Interaction with perfect foreknowledge?

Nathon Detroit · Jun 28, 2005

Thanks Shimei and logos, to be honest, there is a ton more that can be said on this topic and I can't wait to dig into it even more! I think there is something incredibly important about this topic of God's personal interaction with man. More to follow!

Lion · Jun 28, 2005

I love the argument, Knight.

And let me throw in another element. If God has exhaustive foreknowledge, when He decided to intervene in our affairs, did that change His foreknowledge, or did it stay the same?

In other words, did God decide to send His Son in the flesh to save us before He knew we would need Him? Or did He instead see the outcome of everyone going to hell because of our sin, and then decide to send a savior? Either way, it seems like His exhaustive foreknowledge would have had to change. Either He had already known that we would need a savior from eternity past, or He had to know that we were all going to hell from eternity past.

Both options seem ridiculous. The OV option (in conjunction with Knight's theory) would state a more logical supposition. That God knew we might sin, hoped we wouldn't and tried to warn us against it, but planned ahead in case we did anyway.

Nathon Detroit · Jul 5, 2005

This thread had gone off topic. I split it and created a new thread called The orthodoxy of open theism.

kmoney · Jul 12, 2005

Knight,

A millennia ago did God's perfect exhaustive foreknowledge contain His interaction with us? And of course the answer must be a resounding YES otherwise the foreknowledge isn't perfect yet lacking (lacking the interaction).
Did God perfectly foreknow His interactions with man infinitely into the past? And if so, doesn't that defeat the purpose of the interaction?

You ask...
"Did God perfectly foreknow His interactions with man infinitely into the past? And if so, doesn't that defeat the purpose of the interaction?"

My answer to the 2nd question is no; it would not defeat the purpose of the interaction. Why would it's purpose be defeated? The interaction is for us so it is not purposeless. God has the foreknowledge, but He still interacts.

The most common "unfulfilled" prophecy that I hear is the story of Jonah and Nineveh because Jonah says the city will be destroyed in 40 days and then it isn't destroyed because the people repend. I do not see this as an unfulfilled prophecy. I also believe that God's foreknowledge fits in with this story. God could know the people on Ninenveh would repent, but God still needed to interact with Jonah because without Jonah going the people would not have repented. You might say that if God knew the people would repent when Jonah went to them than why would God not simply tell Jonah the people WOULD repent instead of leaving that information out. God did this because it was a lesson for Jonah. If Jonah KNEW the people would repent it would not have taught him anything. He would have not increased his faith and trust in God.

Honestly I'm not sure what other unfulfilled prophecies Open Theists use, but my guess is you could apply God's foreknowledge to them in the same way I just did with Jonah.

Kevin

kmoney · Jul 12, 2005

Sorry Knight, I didn't realize you started a new thread.

Clete · Jul 12, 2005

kmoney said:
Knight,
The most common "unfulfilled" prophecy that I hear is the story of Jonah and Nineveh because Jonah says the city will be destroyed in 40 days and then it isn't destroyed because the people repend. I do not see this as an unfulfilled prophecy. I also believe that God's foreknowledge fits in with this story. God could know the people on Ninenveh would repent, but God still needed to interact with Jonah because without Jonah going the people would not have repented. You might say that if God knew the people would repent when Jonah went to them than why would God not simply tell Jonah the people WOULD repent instead of leaving that information out. God did this because it was a lesson for Jonah. If Jonah KNEW the people would repent it would not have taught him anything. He would have not increased his faith and trust in God.

Honestly I'm not sure what other unfulfilled prophecies Open Theists use, but my guess is you could apply God's foreknowledge to them in the same way I just did with Jonah.

Kevin

How about this one...

Joshua 3:10
And Joshua said, "By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites:

kmoney · Jul 12, 2005

Clete said:
How about this one...

Joshua 3:10
And Joshua said, "By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites:

Thank you Clete. I'll read over this and think about it.....I'll take more also if you have them

Kevin

beefalobilly · Jul 12, 2005

sorry if this is off topic, but are there any good books anyone could reccomend on this topic?

Clete · Jul 12, 2005

beefalobilly said:
sorry if this is off topic, but are there any good books anyone could reccomend on this topic?

Do you mean Open Theism?

The God Who Risks is an excellent one.

There are many more.

Nathon Detroit · Jul 12, 2005

beefalobilly said:
sorry if this is off topic, but are there any good books anyone could reccomend on this topic?

What topic specifically?

beefalobilly · Jul 13, 2005

Knight said:
What topic specifically?

Open theism, I'd never even heard about it until a couple monthes ago on this site

If not specifically about open theism, maybe something about the debate between OT, calivinism, and arminianism.

Nathon Detroit · Jul 13, 2005

beefalobilly said:
Open theism, I'd never even heard about it until a couple monthes ago on this site If not specifically about open theism, maybe something about the debate between OT, calivinism, and arminianism.

Stay tuned right here on TOL for BR X.

beefalobilly · Jul 13, 2005

Knight said:
Stay tuned right here on TOL for BR X.

