I’ll give it a listen Steve, thanks.
I understand that certain events are spoken of as guarantees. and I fully agree and believe in every guarantee or promise God has given. The mistake is, IMO, to apply this guardianship principal to every single event in history and nature. There are certain factors that bring about completely random events or outcomes. They have been designed that way; like spots on a cow, stripes on a zebra, freckles on the face or body. This is partly due to mechanism behind the ‘chaos factor’, which I believe God has created loops of infinite variety to be seen throughout nature. For a very clever observance of the Chaos theory… the video below: **The Secret Life of Chaos **(BBC), gives an extraordinary insight into the mechanism of variety which is built into design. It is part of the mathematical equation to reproduce variation into all nature (within the species, so to speak). It appears to me that the lengths God has taken to write into nature a variation equation is itself counter-intuitive to the rigid and robotic uniformity to the great predetermined machinery of a clockwork universe. If anyone gets a chance, the documentary is very interesting.
I don’t buy into the ‘clockwork’ model either Steve, I’m with you on that, and look forward to that documentary with great interest.
I do think that for God to give promises about the future, and in fact about the ages to come, He (logically ) must direct people and events to that (guaranteed, specific) goal. I don’t see a lot of guesswork there - in fact, none. I also don’t see a big element of surprise.
In other words, God has Plans. We ALREADY know a lot about the future, through promises and prophecies. If we know about the future, I daresay god knows much more, perhaps everything about the future?
How this bears on human freedom is a topic that we have beaten like a borrowed mule here the past few months. My own response to that is the FWED - free-will enough defense, which I’m rather proud of, and am a bit dismayed that it has not yet been indexed in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 
I’ve yet to watch the other Steve’s link on open theism. I’ll try to watch that and your link in the next few days.
Sorry, I can’t follow you guys down the process/open theism path, but peace and prayers for a Holy Christmas.
The Church Fathers wrestled with these questions for thousands of years, and came up with amazingly sophisticated, subtle and satisfying answers to the problems of how freedom + God’s omniscient and eternal nature go together. I’m working with a physicist in my congregation on the existence of future - past events. ,“The future doesn’t exist yet”. That’s one point of view. In modern physics and philosophical reasoning, there are others ; ’ )
God is the creator of the space-time universe, and not a chronologically very old, very powerful being within it. He exists e-ternally, timelessly. He didn’t begin to exist when time did (at the big bang. Augustine knew this) because He is not contingent on any created entity. He is outside of time, but all time is contained within him. The flux of time being an eternally present now to God means that NOTHING has to be fixed: the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and Omega, He the Lord of all Time, has access to every point in time, and the freedom to redeem all of it. This stuff doesn’t make you a universalist, but it pushes you in that direction. I think Mother Julian caught in when she exclaimed, “All Things shall be well!”
ANd yes, I - and the whole tradition of classical theism could be wrong, re God’s eternity. This is a really tough one, and I don’t want to be dismissive about any conclusion someone has come to after prayerful reading and research.
Signing off now! A Holy and blessed Nativity to you all.
I read Boyd’s book (co-authored with i cant remember) and I wasn’t particularly impressed. It’s not a new idea, as Paidion has already stated, that the future is not knowable to God. But for me, the idea creates more problems than it solves and it also means that God is not Lord over time. Personally I disagree but I’m not sure either way.
Yeah – I don’t know. I must be somewhere in the middle here. I agree with you, John, that God knows everything, or that at least He CAN know everything, whether or not He chooses to I’m not as sure. I think it’s possible He may choose not to know some things just like an expecting couple may choose not to know the sex of their baby. Not a perfect analogy, obviously, but I think you get my point. Maybe Father also enjoys watching things unfold, and there are many times in the bible where it at least sounds like He is discovering things as they unfold. That may be anthropomorphization, or it may be He chooses to shut off that knowledge in favor of taking things as they come. I do believe that He is super-intelligent enough to have known the long-term results of every eddy of the Big Bang even as He prepared the singularity and set it off.
