God’s Omniscience and Human Free Will

[lukecash12]

i like lukecash12's answer in post 3

Hey, thanks bro. If you don't mind me asking: where do you personally fall on these issues? Are you an Arminian too?

Soli deo gloria.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Hey, thanks bro. If you don't mind me asking: where do you personally fall on these issues? Are you an Arminian too?

Soli deo gloria.

For what it's worth I also found your answer that Patrick Jane refers to as a good one

 

[Desert Reign]

If God foreknows all future things, then everything has to happen in the way that it is foreknown, then those involved have to participate in the way in which they are foreknown to take part. And if those involved have to participate as foreknown, then they are not free to make choices, thus not accountable for their choices.

God’s perfect foreknowledge seems logically to negate true human freedom. The Reformers recognized this by the following quotation from Luther: “For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it, then on the testimony of reason itself there cannot be any free choice in man or angel or any creature” [Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will, Conclusion].

I agree with the logic behind this. I have said before that Calvinist doctrine is more coherent than Arminianism. It is however the rank repugnance of the Calvinist position that is it's issue.

But all that said, I fail to see how any discussion of God's knowledge can be had without first understanding what we mean by knowledge. For example, when you say 'foreknows all future things', that sounds very vague. What 'things' are we talking about here? Unless people can answer this, I don't see the point in talking about it. And indeed, I believe that discussion will continue to be unfinished and contradictory, as it has been for centuries, for as long as people refuse to grapple with this.

 

[Totton Linnet]

If God foreknows all future things, then everything has to happen in the way that it is foreknown, then those involved have to participate in the way in which they are foreknown to take part. And if those involved have to participate as foreknown, then they are not free to make choices, thus not accountable for their choices.

God’s perfect foreknowledge seems logically to negate true human freedom. The Reformers recognized this by the following quotation from Luther: “For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it, then on the testimony of reason itself there cannot be any free choice in man or angel or any creature” [Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will, Conclusion].

*

I believe Luther's "Bondage of the will" is the most important writing since the apostles.

The church groans and grinds to a halt under "freewill" doctrine, evangelism grinds to halt. The doctrines of God's sovereignty and the doctrines of Free Grace sets God FREE to will and to do of His own good pleasure.

God's good pleasure is to save, to deliver, to heal, to bless and provision men and women...THAT'S who He is, that's what He does.

It is not man's will to be saved, it is God's will...man's will is to flee and hide at the sound of God's call, to cover up his nakedness.

Just a snippet of thought here about the way "freewill" STOPS you from sharing the gospel.

You see the girls on the street corner, the drug addict in the subway, the pimps, the trannies, the homos....you think "there is no way I can convince them of the gospel....these people are lost, these peope are beyond the pale" so you walk on by.

You think it all depends upon them first understanding, then reasoning, then making a decision of their own "freewill"

The bible way is for the gospel to be preached and the Holy Ghost falling upon the hearers......they will cry out if'n the Holy Ghost falls upon them.

 

[Desert Reign]

For what it's worth I also found your answer that Patrick Jane refers to as a good one

The argument that God is outside of time is a cop out. Calvin used it too. Time itself is only a mental construct. If God wants to think of himself as doing things sequentially then why shouldn't he? Asserting that God is outside of time is the same as asserting that he is unable to do anything because 'things' (see my first post) can only exist if they have structures. And events can only exist if they can be distinguished from other events happening before and after them. That is after all what 'event' means.

 

[lukecash12]

The argument that God is outside of time is a cop out. Calvin used it too. Time itself is only a mental construct. If God wants to think of himself as doing things sequentially then why shouldn't he? Asserting that God is outside of time is the same as asserting that he is unable to do anything because 'things' (see my first post) can only exist if they have structures. And events can only exist if they can be distinguished from other events happening before and after them. That is after all what 'event' means.

A good question and some good critiques, thank you. While we might think as if time is one necessary underlying predicate to distinguish events, it is in reality a contingent property of matter.

God, having created everything, is by His very definition not bound by anything contingent to matter. That is why He can observe all of reality without being fettered by tense.

But all that siad, I fail to see how any discussion of God's knowledge can be had without first understanding what we mean by knowledge. For example, when you say 'foreknows all future things', that sounds very vague. What 'things' are we talking about here? Unless people can answer this, I don't see the point in talking about it. And indeed, I believe that discussion will continue to be unfinished and contradictory, as it has been for centuries, for as long as people refuse to grapple with this.

This is your more profound question and critique. Does anything not in the present tense even exist in the first place? How exactly is it that God possesses His knowledge?

