Can God Know Future Freewill Choices?

Sketo

Well-known member
Acts 2:23 (KJV 1900) — 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

God knew of the Jews desire to kill Christ he there determined to use that desire and determine the crucifixion

He did not determine that desire

So in your view that’s where God “learned” of their desire? In your view God was just reacting so something he “learned” from the timeline of creation and found it useful at the time?

Nonsense. Foreknowledge is not “learned” by God. It’s determined by God.

The Crucifixion of Christ was not plan B.

Gods foreknowledge is God’s perfect knowledge of the results of his own action of planning, purposing, and determining All things.

“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” (Act 15:18)
 

fltom

Well-known member
So in your view that’s where God “learned” of their desire? In your view God was just reacting so something he “learned” from the timeline of creation and found it useful at the time?

He always knew


Nonsense. Foreknowledge is not “learned” by God. It’s determined by God.
I have not stated a single thing about God learning

this is a strawman





The Crucifixion of Christ was not plan B.

More straw

Never stated any such thing


Gods foreknowledge is God’s perfect knowledge of the results of his own action of planning, purposing, and determining All things.

“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” (Act 15:18)

Now all that is missing is the word only

I.e. he had no knowledge of what men might do

then you can be one who lends support to open theism



u
 

sundance

Well-known member
Describe to me infinite transcendence.

In 10 words or less, please.



You could put it this way as a visual illustration to get a hold of, but you're thinking in created terms.

Time is not the reference point that God relates to, as if he floated around the different parts of time looking in.

God is the reference point that all else relates to.

So God is an "anchor"? I can accept this.

Does cause and effect still exist with God? I would say they must.
 

fltom

Well-known member
The Law of the Excluded Middle...
In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) states that for every proposition, either this proposition or its negation is true. It is one of the so-called three laws of thought, along with the law of noncontradiction, and the law of identity.

simplicable.com/new/law-of-excluded-middle
 

Sketo

Well-known member
I.e. he had no knowledge of what men might do

If God only knows what men might do then you leave God’s knowledge open to the possibility they also might not do.

“Might” is no more accurate than a “lucky guess”.
A quarter, when flipped, “might” land on heads but it might not. Random chance.

Therefore your view leaves Gods knowledge open to only possibilities waiting until created man determines his knowledge of certainties.

Like after the quarter settles on the table…

Your “might” view is no different than full blown Open Theism.



Suggested Timestamp links…
00:55:31 Asking “How God Knows” Is Essentially The Death Nail To Freewill
01:24:44 “It’s Not If God Knows It’s How God Knows” And Calvinists Justify How (See Above)
01:28:50 Key Word Used So They dont Have To Justify Their Claims
01:30:50 ⭐️God Can Only Know What Can Logically Be Known (“If God Can Know”)
01:33:54 Is Gods Knowledge “Generated/Caused/Determined” By God Or Not
01:41:32 Can God “Look Out” At, And Know About, Things He Does Not Create/Uphold/Sustain


 
Last edited:

fltom

Well-known member
If God only knows what men might do then you leave God’s knowledge open to the possibility they also might not do.
Nope

Knowing what they would do eliminates what they would not do

In case it is your view that echo's the belief of open theism that God cannot know what he did not determine

BTW The WCF contradicts you

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 26–27.
 

Sketo

Well-known member
Nope

Knowing what they would do eliminates what they would not do

Then you have brought in an unjustified 3rd party that determines both Gods knowing and man’s doing…

Gods knowledge must be grounded in something…

What is the thing that solidifies God’s knowledge and man’s doing
 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
Then you have brought in an unjustified 3rd party that determines both Gods knowing and man’s doing…

Gods knowledge must be grounded in something…

What is the thing that solidifies God’s knowledge and man’s doing
Exactly. He screams foreknowledge is not causation and then .....well. lol
 

Simpletruther

Well-known member
No we cannot

He is contrasting free will with necessity however the necessity is established

just like

free will
[ˌfrē ˈwil]

NOUN
  1. the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
And what the necessity was, is defined in the context. Basically Paul pulling rank on him and insisting he take the save back.

And it's absurd to claim that would remove his free will in the libertarian sense.
 

sundance

Well-known member
Laws of logic change? Such as?

Most men today judge such laws according to Aristotle. Aristotle was nothing more than a man. Men change. The next "Aristotle" will come along one day just like Aristotle came along and change them in his day.

Modern man is arrogant and unyielding in their opinions of themselves.
 

Kampioen

Well-known member
Then you have brought in an unjustified 3rd party that determines both Gods knowing and man’s doing…

Gods knowledge must be grounded in something…

What is the thing that solidifies God’s knowledge and man’s doing

A miracle. An open future is unknowable. So a miracle covers it. God's foreknowledge is not grounded in cause in either direction.
 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
Most men today judge such laws according to Aristotle. Aristotle was nothing more than a man. Men change. The next "Aristotle" will come along one day just like Aristotle came along and change them in his day.

Modern man is arrogant and unyielding in their opinions of themselves.
Great. I asked for a law of logic that has changed.
 
Top