Divine Foreknowledge and sequential knowledge

[cygnusx1]

I have noticed an increasingly common arguement over the last few Months , many are disagreeing that God can Foreknow any event for that would imply a limitation to His Omniscience.
The arguement is used mainly against Calvinist's and decretive theology .

The idea being that a sequence occuring within God's knowledge would be a denial of total knowledge therefore there can be no sequence .
From this it is concluded (wrongly) , that God cannot Foreknow or predict the future .

here is a post from GT to show what I mean .

I have seen this arguement before and I am as unconvinced now as I was then .
The premise is that if God knows all He cannot foreknow , for then He would be no better than a prophet , He would be "handicaped" etc.

Granted I believe that God does know all , it does not follow that He cannot also foreknow .
To Foreknow is relational to time ........... God is said to foreknow in scripture not because He is limited , or because He MUST look through time to know .
Rather when addressing those who are moving through time (us) and who may want some evidence of the truthfulness of God , we may expect evidences such as predicting things accurately prior to them happening using a knowledge of things BEFORE they (things predicted) happen. Such is the vast part of prophecy.

Now if we were outside of time , timeless , we wouldn't expect God to speak to us this way , for we would be like Him , and prediction would be pointless.

Just because God has always known Jesus would rise from the dead , it does not follow that He cannot know it beforehand , for that event did take place in time and the prophecy was also spoken IN TIME , ie, beforehand.

In conclusion , if God knows all things then He knows all things at once and at the same time He knows all things related TO TIME.
Being capable of foreknowledge no more contradicts Omniscience than being a human contradicts being Omnipotent .
If God knows all (He does) then He knows all before - during and after any event He may wish to comment upon.

Quote

Originally Posted by: VNVnation

LOL. I'm really not trying to be difficult on you here cygnus, but you're really not getting what i'm saying The part that is contradicted by foreknowing is not Omniscience or Omnipotence, but Omnipresence. Ignore Omniscience and Omnipotence and fully focus on Omnipresence and what it truly means and maybe you will see what I'm trying to say.

I mean really really really think about Omnipresence and the full scope of it. It's really as simple as expanding the easily grasped idea that God is everywhere all the time to include that He is also everywhen. Foreknowing becomes impossible because God doesn't know it before He knows it ... and He always knows it and has always known it because He has always been there, everywhere, everywhen.

He is here right now with us and all around us. He is also with us and all around us while we born. He is also with us and all around us as we die. And for God all of these things are happening and always happening because He exists in all of these points infinitely.

Anyway, that's enough for me. Like I said, it's a hard thing to describe and I can see that you've not really been getting it because you continue to focus on the wrong two attributes of God. Give it some thought and maybe you understand what i'm saying. You may still disagree with it, but at least you'd disagree with it out of a correct understanding of what it is

God bless you all.

I think I see where we are disagreeing ...........
You see God's foreknowledge as impossible because God is ever present and He knows all things at once....so to talk of God knowing beforehand would certainly imply a sequence of knowing .......... BUT

as I have said already , God's Foreknowing is not like that , He doesn't say ''this thing I know , and this thing also I now know , and this thing is certain to be before that thing ''

rather He says to us , "before this thing occurs I will tell YOU it will occur so that you may know that I am God"

God's Foreknowledge is only called foreknowledge because HE speaks to His creation ....


you have said

"Foreknowing becomes impossible because God doesn't know it before He knows it"

but that is not the type of Foreknowledge the scriptures speak of , they speak of God foreknowing in a completely different sense . ie, it is knowledge related to time ........... God speaks a prediction in time , and before the event , often many years before an event ....... THAT IS Foreknowledge !


"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty words and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know -- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it." (Acts 2:22-24 RSV)

read my sig!

thoughts ................................

 

[ghs1994]

This is silly. If God had no foreknowledge, how could His Word so accurately and perfectly predict every agenda He had in mind come to pass? You would have to throw out a majority of chapters and books that point to His foreknowledge in order not to understand it. From Adam to Jesus Christ and somewhat beyond, there hasn't been one promise unfulfilled to this point in time.

 

[Jon_]

I mean really really really think about Omnipresence and the full scope of it. It's really as simple as expanding the easily grasped idea that God is everywhere all the time to include that He is also everywhen. Foreknowing becomes impossible because God doesn't know it before He knows it ... and He always knows it and has always known it because He has always been there, everywhere, everywhen.

