Interaction with perfect foreknowledge?

[Clete]

Clete, sorry for the delay in responding...

Is it a prophecy everytime you tell your kids you will do something?

Of a type it is yes. And it definately would be if I were God.

But this question doesn't really address the text which we are talking about. God did more than simply intimate an intended course of action. He said that the way Israel would know that God was with them is that He would WITHOUT FAIL drive out their enemies from before them.

If that isn't a prophecy, then nothing is.

How am I wrong?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Today I contemplate eating at McDonald's or Wendy's tomorrow. My free will allows me to chose which place I will eat at. Until tomorrow, I may or may not eat at either or both places (different contingencies could affect this decision). God correctly knows that I may or may not chose one or the other. He knows my possible choices or the fact I will not make a choice. Based on perfect past and present knowledge, and a knowledge of future possibilities, He could have a better idea than most what I would likely chose. This does not mean He knew trillions of years ago what I would do for sure (does it? no). After I live out tomorrow, the possible knowledge will now be certain/actual and in the fixed past. God correctly knows it as such. Unless the future has already been played out (and we are in a space-time illusory matrix), or God will determine my moral and mundane choices causatively, the future cannot be foreknown exhaustively. He will respond to any contingency as His knowledge and experience changes (even as ours does). In layman's terms, what is middle knowledge, and how does it make possible alternatives certain/knowable before the choice? If you say God would know what we would do in any possible world, what necessitates me picking Wendy's over McDonald's on any given day? I have been known to do impulsive, out of character things or change my mind at the last minute. What would determine as a foreknowable event in advance what exactly I would chose to eat on the menu? How would God see the number of chews or swallows or spits as I eat my meal even before I am born?

Perhaps the Molinists should get out of their ivory tower with their complex philosophical explanations and explain to this child-like ding-a-ling how any of this is explainable apart from a common sense view of time (unidirectional with past/present/future distinctions; endless time vs timelessness, etc.) and free will (libertarian vs illusory).

 

[Clete]

Today I contemplate eating at McDonald's or Wendy's tomorrow. My free will allows me to chose which place I will eat at. Until tomorrow, I may or may not eat at either or both places (different contingencies could affect this decision). God correctly knows that I may or may not chose one or the other. He knows my possible choices or the fact I will not make a choice. Based on perfect past and present knowledge, and a knowledge of future possibilities, He could have a better idea than most what I would likely chose. This does not mean He knew trillions of years ago what I would do for sure (does it? no). After I live out tomorrow, the possible knowledge will now be certain/actual and in the fixed past. God correctly knows it as such. Unless the future has already been played out (and we are in a space-time illusory matrix), or God will determine my moral and mundane choices causatively, the future cannot be foreknown exhaustively. He will respond to any contingency as His knowledge and experience changes (even as ours does). In layman's terms, what is middle knowledge, and how does it make possible alternatives certain/knowable before the choice? If you say God would know what we would do in any possible world, what necessitates me picking Wendy's over McDonald's on any given day? I have been known to do impulsive, out of character things or change my mind at the last minute. What would determine as a foreknowable event in advance what exactly I would chose to eat on the menu? How would God see the number of chews or swallows or spits as I eat my meal even before I am born?

Perhaps the Molinists should get out of their ivory tower with their complex philosophical explanations and explain to this child-like ding-a-ling how any of this is explainable apart from a common sense view of time (unidirectional with past/present/future distinctions; endless time vs timelessness, etc.) and free will (libertarian vs illusory).

Very good post! :thumb:

I agree with you completely. When I read the "Four Views" book, the Molinist view was the most convoluted, complex and counter intuitive view of any of the four by far. I'm still not sure I understand it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

That's why we should reject Open Theism. Because Open Theists say that God (unknowingly, perhaps) lies to us about the future.

What? No it doesn't! Where in the world did you get this idea from?
I've said the complete opposite and in fact did so in the post that this comment was in response too!
God said that He would without fail drive out Israel's enemies but He didn't. Open Theism has a very clear and simple to understand explanation of why He didn't do as He said He would do that both preserves God's righteousness and maintains the plain meaning of the text. Closed theist can do no such thing. If the future is closed, either the passage in question doesn't mean what it says or God is a liar, or both.

I had said...

Further, if you want to talk about taking the living out of life, if God knows what I will do I cannot do otherwise and am therefore not free and therefore not able to exercise volition of any kind including love. All choice is an illusion if God knows the future exhaustively. Now that's what I call taking the living out of life!

insolafide responded...

ROFL. That is a flat-out endorsement of theological fatalism, which you cannot prove (at least, have not proven).

