God's Foreknowledge
I am afraid I have to disagree with good ol' John M on this one. I dont like to, because I like him and generally agree with him (but not on this topic).
You see, if God wrote down in a book a really long time ago, before the creation of the world every name he "chose" to save at some point in the future, and thereby damns to hell everybody whose name he doesn't write down, that makes God seem evil, for lack of a better word. Since God obviously is NOT evil, and since He would not create a system where He can be perceived as evil, then John M's conclusion cannot be correct.
Quite some time ago, elsewhere on one of these forums, an arminian brother said that a God would do such a thing is nothing less than a monster. A staunch calvinist (remember gracemonger?) replied: "prepare to meet a monster." i must admit that i was very taken aback by that comment. Here's the link to that series of postings- there aren't that many to read:
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... ht=monster
TK
You see, if God wrote down in a book a really long time ago, before the creation of the world every name he "chose" to save at some point in the future, and thereby damns to hell everybody whose name he doesn't write down, that makes God seem evil, for lack of a better word. Since God obviously is NOT evil, and since He would not create a system where He can be perceived as evil, then John M's conclusion cannot be correct.
Quite some time ago, elsewhere on one of these forums, an arminian brother said that a God would do such a thing is nothing less than a monster. A staunch calvinist (remember gracemonger?) replied: "prepare to meet a monster." i must admit that i was very taken aback by that comment. Here's the link to that series of postings- there aren't that many to read:
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... ht=monster
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
Re: God's Foreknowledge
In my view, God knows the future free will choices of man AND God intervenes as desired to affect change where He wills throughout the passage to time. God knowing what will happen does not mean you don't have choices, it does mean that the choices you will make are already known in advance.Derek wrote:A Calvinist brother on another forum HERE posted the following comment about God's foreknowledge:
I am interested to know how some folks here would answer this. I kind of know how our Open Theists over here would answer this, so I'm mostly interested in the more traditional understanding, but your comments are welcome too....I think that it is sufficient to say that a foreknowledge which precedes creation, makes the creation of the foreknown thing effectively a decree that it shall be as it was foreknown to be. Which is to say that unless we suppose God to be ignorant of who is or shall be "in Christ" then it is unavoidable that He decreed from the foundation of the world(or at the very least from the creation of the people with whom we are concerned) their salvation or damnation. How does creating one with the foreknowledge of his damnation differ from reprobation? If God's love does not prevent Him from creating someone when He has a certain knowledge of their damnation then how does it prevent Him from creating someone with the deliberate intent to damn them? To create with foreknowledge is to create with intent.
Thanks!
God knows what will happen, this does not equate to God causing what will happen. Obviously, God did bring about man although God knew what would happen (the fall). This does not equate to God causing sin anymore than man having children (who will most definitely sin) is the cause of their children's sin. Since God wanted Godly offspring, it would seem that this is the way it is done.
So I see no problem with God knowing perfectly who will be "in Christ" from the foundation of the earth, these are the "elect". They are elect according to the foreknowledge of God.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
I disagree.Paidion wrote: There is simply no logical way to reconcile God's forknowledge of every choice of man with the concept of libertarian free will of man. Calvinists know this. Arminians don't. The latter try to integrate two conflicting theses.

Actually, that is exactly what some Calvinists have told me. They say that God knows the future because He actively and meticulously causes it to happen, not because He knows what will happen. That's a difference between Calvinism and Arminianism.Paidion wrote: Of course, if God has such forknowledge, it is not that forknowldege that causes man to act in accordance to it. No one argues for that.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
Sean, you can't have your cake and eat it too. I think I have shown in my most recent post in this thread that such pre-knowledge of future choices are inconsistent with libertarian free will.
Do you have any comments on my presentation? Or do you simply ignore my arguments and reaffirm your acceptance of two contradictory propositions?
Do you have any comments on my presentation? Or do you simply ignore my arguments and reaffirm your acceptance of two contradictory propositions?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
What's the point of having cake if you can't eat it?Paidion wrote:Sean, you can't have your cake and eat it too. I think I have shown in my most recent post in this thread that such pre-knowledge of future choices are inconsistent with libertarian free will.