There are two problems with this. First of all, he begs the question by suggesting that omnipresence necessitates God being "everywhen." This is precisely the point to be proved. Even more, his description of omnipresence becomes contradictory when applied to God by introducing this element to it. If omnipresence were time-depedent, God's omnipresence would contradict his attribute of eternity. Omnipresent speaks only to "where"; it does not speak on when.

Secondly, he misunderstands the usage of "foreknow" because it is strictly anthropomorphic. When the Bible speaks of God's foreknowledge, it speaks analogically. God knows everything immediately, and he knows it precisely because he wills it. As nothing has come into being that was not willed by God, so nothing exists to be known except that which God has willed. God's will and his knowledge are indivisibly connected. What God wills he knows and what he knows he wills. This he has done from eternity.

Another thing he fails to understand is that time is the product of a created mind. God does not think sequentially because all things are ordained by him. All things God has ordained are known to him; therefore, there is nothing for him to know chronologically because even time was created by God. There would be no time for us to perceive if it were not created by God. This is partly what it means to be eternal. More specifically, to be eternal is to be unencumbered by time. The perception of time is a property of temporality, and God is not temporal. Just as God does not have visual, auditory, or olfactory sensations, he does not perceive of time as we do because we experience its effects, whereas God is the cause and has ordained the effects. Were this not so, time would not exist.

And in none of this does omnipresence contradict God's eternity. Moreover, his foreknowledge is maintained because time must first be willed—and thus, known—by God before any concept of "foreknowledge" can be related to man. This is a logical sequence, not a temporal sequence. Logical causality is, of course, non-temporal.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[myways]

Einstien told us that space and time are unified. So, if physical statements about God are anthropomorphisms, then so are temporal statements. Example:

Did God exist before the creation of the universe?
Answer: No; the use of the word "before" forces God into a spatio-temporal box. So if it is 'before' the creation of space-time, you're speaking nonsense because there is no 'before creation.' So, as Jon so wisely said, God having foreknowledge prior to creation is not a literal thing and as such cannot contradict his omniscience(which is literal.)

Dave Davis

 

[cubanito]

Jon, I'd like to suggest an addendum. God does know the perception of time, taste, smell, hunger, even despair. He does so in the person of Christ. Thus while I totally agree with you that God knows all things instantaneously, for He is Eternal and not limited by time to a sequential understanding, He is not limited by being Eternal from knowing the temporal, even in an excruciatingly humbling fashion.

This is an essential difference between Christians and other monotheists (like Muslims). Our God is greater even than the traditional understanding of Omnipotence/Omniscient. Our God is so Great that He is able to be an incarnate human, with all the temporal and other limitations of a created being (as Christ did not know all things, at least at some level). Our God is not only Omniprescent, but He can also become localized.

Jon, I've to work on my understanding of logic. God willing, I'll do that. Nevertheless, I refuse to put limits on God, even to say that if God wishes to become an incarnate being, and trod this earth with all the limitations we have, He most certainly can (yet without sin, for He was the seed of the woman alonr, thus spared the curse upon Adam). Would you, for the sake of your understanding of logic, deny the incarnation? Would you deny the Omnipotent the power to become temporal and weak?

I think not.

So yes, God is Eternal, thus not bound to a sequential foreknowledge. Yet a Person of God (fully God) did become a temporal being in some sense. Therefore, God sees from both viewpoints.

JR

 

[cubanito]

Einstien told us that space and time are unified. So, if physical statements about God are anthropomorphisms, then so are temporal statements. Example:

Did God exist before the creation of the universe?
Answer: No; the use of the word "before" forces God into a spatio-temporal box. So if it is 'before' the creation of space-time, you're speaking nonsense because there is no 'before creation.' So, as Jon so wisely said, God having foreknowledge prior to creation is not a literal thing and as such cannot contradict his omniscience(which is literal.)

Dave Davis

Technically, God did not exist. To ex-ist is from the latin ex (to come out of) and the verb "stere" meaning "to stand". To exist is a compound word meaning that something is created, that it owes it;s being to something else, that it "comes out of" the Being, which is to say the Eternal Being. The Eternal Being, therefore does not exist. Which is why Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I am."

Thus you and Jon's note that "foreknowledge" is not the appropiate term for the Eternal God is quite correct. God did not "foreknow", He knows, all the time, even before time, everything, all at once.

JR

 

[mlqurgw]

As I understand it the Biblical use of the word foreknowledge is never connected with things but with people. God foreknows, that is He has a determined intimate relationship with, people. As far as God knowing beforehand what will happen it is described as foreordination not foreknowledge. God knows what will happen in time because He has ordained that it shall. Neither have anything to do with foresight which seems to me to be the topic of the discussion. Foresight is anthropromorphic when spoken of God because it only deals with the human perspective of things.

