I have a question about God's foreknowledge...

[olger]

Is it possible that God limits His foreknowledge? Illustration:

In the case of Job, Satan and God enter into a duel of sorts. Does God draw back the curtain, check to see if Job will pass the test, and then turn to the enemy and say "Sure, I accept the challenge?" Or does God limit His foreknowledge to be fair?

In the Desire of ages, there is a statement that haunts me for these nineteen years.

"Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss."

If God knew the future in the controversy over Job, then where was the risk? I know our Father as One who takes risks because of His love. Just giving created beings the power of choice was in itself a huge risk.

In summary could it be that God chooses to limit His foreknowledge at times, possibly in the case of Job?

Ger

[melvin mccarty]

I suspect the only foreknowledge that God has is the knowledge of what He intends to do in the future.

mel

[olger]

Thanks Mel.

og

[John317]

You might want to check out a book entitled, The Openness of God, by Richard Rice. Not sure if it is available any more. It was somewhat controversial. Dr. Rice teaches (or at least did teach) at La Sierra University.

He posited the notion that God does not know everything about the future. In this view, Rice was greatly influenced by the process philosophy of people such as Alfred North Whitehead and the process theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg. These teach that God is also in the process of changing or evolving with His creation. That means that God experiences the future in a very real way, and that this future is quite distinct from the past. On this view, then, although God does not know the details of the future, yet because of His power and intelligence He knows what He is going to do in the future and He is never taken by surprise at anything that happens. Therefore we can put all of our trust in Him.

I am not convinced but this is what Professor Rice argues in his book.

[olger]

"The risk of eternal loss." If the future was/is mapped out, where be the risk?

I'm not convinced of Rice's view either.

[John317]

"The risk of eternal loss." If the future was/is mapped out, where be the risk?

I'm not convinced of Rice's view either.

Dr. Rice's book was more like an exploration or an experiment. He was trying to get people to think about the nature of God, sort of pushing the envelope. So in that way it was good.

But I don't see how some of his ideas as expressed in that book can be made to harmonize with the Bible's view of prophecy, particularly in chapters 40 and onwards of Isaiah, Daniel 2, 7,8, 9 and 11, the prophecies about individuals, nations, cities, etc. Sometimes I see him at church, and I think next time I do, I'll ask him about that. He's a very nice guy and easy to engage in conversation. I had him in Systematic Theology and Philosophy of Religion.

[Gerr]

I have thought about this subject a lot, but have no conclusions. There are passages of Scripture and SOP that seem to indicate that the future is an open book to God, yet how can an absolutely free will be predictable? And as you already pointed out, how could the incarnation be risky if He already knows the outcome? I could invest all my retirement in one stock if could see the future that I won't lose one penny.

Gerry

[John317]

... how can an absolutely free will be predictable? And as you already pointed out, how could the incarnation be risky if He already knows the outcome? ...

Gerry

There are quite a few conditional prophecies in the Bible indicating that either God did not know exactly what choice people were going to make or else He wanted people to understand that they had a real choice and that their choices would determine much that happened in the future. For instance, Deut. 38 with its blessings for obedience and curses on disobedience. Also, the prophecies regarding Christ's first coming show that it was possible that the Hebrew people as a whole could have accepted Him.

If God knows the future like we know the past, it doesn't necessarily mean that there is no free will. Let's say that God knows the future somewhat like we know when watching a film of Kennedy riding by the Texas Book Depository that he is going to be killed. Does our knowing it will happen make it happen? Does our knowing without question what is going to happen mean that those events did not transpire through free will?

The prophecies about Christ's resurrection and triumph over Satan, starting with the first prophecy in Gen. 3: 15, and including Isaiah 53:11, seem to preclude any notion that the Godhead was uncertain of what the incarnation would finally accomplish. I say "seems" because there's one way in which all of those prophecies could have been conditional, and that's if they were all predicated on a successful outcome, not that the outcome itself was absolutely certain. So if the incarnation had failed the test, all of mankind, including Enoch, Elijah, and Moses, would have faced eternal death, and the prophecies regarding the Second Coming never would have been fulfilled.

[Gerr]

Quote:

If God knows the future like we know the past, it doesn't necessarily mean that there is no free will. Let's say that God knows the future somewhat like we know when watching a film of Kennedy riding by the Texas Book Depository that he is going to be killed. Does our knowing it will happen make it happen? Does our knowing without question what is going to happen mean that those events did not transpire through free will?

The flaw that I see in this illustration is this: We can see all the factors that lead to his being shot at a particular area all lined up. The shooter with his rifle is already in place. But let's say he is in the middle of a 4-way stop cross street. Which direction will he choose if he is really free to choose?

Gerry

[olger]

"Yet 40-days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown" perhaps..?

[John317]

The Bible predicted many details in the life of Jesus. The same for Cyrus in Isaiah 45, where the prophet gives Cyrus' name even before he was born, and wrote that Cyrus would be the liberator of God's people by freeing them from Babylon. So many details also predicted in Daniel 11 of quite a few different people. Yet it seems that all these people acted freely. Hard to explain, granted.

[LifeHiscost]

"The risk of eternal loss." If the future was/is mapped out, where be the risk?

.

The question posed, "where be the risk?" begs the question, if the Father is not all knowing, including the future, would you still entrust yourself into His hands? And secondarily, what is the alternative to submission to Him?

Also, are there any correct answers to hypothetical circumstances? And can you say you trust Him when you don't know if He can be trusted.

"In peace I will both lie down and sleep, for You, Lord, alone make me dwell in safety and confident trust." Psalm 4:8 AMP

Regards!

[olger]

hmmmmm

Him limiting his foreknowledge does not lessen His character but rather magnifies it.

[LifeHiscost]

hmmmmm

Him limiting his foreknowledge does not lessen His character but rather magnifies it.

It seems not His character that is in question as much as His children's need to rest on assurances, with no loopholes for doubts so effectively used by the prince of darkness.

It seems logical that in order to know how it will end, One must know what happens in between.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. " Revelation 22:13

Regards!

[olger]

I understand that. If Christ came here at the risk of eternal loss, it surely seems that knowing the end would have eliminated that risk.