![\"\"](\"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/pg-22-God.jpg\")
<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\nSome hear this and think open and relational thinkers are saying God’s foreknowing would cause<\/em><\/strong> the future to be settled. But this isn’t what most open and relational thinkers believe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Open and relational thinkers believe God knows what might <\/em>happen. But God can\u2019t be certain about what free creatures will decide or what random events will occur until those decisions have been made or events happen. <\/p>\n\n\n\n God doesn\u2019t have \u201cdefinite exhaustive foreknowledge,\u201d to use a phrase common among scholars.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The argument against God foreknowing goes like this\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n If God foreknows all that will occur and God can\u2019t make mistakes, nothing could happen other than what God foreknows. But to be free, creatures must choose among live options. They must have real say-so or make genuine choices among possibilities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So, if God knows the future, creatures can\u2019t be free.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let me put it another way. If God foreknows all with certainty, what we think<\/em> is an open future must actually be closed. Instead of a realm of live options, the future must be complete, decided, and settled. Instead of being able to make free decisions about life and love, we\u2019re merely experiencing a simulation, like the Matrix. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If God foreknows all events that will occur, freedom, love, and randomness are myths.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Suppose we\u2019re at a self-serve ice cream parlor on a warm summer day. We see Andee pick up her peppermint-striped bowl and walk toward the ice cream. She\u2019s about to select one of three flavors: chocolate, vanilla, or strawberry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Suppose Andee\u2019s not sure which to choose. They\u2019re all delicious. Decisions, decisions, decisions! Her mouth waters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now suppose in some mysterious way it\u2019s already been settled, Andee gets chocolate. It\u2019s not a matter of whether she may <\/em>get vanilla or strawberry. Andee must <\/em>get chocolate. She\u2019s not free to choose otherwise, because it\u2019s been determined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Notice the difference between may <\/em>and must <\/em>in this example. May <\/em>assumes more than one live option; Andee may get any flavor. Must <\/em>requires Andee to act one way. If she must <\/em>get chocolate, she\u2019s not free to do otherwise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The question arises: \u201cWho or what decided that Andee\u2019s getting chocolate?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n People who think God predestines life will answer, \u201cGod settled it.\u201d Those who think existence is entirely determined by atoms, genes, or neurons say, \u201cNature settled it.\u201d Those who think we\u2019re determined by culture or upbringing point to environments and circumstances as determiners. People who think we\u2019re robots might blame our computer programs or programmer. One might even say, \u201cIt\u2019s blind fate.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here\u2019s the key idea: saying God foreknows Andee gets chocolate doesn\u2019t cause <\/em>Andee to get chocolate. Knowing doesn\u2019t force anyone. Instead, God can only be certain about some future event if that future has already been settled, fixed, or complete. <\/p>\n\n\n\n God’s knowledge of past and present events and of future possibilities doesn’t cause them to occur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It doesn\u2019t matter how <\/em>it was settled. Maybe it was the atoms, Andee\u2019s upbringing, evolution, or fate. Or some combination of these. What matters is something or someone settled the matter before Andee walked to the ice cream. She\u2019s getting chocolate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The point: God can only be certain about a future event if it has already been determined. But future events are not determined, because they have not yet occurred. (For a brief explanation on why Molinism fails to help, see footnote[i]<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Open and relational theists reject the idea God knows with certainty Andee chooses chocolate. God could only foreknow Andee gets chocolate if her doing so had somehow already been determined. Open and relational thinkers believe Andee is free.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A settled future has no live options from which Andee can choose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Most of the previous text is an excerpt from Open and Relational Theology<\/em>. Click for more<\/a> on the book.)<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Argument in Plain Language<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A Chocolate Ice Cream Example<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Who Settled the Future?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\nFree to Choose Chocolate or Something Else<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n