At the same time, I don’t think He necessarily intricately controls everything – such as the spots on the cow or the variations on the theme of “daisy” that we see all over the world, or where the paint flecks fly when I fling them from my brush to give a passage some texture and interest. I only have a vague idea of where they’re going myself, and really that’s the point of flinging them. Maybe Father enjoys that too. He may give some things alternate choices and allow us to set the path, though the destination is always and unchangingly HIM. I do NOT think He purposively plans horrors. It may be (as Talbot explains so much better than I could) that He has created the universe with the least possible amount of suffering in which all of His free-willed (free willed enough) creation will eventually be reconciled to Him.
I probably don’t know enough about the eternity question, but it seems to me that philosophers have defined “eternity” in a certain way – this sort of realm outside of (or surrounding) time in which nothing ever happens. Honestly it sounds like a load of tosh. We made this up. We imagined it. How do we know that’s what eternity is? If this is truly anything like a picture of eternity, then it is no place for a human or any other kind of animal to be, even a glorified human (imo). A place where things don’t happen one after another? I’m not sure we’re designed for that sort of thing. Revelation concludes with the announcement that Father will dwell with us and we will be His people and He will be our God. That sounds like He will (at least partially) inhabit time so as to be with us. But the philosophers undoubtedly have a hundred thousand pages of dense proofs to support their theses on eternity, and I should be silent on the topic as I am a child to it and making myself sound foolish.
That said, I don’t think anyone here denies that Father is eternal (however we define that) and has no beginning and will have no end. He has always been. Whether He has been doing anything (as we count doing things) all that . . . erm . . . non-time – I could not say. My brain gets boggled thinking about it.
Stef, I would love to watch your link, but I mustn’t. We’re already running low on remaining bandwidth for the month. 
And it looks SO cool!
Love, Cindy
Well, once again I affirm that God knows everything. I affirm this, and every open theist of which I am aware affirms this. We believe that God has complete knowledge of everything there is to know. What we deny is that God knows something that is NOT there to know. God doesn’t know that there is a pink elephant in your bedroom at this moment, simply because He cannot know what is not there. The same with the future.
On the other hand, God does know HIS PLANS from the end to the beginning.
…for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ (Isaiah 46:9,10)
With his complete knowledge of everything in the universe, God is able to carry out his plans and accomplish his purpose. I think this is the sense in which Greg Boyd understands SOME of the future as NOT open. But, as I pointed out in my quotes from Jeremiah, there are some things which take God by surprise. He thought that Israel after doing all those wicked things would return to Him. But she didn’t return. (Jer. 3:7)
More to what? To the matter of the domain which God knows? He knows all things. However, the phrase “the future hasn’t happened yet”, does not make the matter as clear as the phrase “the future doesn’t presently exist.” How can a person KNOW about anything which doesn’t exist. However, God DOES know what He intends to do. I think He intends to bring about the reconcilation of all people to Himself, and will take whatever steps are necessary to do so—even the the time frame might be much greater than we would like it to be.
I’m not sure that “guaranteed” is a good translation. The NKJV translated it as “confirmed”, that is, "He confirmed [what He intended to do] with an oath."According to the Online Bible lexicon, the Greek word means: “to act as a mediator between litigating or covenanting parties”. The NASB lexicon states that the word means: “interposed”, and Strong’s Greek Lexicon gives the meaning as “to interpose (as arbiter), i.e. (by implication) to ratify (as surety): — confirm.”
I basically agree with Stefcui on this matter. Even if some future events inevitable because God arranges for them to happen, it is folly to extend this to ALL events, making all events (including our choices) inevitable. To do so would to deny our ability to choose and therefore remove from us any responsibility for our actions. Thus we would neither deserve any reward for our good actions, and any attempt to correct our wrong behaviour would be futile.
My proviso to Open Theism is that it does not prevent the future being known. I see small holes in Boyd’s idea too; but I also see holes in the antithesis as well. I think, as per Steve and Cindy, that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Boyd explains his position as recognizing the omniscience of God while creating “open partnerships”. This makes sense to me.
