed to say ‘Huh?’ after all. Maybe you were supposed to say whatever it was that you said after that…what was it you said again?”
WIFE: “Kids, get your coats, we’re going out for dinner tonight to celebrate your dad getting fired today.”
HUSBAND: “Huh?”

How about this dialogue, which is perfectly feasible if God knows absolutely everything:
ME (just starting to pray on any particular day): “Praise the Lord! God, I just want to…”
GOD: …’thank you, and tell you that I…’ I can say every word with Keith because I’ve known from eternity past what He will say. Further, everything I am thinking now I have always known that I would think this because it’s already been known. So, I know what I know I’m going to say, which means I am thinking right now what I already knew I was going to think. Boy, this exhaustively settled foreknowledge is something, ain’t it!”

Okay, the last sentence maybe isn’t so feasible, but can you see the silliness of trying to box God, or us, into exhaustively settled foreknowledge. It makes matters far worse than it does to just go with the flow of reality; a partly open future where God does not know everything I will ever think, say and do. THAT is what makes prayer, and life, so awesome! Life and relationships juuuuust wouldn’t be too meaningful if God knew absolutely everything. Imagine, every prayer you pray to God, He has already known everything you will ever say and everything He will ever say. When you pray, brothers and sisters, you are having a discussion that has never taken place in God’s mind until that time. Oh, He can read your mind and He knows your thoughts and He knows you better than you know yourself, but the conversation isn’t real and hasn’t happened and hasn’t been in God’s mind until the day it happens. Please, I beg you, I implore you, I rip my clothes, I toss dust in the air and into my hair…nope, can’t do that: I’m bald! Just think about it. That’s all I ask.

If God knows every possible thing that we will do, then do you think that we’re ever going to catch Him off guard? Is He ever going to say, “Oh my Me! I didn’t see that coming. Great! Now what do I do? These humans; you just never know what they’re going to do next.” I mean, seriously, is God really at a lost to control the world if He does not know every possible iota I will ever say or do? Isn’t He a bit more powerful and able than that? Have we forgotten that He is omnipotent, not because He knew in eternity past that at this day and time I would post this, but because He’s God. Just because we have freewill, which HE gave us, doesn’t affect His ability to handle things, not one bit. Remember the chess analogy? God knows every possible move on the board (He knows every POSSIBLE move you and I can make), which means He wins no matter what (He is quite able to rule the universe). So it doesn’t matter what move you or I make (what choices we make). He will never, ever, be at a loss. THAT is reality!

Well, I’m through, and, as I said, I won’t be posting anymore unless it’s already been foreknown because of God’s exhaustively settled foreknowledge that I will post again. I would, however, like to leave you all with one final thought, and that is this. If God has exhaustively settled foreknowledge of the future, He Himself must be included in that knowledge; that is, He must already know everything that He will ever say, do, think, etc. He would have to already know all this information, because if He didn’t, how could He know everything you and I will ever say, do, think, etc, since what He says and does with us has direct effect on everything we will say and do? If all my prayers are already known, then all of God’s words and responses to them are already known, and none…NONE of it can be changed. It’s all settled. But, thank the Lord, this isn’t reality! (I can’t even imagine a world like that.) So if reality teaches us, plainly and simply, that part of the future must be open, then our approach to all those Scriptures that seem to prove, once and for all, that God knows the future as exhaustively settled need to be thought about again before we continue to just condemn the idea of a partly open future. After all, we all live as if it is true that part of it is open. Maybe it’s our presuppositions that have forced us into some of our illogical conclusions about the future. Maybe we just think that it cannot be possible for God to not know absolutely everything (see my very first post in this blog), and so we think that we are defending the omniscience of God by denying a partly open future. The problem, however, is that a lot of people see the contradictions in that attempt, and they will taunt us with those questions like, “Well, can God make a rock so big that He can’t pick it up [again, see my very first post]?” As I said I my previous post, my answer to a question like that is “I could care less if God can or cannot make a rock so big that He cannot pick it up. God doesn’t have to be able to do absolutely everything in order to be ominipotent. He only need be able to do anything and everything that is not a contradiction and does not violate the nature of who and what God is.”

Well, to all of you, be blessed in the Master.

For a partly open future,

Keith R. Starkey
Lay person – FMC Alexandria, MN

[Chuck Thompson]

To delete the section on the openness of God would be a foolish mistake. We cannot begin to understand how God can do all that He can.
How can God be everywhere at the same time?
How can God be all knowing?
How can God hear the prayers of millions of people from all over the world, in hundreds of different languages?
I don't have a clue how God is able to do all these marvelous things, but the Bible tells us that He can.
Liberalism just denies the acts of God that they can't understand. We as Christians must not do the same.
Lets not do as they do and eliminate the aspects of God that we can't rationalize in our simple minds. We must accept all of the Bible as "God Breathed", and not try to change it so we can understand the atrubutes of God.
Chuck Thompson
Alexandria Free Methodist Church

[Glenn Lorenz]

When I read Gregory Boyd's book, God of the Possible, it seemed like a gift to Wesleyan theology. For me, it filled in some logical gaps that otherwise sort of hang there exposed.

When I discovered the passage under question in the Pastor's and Church Leaders Manual, I again breathed a sigh of gratitude for what I understand to be a helpful middle way between denying God's omniscience and asserting His absolute predetermination of all things.

As far as the theology of the thing, I will leave that to those more gifted in articulating philosophical positions. I would restrict my comment to the scriptural debate and suggest that in the battle of the prooftext, we should give equal hearing to those passages that suggest that God has left himself vulnerable to the actions of humanity (e.g., 1 Sam 15:11 where God "regret"s!!) as we give to those passages that suggest his predetermination of all things (e.g., Psalm 139:16, where God has all our days "ordained" for us).

Whatever formulation we come up with to help us structure our thoughts, it behooves us to allow all God-breathed scripture a voice in the conversation.

For what it's worth, I appreciate the inclusion of the "Wesleyan Perspective on the Openness of God" in the Manual.

Respectfully Submitted,
Glenn Lorenz
Light & Life Christian Church
Gilbert, Arizona

[Casey Taylor]

First, I have to ask: did someone seriously cite THE BIBLE CODE as evidence for God's knowledge of the future??? Yikes!

Second, rather than Wikipedia, I would suggest people not familiar with the nuances of open theism to check out the book "The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God." If you are someone who must vote on this proposal at General Conference, PLEASE educate yourself before voting.

