Did God know?

[Guest]

Can God be omnicient to the extent omnicience is possible but maybe even omnicience has limits. For example did'nt God many times in scripture say he regreted doing this or that such as making man when he created the flood to wipe out almost all of mankind. We assume when God says he regrets things that he is speaking in a way that man can relate to. Maybe he just means what he says and if he does regret something than apparently the outcome was unexpected.

[Guest]

"Can God be omnicient to the extent omnicience is possible but maybe even omnicience has limits."

If you can say that, I don't know why Calvinism presents an obstacle for you, that's a more fantastic inconsistancy than I could ever be accused of mouthing.

"For example didn't God many times in scripture say he regreted doing this or that such as making man when he created the flood to wipe out almost all of mankind."

Regret for God is not regret for man. God changes course, intentionally, it amounts to "regretting" his previous course. For God to plan a course change, execute it and go a different direction is not the same as us realizing we were wrong and deciding to do something different.

"Prakk- After reading some of your posts, I thought you might give some more insightful discussion. I hope you still will. You have everything to prove with your position philosophically. Biblically, I would be curious to see your treatment on Romans 5. I have yet to find an honest Calvinist with this passage. Please enlighten me if you can."

Specificly what about Romans 5 do you wish me to address? As far as the brevity of my posting goes, it is because my position is simple. God authored it all, God purposed it all, God does it all. God disposes of the refuse at the judgment, those are the vessels of wrath. Creation is corrupted (and yes this was intended) and also must be destroyed. This includes our bodies, the last foothold of sin in the redeemed. All will be made new, we will live in perfection, know God's glory, and see graphicly that there can be no alternative. Here's an interesting thought;

"If you want to read an interesting take on the nature of free will, read Protector by Larry Niven. Most people don't realize it, but Niven is directly coupling the concept of omniscience to a lack of free will. IOW - the smarter you are, the fewer actual choices you have - free will is a function of stupidity." http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2004/1 ... wrate=1#12

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

Prakk, Being a calvinist you must answer the way you do or you would'nt be a calvinist. In fact you are predestined to answer the way you answer,since you have no choice in the matter. However i'd like to try to apply a little critical thinking to the flood. If God predestines man to sin and then is apparently distressed about the sin man committs that God predestined man to committ ,so much so that God wipes out almost all of humanity with the flood than what is the purpose of the flood. Because a few verses later after the flood God again repeats that man is evil despite he had just wiped out man for that very reason.
So if God is omniscient in the sense of seeing the future in every detail why did he wipe man out since he foreknew man would again be evil? It seems possible that if free will is to be really free it might not be subject to total predictability at all. Free will may mean that man may not actually know what his choice may be because it simply may not be known at all because the decision has'nt been made yet. God knows the probabilities and the liklehood of what man will do but maybe an unmade choice is not knowable yet because that knowledge base has'nt been created yet.

[Guest]

What's the big deal with this? We had a dog for years who was very predictable in his response in many situations. My knowledge of what he would do did not affect his free will.

The "big deal" is that your "knowledge" of what your dog would do was not knowledge, and thus is an entirely different matter. You were able to predict what your dog would do, based on previous observations, but you didn't know what your dog would do. For to know what your dog would do would imply that he would in fact do that. So it could not have been otherwise. That is my whole point. That it is not logically possible to know in advance what a free will agent will choose.

Paidion and Prakk- It would mean more to me and have a much higher chance of getting me to consider your positional thoughts to have you actually respond to the points in my posts that I believe deserve some treatment rather than simply showing me that you can use the cut and paste function to a single quote and then tell me that you don't agree.

Your most recent long post about the attributes of God, simply affirming that he knows in advance what everyone will choose, and your refences to Calvinism, etc. are entirely irrelevant to the argument about knowldedge and free will which I have been presenting. My argument does not depend upon the attributes of God. It depends upon logic. Of course, God is omniscient. I have never denied that. God knows everything that is logically possible to know. But it is not logically possible to know in advance what a free will agent will choose.

I also believe that God is omnipotent. He can do anything that is possible to do. But He cannot create a stone so large that He can't lift it. For that idea is self-contradictory.

Statements about the future where they involve free will agents have no truth value prior to the predicted event. The statement that person X will lift his hand at time T is NOW neither true nor false. Why? Because if the statement is now true, then X cannot refrain from raising his hand at time T. If the statement is now false, then X cannot raise his hand at time T. Either way, X does not have the free will to raise his hand or refrain from raising his hand. But X DOES have the free will to do either. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that the statement that X will raise his hand at time T is now neither true nor false.

This logical conclusion would be incorrect if anyone knew that X would raise his hand at time T. For someone's forknowledge of this, would imply the statement that X will raise his hand at time T is now true.

[Guest]

My argument does not depend upon the attributes of God. It depends upon logic. Of course, God is omniscient. I have never denied that. God knows everything that is logically possible to know. But it is not logically possible to know in advance what a free will agent will choose.

This seems like a human limitation hoisted upon God. It is possible to know what a free will agent will do in the future when you know the beginning from the end. Especially if God is outside of time itself.

[Guest]

Praak- Romans 5:12-21. These verses appear hard for a non-calvinist system. I would like to hear your exegesis.

Paidion- I'm trying to follow your train of thought. I like you believe that God cannot violate himself. I.e. it is impossible that God could create a rock too big for him to lift. Likewise, I believe that he can't not know everything either potential or actually decreed into existance.