Where you suggesting that I endorse theological fatalism? If so either you are confused or I don't understand what you are getting at. If you were simply saying that I am accusing the Arminian of teaching theological fatalism then I can see that although I would never have put it that way. There are too many semantic differences between what Arminians believe and what theological fatalism is. However, I would agree that the end result is the same; that the logical consequences of both are exactly identical, that result being the complete evaporation of the idea of free will.

God knows what will happen, not what must happen.

(1) Necessarily, If God foreknows X, X will happen.
(2) God foreknows X.
(3) X will happen.

The conclusion of 3 is that X will happen, not that it will happen with some kind of necessity. You want it to say this:

(3*) X will necessarily happen.

which is a modal fallacy. Good job. Unless you want to sit there and tell me that (2) should be:
(2*) Necessarily, God foreknows X.

You will never arrive at (3*). But, God's foreknowledge is not necessary since God was free to create ANY World, or even no world at all.

So, I'm sorry, but your thinking doesn't work.

Well I see that you have indeed been reading Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. This argument was copied almost verbatim from the Molinist's essay (which I have no problem with at all, by the way. I'm not accusing you of plagiarism, I'm simply commenting on the fact that I've read the same book you have ).

The problem with the argument is that it attempts to redefine logic. If the argument you've presented was valid then deductive logic itself wouldn't work. Every conclusion deduction ever presented that didn't have exclusively logically necessary premises would suddenly become invalid.

The syllogism you've presented is a deductive argument and thus if the premises are sound then the conclusion IS necessary. That's the beautiful thing about deductive arguments. You cannot escape the conclusion by attacking the conclusion itself (which is what you done here), you MUST find a flaw in the premises. The conclusion of a deductive argument always follows NECESSARILY from true premises. Or put the other way around, if all the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusion MUST be true as well (assuming the logical structure is valid).
Thus for the conclusion of a logically valid argument to necessarily follow from the premises, the premises themselves do not have to be logically necessary, only true.

Thus if it is indeed true that…

Necessarily, If God foreknows X, X will happen.

And it is also true that…

God knows the future.

Then the logically necessary conclusion is that…

X will happen.

This is a perfectly valid logical syllogism in the form of 'modus ponens' thus if this conclusion is not valid then either it is not a necessary truth that if God knows X, X will happen, or God does not know the future. You cannot escape the conclusion unless you prove one or the other premise false.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[kmoney]

How am I wrong?

I don't know how, you just are!!!!

no....I think at this point I'm just being stubborn in the question of Open Theology. I said before to you, on a different thread I think, that I have believed this forever and it's hard to let go and I feel like I'm taking something away from God. Something just doesn't seem right to me to say God doesn't know the future. While I still think that God knowing the future CAN fit in with scripture, it takes a lot more work to do so. OT seems to fit more seamlessly with it.

I don't know Clete, you win....haha

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Clete: How does it follow that if God does not know exhaustively what I will do that He doesn't know what He will do Himself?

Well, the point is that foreknowledge of a free decision does not remove the freedom, if God knows his future free decisions.

Godrulz: Possible future tense propositions only become actual/certain when the event becomes reality (an object of actual knowledge).

Then there might not be a new heavens and a new earth? This is not certain? God doesn't really know this?

Godrulz: The reason that it will happen is that God purposes it to happen and has the ability to bring it to pass.

Then future tense propositions can indeed be certain before they happen...

Insolafide: And if a present tense statement is true, then there is a future tense statement that corresponds to the exact same state of affairs. Since there is a future tense statement that exists as such, and is true, then God knows it by definition of Omniscience.

That's a good point...

Insolafide: That's why we should reject Open Theism. Because Open Theists say that God (unknowingly, perhaps) lies to us about the future.

Clete: No it doesn't! Where in the world did you get this idea from?

Well, let's take your example here: "God said that He would without fail drive out Israel's enemies but He didn't."

Clete: Open Theism has a very clear and simple to understand explanation of why He didn't do as He said He would do that both preserves God's righteousness and maintains the plain meaning of the text.

One problem is that he did drive them out! They are not there today. Another problem is if we are holding that God said "Without fail, I will do X," and then did not do X, then that is saying what is not true, that is indeed (and very simply, and clearly), lying.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Some passages that seem unconditional are actually conditional. God may purpose and intend something strongly, but if man's contingencies change, then God has the freedom to change in response. This does not mean He believed a lie or was lying. It shows that God distinguishes possible from actual, and past/present from future (not identical).