Even if you disagree with open theism, at the end of the day, I urge all involved to at least offer a charitable reading of its arguments. At least understand the concerns which lie behind the arguments. If you cannot offer a counter-argument that addresses the root concerns, then I'm afraid we're simply going to talk past one another.

I was introduced to open theism back in college and, for various reasons (not all virtuous), gave it my hearty endorsement. I've questioned that commitment in recent years (I'm not strongly committed to it). But this issue drives home an important point for our FM tradition: we desperately need more FM theologians thinking about these issues, both for and with us.

[Curtis Turner]

There are some things that are "mysteries" to us human beings. As in I Corinthians 13 - "Now we see through a glass darkly, now we know in part; but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. Now we know in part but then we shall know even as also we are known to God."

Dallas Willard suggests that part of our inability to understand God is there for a purpose. We have to lean on him for the "mystery" that escapes our understanding. Since God is able to capture the good will of those who respond to him, he reveals himself to them through faith.

How God knows who will respond to him is a mystery to me, except to say that I believe that Jesus is able to capture the good will of people, when they fully understand what he did for them on the cross of calvary.

What I do not know about God I can leave with him since I know our cognitive powers are simply incomplete until we get to heaven. This is good because it allows a certain amount of latitude within which we may operate, subordinate to God and yet fully willing God's will. In this dimetion perhaps there is a certain amount of area left for our freedom. We are assured that if we sin 70 times 7, there is yet still forgiveness for those who, when they discover their mistakes and presumptuous sins realize that repentence toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ will in the end cover for us.

As one scripture says, "It is required that all men everywhere should repent." That is pretty inclusive and we should be concerned with that rather than the "mystery."

[Pastor Jim]

while I do reject open theism. I wonder what is its root? Could it be that the fear of us arminian/wesleyans is that God might pre-ordain anything. While the calvinists fear that anything might be subject to free will. Isn't this at the root of most of the debate? The mystery of God is something some are uncomfortable with. I believe predestination and mans free will are both biblical and correct doctrines however their meaning and where they intersect is beyond our understanding. What would happen if we preached all the attributes of God instead of just the ones we were comfortable with. Would we split churches? Maybe.. Would we foster in our communities of faith a wonder and awe of God not often experienced? I would pray that. My prayer is that we as a denomination would stop trying to explain everything in some effort to establish our "demoninational distinctives" and rather stand back and experience the awesomeness of our God. All of Him.

[Michael Liljenberg]

I don't know if "Open Theology" is an issue of such concern that we need to address it denominationally.

Open Theology is the struggle of finite human minds living in a universe of Time and Space struggling to understand a transcendent God who exists outside of Time and Space, a God who doesn't see past, present, and future the way we do.

Armenians have always understood that there is a difference between "knowing" and "deciding", that God's knowledge of a future event does not necessarily imply God causing that event. Wesley said as much in several places, such as his comments on Revelation 8:28. Open Theology oversimplifies this issue, making the foreknowledge/free will dichotomy a zero sum game (any choice to which God "knows" the outcome isn't a choice, therefore for us to really have free will, God cannot "know" the outcome of any choice - that is He cannot absolutely know the future, or that he must "know" all the potential outcomes - all the potential futures - of any choice).

Armenians have always understood that this is a false dichotomy. God's foreknowledge of our choice does not nullify our free will, conversely, our free will does not nullify God's foreknowledge. Even God's causality does not rule out our free will: for example, Pharaoh's God-hardened heart, does not rule out his culpability for the suffering experienced by his country while he refused to let the Hebrews go.

But to feel this error is so crucial that we have to address it in the Book of Discipline . . . we're debating the epistemology of a Transcendent being. We really don't even have a solid lock on an epistemology of human beings. We sound a lot like Job's four friends debating about things far outside their ken. We'd be better off reaffirming our understanding of God's omniscience and how it does not exclude our free will without having to address a fad theology based on an inaccurate fractal interpretation of Time that is suggested by Chaos Theory mathematics.

[Jerome Van Kuiken]

Keith S.'s comments begin by incorrectly representing what the resolution says. The resolution doesn't claim that Open Theism redefines divine omniscience; the resolution claims that Open Theism revises the traditional understanding of divine omniscience. The difference is important: Open Theists and traditional Christians can agree on defining omniscience as "knowing all truths and believing no falsehoods" or similar definitions. Where the two groups disagree is on whether future free-willed decisions are "truths" that God can presently know. Keith repeatedly insists that God's absolute foreknowledge would cancel out our free will, and Keith's repeated example is that, if God told us exactly what we were going to do, we couldn't help but do otherwise. But Jesus told Peter that Peter would deny Jesus three times before the cock crowed, and Peter still did it! Furthermore, Keith's example doesn't prove that God can't know my future choices; it only suggests that God can know for sure what I'll do next as long as God doesn't tell me what I'll do next. So the example is both biblically and logically flawed. I agree with Michael L. that the idea that God's foreknowledge somehow cancels out my free-willed choices is wrong. My real, unforced, free decisions determine my future and also determine God's knowledge of my decisions, but my decisions work "backward in time" (from a human perspective) to give God his foreknowledge. In Deuteronomy 31 and 32, God predicts Israel's rebellion and God's own emotional response when Israel rebels. God's foreknowledge doesn't cause Israel to rebel, nor does it mean that God is emotionally unaffected by the rebellion when it happens. God's foreknowledge of an event isn't necessarily the same as God's experience of an event.
Keith also thinks it's silly that God would know what I'll say in prayer or conversation before I say it, but Keith also claims to believe that God knows my thoughts. Keith, my words are thoughts before I speak them, so if God knows my thoughts, he still knows what I'll say in prayer or conversation before I actually speak the words! Besides, in Matt. 6:8, Jesus says God knows what we need before we ask him, and in Psalm 139:4, David says God knows what our words will be before they are on our tongue. The awesome truth is that God doesn't need our prayers in order to know something he didn't previously know; rather, he graciously invites us time-bound, finite creatures to share in his boundless eternal life to the full extent of our capacity. I may know what my daughter wants for Christmas or for a snack even before she asks me, but I still want her to ask me for the sake of building our relationship and her character. Ditto for God and us, in a much greater way.
Finally, so what? Firstly, Open Theists want to protect free will. But classical Arminians already provide a middle way between God's predetermination of everything on the one hand and denial of his omniscience on the other, and they do it without sacrificing God's exhaustive foreknowledge. Secondly, Open Theists present us with a God who "feels our pain," who's not emotionally detached from the world. I don't think you have to deny God's exhaustive foreknowledge to believe in a relationally open God: Jesus foreknew that Judas would betray him, Peter would deny him, and the Jews and Romans would crucify him; that didn't take away from Christ's being emotionally affected by these events, if his prayers in Gethsemane and on the cross are any indication. Finally, Open Theists think they've found a solution to the problem of evil: if God didn't know 9/11 or the Holocaust would happen, then he's off the hook; if he did know, he's responsible. But this line of thought doesn't work, even granting Open Theism: did God really not hear the terrorists as they discussed how to attack the Twin Towers? Surely he saw them once they had hijacked the planes, and could figure out what they were going to do! And if God still didn't "get it" until the first plane had hit, why didn't he at least figure out how to stop the second plane from blasting through the second tower? If at this point Open Theists appeal to God giving free will to us and permitting evil for a purpose, then you're right back in the same line of defense that non-Open Theists have used for at least 1500 years! In the first two chapters of the Book of Job, God doesn't plead ignorance when Satan afflicts Job; instead, God pre-authorizes Satan to afflict Job, but also sets boundaries on the afflictions. That's the God I serve: To use C. S. Lewis's words, "'Course he's not safe! But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."

