Does God know the future?

[kmoney]

If man had never sinned what would he need to be redeemed for?

yeah, I didn't say what I meant to say, but you're question is good for what I did say. My answer is that he wouldn't need to be redeemed. Now, what I mean to say was this...

We both agree that if man didn't sin we wouldn't need Jesus for salvation. Where we differ is that I'm saying God knew man would sin and you are saying that God didn't know, but he had a good idea that they would sin so he had a plan for bring salvation to Jesus. The verses I posted seem to say that God knew Jesus would be needed to bring salvation, not he thought he probably was going to have to send Jesus to this world.

Are there any verses that speak of God not knowing if Adam and Eve would sin and that Jesus was, for lack of a better way to say it, the "backup" plan because He predicted they would sin.

Kevin

 

[Clete]

If God did know, could Adam have done otherwise?

 

[kmoney]

Clete,

My response is the same as Knight's. If man had never sinned what would he need to be redeemed for?

Please read my response to Knight on this same question.....

And putting it in terms of a "back up plan" is I think a mischaracterization. It wasn't a back up plan it was just a plan. An example of something similar would be the way you make plans yourself. If you want to achieve a certain goal then you look at as many of the potential obstacles to that goal and make plans as to overcome them. If you're smart, you do this in advance so that you prepared for whatever comes. We are imperfect and have a very limited ability to predict what might happen and yet we are still able to make such plans very effectively. God is far less limited and so can make much farther reaching and detailed plans than we could possibly conceive of ourselves. So I am not saying that Jesus was an after thought or a back up plan or anything like that.

Ok, that's fine.

Have you ever used the phrase, "I knew that you were going to do that!" when someone does something that you fully expected them to do? If so (which I'm sure is the case), did you really know they would do it or did you simply have a strong suspicion based on your knowledge of the person and how they would probably react in that particular situation? It's the latter, right? Of course it is but yet you are very comfortable with using the term "know" in this context.

again, that's fine.

And I believe that God planned accordingly and formulated the plan of salvation. It's not a case where God was surprised by Adam's sin. In fact, I believe that had Adam not sinned, that's what would have astonished God.

I'm not trying to argue that God would be surprised by Adams sin and I didn't mean to imply that I thought you were saying that.

In fact, I believe that had Adam not sinned, that's what would have astonished God.

HA, I totally agree.

Kevin

 

[godrulz]

I thought the point was that God knew that man would sin.

Possibility/probability is not the same as certainty/actuality. It is known as possible until it is actualized through free will choices.

 

[kmoney]

If God did know, could Adam have done otherwise?

That is what much of this thread has been argued on. I say yes. You say no. This is why I am trying to move to scriptures and leave logic.

 

[Clete]

That is what much of this thread has been argued on. I say yes. You say no. This is why I am trying to move to scriptures and leave logic.

It's impossible to do so. Sound reason must be used when reading Scripture. If you come to some conclusion that is contrary to sound reason then your conclusion is false whether you used the Bible to come to that conclusion or not.
As I told Nancy. Truth is logical and if the Bible is true then it must also be logical. So if you can demonstrate that any teaching from the Bible is illogical then you have proven it to be unbiblical and untrue.

If your answer to my question is yes then you are being self-contradictory and are therefore wrong. At this point it makes no difference what the Bible says about it because we know that the Bible is not self-contradictory and so it cannot agree with you.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[kmoney]

It's impossible to do so. Sound reason must be used when reading Scripture. If you come to some conclusion that is contrary to sound reason then your conclusion is false whether you used the Bible to come to that conclusion or not.
As I told Nancy. Truth is logical and if the Bible is true then it must also be logical. So if you can demonstrate that any teaching from the Bible is illogical then you have proven it to be unbiblical and untrue.

If your answer to my question is yes then you are being self-contradictory and are therefore wrong. At this point it makes no difference what the Bible says about it because we know that the Bible is not self-contradictory and so it cannot agree with you.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete,
I agree that logic must be used when reading scripture, but I stand by my statement that it can only get you so far. The only logical argument that comes close to refuting God knowing the future without affecting our free will is philosophizers argument. If that is the argument you were trying to use than ok, but it wasn't evident to me. And I still stand by what I said in one of my earlier posts to you. You believe that God has no creator, nor has a beginning. If you try to use logic to substantiate every theological claim you won't get very far because God's existence goes against all logic. If you can logically explain how God can exist than please do because I'm at a loss to do so. That is why I think we should move towards scripture. And if scriptures points towards open theology than so be it.

