One Question

[Ashes]

Does God know the future, and if he does, he knew who would reject him.
If this is true, then God created people who he knew would end up in hell, but he created them anyway.

if this is so, then i see no difference, in the end, between the calvinist view and the arminian view, because in both cases God created some people of whom He knew they would not be saved.



I have been walking around with this question in my head, i don't know if this is a fair question, or maybe overlooking something, or just not smart enough to think this through
but anyway, i would be interrested in how other take this.

[KyleB]

My simple brain sees this difference that still remains:

In your scenario, people still have free will to choose, God just knows what our choice will be.

In Calvinism, the choice is made for us by God, even against our will.

I think that your question actually touches on a larger question of the nature/purpose of time, and the need for time to exist in order for us to have a life that serves as a meaningful test. But I know that I am unable to articulate my thoughts on this, there are much smarter folks around here who can do a better job than me.

[jriccitelli]

Hello Ashes, Does God know the future? (The view I hold is that the future has not happened, otherwise you just move the question to did God know what would happen in 'that' future?)
God brings to past everything He promised, and everything 'He knows' will happen, happens. He out thinks and out knows all out-comes regardless of creations freewill. God is just far too fantastic to be outsmarted by anything on this little speck in space.
So; He is fantastic enough to create entities that have their own freewills, and yet created equal in ability to grasp the love shown to us in the Cross. In that one act of the Cross our sins are revealed along side with His forgiving atonement. Even the most depraved heart can see the Love demonstrated on the Cross, the Cross is the test of our will, illuminated by the Holy Spirit to convict us, then it becomes 'our decision' to accept Him on 'His terms' through faith in His Sacrifice, and by believing we might be saved. If we dont want to accept, the Holy Spirit is not 'given' to us as a possesion, and we indeed are still held responsible and guilty of sin. That is our dilemma, but fair I think.

But what i find most clarifiying is to know that;
This life is a test, a test of our wills, and our faith, and ultimately this allows 'Him (God) to be proved Faithful' by bringing to past and making good on all 'His promises'.
It is Gods purpose that we become born again, that is part of the New creation, He is preparing a place for us that is His body, made in His image, and not after Adam. The purpose of this life, is the next life.
All this will be a reminder throughout eternity, that God was correct about the destructive toll of sin, and how free wills need to be subject to His will not their own. That throughout all eternity future we will look back and see that mankind given all he needed still followed a path of sin.
This world will also stand as a judgment on sin, and of the price God was willing to make to correct and save us.

Just my own opinion. Did you see there are some great talks here on Gods Sovereignty under 'Lectures', and at least 300 threads on Calvinism under 'Doctrinal Topics'.

[KyleB]

Okay, I guess I'll try to expand what I meant a little more...

Assumptions:
•God knows the future (as jriccitelli pointed out, not all agree with this)
•Man has free-will
•God desires all men to be saved (actual all, not Calvinist all)
•Christian Universalism is not true (not saying I know this to be true, but I think it needs to be assumed for your question to matter)
•God is not wasteful, He doesn't do things that are unnecessary

I think I understand what you're getting at with your question. In Calvinism, God created certain people for the sole purpose of destroying them. In your posed situation, God creates man with free choice, but also knows the future, therefore God knows who will reject Him, so how is it different that He creates certain people, knowing specifically that they are the ones who will reject Him?

The way I look at it is to imagine the alternative. Let's say that my five assumptions are still true, but God only creates/allows to be born those people who He knows will accept Him. Well, how does He know that? And how does that leave room for free-will to still be free-will?

This is the point where I think my use of words becomes inadequate. I will introduce a 6th assumption: God exists outside of time (also debatable), time itself is simply a construct that we experience. I think that time is the method by which our free-will is allowed to be expressed. If God exists outside of time, then the day Adam was created, right now as I type this, Judgment day, and eternity past and future are all equally "now" to God.

