Old Tom: Your point of view is logically inconsistent. If the future is fixed, then our freedom is a perception.

MM: But we’re talking about God here.

Tom: I wasn't. You will notice I didn't mention God in the quote you are responding to. It simply says if the future is fixed, then our freedom is a perception.

MM: From God’s perspective the future is past, and, therefore, fixed.

Tom: Only if the future really is fixed, and is really past. God's perception is no different from reality.

MM:It is based on what has already happened. Therefore, God knows the END from the beginning. How can He know the end if He hasn’t seen it play out already?

Tom: This seems to be a problem. You have in your mind a limited idea, and assume God is subject to your limited idea. God is not dependent on seeing the future play out in order to know it. I can think of several ways how God can know the future without seeing it play out, and I very strongly suspect that there are other possibilities as to how God could know the future without seeing it play out besides the ones I have thought of. But before I spell them out, I would like to pause, and ask if you see that you have jumped to a conclusion. I'll spell this out carefully:

1)God knows the future.
2)The only way God could know the future is to see it play out, as if it were like the past.
3)Therefore you conclude that God must see the future play out, just like the past, in order for Him to know the future.

Step 2 is where your argument falls apart. It is not the case that God can only know the future by seeing it play out like the past. Therefore your argument is invalid -- the conclusion, step 3, does not hold.

Even without my pointing out a counter example to Step 2 (which I can do, but I'll refrain from doing, because I want you to see the form of the argument first) you should be able to recognize that just because you can only think of one way in which God can see the future (by seeing it play out like the past), that doesn't imply that this is the only possibility. So even without a direct counterexample, Step 2 would already be on shaky ground. Do you see this?

MM: Here is where we disagree. I believe God knows the END from the beginning, and you do not.

Tom: I think it would be good for you not to guess on what you think I believe, because you are not very good at it. I would suggest you stick to directly commenting on what I have written.

What you have asserted here is not true. I do believe God knows the end from the beginning. Where we differ has not to do with God, but with the nature of the future, which I have pointed out to you many times.

MM: You believe it means God is pretty good at guessing what might happen in the future, but you do not believe He knows the END from the beginning.

Tom: Where have I written anything like this? Once again, please stick to what I have written.

MM: You also believe it does not matter.

Tom: You're really on a roll here. I never said anything like this. If I didn't think it mattered, I wouldn't be carrying on such a protracted conversation with you, would I? Once again, please refrain from asserting things like this. If you're not sure what I think (which you obviously aren't here) then please ask (as you have done on previous posts).

What I have said doean't matter is how God views the future in relation to the nature of the future. In other words, what I have been trying to point out to you is that if the future is fixed, then our freedom is not real, but merely perceptional. What is irrelevant is God's foreknowledge in relation to the future insofar as my statement in the sentence immediately preceeding this one is concerned. This is because God knows things as they really are. If God's knowledge of the future is that it is fixed, then it really honestly and truly is fixed. Do you see this?

MM: And I do. Since I believe God knows the future, like a rerun or like reading a history book, He knows the END from the beginning. You believe it means we do not have true freedom of choice. I do not.

Tom: I've just been stating the logical impossibility of the future being fixed and our being free. Do you see that these two things are mutually exclusive? (leaving out the question of God's foreknowledge; just the proposition that if the future is fixed, then we can not do anything to alter it).

MM: I do not believe divine hindsight robs us of our power and freedom to choose. You agree. But you do not believe God has the power of divine hindsight, at least, not in the same way I do. Please correct me if I misrepresented the view you are advocating.

Tom: Oh good! Thank you for your invitation. I have not been addressing God's foreknowledge, but rather the nature of the future. What I believe is that if the future is fixed, then we can do nothing to alter it. If we can do nothing to alter it, then we can destined to do whatever the future holds.

I believe that God is omniscient. I believe God knows all things as they really are. You and I agree on these points. Where we disagree is not regarding God's knowledge (whether foresight, or hindsight, or whatever) but in regards to the nature, or characteristic, or reality, of the future. Your viewpoint suggests the future is fixed, since if God perceives the future as fixed, then it must really be fixed, since God's perception of reality perfectly coincides with what reality actually is (do you agree?).