In this instance the Scriptures are clear, God says that He is aware of everything, of our thoughts and what will happen in the future. I'll not gainsay His own Word. But I'm sure He doesn't mind my fascination either, as grand as He is.

So we must set scriptural a posteriori reasoning aside for the time being, and consider the problems you pose that are begging for a priori answers outside of those bounds.

How might I approach this? Those "things" that God knows are ontological truths, governing the fundamental nature of reality. Complete knowledge of such truths necessarily entails understanding the changes in reality. Any tense other than the present, in our minds, is merely conceived of changes in reality, sequences in either direction. Rather than "cop-out" with the typical explanation of atemporality, I would posit that complete knowledge of governing truths will by it's very nature allow knowledge of all particulars.

Ontological knowledge in general is more broad than issues like types of causes. How would all encompassing ontological knowledge be obtainable? Through the act of creation itself. Predicates this fundamental would have to be determined exactly in order for there even to be Creation.

 

[bybee]

If God foreknows all future things, then everything has to happen in the way that it is foreknown, then those involved have to participate in the way in which they are foreknown to take part. And if those involved have to participate as foreknown, then they are not free to make choices, thus not accountable for their choices.

God’s perfect foreknowledge seems logically to negate true human freedom. The Reformers recognized this by the following quotation from Luther: “For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it, then on the testimony of reason itself there cannot be any free choice in man or angel or any creature” [Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will, Conclusion].

And, what would be the point of prayer? Why would God want to hear our requests, our pain, our sorrow? Would not prayer then become an irritant? A form of judgment on our part that we don't like what God has done and is doing?

 

[Desert Reign]

How might I approach this? Those "things" that God knows are ontological truths, governing the fundamental nature of reality.

Thank you for answering. However, in order not to let a thread mushroom into lengthy posts with complicated trails, I just want to ask you a specific question about your above statement.

The question is this: Is God real?
Think about it in relation to your above statement. I don't mind you giving me a long answer but I have been deliberately brief just in case the penny drops and you see the light. In case something clicks.

And, what would be the point of prayer? Why would God want to hear our requests, our pain, our sorrow? Would not prayer then become an irritant? A form of judgment on our part that we don't like what God has done and is doing?

An excellent question. It's a simple question asked but it has not been refuted by any Calvinist to my knowledge. The best they can say is that prayer is for our benefit, not God's. I remember Lon for example saying that God testing Abraham was for his benefit, not God's and that God himself was not learning anything. Of course that is the exact opposite of what scripture says. But it's the best they can do.

 

[patrick jane]

The argument that God is outside of time is a cop out. Calvin used it too. Time itself is only a mental construct. If God wants to think of himself as doing things sequentially then why shouldn't he? Asserting that God is outside of time is the same as asserting that he is unable to do anything because 'things' (see my first post) can only exist if they have structures. And events can only exist if they can be distinguished from other events happening before and after them. That is after all what 'event' means.

I find the concept of a timeless God to be logical even though i have no clue how God does it or what it's like. it is a leap of faith among many we take as Christians. i disagree that it's the same as asserting He is unable to do 'anything' or 'things' - God doesn't need the structure(s) that our finite minds need, i imagine.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

If God foreknows all future things, then everything has to happen in the way that it is foreknown, then those involved have to participate in the way in which they are foreknown to take part. And if those involved have to participate as foreknown, then they are not free to make choices, thus not accountable for their choices.

God’s perfect foreknowledge seems logically to negate true human freedom. The Reformers recognized this by the following quotation from Luther: “For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it, then on the testimony of reason itself there cannot be any free choice in man or angel or any creature” [Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will, Conclusion].

This is the way God has convinced me to see things, at least until He convinces me otherwise.

With an assumption that God has foreknowledge.The question then what is that foreknowledge. If the Angels sing when one sinner comes to repentence, have they already sung? Has the story been already been completed and God just is outside the story viewing it for His enjoyment? Or is He inside the story interacting with the story, loving the protaganists, waiting at home for the lost to return.

The word foreknowledge itself lends to the idea that the future has not happened yet. And if God loves the world and wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth the story is not over yet and until the Father says the end is now. There is time for God to be found and known by those He loves.

It is entirely possible for God to see every possible choice, every possible road each and everyone of us could go down all at once, and with work with His Spirit in us and through us to create the love that He so desires to share with each and everyone of us freely.

What a grand lie that our free loving response to such an awesome loving graceful Father could ever detract from His awesomeness. No man can boast about the love lavished upon them or their humble loving response. But man will answer for His prideful rejection.