[Keith R. Starkey]

Jerome K’s begins by correcting an in accurate understanding I implied with regard to the Openness of God resolution. Indeed, I didn’t quote the resolution completely, and I do apologize for that. It is the content of the future that is at issue here; whether all future actions are definite, thus settled.
Jerome’s refers to Peter telling Jesus that Peter would deny Him as evidence that God knows everything we will. This event, according to Jerome, proves that God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF—the believe that God foreknows EVERYTHING we will ever think, say and do). All Jesus did, however, was tell Peter that he would deny Him, a very broad “prediction.” Jesus didn’t give any details except to say that cock wouldn’t crow before the denial took place. Truth be told, there was no need, in the least, for Jesus to have EDF knowledge in order to know that Peter would deny Him. A simple peak into Peter’s heart was more than sufficient to know the this truth. Peter wasn’t nearly as strong in his commitment to Jesus as he thought he was, and Jesus knew this. God, in His love and care for Peter, would then take the necessary steps to box Peter in a corner, something very easy for God to do, to force this issue. Further, Peter possessed full freewill, the whole time, to do other than deny Jesus. Had he not been so convinced that Jesus was wrong, He might have just fled the scene and stayed away until it was over. But that was the point: to have even done that would have been a denial! It was a heart-to-heart talk between Jesus and Peter, not a demonstration of EDF.
In my first post in this blog, I demonstrated, for those who believe in EDF, the contradiction between freewill and EDF by using a scenario of the Lord appearing to someone and telling that person exactly (in every detail lived out) what he/she is going to do come a point of time in the future. I was clear to state that God could never possess EDF knowledge, much less be able to show any of it, because we would change things we were told, things that are not supposed to be changed, thus proving that EDF can’t be true where freewill exists. Jerome objected by stating that this doesn’t prove that God doesn’t have EDF knowledge, but only that God has to be quiet about what he knows. So, God can’t say anything about our futures, what He has known from eternity past, because we might change things? I’m sorry, but God having to keep silent really isn’t a good defense for EDF!
Some people say that if God told us what He knows that we would just do what He told us. Anybody want to explain how one would just “do,” in the exact detail (no exceptions), what one was told or shown? You’d have to become an automaton to do that, and that’s not reality! Freewill protects us from ever being boxed in to a situation like that, a situation in which we cannot fully choose and thus change things. This makes EDF knowledge impossible in a world with freewill operates. I ask you, Jerome, and everyone else: please demonstrate how God can ever tell you any part of your future with what is supposed to be EDF knowledge without you being able to contradict this by doing something different than what you were told. The truth is that no one can demonstrate that. It’s absolutely impossible, and that’s because of a very simple truth: where freewill is operating, there can never be a time when God can know absolutely everything. That’s just life, and it’s reality.
Jerome, however, resorts to a theory of time to further prove his point. He says that we really do make our own freewill choices, and that this determines God’s knowledge of our future choices, and this is because, he says, (and here’s where it gets weird), “. . . my decisions ‘work backward in time’ to give God His foreknowledge.” Jerome used Deuteronomy 31 to prove this point: God knew that Israel would rebel, that God’s knowledge didn’t make Israel rebel, so that must mean that Israel’s decisions work backwards in time (whew!) How about we just look at Deuteronomy for what it is: God knew the heart of the nation of the people (like He knew Peter’s heart); that they’d rebel, and probably very quickly. This knowledge didn’t take EDF knowledge or even a rocket scientist. All one had to do was review Israel’s history of constant rebellion from Egypt on out. Israel never changed their ways. (Working backward in time? Can’t we just let life and reality speak for itself instead of coming up with far-reaching theories of time? Let Captain James. T. Kirk and his gang on the Enterprise go where no man has gone before!)
As to God knowing our thoughts, does it really take EDF knowledge for God to know what you are thinking? No. Does it take EDF knowledge for God to know from eternity past every thought you will ever think? Yes, and that is what is what would be so unrealistic; completely outside of our reality, and completely false as to how we relate with God. Jerome however finds it comforting that God has invited us into a relationship where, Jerome believes, that everything we will ever pray is already known. Go back to my earlier posts in this blog, however, and re-read the ridiculous relationship that would result were God to know everything we will ever think and pray. It’s simply ludicrous. Quoting psalm 139 isn’t going to help either. You need to be consistent, Jerome: was David really meaning to imply that he had been born by a secret process way down in the depths of the earth (vs 15)? Is there’s really a book in heaven where David’s arms, legs and the rest of his parts are all written down (a doctor’s dream!)? Isn’t it possible, Jerome, that the point of the Psalm isn’t a didactic lesson on God knowing everything by EDF, but rather an intimate statement about the ever-present God running through the veins of humanity’s existence? Why resort to verse-picking in that Psalm to try to support EDF? (Oh, and by the way, you do not know from eternity past what your daughter wants for Christmas. Somehow, in some way, you had to learn that information. THAT is why your relationship with your daughter is vivacious and dynamic. It wouldn’t be vivacious, however, if you knew everything (and I do mean absolutely everything) she were ever going to think, say and do. That’s just not the way life and relationships function.)
As to Jerome’s statement about Open Theists wanting to protect freewill, that’s incorrect. I, an Open Theist, have no desire to protect freewill. I am only interested in our understanding the contradiction between freewill and EDF when they said to exist at the same time and in the same place. God can create worlds all day long where EDF knowledge rules, and people would be automatons. That’d be fine, too, because they’d never know the difference. However, there’s really not much to be said about relationship in that context, though, is there!
With regard to Armenianism (and I was an Armenians for many years), it doesn’t teach that God determined the future; Armenianism teaches Simple Foreknowledge with very little determinism. The contradiction, however, between EDF and freewill is no less problematic. One is still hostage to what God already knows will (and therefore, must) take place, in the exact way God knows it. No one gets to choose to do anything differently under this view, even if they think they can. To prove the point again, all God has to do is try to tell someone something of that person’s future, and I guarantee you that the person wouldn’t just “do” what they learned (we are not automatons), and that things are going to get changed from how God said things would go. That means EDF cannot be true in this world. Again, life and reality are so instructive here.
Ask yourself, Jerome, what would you do if God came down and told you about your future with what He supposedly knows by EDF? I’m not talking broad, sweeping statements—God does that all the time, and it doesn’t take EDF for Him to know those things. I’m talking God telling you detail upon detail, since that is what God would know. If He told you a half-hour’s worth of your future, in exact detail, would you just “do” what He told you? Hardly. I hope, therefore, you can better see the contradiction between EDF and freewill.
As to the issue of theodicy, I don’t pretend to believe that Open Theism answers all the problems of evil. Obviously, there’s stuff going on behind the scenes, stuff we can’t see, and it just isn’t cool to say that Open Theism answers it all. Not in the least.
To close here, if one wishes to contend for EDF in a world where freewill exists, then just be consistent: 1) Explain how God can ever tell or show anything He knows without saying that we’d just “do” what we learned; 2) explain how you still have freewill when you can only do what God knows you will have to do. It makes no difference if God doesn’t tell you what He knows. The same truth exists: you ultimately do what He already knows you will do. That's not freewill in my book! I contend that the problems just get more and more complex and unrealistic when we try to force EDF and freewill into the same room.

