Another question to consider is what makes it possible for God to see the future. I think many think that God has some special power that we don't have, like a witch who can gaze into a crystal ball. I don't perceive it that way. I think God experiences time similarly to how we do (there are literally dozens of Scripture passages, maybe hundreds, which present God in this way, as experiencing time; just to mention one, God repented that He had made man). The difference between God's knowledge of the future and ours is one of intelligence.

That is, God is infinitely intelligent, and because of this He is able to figure out everything that can possibly happen, and has power, based on His intelligence, to visualize what will happen. Also God is not a passive observer of human events. He is actively involved. He doesn't do anything to infringe upon our free will, but He works to bring about His will. He shapes the future. This should be the lesson of prophecy; not that God see the future (that's never His point) but that He shapes it. For example:



"I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it."

Tom,

What you are posting seems to basically say that man doesn't really have free will, only God directed will, in that God makes us choose to do this or that, as in the case of Peter and Judas.

If this were true, then God would also be responsible for the choices we all made, both human and angel alike, as well as the choices we will make, which, again, if what you are posting is true, wouldn't really be our choice at all, but God's choice imposed upon us.

This all goes contrary to the God I know.

Daryl, nothing I've said states that God makes us choose to do anything. Why do you have that idea?

Here's what I'm saying. If a person can only do one thing, say A, and not B, then we cannot have a definition of free will which states that he can do either of A or B. It's really not a point which directly involves God.

Now if the person really can do either of A or B, then we cannot, without incurring a logical contradiction, have a definition of the future (e.g. it's fixed, or it's like a T.V. rerun, or it's just like the past) that necessitates that only A can happen.

Does this make sense to you Daryl?

That's just it.

A person can choose either A or B.

God knows beforehand what choice a person is going to make. In other words, God knows in advance whether or not a person is going to choose A or B.

In the case of Peter, Christ knew that Peter would choose choice B (denying Him) over choice A (not denying Him), even though Peter said he would do choice A.

MM: Explaining what a person will do, before they do it, based on divine foreknowledge or hindsight, has nothing to do with whether or not that person can't or won't do something else.

TE: It depends upon whether or not the person can actually do something else. For example, I know my wife well enough to know that if I say something in certain circumstance she will respond in a certain way. But can she actually do something different? Yes she can.

MM: Comparing your imperfect knowledge to God’s perfect knowledge is hardly helpful.

TE: However, if our future history is recorded in a book, can we do something different than what's recorded? No.

MM: What book are you talking about?

TE: I asked you earlier if the fact that God has seen us doing A in the future means that A will happen, and you responded "yes."

MM: Right.

TE: Now if A must happen, then I can't do anything other than A. God's foreknowledge doesn't force me to do A, however. What "forces" me to do A ("force" is really the wrong word, but it's the word you have been using, so I'll go along with it) is that fact that I can't do anything other than A.

MM: How do you know “A” must happen? What is the basis of your information? Who told you only “A” will or can happen?

TE: Again, God's foreknowledge isn't the problem. The problem is that only A can happen and not B.

MM: Again, how do you know what will and will not happen? Who told you?

TE: God's foreknowledge doesn't force us to do anything. Everyone knows this. Please don't keep making this point. No one is saying otherwise.

MM: Our knowledge of the future is based on God’s divine ability to view the future like history. Otherwise, we know nothing about the future. We do not possess the necessary divine attributes to view the future like history. Only God can do it. Thus, we cannot divorce God’s ability to foretell the future from this discussion.

For God, foreknowledge and hindsight are one and the same thing. Hindsight is 20/20. It’s like watching a rerun. He views the future in exactly the same way He views history. God is simply reporting what has already happened - before it happens.

As such, whether a person can or cannot do this or that is not an issue. It has nothing to do with it. What is done is done. Reporting what has already happened does not, in the least, affect the facts. It has nothing to do with what a person can or cannot do. It’s already done!

Here's the problem. If God knows that the person will choose A, then he can't choose B. It's not that God forces Him not to choose B, it's just that it's not logically possible for him to choose B since B can't happen.

I think this would be easier to deal with if you take God out of the question. We can add Him in later. For now, please let me ask if the following makes sense.

If a person can do A or B, then it's not possible for the future to be such that only A can happen. Let's just try this for now. Would you agree to this? Does this make sense?

MM: Explaining what a person will do, before they do it, based on divine foreknowledge or hindsight, has nothing to do with whether or not that person can't or won't do something else.

TE: It depends upon whether or not the person can actually do something else. For example, I know my wife well enough to know that if I say something in certain circumstance she will respond in a certain way. But can she actually do something different? Yes she can.

MM: Comparing your imperfect knowledge to God’s perfect knowledge is hardly helpful.

