Interaction with perfect foreknowledge?

[docrob57]

If God "sees" both versions of the future (The result of His interaction and the "otherwise") and BOTH versions of the future are actually possible His vision of the future must be open (open to BOTH possibilities). If this is what you believe - then we are in complete agreement.

Do you believe . . .
God's vision of the future must be open to both possibilities?

Sure. Of course I think that He knows which possible outcome actually will occur.

 

[kmoney]

Clete,

No I didn't miss it, you just said it and then started giving reasons why it didn't happen the way God said it would, as you've just done again...

You're right, I did.....

I agree with you completely here but the point is that in regards to whether or not God has exhaustive foreknowledge this is completely irrelivent. In fact, your reasoning here could only make sense if God did not have exhaustive foreknowledge because regardless of why God didn't do as He said (which we both agree was for good and righteous reasons), if He had known in advance what was going to happen then for Him to have said that He would do otherwise "without fail" would have been a lie. The only way to get God off the hook for lying is to concede that He did not KNOW the future exhaustively. Not that it's necessary to assume that the events that unfolded caught Him completely by surprise, He may well have anticipated the possibility but if He KNEW absolutely what would happen then this passage in Joshua is a big problem.

I didn't say this before, but I'll say it now...I don't even see this passage as a prophecy so I definitely can't see it as an unfulfilled prophecy. I still disagree that God either didn't know the future or was a liar. God said He would do it, it didn't happen, and God could have known it wasn't going to happen. God still said it even though He knew it wasn't going to happen, mainly for the same reason He didn't tell Jonah that the people of Nineveh would repent. If God let us know everything it would take the living out of life.

 

[eccl3_6]

Obviously your definition of the word "free" must mean something other than mine.

Mine's the one in the dictionary....

And yours?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Sure. Of course I think that He knows which possible outcome actually will occur.

:dizzy:

YES or NO . . .

If God knows the actual outcome is the other possible outcome an actual possibility?

 

[drbrumley]

:dizzy:

YES or NO . . .

If God knows the actual outcome is the other possible outcome an actual possibility?

Don't confuse the poor guy.

BTW, been busy so I couldn't call.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

If God knows the actual outcome is the other possible outcome an actual possibility?

No, but it can still be a free choice! As in God knowing how he would choose, in any completely defined situation.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[docrob57]

:dizzy:

YES or NO . . .

If God knows the actual outcome is the other possible outcome an actual possibility?

Yes, it is what would have happened if God hadn't intervened. I find it interesting that you never answered my question about foreknowledge of the need for a Savior. I don't blame you, admit that and admit that God did not cause sin, and the whole thing comes tumbling down.

 

[godrulz]

No, but again, that doesn't solve the problem. Beleive it or not, I am open to this possibility, but I still haven't seen a convincing argument. The statement "God knows X is going to happen" is not the same as "God causes X to happen."

For example. Clearly God knew from the beginning that we would need a Savior. Did God cause us to turn from Him so that we would need that Savior? I don't think so, do you?

God knew and formulated a possible/potential plan that was implemented after the actual Fall. The plan of redemption only became actual centuries later.

The other aspect of Open Theism is that some of the future is settled and some is unsettled. Once the Fall happened, we have prophecies relating to the coming of the Messiah, the Lamb of God. These prophecies were centuries before He actually came. The incarnation was fully under God's control and thus knowable. We cannot extrapolate from this example that He foreknows every moral and mundane choice in the universe. Unless He predestines/decrees/controls who will win next year's Superbowl, it is not an object of certain knowledge from the beginning. Likewise, He does not know who goes to heaven or hell from eternity past. The Calvinistic TULIP (election/non-election) violates His revelation of impartial love and holiness. It also negates libertarian free will. You have given an example of one aspect that God has purposed to settle by His ability. You must not ignore the other examples that show God changing His mind or being uncertain about things. The classic view makes these figurative to maintain a preconceived theology. This is not defensible.

 

[godrulz]

Sure. Of course I think that He knows which possible outcome actually will occur.

How? Why? The future is not there to see/know and only becomes actual/fixed AFTER the contingent choice, not BEFORE.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yes, it is what would have happened if God hadn't intervened. I find it interesting that you never answered my question about foreknowledge of the need for a Savior. I don't blame you, admit that and admit that God did not cause sin, and the whole thing comes tumbling down.

docrob what question?

If I missed a question certainly isn't wasn't intentional.

I like you, you seem like a really cool guy and I am enjoying this discussion I hope you are as well. Please point me to your question and I would love to answer it for you.

 

[docrob57]

docrob what question?

If I missed a question certainly isn't wasn't intentional.

I like you, you seem like a really cool guy and I am enjoying this discussion I hope you are as well. Please point me to your question and I would love to answer it for you.

I like you too, that isn't the issue. And you are right, I am a really cool guy . And as far as I can tell, this is the only doctrinal disagreement that we have! Which is pretty good among Christians.

As an aside, Lord (and finances) willing, I am going to take my wife and daughter on a pilgramage to Denver next year to visit DBC. That way you can all gang up on me at once!