Thanks,

Keith R. Starkey

[Curtis Turner]

If you believe the "Bible Code," that when you analyze the Hebrew Bible with a computer program and find certain things out that correspond with specific names and historical events future to what was written originally, some would say this is a validation or demonstration of God's foreknowledge. Some would scoff at the code. Others observe the outcomes and might say, "interesting." I am in the later category. By believing the code, I am placing esoteric knowledge ahead of common knowledge and it might suggest that God allows certain people . . . those with a comoputer program to analyze for such things . . . to have his full will and knowledge of his Word through the Bible Code, while others without the benefit of such a code do not have this knowledge. This raises the issue that God may be preferential in who receives what he has to offer. Scripture says that God is no respector of persons. Common grace is available to all, therefore God allows everyone who will take time to look into his Word an opportunity to become cognizant of his plan of salvation. Some go so far as to say that the devil offers substitutes that detract from what God has to offer in salvation . . . i.e. "the promise of the life that now is and that which is to come."

[Jerome Van Kuiken]

In response to Keith S.'s latest blog:
First, it's Arminian theology, not Armenian theology. Armenia is a country. Arminians associate themselves with the theology of James Arminius.
Second, while Keith may have little desire to protect free will, it's pretty clear that other Open Theists do; hence the name of David Basinger's book: The Case for Freewill Theism. I stand by my statement.
Third, with regard to Peter's denial, Keith is incorrect that the only detail Jesus gave was that Peter would deny Jesus before the cock crowed. Jesus predicted the exact number of times that Peter would deny Jesus. Simply peeking into Peter's heart could have shown Jesus that Peter would probably deny Jesus if pressured, but there's no way a peek into Peter's heart would yield information about the exact number of times Peter would deny Jesus, nor the very limited time frame in which Peter would do so. Keith claims that God "[took] the necessary steps to box Peter in a corner." How did God do this without violating the free wills of all the soldiers, disciples, officials, servants, and others involved in this scenario? The less foreknowledge you grant God in the name of preserving our free will, the more you have to have God override our free wills in order to accomplish his purposes. Open Theist Greg Boyd has claimed in a couple of his books that God occasionally restricts our free willing in order to fulfill his predictions. If so, then Open Theism has run away from Calvinism only to fall back into it when necessary as a stopgap measure!
If the case of Peter's denial contains too few specific predictions to demonstrate to Keith exhaustive divine foreknowledge, then he might consider 1 Sam. 10:1-13 or Dan. 11, which contain a host of details. 1 Sam. 10 is significant because it's about as close as Scripture comes to meeting Keith's criterion of "what would you do if God gave you a detailed prophecy of what you would do?" Dan. 11 is valuable because it predicts in exquisite detail the geopolitical history of the Ancient Near East over an extensive time period in a way that mere probability could never establish. The bottom line in predictive prophecy, however, is this: God has made accuracy in prediction a test of whether a prophet really speaks for God (Deut. 18:21-22) and a test of whether Yahweh or an idol is the true God (Isa. 41:21-29; 44:6-8, 24-28; 45:11, 20-21). How is God able to make such accurate predictions? Open Theism only has two options for explaining God's accuracy: either he's a really good guesser, which means his credibility as God rides on his mastery of the laws of probability (can even a divine dice-roller roll perfect sixes every time?), or else he's got to override free will at key points in order to fulfill his predictions, in which case human moral accountability at those key points is lost. Classical Arminianism avoids the horns of this dilemma by positing that God foreknows without causing future free decisions.
Fourth,let me reiterate that Keith's scenario of "what would you do if God told you what you would do" hardly disproves exhaustive divine foreknowledge. There is no logical incompatibility between God foreknowing everything but not revealing that foreknowledge to me, on the one hand, or between God revealing foreknowledge to me and my freely doing what he's revealed, on the other hand. My suggestion about God keeping quiet to preserve his foreknowledge was not meant to present my real position but only to show that, even in terms of Keith's position, his scenario doesn't do what he claims it does. I might add here that I'd like to see Scriptural support for Keith's position instead of simply relying on a (dubious) logical demonstration. Scripture, not reason, is our final authority for truth, and if Scripture teaches what appear at first blush to be contradictory truths (God is one, God is three; Christ is God, Christ is human; God is sovereign, humans are free), then it is the job of reason to try to humbly grapple with these truths rather than seeking to press Scripture into the mold of our presuppositions. Keith, let me gently suggest that perhaps your logic or experience are too small.
Fifth, Keith calls my suggestion that our decisions cause God's foreknowledge "weird" and ridicules it with a reference to Star Trek. Note that these aren't arguments against my position: they are simply expressions of his bias that work to bias unthinking readers against my position. Keith pleads that we should let reality be itself instead of appealing to time-bending theories. But Einstein's Theory of Relativity, quantum mechanics, and the doctrine of the Trinity (to name a few) are all pretty "weird," yet appear to describe reality. The first two of the above-mentioned "weird" things also have some things to say about time and causation that run counter to common sense. In my last blog, I put "backward in time" in quotation marks and added the qualifier, "(from a human perspective)" precisely to indicate that this description of how God's knowledge relates to our decision-making should not be taken as a dogmatic metaphysical statement. I should also note that, according to Roger Olson's book Arminian Theology, John Wesley's view of divine foreknowledge and predestination was that our "decisions cause God to know them." (p. 188) It's nice to know Wesley had weird ideas, too! If Keith would seriously entertain this idea that our free-willed choices cause God's foreknowledge of them, I think it would solve a lot of his difficulty with foreknowledge and free will being in "the same room," as he puts it.
Sixth, Keith calls me inconsistent for taking the metaphors of Ps. 139 metaphorically and the literal parts literally. How do I know which parts are literal and which are metaphorical? By application of ordinary laws of hermeneutics (biblical interpretation)! Even Keith believes God knows our minds and hearts perfectly in the present (which I assume Keith would support by "resort[ing] to verse-picking" of his own!) If Scripture teaches that God knows our minds and hearts, then Ps. 139's claim that God knows David's words before they're on his tongue fits with that teaching and there's no need to take it metaphorically. If, as Keith believes, God knows our minds and hearts, then why should Keith bother to pray aloud at all? After all, God already knows what's in his heart and mind! Keith also proposes a false dilemma between Ps. 139 as a "didactic lesson" vs. an "intimate statement." Why can't it be both? David rejoices that the God who's known him thoroughly before he was born continues to know him thoroughly, intimately, and relationally in the present.
Seventh and last (seven being the perfect number!), let's keep things in perspective. This blog is about a resolution to remove a statement about Open Theism from the Pastors' and Church Leaders' Handbook. The resolution does not call for a change in our Articles of Religion, nor for General Conference to brand Open Theism as a heresy, nor for the burning of self-confessed Open Theists at the stake. Debates like those between Keith and me can continue right on going, but do we really want the denomination to appear to be officially approving of a controversial theological position by publishing a positive statement of that position in an official denominational resource? I think the decision to publish the chapter on Open Theism "jumped the gun." Therefore, I support the resolution.

