The Definition Of “Foreknowledge”

[atpollard]

Especially since you reject Romans 1as an answer.
Which was written after Jesus was lifted up.

You do know that Romans 1 does not talk about everyone knowing the gospel without hearing it preached and having knowledge of Jesus Christ, right? It just says that CREATION bears testimony that there is an eternal creator (God) so people that reject God for an idol are without an excuse for doing so … they know the dead idol is not God.

Romans 1 does not teach that unreached people groups should already know about Jesus Christ.

 

[atpollard]

Again I ask, were you there?

No, but there is a historic record of people that were there and made first contact with the people of the Americas … bringing them the Gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ that they had never heard after the 1490’s.

This is at best a hypothetical question and can’t really be answered.

Actually, it can be answered. You just reject the obvious anwer:

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! - Romans 10:13-15

Itzcoatl died before the preacher was sent.
Itzcoatl did not hear without a preacher.
Itzcoatl could not believe in a Jesus he had never heard of.
Itzcoatl could not call on a Jesus he did not believe in.
Itzcoatl was not saved by calling on the name of the Lord (Jesus) … he was not “drawn” to the cross.
”EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION” is not drawn to the cross (you have misunderstood Jesus’ words).

 

[Ben1445]

You're avoiding the question.

From Day One, did God work to ensure you, personally and individually, would come into the world? Or did you just luck out?

I answered the question you asked.
I’ll be more specific.
From what God has told us, God has created every person. Luck has nothing to do with our first appearance. Life is a gift from God.
There is nothing in Scripture that contextually supports the Calvinist view that God determines for people that they will be born again. Instead, God offers the gift of eternal life to all people in such a way that they know God and reject God and are without excuse.
I believe that God is no less Sovereign for giving each person the ability and opportunity to accept or reject Him. Does your God have the ability to do that?

 

[Ben1445]

You do know that Romans 1 does not talk about everyone knowing the gospel without hearing it preached and having knowledge of Jesus Christ, right? It just says that CREATION bears testimony that there is an eternal creator (God) so people that reject God for an idol are without an excuse for doing so … they know the dead idol is not God.

Romans 1 does not teach that unreached people groups should already know about Jesus Christ.

It says that they have enough information in creation to draw them to God so that they are without excuse. That is what it says. I believe it. I don’t need to find a way to justify it in my mind. God is the Judge. If He said that His natural revelation is enough to bring them to Him, I believe it.
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

 

[Silverhair]

Is there a rebuttal in there somewhere?

No need for me to do a rebuttal as the bible has already done so.

Either your man-made religion or the word of God is true, it cannot be both.

Since your religion is man-made and based on pagan philosophy I will treat it the way I would treat the JW or Mormon religion. Try to teach those caught up in it that it is not the truth of God but is a mere shadow of truth.

Just like the JW's & Mormons the C/R religion contains a false teaching that is over laid with a kernel of truth designed to fool the unwary.

 

[Ben1445]

No, but there is a historic record of people that were there and made first contact with the people of the Americas … bringing them the Gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ that they had never heard after the 1490’s.


Actually, it can be answered. You just reject the obvious anwer:

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! - Romans 10:13-15

Itzcoatl died before the preacher was sent.
Itzcoatl did not hear without a preacher.
Itzcoatl could not believe in a Jesus he had never heard of.
Itzcoatl could not call on a Jesus he did not believe in.
Itzcoatl was not saved by calling on the name of the Lord (Jesus) … he was not “drawn” to the cross.
”EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION” is not drawn to the cross (you have misunderstood Jesus’ words).

Or it could be that they rejected God. God gave them opportunity to seek Him. They didn’t and eventually their opportunity ran out.
I give you the Amorites for an example.
Genesis 15:16
But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

But still, lack of a record is not proof it didn’t happen. It is called plausible deniability. But whether it did or not makes no difference unless you have a time machine.

 

[Aaron]

No need for me to do a rebuttal as the bible has already done so.

Either your man-made religion or the word of God is true, it cannot be both.

Since your religion is man-made and based on pagan philosophy I will treat it the way I would treat the JW or Mormon religion. Try to teach those caught up in it that it is not the truth of God but is a mere shadow of truth.

Just like the JW's & Mormons the C/R religion contains a false teaching that is over laid with a kernel of truth designed to fool the unwary.