It's as helpful about talking about knowledge at all. This isn't an epistemological issue; it's an ontological one.

TE: However, if our future history is recorded in a book, can we do something different than what's recorded? No.

MM: What book are you talking about?

A hypothetical book.

TE: I asked you earlier if the fact that God has seen us doing A in the future means that A will happen, and you responded "yes."

MM: Right.

TE: Now if A must happen, then I can't do anything other than A. God's foreknowledge doesn't force me to do A, however. What "forces" me to do A ("force" is really the wrong word, but it's the word you have been using, so I'll go along with it) is that fact that I can't do anything other than A.

MM: How do you know “A” must happen? What is the basis of your information? Who told you only “A” will or can happen?

It should be obvious that this doesn't matter. Why it is known that A will occur isn't important. What's important to the argument is that A must happen.

TE: Again, God's foreknowledge isn't the problem. The problem is that only A can happen and not B.

MM: Again, how do you know what will and will not happen? Who told you?

Again, this isn't the issue. The problem is not epistimelogical. It's ontological. In other words, what is known or not known is not the issue. The issue involves reality. Reality is what it is regardless of whether or not we know what it is.

If the person in my example must to A, then the fact that he doesn't know he must to A (because the future is hidden to him) doesn't make it any less the case that he can't do B. The fact that he thinks he can do B when he can't doesn't change the fact that he can't do B.

TE: God's foreknowledge doesn't force us to do anything. Everyone knows this. Please don't keep making this point. No one is saying otherwise.

MM: Our knowledge of the future is based on God’s divine ability to view the future like history.

Only to a small degree. Our knowledge of the future is based upon our intelligence and experience. What God says about the future is only one of many factors that we take into account. Now if you're dealing with some prophetic event, then of course what God says forms a huge percentage of what we know about that future event. But if you're dealing with something like what you think will happen tomorrow, like whether it will rain or not, God's divine ability to view the future doesn't come into play much if at all.

Otherwise, we know nothing about the future. We do not possess the necessary divine attributes to view the future like history. Only God can do it. Thus, we cannot divorce God’s ability to foretell the future from this discussion.

For God, foreknowledge and hindsight are one and the same thing. Hindsight is 20/20. It’s like watching a rerun. He views the future in exactly the same way He views history. God is simply reporting what has already happened - before it happens.

As such, whether a person can or cannot do this or that is not an issue. It has nothing to do with it. What is done is done. Reporting what has already happened does not, in the least, affect the facts. It has nothing to do with what a person can or cannot do. It’s already done!

You're really not even touching the point I have been making. I have pointed out repeatedly that God's foreknowledge isn't important to the argument. It's just cloudying up the water. Let's keep things simple, then add complexity later.

If a person can do either A or B, then the future cannot be such that only A can happen. Does this make sense to you?

Daryl, this is a very good explanation of where, in my opinion, we end up with the "God sees the future as if it was a TV rerun" theory. The one I think you explain in the post below. IMO, your point below leads inevietably to your example above.

TE: If the person in my example must to A, then the fact that he doesn't know he must to A (because the future is hidden to him) doesn't make it any less the case that he can't do B. The fact that he thinks he can do B when he can't doesn't change the fact that he can't do B.

MM: The words “must do” and “can’t do” do not make sense to me, Tom. We’re talking about God’s divine hindsight, His ability to view the future like history. Words like “must do” or “can’t do” do not make sense to me since God is describing something that someone has already done. I think He would use words like “will do” and “has done” and “did not do”.

TE: Now if you're dealing with some prophetic event, then of course what God says forms a huge percentage of what we know about that future event.

MM: What does our percentage consist of?

TE: But if you're dealing with something like what you think will happen tomorrow, like whether it will rain or not, God's divine ability to view the future doesn't come into play much if at all.

MM: Unless we’re talking about Noah. This discussion is, at least I thought it was, dealing with God’s ability to foretell future events like reporting history. Not what could or might happen – but what has already happened.


TE: You're really not even touching the point I have been making. I have pointed out repeatedly that God's foreknowledge isn't important to the argument. It's just cloudying up the water. Let's keep things simple, then add complexity later.

MM: “Thus, we cannot divorce God’s ability to foretell the future from this discussion.” (Please see context above)

TE: If a person can do either A or B, then the future cannot be such that only A can happen. Does this make sense to you?

MM: Only if we divorce God’s foreknowledge and hindsight from the equation. From our perspective, if God says nothing about it, the future is unknown. We cannot know with certainty what will or will not happen.

I just discovered that Tom created a new topic on this, therefore, let us continue with this side-topic there. Use relevant quotes from this topic here, but discuss it there.

When Tom created the new topic, he should have informed us here, so we could have gone there, myself included.