The Narrow Path Ministries

Hi Robby,you wrote: For instance, believing in miracles is a “sound position” but they’re also a prime example of irrational/illogical processes to our realm of existence; because, they break every law or rule known to man. I contend the supernatural is irrational against the known laws of the universe, but aren’t they nevertheless still true?

No! Miracles are not irrational/illogical, even though they are contrary to the laws of nature. Here is an example of illogic:
Can God create a stone so large that He can' t lift it? In no way does it deny God's omnipotence to affirm that He CANNOT create such a stone.

Similarly, in no way does it deny God's omniscience to affirm that He CANNOT know in advance what a free-will agent will choose.

For example if God HAD known in advance that Joe was going to eat Food A at Time T then Joe could not have refrained from eating Food A at Time T. For if Joe HAD refrained from eating Food A at TimeT, then God did not know that Joe WOULD eat Food A at time T.

From the OP:

If God has a total and exhaustive knowledge of the future, if he knows every single thing that will come to pass, how can man do anything but act in a way that fulfills God's foreknowledge?

I think we start off this whole discussion with a flawed idea. It isn't that man can't, it is that he will not. God simply foresaw the free choice. God's foreknowledge does not cause the decision.

Years ago we had a dog. On the north side side of our property is a long lane down to a home about 1000 feet behind us and on the south side is a driveway for another neighbor. The neighbors on the south side could come and go as they pleased and our dog paid no attention. The neighbor who used the lane on the north side, however, had sheep dogs and every time they drove by our dog chased along the fence barking furiously at their dogs, who barked back of course. Our dog never failed to respond in this manner, and he would even head for the fence as soon as the neighbors got in their pick up 1000 feet away.

Regarding our dog I could foresee his behavior without fail. But my foreknowledge of what he would do was not a cause for his behavior; he was free to do as he pleased but he acted in accord with his nature. Now it might be argued that I did not infallibly know what the dog would do. Let's say my foreknowledge would be accurate only 99.9% of the time. Would I then cause the dog to chase after and bark at the neighbor 99.9% of the time? This is absurd but doesn't it follow the "logic" of the quoted sentence?

How much more can an infinite God know what our choices will be!

Paidion wrote:

Hi Robby,you wrote: For instance, believing in miracles is a “sound position” but they’re also a prime example of irrational/illogical processes to our realm of existence; because, they break every law or rule known to man. I contend the supernatural is irrational against the known laws of the universe, but aren’t they nevertheless still true?

No! Miracles are not irrational/illogical, even though they are contrary to the laws of nature. Here is an example of illogic:
Can God create a stone so large that He can' t lift it? In no way does it deny God's omnipotence to affirm that He CANNOT create such a stone.

Similarly, in no way does it deny God's omniscience to affirm that He CANNOT know in advance what a free-will agent will choose.

For example if God HAD known in advance that Joe was going to eat Food A at Time T then Joe could not have refrained from eating Food A at Time T. For if Joe HAD refrained from eating Food A at TimeT, then God did not know that Joe WOULD eat Food A at time T.

Hi Paidion,

Sorry, but I disagree with your understanding of logic concerning miracles. Miracles are in no way logical in light of our known laws of the universe. For example, a virgin giving birth outside of natural copulation is not logical! Moreover, as you rightly state, God cannot deny Himself (2 Tim 2:13); which probably should end that discussion. So then, one's perspective is tantamount to one's realm of existence that can prove empirical knowledge inherent to supernatural or natural claims. Again, determinism, as described by the OP, is supernatural and cannot be conflated with natural logic. If true, you can no more explain this reality any more than you can rationally explain a virgin giving birth, especially without people saying you're delusional. This is why the preferred Christian noun is "faith"; because although irrational, the belief in the supernatural subordinates our limited understanding of virgins giving birth. In other words, "the how" is unclear, but the fact is self evident!

If the OP has evidence of God's determinism, then, determinism is supernatural and defies man's logical understanding of the natural world. Lack of understanding or logical thinking doesn't make a thing untrue, especially when it applies to the spiritual realm (e.g. the virgin birth).

