The Narrow Path Ministries

Assessing the Necessity of Open Theism: 3- respecting God’s Goodness
The first posting dealt with immutability and impassability, the second with omniscience and free will. In this third posting, the problem of the goodness of God is addressed.
If God is omniscient and omnipotent and good, why is there evil in the world? Gregory Boyd is an Open Theism proponent who raises this question in his book Satan and the Problem of Evil. Christopher Hall, in his review of the book in the February 2003 Christianity Today under the title “Openness Season,” tells us Boyd’s view is that “God could not have created a world in which [angelic and human] creatures possess a measure of self-determining freedom without risking some loss.” However, Hall does not respond to Boyd’s “self-determining freedom” – meaning God not foreknowing – thesis.
If we take the usually-stated Classic Theism view of God’s omniscience, the Single Life Path model, discussed in posting 2, the good God comes across as the incompetent Creator of sinful humankind in the Old Testament. Marcion, an early theological follower of Paul, saw the Old Testament God as a malicious God, different from the God of the New Testament (Bercot, D.W., ed. 1998. A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 419-422; Johnson, P. 1980. A History of Christianity. New York: Atheneum, 46-47.).
If God has only a Single Life Path omniscience, He has made some very serious mistakes throughout human history. Within 2000 years of His having created humankind, His creatures are so bent on sinning that He is forced destroy most of them and start over again (see Genesis 3-6.). However, from the Multiple Life Path perspective of God’s omniscience, the Fall and the Flood and the many other regrettable chapters of human history are not the result of divine mistakes. Rather, they are the consequence of the premeditated risk God takes in creating angels and humans with freedom of choice.
Thus, the Multiple Life Path Foreknowledge model of God’s omniscience provides a solid resolution to this apparent Classic Theism shortcoming regarding the sinfulness of humans. It allows us to see that God builds choice into everyone’s life path. He does not merely ordain single life paths for us all. The choice to sin is ours alone!

Conclusion 3
Open Theism exposes shortcomings in Classic Theism, for which we can be thankful. However, it does so in an unorthodox way. These three postings have shown the unorthodoxy of Open Theism is unnecessary; the Multiple Life Path model of God’s Foreknowledge restores the soundness of Classic Theism.
I believe all the original insights in this posting were divinely inspired.

Ken Tunstall, PhD.
Retired Management Consultant, Student of the Bible, Lay Apologist

And my comment on this 3rd post is that I'm sort of confused. To be honest, you sound more like an open theist here. It sounds like you're resolving the 'problem of evil' by suggesting that God took a calculated risk in allowing people to pick from multiple options. It sounds like you're agreeing with Boyd. But I could be mis-reading you b/c I read it fairly quickly and your writing style doesn't resonate with my reading style.

Reply to mattrose
You understand me correctly. God does take a premeditated risk in creating free will humans and not robots.
The difference between what I'm proposing and Open Theism is that Open Theists say our choices are unknown to God, which means God is NOT omniscient. I maintain that God knows and foreordains all our POSSIBLE choices, but not our actual choices, maintaining His omniscience and omnipotence and our free will.
kenblogton

kenblogton wrote:Reply to mattrose
You understand me correctly. God does take a premeditated risk in creating free will humans and not robots.
The difference between what I'm proposing and Open Theism is that Open Theists say our choices are unknown to God, which means God is NOT omniscient. I maintain that God knows and foreordains all our POSSIBLE choices, but not our actual choices, maintaining His omniscience and omnipotence and our free will.
kenblogton

But you just said in post 2, "God knows all your possibilities, but not your actual choices." (you said this was the better of the 2 options)

You say "Open Theists say our choices are unknown to God" and state that that is a difference b/w you and open theists
But you also say "God knows all your possibilities, but not your actual choices" as if that is not open theism

Personally, I think you ARE an open theist. You just happen to have misunderstood what open theism says. Boyd and Pinnock and Sanders would AGREE with you that God knows all the possibilities. They might disagree with your language that all possibilities are 'ordained,' but I highly doubt they'd disagree that God knows all possibilities.

