THE FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE IN ITS CONTRAST WITH THE TRADITIONAL CLASSICAL PREMISE
At the root of this whole subject there is an unmentioned premise that must be clearly grasped in its contrast with the traditional classical theology.The classical view emphasized that God’s sovereign determination of his plan does not eliminate the reality of the rational agents’ (angels and humans) ability to take decisions in view of motives so as to be accountable to God’s judgment. The Philadelphia Confession of Faith, paralleling in this the Westminster Confession, states:
God hath Decreed in Himself from all Eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things whatsoever come to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin . . . nor is violence offered to the will of the creature. . . (3:1).
The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination... (3:7).
The open view asserts that certainty is incompatible with free agency, so that a divine determination has to stop at the place where freedom begins, If freedom is to be properly recognized it is obviously impossible to know in advance what a free agent will decide. Foreknowledge, even with God, is guesswork: educated guesswork perhaps, but guesswork nevertheless. Prophecy, therefore, to the extent that it involves free agents, or agents that are in existence by virtue of some free decision, is clearly impossible. Any attempt to it, even by God himself, remains open to the possibility of being wrong. Assuming, therefore, that God created some free agents in that sense, it was impossible for him to have a clearly delineated purpose with precise expectations in detail. The only possibility is a wide-open universe, not a merely “partially open” universe as Boyd asserts. Obviously God would plan in detail the course of physical bodies like the sun and the planets, or like hydrogen and oxygen, but as soon as free agents have a place in the equation, a situation of risk is involved. God, by creating angels and humans, ceased to be the almighty sovereign of heaven and earth who planned all things according to his own majestic, wise and holy purpose, but he accepted the role of the monumental gambler who, trusting in his unlimited adequacy, chose to open wide the door to unforeseen, unlimited possibilities to be determined by the will of the creatures. This is what is implied in the title of John Sanders’ recent volume: The God Who Risks. What the results of this risk entailed will be considered below.
http://www.the-highway.com/possible_Nicole.html