Interaction with perfect foreknowledge?

[God_Is_Truth]

Hi God_Is_Truth,
Well, no, I am saying that sometimes the best estimate doesn't turn out best!

and you're absolutely right. the bible says many times over that what God wants to happen doesn't happen. God plans things for the best, but they don't always turn out that way.

And thus sometimes the person who bets on the dark horse wins, and thus we need not always take God's advice, because events might turn out better with some other choice, even from his perspective.

well you can tell that to God then because the bible says things don't turn out how he wants them, but we are still supposed to trust him.

Only the Bible says we must always obey the Lord, and that the one who trusts in him will never be ashamed, or disappointed, they will always win, for God knows the outcome, in every instance.

we don't trust in God because he knows the outcome at all. knowing the outcome doesn't make a person trustworthy in the least. trustworthiness is about character, goondess, righteousness. it's because of who God is that we can trust in him, and because of his power and purposes that we won't be disappointed.

in fact, someone who knows the outcome is likely to be less trustworthy. if they know the outcome, we have reason to be suspect that they have rigged the outcome that way just as they want it. that person is weaker and afraid than one who doesn't know/rig the outcome.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi God_Is_Truth,

Lee: And thus sometimes the person who bets on the dark horse wins, and thus we need not always take God's advice, because events might turn out better with some other choice, even from his perspective.

GIT: well you can tell that to God then because the bible says things don't turn out how he wants them, but we are still supposed to trust him.

Well, yes, the Bible is clear that we must obey God in all he tells us to do.

And the Bible does tell us clearly how things turn out, when God makes a plan:

PR 21:30 There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the Lord.

ISA 14:27 For the Lord Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back?

PR 19:21 Many are the plans in a man's heart, but the counsel of the Lord, it will stand.

PS 33:10-11 The Lord foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

This is not all of these types of verses! The Bible is quite clear, when human plans oppose God's plan, God's plan succeeds, all the time. Things turn out the way God wants them to:

ISA 46:10 "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please."

Thus when we read in an account where it seems God's plan had failed, we must know instead, that it did not, and that it will not. There are good explanations in these instances, as well, as far as I have seen, we don't just have to close our eyes and say we believe this regardless.

Lee: Only the Bible says we must always obey the Lord, and that the one who trusts in him will never be ashamed, or disappointed, they will always win, for God knows the outcome, in every instance.

GIT: we don't trust in God because he knows the outcome at all. knowing the outcome doesn't make a person trustworthy in the least.

It does if you are considering which line at the airport to get in, when you're running late!

GIT: it's because of who God is that we can trust in him, and because of his power and purposes that we won't be disappointed.

Then I suppose you would not be disappointed in missing your plane, by taking the wrong line, even though the person telling you which line to get in had the best of intents! I would be a bit disappointed, though, if this meant events did not really turn out best, after all.

GIT: if they know the outcome, we have reason to be suspect that they have rigged the outcome that way just as they want it. that person is weaker and afraid than one who doesn't know/rig the outcome.

So then if a person tells you "This path is full of snakes!" you are cautious only if they don't know if it's true?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Well, yes, the Bible is clear that we must obey God in all he tells us to do.

And the Bible does tell us clearly how things turn out, when God makes a plan:

PR 21:30 There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the Lord.

ISA 14:27 For the Lord Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back?

PR 19:21 Many are the plans in a man's heart, but the counsel of the Lord, it will stand.

PS 33:10-11 The Lord foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

notice how you said "when God makes a plan". i couldn't agree more. when God plans, he can sovereignly bring them to pass, if he so chooses. however, that doesn't mean he never changes his plans or abandons them at a later point. there are many clear cases of him changing his plans in the bible. but there is not a clear case to be made that everything is God's plan or that he never ever changes his plans.

This is not all of these types of verses! The Bible is quite clear, when human plans oppose God's plan, God's plan succeeds, all the time. Things turn out the way God wants them to:

sin by definition is that which is contrary to what God wants. to say that all things turn out exactly as God wants them is to say there is no sin. thus, because there is sin, it's not accurate to say that all things are God's plan.

ISA 46:10 "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please."

"all that i please" doesn't mean "everything that actually comes to pass". that would be an assumption.

Thus when we read in an account where it seems God's plan had failed, we must know instead, that it did not, and that it will not.

no, we don't have to assume that at all. we know that God's ultimate purposes will come to pass, but we have no good reason to think that God's plans never fail. sometimes they do, as the bible tells us.

There are good explanations in these instances, as well, as far as I have seen, we don't just have to close our eyes and say we believe this regardless.

closing our eyes and saying "it's all part of God's plan" isn't something we have to do either.

