Yes, God does at times get involved to make sure things play out in a way that will guarantee a positive outcome of the great controversy. However, even His future involvement is part of the prophecy. Of course in the case of Peter God did not cause Him to deny Jesus three times, not any more than God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.


It will happen because God’s foreknowledge of our future choices is infallible. If need be, however, God will get involved to make sure things play out according to His will. Under certain circumstances God’s “will” is what is best given the unusual circumstances (i.e. a world full of sin and sinners).


God’s foreknowledge is based on 20/20 hindsight. He knows the end from the beginning, therefore, He has already watched it play out, like watching a rerun. As such, God’s knowledge of our future choices, and His personal involvement, is based on hindsight. He simply reports the facts before the fact based on the fact He knows the facts after the fact. Only God knows the end from the beginning and to he or she who God chooses to share it.


From God’s perspective our future choices are “fixed” in the sense He knows exactly how we are going to choose. There are no surprise endings for God. But from our perspective, unless God chooses to reveal the future to us, we have no idea how we are going to choose in the future. As such, the future is open. The fact God knows the future in no way robs us of our ability or freedom to choose. His knowledge of the future is based on hindsight, not guess work. Like watching a rerun in no way effects the outcome, so too, God's knowledge of the future in no way effects the outcome.


True, but God knows exactly how we will choose because He knows the future like a rerun. In this sense there are no surprises for God.


True, God does not force an outcome that violates our ability and freedom to choose. Simply telling us in advance, based on His ability to know the future like a rerun, does not in the least mean He forces it to happen.


True. However, the fact is only God knows the future like a rerun because only God knows the end from the beginning. Satan does not know the future like a rerun. He can only guess what will happen based on his knowledge of the character of the people involved. God’s knowledge of the future doesn’t depend on His knowledge of the character of the people involved. His knowledge of the future is based on hindsight.


If God cannot foreknow or foretell the one and only future that will eventually play out how, then, was He able to know the precise details surrounding Peter’s future denial of Jesus? I agree God knew Peter well enough to guess that his future involved him denying Jesus. God knew that about all of the disciples. However, in Peter’s case God knew precise details. How was that possible?

Yes, the gospel writers recorded it differently, but it doesn’t do away with the fact that what Jesus did say was in reality completely and precisely right. There were too many variables in this case for Jesus to have gotten it right based solely on knowing Peter was capable of denying Him.

We cannot overlook the fact Jesus knew details that required more knowledge of the future than simply knowing Peter was capable of denying Him. Jesus knew the details because God shared them with Jesus. And God knew the details in advance because God knows the future like a rerun. His knowledge of the future is based on 20/20 hindsight.

This phrase, that "God knows the end from the beginning," means that God knows what will happen from the beginning, not that He has watched it play out like a rerun. "Like a rerun" is a particularly poor choice of phrases, because it implies something which is inevitable. If there is only one possible future, then we cannot bring about a different one, but merely play out whatever fate has already been seen.

Consider two roads. What is at the end of these roads? God knows. One road leads to blessings, the other doesn't. God counsels us to to choose the good road, and forsake the other. He knows what will happen in either case.

This is what the phrase means, that God "sees the end from the beginning."

There is a possible logical problem here, although not a causative one. That is, no one would argue that God's knowledge of the future forces it to happen. However, if there is only one possible future that can happen, then we do not have the ability to bring about a different future than the one that can happen. Hence, we cannot be said to have free will, under the libertarian definition (the ability to choose between more than one options at a given time), although we can be said to have free will under the compatibilistic definition (which is that we are free to do that which we want to do).

Given that our perspective is different than God's, whose perspective is likely to be accurate? God's, where there is only one possible future (the one He sees, and knows will happen) or ours? Our point of view is based on ignorance. We mistakenly think we can choose between different options, but there is only one possible option we can choose, which is, of course, the one that will happen in the one possible future.

It is not God's knowledge of the future that makes it inevitable that we will make the given choice that the one possible future holds, but rather, the fact that there is only one possible future that can happen. *This is where the problem lies".



