This book, written by Gregory A. Boyd, is an biblical introduction to the view that the future is partly open aswell as partly determined. There are four chapters aswell as an appendix and each chapter considers one aspect of this view. The first one considers such biblical examples which are used to support the classical view of divine foreknowledge. Examples are Isaiah 48:3-5

I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth,...

Ezekiel 26: 7-21

For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon,...

And yes, God did foreknow these events. But the question is asked, does the fact that God foreknows some things mean that He foreknows all things? The evidence in chapter two suggests that this is not the case. Boyd writes, ”For example, I am at the present time deliberating about whether or not I should travel to San Diego next month. In deliberating about this matter, I asume that it is up to me to decide,when, where, and how I will travel. How could I honestly deliberate about this decision if I didn't believe this? But notice, I also assume that much of the future is already settled and not up to me to decide. To deliberate about whether I should travel to San Diego or not, I have to assume that (among many other things) San Diego will exist next month, that the laws of physics will operate as they do today, and that I will be basically the same person then as I am now. I cannot deliberate about issues that are up to me to decide without presupposing the settledness of many other issues that are not up to me to decide.
This example illustrates that we cannot consider choices without presupposing that the future is partly open and partly settled-- the very position that the open view advocates. If we believe that all of the futre was open, we could not decide between options. If we believed that none of the futre was open, we could not decide between options. Hence, the fact that we obviously do decide between option s suggests that at some level we all assume that the future is partly open and partly closed.”

In the second chapter, Boyd presents such biblical examples which support the future being partly open. Among the examples are Genesis 6:6 and 1 Sam 13:13 where God regrets making mankind and Saul king respectively. Boyd asks, ”We must wonder how the Lord could truly experience regret for making Saul king if he was absolutely certain that Saul would act the way he did.”
Another example is found in Isaiah 5 where the Lord expresses suprise in an analogy of a wineyard he planted. The Lord asks ”4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes? ”
The appendix chapter contains many other examples, aswell as the rest of chapter two.

The third chapter explores the practical differences made by espousing the open view rather than the classical one. Boyd argues that it is more rationally coherent, increases the clarity of Gods Word aswell as positively affect our core view of who God. Boyd also argues that it places the urgency back in prayer. This because if the future is exhaustively settled, one may wonder what difference prayer does make. But if God can yet change his mind in answere to prayer, as he indeed is recorded as doing on many occations in the bible (several of the conversations between God and Moses come to mind), then prayer does make a difference. Boyd also argues that the open view brings some resolution to the problem of evil.

The fourth and last chapter gives answers to 18 common questions regarding the open view. Here, questions such as ”Why do you think God can't foreknow future free actions?”, ” Isn't Gods wisdom diminished by claiming he can't foreknow everything about the future?” and ”How can you claim that the future is partly open and partly settled? It seems like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too”.

In conclusion, I found this book easy to read and well written. All may not agree with the conclusions made but that should not be a reason to avoid reading it if the questions it works with are interesting to you. And as Boyd points out in the foreword, this theology is peripherical and should not be allowed to come in the way of our unity in Christ.

Nice job, Thomas.

We've been having a discussion on these ideas in the foreknowledge thread. I've suggested a link to some of Dr. Boyd's writings on line, where he explains some of the concepts, but the book goes into much more detail. It's an inexpensive book, and I agree with you that, regardless of one's view, it would be worth taking a look at if one has an interest in the subject.

What Dr. Boyd writes makes perfect sense to me.

By the way, he has another book on the subject which goes into a lot more detail called, "Satan and the Problem of Evil." This is not only about foreknowledge, but is about what we, as Adventists, would call "The Great Controversy". However, he goes into a lot of detail regarding the foreknowledge question. In this book he considers the philosophical arguments in a lot more detail.

He also had another book called "God at War" which discusses the Great Controversy theme (but doesn't go into the foreknowledge question much, since he already covered it in the "Satan and the Problem of Evil" book.)

I found it interesting that some non-SDA's accuse Adventists of believing something that is not in Scripture, but just based on the writings of EGW (i.e., the Great Controversy theme), but here is a non-SDA that wrote over 1,000 pages on the theme!

I got "God at war" too and it awaits reading. I heard that Dr Boyd makes theology where Ellen made story. Both have their place and I expect them to be mutually complementary.

Having thrown an eye on the foreknowledge thread, Im not sure it has moved all that far from where it was a year ago when I participated in it. Noone can accuse you and Mike of being hasty or of lacking commitment and endurance.

Also looking into "The God who risks" right now. I understand that is presently the textbook on the subject. Lets see what I can find there.

Does Boyd's material cover God's omnipresence in relation to our time and space continuum? If so, what does he say about it?

In other words, some people believe God is not bound by our time and space continuum, that our yesterdays and tomorrows are, for God, now and always.

He sees our past happening now. He sees our tomorrow happening now. He sees our today happening now. None of which prevents Him from relating to us the way we relate to one another regarding time and space.

Time and space, as we know it, do not exist for God. He has no beginning or end. He is everywhere at the same time, and yet we will be able to climb up on His lap and snuggle close as He tells us sweet stories.

At any rate, Does Boyd address this aspect of God?

Yes, he covers it. You could look at the questions and answers portion of the book to see what he says. I don't have the book with me right now, or I could find a specific question to look at.

If you don't have any way to look at the book, I'll see if I can write something down, although it would be preferable to read what he actually said.

The "Satan and the Problem of Evil" goes into great detail about the different theories people have had. The God of the Possible doesn't go into as much detail, but still a decent amount, and the idea you are asking about is a fairly common one, so it covers it.

The following quotes are not by Boyd, but other authors who share a similar viewpoint to Boyd's.

Boyd gets into this and then he rejects it. God knows everything that there is to know, but the future does not yet exist and that which does not exist cannot be known. In the future, some things are determined, such as Gods plan for the church and the continued existance of the universe and such, and some things are not determined, which would include most everything involving choises of creatures with the power of choise. That would include humans and angles. That which is not determined is known by God as posibilities, which are perfectly known and out of which one present will chrystalize and turn into a past in time.

Question 7 in the QnA chapter is as follows:

Thanks Thomas!

I agree completely with Boyd's point (which Hasker alludes to, but Boyd is more explicit) regarding the logical inconsistencies of trying to apply principles which imply an impersonal being to a being who is actually personal.

Does Boyd analyze the examples in Scripture which provide evidence that God knows exactly how the future will play out? For instance, 1 Kings 13, where God sends a prophet to Bethel with a message against the idolatrious worship established by Jeroboam:

"And the man cried against the altar by the word of the LORD, and said, 'O altar, altar, thus says the LORD: "Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name; and he shall sacrifice upon you the priests of the high places who burn incense upon you, and men’s bones shall be burned upon you"'" (v. 2).

God prophesied the name of a king and what he would do about 360 years in advance. Did God know 30 years ago if I would marry? If I would have a son? And, if so, how I would call my son? What my son would do? How then could the details mentioned in the prophecy, which of course depended entirely on human free will, be known by God almost four centuries in advance?