 

[Jon_]

Einstien told us that space and time are unified. So, if physical statements about God are anthropomorphisms, then so are temporal statements.

Space and time are products of a temporal mind, so it seems plausible that Einstein would identify the two. I'm not altogether sure I would equate the two, however. That might be a case of post hoc, seeing that the two proceed from the same source, but are not necessarily identical. That is, they are two unique ideas. At least, they must be if we are to speak of them unequivocally. Though, it is possible that speaking of space and time as separate could itself be fallacious.

Did God exist before the creation of the universe?
Answer: No; the use of the word "before" forces God into a spatio-temporal box. So if it is 'before' the creation of space-time, you're speaking nonsense because there is no 'before creation.' So, as Jon so wisely said, God having foreknowledge prior to creation is not a literal thing and as such cannot contradict his omniscience(which is literal.)

This is a great example. It also raises some problems with the word "exist" when applied to God, as you correctly observed. Not only is it inaccurate to say "God exists" (God is existence would be better, as "in him we live, and move, and have our being"), but existence as a predicate applies to everything. This is one of the criticisms of Kant's criticism of the ontological argument. Kant, who was supposed to have demolished this argument for all time, distinguishes between the description of a possibly existent being and an existent being. That is, simply because we can conceive of it being it does not follow that it exists. Kant then goes on to distinguish among analytic and synthetic judgments, etc., distinctions that were demolished by W.V.O. Quinn.

This a very simplistic break down of the argument, but it becomes clear that those who criticize the nature of the "existence" the ontological argument proves misunderstand existence altogether. Now, it is certainly true that attempting to apply the ontological argument to any sort of deity will result in either begging the question (which is what Anselm did) or equivocation (sometimes both); however, the ontological argument raises something of a curiosity in ontology, viz. anything that can be conceived exists. To explain shortly, anything that can be conceived must first exist, else it could not be conceived. For me to conceive of a unicorn, there must exist in some form the idea of "unicorn" before I can imagine it. The real question of existence is not whether object x exists, but in what form it exists, i.e. what are the propositions that correspond to x? Even one proposition corresponding to x necessitates its existence; otherwise, the proposition could not exist. This results in an interesting assertion of idealistic realism, which is quite paradoxical (which contradiction can be resolved).

So, what does all this mean? It means that of course God exists (or is existence, as mentioned above). It is a silly question to ask if God exists. The meaningful question is in what sense does God exist? To answer that, we rely solely upon the Bible, the only true source of knowledge concerning God.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

Jon, I'd like to suggest an addendum. God does know the perception of time, taste, smell, hunger, even despair. He does so in the person of Christ. Thus while I totally agree with you that God knows all things instantaneously, for He is Eternal and not limited by time to a sequential understanding, He is not limited by being Eternal from knowing the temporal, even in an excruciatingly humbling fashion.

I would grant this. The only distinction I would make is that the Son of God experiences these things in his human nature only. The divine nature is immutable, unchanging in everyway. In fact, this is precisely why the incarnation was necessary. Precisely because the divine nature could not suffer the penalty of death due men, the Son of God became incarnate to fulfill the penalty required by law.

This is an essential difference between Christians and other monotheists (like Muslims). Our God is greater even than the traditional understanding of Omnipotence/Omniscient. Our God is so Great that He is able to be an incarnate human, with all the temporal and other limitations of a created being (as Christ did not know all things, at least at some level). Our God is not only Omniprescent, but He can also become localized.

Jon, I've to work on my understanding of logic. God willing, I'll do that. Nevertheless, I refuse to put limits on God, even to say that if God wishes to become an incarnate being, and trod this earth with all the limitations we have, He most certainly can (yet without sin, for He was the seed of the woman alonr, thus spared the curse upon Adam). Would you, for the sake of your understanding of logic, deny the incarnation? Would you deny the Omnipotent the power to become temporal and weak?

I think not.

So yes, God is Eternal, thus not bound to a sequential foreknowledge. Yet a Person of God (fully God) did become a temporal being in some sense. Therefore, God sees from both viewpoints.

Actually, this is really a key point that I would like to make. Logic does not at all deny the incarnation, but provides justification for it. As I mentioned above, because the divine nature cannot suffer temporal effects, it was necessary that the Son of God come in the flesh to pay the penalty for our sins. He really experienced all these things in his truly human nature. Logic expressly defends the incarnation because it explains how the immortal and eternal Almighty was "able" (I use this term very loosely) to become man. This was accomplished through the union of the human nature and the divine nature in the God-man. So, rather than the truth of Scripture being set at odds with reason, we see the truth is actually explained and justified by reason. What more could we expect from the Logos of God, the Reason and Wisdom of God, our eternal Lord and Savior.