So in that sense, God already knows what choices we will make because He is present at every point in everybody's lives when decisions are made, all at the same time. But then why allow us to live out our lives at all? Why not just transport people to their ultimate destinations based on His foreknowledge of their choices? I think this is related to God not being wasteful. God needs us to live our lives in order for our choices to be “real”, we have to actually exercise our free will. If He knew what we would do without any choices ever “really” being made, then I see that as not really being free will. So in a way, I'm agreeing with jriccitelli that things have to actually happen for God to know them. But I also differ, in that I see all of time from the creation through the 2nd coming of Christ as being experienced by God in less than an instant. So from our vantage point, God knows the future before it happens, but from His vantage point, the concept of “future” is actually meaningless.

I hope that made a little bit of sense, apologies if not, it's kind of a twisted line of reasoning to follow through text, easier to express in person.

-Kyle

[Ashes]

@kyleB

i think you see my point, cause most objections to calvinism i heard have to do with the fact that the idea that God's creates some for destruction does not reflect God's loving character.
But when i look at it, is see God all knowing, knowing the future, or maybe excisting out of time, but still knowing what will happen, and so he knows that some will not be saved, but still he created them.
So i think that both sides needs to deal with a God who created some for descruction and some for eternal life.
unless ofcourse if God does not know the future.

Just to be clear i am not a calvinist, atleast as far as i know, but i am leaning a bit in that direction, i am still gathering all the data from scripture, and there is just so much to read, before i can make up my mind.

[jriccitelli]

I agree with Kyle, God could be outside of time (And many hold to this idea). But for us, I think history must 'happen' at some point, and that point for 'us' at least is always 'now'. So nothing has happened in the future, otherwise that future would be now. As Kyle alluded to; 'time' is not a thing or place, time is a measurement, such as an inch or ounce, there is no 'inch', there is no 'ounce', and there is no 'time' if nothing happens, or if there is nothing to measure. (God certainly does not seem to be effected by time, and it may be that time only measures created things and does not measure God who evidently can operate outside of creation)
I observe that in the world around us God creates millions of spieces that live and die everyday. To miss out on eternal life seems unfair to a being who 'has heard of'', or 'known of'' eternal life. If you have never 'known' of 'eternal life' what would it matter? I know it easier to apply this thinking to animals other than humans, but it is true for animals. If you are human and If you have heard of such a thing then it would be 'your decision' to 'choose' it. Otherwise it is by works. If you do not live in the western world you may have 'heard' of and believe of reincarnation of souls, but the 'Good news' is that you can escape it. Gotta go, time waits for no one.

(My disagreement with Calvinist theology would be that it severely twists and ignores 'plain biblical doctrines' of Belief, Repentance, Election, Etc. The question of foreknowledge though is applicable as you said to believers of 'either' persuasion)

[Sean]

Does God know the future, and if he does, he knew who would reject him.
If this is true, then God created people who he knew would end up in hell, but he created them anyway.

if this is so, then i see no difference, in the end, between the calvinist view and the arminian view, because in both cases God created some people of whom He knew they would not be saved.



I have been walking around with this question in my head, i don't know if this is a fair question, or maybe overlooking something, or just not smart enough to think this through
but anyway, i would be interrested in how other take this.

I don't see why this is an issue. Just because God knows the future doesn't mean people who are condemned by God were made that way by Him. It just does not necessarily follow.
Calvinism has God saving specific people, choosing them apart from any conditions. Arminians believe God desires all men to be saved and has provided a way for man to be saved in Christ but the condition of faith must be met. Just because God knows all that will happen does not mean that God caused all those things He foreknows to happen. If your logic was sound then we would also be responsible for creating "fodder for hell" by having children who we know some of will not be saved.

[RICHinCHRIST]

Does God know the future, and if he does, he knew who would reject him.
If this is true, then God created people who he knew would end up in hell, but he created them anyway.

if this is so, then i see no difference, in the end, between the calvinist view and the arminian view, because in both cases God created some people of whom He knew they would not be saved.



I have been walking around with this question in my head, i don't know if this is a fair question, or maybe overlooking something, or just not smart enough to think this through
but anyway, i would be interrested in how other take this.