Of course not! However, there only being one possible future makes it logically impossible for us to choose to do anything contrary to what will happen. There is only one choice that can logically be made by us (dictated by the one possible future). God's knowledge of the future is irrelevant to the fact that there being one possible future makes it logically impossible for us to do something other than that which must inevitably come to pass.



No. His knowledge of the future is based on foresight, which is based on His intelligence, the same as our is. He doesn't have some mystical power to look into a crystal ball. His knowledge of the future is based on His being all-knowing.



This really isn't the issue. The issue isn't the rerun being affected by the person watching it (which, of course, no one asserts), but on the rerun existing in the first place. Is there such a rerun? Are our lives simply "reruns" waiting to be played out? If God sees them as such, then they are, because how God sees things is how they really are. God's perspective of reality is reality.

Tom, the idea that God cannot know the futurte like a rerun is unbiblical. God's knowledge of the outcome of our future choices is not based on what we "will" do; rather, it is based on what we "did" do. As such, our options at the time are open, not fixed or determined. In other words, we are free to choose because God's knowledge is based on what we chose after the fact, not before.

Tom, the idea that God cannot know the futurte like a rerun is unbiblical. God's knowledge of the outcome of our future choices is not based on what we "will" do; rather, it is based on what we "did" do. As such, our options at the time are open, not fixed or determined. In other words, we are free to choose because God's knowledge is based on what we chose after the fact, not before.

My comments have been dealing with the contradiction between the idea that there is only one possible future and our having free will (under the libertarian definition). God's knowledge of the future doesn't matter insofar as this contradiction is concerned.

For you to state that God's knowledge of future choices is based on what we "did" do is to make crystal clear our inability to alter what will happen in the future, since it's something we "did" (Clearly nothing we "did" can be changed).

Our ability to choose has nothing to do with God's knowledge of the event, so whether God's knowledge is based on what we choose after the fact or before is irrelevant to the contradiction I've been pointing out.

Aside from that, I don't see how your last sentence makes any sense. It looks like you are confusing God's seeing a thing happening with the thing actually happening. That is, God's knowledge of what we choose to do is "after the fact" of His seeing what we will do. But it is before the fact of our actually doing it, which is the germain thing as far as are free will is concerned, since our free will has to do with the choices we make, not with God's foresight of those choices.

Tom, God's knowledge of the future, as you say, has nothing to do with our ability and freedom to choose. I agree. God is not bound by space and time like you and me, therefore, His knowledge of the past, present, and future has no beginning or ending. We are totally free to choose as we please. Yes, God knows in advance exactly how we will choose, but it in no way means we are not free to choose.

I will never understand why you believe it means our abilty and freedom to choose is altered or limited. You seem to think it doesn't matter who knows how we will choose, that if it is known in advance it means we are not truly free to choose. Perhaps you are right, but the fact is we are talking about God and not just anybody. There are things about our omnicient, omnipresent God we cannot fully grasp. The fact He knows the future like a rerun is amazing. Personally, I'm glad it is true. I know He is totally in control. Amen!

God knows in advance exactly how we will choose, but it in no way means we are not free to choose.

What makes us not free to choose is not God's knowledge of the future, but its essence (i.e., the future as you perceive it to be; there's only one way things can happen). That is, it is an ontological issue, not an epistemological one, which I've pointed out to you quite a number of times now, but you keep responding with the same points, which makes me think you've not gotten the point (which could be my fault; perhaps I'm not communicating it clearly enough)

I will never understand why you believe it means our abilty and freedom to choose is altered or limited.

I think you problem in not being able to understand here is based on your trying to understand something which is not being asserted. You keep phrasing the issue as if it were epistemological as opposed to ontological, but the issue you keep addressing is not one that I am raising.

You seem to think it doesn't matter who knows how we will choose, that if it is known in advance it means we are not truly free to choose.

It doesn't matter in regards to the contradiction I pointed out, which is that if there is only one possible future, then our options are limited to that one possible future. Once again, this is ontological, not epistemological.

Perhaps you are right, but the fact is we are talking about God and not just anybody.

Which is immaterial to the point I've been making.

There are things about our omniscient, omnipresent God we cannot fully grasp. The fact He knows the future like a rerun is amazing.