If free-will is defined as God not knowing something that someone will do then I agree with you that this is impossible, God knows all things, but I am confused about why you think it is logically impossible for God to create beings that retain some element of free will. Why does "free-will" have to be not known by God. Why can't free will exist for agent X and be known by agent Y. It's seems that you believe that God knowing something necessates him doing something. Am I wrong? If I am right, you'll have to explain why you think this is the logical case. Given your presuppostion of free-will only having merit as long as no one knows what it is- does give your argument a logical consistency, but if the premises is untrue, then the argument while having a perfect deduction leads to an incorrect conclusion.

It seems that God works both actively and passively, (i.e directly himself and indirectly through others real actions) to accomplish everything he wants. Both are known by him, one he knew he would do actively, (i.e. part the red sea) the other things he knew he would work through, (i.e. pontious pilate making his decisions). God knew everything available to him if he decided to create men with the ability to choose. He knew every possible scenrio out of the infinite amount of scenrios available to him. He knew what would happen if he intervened in any of these worlds. If God knows it then it is certain, it is true. It will certainly be true, if he were to create it.

I still don't see the logical problem in believing that God can know exactly what I will certainly do but also give me the will to choose which way. The scripture seems to embrace the fact that God chooses to relate to mankind in their realm of choice that He sovereignly decided to grant them. I.e. cain and abel that was brought up earlier on the board. God knowing that cain would choose his way doesn't philosophically determine that God is the one that activly caused it through cain. God permited it and knew it after He talked with cain. God knew that he would talk to cain and inform cain and also knew that cain would go about his business. God creating the world knowing all these things, doesn't make him the author in the sense of responsibilty. The fact that God holds cain in account and yet knows what cain will do, is the foundational philosophical proof that God knowing doesn't mean that He causes all things.

Can you answer my question above. What is your view on God's foreknowledge in relation to his causation.

[Guest]

It is possible to know what a free will agent will do in the future when you know the beginning from the end.

Well, I have proved logically that it is impossible to know what a free will agent will do. If you still can't see it, that' all right. Perhaps you have an emotional need to believe that God can do the illogical. I know God can do the impossible, that is, do what man does not have the power to do. But doing the illogical just doesn't make sense.

Statements about the future where free will agents are concerned have no present truth value. I think I have clearly shown this to be the case. I can do no more.

But since I notice many people referring to the Scripture "God knows the end from the beginning", as if it meant that He knows the future as well as the present, I think it would be wise to consider that statement in its context.

Isaiah 46:9,10 ... remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’

The underlined words in the quote reveal the true meaning. God has plans and purposes. He will accomplish them, and nothing can stop Him! He will accomplish all His purpose no matter what people choose. For example, He purposed to send his Son to instruct us, and to die for us. Satan tried to prevent it through Herod who ordered that all children two years of age and under be killed. But God accomplished His purpose notwithstanding.

So God is able to declare things which He has not yet done before He does it, because nothing can prevent Him from carrying out His plans. He is God!

This is a matter quite different from knowing in advance what a free will agent will choose, and declaring that. That is not to say that God is unable to predict what a free will agent will choose. When my oldest son was two years old, I could have predicted that if I had said, "Jamie, come here," he would have come. I might have even said "I know Jamie will come if I tell him to." But I didn't KNOW in the absolute sense of "knowing". I knew only in a weaker sense, that didn't require that he would necessarily come. For he didn't have to come. He had a free will.
Now God KNOWS everything about us. He KNOWS our every thought. He is omniscient! He KNOWS everything that is possible to know! So He is in a far better position to correctly predict what a free will agent will choose that a mere human being is. And He may even inspire a prophet to prophesy accordingly. But it's still a prediction; it's not KNOWLEDGE in the absolute sense. When God looked at the hearts and minds of the Ninevites, it appeared that they would never repent. So He prophesied through Jonah, "Forty days and Ninevah shall be destroyed." This was an unconditional prophecy. But the Ninevites, through their own free will did the unexpected. They repented. So God did not carry out his intention. He did not destroy the city.

[Guest]

"Romans 5:12-21. These verses appear hard for a non-calvinist system. I would like to hear your exegesis."

I don't do addresses Paul. If these verses support your position, quote them on screen for all to see, make your claim about what they say and we can discuss those claims. I'm not being obstinate in this regard. I have been in too many debates where verse addresses are slung around as if they are arguments. The result is the other side of the debate ends up framing his opponents question as part of his reply. That's a lot of work and it's generally fruitless work as well. The reply is usually another fusillade of chapters and verses.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

Prakk,

Paul informs us (Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22) that whatever effect Adam had on mankind Christ has precisely reversed. Through Adam, all die a physical death, through Christ, all will be resurrected. Through Adam, all inherit a sinful nature, through Christ, all can be set free.

If you disagree, please explain these scriptures.

In Christ, Homer

[Guest]

Prakk,

Paul informs us (Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22) that whatever effect Adam had on mankind Christ has precisely reversed. Through Adam, all die a physical death, through Christ, all will be resurrected. Through Adam, all inherit a sinful nature, through Christ, all can be set free.

If you disagree, please explain these scriptures.

In Christ, Homer

Homer,

I could be wrong but aren’t these scriptures directed to, “…those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ”; “to all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints” AND “To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours” (Rom 1:6), (Rom 1:7), (1 Cor 1:2) respectively.

I read these letters by Paul to the believers in Rome and Corinth much the same way a coach might speak to a football team. The coach is only speaking to members of a specific team; however he references them as ALL. “We are all going to come back from half time and win” --- he is only speaking to those that are members of the team; all cannot mean for example members from the other team.

Within the context of the complete letters, Paul is speaking to “those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ. He tells them in 1 Cor 15:21-22, that ALL men will be made alive. He certainly could not be saying that all men on earth will be made alive for we know not all are saved. He is saying ALL of those he is specifically addressing, “To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours”

1MansView