LOL.

The Mormons and the JWs preach free will. The Gospel does not.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

I don’t disagree that the definition of “knowing” can mean to be in a relationship. At the same time, I don’t see how that also means that it has to be determined.

What I mean is that simply sharing what others who hold your position believes is really not helpful in debating against those who disagree with your view.

I quoted from The Bible Hub, here;

The Bible Hub: "Predestination highlights God's Foreknowledge
and His Intention to Conform believers to the Image of His Son,
as mentioned earlier in Romans 8:29.

It underscores the Assurance of Salvation, as God's Plan is Unchangeable and Certain."

Then, after those quotation marks, I went on further into how, although they are distinguished from one another,
in Romans 8:29; "For whom He did Foreknow, He also did Predestinate", gives us specifically what God did, when He Determined, or Predestinated, those He would eventually Call, Justify, and Glorify, and so, also, indicating how they are indispensably, intimately linked.

Then, while they all certainly Work together in God's Eternal Plan of Salvation,
Romans 8:30 gives you somewhat of a differentiation between what you are saying
that you don't see 'Foreknowledge' as having any element of 'Predestination', or 'Determination' in it,
when the two words are separated, in Romans 8:29; "For whom He did Foreknow, He also did Predestinate",

and yet, given the Historical Fact that God is describing there the various elements involved in His Way of Going about Establishing His Relationship with His Chosen people, while the two words are given to us separately, how could they be anymore interlinked, i.e., "whom He did Foreknow" couldn't be any more directly linked to "He also did" (Determine to) Predestinate."

Then, another brief quote with scriptures;

As they said in the article I shared, "When that term (knowledge) is used in connection with God, it often signifies to regard with favor, denoting not mere cognition but an affection for the object in view".

"I know thee by name” (Ex 33:17).

“Ye have been rebellious against the Lord from the day that I knew you” (Deut 9:24).

“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee” (Jer 1:5).

“They have made princes and I knew it not” (Hos 8:4).

“You only have I known of all the families of the earth” (Amos 3:2).

In these passages “knew” signifies either loved or appointed.

Concluding;

And also again, I believe those He says He "knows" in 'a relationship',
includes Him Determining to Care for them in all the ways that He has Promised,
as seen in the verses below;

“I am the good shepherd and know My sheep and am known of Mine” (John 10:14).

“If any man love God, the same is known of Him” (I Cor 8:3).

“The Lord knoweth them that are His” (II Tim 2:19).

 

[Silverhair]

LOL.

The Mormons and the JWs preach free will. The Gospel does not.

Agree the gospel does not. but then again the gospel is not about free will is it?

1Co 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
1Co 15:2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

But the bible does not teach determinism but for some strange reason you believe it.

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

God either condemns them for there free will choice or because He caused them to reject Him. If the latter then why say they have no excuse. God would have given them the best excuse going, He determined what they would do.

You need to start thinking through your religion.

Joh 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Act 17:24-27 "...that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; "

Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

That requires a free will to be able to make the choice.

The fact that you have to use your free will just to make a comment on this board is an argument for free will.

The only reason that you believe that man has no free will with which to evaluate the evidence for God is because you have a free will. The only other option is that your view was determined for you so you have no rational way to state an opinion.

 

[Ben1445]

I quoted from The Bible Hub, here;

Then, after those quotation marks, I went on further into how, although they are distinguished from one another,
in Romans 8:29; "For whom He did Foreknow, He also did Predestinate", gives us specifically what God did, when He Determined, or Predestinated, those He would eventually Call, Justify, and Glorify, and so, also, indicating how they are indispensably, intimately linked.

Then, another brief quote with scriptures;


Concluding;

well, all i got out of this is "i told you so."
there is too much quoting to go back and actually have the context of each quote.
i also don't trust you not to add your own context.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Instead of imagining that these words signify no more than a simple cognition, the different passages in which they occur require to be carefully weighed.

Then, just like with the words Ginosko (γινώσκω) and Oida (οἶδα)
in Greek, the word "to know" can be expressed through those two main terms:

• Ginosko (γινώσκω): This term signifies objective knowledge and what one has learned or acquired.
  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἰδού
  If you were to actually personally drink a bottle of pop, you would have experienced it yourself and 'know', 'ginosko', it was Coke, or not.
  
