Yes, I recently re-read that chapter in light of the present discussion, and it just doesn't answer (to my mind anyway) the objections raised to it by the Open Theists. First, I don't see any difference between simple foreknowledge of an event and God simply "seeing us doing it."To God, everything is "now" for lack of a better word. so its not so much that he knows we will do something, he simply sees us doing it. i think this approach deals with the free will argument, and explains foreknowledge at the same time.
They suggest that even if God were to only see us doing it in the future, that still means that this outcome is fixed from his perspective. If so, then we have no power to make any other decision than we did when he saw it in eternity past -- it would also do no good to pray for God to guide us or direct us to an outcome that might differ, so there goes not only our freewill but also God's ability to change things.
I think the saving point of the OT perspective is that they don't suggest that EVERYTHING is open, but that some things (according to God's will) are fixed and determined and certain, but that for SOME other things God veils his foreknowledge so that we can exercise our freewill and make choices in a very real and not artificial way.
What do you think? How can we make decisions within some meaningful definition of freewill and God still have perfect and complete foreknowledge in the past of those future decisions? I do see how it would work, logically, if we remove God's omnipotence -- otherwise, how can he change something that is already known by him to be otherwise?
Here's an interesting quote on Lewis:
I'm still searching, but I think at some level this boils down to a fundamental inability on our part to escape the cause/effect logic to which our universe is bound -- our logic and understanding simply can't deal with something that can be both true and false at the same time. We're learning that in Quantum physics, our logic already is breaking down to explain what we're seeing. On the other hand, the Open Theist would say that God doesn't reveal things in Scripture that are contrary to logic and incapable of truth statements -- he would simply keep that to himself. There are "seeming contradictions," and "mysteries," but there cannot be logical contradictions and still be "truth" as we know it.Another passage that grabbed my attention was Lewis’s correlation of free will and God’s foreknowledge. I had thought out a similar explanation myself before, so I found it interesting to see it so clearly articulated by Lewis. If you imagine time as a line drawn on paper, we as humans are bound by nature to travel linearly in one direction at a standard speed. We must reach point A before point B, and we must leave point B before achieving point C. Lewis sees God as being outside of the time line, however. God exists across the whole line at one time. From our perspective, it seems impossible that we truly have free choice if God know what we will do before we do it. However, if God is outside of time,
“what we call ‘tomorrow’ is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call ‘today.’ … He does not ‘foresee’ you doing things tomorrow; He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him.”
However, this also raises an interesting paradox. If God is outside of time, then the concepts of “before” and “after” lose their meaning. This brings the significance of God’s statement, “I AM THAT I AM,” to a new light. Without time, traditional cause-and-effect scenarios become irrational; all that matters is existence—the state of “being.” Thus, the metaphysical, or supernatural, realm is static, since change is dependent on time. Likewise, free choice, in its traditional sense, also becomes impossible because any choice is inherently a chronologically dependent phenomenon—a choice is not a choice without prior uncertainty. Without the concept of time, uncertainty and certainty would have to exist together. Lewis’s theory, which seems to be physically and theologically consistent, raises an interesting question: perhaps, free choice is only an illusion generated by our perception of time.
It's all very difficult, and to my mind matters more than the Trinity in our walk as it changes how we perceive prayer, and intercession, etc. My faith isn't tested by it, but I want my walk to be as aligned with God's plan and will as is possible, so still I study.
