Let's step back a bit. I thought you were arguing for the possibility that God made a universe that acts in unpredictable ways, and you were using QM as a possible mechanism for it. Am I wrong?

If you're not using QM, then on what basis do you rest the assertion that God made things that are inherently unpredictable, even for Him?

I mentioned QM as something you would be familiar with. It shows unpredictability even on the smallest scale.

You appear to have the idea that if we just had enough data, we could know everything that would happen. I don't believe this is the case. The concept of free will, in an incompatibilistic (Armenian) sense contradicts the idea of determinism. Calvinism is the logical consequence of determinism.

Even if QM weren't true, it would still be the case that people act in unpredictable ways. Having free will, they might do this, or they might do that. They might respond to the Holy Spirit's wooing; they might not. No matter how much data one had, one still could not predict with certainty what a person would do.

Clarification is needed here. QM shows unpredictability ONLY on the smallest scale.


OK. At least we're understanding each other so far.


I don't know what "incompatibilistic" means.


If you mean predestination, I have thought of that. But I got around it.


Did Jesus know for sure that Judas would betray Him?

What about Peter? Did Jesus know his history before it happened?

My answer to both is Yes. There is evidence that God knew these things before they happened.

Compatibilistic means compatible with determinism. Incompatibilistic means not compatible with determinism.

The compatibilistic definition of free will is that a person is free to do what he wants to do, not that there is more than one option available that he could actually do. God knows what the person will do, the person does that thing, which is he what he wants to do anyway, so that's that. It's not necessary that there be more than one option actually available.

The incompatibilistic definition of free will is that it is actually possible to do either of more than one option, not simply that you are able to do that which you choose to do.



In Calvinism God's foreknowledge is conditioned upon His will. Nothing happens that God does not foreordain. Everything that happens happens for the very reason that this is what God ordained should happen.

In Armenianism God's sees what will happen, and then predestines on the basis of what He foresaw.

You might be interested in looked at Jonathon Edwards work, "Freedom of the Will." (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/will.i.html)



Even we can know things like this before they happen. I'm not saying people *must* act unpredictably, but that they can.

Let me rephrase the point: When talking about God's omniscience, the fact something is capable of happening does not mean it will or must or might happen. God knows whether or not something will happen. But knowing does not mean the capability of something else happening does not exist.


Knowing what will happen doesn't mean something else is incapable of happening. Just because God knows what will happen does not mean something else is incapable of happening. That is, His foreknowledge does not render something else incapable of happening. The risk Jesus took was real. It doesn't matter that He knew in advance He would succeed on the cross.


Again, God's foreknowledge does not render something else incapable of happening. Just because He knew it wouldn't happen doesn't mean it was incapable of happening or that the risk wasn't real.


I agree that things are 100% certain to play out the way God knows. However, this does not mean something else is incapable of happening, that it cannot happen as if God's foreknowledge renders it incapable of happening.

Sure it does! If God knows something, say A, will happen, it's 100% certain it will happen. If A and B are mutually exclusive, then there is a 0% chance that B will happen. Iow, B cannot happen; there is not chance B might happen.

Otherwise you'd have the absurdity of God's knowing with certainty something will happen and the thing not happening.



Of course it does! Otherwise you'd have God knowing with certainty that something will happen and the thing not happening.



Sure it does! If you know something will happen, then you are not taking a risk that it won't happen. Risk means uncertainty.

It looks like the rest is just repeating the same thing.

True, it will not happen, but it is not because of lack of ability or potential. The fact it will not happen is not because God's foreknowledge rendered it incapable. It will not happen simply because God knows it will not happen.


The thing that made risk a real potential still existed even though Jesus knew He would succeed on the cross. The potential for failure was a reality. It didn’t go away just because Jesus knew He would succeed. The pressures, the trials, the temptations, etc. were very real. Knowing He would succeed did not in least diminish their effect on Him. The same thing is true of us. We know we will not sin and die after probation closes, but knowing will not in the least diminish the intensity of the test and trial.

Regardless of *why* it will not happen, it will not happen, which is the salient point. Given that B will not happen, it is not the case than an FMA might choose B.



No, because the the "thing" that made risk a real potential was precisely not knowing He would succeed. That's what "risk" means: not knowing.



Same comment. There's no risk without uncertainty.



??? We don't know we'll succeed, so the same thing can't be true of us.



When probation has closed is not known.

Tom, I believe the Father knew Jesus would succeed on the cross. I believe Jesus knew He would succeed on the cross. All the prophecies say so. Jesus said so. Nowhere in the Bible or the SOP does it say the Father or the Son were uncertain about it. The facts are too clear to misunderstand.

MM, you're free to believe this, but you should recognize the following:

a.If God is certain something will happen (say A), then it is certain it will happen.
b.If A is certain to happen, and A and B are mutually exclusive, then the chance of B happening is nil (or, to say it another way, the risk that B will happen is nil).

This means that if God knew with certainty that Christ would succeed, then there was no risk He would fail. This is simple logic.

So if you wish to assert that God knew with certainty that Jesus would succeed, OK, but don't assert that Christ was at risk to fail, since, given your assumption, He wasn't.