  While, for example, if you were to merely observe someone else drinking a bottle of pop you could say that you 'know', 'Oida', it was also a Coke, as far as you could see, but not so much being sure of it, as if you were the one who was tasting it.
  
  
• Oida (οἶδα): This term can describe both knowledge of facts and perception. It often refers to knowledge gained through observation.
  
  
  
  Both terms are used in various contexts, particularly in the New Testament, to convey different nuances of knowing.
  
• "Ginosko" (γινώσκω)is a Greek Greek verb meaning "to know,"often implying a deep, personal, and experiential understanding.
  

  Definition and Usage:​

  • Meaning: The term "ginosko" signifies not just intellectual knowledge but a relational and experiential understanding. It conveys the idea of coming to know something through personal experience, often associated with intimacy and familiarity.

The distinction between οἶδα and γινώσκω (ginóskó) is also noted, with οἶδα conveying intuitive knowledge and γινώσκω indicating objective knowledge. This distinction is illustrated in various biblical passages, such as John 8:55, where Jesus states, "Ye know not Him, but I know Him," and John 13:7, where Jesus says, "What I do thou dost not know now, but thou shalt know hereafter."


Overall, οἶδα is a versatile term in Greek that encapsulates the essence of knowing, whether it be intuitive, intuitive knowledge, or objective knowledge acquired through learning or experience. Its usage in the New Testament and its historical context make it a significant word in the study of Greek language and its biblical texts.

ידע​

yada​

"The idea of "knowing" in Ancient Hebrew thought is similar to our understanding of knowing but is more personal and intimate.

"We may say that we "know" someone but simply mean we "know" of his or her existence,
but in Hebrew thought, one can only "know" someone if they have a personal and intimate relationship with them.

"In Genesis 18:19; Elohiym says about Abraham, "I know him" meaning he has a very close relationship with Abraham.

"In Genesis 4:1; it says that Adam "knew Eve his wife" implying a very intimate relationship."

'Know', by Jeff A. Benner, from The Ancient Hebrew Research Center.​

​

Certainly, Strong's has several nuances of The Old Testament word, for 'know' which are expressed in numerous ways
in a great variety of senses, as it says, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care, recognition; and causatively, instruction, designation, punishment, etc.) (as follows):

Strong's: #3045
acknowledge, acquainted with, advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware,

A primitive root; to know (properly, to ascertain by seeing);
used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially
(including observation, care, recognition; and causatively, instruction, designation, punishment, etc.) (as follow) -

- acknowledge, acquaintance(-ted with), advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware, (un-)awares, can(-not), certainly,
comprehend, consider, X could they, cunning, declare, be diligent, (can, cause to) discern, discover, endued with,
familiar friend, famous, feel, can have, be (ig-)norant, instruct, kinsfolk, kinsman, (cause to let, make) know,
(come to give, have, take) knowledge, have (knowledge), (be, make, make to be, make self) known, + be learned,
+ lie by man, mark, perceive, privy to, X prognosticator, regard, have respect, skilful, shew, can (man of) skill,
be sure, of a surety, teach, (can) tell, understand, have (understanding), X will be, wist, wit, wot.


So, whether, in The Old Testament or The New Testament, regarding these usages of the word 'know';

If every passage in which it occurs is carefully studied, it will be discovered that it is a moot point whether it ever has reference to the mere perception of events which are yet to take place. The fact is that “foreknowledge” is never used in Scripture in connection with events or actions; instead, 'foreknowledge' always has reference to persons. It is persons God is said to “foreknow,” not the actions of those persons.

That puts the weight of the discussion back where there needs to be proof shown that the word "foreknowledge"
is ever used in Scripture in connection with events or actions being 'foreknown', etc.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

“I had a relationship with you before you were born and then I called you,”

"I knew you from Eternity Past, before you did good or evil and Called you to Preach to the Nations."

Jeremiah 1:5;
"Before I Formed thee in the belly I knew thee;
and before thou camest forth out of the womb I Sanctified thee,
and I Ordained thee a Prophet unto the nations."

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee",.... Not merely by His Omniscience, so He 'knows' all men before their conception and birth; but with such a knowledge as had Special Love and Affection joined with it; in which sense the Lord knows them that are His, as He does not others, and Predestinates them unto Eternal Life; and which is not only before their Formation in the womb, but before the Foundation of the World, even from all Eternity.