[Keith R. Starkey]

The resolution states, in part, “whereas, the Free Methodist Church is committed to promoting accord with sound doctrine (Titus 2:1), and whereas, the theology known as the ‘openness of God’ revises understanding of God’s attributes, particularly His omniscience.“ The implications are clear: the Open View is not sound doctrine and the Open View revises understanding of God’s attributes (more than just omniscience), quite a hefty accusation, like saying that the Open View is heresy. It is important to me, therefore, that this blog offer enough information from different angles to give the reader a rounded understanding of exactly what the resolution is against. I am against the resolution. (So that we may move on, however, this will be my last response to Jerome.)

Jerome noted “Keith may have little desire to protect free will, it's pretty clear that other Open Theists do; hence the name of David Basinger's book: The Case for Freewill Theism. I stand by my statement.” You should have said, the first time, that some, not all, Open Theists are out to protect freewill. And Basinger’s book is not about protecting freewill either. It’s about understanding the philosophy behind several different versions of free-will theism. That’s not to say some Open Theists are not out to protect freewill, but if they are, I’d be willing to bet it’s because of the contradictions that are present when trying to maintain exhaustive settled foreknowlendge (EDF) at the same time.

Jerome noted a detail about Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial that I didn’t mention; that Peter would deny Jesus “three” times. I felt like Jerome thought this to be the clincher; that it would be pushing things too far to expect God to be able to manipulate circumstances and people for this particular three-time denial event. Rest assured, Jerome, God did NOT have to manipulated “all the soldiers, disciples, officials, servants, and others involved in this scenario” as you asked. God can trounce freewill all day long if he wants to, but He doesn’t need to. (A return to Calvinism? Oh, for the love of pete.)

Jerome quoted I Sam. 10:1-13 to support EDF. Let’s look at the passage. Samuel anoints Saul and tells him (a simple summary), “When you leave today, you’ll find two men by Rachel’s grave. Oh, and the donkey’s you were looking for have been found. You will continue on and end up in the plain of Tabor, where you’ll meet three people going up to God. Each will be carrying specific items. They’ll give you two loaves of bread. After that, you’ll go to the hill of God and eventually meet a company of prophets. The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you and you will prophecy, and [please note:] that when these signs come to you, that you do for yourself what the occasion requires.”

You know something? There isn’t one thing here that requires that God have EDF knowledge in order to bring these “signs,” as Samuel calls them, to pass (and no, God would not had to have manipulated “all” the soldiers, disciples, officials, servants, and others involved in this scenario). Isn’t God allowed to demonstrate His great power once in a while, particuarly to the guy who’s going to become king? Further, Jerome, you forget the problems I have noted with regard to anyone, including God, trying to tell someone what is supposedly from EDF knowledge about that person’s future choices; the person receiving the information never looses the ability to change what they were told. Not everything, but a lot of things. The simple facts of life, as we all live them day to day, is that Saul didn’t have to “do” his part with regard to what Samuel said would happen. Saul could have decided to high-tail it off and go do something else. It’s obvious he didn’t want to do that, but he never lost his freewill ability to choose to do otherwise, and that’s all it takes to toss out the idea of EDF where freewill exists. Further, Jerome, you didn’t bother to offer an explanation about how anybody can just “do” without the choice to not do, what they were told by supposed EDF knowledge. You also didn’t answer my questions about what YOU would do were God to tell you what is supposedly from EDF knowledge about your future. You need to address those in front of us all so as to clearly demonstrate that EDF is true. Otherwise, you are merely assuming and asserting and begging the question about God’s view point and our view point and how God is in or out of or along side of or beneath time. You need more than that to argue this issue.