Anyway, my question/argument is this. We both agree that God foreknew that He would send a Savior. It is clearly prophesied in the OT, no debate there. God sent a Savior to redeem man, who was and is irredeemably sinful. Since God sent a Savior, He must have known that man would continue to be irredeemably sinful. My question is, did that foreknowledge cause man to sin? I would suggest not. And, if not, then it is demonstrated that foreknowledge is not equivalent to control and does not rule out free will.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Anyway, my question/argument is this. We both agree that God foreknew that He would send a Savior. It is clearly prophesied in the OT, no debate there. God sent a Savior to redeem man, who was and is irredeemably sinful. Since God sent a Savior, He must have known that man would continue to be irredeemably sinful. My question is, did that foreknowledge cause man to sin? I would suggest not. And, if not, then it is demonstrated that foreknowledge is not equivalent to control and does not rule out free will.

The instant that Adam sinned, man needed a savior.

So God planned to send a Savior at the time of His choosing.

I am not sure how your question would be an objection to open theism.

P.S. That would be awesome if you could visit. Please keep me posted and let me know if you need any help.

 

[docrob57]

The instant that Adam sinned, man needed a savior.

So God planned to send a Savior at the time of His choosing.

I am not sure how your question would be an objection to open theism.

P.S. That would be awesome if you could visit. Please keep me posted and let me know if you need any help.

At this point I am not sure I am objecting to open theism. All I am trying to establish now is simply that foreknowledge does not necessarily equal control of outcome. If we could ever get past there, one way or another, then we could move closer to open theism.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

All I am trying to establish now is simply that foreknowledge does not necessarily equal control of outcome.

Foreknowledge doesn't control choices UNLESS the Foreknowledge is exhaustive and unchangeable. For if it is, obviously this constrains choices to those contained within the foreknowledge.

 

[docrob57]

Foreknowledge doesn't control choices UNLESS the Foreknowledge is exhaustive and unchangeable. For if it is, obviously this constrains choices to those contained within the foreknowledge.

Unfortunately it isn't really obvious. Let's approach it a different way. Assume that some event is going to happen in the future. Call the event Y. Further assume that Y can be expressed as a function of X, such as in the linear equation Y = a + bX. a is a constant, say the current situation relevant to event Y, and b is a coefficient that fits X to Y.

a is constant, because it is the present situation and cannot change. Say the event Y is a decision, a Yes/No decision. The decision will be "no" until the function a + bX exceeds a certain amount, then it becomes "yes." As an example, Y is a decision whether or not to vote 10 years from now. a = whether or not the person voted in the last election, X is a measure of the degree of ideological difference between the 2 candidates running in any given election, and b is the decision maker's level of awareness of the ideological difference. So, intuitively, the decision maker will vote when he is sufficiently aware of a sufficiently large ideological difference between candidates to move the decision from no to yes.

Now, assume all of the above, AND that God has exhaustive and perfect knowledge of the decision makers decision and then that He does not have this exhaustive and perfect knowledge. Given that we are able to describe the decision maker's action perfectly without reference to God's foreknowledge, will the behavior differ if the assumptions change from foreknowledge to non-foreknowledge?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Unfortunately it isn't really obvious. Let's approach it a different way. Assume that some event is going to happen in the future. Call the event Y. Further assume that Y can be expressed as a function of X, such as in the linear equation Y = a + bX. a is a constant, say the current situation relevant to event Y, and b is a coefficient that fits X to Y.

a is constant, because it is the present situation and cannot change. Say the event Y is a decision, a Yes/No decision. The decision will be "no" until the function a + bX exceeds a certain amount, then it becomes "yes." As an example, Y is a decision whether or not to vote 10 years from now. a = whether or not the person voted in the last election, X is a measure of the degree of ideological difference between the 2 candidates running in any given election, and b is the decision maker's level of awareness of the ideological difference. So, intuitively, the decision maker will vote when he is sufficiently aware of a sufficiently large ideological difference between candidates to move the decision from no to yes.

Now, assume all of the above, AND that God has exhaustive and perfect knowledge of the decision makers decision and then that He does not have this exhaustive and perfect knowledge. Given that we are able to describe the decision maker's action perfectly without reference to God's foreknowledge, will the behavior differ if the assumptions change from foreknowledge to non-foreknowledge?

Sorry, but I have no idea at all what you are saying.

 

[docrob57]

Sorry, but I have no idea at all what you are saying.

Read it again, it really isn't difficult.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Read it again, it really isn't difficult.

I have read it three times now.

 

[docrob57]

I have read it three times now.

Okay, I will try to approach it from a different angle in the near future. In the meantime, if I do come there next year, would it be possible to meet Pastor Bob and some of the other guys here for dinner or something? I will be happy to buy for Pastor Bob and wife. You, I am sure, will be happy to buy for me.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Okay, I will try to approach it from a different angle in the near future. In the meantime, if I do come there next year, would it be possible to meet Pastor Bob and some of the other guys here for dinner or something? I will be happy to buy for Pastor Bob and wife. You, I am sure, will be happy to buy for me.

It would be our honor!

When we have visitors Bob always makes time to go eat or do something.

Just keep me posted and we will make sure we hook up.