The Open View
I got asked about the Open View in a previous comment, so I though I might explain it and elaborate further than I've done before about why I believe it.
The Open View (aka Open Theism, aka presentism etc) is a paradigm about God's relationship with and interaction with the world. It holds primarily that God is in a dynamic relationship with the world rather than a static one. It asserts God is actively and intrinsically involved in the story. God does not sit in eternity, watching all creation play itself out like a pre-recorded video whose contents God already knows. Rather God has goals He wants to achieve in the world, but the purposes and plans by which He tries to achieve them are open to change and revision in response to changing circumstances. God, like a master chess player, responds to the moves of His opponents with the appropriate actions. God can forsee all the possible moves His opponent might make, but will dynamically change His own actions in response to the new situation in order to best fulfill His overall goals.
The Open View's primary aim is to uphold the love of God, the dynamicness of God, the meaningfulness of human relationships with Him, and the truth of human free will. The fundamental intellectual/doctrinal proposition of the Open View is that the future is not fixed, the future does not "exist" in any meaningful way, it is not preset, it is not predetermined, it can be truly changed by humans and God. The Open View says that God does not know everything about the future because the future isn't fixed and so there is nothing to know. (Some Open Viewers say instead that the future is potentially knowable by God, but that He voluntarily relinquishes His knowledge of it for our benefit in order to facilitate free will, I do not hold this so I will ignore this version)
God can still know some things about the future - like any king, God can decide "I'm going to do X tommorrow" and do it. God can know that X will happen in the future if He decides to make X happen in the future, and being all-powerful He can do this. In fact, God could dictate the entire future if He so desired and thus have complete knowledge of it. But it is the thesis of the Open View that God does not desire to do this because God desires us to have the free will to love Him or not love Him, to work with Him or not work with Him. In any human relationship the joy comes from the interaction of two free entities who can really affect and influence each other, a relationship with a robot is not relationship at all. God can affect humans and humans can affect God, because God chooses to enter into a relationship with humanity.
God can know other things too about the future - having complete knowledge of physical law, He can predict where Jupiter will be in 10 years time with better accuracy than any astronomer, and having complete knowledge of human hearts and minds he can predict your future actions in any given situation better than even you can. God knows what is possible, what is probable, and what is certain. He knows how He Himself should best act to make more likely desired results, He can predict the future based on propability, or He can decree it based on divine fiat, or He can leave it completely open to human choice.
That is the open view - that the future is "open" to change, it is not closed, not fixed, not immutable, but rather God and man work together in a dynamic relationship toward a better future. God has goals which are fixed, but plans which are revisable. As circumstances change, so God alters how He is interacting with the world in such a way as to best acheive His goals. The glory of God is that He is so great He can acheive that which He wants to achieve through all things. God is not so powerless that He cannot cope if one atom goes the wrong way. Though things may go awry, and people may oppose His plans, God can adapt, change and so work out His goals, working for good with those who love him, those He calls according to His purposes, working out His ultimate plans to glorify creation and bring it all back unto Himself. God's sovereign glory is shown in the fact that though all the creation itself opposes Him, still He can lovingly call it back to Himself, and though all evil takes the board against Him still He can adapt His plans to evil's every move and win no matter what comes. He lets evil do its worst and beats it still.
There are several reasons I strongly advocate the open view:
1) It is strongly evidenced in the Bible, and I am convinced it is the most biblical view of the various positions on God's foreknowledge. The moment I started taking the open view seriously was when I read a debate on whether the open view was biblical in which the open viewer absolutely thrashed his competent opponent. In the Bible we find numerous references to God changing his mind, wishing He'd acted differently, giving conditional prophesies, admitting He hadn't anticipated the current state of affairs, not finding out things until after they happen etc. By contrast there are very few verses that could be thought to imply that God completely knows a fixed future and they are comparatively easy to understand differently.
2) The open view helps answer such questions as "why did God create the individual people if he knew they would suffer eternally?" and enlightens us futher as to the problem of why there is evil in the world and how God is battling against it.
3) It fits in beautifully with the Eastern Orthodox/Christus Victor paradigm of God's redemption of mankind from the devil, the dynamic deification of man from all evil. If an inanimate object is "perfect" then it is changeless - a diamond might be said to be a perfect and flawless diamond. But life is inherently changing, it is inherently dynamic. So if life is said to reach perfection, then it becomes difficult to maintain that perfection can be an unchanging state - otherwise perfect life would not be life, it would be death. Rather perfect life is something that is constantly changing while remaining the same - the deified man who is ever being changed from glory to glory, God whose mercies are renewed every morning. The understanding of perfection that seems to be advocated in the doctrine of deification is one of dynamic perfection, not static perfection, a constant change and continual renewal. And so, if we are to say that God is perfect, we must mean that God is Himself ever changing from glory to glory, that He is not some static timeless entity but that He is ever being remanifested anew through all time and beyond in renewed splendour.
4) The open view is a powerful, compelling and moving story of God's interaction with man. It is intellectually fulfilling and emotionally forceful.
Two reasons I am unhappy about the Open View are:
A) It's not the standard view held by the Eastern Orthodox, who strongly advocate the position that God sits in eternity and knows all of time. Orthodox tend to be unhappy with even the suggestion that the open view might be applied to the energies, nevermind the essence of God. (Orthodox theology distinguishes between that which God is in Himself - His Essence, and the relational aspect of God, that which God is as He relates to the creation - His Energies)
B) At lot of the Fathers quite clearly advocated doctrines that the open view would oppose - that God has complete knowledge of the future and that God is not in any way affected by humanity. However on the other hand, some Fathers did not (I intend to research more in the future to what degree the Open View can legitimately claim representation in the Fathers). The Fathers who were more influenced by Greek philosophy seem to have accepted more the platonic doctrines regarding God's complete knowledge of the future and his impassibility. But Calcidius (a Christian writer of the late 4th century) definitely was an open viewer, in his commentary on Plato's "On Fate" he asserts that contrary to Plato the Christian doctrine about the future is that the future is dependent upon free will and God can only know the various contingencies. I think Irenaeus and Athanasius (who are relatively uninfluenced by Greek philosophy) might be open viewers but I'll need to look at their writings more carefully.
So there you have it Karl, I'm a heretic and that's why! ;) And, furthermore, I'm doing the protestant trick of mining the Fathers to support my own heresy too... I'm open to being convinced that the Open View is wrong and the the traditional view is right, but I just don't think it is. The traditional Orthodox view on foreknowledge seems to boil down to pan-standard arminianism or Molinism depending of how you interpret it, neither of which I like.
If you want to know more about the Open View there is quite a good site here.