As to the Daniel passage, though there is tremendous detail God can easily cause kings to meet for lunch and negotiate over countries (and God doesn’t even have to spend all His time overriding people’s freewill in order to get these few things accomplished). I will grant that of all Scripture, this passage is one of the most challenging against the Open View, but the facts are that things could have, and can, get changed in that prophecy if God did, and does, not determine that certain things were, and will, be. It’s really not a big deal.

If all God has is simple foreknowledge—just plain ol’ foreknowledge of everything that will ever happen—then this is of little help to God, particularly when He sees things going the wrong way but can’t be changed because these things are known by EDF knowledge. (Of course, one can say that God has already worked out all the details of how He will interact, which just makes things worse. Second, even God’s very own actions are part of this knowledge and cannot be changed from what they will be anymore than anything else can be changed from it will be. This locks God into His own EDF knowledge. After all, His words and actions are part and parcel to how things will go for us. EDF just makes things get more weird, as I said. (Oh, and by the way, Jerome, it really is a weird concept to think that “. . . my decisions ‘work backward in time’ to give God His foreknowledge.” You say that this is from our perspective, however, your argument, as I said above, is merely an assertion, an assumption, with no proof, much less evidence, and the only way to argue it is to beg the question (i.e., this is how God’s view point is, because this is how God’s knowledge is, because this is… On and on it goes.)

When God tells Hezekiah that he’s going to die because of his sickness and then changes the pronouncement and gives Hez fifteen more years, someone who believes in EDF will say, “Well, God knew all along that Hezekiah wouldn’t die,” and the whole point of the passage goes right out the door, but so does any proof that God knew from eternity past that Hezekiah would live. Relationship between God and man is just not built on the dishonesty and deceptiveness of God acting like things are one way when they are another. You can’t have a relationship with anyone who knows things will go one way and either acts like it isn’t known how things will go or changes what was said in order to have things go the way they are really to go? Weird, weird, weird!

To disconcerting prophecies are found in Acts and in Ezekiel. In acts, it is the prophet Agabus’s words to Paul about being tied up and bound by Jews: “In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles (Acts 21:10-11).” The prophecy didn’t come to pass in the manner Agabus described; the Jews neither bound Paul nor delivered him to the Gentiles. Rather, the Romans came to break up a Jewish riot in the makings against Paul, and the Romans bound Paul themselves in order to get the situation under control (further, they helped protect Paul on a few occasions). It won’t do to say, “Well, that’s what Agabus meant.” Not at all. Agabus said what he said, a prophecy that didn’t come to pass in the exact manner he said it would. I’m not the least bit bothered by this, however, because God was making a point, not demonstrating EDF knowledge. There is also the prophecy Ezekiel gave about the fall of Tyre in chapter 26. It didn’t happen quite the way Ezekiel said it would happen. Some, like Archer Gleason (“Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”), have offered a pretty good explanation to address this issue, but there are several biblical scholars who take issue with these explanations.

Jerome said, “How is God able to make such accurate predictions? Open Theism only has two options for explaining God's accuracy: either he's a really good guesser . . . or else he's got to override free will at key points in order to fulfill his predictions, in which case human moral accountability at those key points is lost.” There are many other ways by which God knows what’s going to happen. Moses’ prediction of Israel’s rebellion, for example, didn’t require EDF knowledge, much less a rocket scientist. Just looking at Israel’s unbelief and rebellion early on was more than enough to know what they would do. There simply are many ways God can know things.

Jerome says that Classical Arminianism posits that God foreknows without causing future free decisions. Well, if EDF were true, God would not “cause” future free decisions, but He would most certainly destroy freewill; people would only choose what God knew from eternity past. Now, that’s not “causing” someone to choose what they choose, but it unnaturally and abnormally interferes with freewill. If you know that God already knows what you will do, and you go to do something, then you know that whatever you do is settled and cannot be other than how God has always known what you will do. So, even if you think you are freely choosing, even if you try to out smart God by suddenly choosing something other way, the final outcome is that whatever you choose is already known and thus settled. You will end up doing what you are foreknown to do. The problems with this are numerous. No one can prove that God has EDF of all future choices, and no one can prove that God has some special experience in time that affords Him foreknowledge of all future actions. What is true, however, is that if anyone gets wind of what it is that God knows (like, if He tells you like He told Samuel and Daniel), things can be changed. So, if it makes perfectly logical sense to say that EDF can exist in a world where freewill doesn’t exist, and if it happens to be that when freewill is in a world where EDF is said to be operating that there will be tremendous problems—like a) being able to change what shouldn’t be able to be changed; b) not having to do what you were said you would do; and c) not being able to prove anything about EDF or adequately deal with the contradictions and inconsistencies that arise—then it shouldn’t be too hard to figure out that EDF and freewill can’t exist in the same room at the same time. What part of this isn’t making sense? Yet, Jerome still insists that there’s no problems when he says, “Keith's scenario of "what would you do if God told you what you would do" hardly disproves exhaustive divine foreknowledge. Jerome continues: “There is no logical incompatibility between God foreknowing everything but not revealing that foreknowledge to me, on the one hand, or between God revealing foreknowledge to me and my freely doing what he's revealed, on the other hand.

Plain and simple: If God supposedly has EDF, and if He can reveal what He knows, and if what He knows can be changed, which I’ve proven is the case, then if God keeps silent about what He knows, He then does NOT have EDF knowledge. Plain and simple, EDF information cannot be changed, whether God speaks or remains silent. The truth is still the truth. So, since it is the case that God cannot reveal something by supposed EDF knowledge, because it can be changed, then God does not possess EDF knowledge where freewill exists. In a world where people are automatons, God can possess EDF knowledge. But where there is freewill, that can’t happen.

As to you wanting Scripture to support the Open View, take a look at Greg Boyd’s book called “God of the Possible” (you mentioned Boyd, so I’m sure you’ve heard of this book). Avoid everybody else for the time being. It’s a very quick and easy read, and it’s filled with more than enough Scriptural examples of what I’ve just mentioned. I obviously don’t have room here to argue Scripture. But just remember that Reason, according to Wesley, was quite respectable. It forms one of the four points of authority that Wesley espoused (the Quadrilateral), the Bible, of course, being superior, but not without witness.