Open Theism is a way of looking at things - but not to the exclusion of omniscience. ‘Knowing’ the future does not require that the future is inflexible. If there are two paths that each may take (so to speak), it is not unrealistic that God knows each of these possible paths. God is able to direct the flow of possibilities so that His master plan is fulfilled, meanwhile allowing us to experience freedom of choice for our own self-determination. Going back to the computer code analogy, the simulator will show where the intervention (or choice) will lead to. God knows. Some (few) choices of man require God’s intervention; whereas most do not.
Would Sarah and Abraham really have given birth at their age naturally, or was this an example of intervention to create the religious cultures we have today? Would Paul really have become an Apostle naturally, or is this an example of intervention to orchestrate the will of God? What would have happened to the church if Paul was not the subject of intervention? Did God know the outcome in either case? I think so…
God Bless everyone, and have a great day with your families.
Stefcui
Paidion,
The ‘more to it’ phrase I used was the open theism theory (or ‘theology’ or whatever one wants to call it, I’m not dogmatic about it), sorry I was not more clear. Another new year’s resolution! 
I won’t quibble about the translation - it comes down to the same thing as far as I can see. “Confirm” is as good as any.
The free will aspect - I’m convinced of the FWED and rest easy in my mind about it.
With 1) the FWED settled, in my mind, and 2)God’s plans guaranteed or confirmed, so that the end game, which is the beginning, is a sure hope and an anchor for the soul , and 3) the belief that God’s providence is all about Love,Wisdom and Justice and all other high and holy things - now I’ve got the hard stuff to do - love God and my neighbor, in more than just words.
I’m curious as to how you square this with EU/UR. Specifically, if God cannot predict the future due to the variability/ unpredictability of human choices, how is God able to ensure that He can save all?
I’ve never seen this as a problem. I’m with Jess - whose excellent post has passed without comment here - and, incidentally, with CS Lewis and a sizeable proportion of orthodox theists throughout history, in believing that God is ‘outside’ of time. Before he created the universe and everything in it, time as we know it did not exist. (This concept is, of course, impossible for us to get our heads around .)
A good illustration of God’s relationship to created time is given by Lewis (I paraphrase from memory here because I can’t locate the exact passage in his writings):
If time is represented by a straight line drawn on a page, we experience events along that line, in a strictly chronological order. We cannot move backwards to experience the past, or forwards to see the future. We can ‘experience’ time only in the present. God, however, because he is not constrained by the physical universe, ‘sees’ every point along the line in his eternal and infinite now.
As Lewis himself puts it, in a quote from Mere Christianity I have been able to track down , “God, I believe, does not live in a Time-series at all. His life is not dribbled out moment by moment like ours: with Him it is still 1920 and already 1960."
The way I like to express this is (vaguely remembered from some website) " God sees what you did tomorrow."
Thus we are free to act however we wish at any given point along the line (given the usual constraints on our ‘free will’ - genetics, upbringing etc). God neither preordains our future actions, as in Calvinism (blearrgh ), nor ‘predicts’ how we will act in the future. But he does ‘know’ how we will act in the future.
The unpredictability of our free choices doesn’t really have any bearing on whether we will all freely repent and come to saving faith in Christ. (The answer to that question is, for me, that God has eternity to bring about the circumstances in which all will freely repent, as has been argued convincingly by Universalist philosopher Eric Reitan - as Aidan has mentioned on another current thread).
Does that make sense to you guys?
Cheers
Johnny
First let me affirm that my belief is not that God cannot PREDICT the future, but that He cannot KNOW the future (since only those things which exist can be known). Predicting the future does not require that the future is settled NOW. Even human beings can predict the future, and their predictions often correspond to the reality of the events which later occur. For example, weather predictions. Also some people do well in predicting horse race winners, hockey game wins, etc. These predictions are based on knowledge of present conditions, and how those conditions in the past have influenced or even seem to have determined the future (such as astronomer’s predictions of the position of the moon, comets, etc.)
