Ok, here it is:

"Open theists rather maintain that God can and does predetermide and foreknow whatever he wants to about the future. Indeed, God is so confident in his sovereignty, we hold, he does not need to micromanage everything." (Boyd)

Tom, do you agree with Boyd that God can know whatever He wants to know about the future, that He chooses not to know certain details, but that it doesn't mean He couldn't know them if He wanted to?

"Our future must be, at least in part, in the realm of possibilities." (Boyd)

Tom, do you agree with this statement? If so, how does it apply to the future after the GC is over? In other words, how can God say with certainty that the possibility of rebellion occurring again is zero? How can He know such a thing if having free will means the possibility of rebelling?

Maybe God through middle knowledge knows all possible choices we could make and at the same time still knows which choices we will make without actually effecting our free will choice. Of course we should reject classical theology brought about by neo-platonic thought. God is outside of time and yet clearly enters it. God is not stuck inside our cause and effect relationship. I believe since the Bible teaches both foreknowledge and free will that for God foreknowledge must be descriptive instead of prescriptive.

Boyd doesn't discuss middle knowledge in the "God of the Possible" book, but he does discuss it in detail in the "Satan and the Problem of Evil" book.

One of the points Boyd makes is that what is being disagreed is not that God has perfect foreknowledge (everyone agrees with that) but as to what the content is of the future that God perfectly sees. Under the Open View, the future is not the one single thing that actually plays out, but the sum of all the possible things that can happen.

The problem of saying that foreknowledge is descriptive (assuming this means foreknowledge of the one actual thing that will play out) is that if what will play out is known before it happens, then it is certain to occur before it happens. That is, before the FMA (a term of MM's, meaning "Free Moral Agent") makes a decision, that decision is already settled.

Here's an example to see the problem involved here. Say God wrote down in a book of facts what Aaron will do next week in "Aaron's book of facts" and published that book 11/22/63. The content in the book of facts book is just as much a part of the past as Kennedy's assassination. Aaron would have no more ability to change an event written in the book regarding Aaron's future decision than to change what happened to Kennedy.

You're misquoting him here. He does not say that God chooses not to know certain details of the future.

Please consider the subject matter that Boyd was discussing when he wrote what you quoted; that is, what point Boyd is trying to make and what question he is trying to answer.



God sees every possible future. Given that in no possible future after the judgment does an FMA sin, God can know with certainty that sin will not arise again.

Here's an example. Consider a certain chess position, where the rest of the moves can be seen until checkmate. I could say I know, for example, that White will win, even though I don't know what moves will be played. Regardless of the series of moves actually chosen, the end result will be the same.

I dont see it as a problem that God happens to know that Im about to write this sentence before I even read your comment. I dont see His knowing that as having forced me to write it. The problem is that we are looking at it as a time issue because thats how we experience it here on earth. A cause happens THEN an effect. Thus, it is assumed that God's knowledge BEFORE acts in this way, that it is somehow effective to our future decision, that it is somehow causative. But this assumes earthly concepts of time and cause and effect. Why cant Gods foreknowledge itself derive from future free decisions? What if God's knowledge is able to transcend time to make this possible? Sorry if this is off the topic of Boyds book which does sound interesting. I always liked him since I read about him in Strobel's "A Christ for Christ"

No, it's not off topic.

In the book of facts example, the problem is not that God saw what would happen, but that what decisions you will made was written in a book. The problem is not that you are forced to do something, as if there were some force outside of yourself making you think or do certain things, but there is a logical problem involved here. If the decisions that you will make in the future were written in a book at some time in the past, then you cannot change what will happen. Once again, this is a problem of logic, not one of God's knowing what will happening forcing you to do something.

Changing subjects, I've read a number of Boyd's books and liked them all. If you're interested in really getting into the subject, I'd try to find "Satan and the Problem of Evil." The book "God of the Possible," is less detailed, but easier to read, and also an excellent book.

If God knows every beings every action that will ever be taken before it has been done, then that suggests that the future is not open and that true choise does not exist. It is this view of the future that is the problem.

I have started reading another book on the topic, John Sanders "The God Who Risks". He has some interesting things to say. A good read.

First I'll compliment Tom and Vaster for the excellent presentations of Open Theism they are making. I'll just make a few comments here, though probably won't be able to come back very often on this.

Next, moving to MM's first question.... please note that the syntax of that sentence you quoted from Boyd uses an "and" to join the two verbs, "predestine and foreknow". ("God can and does predetermine and foreknow whatever he wants..."), which means that "whatever he wants" has to include both of the verbs together... not one or the other separately. Thus yes, God foreknows everything absolutely which he predestines absolutely.

And by far the vast majority of what will happen in the future God can know because he ordains and determines that it will happen. The laws of our physical universe, for example. The outcome of the "Great Controversy" for another example. The ONLY part of the future which Open Theists such as myself hold to be unknown by God is that part which He puts under the partial control of his intelligent through their exercise of the measure of free will that He has given to them.

As to your second question... one does not have to move to Open Theism for the answer to that... the standard Great Controversy theme includes the purpose and the working out of the results of God giving freedom of choice to his creatures. And one of the reasons for this is so that the lesson as to whether God is the best choice of rulers will be adequately shown so no one will ever feel the need for experimenting again. So God's promise that affliction shall not arise a second time has two bases... both of which Open Theists as well as standard GC doctrines teach... that God has determined this to be so... and that God also determined that his intelligent creatures would be allowed the freedom to make every mistake that could be made before He called "closing time". But when they have done that... at a time of God's own choosing... he will bring to an end the experimentation with sin. That is NOT the same as bringing an end to free will. What it means is that our will be completely freed from the temptor and the temptations to rebell against God. We will still be able to make meaningful choices about what we do in the endless time available to us.

Yes... the real difference between standard GC theology and Open Theism is not in the view of the future so much as it is in the nature of time itself. The Open Theist sees time as duration and sequence of events which move in a cause and effect order. Those who oppose Open Theism usually have a concept of time that makes it into a static "thing"... thus making possible such esoteric sci fi excapades as "time travel"... and putting some very severe limitations on both God and his creatures who are said to have "free will" but in fact are locked into the static "time grid".

The books mentioned here have all been very good. Boyd is especially good for introducing the concepts in an easily readable form in relatively few pages. Another introductory book, which is of special interest to SDAs because one of the five authors is Richard Rice (an SDA theologian and biblical scholar), is _The Openness of God_, edited by Clark Pinnock.

For an indepth treatment of the subject from all angles... biblical, historical, theological, philosophical... however, the book that you mention by John Sanders is certainly one of the best... maybe THE best. The thing that makes it so good... the depth and breadth of its comprehensiveness... as might be expected also makes it a much slower read than Boyd. And one really needs to keep a marker in the endnotes section, for he includes much information there that is best to read along with the main text.