As to Jerome’s statement, “. . . John Wesley's view of divine foreknowledge and predestination was that our "decisions cause God to know them." (p. 188) It's nice to know Wesley had weird ideas, too! If Keith would seriously entertain this idea that our free-willed choices cause God's foreknowledge of them, I think it would solve a lot of his difficulty with foreknowledge and free will being in "the same room," as he puts it.

Wesley wasn’t infallible (he’d be the first to agree), so if when he said, “decisions cause God to know them” he meant that the decisions we make today are what caused God to know them in eternity past, we got some serious problems. First, if what God knew before I was born didn’t include my decisions, God would not possess EDF. Second, if my actions are the cause of what God knows, particularly in regard to predestination, how do I cause something (to be known) before I was born? This just gets weirder and weirder and more weirder! This would have been the wrong way to deal with predestination, if this is what Wesley meant. Now, if what Wesley meant was that when I respond to the gospel that I am fulfilling something of God’s plan—His predestination of all who will respond positively to the gospel—and that my action causes God to know this, then I say, “Bully!” To tell you the truth, I’m not acquainted well enough with Wesley’s teaching on the subject, but I can tell you that he got himself in a world of hurt if he believed that the decisions we make today are what caused God to know them in eternity past!

As to Jerome’s response to my comments about his use of Ps. 139, God knowing David’s thoughts before they are on his tongue does not prove EDF. It only proves that God knows David’s thoughts as they take place. Next, in view of there being much metaphorical and literal aspects of the psalm, that’s the reason to be very cautious about making the psalm didactic. The psalm is just not an “Okay, listen up! This is lesson 101 on God’s EDF knowledge.” Rather, it is a heart-wrenching issue of David’s heart-felt awareness of the ever-present God. It is in just a psalm like this where you would expect David to speak metaphorically and hyperbolically. We will have to agree to disagree on this, Jerome, if you feel otherwise. Finally, Jerome said, “If, as Keith believes, God knows our minds and hearts, then why should Keith bother to pray aloud at all? After all, God already knows what's in his heart and mind!” I guess I pray out loud because…my mouth exists and works! Those who’s mouths don’t work will, however, get by just fine by praying without spoken words. Hannah (Samuel’s mother) is your friend!

The Open View doesn’t have anything to do with major doctrines of Christianity, and it isn’t heresy. If it “revises” omniscience, it does so only by causing us to think about what we mean when we say, “God knows everything” and to rethink how this is true. Thus, with part of the future being open, the Open View clarifies more than it revises.

Jerome, you may have the last post, and I hope you will answer my questions. It’s been good to debate with you.

Sincerely,

Keith R. Starkey

[Jerome Van Kuiken]

My thanks to Keith for offering me the last word in this debate. I also appreciate that he didn't take the easy way out on Dan. 11 by late-dating it.

Reasons given by proposers of a resolution may be different than the reasons that motivate those who adopt a resolution at General Conference. I would be stunned if GC '07 actually condemned Open Theism as heresy. If this resolution is adopted, I suspect it will be because delegates recognize that this is a highly controversial issue that should not have been given the appearance of denominational endorsement by having a chapter devoted to it in the new Pastors' Handbook. At very least, the chapter should have acknowledged that Open Theism is not a traditional or standard Arminian, Wesleyan or (Free) Methodist viewpoint.

Open Theism does in fact change a major doctrine: the doctrine of God. It revises or rejects several divine attributes: omniscience, immutability (God is unchanging), impassibility (God is not affected by the world), and eternity (God is timeless). I welcome rethinking of the latter three of these attributes, but obviously I can't agree with Open Theism's revision of omniscience. Open Theism, at least as presented by Keith, also revises other divine attributes: if God really inspired Ezekiel and Agabus to give mistaken information, then either God lacks the power to make his predictions come perfectly true, or God lacks the wisdom to avoid making detailed predictions that he knows he might not pull off, or God lacks the moral integrity to be true to his word, even when he's staked his reputation as the one true God and the very lives of his prophets on the accuracy of his predictions (on this point, see my last post for biblical support). In fact, God's attribute of being the only real God is compromised: God makes accuracy in prediction a test of who is the real God, but if he is only accurate part of the time, then he's no better than the spiritual sources of ancient pagan prophecy or modern psychic predictions -- even the Oracle at Delphi and Jeane Dixon have made some accurate predictions. For that matter, even TV weather forecasters do that without any divine intervention, so maybe there was no God inspiring the biblical prophets after all! (Readers can consult standard evangelical commentaries on the accuracy of the prophecies in Ezek. 26 and Acts 21.)

Keith says that in Open Theism there are many ways God can know the future besides 1. guessing or 2. overriding free will. But the examples Keith gives only confirm that these are the only two options for an Open Theist. Keith cites God's prediction of Israel's future rebellion based on Israel's past performance. But according to Keith's explanation, this is a guess -- an educated guess, but still a guess! Keith also says that, in Dan. 11, God can "cause kings to meet for lunch." If you throw out simple foreknowledge, how can God make certain that the kings will do this without overriding free will? Open Theists Greg Boyd, William Hasker and David Basinger concede that God overrides human free will at key points in order to fulfill his plan (and yes, this is a Calvinistic explanation; see pp. 332-333, including footnote 15, of the book Panentheism -- the Other God of the Philosophers by John W. Cooper, professor of philosophical theology at Calvin Theological Seminary).

Appealing to God's perfect present knowledge of hearts like Peter's or circumstances like Saul's doesn't guarantee that God can know for sure what we'll do next, at least from an Arminian perspective. The reason is that when Arminians speak of "free will," they mean that we have the power to choose contrary to our outer circumstances or inner character. But if God can't know for sure what we'll choose next, why does God risk giving such detailed prophecies, especially when he stakes his own reputation and that of his prophets on his accuracy? If Peter had denied Jesus only twice, Jesus could have been truly charged as a false prophet by Deuteronomy's standards. If any of the people that Samuel predicted Saul would meet had spontaneously decided to stay indoors that day, not all the signs that God was with Saul would have been fulfilled and Saul would have had cause to doubt both Samuel's and God's trustworthiness. There's no way even God could get every last detail right if he were just guessing, which means either that he overrides free wills (so long, moral responsibility; hello, automatons!) or else that he simply foreknows for certain without causing future free-willed decisions (the classical Arminian position). That Keith is willing to charge God with false prophecy is a sad commentary on what Open Theism can do to one's view of God.