"The forming of the human fetus is God's Act, and a curious piece of Workmanship it is; see Psalm 139:15.

"And before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee"; not by Infusing Holiness into him, but by Separating him in his Eternal Purposes and Decrees to the Office of a Prophet before he was born, and even before the World began;

"just as the Apostle Paul was Separated to the Gospel of God, Romans 1:1, for it follows,

"and I Ordained thee a Prophet unto the Nations"; not to the Israelites only, who Jarchi thinks are so called, because they now followed the usages and customs of the Nations; but to the Gentiles, against whom be was sent to Prophesy, Jeremiah 46:1 as Egyptians, Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, and Chaldeans.

"This Ordination of him to be a Prophet was not done in Time, but in Eternity, in the Mind and Thought of God;

"he was Foreordained to this Office before the Foundation of the World, of which a Declaration was Made unto him when he was now Called unto it; to which he makes answer, in Jeremiah 1:6;

"Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child."

from

Jeremiah 1 Gill's Exposition

or “I ordained you and then I ordained you,” don’t make as much sense as a knowledge interpretation.

"I Chose you as one of my Elect children, in Eternity Past, and have Ordained you to serve Me as My Prophet".

well, all i got out of this is "i told you so."

I don't remember anything about this.

You got a discussion you can't answer, unless you make demand for the part and parcel Armenian Hermeneutical Principal of Illiteracy.

there is too much quoting to go back and actually have the context of each quote.

So, why don't you just cry about it, man?

i also don't trust you not to add your own context.

Like here, where you want so bad for 'God to have taken notice' of something that wasn't there
in order for Him ever be able to take notice of it, in the first place
that you then call, "an accurate representation"(???)

God is showing a progression of events. “I took notice of you. I called you.” Is an accurate representation.

Except that GOD DID NOT and it is NOT.

 

[Ben1445]

Then, just like with the words Ginosko (γινώσκω) and Oida (οἶδα)
in Greek, the word "to know" can be expressed through those two main terms:

• Ginosko (γινώσκω): This term signifies objective knowledge and what one has learned or acquired.
  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἰδού
  If you were to actually personally drink a bottle of pop, you would have experienced it yourself and 'know', 'ginosko', it was Coke, or not.
  
  While, for example, if you were to merely observe someone else drinking a bottle of pop you could say that you 'know', 'Oida', it was also a Coke, as far as you could see, but not so much being sure of it, as if you were the one who was tasting it.
  
  
• Oida (οἶδα): This term can describe both knowledge of facts and perception. It often refers to knowledge gained through observation.
  https://adoss.co.uk/ginosko-and-oida/
  
  
  Both terms are used in various contexts, particularly in the New Testament, to convey different nuances of knowing.
• "Ginosko" (γινώσκω)is a Greek Greek verb meaning "to know,"often implying a deep, personal, and experiential understanding.
  

  Definition and Usage:​

  • Meaning: The term "ginosko" signifies not just intellectual knowledge but a relational and experiential understanding. It conveys the idea of coming to know something through personal experience, often associated with intimacy and familiarity.

The distinction between οἶδα and γινώσκω (ginóskó) is also noted, with οἶδα conveying intuitive knowledge and γινώσκω indicating objective knowledge. This distinction is illustrated in various biblical passages, such as John 8:55, where Jesus states, "Ye know not Him, but I know Him," and John 13:7, where Jesus says, "What I do thou dost not know now, but thou shalt know hereafter."
Overall, οἶδα is a versatile term in Greek that encapsulates the essence of knowing, whether it be intuitive, intuitive knowledge, or objective knowledge acquired through learning or experience. Its usage in the New Testament and its historical context make it a significant word in the study of Greek language and its biblical texts.

​

ידע​

yada​

"The idea of "knowing" in Ancient Hebrew thought is similar to our understanding of knowing but is more personal and intimate.

"We may say that we "know" someone but simply mean we "know" of his or her existence,
but in Hebrew thought, one can only "know" someone if they have a personal and intimate relationship with them.

"In Genesis 18:19; Elohiym says about Abraham, "I know him" meaning he has a very close relationship with Abraham.

"In Genesis 4:1; it says that Adam "knew Eve his wife" implying a very intimate relationship."