Blessings!

Hi Robby,
Events happening contrary to the usual natural laws, may be unique or in some cases never occur at all. But they are not illogical in the way that logicians employ the word "logic."
Christ's birth was indeed miraculous, and is probably the only birth that ever occurred without male semen being involved. But that birth is not illogical in the sense that there is anything inherently contradictory about it. That is the sense in which I am using the word "illogical."

I recall the one year I attended a Bible School, the teacher dealt with the question, "Can God create a stone so large that He can't lift it"? His answer was, "Contradictions are not objects of power." It makes no sense to even consider the question, since it is inherently contradictory for an all-powerful Being to create a stone that He cannot lift. Therefore it would be illogical to propose that God COULD create such a stone. But, unlike the Large-Stone question, there's nothing illogical, or self-contradictory at all about a virgin birth. It is simply contrary to the laws of nature.

I affirm that anyone knowing in advance what a free-will agent will choose, is inherently contradictory for the reasons I gave in my last post. It's not that it's merely against the laws of nature. It's as contradictory as saying, "This object is heavier than ten pounds, and it is also lighter than 10 pounds" (assuming you are using the words in their usual sense).

Let me ask you this. If John knows that you will raise your hand at 10 tomorrow morning, and you don't raise your hand at 10 tomorrow morning, would you not conclude that John DIDN'T know that you would raise your hand at that time? Would your conclusion be any different if the word "God" were substituted for "John"?

However, if John (or anyone else) truly knows that you will raise your hand at 10 tomorrow morning, then you WILL raise your hand at 10 tomorrow morning. You CANNOT refrain from raising it. How could it be otherwise? For you don't raise it, it follows that John didn't know. It's not that John's knowledge CAUSES you to raise your hand. The only rational conclusion is that the future choices of free-will agents cannot be known in advance.

Question for the open theist:

Jeremiah 1:5 (NASB)
5. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Didn't Jeremiah's conception involve the actions of free will agents? How could God even know prior to their actions there would even be a Jeremiah, let alone know him?

Paidion wrote:... there's nothing illogical, or self-contradictory at all about a virgin birth. It is simply contrary to the laws of nature.

Hello again my friend,

How can you say it's not contradictory and then say it is contrary? The only way to justify this statement is through dichotomization of the supernatural and natural, which is what I'm proposing. Virgins giving birth IS NOT contradictory in the supernatural realm; however, it is altogether illogical in the natural world. From our perspective, conflation of the two realms requires both faith (regarding the supernatural) and empirical evidence that substantiates the natural world order to appreciate higher knowledge, purpose, and sovereignty at odds with our limited understanding.

Paidion wrote:I affirm that anyone knowing in advance what a free-will agent will choose, is inherently contradictory...

That's the problem, God isn't just "anyone". Again, conflating man's limited knowledge with God's omnipotent actions affecting our world to ascertain worldly logic, on our part, is problematic. This most always contradicts God's Word on the matter: Isaiah 55:8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

Paidion wrote:Let me ask you this. If John knows that you will raise your hand at 10 tomorrow morning, and you don't raise your hand at 10 tomorrow morning, would you not conclude that John DIDN'T know that you would raise your hand at that time? Would your conclusion be any different if the word "God" were substituted for "John"?

However, if John (or anyone else) truly knows that you will raise your hand at 10 tomorrow morning, then you WILL raise your hand at 10 tomorrow morning. You CANNOT refrain from raising it. How could it be otherwise? For you don't raise it, it follows that John didn't know. It's not that John's knowledge CAUSES you to raise your hand. The only rational conclusion is that the future choices of free-will agents cannot be known in advance.

Me knowing or not knowing something in advance is irrelevant to what God ultimately knows. Why? Because He's supernatural and I'm not. Just because my freedoms are known, by Him, doesn't make me any less a free-will agent. God interjects Himself all the time in the affairs of men, especially affecting and effecting their choices and motivations. There are numerous accounts of this in His Word. Being uncomfortable to the notion of supreme knowledge that invades our finite understanding in no way negates the veracity of the OP's determinism inquiry. We will probably have to agree to disagree on this one my brother. I personally feel better off that God foreknew me from the beginning to the end. Without Him interfering in my life, I would have never freely choose to serve Him. But He knew that, didn't He?