Like I said, I disagree. If a real psychic (like the one that seems to be mentioned in Acts 16:16) tells the future, they don't "force" you do do what they "see", they simply see what will be done. And yes, if you are given this information in advance, you can change what would have become future. A biblical example of this is 1 Sam 23:9-12, events that God revealed to David, yet when David acted upon this information, he changed the outcome of what would have happened without divine foreknowledge. David used this information to change what would have happened without the "ephod".
You assume that what is known or unknown to us, using our level of logic applies to God's knowledge. To this I refer to Romans 11:33-36.
I think the OT prophetic scriptures are more than enough to show the God has foreknowledge of events before they occur, the book of Daniel is enough to disprove the notion that God does not know the future free will acts of man, IMO.
Paidion wrote: Do you have any comments on my presentation? Or do you simply ignore my arguments and reaffirm your acceptance of two contradictory propositions?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
Hi Sean,
I think Paidion presents a rather cogent case. We mustn't compare what we think we know about the future with what God knows about the future. When God KNOWS something about the future, then, by crackers, that's just how it's gonna be. As Paidion suggests, this seems to be quite consistant with a calvinistic view of things... or at least, what I perceive to be a calvinistic view of things.
I'm unclear from your post as to what level of mutability you would assign to God's foreknowledge. You've cited an example of God's foreknowledge, and how David's actions changed things after God revealed that foreknowledge. If things changed from how God (I hate to say it this way) thought they were going to be, then how can we say that God had accurate foreknowledge?
Or would you say that God knew better all along, that He knew David would act in a way that would cause things to play out differently. If that's so, was God telling a lie when He said "he will come down", since, in fact, he didn't.
Personally, I don't think God is making a prediction about the future at all in this passage. I think David is asking, and God is answering a question about Saul's intent[/].
Having said all this, I recognize that, as you say, there are several passages in the OT that seem to indicate absolute foreknowledge on God's part. This leaves me somewhat undecided on this issue.
I hope that you and Paidion and others will continue to discuss this matter so as to help me weigh the evidence on all sides more completely.
Perry
Isn't this the thing you just did when you compared foreknowledge of the the girl in Acts to the foreknowledge of God?You assume that what is known or unknown to us, using our level of logic applies to God's knowledge. To this I refer to Romans 11:33-36.
I think Paidion presents a rather cogent case. We mustn't compare what we think we know about the future with what God knows about the future. When God KNOWS something about the future, then, by crackers, that's just how it's gonna be. As Paidion suggests, this seems to be quite consistant with a calvinistic view of things... or at least, what I perceive to be a calvinistic view of things.
I'm unclear from your post as to what level of mutability you would assign to God's foreknowledge. You've cited an example of God's foreknowledge, and how David's actions changed things after God revealed that foreknowledge. If things changed from how God (I hate to say it this way) thought they were going to be, then how can we say that God had accurate foreknowledge?
Or would you say that God knew better all along, that He knew David would act in a way that would cause things to play out differently. If that's so, was God telling a lie when He said "he will come down", since, in fact, he didn't.
Personally, I don't think God is making a prediction about the future at all in this passage. I think David is asking, and God is answering a question about Saul's intent[/].
Having said all this, I recognize that, as you say, there are several passages in the OT that seem to indicate absolute foreknowledge on God's part. This leaves me somewhat undecided on this issue.
I hope that you and Paidion and others will continue to discuss this matter so as to help me weigh the evidence on all sides more completely.
Perry
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
- _darin-houston
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
- Location: Houston, TX
If you haven't read it, this is a very interesting (and cogent) account of one man's views of God's Foreknowledge (an Open Theist). Personally, I'm still on the fence on this one. I think my view would be only a slightly modified view of his, recognizing that God steps in and intervenes from time to time even when it comes to individuals depriving them of a specific instance of freewill when He want to do something we're not co-operating with or that he has prophesied or decreed. I also would put more emphasis on God's purposeful "veiling" of his foreknowledge or "limiting" of his soverignty, if you will, recognizing more so God's power to do such and such but decisions not to exercise such power. Other than emphasis, though, I don't see much to disagree with him on.