It does if you are considering which line at the airport to get in, when you're running late!

there is no "best" line at the airport.

Then I suppose you would not be disappointed in missing your plane, by taking the wrong line, even though the person telling you which line to get in had the best of intents! I would be a bit disappointed, though, if this meant events did not really turn out best, after all.

that wouldn't be God's fault in the least.

So then if a person tells you "This path is full of snakes!" you are cautious only if they don't know if it's true?

i am cautious if i have reason to believe what they are saying is true.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi God_Is_Truth,

Lee: And the Bible does tell us clearly how things turn out, when God makes a plan:

PR 21:30 There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the Lord.

God_Is_Truth: however, that doesn't mean he never changes his plans or abandons them at a later point.

But if God abandons a plan, doesn't that mean the first plan did not succeed? Yet these verses say every plan God makes succeeds, even when human choices are in view:


PR 19:21 Many are the plans in a man's heart, but the counsel of the Lord, it will stand.

PS 33:10-11 The Lord foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

So God never needs to abandon a plan.

God_Is_Truth: but there is not a clear case to be made that everything is God's plan or that he never ever changes his plans.

I agree that God does not make every decision, for I think Scripture teaches that God's people can really choose. But there is a clear case to be made that God does not change his overall plan!

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

And the answer is clearly, "no"...

"all that i please" doesn't mean "everything that actually comes to pass". that would be an assumption.

It certainly must mean God does not change his mind, though.

Lee: Thus when we read in an account where it seems God's plan had failed, we must know instead, that it did not, and that it will not.

God_Is_Truth: we know that God's ultimate purposes will come to pass, but we have no good reason to think that God's plans never fail. sometimes they do, as the bible tells us.

I think the only possibly places where the Bible might tell us that would be these accounts I was referring to, though. Jer. 18 doesn't show that God can abandon a plan, for this passage does not tell us if God knows how people will respond, in a given situation.

God_Is_Truth: there is no "best" line at the airport.

Well, I got in the wrong line once when I was in a hurry, and nearly missed my plane!

Lee: Then I suppose you would not be disappointed in missing your plane, by taking the wrong line, even though the person telling you which line to get in had the best of intents! I would be a bit disappointed, though...

God_Is_Truth: that wouldn't be God's fault in the least.

Well, no, but we would still call the decision to choose the wrong line a mistake. An honest mistake, but a mistake, nonetheless.

God_Is_Truth: i am cautious if i have reason to believe what they are saying is true.

Right, and regardless of the intent! What we need in such instances is accurate information, and a good intent is kind of optional. Though it's best to have both.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[God_Is_Truth]

But if God abandons a plan, doesn't that mean the first plan did not succeed?

no it does not. abandoning a plan is quite different from having a plan fail.

Yet these verses say every plan God makes succeeds, even when human choices are in view:


PR 19:21 Many are the plans in a man's heart, but the counsel of the Lord, it will stand.

PS 33:10-11 The Lord foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

So God never needs to abandon a plan.

God planned to destroy ninevah. they repented, so he abandoned his plan. don't you agree? otherwise, if God never planned to destroy ninevah, he lied when he sent Jonah to warn them of what he was planning to do. surely God doesn't lie, we both agree on that. therefore, it seems to me that God does abandon plans from time to time, but only when circumstances change.

I agree that God does not make every decision, for I think Scripture teaches that God's people can really choose. But there is a clear case to be made that God does not change his overall plan!

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

And the answer is clearly, "no"...

if by "overall plan" you mean the plan to bring us all into Christ, then i agree. however, there are several "smaller plans" which clearly have changed, ninevah for example.

It certainly must mean God does not change his mind, though.

you are trying to read your theology into the text here. it says that God brings about what he chooses to bring about. who are you to say he can't start with one thing and then change his mind about it? can he not choose to bless and then withold it if the people are unfaithful? God is fully justified in doing so and i think he would not be doing if he pleased if he were unable to change his mind.

I think the only possibly places where the Bible might tell us that would be these accounts I was referring to, though. Jer. 18 doesn't show that God can abandon a plan, for this passage does not tell us if God knows how people will respond, in a given situation.

If God knows already, then he is never truly changing his mind.

Well, I got in the wrong line once when I was in a hurry, and nearly missed my plane!

well whose fault was that?

Well, no, but we would still call the decision to choose the wrong line a mistake. An honest mistake, but a mistake, nonetheless.

but you are the one who made the mistake, not God. you can't blame Him for choosing to get in the wrong line.

