Isaiah 46:9-10 "Remember former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like me, declaring end from beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, "My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure."

Now argument could be made that God knows His purposes but does not know purposes of man or demons. But this assumes that there are two classes of future events, those that God predestines and foreknows and those that He cannot know are coming, those that arise from human and demonic choice. But if this were true then why does Isaiah not separate what God is planning to do and what man or demon will choose to do.Virtually all of God's judgements and deliverance's involve choices that humans would make as instruments of God's plan, see examples above regarding Peter and Judas.

This is also where first chapter of Matthew comes into play. The genealogy of Christ is proof that God has foreordained birth of Christ and is directly involved in every aspect of it throughout all world and every generation. One wrong choice in any of these generations and Jesus could never have fulfilled prophecies of Old Testament. Even prophecies of Old Testament show God's knowledge and foresight to be conclusive.

Within God's plan there is still free-will and moral accountability. Jesus' absolute knowledge that Peter would deny Him, how often he would do it, where he would do it and that he would repent never removes Peter's moral responsibility in least, which is made plain by fact that Peter weeps bitterly WHEN he remembers words of Jesus' prediction. Peter didn't say,"Well you predicted this sin, so it had to take place, and so it can't have been an act of my free will, so I am not responsible for it!!" Instead he wept bitterly. He was guilty and he knew it. Jesus was glorious in prediction, and Peter was guilty. This is why Jesus said before in John 13:19, "I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am." This was His glory, and therefore a denial of Christ's foreknowledge would also be a denial of His deity.

The other belief held in openness of God is that God did not foreknow fall of man, or of angels and so could not know great things which would coincide as a result of these events, such as His sending His son to die for sins of world. Neither did God know that Jesus' incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ, nevermind meticulous four thousand years before Christ came in which world's stage was arranged in preparation for His coming. Neither would God foreknow Christ's second coming and end of age to be able to allow John to write down Revelation for God's chosen people.

This cannot be chance, God knew it all along. God must have foreknown fall of Adam and it's terrible moral effect on mankind. Paul says,"[God] has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity." When you add this to teaching of Paul in Ephesians 1:4-6, we can see that God's glory is linked to His foreknowledge and His deity. "[God] chose us in [Christ] before foundation of world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to kind intention of His will, to praise of glory of His grace."

It is of course ironic that desire of openness theology is to have a God who can relate to us in time and space and have same limitations as we do. Indeed, if all we knew about God was what he had revealed of himself to Moses and prophets, we would be astonished by very suggestion that transcendent God that could not be looked upon had somehow taken human form and begun to live among us. According to traditional Christian understanding of God, it is precisely in person of Christ that impassible, immutable, eternal God becomes passable, mutable, and temporal. We do not need to invent an 'open' conception of divine nature in order to marvel at "folly" of a risk taking, passible God; all we need to do is to contemplate Christ crucified.

So if God does not know our future, or our present (for that is where we actively bring our unknown choices from conceptualisation into past) or what decisions we or demons make, He is actually very limited indeed. He is in effect confined to past, His own plans and musings and calculation of probability of future events. This leaves God in a somewhat dire state. I would almost feel sorry for a God like that. Would He inspire awe and entice me to worship Him? I doubt it.

So how much does that leave to God? What percentage of world and future does God really know. If we were to talk of percentages, how much does that leave to God, 30%? This is problem for any person who believes that God is limited to time. So problem, then, is that God is cut out of future entirely and only has what is old to work with, as one man said, all He has is fossils. It would be as foolish as us studying dinosaur bones to try and discover future of our world. So He is confined to possibilities and probabilities, but He doesn't know actualities nor future certainties.

I do not think that that is a God I would like to love and serve.To do that would be to love only 30% of Him!.

"Prayer does not change God, but changes him who prays." Kierkegaard

Tp read more interesting articles go to www.god-life.com

The scientific community has had a lack of openmindedness toward all factors and possibilities of an intelligent agent acting to create and intervene in man's creation and well-being.

The intelligent design movement is an affront to evolutionary theories in two ways. Philosophically, it argues that because of this closed attitude toward anything other than natural explanations for life and universe, it is therefore biased against any (even remote) posibility for divine intervention. And secondly, it argues against evolutionary evidence through natural processes.

The drive forward has left itself very broad and encompasses scientists who take many views and perspectives on man's origin but having intelligent design that strings all of them together. On one hand we have scientists who believe that earth is several thousand years old, and that man came from one common ancestor to any number of other concepts from God's deelopement of human raace through an evolutionary process. Regardless all agree that there is a supernatural force, which many believe to be God, active in development of human life.

Much research is being undertaken to establish academic credibility for intelligent design by publishing their findings. Their argument is that science should at least teach controversy, giving another option to flawed and unproven theory of evolution. As more and more people become sceptical over ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for complexity of life, and wary of believing that biological systems can advance from simple to complex, they realise that if these were true their lives would be void and empty, with no reason for laws, or in fact for any precedent for moral behaviour.

Many intelligent design sicentists have no problem with microevolution, small changes within species over time. Many do find problems believing in macroevolution, transformation of reptiles to birds for example, as being full of assumptions and speculation.

It is an intriguing argument and many will find it necessary to discuss options available to human beings to seek out their origins, either in divine action or natural selection. After all if we don't start right we won't end right.

Man today is faced with two incredible choices, to believe that life's complexity can be explained through chance and natural selection, which is in itself a form of faith, religion of naturalism. Or to believe that diversity and complexity of life is a result of a divine God who created world in seven days and is consistantly and constantly involved in it's development and redemption, Christian faith.

I believe that our Heavenly Father invented man because he was disappointed in monkey. - Mark Twain