Reply to mattrose
What you say is not how I read Open Theism, as noted in my reply to your second posting to Assessing the Necessity of Open Theism 2.
However, I would subscribe to an Open Theism which says God knows all the possibilities He has ordained. Since God is the omniscient Creator, He must have ordained all those possibilities - they are created by Him so none are unknowable to Him or a matter of chance. We definitely agree that God is NOT a Single Life Path omniscient God.
kenblogton

kenblogton wrote:Reply to mattrose
What you say is not how I read Open Theism, as noted in my reply to your second posting to Assessing the Necessity of Open Theism 2.

However, I would subscribe to an Open Theism which says God knows all the possibilities... .

John Sanders
"God's knowledge of the future contains knowledge of what God has decided to bring about unilaterally, knowledge of possibilities, and those events which are determined to occur... God is not caught off guard." (From "Perspectives on the Doctrine of God" page 199)

Greg Boyd
"The only reality that exists for God to know concerning our future action is the possible directions we may take." (From his book which is literally titled "God of the Possible" page 66).

Clark Pinnock
"God knows all the possibilities and is, therefore, never caught off-guard." ("Most Moved Mover" page 103)

Welcome to open theism!

Since God is the omniscient Creator, He must have ordained all those possibilities - they are created by Him so none are unknowable to Him or a matter of chance. We definitely agree that God is NOT a Single Life Path omniscient God.
kenblogton

I'm still a bit confused by your use of the word 'ordained.' Are you saying these other possibilities ACTUALLY EXIST in some other dimension? Or are you just saying that in creating a world with those possibilities, he ordained that they 'could' potentially take place? I would agree with the latter, but not the former.

Reply to mattrose
Again, I think we agree.
All the possibilities are created by God as possibilities; they do not exist in actuality. It is human choice that transforms them into actualities; into reality.
My favourite biblical illustration is where, in response to David’s proud and sinful counting of Israel’s fighting men, God gives him three choices of punishment as described in 2 Samuel 24:1-17 and 1 Chronicles 21: 1-17. The choices as communicated by the prophet Gad in 2 Samuel 24:13 are “Shall there come upon you three years of famine in your land? Or three months of fleeing from your enemies while they pursue you? Or three days of plague in your land? Now then, think it over and decide how I should answer the one who sent me [God].” David chose three days of plague at the hands of the Lord and 70,000 Israelites died because of their king’s sin. The 3 years of famine and 3 months of fleeing from enemies were possibilities ordained by God; they were never actual reality.
kenblogton

kenblogton wrote:Reply to mattrose
Again, I think we agree.
All the possibilities are created by God as possibilities; they do not exist in actuality. It is human choice that transforms them into actualities; into reality.
My favourite biblical illustration is where, in response to David’s proud and sinful counting of Israel’s fighting men, God gives him three choices of punishment as described in 2 Samuel 24:1-17 and 1 Chronicles 21: 1-17. The choices as communicated by the prophet Gad in 2 Samuel 24:13 are “Shall there come upon you three years of famine in your land? Or three months of fleeing from your enemies while they pursue you? Or three days of plague in your land? Now then, think it over and decide how I should answer the one who sent me [God].” David chose three days of plague at the hands of the Lord and 70,000 Israelites died because of their king’s sin. The 3 years of famine and 3 months of fleeing from enemies were possibilities ordained by God; they were never actual reality.
kenblogton

Thanks for clarifying I agree. Good illustration

Open Theists say our choices are unknown to God, which means God is NOT omniscient.

Every open theist which I have read strongly affirms that God IS omnscient, that He knows all that is logically possible to know, but that the future (at least some aspects of it) are unknowable since the future does not now exist, and won't exist until future decisions have been made.

Reply to Paidion
I believe that God knows, and has established - ordained - all our possible choices from the Creation. If He doesn't know them all, He's NOT omniscient. So whatever choices we make cannot surprise God. Think of God's foreknowledge as akin to having multiple copies of a film of our life. Each copy represents our different choice decision trees; the copy that's distributed is solely based on our choices. At each choice point, until we make our choice, we have more than one choice; after each of our choices, we've narrowed down our life choice possibilities.
kenblogton