Does God's Omnipotence Mean He Knows the Future?

By -
This past weekend, a dear friend and I got into a discussion about the extent of God's omniscience. We explored whether the church's traditional idea that God knows the future can be squared with Scripture.

Now, if you are not philosophically minded, there is one major problem that arises from God "knowing the future", i.e., the future hasn't happened yet. How is it that God can "know" something if it hasn't happened? The view that I adopted through the discussion is that we don't need to have an answer to that question for two reasons: first, we don't know enough about how God views things to do more than give arguments as to whether God is outside of time therefore having a non-time bound view of history, or whether God is in time and has perfect and exhaustive knowledge of all possible contingencies making his knowledge identical with knowing the future, or some other yet unnamed alternatives. Second, the Bible, which is God's revelation to us, suggests that God "knows" the future. I have eight arguments as to why God knows the future fully and exhaustively from the Bible.

1. God is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13). If God doesn't know something, then he can learn something. If he is a learning God then he becomes different as the result of having learned something and He is not the same yesterday, today and forever.

2. If God does not know the future perfectly and exhaustively, then He is capable of learning something. If he learns something then He could change His mind based on the new knowledge. If God changes His mind, then it means that His first decision was wrong, and God is not wrong -- never, ever.

3. The idea that God doesn't know what will happen completely necessarily means that God could be wrong about those things that He has prophesied will happen. If that is true, then we can have no confidence in Him or His promises.

4. Following on argument 2, if God doesn't know for certain the future, then His word -- including His prophesies -- are not (as Jesus says) "the truth." (John 17:17)

5 If God is not completely omniscient, then God is like Bill Clinton: "He feels our pain", but the pain no longer serves the divine purpose of making us more Christ-like. Rather, we experience pain only because (to quote a bumper sticker that I always thought to be in bad taste as well as theologically erroneous) "s___ happens." "When sitting across that table from a suffering Christian, it is our duty and privilege to help them lift up their eyes to our Sovereign God, who ordains every circumstance, in whose sovereign care is the only source of true comfort. What a blessing to serve and worship Someone who never makes mistakes, who will right all wrongs, who knows the future perfectly, and who declares with certainty that one day all tears will be wiped away." (SOME PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF OPENNESS THEOLOGY, Eric S. Lasch)

6. Ephesians 1:4 says that God has chosen us before the beginning of the world. If God allows freedom of choice and doesn't know how these freedoms will be exercised, how could He know with any certainty that we would even come into existence, let alone have chosen us before the beginning of the world?

7. If God learns, then it follows that God should change his plans if circumstances require based upon new knowledge. Yet, the Bible says that God is not like a man and does not change His mind. (1 Samuel 15:29)

8. Psalm 139 describes God as knowing everything about me, including this tidbit "before a word is on my tongue you know it completlely." (Psalm 139:4) It seems to me that this suggests a "complete" knowledge of what I will say in the future.

Anyone know any other strong Biblical arguments for the existence of God's exhaustive and complete foreknowledge of what will happen?

Comments

Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
9/19/2005 09:07:00 AM
The Dawn Treader said…
BK,

Have you ever read Hugh Ross' Beyond the Cosmos for some interesting musing on the multi-dimensionality of God (particularly, time)?
9/19/2005 12:51:00 PM
BK said…
No, although I am very familiar with many of his arguments, I am not familiar with what he said about the multi-dimensionality of God. Any insight you can give? In the meantime, I will go to his site (http://www.reasons.org) to see what I can find.
9/19/2005 01:13:00 PM
Andrew said…
The eight arguments given are completely unsound

1. Hebrews 13:8 says that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” In context, it is talking how we ought to continue following the Christian teaching that teaches us to imitate Christ’s way of life, and not be swayed by new and strange teachings that tell us to live some other way. The point is that the way Jesus Christ lived, and they way we should live in imitation of him cannot suddenly change.

So, it is not talking about knowledge like was claimed.

Furthermore, it is not advocating immutability in any strict sense - if Jesus Christ was truly immutable then he could have never become man, could never have grown up, could never have died, for all these things require change. I can imagine saying, using the same logic,“if Jesus Christ is the same everyday, he cannot alive one day and dead the next, or incarnate one day and not incarnate the next… etc” (some of the Greek philosophers actually used this to object to Christianity, because they believed in a totally immutable God who could truly never change, and thus who could not become incarnate) such logic is clearly flawed and not at all what the verse is talking about, and so the idea that this implies immutable and unchangeable foreknowledge is clearly laughable.


2. If God did not know the future for absolute certain, God might change his mind. And since God couldn’t change his mind, because that would imply that God was wrong, God must know the future for certain. Hmm, an interesting sounding argument. But does the scripture ever say God changes his mind?