 

[patrick jane]

Hey, thanks bro. If you don't mind me asking: where do you personally fall on these issues? Are you an Arminian too?

Soli deo gloria.

well there are some beliefs in Calvinism that i can't agree with; i know them when i see/hear them. i haven't studied much on Arminian or Calvinist per se, although i have seen/heard some doctrinal teachings. i have a problem with any doctrine that claims some folks were just born to go to hell. i subscribe to Mid-Acts-Dispensation focusing on Romans-Philemon

 

[popsthebuilder]

And, what would be the point of prayer? Why would God want to hear our requests, our pain, our sorrow? Would not prayer then become an irritant? A form of judgment on our part that we don't like what God has done and is doing?

The point of prayer is to stay under God so as to not veer from his path and presence. You shouldn't pray for desires of the flesh.

 

[Greg Jennings]

The argument that God is outside of time is a cop out. Calvin used it too. Time itself is only a mental construct. If God wants to think of himself as doing things sequentially then why shouldn't he? Asserting that God is outside of time is the same as asserting that he is unable to do anything because 'things' (see my first post) can only exist if they have structures. And events can only exist if they can be distinguished from other events happening before and after them. That is after all what 'event' means.

Physicists would disagree with much of what you've said here about time and I think that God being outside of time would actually make him able to do 'everything' as opposed to 'nothing' but clearly you disagree and that's fine. This is pure ideology. You can't really be wrong

 

[Desert Reign]

Physicists would disagree with much of what you've said here about time

Why?

and I think that God being outside of time would actually make him able to do 'everything' as opposed to 'nothing' but clearly you disagree and that's fine. This is pure ideology. You can't really be wrong

It's not just ideology. It's logic. Physicists would agree with me that causation is a mental construct. Wouldn't you also?

 

[Lon]

If God foreknows all future things, then everything has to happen in the way that it is foreknown, then those involved have to participate in the way in which they are foreknown to take part. And if those involved have to participate as foreknown, then they are not free to make choices,

True to this point BUT we must define free between us. What you and I mean by it are very different concepts, I believe. I am not 'free' of gravity though I may defy it.

]...thus not accountable for their choices.

Culpability≠ Freewill by any necessity. It is just 1 way that culpability 'can' exist. For instance, I 'can' defy the laws of gravity but that doesn't mean I am 'free' from it. I am culpable to gravity and thus, will pay dues according to its laws (culpability) even though "I cannot be free (freewill equivocation) from it." Therefore (hopefully) I've demonstrated that freewill is not necessary for culpability. Rather, a disregard/rejection of gravity laws and principles, demands a set of ensuing consequences.

Even further, I was born with a specific lifespan. I cannot exceed that lifespan because I have no 'will' over that limitation.

The idea of 'freewill' comes from a system of 'punishment' as if God has to enact a punishment for our exercise of will and while scripture certainly does include such a notion, it is, imho, clearer that there are consequences (cause/effect) to sin. As such, we are 'free' about something, true, but not about everything and this is the categorical mistake, I believe that ensues and confuses on any freewill discussion. I do not believe we have an uncategorical freewill. We have only semblances of freedom for will consideration, apart from an action/consequential necessary structure, imho.

God’s perfect foreknowledge seems logically to negate true human freedom.

Yes it does. You are correct, but note the difference between our understandings of the will as pertaining to freedom. It does need discussion because our 'conclusions' over that matter are different, not the observation. IOW, we are coming away from what you just said as true, with different ideas of what 'negation of free will' means. I believe you are seeing it as a 'removal' of what exists in you and I am seeing it as a removal of a faulty idea that never existed in the first place.

The Reformers recognized this by the following quotation from Luther: “For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it, then on the testimony of reason itself there cannot be any free choice in man or angel or any creature” [Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will, Conclusion].

"Free" here is the difficult point to make, and make proper sense of, for we go separate ways, all of us, in conclusions over the matter of the statement.

Again, I will go away thinking my 'concept of what I thought existed, but never did' had to be corrected. You or another will come away thinking the statement from Luther cannot be true because of an embraced idea of freewill as an actual existence by self-evidentiary conclusion.

I DO think/believe that "no freewill" is counter-intuitive to finite fallen man. I had a great war within over this matter because of it. I intuited my libertarian freewill as most of us do. Scripture reading over a long period of time changed that perception for me. Because this discussion is so deeply ingrained, in us, it is not my desire to argue the case but give hopefully, helpful indicators towards meaningful answers and point back to scripture that call us to 'deny ourselves (freewill) and take up our cross daily' as well as remembering "(we) are not our own, we were bought with a price." Such notions run counter-intuitive to libertarian freewill, but I believe God necessitates that we wrestle often over the matter in prayerful consideration and as such, I believe this is one of the most important OP discussions we can have between believers on TOL.