Right, and regardless of the intent! What we need in such instances is accurate information, and a good intent is kind of optional. Though it's best to have both.

information is good, but unless the person has a good character it doesn't matter what information they have for you cannot trust them to actually give you the correct information. character is what's essential, and it's why God is trustworthy.

 

[Lighthouse]

*bump*

 

[God_Is_Truth]

ah...memories

 

[cruxenlightened]

The popular argument on TOL lately regarding God's foreknowledge has been....

God can have perfect exhaustive foreknowledge without closing the future and removing man's freewill. Personally I think this argument refutes itself but Clete, Philosopher, Yorzhik, Turbo, Godrulz, DRBrumley and many others have been doing a great job refuting this notion even further on several current threads here on TOL. True freewill and perfect exhaustive foreknowledge are not compatible, they are mutually exclusive.

Yet I think there is another objection to this notion of freewill and exhaustive foreknowledge being compatible that hasn't really been explored yet.

I don't like long setup posts so I am going to make this as brief as possible and develop the argument over time.

So here goes . . .

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.

Thank you for giving me something to grab a hold of in respect to open theism. I already believed, thanks to Lighthouse, but you have helped immensely in solidifying it even more. And though I may still have some more queations, I believe that the open view is the only view that makes any logical sense according to how God presents Himself to us.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Thank you for giving me something to grab a hold of in respect to open theism. I already believed, thanks to Lighthouse, but you have helped immensely in solidifying it even more. And though I may still have some more queations, I believe that the open view is the only view that makes any logical sense according to how God presents Himself to us.

Thank you!

FYI... Post 13 and 34 in this thread are follow-ups to the opening post.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'll need to read those posts, as well.

 

[Philetus]

Knight,
This is a great thread. I just discovered it tonight. Read the whole darn thing. Your openers were … beyond words.
I loved the billboard thing. Thanks.​

 

[Philetus]

KNIGHT: OP #1, 13, and 34 WORTH ANOTHER LOOK!

The popular argument on TOL lately regarding God's foreknowledge has been....

God can have perfect exhaustive foreknowledge without closing the future and removing man's freewill. Personally I think this argument refutes itself but Clete, Philosopher, Yorzhik, Turbo, Godrulz, DRBrumley and many others have been doing a great job refuting this notion even further on several current threads here on TOL. True freewill and perfect exhaustive foreknowledge are not compatible, they are mutually exclusive.

Yet I think there is another objection to this notion of freewill and exhaustive foreknowledge being compatible that hasn't really been explored yet.

I don't like long setup posts so I am going to make this as brief as possible and develop the argument over time.

So here goes . . .

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.

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.

The TWO FOLD purpose of dispensing foreknowledge.

Why does God dispense His foreknowledge to us? I assert there is a two fold reason with a single overlying reason. The single overlying reason I explained in my first post in that God wants to affect or will in an attempt to influence our will to more closely conform to His will.

But now lets dig a little deeper.
I assert that there is a two fold purpose in making foreknowledge known to others. When I use the word foreknowledge in this post I am speaking of foreknowledge as in the OV version of foreknowledge.

EXAMPLE:

When we say to our son who just got a new BB gun....

"You are going to shoot your eye out with that thing!"

Our foreknowledge (educated guess) tells us that our child is too inexperienced to understand the safest way to handle the BB gun so he is most likely going to shoot a BB and have it hit him in the eye.

But why do we dispense our foreknowledge to him? Why do we tell him what we think is going to happen?

I assert we do this for TWO REASONS:

ONE. We want to effect the future. We want him to think about safety. We want him to NOT shoot his eye out!!!

But it doesn't stop there. There is yet another reason we dispensed our foreknowledge to our son.

TWO. We realize he may not heed our warning and he might STILL get a BB in the eye! And when that happens we want him to realize we were right in our foreknowledge and therefore give our foreknowledge credibility and therefore restore his faith in our enlightened foreknowledge.

I assert to you that this TWO FOLD tactic is the very reason why God INTERACTS with us and dispenses His foreknowledge to us!

CASE IN POINT:
God wanted Peter to be a powerful witness for the gospel, a leader of the church. But God knew Peters heart. God knew Peter's faith was weak. Therefore God interacted with Peter using this TWO FOLD use of foreknowledge.

God told Peter that Peter would deny Christ three times before the rooster crowed.

What was the point of this foreknowledge being given to Peter?

PURPOSE NUMBER ONE:
God wanted Peter to NOT deny Him! He wanted Peter to NOT shoot his eye out with the BB gun (so to speak). Yet God knowing that Peter was likely going to deny Him anyway reason number two kicked in . . .