MM: I believe God’s understanding of the future is as perfect as His understanding of the past.

Tom: Me too.

MM: From His perspective the future is past.

Tom: From His perspective the future is future, and the past is past.

MM: We both agree if this were true then it wouldn’t rob us of our freedom to choose. Well, I believe it is true.

Tom: If God's perspective of the future were that is was fixed, then this would imply that the future is really fixed. It is this point, that the future is fixed, with which I disagree.

Old Tom: Now you say "of course" He could have sinned. You're not being consistent here.

MM: Sorry for the confusion. The expression He “could have sinned” simply means He was capable of sinning. It doesn’t mean that He was going to sin or that God didn’t know if He would sin or not. Do you believe God didn’t know if Jesus would sin or not?

Tom: The Spirit of Prophesy writes that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. "Risk" means the possibility of loss. So God must have known it was possible for Jesus to have failed and been eternally lost, right?

Old Tom: You have no reason to think that "eternal loss" means divinity dying. That's a groundless assumption.

MM: And you have no reason to believe it can only mean that Jesus would have remained in the tomb forever.

Tom: I was just going by the Spirit of Prophesy quote. However, you may propose what you think "eternal loss" means, and that would be fine.

Old Tom: If I found the quote, would you change your mind in any way?

MM: Yes.

Tom: How?

Old Tom: Step 2 is where your argument falls apart. It is not the case that God can only know the future by seeing it play out like the past. Therefore your argument is invalid -- the conclusion, step 3, does not hold.

MM: If God knows the END from the beginning, then He knows, like a rerun, how everything will play out.

Tom: You assert this, but have not reason for the assertion. There is no reason why God's knowing the future should imply that He knows, like a rerun, how everything will play out. You are assuming the future is something very simple, like the past. But what if it isn't? What if it is more complicated than the past? Then wouldn't God's knowledge of it be more complicated as well?

MM: Any other way God might know the future, if it is unlike His knowledge of the past, would be inferior, and, therefore, irrelevant.

Tom: Why? Is there any other reason for this assertion other than it's what you think? Why should some other knowledge of the future be inferior?

...

Old Tom: Where we differ has not to do with God, but with the nature of the future, which I have pointed out to you many times… What I have said doesn't matter is how God views the future in relation to the nature of the future.

MM: Okay, let me see if I understand your position, you believe the nature of the future and God’s knowledge of the future is not the same. Is that right?

Tom: My goodness no! I wonder if you are reading what I'm writing. I've written many times, at least a dozen by now, that God's perception of the future cannot be different than it really is. For example:

"If God's perspective of the future were that is was fixed, then this would imply that the future is really fixed."

I've written this so many times it strikes me as very curious that you would ask if I think the reverse.

MM: If so, then in what way is God’s perfect knowledge of the future, if it is like watching a rerun, any different than the nature of the future, as you understand it?

Tom: I'm equally dumbfounded by this question as well. I have never maintained that God sees the future like a rerun. That's your position. I have stated many, many, many times that the future is not fixed. God sees the future as it is (I'm also said this many, many times), which is not fixed.

God could only see the future as fixed if it really were fixed. God sees things the way they really are. It is because God sees things the way they really are that I believe the way things really are is the same way God sees them; hence the nature of the future is exactly how God perceives it.

Whew! Okay, one more time. You believe the future is open and not fixed. It can play out a hundred different ways. God has no idea exactly how it will play out. God's knowledge of the future is perfect. God's knowledge of the past is perfect. Prophecy is conditional. It may or may not play out exactly the way God has predicted. God did not know in advance that Jesus would succeed on the cross. God does not know the exact day and hour Jesus will return.

Did I get it right?

MM: Whew! Okay, one more time. You believe the future is open and not fixed. It can play out a hundred different ways.

Tom: Yes, this is true.

MM: God has no idea exactly how it will play out.

Tom: This isn't.

MM: God's knowledge of the future is perfect.

Tom: Yes.

MM: God's knowledge of the past is perfect.

Tom: Yes.

MM: Prophecy is conditional.

Tom: Yes, generally.

MM: It may or may not play out exactly the way God has predicted.