In Him,

Lon

 

[Lon]

Something I've always been curious about: if God is omniscient and knows the future then why was the flood necessary? Shouldn't he have seen man's depravity coming and done something before it got so bad that he had to wipe everyone out? The same goes for Adam and Eve. He should have known that they were going to eat from the tree right?

Good question but it doesn't negate the counsel of God. That is, whether the question is answerable or not, doesn't really mean anything one way or the other, HOWEVER your question has assumptions in it such as "shouldn't" "then why" and "He should have..." that must be addressed to correct your line of questioning and thinking prior to addressing the main question.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Why?



It's not just ideology. It's logic. Physicists would agree with me that causation is a mental construct. Wouldn't you also?

A minority of physicists would yes. These same physicists believe that all points in time throughout history lie together and that our senses construct timelines to make sense of this. But most consider time to be intertwined with space in a 4 dimensional construct known as space-time. This idea was formulated by Einstein himself. This is where the possibility of things like wormholes become physically possible: by bending and warping space-time to travel distances that are light years apart in mere moments.

 

[Desert Reign]

A minority of physicists would yes. These same physicists believe that all points in time throughout history lie together and that our senses construct timelines to make sense of this.

I don't buy that.

But most consider time to be intertwined with space in a 4 dimensional construct known as space-time. This idea was formulated by Einstein himself.

Sure, I go along wth that. But.
1) I was referring to quantum theory, suggesting that macro events of cause-effect are indeed mental constructs, whilst the reality is of myriad randomly generated quantum events.
2) 4d Space-time is itself a construct. All Einstein is saying is that because light is the reference speed, then all other movement (and communication) is relative. The 4d space-time is just a visual tool that helps some people visualise the effect of relativity.
In reality, time itself is a construct, not because events do not happen sequentially but because they do! Time doesn't flow at 1 hour per hour. It is just an agreement we all make so that we get to work at the same time and so that we can say that the train is late or we arrived early. Clocks don't measure time because time doesn't exist. I am sure that Einstein would agree with this. 4D space time does not mean that time is a physical dimension of the universe. The reason why we are able to conceive of time is that the universe is homogeneous. The same kind of clock works in the same way in one place as it does in another. And give or take a micro-second or three, the Earth rotates at the same speed every day.

I find the concept of a timeless God to be logical even though i have no clue how God does it or what it's like. it is a leap of faith among many we take as Christians. i disagree that it's the same as asserting He is unable to do 'anything' or 'things' - God doesn't need the structure(s) that our finite minds need, i imagine.

You seem to be stating that God is imaginary. Surely, if God is real (see my question posed earlier), then there should be something you could say about him that is straightforward and unqualified.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

A minority of physicists would yes. These same physicists believe that all points in time throughout history lie together and that our senses construct timelines to make sense of this. But most consider time to be intertwined with space in a 4 dimensional construct known as space-time. This idea was formulated by Einstein himself. This is where the possibility of things like wormholes become physically possible: by bending and warping space-time to travel distances that are light years apart in mere moments.

Man's feeble attempt to define what we do, and have done and will do. No doubt we are doing something and that is the point. In "our intelligence" we think we can figure things out but we see that even time is relative. But at the end of the day it will come down to our defintions, our perception of the truth and what is the truth? What really is real? I personally have been whole heartedly convinced there is much more than meets the eye.

 

[Greg Jennings]

I don't buy that.


Sure, I go along wth that. But.
1) I was referring to quantum theory, suggesting that macro events of cause-effect are indeed mental constructs, whilst the reality is of myriad randomly generated quantum events.
2) 4d Space-time is itself a construct. All Einstein is saying is that because light is the reference speed, then all other movement (and communication) is relative. The 4d space-time is just a visual tool that helps some people visualise the effect of relativity.
In reality, time itself is a construct, not because events do not happen sequentially but because they do! Time doesn't flow at 1 hour per hour. It is just an agreement we all make so that we get to work at the same time and so that we can say that the train is late or we arrived early. Clocks don't measure time because time doesn't exist. I am sure that Einstein would agree with this. 4D space time does not mean that time is a physical dimension of the universe. The reason why we are able to conceive of time is that the universe is homogeneous. The same kind of clock works in the same way in one place as it does in another. And give or take a micro-second or three, the Earth rotates at the same speed every day.

I think we're more or less on the same page. Just using different language