I think part of what I'm trying to say is that there is no logical "proof" of God's knowledge of the future or lack thereof. Is it illogical that God could know the future while not destroying our free will? Sure. Does that mean it can't be true? No. At least I don't believe so. Is it true? I want to go to scripture to find out and , as I've said before, I think I'm leaning towards that view, but I still have some questions about it.

Kevin

 

[godrulz]

Open Theism rests on biblical principles. Logical, philosophical, historical, practical arguments are relevant, but not decisive. Exhaustive foreknowledge relies on deductive reasoning and preconceived assumptions. It is not explicit in Scripture (cf. TULIP proof texting).

 

[Clete]

Clete,
I agree that logic must be used when reading scripture, but I stand by my statement that it can only get you so far. The only logical argument that comes close to refuting God knowing the future without affecting our free will is philosophizer's argument. If that is the argument you were trying to use than ok, but it wasn't evident to me.

His was not the only valid argument. It may have been the only one you liked but that's not the same thing.
My argument, as I'm sure you're aware, is that, by definition, having a free will means that I have the ability to do or to do otherwise. If God knows what I will do in the future then I cannot do otherwise and so therefore have no free will.
This argument is both valid and sound, thus you cannot reject the conclusion without rejecting at least one of the premises; to do otherwise would be irrational (i.e. illogical).

And I still stand by what I said in one of my earlier posts to you. You believe that God has no creator, nor has a beginning. If you try to use logic to substantiate every theological claim you won't get very far because God's existence goes against all logic. If you can logically explain how God can exist than please do because I'm at a loss to do so. That is why I think we should move towards scripture. And if scriptures points towards open theology than so be it.

You are missing my point. I am not saying that you can substantiate every theological claim by using logic. What I am saying is that there is no theology that is irrational (in violation of the rules of logic). That is to say that any truth, including theological truth must not be self-contradictory or guilty of some other fallacy of logic. If it does, then it is not true. Logic is not used to prove theology (necessarily) but it can be used to falsify theology, which is a distinction I think you have been missing.
There is nothing illogical about God being uncreated (especially if one holds that as a presuppositional position) and thus the theology is not falsified via logic, nor can it be. Both Calvinism and Arminianism however, have big problems in that they are full to the hilt with contradictory nonsense. This particular issue we are discussing here is but one of them. God foreknowing the future and our free will are logically incompatible because they are contradictory. One or the other or both are false; the only question is which one it is. But neither side denies the existence of our free will and in fact concedes the necessity of it. That leaves God's foreknowledge as the only premise left to throw out. The conclusion here seems inescapable; I've come at it now from a half dozen directions on this thread alone and the result is undeniable each time.

If God knows the future I have no free will.
I do have a free will.
Therefore, God does not know the future.

Simple!

I think part of what I'm trying to say is that there is no logical "proof" of God's knowledge of the future or lack thereof. Is it illogical that God could know the future while not destroying our free will? Sure. Does that mean it can't be true? No. At least I don't believe so.

Well I'd say you need to define the term "true" or "truth" then. I doubt that you will find a satisfactory definition (even for you) that permits irrationality.

Is it true? I want to go to scripture to find out and, as I've said before, I think I'm leaning towards that view, but I still have some questions about it.

This much I can understand and appreciate but not at the expense of logic. You seem to be saying (perhaps I'm wrong) that you might possibly find something in the Bible which you have now repeatedly admitted is illogical. I can assure you that if you do, the error is not in the Bible but in your interpretation of it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[kmoney]

Clete,

God knowing the future != No free will. What is true is that if the only way God can know the future is if he creates the future than yes, we have no free will. That is what philosophizer argued. God is independent of this entire universe and the time within it. God has existed infinitely in the past, therefore you have no frame of reference of time to put God on.

If God knows the future I have no free will.
I do have a free will.
Therefore, God does not know the future.

I disagree, but it might simply be the wording. I would say it like this....

The future does not exist
For God to know the future God would have to create it.
If God creates the future I have no free will.
I do have free will.
Therefore, God does not know the future.