 

[Clete]

I don't know how, you just are!!!!

no....I think at this point I'm just being stubborn in the question of Open Theology. I said before to you, on a different thread I think, that I have believed this forever and it's hard to let go and I feel like I'm taking something away from God. Something just doesn't seem right to me to say God doesn't know the future. While I still think that God knowing the future CAN fit in with scripture, it takes a lot more work to do so. OT seems to fit more seamlessly with it.

I don't know Clete, you win....haha

:banana: :banana: :banana:

You just made my whole week!

Don't worry, your emotions will catch up with you mind in due time. I had the exact same problem myself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Hi everyone,


Well, the point is that foreknowledge of a free decision does not remove the freedom, if God knows his future free decisions.

This is goofy. God made the decision freely IN ADVANCE! It's not that God know's He's going to make a decision, it's that the decision has already been made.

Well, let's take your example here: "God said that He would without fail drive out Israel's enemies but He didn't."


One problem is that he did drive them out! They are not there today.

Not from before Israel He didn't. Now it is you who are lying. You cannot have believed this to be a valid argument.

Another problem is if we are holding that God said "Without fail, I will do X," and then did not do X, then that is saying what is not true, that is indeed (and very simply, and clearly), lying.

Only if you ignore two things...

1. The principle laid down in Jeremiah 18.
2. That the future is open (i.e. that Jer. 18 means something).

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[kmoney]

:banana: :banana: :banana:

You just made my whole week!

Don't worry, your emotions will catch up with you mind in due time. I had the exact same problem myself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I'm glad I can make your week.... Thanks for being patient with me through all of this.....

I'm almost getting tired of this subject after thinking about it so much, not sure how I'll be interested enough to read the BRX, but I'm sure it'll be good....

 

[STONE]

God is a personal God. God has been extremely involved in our history. God's word is filled with page after page of stories describing God interacting with His creation. God isn't a supernatural force sitting idly by on the other other side of the universe simply observing His creation. God is with us! He interacts with us, He moves us, shakes us, picks people for tasks and ministries. He smites some, kills some and destroys others etc. But why? Why does God interact with us?

• When He left us His word in the form of the Bible it was an interaction with us on a grand scale and for good reason.
• When He wiped out the world with a flood it was interaction on a global scale and for good reason.
• When He picked Abram, Moses, David etc. He was interacting with His creation for a reason.

God wants to affect our freewill! He wants to move us in the direction that more closely conforms to His will.

If God were an uninvolved God watching creation from a distance one might be able to make a more persuasive argument that God can know our future without effecting our freewill (the argument still fails logically but it would be far more understandable). Yet that isn't the God of the Bible! Please don't misunderstand, I am not claiming that those arguing for freewill and exhaustive foreknowledge being compatible are claiming God is not involved, far from it! I am simply saying that their argument would be more believable if God weren't a personal God.

God is in the business of effecting our will without completely controlling our will. Sort of like gathering sheep. :sheep:

God wants us to choose Him!

He desires that we choose Him! (1 Timothy 2:3)

God wants us to love our wives.

God wants us to raise up our children

God wants us to convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.

God wants us to persuade and affect our will to be more like His will regarding these things and many other things.

So one must ask . . .

A millennia ago did God's perfect exhaustive foreknowledge contain His interaction with us? And of course the answer must be a resounding YES otherwise the foreknowledge isn't perfect yet lacking (lacking the interaction).
Did God perfectly foreknow His interactions with man infinitely into the past? And if so, doesn't that defeat the purpose of the interaction?

God interacts with man for a reason, I assert that divine interacting for the purpose of altering the course of history is only rational and logical if the course of history is truly alterable and not perfectly foreknown.

Said another way . . .
If there are two possible choices a man can make and God would prefer that we pick one of those choices above the other choice, He would only interact with us if He knew He could possibly influence that choice.

It seems you have taken the fact that God is indeed immanent, interacting with us as proof that God is not transcendent also. This is a fallicy as God is not of the creation as a man, but He transcends our existence. This existence is but the palm of His hand.

 

[godrulz]

It seems you have taken the fact that God is indeed immanent, interacting with us as proof that God is not transcendent also. This is a fallicy as God is not of the creation as a man, but He transcends our existence. This existence is but the palm of His hand.

There are two models:

i) Greek philosophy= sovereign/transcendent

ii) Bible= sovereign-transcendent/immanent

God is distinct from His creation. This does not mean He is deistic or aloof.

Is. 57:15 "For this is what the high and lofty One says- He who lives forever, whose name is holy: I live in a high and holy place, BUT also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit..."