PURPOSE NUMBER TWO:
God wanted Peter to have renewed faith in God's foreknowledge and therefore renewed faith in God because God was able to accurately predict Peters future actions. Peter could then say to himself "WOW God must be the real God because He knew I was gonna shoot me eye with the BB gun." (so to speak).

And therefore the overall purpose of the foreknowledge is manifested.... AFFECTING Peter's freewill in a manner which persuaded Peter to conform Peters will more closely to God's will for Peter.

The dispensing of foreknowledge has NO purpose unless the future is unsettled. Dispensing foreknowledge is a lever to effect future actions.

Foreknowledge and divine interaction . . . . a mechanism to influence freewill.

OK, so lets again focus in on how foreknowledge and divine interaction is used to affect our will. I would like to illustrate how foreknowledge and divine interaction are meaningless unless the future is unsettled and we have the real ability to make choices that are not predetermined.

Imagine we are driving down a hot desert highway and there is nothing but miles and miles of emptiness. No towns, no gas stations, no rest stops . . . nothing!

Then we see a billboard.

http://www.theologyonline.com/Billboard_01.jpg

The billboard says . . .

"Joe's Diner 1 mile ahead

Last chance to stop for 200 miles!"

This billboard interacts with us in a form of foreknowledge. Prior to seeing the billboard we really had no idea what the future held for us, but now we do have an idea what the future holds for us, there will be a Diner in a mile or so and there won't be another place to stop for 200 miles! So why did the creators of the billboard construct the billboard and place it on the side of the road?

The creators of the billboard did this to influence our freewill and future decisions. They desire that we stop and eat at their restaurant. And they also inform us that if we don't stop there we will not have another chance to stop for food for 200 more miles, that's about another 4 hours of driving time!

Because of this billboard we are now presented with a choice. Should we stop at Joe's diner or wait another four hours? Our freewill is now being influenced by the billboard. The creators of the billboard don't know what we will choose to do - but certainly they want to influence our choice which is the ONLY reason they took the time to interact with us

God's billboard to Adam.

God created Adam and Eve in the garden. Adam and Eve had it good! No rules, awesome surroundings, great company, communion with God, etc. Now God, wanting to have UNcoerced love with His creation didn't want to lock Adam and Eve in a box forcing them to love Him with no other option. So God introduced a rule. A single rule for Adam to follow (or not follow). Don't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Yet by introducing this rule it introduced the ability for Adam and Even to do other than God's will for them. It introduced the ability for Adam and Eve to use their own will contrary to God's will for them. You might say that this instruction or rule was the birth of man's freewill.

This instruction was like a billboard on the side of the road.

http://www.theologyonline.com/Billboard_02.jpg

The instruction was an interaction between God and Adam in which God gave Adam some foreknowledge... "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

This foreknowledge that God dispensed to Adam had the TWO FOLD purpose that I outlined in my post number 13 of this thread.

Purpose One: Attempt to influence Adam's will so that he doesn't eat from the tree and die spiritually.

Purpose two: If Adam DOES eat from the tree and dies spiritually Adam will have renewed faith that God is who He says He is.

If . . . (on the other hand) all of Adam's choices are already known by God (a millennia beforehand) and all of this history has already been seen by God, what appears to be an interaction between Adam and God becomes merely an interaction in appearance and nothing else. The entire point of God interacting with Adam is an attempt by God to influence Adam's will. If Adam's will can be influenced, there must be different courses of history possible - i.e., the future cannot be settled - even if only settled in the mind of God.

Interaction between man and God is a lever or mechanism to effect and conform the will of man to the will of God.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight,
This is a great thread. I just discovered it tonight. Read the whole darn thing. Your openers were … beyond words.
I loved the billboard thing. Thanks.​

Thank you. That is very nice to hear.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

For some reason the IMG code was turned off in this forum.

I turned it back on so now post 34 looks the way it should.

 

[Philetus]

For some reason the IMG code was turned off in this forum.

I turned it back on so now post 34 looks the way it should.

That's cool.​

 

[primbaptpoet]

Man's will.

Man's will.

The reason for creation? Creation was made by him, and for him (Christ). John 1.
God is Omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Man's will is sub-serviant to his fallen nature, ie = his emotions, pleasures, pride, lust, etc; before and also after Holy Spirit quickening. Ephes 1.
He slowly grows in grace in this world; as God gives him spiritual strength. "Oh, wretched man that I am." This is what I believe about man's will. The amazing, substitutionary work, grace of God. Blessed be his name.

 

[Lon]

Holy (or....er.... wholly) resuscitation!

Holy (or....er.... wholly) resuscitation!

The popular argument on TOL lately regarding God's foreknowledge has been....

