The possibility of Omniscience and Free Will

[mattrose]

God knows the choice that you ultimately end up making because He is omniscient; that choice is real not only when you make it but also when it is established at Creation in eternity in God's Mind.

At least 3 people have now tried to explain to you the 2 different senses of 'real' (and/or 'choice) involved in this conversation, but you just keep re-stating your position with the same confusing language.

Something things are 'real possibilities' in the sense that they could happen in the future
Some things are 'real actualities' in the sense that they have come into existence in the past or present

We all seem to be in agreement that God knows all the 'real possibilities'
We all seem to be in agreement that possibilities are not actualities

The only remaining problem is that you are insisting on language that makes it sound like possibilities are actualities. I find that strange, but not overly important since we are in essential agreement about the basics. You are, in my opinion, an open theist... just not one I would select as a spokesmen for the position since you are a) seemingly uncomfortable with the label and b) unswervingly confusing in your communication of that position.

[Homer]

Just reading John since this thread came up:

John 18:4, New American Standard Bible (NASB)

4. So Jesus, knowing all the things that were coming upon Him, went forth and *said to them, “Whom do you seek?”

So it appears that Jesus knew in complete detail what was going to happen to Him. If we are to posit that He only knew the possibilities, then there must have been a great number of things that could have happened. For example, Pilate could have released Jesus and crucified Barabbas. Seems to me that merely knowing the possibilities puts Jesus on the same level as the rest of the crowd. But Jesus knowledge of "all the things" included Peter's denials of Him. Open Theism is coming up a bit short IMO.

[Paidion]

John 18:4, New American Standard Bible (NASB)

4. So Jesus, knowing all the things that were coming upon Him, went forth and *said to them, “Whom do you seek?”

So it appears that Jesus knew in complete detail what was going to happen to Him. If we are to posit that He only knew the possibilities, then there must have been a great number of things that could have happened. For example, Pilate could have released Jesus and crucified Barabbas. Seems to me that merely knowing the possibilities puts Jesus on the same level as the rest of the crowd. But Jesus knowledge of "all the things" included Peter's denials of Him. Open Theism is coming up a bit short IMO.

Well, in my opinion this argument comes up a bit short.
First of all, the primary meaning of "ειδω" is to perceive with the eyes, and later came to mean to perceive in any sense.
The immediately preceding verses read:
2 Now Judas, who betrayed him, also knew the place, for Jesus often met there with his disciples.
3 So Judas, having procured a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons.

Now if you had lived in those days, and knew that someone had betrayed you and accused you of crime, who then showed up with a band of soldiers and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, carrying weapons, even you might perceive that you were going to be arrested. If you were aware of the Roman manner of dealing with criminals with crucifixion, you would also perceive that you going to be crucified. So it is not surprising Jesus perceived all (not "all the things" as per NASB) that was coming upon Him , including His crucifixion. This type of perception or "knowledge" is not "knowing" in the absolute sense of the word "know", and hardly requires omniscience.

[Homer]

Paidion,

So how did Jesus "perceive" that Pilate would decide the way he did and that Peter would deny Him three times? Are you saying He did not perceive "all", but only some?

[kenblogton]

Reply to mattrose
The only remaining problem is that you are insisting on language that makes it sound like possibilities are actualities.
All human moral choice possibilities are real and actual in Eternity. In the physical world, only the possibility chosen or actualized is real. Eternity is more real than the physical universe, which was created by God and will ultimately pass away.
kenblogton

[mattrose]

Reply to mattrose
The only remaining problem is that you are insisting on language that makes it sound like possibilities are actualities.
All human moral choice possibilities are real and actual in Eternity. In the physical world, only the possibility chosen or actualized is real. Eternity is more real than the physical universe, which was created by God and will ultimately pass away.
kenblogton

Haha, well that makes it sound like, in the end, all of our actual choices will become obsolete and will be replaced with multiple parallel spiritual realities!

And if you disagree with THAT, you need to start disagreeing with your own choice of language!

Bottom line: Choice possibilities are 'real possibilities' NOT 'real actualities.'

[kenblogton]

Reply to mattrose
Haha, well that makes it sound like, in the end, all of our actual choices will become obsolete and will be replaced with multiple parallel spiritual realities!
If the only possibility that's real in Eternity is the one you end up making, then there is no free will. All the possibilities must be real in Eternity for free will to exist. Because it doesn't happen in the physical universe doesn't make it not real.
kenblogton

[steve]

Ken,

Where are you reading of this other realm called "eternity"? Is this a place outside the physical world? Where is it? How do you know about its existence and its properties (e.g., that all possible choices are real there)? I am just curious, because you are making fairly confident statements, and, since I know of no biblical information on the subject, I wondered where you are getting your information.

[mattrose]

Reply to mattrose
Haha, well that makes it sound like, in the end, all of our actual choices will become obsolete and will be replaced with multiple parallel spiritual realities!
If the only possibility that's real in Eternity is the one you end up making, then there is no free will. All the possibilities must be real in Eternity for free will to exist. Because it doesn't happen in the physical universe doesn't make it not real.
kenblogton

Again, you keep switching back and forth in your use of language!

Here you are saying the "Possibilities" are real in God's mind. I agree. They are real possibilities!

Before you were making it sound like they are actualities.

I suspect this back and forth will continue forever if I continue

[Paidion]

So how did Jesus "perceive" that Pilate would decide the way he did and that Peter would deny Him three times?

Well, let's take the "three times" denial. But before we do, let's consider the twice crowing of the rooster. Did Jesus "know" that the rooster would crow twice and then Peter would deny him? Did He "know" this "precise detail"? According to Mark 14:30, that's what Jesus verbally predicted. And according to Mark 14:72, that is exactly what happened.

But this "precise detail" is a bit different according to Matthew 26:34. That record indicates that Jesus said "before the rooster crows" (nothing about two times). And Matthew records in 26:74 simply that "the rooster crowed" (nothing about crowing twice). Similarly, Luke simply has the rooster crowing—nothing about two times.

Let's face it. After the memoirs of Christ were written many years after the events occurred. It is difficult to remember details such as how many times the rooster crowed before Peter denied Christ. Matthew, having been one of Christ's disciples doubtless wrote the story as he remembered it. Mark got his information from Peter. Perhaps Peter remembered Christ as having said "twice" or perhaps Mark forgot what Peter said, and wrote "twice" . Luke got his information from Paul, who wasn't even one of the twelve. So we see there is a lot of room for variation in all three accounts. Indeed, the four memoirs of Christ differ in other details as well. It is the mark of good historical records of an event. Details are perceived differently by various historians. If all details were exactly the same in all four memoirs, one might suspect that the stories were contrived.

My guess is that since Peter clearly knew that he had denied Christ three times, he thus "remembered" Christ as having said, "Before the rooster crowed (or crowed twice), you will deny me three times." But perhaps Peter didn't remember accurately. Possibly Christ simply said, "Before the rooster crows you will deny me."

Christ knew how impetuous Peter was, Peter who had been his disciple for so long, Peter who had affirmed that though all others would forsake Christ, he would never forsake Him. Jesus was also especially perceptive of people. "He knew (or 'perceived') what was in man" (John 2:25). I think Jesus was saying in effect, "Before tomorrow dawns, you will deny me." This was a prediction, a prediction which turned out to be reality. It was not absolute forknowledge of what John, a free-will agent, would choose.