Logic is not used to prove theology

I agree.

There is nothing illogical about God being uncreated

There isn't? Then please explain it to me. How can something, or in this case someone, come into being from nothing and without a creator?

Kevin

 

[kmoney]

Clete,

I'll try and be honest here. To give up God's knowledge of the future I feel like I am denying him power. Despite that, I'm not sure how it works. I believe that God exists in the future, but I'm not sure how to reconcile the requirement that WE exist in the future for God to have knowledge of that without creating the future.

Like I said before, believing open theology will not change my life practically, but, like I said before, I feel like I'm stripping God of power by denying that foreknowledge. That is something I do not like.

Kevin

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Clete,

I'll try and be honest here. To give up God's knowledge of the future I feel like I am denying him power. Despite that, I'm not sure how it works. I believe that God exists in the future, but I'm not sure how to reconcile the requirement that WE exist in the future for God to have knowledge of that without creating the future.

Like I said before, believing open theology will not change my life practically, but, like I said before, I feel like I'm stripping God of power by denying that foreknowledge. That is something I do not like.

Kevin

God desired that He create in the fashion He created.

When God delegated some of His power to us in the form of freewill it was His choice - He wanted it this way.

God is not bound by some imaginary perfect foreknowledge that some have burdened Him with. God is so powerful that He can delegate power if He so chooses.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Are there any verses that speak of God not knowing if Adam and Eve would sin and that Jesus was, for lack of a better way to say it, the "backup" plan because He predicted they would sin.

Kevin

Well.... we could compare Adam and Eve to Israel.

Both were chosen by God and had special preparations made for them by God so that they would accept Him and not reject Him.

Yet both Adam and Eve and Israel rejected Him!

Did God know that Israel would reject Him? Did God expect that Israel would reject Him? No!

Isaiah 5:1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard On a very fruitful hill. 2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, But it brought forth wild grapes. 3 “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. 4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?

Adam and Eve had it even better! So we could assume that God didn't expect them to reject Him.

Furthermore, if God had perfect foreknowledge why would He be expecting "good grapes" from Israel if He already knew "wild grapes" were going to be the outcome?

 

[godrulz]

Clete,

I'll try and be honest here. To give up God's knowledge of the future I feel like I am denying him power. Despite that, I'm not sure how it works. I believe that God exists in the future, but I'm not sure how to reconcile the requirement that WE exist in the future for God to have knowledge of that without creating the future.

Like I said before, believing open theology will not change my life practically, but, like I said before, I feel like I'm stripping God of power by denying that foreknowledge. That is something I do not like.

Kevin

God is omnicompetent. Like a good coach or chessmaster, He does not need foreknowledge to respond to contingencies and providentially rule the universe. God's infinite wisdom, ability, and power preclude the necessity of exhaustive foreknowledge to be Sovereign. It is actually a weaker god that must know and control everything meticulously to run the universe. It is greater ability to bring His purposes to pass despite other free moral agents.

 

[Daniel50]

I've heard lots of different views on this subject, and I'd love to hear yours!
Here are some starting questions:

Does God know the future?

If He does, how FAR into the future?

There's plenty more, but those are some starters

If you carefully read Psalm 139 with prayer and meditation ,you will be surprised........

Psm 139: 1. O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me.
2: Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.
3: Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.
4: For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
5: Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
6: Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
7: Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8: If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9: If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10: Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
11: If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
12: Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
13: For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14: I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15: My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16: Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
17: How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!
18: If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.
19: Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.
20: For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.
21: Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
22: I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.
23: Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
24: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

 

[godrulz]

Ps. 139 deals with God's omnipresence and His perfect/exhaustive past and present knowledge. We cannot extrapolate exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies from any proof text here.

 

[Clete]

Clete,

God knowing the future != No free will. What is true is that if the only way God can know the future is if he creates the future than yes, we have no free will. That is what philosophizer argued. God is independent of this entire universe and the time within it. God has existed infinitely in the past, therefore you have no frame of reference of time to put God on.

I agree that it is a powerful argument but it very simply is not the only way that God could know that future. If every event is the only possible result of whatever caused it to happen then God could simply follow the causal chain of events in His mind and thereby know the future without having to create it. And I'm sure that if we thought about it we could come up with even more ways by which the future could be known which actually makes my argument even more powerful than philosophizer's because it makes no difference how or by what means God knows the future because my argument is simply based on the definition of the term "free will".