God can have perfect exhaustive foreknowledge without closing the future and removing man's freewill. Personally I think this argument refutes itself but Clete, Philosopher, Yorzhik, Turbo, Godrulz, DRBrumley and many others have been doing a great job refuting this notion even further on several current threads here on TOL. True freewill and perfect exhaustive foreknowledge are not compatible, they are mutually exclusive.

For me, a need for freewill or an unpredictable future isn't really necessary. I don't really care whether I have a freewill or a future that I'm fully or partially in control of, why? Because I'm not perfect. An imperfect being doesn't need to 'partially' mess up his and other's futures. We all are aiming at a future that cannot possibly be messed up anyway. It doesn't matter what else it then contains. Likewise, we are all desirous of "not my will, but Thine" and "Thy will be done." Therefore, not even an open theist should really be this concerned with his/her own positions because only what matters to Christ is important to us, it requires no freewill. There is no reason for us to get too far off of our primary concern: To be in Him.

However, omniscience doesn't infringe upon freewill. In fact, I'd say it is opposite: you cannot have any freedom of choice unless God knows what those parameters are because if He doesn't know, then neither could you know how free or not free your own will is. An unknowable limitation upon our wills, would also be self-refuting concerning 'free.' We could not know if we were then free or not because there is then no knowledge of such. In other words, it would be impossible to say if your will was free or not, because we'd have no parameter to know such 'unless' God is omniscient and knows such.

Yet I think there is another objection to this notion of freewill and exhaustive foreknowledge being compatible that hasn't really been explored yet.

I don't like long setup posts so I am going to make this as brief as possible and develop the argument over time.

So here goes . . .

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.

To me, this screams 'anti-freewill.' I see that as a good thing because I'm "anti-me" will too. Freewill is independent of God and is thought of by me most often as 'sin-will.' So good call here, as I said above, we need to be about seeking His-will above our will, whether it is free or not, because at that point, it really doesn't matter as much as what we are shooting for. So, again, Kudos! :up:

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 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.

Well, that depends on whether His foreknowledge is contingent. If you are saying 'no, God's foreknowledge isn't contingent' then I suppose I understand what you are saying here. There is a difference between such that must be discussed because simply saying foreknowledge isn't compatible with God's interactions, isn't true. We aren't really equipped as humans, to be able to think backwards and forwards through foreknowledge to be able to definitively answer all questions we have concerning the matter but we can entertain the questions if not definitively answer them anyway.

 

[Lon]

For me, a need for freewill or an unpredictable future isn't really necessary. I don't really care whether I have a freewill or a future that I'm fully or partially in control of, why? Because I'm not perfect. An imperfect being doesn't need to 'partially' mess up his and other's futures. We all are aiming at a future that cannot possibly be messed up anyway. It doesn't matter what else it then contains.
Knowing I have a future is the more important imperative and comfort for the believer.
Likewise, we are all desirous of "not my will, but Thine" and "Thy will be done." Again, I trust God with even what I want and need, more than my faulty whims and desires. I'm perfectly happy to leave decisions in His hands rather than my own. My own track-record has proven this out time and again "Not my will, but Thine be done..." As Jesus also prayed. Therefore, not even an open theist should really be this concerned with his/her own positions because only what matters to Christ is important to us, it requires no freewill. There is no reason for us to get too far off of our primary concern: To be in Him, to follow His will.

However, omniscience doesn't infringe upon freewill. In fact, I'd say it is opposite: you cannot have any freedom of choice unless God knows what those parameters are because if He doesn't know, then neither could you know how free or not free your own will is. An unknowable limitation upon our wills, would also be self-refuting concerning 'free.' We could not know if we were then free or not because there is then no knowledge of such. In other words, it would be impossible to say if your will was free or not, because we'd have no parameter to know such 'unless' God is omniscient and knows such.


To me, this screams 'anti-freewill.' I see that as a good thing because I'm "anti-me" will too. Freewill is independent of God and is thought of by me most often as 'sin-will.' So good call here, as I said above, we need to be about seeking His-will above our will, whether it is free or not, because at that point, it really doesn't matter as much as what we are shooting for. So, again, Kudos! :up:

Well, that depends on whether His foreknowledge is contingent. If you are saying 'no, God's foreknowledge isn't contingent' then I suppose I understand what you are saying here. There is a difference between such that must be discussed because simply saying foreknowledge isn't compatible with God's interactions, isn't true. We aren't really equipped as humans, to be able to think backwards and forwards through foreknowledge to be able to definitively answer all questions we have concerning the matter but we can entertain the questions if not definitively answer them anyway.