'Know', by Jeff A. Benner, from The Ancient Hebrew Research Center.​

​

Certainly, Strong's has several nuances of The Old Testament word, for 'know' which are expressed in numerous ways
in a great variety of senses, as it says, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care, recognition; and causatively, instruction, designation, punishment, etc.) (as follows):

Strong's: #3045
acknowledge, acquainted with, advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware,

A primitive root; to know (properly, to ascertain by seeing);
used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially
(including observation, care, recognition; and causatively, instruction, designation, punishment, etc.) (as follow) -

- acknowledge, acquaintance(-ted with), advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware, (un-)awares, can(-not), certainly,
comprehend, consider, X could they, cunning, declare, be diligent, (can, cause to) discern, discover, endued with,
familiar friend, famous, feel, can have, be (ig-)norant, instruct, kinsfolk, kinsman, (cause to let, make) know,
(come to give, have, take) knowledge, have (knowledge), (be, make, make to be, make self) known, + be learned,
+ lie by man, mark, perceive, privy to, X prognosticator, regard, have respect, skilful, shew, can (man of) skill,
be sure, of a surety, teach, (can) tell, understand, have (understanding), X will be, wist, wit, wot.


So, whether, in The Old Testament or The New Testament, regarding these usages of the word 'know';

That puts the weight of the discussion back where there needs to be proof shown that the word "foreknowledge"
is ever used in Scripture in connection with events or actions being 'foreknown', etc.

so strong was a Calvinists?
I still don’t gather my theology from dictionaries.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

so strong was a Calvinists?

Either you know How Saves souls, or you don't, and Calvin did.

I still don’t gather my theology from dictionaries.

Your Theology defines God "knew" Jeremiah before God Formed him in the belly, by saying "knew" meant only that "God took notice of him".

So, God "took notice" of Jeremiah in the belly, before God Formed Jeremiah in the belly? How?

Please, elaborate on that.

That's is fantastic. There can't be a word of Truth to it, of course, and "knew" is summarily eliminated as having a meaning of "took notice".

Strong work.

Fantastic.

 

[Van]

Prognōsis (4268) literally means "before knowledge" and refers to knowledge acquired in the past being utilized in the present and never refers to future knowledge.

In Acts 2:23 Jesus is put to death by the previously declared plan and being implemented in the present by God.

In 1 Peter 1:1-2 people were chosen according to God's redemption plan method, being implemented in the present,

If you care to study the actual concept, you can also look at the related "verb" form of the Greek word, found at Acts 26:5, Romans 8:29, Romans 11:2, 1 Peter 1:20 and 2 Peter 3:17.

In every case an action to be taken in the present is based on prior knowledge of the past.

Study and learn.

 

[Van]

You may know know how God accurately declares the end from the beginning. It is not by looking into the future and declaring what will occur in the fixed future. That is crystal ball theology and is as bogus as a 3 dollar bill.

When God declares something will happen, He then "fulfills" that declaration by causing whatever was declared to happen by intervening as necessary.

I am saying God has no idea of what will happen in the future? Yes and No. Events in the future which He plans to fulfill He knows. Events in the future He has chosen not to know, He does not know. God could establish a fixed future with Him knowing every detail, but scripture is very clear, that is not what God has chosen to do. Why? He says things happen by "chance." Thus He allows at lease some aspects of an unfixed future, which of course, provides for our autonomous choices and our responsibility for those choices. God is not the author of sin, which would be the case if God had fixed the future.

 

[Van]

We know that all of God's heavenly blessings work together for good to those He has called into His kingdom. Before creation God planed the method He would use to redeem those He would choose to redeem during their lifetime. Using this knowledge acquired or formulated before creation, God has partially implemented His plan of redemption.

Thus according to His foreknown redemption plan, He predestined those to be chosen to be conformed to the image of His Son, our Lord Jesus.

Thus, the believers He planned to call into His kingdom, based on crediting their faith as righteousness, He also predestined, to be born anew, as a new creation.

Thus those born anew, having undergone the washing of regeneration were justified, as whatever God held against them was removed, the circumcision of Christ.

Thus those justified, were also glorified, united with Christ, made eternally alive together with Christ.

None of this indicates God chose specific foreseen individuals before creation. To the contrary, since we once lived as "not a people" chosen for God's own possession, scripture precludes individuals from being chosen for salvation before creation.