I'm a bit perplexed as to why you would think this would be amazing. This would be almost infinitely easier to do than what I'm suggesting God actually does.

Personally, I'm glad it is true. I know He is totally in control.

Your conclusion doesn't at all follow your premise here. That is, even if God saw the future like a rerun, that has nothing to do with His "being in control."

I'm a bit disappointed that you haven't addressed the issue I've been raising. You keep going off on tangents. I'm not sure if you're doing this on purpose (because you don't want to discuss the issue I've been raising) or just because you haven't understood it (I'm inclined to believe it's the latter).

In a nutshell, here is the point I've been trying to make:

If there is only one way in which things can happen in the future, then it cannot be the case that we have free will (under the libertarian definition - which asserts that we have the ability to bring about one of more than one possible options at a given moment).

I would be curious as to what your response to this point is. (You may note that there is no mention of "God" in this point. This is because my point is not epistemological -- about God's knowing something -- but ontological -- about the essence of the future).

The future is open. Our choices are unlimited. Nothing prevents us from choosing. Our options are numerous. That's how I see the future. That's how the future is. The fact God knows the outcome in advance, like a rerun, in no way means our choices were reduced to one before we decided on a course of action.

I agree with you that this means the outcome is limited to one future, but I disagree that it means our options, our choices before the fact were limited to one. We are totally free, before the fact, to choose as we please, nevertheless, God knows the outcome like a rerun. His knowing the future like a rerun in no way means our options, before the fact, are limited to one.

Again, we're talking about God, who is not limited by time or space. It does matter that we are talking about God and not just anybody. Only God is everywhere at the same time. No one seems to be bothered by the fact God is omnipresent, that He is everwhere at the same time. Why, then, should we be bothered by the fact God is omnicient, that He knows the future like a rerun?

The future is open. Our choices are unlimited. Nothing prevents us from choosing. Our options are numerous. That's how I see the future.

So are you saying that there is more than one way for things to happen in the future? This is the key question. Is there actually more than one way for things to happen? Or do we just *think* there is more than one, because of our inability to see the future?

That's how the future is. The fact God knows the outcome in advance, like a rerun, in no way means our choices were reduced to one before we decided on a course of action.

Our choices are restricted, logically, if there's only one possible way things can happen in the future. Is it possible for things to happen more than one way in the future?

I agree with you that this means the outcome is limited to one future, but I disagree that it means our options, our choices before the fact were limited to one.

Whoa! Which is it? Is there more than one possible future (which your statement that we have numerous options implies) or just one (which your new statement here implies, "I agree with you that this means the outcome is limited to one future." Which is it? One possible future, or more than one?

We are totally free, before the fact, to choose as we please,

Before what fact? The fact our choosing what we will do, or the fact of God's seeing what choice we will make? Clearly God sees what we will do before we choose what we will do. So this comes down to asking if it is possible for use to do something other than what God sees we will do.

nevertheless, God knows the outcome like a rerun. His knowing the future like a rerun in no way means our options, before the fact, are limited to one.

It does if there's only one possible future! *That's* the question you need to answer. Either there is one possible future (e.g., the one God sees), or there is more than one possible future.

Again, we're talking about God, who is not limited by time or space.

[color]Actually, again, we're talking about the future, which is limited by time and space.[/color]

It does matter that we are talking about God and not just anybody.

No, it doesn't, because the subject matter is not a being, but a time.

Only God is everywhere at the same time. No one seems to be bothered by the fact God is omnipresent, that He is everwhere at the same time. Why, then, should we be bothered by the fact God is omnicient, that He knows the future like a rerun?

Well, I think you're limiting God's omniscience to be much less than what it really is by limiting the future. But, again, how God views things really is immaterial to my point, which is that if there is only one possible way the future can happen, then we do not have free will (under the libertarian definition). You appear to be agreeing with this assertion in saying, "I agree with you that this means the outcome is limited to one future" but then you contradict yourself in saying, "I disagree that it means our options, our choices before the fact were limited to one." Clearly if the outcome is "limited to one future," then our choices are limited to one as well.