Blessings!

Okay, Robby. I respect and admire your courteous attitude toward those with whom you disagree.

Si wrote:

Paidion wrote:I understand you, Si, but I think Homer would say that God even though God knew in advance all the evil choices that have made, that foreknowledge does not make God responsible for those evil choices. And I agree. If God COULD know in advance people's choices (which I believe to be logically impossible) that wouldn't imply that His foreknowledge CAUSED those choices.

If someone believes God is the first cause of all creation, and believes in meticulous foreknowledge, I don't see how it is logically possible to believe in anything but God as the cause of all events that come to pass. I don't see how you can possibly separate the two logically. Either God allows for there to be true forks in the road, where we can choose to go left or right, or else everything was set in stone the first moment, and all of our choices are illusions.

Question for you Si: Which of the following two scenarios do you believe is more difficult to accept logically:

1) "At the time of creation, God foreknew what would happen, yet is not responsible for all that happens." (non-Calvinist position)

2) "God controls 100% of the choices a man makes, yet man is 100% responsible for the choices he makes and punishable for them". (Calvinist position)

At a glance both seem very difficult to accept, but...

With regard to #1 my opinion is that the creation events are so singularly unfathomable to us (we being part of that creation) that we may never know all nuances and effects that follow from them. Therefore the difficulty we may have fathoming how God could foreknow without controlling everything I simply can chalk up to our own limited understanding of the creation events. Throw in the fact that I'm not completely convinced that God has meticulous foreknowledge of the future, and I simply don't have the same trouble reconciling the concept that a Calvinist seems to want to have.

But with regard to #2, there seem to be no possible "outs" so to speak. If a man can do nothing other than what God has ordained that he do, then it is logically impossible that he has free will. Nor could God possibly hold him responsible for his actions, get frustrated over his actions, and ultimately send the man to hell for doing that which he could not possibly have done differently.

As you urged in previous post, the above leaves out scriptural references and focuses on logic. So I'd ask out of curiosity, on a scale of 1-10, how difficult is it logically to accept the claim of #1 vs. the claim of #2. To me, #1 is about a 6/10, whereas #2 is 10/10. That would make the claim of #2 utterly invalid. But anything less than a 10 at least leaves the door open to validity. If you think the claim of #2 is easier to accept than the claim of #1, I'd be very interested your thoughts on that.

Robby wrote:

Paidion wrote:
... there's nothing illogical, or self-contradictory at all about a virgin birth. It is simply contrary to the laws of nature.

"Hello again my friend,

How can you say it's not contradictory and then say it is contrary? The only way to justify this statement is through dichotomization of the supernatural and natural, which is what I'm proposing. Virgins giving birth IS NOT contradictory in the supernatural realm; however, it is altogether illogical in the natural world. From our perspective, conflation of the two realms requires both faith (regarding the supernatural) and empirical evidence that substantiates the natural world order to appreciate higher knowledge, purpose, and sovereignty at odds with our limited understanding."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The difference is that God could not miraculously create a stone so heavy that He could not lift it, nor could he miraculously create a square circle. He cannnot miraculously create something that is internally illogical (not sure if internal is the right word there).

However, there is nothing internally illogical about miracles we see in scripture. God certainly has the power to part the Red Sea, or cause manna to fall from heaven, or raise a person from the dead. But he couldn't part the Red Sea while still leaving it unparted, and He could not cause manna to fall while leaving it in the sky, and he can't raise someone from the dead who is already alive.

Thanks, TK. You understand!

And I might add, "...and He can't know in advance what a free-will agent will do." That's also "internally illogical," since either the "free-will agent" does not have free will, or if he does have free will, then no one can know in advance what he will choose. It doesn't make any difference to the logical impossibility of it who that person is; this is just as logically inconsistent, even if that person is God.