If a human being has an intention, he can often create the conditions which make his plan a reality. Even something as simple as desiring to go to a particular store to buy groceries, comes about because the man places his credit card in his pocket, makes certain that his car is operating properlty, enters his car, turns the key, places it in reverse, drives to the store, finds his groceries, pays the cashier, etc. But it is possible that he cannot carry out his intention. Perhaps his car just won’t start, or he has reached his limit on his credit card, or the store is out of some of the required groceries, he falls down and breaks his leg, etc.
God’s great plan of the ages is the reconciliation of all things to Himself. Yet He never forces man’s free will. However, He DOES influence that free will to bring about His intentions. He will influence each person in such a way that eventually the person will choose to repent and submit to Christ’s authority—just as you and I have already done. This doesn’t always happen in this life, but what about the next?
Here is the way Steve Gregg put it in a post to his forum:
This said by a man who is not yet a convinced universal reconciliationist!
Bringing this topic up. I have entered a post above.
Well, yes; but that was not the view I was having difficulty understanding. It was Paidion’s more particular view on the subject: He’s saying God cannot know the future (though He can predict it), whereas the more common view you have expressed here indicates He does know the future. Paidion’s view is that God does not exist “outside of time”, and therefore cannot know the future, even though He is highly accurate at predicting it.
Also, the free choices per se are not the issue under this view, but rather that this is part of the mechanism that makes the future unknowable for certain, by God or anyone else.
I think his answer has gone a good way toward explaining how this can be squared with universalism.
That was an amazing post, Paidion. I think I agree with you. That’s the way I’ve thought of it, but I didn’t understand what you meant until now. Amazing! Yes! Father knows what’s going to happen because He’s really THAT smart. But if things don’t go quite as predicted, that’s okay. He can handle it and He can bring about His will. No one and nothing can stop him – not because He forces His way but because He’s really THAT smart, THAT patient, THAT persistent and THAT dear and loving and kind. No matter how hard we spit in His face, He will win us in the end and we will love Him. An old song comes to mind . . . (ignore the preamble – or don’t – it’s cute after all.)
I’m ambivalent about the theory of God being outside of time. We say that an infinite number of past events is impossible, and of course I have to agree – at least, in a finite universe. I expect that’s what people mean when they talk about God being in eternity. But the idea of eternity as some sort of realm where things don’t happen one after another makes no sense to me at all, and it’s definitely not appealing. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but I wonder where we (scripturally) get this idea of “eternity.” I don’t think we can find it in the bible; I don’t know about any of the associated scriptures in other Christian canons. That doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t true, but then we’re made in God’s image, and we are creatures who live things in sequence. I don’t see a problem with Father going into the past if He wants to, but I don’t see any evidence for it either.
I guess the picture I have is of a man (I can’t see any picture but of a man though I know that’s anthropomorphizing, so just patronize me on this) . . . I see a man in his study with a beautiful, mystical, magical thing he has created. A universe all brilliant with stars and running its course as it develops. He’s not in the universe (or not ONLY in it at least) but he’s watching it from the outside and occasionally influencing its progression by tweaking this event or that relationship. At present he’s focused on one primary species on one planet – the earth, but who knows what he will do with the rest of the place? Or even of other places he might have made or be planning to make? He watches things develop according to plan, only on occasion something goes slightly amiss and so he coaxes it back onto the track. He knows what he’s aiming for and he knows he will succeed, but he doesn’t necessarily know (or maybe he does) what the next challenge will be. He loves doing this. He’s confident of bringing every single life on his beautiful little blue planet into a state of supreme joy and bliss and personal relationship with him, and he knows more or less how he will accomplish it but he doesn’t know every single tweak he’ll make nor every single variation on the theme of love that his creation will produce. That’s part of the joy of it after all, and he doesn’t need to have that level of control. The beauty he is after will not develop with that level of control. Freedom in his creatures is necessary for his project. He lets his first conscious human name the animals and listens with interest to see what he will call them. He encourages his creatures to call out to him and be answered, and if they don’t call out, he will still have his good way with the world, but he may not intervene unless he’s asked to. And maybe he won’t intervene anyway, as he has his plans and sees the bigger picture, but he WILL bring every tiny life to a good place and to blessedness. That he knows full well.