Open Theism and the Assemblies of God: A Personal Account of My Views on Open Theism by Thomas Belt, Assembly of God Missionary http://www.opentheism.info/pdf/belt/summary_aog.pdf
Open Theism and the Assemblies of God: A Personal Account of My Views on Open Theism by Thomas Belt, Assembly of God Missionary http://www.opentheism.info/pdf/belt/summary_aog.pdf
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hello Perry,Perry wrote:Hi Sean,
Isn't this the thing you just did when you compared foreknowledge of the the girl in Acts to the foreknowledge of God?You assume that what is known or unknown to us, using our level of logic applies to God's knowledge. To this I refer to Romans 11:33-36.
About the girl from Acts, she is an example of someone who could tap into something supernatural (in this case, demonic). So her knowledge differed from ours, in that she was aided supernaturally. Besides, comparing the foreknowledge of the two were meant to be mental examples, not a direct comparison. Even so, we are given much supernatural revelation throughout the bible, containing information about the future choices of men. This information is interpreted differently by Calvinism, Arminianism and Open Theism.
Again, that's not how Calvinist have explained it to me, nor is it how John MacArthur teaches out this subject, and he is a Calvinist. They don't even believe foreknowledge means to know beforehand, they instead believe it means something more active, like predetermined by God. I believe it's a combination of both God an man that determines History. If it were not, all things (including the actions of men) would be good, because they would be caused by God.I think Paidion presents a rather cogent case. We mustn't compare what we think we know about the future with what God knows about the future. When God KNOWS something about the future, then, by crackers, that's just how it's gonna be. As Paidion suggests, this seems to be quite consistant with a calvinistic view of things... or at least, what I perceive to be a calvinistic view of things.
Second, I don't believe what Paidion lays out is cogent. It assumes what can be known about God is more like a math equation than His supernatural revelation. If God can't know something before it happens, then He's got a strange way of knowing things He shouldn't be able to know. God accurately predicts many future free will choices people would do in the future. Psalm 22 speaks of specific things that would occur at the crucifiction, yet Paidion's response to this is that it wasn't a prophecy. Nice logic. It seems 2+2 can equal something other than 4.
And finally, God knowing the future does not mean God causes it. It means God knows in advance what will occur. This, at it's basic core, does not mean God causes to occur what He knows will occur. In other words, God knew David would stay where he was (1 Sam 23:9+) and be turned over. God changed this outcome by giving David the information He did, preventing something He did not want. At the same time David had to ask God to get this information. So God knew what would occur (David being turned over to Saul) but this did not occur because He warned David, thereby changing the outcome. Did God know this "other" outcome? Yes, but to make it occur took God's direct intervention. It would not have occurred if God did not act. Which shows that just because God knows something about the future, doesn't make it an absolute, as long as we are warned about what will happen ahead of time. Which kinda sounds like the Gospel. A warning from God about what will happen: Repent, Jesus is Lord and will judge according to each man's works. More on this below:
Perry wrote: I'm unclear from your post as to what level of mutability you would assign to God's foreknowledge. You've cited an example of God's foreknowledge, and how David's actions changed things after God revealed that foreknowledge. If things changed from how God (I hate to say it this way) thought they were going to be, then how can we say that God had accurate foreknowledge?
Or would you say that God knew better all along, that He knew David would act in a way that would cause things to play out differently. If that's so, was God telling a lie when He said "he will come down", since, in fact, he didn't.
Personally, I don't think God is making a prediction about the future at all in this passage. I think David is asking, and God is answering a question about Saul's intent[/].
God knows all contingencies as well. Is this too hard for God? I did hear someone call in to Steve's radio program and state that this would just be too much for God. How on earth would anyone know that? How did God make everything from nothing?

Anyway, in the passage about David, God is displaying what will happen if David remains where he is. This is most definitely about future events and not about Saul's intent. David is already aware of what Saul's intent is, that why he's running from him.
1Sa 23:11 Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O LORD, the God of Israel, please tell your servant." And the LORD said, "He will come down."
1Sa 23:12 Then David said, "Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?" And the LORD said, "They will surrender you."