I think this is a good question to ask if the eternal torment view of hell is correct. It does not make sense to our minds why God would even bother creating some people if their fate would be that horrific. However, if annihiliationism is true, then it would seem to be a good risk to take for God to create people, even though He knew what they would choose in advance. On the other hand, if Christian universalism is true, then God had a plan from the beginning to save all people anyway, so God's character and God's foreknowledge cannot be questioned.

I've been thinking lately about the possibility of open theism (God does not know the future decisions people will make). I haven't had the time to search all the Scriptures on the topic, or to hear a debate on the topic so I'm not ready to change my mind as of yet. But I've wondered if it's possible that there is a middle ground between all-out open theism and the Arminian view of foreknowledge which I currently hold. Perhaps God can know the future decisions of people if He wished to, but He just chooses to not 'peek behind the curtain'. In other words, it's not that God cannot find out what people will choose, but rather that He just desires to focus on other things and willingly refuses to discover what they will choose in advance. This sounds like it makes God weak (since He does not know certain things), but I don't see why God could not willfully overlook what choices will be made in the future.. if He chose to. After all, there are some prophecies and judgments which God foresaw... so perhaps He looked behind the curtain for those issues, but others He leaves a mystery even to Himself, until, of course, the last day.

[TK]

Rich wrote:

I've been thinking lately about the possibility of open theism (God does not know the future decisions people will make). I haven't had the time to search all the Scriptures on the topic, or to hear a debate on the topic so I'm not ready to change my mind as of yet. But I've wondered if it's possible that there is a middle ground between all-out open theism and the Arminian view of foreknowledge which I currently hold. Perhaps God can know the future decisions of people if He wished to, but He just chooses to not 'peek behind the curtain'. In other words, it's not that God cannot find out what people will choose, but rather that He just desires to focus on other things and willingly refuses to discover what they will choose in advance. This sounds like it makes God weak (since He does not know certain things), but I don't see why God could not willfully overlook what choices will be made in the future.. if He chose to. After all, there are some prophecies and judgments which God foresaw... so perhaps He looked behind the curtain for those issues, but others He leaves a mystery even to Himself, until, of course, the last day.

Perhaps Paidion will chime in here.. but he explains that Open Theism holds that there is no future for God to know. In other words, it does not "weaken" God to state that He doesn't know the future, because (right now) there is no future to know. It doesn't exist. God can't make square circles, or make 1 + 1 = something other than 2. That does not weaken God, just as not being able to see into a future that does not exist does not weaken Him either.

And I don't care what anyone says; if God knows for certain today what someone will choose tomorrow, then the person's choice is not free tomorrow, whether it feels free or not.

CS Lewis, in "Mere Christianity" laid out the idea that God exists out of time, as stated in Kyle's last post. I have brought up this before on this forum somewhere and someone (probably Paidion) put a lot of holes in that idea.

TK

[RICHinCHRIST]

Perhaps Paidion will chime in here.. but he explains that Open Theism holds that there is no future for God to know. In other words, it does not "weaken" God to state that He doesn't know the future, because (right now) there is no future to know. It doesn't exist. God can't make square circles, or make 1 + 1 = something other than 2. That does not weaken God, just as not being able to see into a future that does not exist does not weaken Him either.

And I don't care what anyone says; if God knows for certain today what someone will choose tomorrow, then the person's choice is not free tomorrow, whether it feels free or not.

CS Lewis, in "Mere Christianity" laid out the idea that God exists out of time, as stated in Kyle's last post. I have brought up this before on this forum somewhere and someone (probably Paidion) put a lot of holes in that idea.

TK

I've heard that explanation as well. I just said it "sounds like it makes God weak". I'm not saying it does or does not. I just can't reconcile how Jesus knew how Peter would deny Him, or how the raising up of Cyrus the king could be prophesied, or even the crucifixion of Jesus being prophesied in Isaiah 53 or Psalm 22. It just seems that in many ways God can know the future... whether that means He knows all future decisions, I'm not sure yet.