I know that’s a fanciful (and woefully incomplete) picture, but maybe it gives a bit of insight into at least my own thoughts. I have full confidence in our Father. I don’t have full confidence in CS Lewis’ view of what eternity is – what its nature is. It makes no sense to me. It seems to me that maybe it’s a Greek or pagan or even a philosophical or scientific speculation. A place with no time. We know OUR universe has no room for an infinite number of past events, but I’m not sure God’s heaven is limited in that way. Are we the first? Will we be the last? I don’t know anything about that, but I do think the idea of a place called “eternity” where nothing ever happens, but where all the things that do happen in our universe are accessible all at once, is hard for me to credit. I could well be wrong, but that’s my take on it.
Love, Cindy
It’s late so I’m probably not thinking straight so I’ll be brief at this time. I do find this to be a challenging subject.
I have full confidence in the Father also, which is why this bothers me a bit:
“But if things don’t go quite as predicted”
I don’t see the logical leap between that phrase and ‘full confidence’. If any thing predicted by God might not go quite as predicted - He could be wrong about something big as well. If He cannot correctly predict a little thing, why should we believe He can predict a Big Thing? How can we be guaranteed of the big stuff? Just as importantly, promises he has made for the future are suspect as well.
I think that we make a mistake by evolving a theory of what God can and cannot do out of our problem of dealing with ‘freedom’ in the human person. Some of the argument as I see it is picking a philosophical problem that we see as insoluble under one picture of God, so we find another picture. That does not mean you end up with the wrong picture, but it does mean that the controlling factor is not the scriptural idea of a God who knows all things, and controls all things and therefore can make promises that are an anchor to the soul.
Ah, I’m tired, but have a lot more to say about Process Theology (from which much, not all, Open Theism derives. Not all, but much.)
Definition of Process Theology, just for the purposes of this post:
Process Theology: A view of God which is based on the writings of Alfred North Whitehead. The traditional view of a immutable, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent deity is replaced by a God is who is in process. He is constantly changing, learning, and evolving along with humanity. God affects history indirectly through gentle persuasion and not directly by coercion. He does not intrude directly in human activities; he does not violate the laws of nature by creating a miracle. Rather, “God gently persuades all entities towards this perfection by providing each of them with a glimpse of the divine vision of a better future. And yet all entities retain the freedom to depart from that vision.” 1
I don’t think that is the scriptural position. But I’ll be thinking about it.
Night all…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Dave,
When I say sometimes things don’t go quite as planned, I think by that I mean that sometimes (often?) Father leaves the plans not quite open, but maybe so that they have some give to them – like a crocheted mesh, if that says anything to you – I’ll bet you don’t crochet, do you? A piece of crocheted mesh or lace can stretch this way and that by quite a lot and still spring back into its form. If you stretch it one way or another that doesn’t mean you’re not going to end up with a triangular shawl. There’s a limit, but within the parameters of the design, there’s a lot of room for give and take. I trust God completely. He can absolutely handle anything that comes along. I do think He knows ALL the possibilities and is ready for any choice any of us might make, as well as the conjunction of all our various possibilities of choices. That’s an astronomical number, but it is a finite number I believe, and Father is NOT a finite God. I firmly believe that He knows ALL the possibilities.
In the parable or historical tale of Jonah and the people of Nineveh, I think the Ninevites might well have refused to repent. I actually remember reading this story as a child and expecting them to refuse to repent. God said He was going to destroy them. He didn’t send (by Jonah – that I can remember) any suggestion that He’d change His mind and revoke His edict of destruction if they DID repent. They just did it spontaneously and Father smiled and had mercy on them. He didn’t change His character, but (at least in the context of the story) He did change His intent toward them. Maybe He intended this result all along (and I suspect He does know just how to ease that extra stitch into the mesh) but I think that if Nineveh had NOT repented (which seems to me a possibility), He would have judged them as promised.