Keith sees it as impossible for me to truly have free will if what I'll do is settled in God's mind. Conversely, if I'm able to do differently than what God knows or says I'll do, then God can't have exhaustive foreknowledge. Let me respond by switching the past for the future. It is settled in my mind that Columbus sailed in 1492. Does this settled knowledge of mine restrict Columbus's free will? No. Just because his action is settled in my mind doesn't mean it's settled in his mind or that he couldn't have chosen to do otherwise. Maybe Columbus thought, "Wow, whatever choice I make, someday historians will write down what I did, and I won't be able to change it. What a damper on my free will!" But free will is a matter of who causes an act, not who knows about the act. Of course Peter, Saul and others retained the ability to do differently than what God told them they would do -- but they didn't do differently! They freely did what God said they would do, even when, in Peter's case, he specifically said he wouldn't do it. If God told me exactly what I would do next, I would do it, either 1. from a free-willed desire to please God, or 2. in spite of myself, from free-willed decisions to avoid God's will that end up fulfilling that will, just as Peter did. For a short, helpful reading that defends a classical Arminian view of the relationship between EDF and human free will, see Ch. 8 of Paul Copan's book "That's Just Your Interpretation" (the whole book is worth reading, by the way).

What's the evidence for EDF? Keith sets the bar too high by demanding that God reveal hours of detailed data about the future before Keith will believe in EDF. It's like someone saying they won't believe God exists unless God appears to them personally and writes, "I exist" across the sky. (Please note: I am not equating Open Theism with atheism; I am only drawing an analogy of what constitutes an unreasonable burden of proof.) Keith also seems to require that I explain the exact relationship of God to time or of EDF to free will in order to be justified in believing in both EDF and free will. This is like saying that Christians must explain the exact relationship between Christ's human and divine natures in order to justify their belief that Christ is both human and divine. The test of a belief's truthfulness is not whether it can be exhaustively explained or undoubtably proved (like Descartes sitting in his oven, trying to find something that he couldn't possibly doubt or be deceived about); the test is whether a belief is based on good evidence and can adequately explain contrary evidence. In Scripture we find that God predicts the future in precise detail, and we find that those predictions come true. Therefore we conclude that God possesses a thorough foreknowledge of those parts of the future that he predicts. Based on these sample cases, we generalize that God must thoroughly foreknow the parts of the future that he does not predict. It's a similar logical sequence to the argument that God can do miracles at any time and place: God has done miracles in some times and places, therefore we generalize that he can do them in all other times and places.

What about contrary evidence, such as God changing his mind, speaking conditionally ("if," "maybe," "perhaps," etc.), asking questions, expressing frustration or disappointment, etc.? There's no way I can deal with all the material here; interested readers can read any of a number of books that have come out against Open Theism. Let me just respond to a few pieces of contrary evidence.

First, God accommodates his revelation to us time-, space- and culture-bound creatures. So says Calvin, and here I agree with him. That means it's not deceptive for the Bible to speak of our hearts as the centers of our thoughts and wills, even though modern science tells us the heart is nothing but a blood pump. It's not dishonest for Isaiah to speak of "the arm of the Lord" when God is really a spiritual being, without arms or legs. It's not doublespeak for us to pray to "our Father in heaven" when God isn't male and when he both fills and transcends heaven and earth (Jer. 23:34; 2 Chron. 6:18). So it makes sense that when God is speaking to finite, free-willed beings, he condescends to speak from their perspective as they face a future that is open as far as their choices go, even though it is closed as far as God's knowledge goes.

Second, in interacting in time with his creatures, God can feel genuinely frustrated and disappointed, even though he knows in advance what we'll do and how he'll feel. That was my point in citing Deut. 31.

Third, God "changing his mind" is a paraphrase that English translations of Scripture use for a Hebrew word that has to do with actions, not mental states. When God "changes his mind," the Bible means that God changes the way he acts: he quits blessing and starts judging or vice-versa. A change in God's actions is fully compatible with no change in God's foreknowledge, just like I foreknow that once I arrive in Michigan, I'll quit driving and start walking. (For more on the translation of the Hebrew word, see pp. 308-311 of John Walton's NIV Commentary on Genesis.)

Lastly, Scripture must be tested against Scripture. Take the proof-texts for Open Theism given in our new Free Methodist Pastors' Handbook: the two biblical passages cited to show that God doesn't have EDF, Gen. 22 and Jer. 32, actually almost cancel each other out. If God could order Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, then clearly the thought of child sacrifice had entered his mind, contrary to a straightforward reading of Jer. 32:35, in which the "abomination" Israel is committing is child sacrifice! (We need not even mention that God, in the Lev. 18:2, 21, 24, forbade Israel to follow the Canaanite practice of child sacrifice, so surely it had entered his mind that Israel might imitate the Canaanites and sacrifice their children.) If all God's statements are taken literally, then God doesn't even have exhaustive knowledge of the present (see Gen. 3:10, 11; 8:1; 18:20-21)!

Thanks for the stimulating debate, Keith. May God guide GC '07!

[Tom Wallace]

Publishing the article “A Wesleyan Perspective on the Openness of God” in our “Pastors and Church Leaders Manual” does not make “Open Theism” a part of our Book of Discipline nor a doctrinal statement. In a manual designed to provide pastors and laypersons with an understanding of Free Methodist thought, it is an attempt to bring a Wesleyan perspective to a current theological discussion. The “Reason” of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is not intended only for professional theologians, but also for those of us making amateurish attempts at understanding God; in this case understanding how God relates and responds to the free-will persons He has created. Although “open theism” is a relatively new concept, it attempts to be true to scripture and is deserving of further study by those of us who consider ourselves “free-will theists.” It is my opinion that this article has a place in this manual.

[Rev. Vaughn W. Thurston-Cox]

The comments posted here are exhaustive. There is little to be added. I would probably go further than Rev. VanKuiken and move a statement drawn up opposing it.

While open theists have done well to remind us that we exist in relationship with an emotive God who responds to relationship with him, spiritual masters have done so well before this movement. This is the nature of the spiritual life.

To force the timeless into linear time and rob him of omniscience strikes at his very nature and ventures well past simple disagreement or error.

Please understand I want to speak grace, and I want to speak it honestly.