Scripture says we were "chosen in Him" before the foundation of the world. This means when God chose His Redeemer, He chose corporately those His Redeemer would redeem, believers whose faith God would credit as righteousness.

For whom He foreknew refers to these corporately elected future believers, those God would redeem according to His predetermined plan. These He called, and fulfilling the predestined plan, He therefore caused them to be born anew as spiritual children of God. And, having been born anew, they were also justified, having undergo the washing of regeneration. And, once born anew within Christ, we were indwelt, sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit, thus united and glorified with Christ.

Thus foreknew refers to God formulated a redemption plan before creation, and then utilizing and implementing that plan as He chooses individuals by setting them apart in Christ based on crediting their faith in the truth.

 

[Ben1445]

Either you know How Saves souls, or you don't, and Calvin did.

Jesus knows how to save souls. I’ll follow His doctrine and not Calvin’s.

So, God "took notice" of Jeremiah in the belly, before God Formed Jeremiah in the belly? How?

Please, elaborate on that.

You believe that God had a relationship with him before he was born. Why is it so hard to believe that God, his Creator, knew about him before he was born?
You doubt me because I doubt Calvinism. So you argue with me points that you must already believe (or apparently have skipped over) that are a necessity for your own beliefs.
You can’t tell me that you believe that God didn’t have knowledge of who Jeremiah was but had a relationship with him. You argue with yourself.

 

[Ben1445]

You may know know how God accurately declares the end from the beginning. It is not by looking into the future and declaring what will occur in the fixed future. That is crystal ball theology and is as bogus as a 3 dollar bill.

When God declares something will happen, He then "fulfills" that declaration by causing whatever was declared to happen by intervening as necessary.

I am saying God has no idea of what will happen in the future? Yes and No. Events in the future which He plans to fulfill He knows. Events in the future He has chosen not to know, He does not know. God could establish a fixed future with Him knowing every detail, but scripture is very clear, that is not what God has chosen to do. Why? He says things happen by "chance." Thus He allows at lease some aspects of an unfixed future, which of course, provides for our autonomous choices and our responsibility for those choices. God is not the author of sin, which would be the case if God had fixed the future.

God does not need to fix the future to know it.
The only events that I read He has chosen not to know are our sins. God has much better understanding of cause and effect than we do. He knows what our free will does cause and what will happen because of each person’s decisions and actions. Man’s sinful decisions and actions do make a difference in the outcome or we would not have the responsibility of our outcomes. But knowledge is not deterministic. Even God doesn’t determine sin to happen. Those who teach that God is doing evil that good may come do not understand the teachings of Jesus when He said a house divided against itself cannot stand. The entire creation and all the works of God are doomed for failure if He opposes Himself. This teaching that God determined that Adam would sin is foolishness. Knowing what someone else will do is not equivalent to making it happen.

 

[Van]

God does not need to fix the future to know it.
The only events that I read He has chosen not to know are our sins. God has much better understanding of cause and effect than we do. He knows what our free will does cause and what will happen because of each person’s decisions and actions. Man’s sinful decisions and actions do make a difference in the outcome or we would not have the responsibility of our outcomes. But knowledge is not deterministic. Even God doesn’t determine sin to happen. Those who teach that God is doing evil that good may come do not understand the teachings of Jesus when He said a house divided against itself cannot stand. The entire creation and all the works of God are doomed for failure if He opposes Himself. This teaching that God determined that Adam would sin is foolishness. Knowing what someone else will do is not equivalent to making it happen.

Hi Ben 1445,
Yes, a segment of believers make the claim that God knowing what will happen does not require that to actually happen, therefore not fixing the future event. Personally, I cannot follow that logic.

When Abraham lifted up his knife to kill his son, God said stop, now I know.... (Gen. 22:12) Thus God had chosen not to know that future event. Jesus did not know the time of His Second Coming, thus another example of God choosing not to know a future event. If my view is correct, knowing the future, fixes that future, then God saying things happen by chance indicates God had chosen not to know those parts of the future too.

But the key point of the post you replied to, is that when God declares something will happen in the future, He is not displaying His supposed knowledge of the future, He is simply saying He will cause that future event or circumstance to occur. Totally different from looking into the old crystal ball.