Sweeeet :sinapisN: :cloud9:

insolafide · Jul 16, 2005

beefalobilly said:
Open theism, I'd never even heard about it until a couple monthes ago on this site If not specifically about open theism, maybe something about the debate between OT, calivinism, and arminianism.

dont forget Molinism

Which, in my humble opinion, is the solution to the debate.

peace.

kmoney · Jul 18, 2005

Clete said:
How about this one...

Joshua 3:10
And Joshua said, "By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites:

Clete,
sorry for taking so long to respond.....

Well, clearly that didn't happen in entirety. I do not believe, however, that this can't fit into the belief that God has foreknowledge. Some places it says they "did not" drive the inhabitants out and some places it says they "could not" and I didn't see much explanation for why they either did not or could not drive them out, but I guess that doesn't necessarily matter because the question is IF it happened, not why it didn't happen. So anyway....no, that didn't come to complete fulfillment, but I still believe that God could have known that it wouldn't happen. Almost immediately that verse wasn't going to happen completely because the Israelites made a pact with the people from Gibeon. I believe God would have followed through with the verse in question, but it didn't happen because of the Israelites.

Clete · Jul 18, 2005

kmoney said:
Clete,
sorry for taking so long to respond.....

Well, clearly that didn't happen in entirety. I do not believe, however, that this can't fit into the belief that God has foreknowledge. Some places it says they "did not" drive the inhabitants out and some places it says they "could not" and I didn't see much explanation for why they either did not or could not drive them out, but I guess that doesn't necessarily matter because the question is IF it happened, not why it didn't happen. So anyway....no, that didn't come to complete fulfillment, but I still believe that God could have known that it wouldn't happen. Almost immediately that verse wasn't going to happen completely because the Israelites made a pact with the people from Gibeon. I believe God would have followed through with the verse in question, but it didn't happen because of the Israelites.

Why it didn't happen is irrelivent isn't it?
It seems pretty black and white to me. If God knew in advance that He wasn't going to drive them out, for Him to say that He would do so "with out fail" would have been a lie. So either God doesn't have exhaustive foreknowledge or He lied in this passage. What other option is there?

Resting in Him,
Clete

kmoney · Jul 18, 2005

Clete said:
Why it didn't happen is irrelivent isn't it?
It seems pretty black and white to me. If God knew in advance that He wasn't going to drive them out, for Him to say that He would do so "with out fail" would have been a lie. So either God doesn't have exhaustive foreknowledge or He lied in this passage. What other option is there?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete,

Why it didn't happen is irrelivent isn't it?

I already said that, I guess you missed it.

It seems pretty black and white to me. If God knew in advance that He wasn't going to drive them out, for Him to say that He would do so "with out fail" would have been a lie. So either God doesn't have exhaustive foreknowledge or He lied in this passage. What other option is there?

God WOULD have done it without fail. The fact that it didn't happen doesn't make him a liar. God would have given the land completely to His people, but they didn't take what was already theirs.

Clete · Jul 19, 2005

kmoney said:
Clete,

I already said that, I guess you missed it.

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...

God WOULD have done it without fail. The fact that it didn't happen doesn't make him a liar. God would have given the land completely to His people, but they didn't take what was already theirs.

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.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete · Jul 19, 2005

insolafide said:
dont forget Molinism Which, in my humble opinion, is the solution to the debate.

peace.

Have you ever read Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views?

In his opening paragraph to his response to the Middle-Knowledge View or Molinist View, Gregory Boyd said this...

Reading William Lane Craig's fine essay reminded me a just how close Molinism is to the open view. Indeed, I shall argue the view that has come to be labeled open theism could perhaps more accurately be labeled neo-Molinism. In essence it differs from the classical Molinist position only in that it expands the content of God's middle knowledge to include "might-counterfactuals." In this response I hope to show that this modification allows the open view to avoid problems which attend the classical Molinist view while preserving its explanatory power.
(from "Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views", page 144)

If you have read it, I'd be interested in your thoughts concerning Boyd's response. If you haven't read it, you should.

Resting in Him,
Clete

godrulz · Jul 19, 2005

I just started rereading the book. I concur that neo-Molinism has more strengths and less weaknesses than Molinism. The discussions in academic circles become very technical and beyond most of our expertise. If Molinism concludes that exhaustive foreknowledge is compatible with libertarian freedom, which I think it does, then it needs tweaking. "Middle knowledge" still should be considered possible vs actual before contingencies become certain after the choice (especially related to remote/distant vs proximal/near knowledge...God's perfect past and present knowledge make predictions more probable closer to actual choices).

Interaction with perfect foreknowledge?

LIFETIME MEMBER

King of the jungle

LIFETIME MEMBER

New member

New member

Truth Smacker

New member

Member

Truth Smacker

LIFETIME MEMBER

Member

LIFETIME MEMBER

Member

New member

New member

Truth Smacker

New member

Truth Smacker

Truth Smacker

Well-known member