Was it His plan that Adam and Eve rebel? I believe He knew they would, but I don’t believe that was part of HIS plan. It was something to deal with, and of course He had/has a plan for dealing with it and that His plans will ultimately prevail. In the midst of those plans, all of us will often do things that are not according to plan. I don’t think any of these acts of foolishness or rebellion are a surprise to Him, but I do believe they aren’t in His plan. How could He plan for me to sin? That would be contrary to His nature. But He undoubtedly knows me well enough to know I will sin, even in very specific ways. His plan is to extricate me from the clutches of my own beast-nature as quickly and painlessly as possible for all concerned. He’ll use my lemons to make lemonade for sure, but He didn’t plan for me to produce lemons. It’s no surprise; it just wasn’t part of HIS plan.
I hope that makes it clearer – talking about it makes it clearer to me, at least. I don’t know that guy you’re talking about (not good with names, and his name didn’t register even long enough for me to put it here 
) Many of the ideas you attribute to him seem a little off to me. I’ll have to go back and re-read what you said about his philosophy, but just as a first impression, I don’t get the idea he and I would agree on everything, or maybe not even on a lot of things.
Love to all,
Cindy
Hi Cindy
What do you make of these scriptures (my emphases):
“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58)
“Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.” (Psalm 90:2)
“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” (2 Peter 3:8)
“For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity.” (Isaiah 57:15, KJV)
To me, all these scriptures indicate that God is indeed outside of time. Note that John 8:58 doesn’t say, “before Abraham was born, I was”. The grammar of the actual verse makes no sense in our terms; the use of that present tense “I am” is jarring, confounding - and surely deliberate?
Despite that Talking Heads song , I too do not believe that ‘eternity’ is a place where nothing ever happens. It just happens differently from how it happens within created space-time. I say again, because we are time-bound, we simply cannot wrap our minds around the concept of anything existing outside of time, of there being a time ‘before time’. The very words we use lose their meaning when trying to articulate such concepts. If the big bang theory is correct, then if it were somehow possible to travel to the edge of the universe in some superfast rocket, we would eventually reach not only the edge of space, but also the ‘edge’ of time. Or maybe I’ve been watching too much Doctor Who .
Cheers
Johnny
Hi Johnny
That’s exactly how I interpret those scriptures as well. They indicate to me that God inhabits all time and is Lord over time. There are some others, off hand, ‘the lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world’, ‘and I saw Satan fall from heaven’.
I think it is miraculous, how such an ancient book, was able to convey this concept.
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: (you can see the affinities between process theology and Open Theism):
“For both Whitehead and Hartshorne, it is an essential attribute of God to be fully involved in and affected by temporal processes. This idea contrasts neatly with traditional forms of theism that hold God to be in all respects non-temporal (eternal), unchanging (immutable,) and unaffected by the world (impassible). Process theism does not deny that God is in some respects eternal, immutable, and impassible, but it contradicts the classical view by insisting that God is in some respects temporal, mutable, and passible. The views of Whitehead and Hartshorne should also be distinguished from those that affirm that the divine being, by an act of self-limitation, opens itself to influence from the world. Some neo-Thomists hold this view and a group of Evangelical Christian philosophers, calling themselves “open theists,” promote similar ideas. These forms of theism were influenced by process theism, but they deny its claim that God is essentially in a give-and-take relationship with the world. Moreover, process theism is a genuinely philosophical theology in the sense that it is not grounded in claims of special insight or revealed truth but in philosophical reflection. Specifically, process theism is a product of theorizing that takes the categories of becoming, change, and time as foundational for metaphysics. The metaphysical underpinning of process theism is often called process philosophy, a label suggested by the title of Whitehead’s magnum opus, Process and Reality.”
BTW, I’ve read that magnum opus - a long time ago - and it is heavy sledding.