I was just reading the CARM website and I really have to say, I'm displeased with it. People who read stuff off of it really don't get a fair picture of the issues the writer personally disagrees with. For example, with Open Theism, the writer of that article on CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry) completely misunderstands the true issue behind the debate. It's not about God's omniscience because nearly all OT's fully believe that God is 100% omniscient.

What's the main issue? The nature of the future. (But CARM doesn't quite get it) Is the future exhaustively settled or is it still partially open? Does the future currently exist as a B-Theorist of time would say, or does it not exist yet as the A-Theorist would say? Yes, God knows the beginning and end of this creation, and yes, God knows of what is absolutely certain between those two points... but the question is, are all events fully settled between the "will happens" and "will not happens"? Many OT's believe those two terms "will" and "will not" (in as far as the future is concerned) are not contradictories, rather they are contraries because there is a third option: "might and might not happen".

The CARM writer states, "In open theism, the future is either knowable or not knowable." This statement is not true. He should have written, "the future is partially open and partially settled." In as far as the "knowable" part, if event E in the future currently is a "might do X and might not do X", then that is all that can be said about that event until the agent actually does the action. Those who come from a B-Theorist position might ask, "So does God know what the agent will do?" That B-Theorist is still referencing a B-Theorist framework. Recall, the OTist believes there are three possibilities of the future: 1)will, 2)will not, and 3)might & might not. Quit trying to turn the 3) into a 1)! If it's 3), then God knows it as such. It is true that a "will" entails a "might", but a "might" does not necessarily entail a "will".

CARM also states that OT's "differ in that the [sic] God can only know that which is knowable..." Tell me, what's wrong with God knowing only what is knowable? Is he telling us that God also knows that which is false as being true? His idea of God knowing what is unknowable is simply incoherent.

He also thinks OT's believe, "God only knows the present exhaustively." This also doesn't represent OT correctly. Yes, God knows the present exhaustively and the past and future exhaustively, but the question is the nature, or content, of the future. God knows the current status of the future, again in the 3 categories outlined above."God can make mistakes..." wrong again. A mistake relates to knowledge of reality... if I have a false or incorrect understanding of something of reality, I make a mistake.

"Historic Orthodox Christianity states that God knows all things, even the entirety of the future, exhaustively." So do OTists. The question is the nature of the future.

"Is God all knowing about the future or not?" Yes.

"Is God existing in the future or not?" No. If the future doesn't exist, how can God exist in the future?

"Is God limited to the present or not?" If only the present is all there is, that is, if it's all that exists... what exists (God & creation) can only exist (are "limited" to) in what actually exists (reality).

"God's omnipresence is also in jeopardy in open theism, since some open theists deny the existence of the future and thereby deny the omnipresence of God in the future." If the future doesn't exist, how can God be in the non-existent future?

All quotes are from the CARM website.