How does God know they will surrender David? They have not yet made this free will choice. Either they had a free will choice and God knew what it would be, God already knew their choice thereby making an absolute certainty and not a choice at all but since it didn't happen God is a liar, or God just told David what will happen if he stays where he is. Once David left, how could these people turn David over?
God saw the future free will choices of Saul and the men of Keilah, God warned David because David (unlike Saul) was faithful enough to ask God for help, apparently assuming God knew something about what the people would choose to do in the future. Both about Saul and the men of Keilah.
That or God is a liar, because He stated what would happen if conditions stayed as they were. Obviously if David uses this information to leave the area, the predicted events change because the variables change.
This is where I pick up from my last comment:
God knowing the future does not mean God causes it. It means God knows in advance what will occur.
God knows what will happen and what can happen if events were be altered. So if God wants to say, alter the plans of sinful man, He could just flood the earth but also let someone know about it first (Noah) so they will be saved. That's intervention. Then God could make a covenant with Abraham and keep Israel "alive" until the Messiah could come and provide a way of salvation. Whenever God would send a prophet, he would warn the people. Why? If God knowing the future causes it to happen and nothing can change this then why does God try? It seems to be so that God can change what He knows will happen. God is influencing man all throughout history. But why? I mean, why would God do this if it is what He wanted all along. This is where the 3 views collide. If God doesn't know the future, then God can never make a believable promise to save man. How can God know He will succeed? Man's will is involved. So you've got a view of God that makes things happen so they are certain to occur. You've got another view that says God knows all but is actively changing this creation through free will agents (and thereby also changing what will occur to meet His desired result). Or you've got a view that says God has power but can't know what will become of the creation. I mean how can Paul state that every knee will bow and every tongue confess Jesus is Lord? How can God know this if it is unknowable? Is this confession not an act of the heart and will? Is this just God's "hope".
Perry wrote: Having said all this, I recognize that, as you say, there are several passages in the OT that seem to indicate absolute foreknowledge on God's part. This leaves me somewhat undecided on this issue.
I hope that you and Paidion and others will continue to discuss this matter so as to help me weigh the evidence on all sides more completely.
Perry
I honestly love the topic but believe I lack the ability to put my understanding into words. I don't know how effective I can be in giving my understanding on this topic because of this, not to mention to even try takes a lot of typing.

Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
- _darin-houston
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
- Location: Houston, TX
I believe the Open Theist would say that the future is "partially" open and "partially" closed; thus, he can assure that some things will happen (and prophesy them) and leave open some actions and decisions on our part that won't interfere with that.If God can't know something before it happens, then He's got a strange way of knowing things He shouldn't be able to know. God accurately predicts many future free will choices people would do in the future. Psalm 22 speaks of specific things that would occur at the crucifiction, yet Paidion's response to this is that it wasn't a prophecy. Nice logic. It seems 2+2 can equal something other than 4.
My wife believes that God can know the future exhaustively, that such knowledge can be infallible, that we aren't therefore free to choose other than God foreknew, but somehow we still have freewill -- I don't understand this. I believe we all lack some formal training and vocabulary in formal logic to express these things and it's a bit frustrating on my part -- our understanding can't adequately be discussed if we don't have a vocabulary for it, it seems.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
CS Lewis believed that God is "outside" our time stream, and therefore time does not progress on a timeline for Him like it does for us. To us, there is a past, present (which doesnt last very long) and a future. To God, everything is "now" for lack of a better word. so its not so much that he knows we will do something, he simply sees us doing it. i think this approach deals with the free will argument, and explains foreknowledge at the same time.
he goes into this in some depth in one the early chapters of "mere christianity." i liked this approach, because it satisfied me.
Paidion believes that God is in our time stream, so this approach can't work for him (Paidion if this is not your view I apologize). I think Paidion said before that he couldnt grasp God being "outside of time." I cant either, but this explanation, as i stated, satisfies me.
TK
he goes into this in some depth in one the early chapters of "mere christianity." i liked this approach, because it satisfied me.
Paidion believes that God is in our time stream, so this approach can't work for him (Paidion if this is not your view I apologize). I think Paidion said before that he couldnt grasp God being "outside of time." I cant either, but this explanation, as i stated, satisfies me.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)