I would certainly not place any limitations on God. Rather, I place limits on the invalid inferences men draw concerning the truth about God. For example, the common paradox, can God make a stone too big for him to lift? This is a logical impossibility and an impious instance of irrationality on the part of man. The imperfection does not lie with God, rather with man.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[myways]

Jon,

What I should have said was:

Einstien showed us that physicality and temporality are mutually inclusive properties of all that is a part of the natural universe. Therefore....

Also, on a side note:
Space and time are products of a temporal mind, so it seems plausible that Einstein would identify the two. I'm not altogether sure I would equate the two, however. That might be a case of post hoc, seeing that the two proceed from the same source, but are not necessarily identical. That is, they are two unique ideas. At least, they must be if we are to speak of them unequivocally. Though, it is possible that speaking of space and time as separate could itself be fallacious.
This is a very thorough and penetrating insight into my comment considering how poorly I worded it. My compliments.

 

[myways]

Jon,

Do you use that knife for "dividing the word of truth" or for death-duels in the street with arminians?

--Dave

 

[Jon_]

Jon,

Do you use that knife for "dividing the word of truth" or for death-duels in the street with arminians?

--Dave

I use it for spreading peanut butter on my sandwiches.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[McWilliams]

Divine Foreknowledge and sequential knowledge

I have noticed an increasingly common arguement over the last few Months , many are disagreeing that God can Foreknow any event for that would imply a limitation to His Omniscience.
The arguement is used mainly against Calvinist's and decretive theology .

The idea being that a sequence occuring within God's knowledge would be a denial of total knowledge therefore there can be no sequence .
From this it is concluded (wrongly) , that God cannot Foreknow or predict the future .

Well, is it just too simplistic to say that He definitely would have foreknowledge of what He had providentially decreed in eternity past?

 

[cubanito]

I use it for spreading peanut butter on my sandwiches.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

If so you eat peanut butter mush, considering how sharp the knife is.

It pleases me greatly we have an infinity before us, so that I can take my sweet time to learn how you are incorrect (not on this topic, where we agree, but some other, it hardly matters which). Certainly I do not know, but methinks that perhaps we'll be allowed problems to wrestle with even in glory. If so perhaps we can take a few thousand years for a nice knife duel, Jon. I guess it would be "to the Life."

JR

 

[Jon_]

It pleases me greatly we have an infinity before us, so that I can take my sweet time to learn how you are incorrect. . . .

I wonder why you think I am incorrect if you do not know how. That's sort of like saying, "You're wrong, but I don't know why." That's a contradictory assertion.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[cubanito]

Jon, you hold as central dogma that you and I both are incorrect at some point or other; as we both hold that we are yet sinners this side of glorification (ie death or rapture). If I knew at point I was incorrect in my thinking, I would hope to eventually correct my error (after due reflection, sudy and of course prayer). It seems obvious to me you believe the same about yourself. I very much doubt you are an extreme follower of the holyness movement that believes in total perfectability here and now!

Given your acceptance of my addendums re God's "existence" and temporal limitations, on this thread I think we are in 100% agreement so far

Though paranoia serves us well in this world, in thie case of my comments no sinister plot was intended...this time....

JR

 

[Jon_]

Jon, you hold as central dogma that you and I both are incorrect at some point or other; as we both hold that we are yet sinners this side of glorification (ie death or rapture).

Yes, indeed: the T in TULIP.

If I knew at point I was incorrect in my thinking, I would hope to eventually correct my error (after due reflection, sudy and of course prayer). It seems obvious to me you believe the same about yourself. I very much doubt you are an extreme follower of the holyness movement that believes in total perfectability here and now!

Given your acceptance of my addendums re God's "existence" and temporal limitations, on this thread I think we are in 100% agreement so far

Though paranoia serves us well in this world, in thie case of my comments no sinister plot was intended...this time....

JR

I'm a little confused.

From your response here, it sounds like you and I agree, but in your previous post, you expressly say you think I'm wrong (on other matters, not this one), but don't know why. Do I understand you correctly to say that you think I'm wrong on other matters simply because I am a sinner cursed with total depravity? Very well, then. That's certainly correct, but perhaps you would like to enumerate specifically what you disagree with. It doesn't seem to make much sense to simply say that I'm wrong about something because I'm a sinner. The tone of your statement seemed to imply there was something specific that you thought was wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you were gunning for me a little bit in the previous post. Is it because I was so critical in the post supralapsarianism or something else? If I incurred your wrath with harsh words, then I ask forgiveness. Apart from that, I cannot understand the apparent enmity.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[cubanito]

Jon From your response here, it sounds like you and I agree,

JR(cubanito) on the subject of this thread and on many other matters, yes indeed.