Tom: I wouldn't say predicted. God wasn't predicting, He was prophesying. He was saying what would happen if the conditions for His blessings were heeded or not.

quote:

---

7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; 8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. 9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; 10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.(Jer. 18:7-10)

---

God is not auditioning to be Jean Dixon. He is speaking out of love to motivate us.

MM: God did not know in advance that Jesus would succeed on the cross.

Tom: I didn't say this. I said the future is not fixed and that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

MM: God does not know the exact day and hour Jesus will return.

Did I get it right?

Tom: Some things. You're making statements about a lot of things I haven't addressed. I would like it if you would respond to some of the things I have addressed. For example, if the future is fixed, then we are not really free. I would really like it if you could understand this point, which is very simple I think.

I have given the following argument at least twice, but don't think you have responded to it (I apologize if you have, and I missed it or forgot).

a)If God has known something for all eternity (e.g. I will have pizza tommorow for lunch), then it is not possible for that thing not to happen.
b)Therefore it is not possible for me to choose not to have pizza tomorrow for lunch.

If I chose not to have pizza tomorrow for lunch, then something God has known for all eternity will happen will not have happened, which is impossible. Therefore I cannot choose not to have pizza tomorrow. Therefore I do not have freedom of choice, since I cannot choose not to have pizza tomorrow.

Tom, I'm ready to learn your position better. That's why I have been trying to summarize it. Let's set aside my view for the time being, and let's focus on what you think makes sense. Okay?

What do you think God knows about the future? Does He know exactly what will happen before it happens? How much detail does He know? Did He know Jesus would be successful on the cross? Does He know the exact day and hour Jesus will return?

Thank you for your interest in my view. Pardon me while I apparently ramble a bit in trying to explain it.

We have a very simplistic way of looking at things, but often things are much more complicated than we imagine. Consider subatomic particles. One cannot speak of the position of a subatomic particle in absolute terms, but only in terms of probability. This characteristic of subatomic particles is not believed by physicists to be due to a lack of knowledge, but to the nature of subatomic particles. That is, if you asked God Himself, where will such and such a subatomic particle be in the next moment, God would reply "there is an x% probability it will be here, a y% probability there, a z% probability there" and so forth. That God would respond in such a way does not imply any igonorance on God's part, but merely reflects that this is the way God created subatomic particles.

Chaos theory reveals the same thing. Very small random changes can result in major shifts. Two water droplets right next to each other diverge, ending up miles apart.

It is much easier for us to simplistically view the world in a deterministic way, as Newton described things. Every action has a reaction, every momevent can be described, everything is determined. This is the way Augustine view things as well.

However, what if the world is not simple like this? What if it is really fantastically complicated, as quantum mechanics and chaos theory suggest? Is it possible that God created a Universe so wonderfully that it could charm even its Creator, filling Him with joy?

For example, a computer programmer can create a program which can "learn" and react in ways the programmer cannot envision, even though he created the program; not because of incomplete knowledge, but because of the nature of the program. Programs which model life fall into this pattern.

I believe the future incorporates all things which may happen. There is not a single line. For God to see a single line would be to see a lie, something which does not exist. God sees the future as it is, which is as a fantastically complex interlocked web of possibilities and certainties.

I fear you will think I am not adequately or directly answering your question, but the very form of the question presupposes a deterministic view of the world, and of the future in particular. So I cannot answer it any differently than as I have continually answered it, which is to say that the future is not fixed, and God sees the future perfectly, just as it is. Not a thing will happen which God did not foresee, but God foresees all things, not just a small subset of possible things.

Tom, your answer helps me understand our differences. I believe, from God's perspective, the future is like a rerun. You believe the future is known to none.

MM, I believe the future is not like a re-run. Period. It is not fixed. I believe 2+2 = 4. Period. God sees that 2+2=4 because it is 4. God sees things the way they are, not is some other way which they are not. If the future were fixed, God would see it that way.

You may have noticed that I have not been dealing primarily with God's foreknowledge, but rather with the nature of the future. Is it fixed? That's the question I have been addressing. It is my conviction that it is not fixed, and that we really do have freedom of choice -- i.e., our choices really do have the capability to impact the future.