Can God know the Future?

[Paidion]

Why do we trust Him? On, what basis, if not for the fact that He has revealed His character to be one that is worthy to be trusted – and that He will keep His promises!

It seems your thinking is somewhat like Jonah's. He got furious because God didn't "keep His promise" to destroy Nineveh in 40 days.

Can anyone tell me how verses like this fit into open theism - they are about the future and yet tell us that the people involved won't repent:

Rev 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:

What was revealed to John would be classified as a prophecy or a prediction. Not all prophecies came true. And predictions are just that - predictions. Though the vast majority of inspired prophecies and of God's predictions turn out to be actualized, a few don't. God changes His mind, mostly in response to people.

Most open theists might say that this prophecy will surely come true, for they think that part of the future is already settled in God's mind. So this would probably include God's promises as surely coming true. However, my thinking is that NONE of the future is settled until the events occur.

[Paidion]

If I can’t know that God’s assurances have true value right now, what would be the point of God giving out any promises at all?

Well, if God's straightforward words through Jonah, "Forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown" should not be taken at face value, but interpreted as a conditional prophecy, how do we know the promises you have in mind are not conditional, too?

Indeed, some of his promises are actually stated in conditional form, and we may or may not meet the conditions. Thus whether they will or will not come true for us is not yet settled.

[dean198]

Rev 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:

What was revealed to John would be classified as a prophecy or a prediction. Not all prophecies came true. And predictions are just that - predictions. Though the vast majority of inspired prophecies and of God's predictions turn out to be actualized, a few don't. God changes His mind, mostly in response to people.

Most open theists might say that this prophecy will surely come true, for they think that part of the future is already settled in God's mind. So this would probably include God's promises as surely coming true. However, my thinking is that NONE of the future is settled until the events occur.[/quote]

Hmm, this seems to be a problem with your view. But how can other open theists teach that some things are known and some are not? That doesn't seem consistent to me. At least your view is consistent. I don't know - you make very good points for your view, but the whole of Revelation is a progression - the later stuff carries on from the earlier.

[Paidion]

Hmm, this seems to be a problem with your view. But how can other open theists teach that some things are known and some are not? That doesn't seem consistent to me. At least your view is consistent. I don't know - you make very good points for your view, but the whole of Revelation is a progression - the later stuff carries on from the earlier.

I think the majority of open theists are consistent, those who believe the future is partly open and partly settled. For they believe that God had decided to do certain things and that nothing can stop Him, including all the other free will agents in the universe. So the things which God has decided to do are settled, and can be known. They think that God will NOT change His mind about those things which He has determined to do (or made up His mind to do).

I agree concerning His GENERAL plans, for instance, I believe in the ultimate reconciliation to God of all free will agents. So I would have to say that the sentence "All free will agents in the universe will be reconciled to God" is a statement (as in logic) and is now true even though it concerns the future. I think that when given the corrective treatment which God will give to those who resist Him, that ultimately all will sooner or later submit (All of God's judgments are remedial). Though it is theoretically possible for some to hold out forever, it is practically impossible. If you toss one million coins in the air, it is theoretically possible for them all to turn up tails, but it so unlikely as to be practically impossible. But unlike the example of God's judgment, you are tossing only a million coins. The rebels against God would have to hold out not just a million years but FOREVER.

However, God carrying out His general plans is of a different order from carrying out His specific intentions. By way of analogy, I think of psychologists who are able to correctly predict general human behaviour, but not that of any specific individual.

To see how a classic open theist deals with his view that the future is partly open and partly settled, I suggest Gregory Boyd's book God of the Possible. It is available from Amazon and from Ebay.

[dean198]

However, God carrying out His general plans is of a different order from carrying out His specific intentions. By way of analogy, I think of psychologists who are able to correctly predict general human behaviour, but not that of any specific individual.

I think that is a good point.

[Douglas]

I have been pondering this one for a while now, and I even called in and talked to Steve on the air about this and he did point out that Christ predicted that Peter would deny Him 3 times before the rooster crows (matt 26:34). Steve told me this example is difficult for a open theist to defend, and in his opinion realy impossible to defend accurately. And as much as I try to be open minded about different viewpoints, I have to say so far I agree with Steve Gregg on this one.

I called in and asked Steve on Friday June 6th if you want to check out the podcast. It was about 30 minutes into the show if I recal correctly.

Anyone (Paidion?) want to try to explain Matt 26:34 and Christ's prediction that Peter would deny Him 3 times before the rooster crowed from a open theist perspective? I would love to hear it.

Doug

[Jill]

.

[Suzana]

Anyone (Paidion?) want to try to explain Matt 26:34 and Christ's prediction that Peter would deny Him 3 times before the rooster crowed from a open theist perspective? I would love to hear it.

You might be interested in having a look at a couple of previous discussions here of this event:

here - Calvinism and Universalism

and here - The Future - Open or Closed? (near the bottom of the page).

[Douglas]

Thanks Suzana for finding that info for me.

Doug

Wow, 13 pages later and many good points by both sides do make me ponder some more..... I have to say I remain undecided at this point and time.

Thanks again.