Jon but in your previous post, you expressly say you think I'm wrong (on other matters, not this one), but don't know why.

JR Essentially correct also

Jon Do I understand you correctly to say that you think I'm wrong on other matters simply because I am a sinner cursed with total depravity? Very well, then. That's certainly correct,

JR Again, yes

Jon but perhaps you would like to enumerate specifically what you disagree with.

JR No I would not like to reiterate. You pointed out an ignorance in my thinking, and suggested how I may teach myself better ("any good book on logic"). I much prefer to correct my ignorance with careful study than waste time displaying my ignorance further. I say this with NO sarcasm. Again, I thank you for pointing out my ignorance. Truly I do. I am far more interested in learning, and thus becoming a more effective tool of God, than winning an argument (even if the latter were possible).

Jon It doesn't seem to make much sense to simply say that I'm wrong about something because I'm a sinner.

JR It makes a lot of sense to me to remind myself of the obvious, and frequently, that we are works in progress. It is a fine tonic against my own arrogance, and should be to yours. Please understand, we BOTH believe there is yet arrogance in us, again we both agree to this. It may be obvious, but it is good to our souls to remember this.

Jon The tone of your statement seemed to imply there was something specific that you thought was wrong.

JR My apologies, for I was actually trying to be friendly. I really do enjoy a good wrestle with a brother, so long it be kept civil and it be to the Glory of God. Wrestling with you over sovereignty did me a lot of good, and I again thank you.

Jon Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you were gunning for me a little bit in the previous post.

JR Of course I was!! But not to humiliate or otherwise shame you. I say it again, I like and profit from debates with my brothers, whether I "win" or "lose" them in the usual sens is not a big deal to me. The brief exchange with you was one of many times where by "losing" a debate I profited, which means that in a truer sense, we both won.

Jon Is it because I was so critical in the post supralapsarianism or something else? If I incurred your wrath with harsh words, then I ask forgiveness. Apart from that, I cannot understand the apparent enmity.

JR Again, persecutional paranoia serves us well in this post-Adamic twilight place. I would not dissuade you from habitual persecutional paranoia in a general sense. And if it serves you to continue believing I hold enmnity towards you, well, so be it. After all, you know next to nothing about me, as is the nature of the web, compounded by the briefness of exchanges between us. All I can do is type that I DO NOT and send you more blessings.

Jon Soli Deo Gloria


JR Yeah Jon, exactly my point. Which is why I am glad to have an error in my thinking pointed out, and even more, having it done kindly by a brother. Perhaps someday I might repay the favor. If you view that attitude as "gunning for you", then by all means "gun for me" also! I mean no disrespect to ladies, but as a man, I like this kind of "adversarial" debate, again kept civil not ad hominem. 'nuff said

JR

 

[Jon_]

And if it serves you to continue believing I hold enmnity towards you, well, so be it.

I would rather believe that we are two brothers with different dispositions and beliefs. I don't see enmity as being an acceptable volition for anything that would qualify as Christian. Instead, we should rather encourage and edify each other in love. So, if you are willing, and if you are not, I would rather show you love in our dialogue, and would rather receive the same, for "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Leviticus 19:18 KJV). And in even greater terms—"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Galatians 5:14 KJV).

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[cubanito]

Jon, I believe there's a difference between enmnity, and a joyful attitude towards wrestling with a brother. I like a good clean argument, as I believe we've had. Funny that we are now arguing over wether or how we're arguing!

I have no enmnity towards you.

Can you understand I relish the oportunity to argue with you nonetheless? That proving you wrong at some hypothetical juncture will be as much fun and benefit to me as having you prove me wrong? Is there no room in your canception of Christian brotherhood for what CS Lewis termed "muscular Christianity?" That we can enjoy a mental wrestling match between brothers without hurting one another, since we are both relatively mature brothers? I never had a biological brother. I do remember, though, much fun at "play fighting" and other competitive sports with various cousins. Given rules to safeguard from actually hurting someone intentionally, what is wrong with a competitive attitude? Again, not one of trying to hurt the person or their feelings, but of friendly banter?

My understanding of Christian fellowship includes the possibility of that. Certainly not meant to harm, nor in backbiting, ad hominem or other "foul play." But rather in well intentioned disputation.

JR