Originally posted by Big Finn
Clete,
As I said before, as long as one's determination as to whether God knows everything in the future or not is of no real importance to me, as long as the theology doesn't try to make God into something He says He isn't.
That's excellent really. As Armenians go, you're pretty radical though. You're so close to being an open theist I'm having a hard time finding anything to disagree with you about. Most of the time there's only a dime's worth of difference between the Armenian’s version of God and the Calvinist’s. Yours is by far the most palatable version of Armenianism I've come across yet!
I do, however, see some logical problems with your position that I will point out, perhaps you will agree, perhaps not. Either way, it's refreshing to find someone I can count as an ally in my fight against the unjust God of Calvinism.
As to saying that what I said means that everything is set in stone or denies all free will it doesn't do that at all. It takes into account man's choices and leaves him making his own choice, for good or for evil.
Yes, I understand that this is your position. It is a basic Armenian tenant. My minds eye is drawn to something that is logically inconsistent with this though that I will point out in a moment.
My take on this is sort of like an article I read in the Scientific American back in the 80's on fractal geometry. Using the computers of those days it was possible to determine traffic flows in any given place at any given time. It was possible to show where congestion would occur, how long it would last, and how bad it would be. Now, this ability to predict this flow of traffic was possible even though the guys that did the predicting had no influence over any person's choices as to where they would go, what route they would choose, nothing. They had control over no ones choices, yet could predict very accurately how traffic would flow.
A brilliant analogy! However, this is not at all the way the average Armenian believes. Armenians believe that God exists outside of time and can see all of history at once and that He therefore knows what will happen in advance. I know that you don't actually consider yourself to be an Armenian necessarily; I just bring it up to show how far you are from the standard Armenian position. Your position is nearly identical to the Open View position in that what God knows, He knows through prediction and deduction from available information, not by peaking into the future or anything like that.
Now, the ability that these guys had is miniscule in comparison to God's abilities. So, I can imagine by faith that God can know just what choices will be made and what people will do before they do it. That doesn't mean our future or anyone else's is set in stone, but that God can just see what we're going to choose. We still make our own freely determined choices, it's just that God has the ability to see what we will do because He knows us so well. He doesn't isn't causal in anything other than He works through the Holy Spirit to share and direct events.
Okay, this is I think were your logic is flawed.
Let's first define terms so as to make sure we aren't misunderstanding each other.
When you say, "God can just see what we're going to choose", it seems to me like you are saying that God knows
absolutely what we are going to do. That He isn't simply predicting based upon the available evidence and information, but that God has followed in His mind a causal pathway from event to event that will inevitably lead to a certain, specific outcome. If this is in fact what you are saying then freewill has just left the building!
There are at least two reasons that freewill cannot exist with this version of perfect foreknowledge.
First of all, freedom is the ability to choose to do or to do otherwise. If someone, namely God, knows with absolute certainty what I am go to do then my ability to do otherwise does not exist and thus neither does my freedom.
Secondly, the idea that we do the things we do entirely because of the events and circumstances that lead up to those actions also removes the "to do otherwise" part of what is means to be free. Even if you add in a complete knowledge of our personality it doesn't help. You've increased the complexity by doing so, but at the same time you would readily acknowledge that God would not have a problem dealing with even the most outrageous complexity so you are left with the same problem.
I submit that even if every possible detail of a given situation is known and the person involved is intimately and utterly known by God that any one particular decision that a person will make cannot be known with
absolute precision. No matter how complete ones knowledge, there is always a degree of uncertainty. This is the nature of being free. Without it we are not free, whether God knows things in advance or not.
As to the texts where God says, Now I know.... I don't see a great problem with that for I see it just as a figure of speech that He uses with us.
Could you explain what that figure of speech means? Figures are supposed to explain and illustrate some aspect of what is being said. It should communicate something other than what the plain meaning of the words say. So with that in mind, what does the figure "now I know" mean?
I believe the tests that are given us, i.e. Job and Abraham, are given so that we and others might learn about ourselves, good and evil, and God. Thus they are all for our ultimate good and instruction not God's.
It is clearly for our learning, but I see no reason to ignore what the passage clearly says about God testing Abraham so that He could see whether or not He would pass.
See it's like Abraham's test to offer Isaac. He unknowingly prophesied about God sending His Son when he told Isaac, God will Himself provide a lamb. Abraham referred to the sacrifice he and Isaac were going to perform, but in that experience Abraham came to personally understand the heartbreak that the Father would undergo in sacrificing His Son. I believe that after that experience Abraham's knowledge of God took on a brand new experience. God knew Abraham would pass the test, but Abraham didn't. He needed to pass through the trial for him to be able to understand what was to come. Jesus said, Abraham saw my day and was glad. The Mount Moriah experience was Abraham's glimpse of the day of Christ. He knew what was going to happen and he knew the heart break of the Father in giving up His son to keep His promise to us. Thus this whole experience wasn't about God wanting to Abraham commit murder to prove his faithfulness, but about teaching us through this object lesson just how much the Father sacrificed and about the Father's love for us.
Except for the one sentence I highlighted, I think you're right. Why throw in "God knew Abraham would pass the test, but Abraham didn't."? Everything you've said is in agreement with the text except this one sentence. The text says the exact opposite.
In addition to that there is the passage that I mentioned in my previous post where God says...
Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21 I (God) will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and
if not,
I will know.
Notice the future tense "I will know". How is this sort of statement reconciled with a God who knows everything in advance?
I don't believe causation is necessary for knowledge. However, that's just me. I still get a lot out of your posts, I just happen to disagree with you on what I see as a minor point of theology.
Well, I agree with you that considering what all I've seen you post and what you apparently believe about who God is and why, this particular point of theology is a minor one.
You've shown an ability to think clearly and articulate yourself well, two things which I respect greatly. That will continue to be so whether or not you ever come to agree with me on this one point of logic.
God bless!!!
Resting in Him,
Clete