He is Almighty and Father. It is not either/or, but both/and.

The incarnation, the God-Man, is the ultimate example of this.

Acts 17:24, 28 (Lord of heaven/earth not in temples; live and move and have our being in Him).

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Lee: Well, the point is that foreknowledge of a free decision does not remove the freedom, if God knows his future free decisions.

Clete: God made the decision freely IN ADVANCE! It's not that God know's He's going to make a decision, it's that the decision has already been made.

Then none of God's decisions are free! If God knows how he would decide, in any completely described situation, and if he knows all possibilities.

Godrulz: Some passages that seem unconditional are actually conditional.

Not every condition is stated, I agree, but "I will surely" must be unconditional...

Lee: One problem is that he did drive them out! They are not there today.

Clete: Not from before Israel He didn't.

Doesn't "before you" have a sense other than "in your presence," though?

Exodus 23:30 Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land. ... I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you. (NIV)

The same expression is used both times in "before you," and the NLT translates verse 31 this way:

Exodus 23:31 I will hand over to you the people now living in the land, and you will drive them out ahead of you. (NLT)

Now if "you will drive them out before you" means "in your presence," that hardly needed stating! So some other sense must be meant here, as in "to make room for you," and similarly in verse 30.

Lee: Another problem is if we are holding that God said "Without fail, I will do X," and then did not do X, then that is saying what is not true, that is indeed (and very simply, and clearly), lying.

Clete: Only if you ignore two things...

1. The principle laid down in Jeremiah 18.
2. That the future is open (i.e. that Jer. 18 means something).

And this is possible only if you ignore Jer. 19! Which shows certain judgment, continuing the analogy of the pot. Just because God tells us his ways, does not mean he cannot know the future! And if God says "I will surely do X," then he must do it, there is no second choice.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[STONE]

There are two models:

i) Greek philosophy= sovereign/transcendent

ii) Bible= sovereign-transcendent/immanent

God is distinct from His creation. This does not mean He is deistic or aloof.

Is. 57:15 "For this is what the high and lofty One says- He who lives forever, whose name is holy: I live in a high and holy place, BUT also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit..."

He is Almighty and Father. It is not either/or, but both/and.

The incarnation, the God-Man, is the ultimate example of this.

Acts 17:24, 28 (Lord of heaven/earth not in temples; live and move and have our being in Him).

This is completely correct, good post. Though understand immanent is not transcendent, but nearly opposite. This existence in which God is immanent is by His Will. God transcends all without exception.

 

[godrulz]

I will surely...if....then...

Sometimes God declares irreversible judgment since He knows their evil hearts. They have brought the wrath of God on themselves without remedy. Other times He intends to destroy them, but there is a possibility they will repent, though unlikely. If they do repent, He may relent. The context must be read carefully in each situation.

 

[STONE]

I will surely...if....then...

Sometimes God declares irreversible judgment since He knows their evil hearts. They have brought the wrath of God on themselves without remedy. Other times He intends to destroy them, but there is a possibility they will repent, though unlikely. If they do repent, He may relent. The context must be read carefully in each situation.

Yes. Actually God always speaks in absolutes. Evil will be rewarded with correction or punishment even to death and damnation. True repentance is rewarded with mercy...as in Ninevah and according to Christ would have been so even for Sodom had they repented. God's mind is not changing, but He applies His ways, His judgements and His righteousness appropriately to the situation. God's word is golden. If a man sins he shall die, if he repents he shall live...God has long ago ordained this as His judgement.

 

[Clete]

Hi everyone,


Then none of God's decisions are free! If God knows how he would decide, in any completely described situation, and if he knows all possibilities.

This is where I depart from many open theists. I believe that "all possibilities" is not something that can be known.

Not every condition is stated, I agree, but "I will surely" must be unconditional...

No it isn't. All things spoken by God in relation to the building up or detruction of a nation are always conditional. Jer. 18

Doesn't "before you" have a sense other than "in your presence," though?

Exodus 23:30 Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land. ... I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you. (NIV)

The same expression is used both times in "before you," and the NLT translates verse 31 this way:

Exodus 23:31 I will hand over to you the people now living in the land, and you will drive them out ahead of you. (NLT)

Now if "you will drive them out before you" means "in your presence," that hardly needed stating! So some other sense must be meant here, as in "to make room for you," and similarly in verse 30.

This is irrelivent. The context and meaning of the passage is as clear as can be and what God said He would do, He DID NOT do, period. This convoluted nonsense renders prophecy meaningless. If you want to twist things around and make them mean anything in the world but what they clearly say then no prophecy ever given by anyone would ever fail at all. God has no need to pull Nostrodamous type antics to preserve His reputation as the God of prophecy.