I disagree, but it might simply be the wording. I would say it like this....

You don't get to just simply disagree Kevin, that's dishonest (intellectually). I'm mean if you want to reject the conclusion that's fine but it's irrational to do so without rejecting at least one of the premises upon which the conclusion is based. To just flatly disagree is the equivalent of saying, "I don't like it so it isn't true". It doesn't work that way.

The future does not exist
For God to know the future God would have to create it.
If God creates the future I have no free will.
I do have free will.
Therefore, God does not know the future.

This is a fine syllogism but I think the weak point here is premise two, "For God to know the future God would have to create it." Someone who disagrees with the conlusion would simply have to demand that you establish this premise which I've already shown to be untrue. God would not HAVE TO create the future in order to know the future.

There isn't? Then please explain it to me. How can something, or in this case someone, come into being from nothing and without a creator?

Well first of all God did not come into being from nothing, He didn't come into being at all, He's just always been.
Secondly, my inability to explain how this is so does not mean that it is illogical. There just isn't anything illogical about God having always existed. It doesn't beg the question, it isn't self-contradictory or circular reasoning or any other logical fallacy. It might be beyond our ability to understand but so would be the light bulb to Abraham or a CD to Mozart. The inability to explain something is not what makes it illogical.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Clete,

I'll try and be honest here. To give up God's knowledge of the future I feel like I am denying him power. Despite that, I'm not sure how it works. I believe that God exists in the future, but I'm not sure how to reconcile the requirement that WE exist in the future for God to have knowledge of that without creating the future.

Like I said before, believing open theology will not change my life practically, but, like I said before, I feel like I'm stripping God of power by denying that foreknowledge. That is something I do not like.

Kevin

I understand and appreciate your candor. Feelings always lag the truth. Don't worry though, your feelings will catch up with your mind in due time. Accepting the substantive evidence in spite of your feelings is what faith is all about.
My advice is for you to simply discover what the reality about God is and don't worry about some preconceived idea about what it means to be omniscient. If the Bible doesn't depict God as omniscient (I'm not saying that it doesn't) then He's not. Worry about the truth and let omniscience be what it is.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Omniscience, sovereignty, eternal, etc. can be understood in various ways. Alternate views are not all equally valid. e.g. eternal is said to mean timelessness, but it is better understood as everlasting duration; sovereignty does not have to be meticulous control, but could be providential control. Omniscience means knowing all that is knowable, not just knows everything (cf. omnipotence does not mean doing things that are logically not doable or self-contradictory).

 

[philosophizer]

God is independent of this entire universe and the time within it.

God is independent of this universe in that He is its Creator and is not subject to His creation. He does not depend on it. But when you say "and the time within it" aren't you are already supposing that "time" is somehow an element of Creation? --like it is a thing?

What if "time" has nothing directly to do with Creation at all? What if "time" is merely a mode of perception by which we experience change? If that were true, there would be nothing for God or the universe to be "inside" or "outside" of.

God has existed infinitely in the past, therefore you have no frame of reference of time to put God on.

I'm not sure what your point is. Frame of reference of time to put God on?

I disagree, but it might simply be the wording. I would say it like this....

The future does not exist
For God to know the future God would have to create it.
If God creates the future I have no free will.
I do have free will.
Therefore, God does not know the future.

So are you agreeing that God does not know the future? Or do you have a problem with one of the premises?

If I am to assume that the one you added holds the key, then you must be saying that God does not have to create the future to know it. I agree. My argument about Him creating the future was only an argument against the view that God is "outside of time." There are certainly other views that allow God to know the future. And I have different arguments to use against them.

There isn't? Then please explain it to me. How can something, or in this case someone, come into being from nothing and without a creator?

Clete answered this pretty well. Saying something requires a creator assumes that it had a creation. If God had a beginning, then He certainly would need a creator. There is plenty of evidence that our universe had a beginning, and so it would need a creator. But there is no indication that God has ever not been. In fact we hear from Him time after time that He has always existed. Nothing illogical about that unless you (quite needlessly) assume that everything must have a beginning.