And this is possible only if you ignore Jer. 19! Which shows certain judgment, continuing the analogy of the pot. Just because God tells us his ways, does not mean he cannot know the future! And if God says "I will surely do X," then he must do it, there is no second choice.

Did you read Jeremiah 18? Abviously not!

Jer. 18:7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; 8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. 9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; 10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

You need to read Jonah as well...

Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

This is where I depart from many open theists. I believe that "all possibilities" is not something that can be known.


Resting in Him,
Clete

With some thought and qualification, I think you are on to something that most OTs would resonate with. Can we flesh out some examples or illustrations of possibilities God could not know?

e.g. could God know, from trillions of years ago, the possible position of every electron in the universe at this precise moment? He theoretically knows this right now, though I am not sure there is practical benefit for Him to dwell on or calculate this. Electrons would also change (wave? particle?) at an incredibly fast rate. A snapshot would be useless information.

Any bigger, better examples of not knowing possible things? If my parents and their parents, etc. did not come together, the exact me would not exist. Does the birth of my ancestors introduce new parameters as to what is and is not genetically possible? Did God foresee as possible the genetic manipulation we would do, or the type of inventions man would create that introduced new possibilities that were not inherent from infinite eternity past?

Clete the clarifier? (or are you referring to the idea that He knows what He wants to know...He does not have to know what gays are doing to each other cf. your Genesis example?)

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Godrulz: Sometimes God declares irreversible judgment ... Other times He intends to destroy them, but there is a possibility they will repent ... The context must be read carefully in each situation.

Yes, I agree, and this must mean that it is not possible to take Jer. 18 as proof that any statement of judgment by God can be overturned.

Lee: but "I will surely" must be unconditional...

Clete: All things spoken by God in relation to the building up or destruction of a nation are always conditional. Jer. 18.

Then God might not judge the world, as described in Revelation? And just because a general "if then" statement is made, this does not mean there must be a possibility in every instance. "A implies B" does not mean "A" is always possible.

And isn't "I will surely" lying, if it is not sure?

Clete: The context and meaning of the passage is as clear as can be and what God said He would do, He DID NOT do, period.

How did he not do, it, though? They are not there now, and we need not require that they were driven out in the presence of the Israelites, so how is my conclusion incorrect?

If you want to twist things around and make them mean anything in the world but what they clearly say then no prophecy ever given by anyone would ever fail at all.

I think the shoe is on the other foot here, though, for if God can say "I will surely do X," and then not do it, then "no prophecy ever given by anyone would ever fail at all."

Lee: And this is possible only if you ignore Jer. 19! Which shows certain judgment, continuing the analogy of the pot.

Clete: Did you read Jeremiah 18?

Well yes, I read both chapters, and the context must be consulted here, to understand the full picture. Sometimes the condition mentioned in Jer. 18 is impossible, and judgment is certain, as in Jer. 19...

Clete: You need to read Jonah as well...

Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Then I must ask some questions...

Why didn't God destroy the Ninevites right away, if that was his plan?
Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan?
How can we trust God, if he can take action, and spoil his own plan himself?
How can we say that God didn't lie to the Ninevites, if he threatened unconditional destruction, yet he knew it might not happen?
Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation than God did? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and thus he ran.
Why did the Ninevites seem to know better than God did? They thought they could repent, and God, apparently, did not.
Why didn't God keep the Ninevites from repenting after Jonah preached to them, like he did with the sons of Eli (1 Sam. 2:25) and with Amaziah (2 Chr. 25:16)?
Now we have to question God's unconditional promises, for the situation may change, and God may have to change his plan.
Also, God may act in a way that spoils his plan, not only may the situation change, and cause a change of plan, but God may do something that wrecks his own plan.

Numbers 23:19 Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

The answer is clearly "no," though the Open View would say yes...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Numbers is a specific prophecy and specific fulfillment. It is not a universal principle, since other prophecies are clearly conditional (even the most conservative, traditional scholars readily agree to this). If God says He will destroy something or will do something He will. However, Deuteronomy has a clear dichotomy in that obedience will bring blessing whereas disobedience will bring cursing. He is true to His Word, but the fulfillment depends on which path man choses. Some prophecies are warnings. Others are simply declarative/predictive with no option to change. Hezekiah sounds unconditional (you will die), but it really was conditional (God added 15 years in response to prayer...God can and does change His mind in response to changing circumstances...the future is not fatalistically fixed, unless you are a Calvinist or Muslim).