Genesis 6:5–6 Seeing the wickedness of the whole human race which preceded the great flood, “The Lord was sorry that he made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.”
Exodus 32:14 The Lord states his intention to destroy Israel because of their wickedness: “Now let me alone,” he says to Moses, “so that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them” (vs. 10). Moses “implored the Lord” (vs. 11) and, as a result, “the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people” (vs. 14).
1 Samuel 2:27–31 Because Eli “scorned” God’s sacrifices and did not punish his sons for their vile behavior, the Lord says, “‘I promised that your house and your father’s house would minister before me forever.’ But now the Lord declares, ‘Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained. The time is coming when I will cut short your strength and the strength of your father’s house...’”
1 Samuel 15:10 In light of Saul’s sin the Lord says, “I regret that I made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me.”
1 Samuel 15:35 “...the Lord was sorry that he made Saul king over Israel.”
2 Kings 20:1–7 The Lord tells Hezekiah “you shall die: you shall not recover” (vs. 1). Hezekiah pleads with God and God says, “I will add fifteen years to your life” (vs. 6)
Jeremiah 3:6–7 Regarding Israel, the Lord says “I thought, ‘After she has done all this she will return to me’; but she did not return.”
Jeremiah 3:19–20 “I thought how I would set you among my children...And I thought you would call me, My Father, and would not turn from following me. Instead, as a faithless wife...you have been faithless to me...”
Jeremiah 26:2–3 The Lord tells Jeremiah to prophesy to Israel that they should repent, for “I may change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on [Israel] because of their evil doings.”
Jeremiah 26:19 “Did [Hezekiah] not fear the Lord and entreat the favor of the Lord, and did not the Lord change his mind about the disaster that he had pronounced against [Israel]?”
Ezekiel 33:13–15 “[W]hen I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered...he will die. But when I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and he turns from his sin and practices justice and righteousness, if a wicked man restores a pledge, pays back what he has taken by robbery, walks by the statues which ensure life without committing iniquity, he will surely live; he shall not die.”
Jonah 1:2; 3:2, 4–10; 4:2 God “changed his mind” (3:10) about the destruction he planned to carry out on Nineveh.

It appears that God does change his mind, contrary to BK’s assertions.


3. “The idea that God doesn't know what will happen completely necessarily means that God could be wrong about those things that He has prophesied will happen. If that is true, then we can have no confidence in Him or His promises.”

This is just an example of really bad logic. Consider the following:
Person A: Rigorous and repeated experiments around the world show that this drug has a 95% chance of curing your disease.
Person B: So, you’re saying it could go wrong! Therefore, I can have no confidence whatsoever that it will work!

Clearly person B is in error, far from having no confidence, he ought to be very confident. BK is simply making the same kind of error when he concludes that the possibility of God’s prophesy not occurring means we can have no confidence in God or the prophesy.

In fact, God tells us that his prophesies will often not be fulfilled:
Jeremiah 18:7–11 The Lord states that “if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it.” But if a nation which he has declared he will bless “does evil in my sight...I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it.”
What God has said he will do in the future, may or may not come to pass depending on the circumstances.


4. God’s word is “truth” (John 17:17)
Interestingly the Greek word for truth can refer to deeds, unlike the English which refers to only the truth value of propositional statements.
Eg “For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light… But those who do what is true come to the light” (John 3:20-21)
In this way, “truth” in Greek can simply mean the opposite of evil, ie goodness, virtue etc. Clearly a person who walks truthfully will not lie, and that’s the connection between the two meanings. In the NT however the primary meaning of truth in theological statements such as John 17:17 is the truthfulness of deeds – ie virtuous action, rather than abstract propositional truth. The context in John 17:17 is that Jesus is praying that his followers be protected from the Evil One, and the ways of the world, and that instead God teaches them to live in truth (ie virtuously) and in unity.

So what can be said then, about how this relates to God’s foreknowledge. Not much. It implies that God acts virtuously, and thus does not tell lies. But telling lies is quite different to making a prediction that doesn’t come to pass. One is a deliberate attempt to mislead and deceive. The other is saying “Currently, I am going to do X in the future”, and then some mitigating circumstance occurs (eg the people repent) and thus God does not do X in the future. God did not lie, but what he said did not come to pass.


5. BK gives a few emotional reasons here for wanting to believing in absolute foreknowledge. I confess I do not find these particularly convincing. Various supporters of the open view have given a range of emotional arguments with the opposite conclusion – that we ought to believe the open view, which I tend to find rather more convincing.

Firstly, BK said “He feels our pain, but the pain no longer serves the divine purpose of making us more Christ-like.” I do not see how that follows. Why does the open view stop pain helping us to grow spiritually? Every Christian knows that it is often in the most painful times of our life during which we grow the most spiritually. I believe God tries to work for good in every situation and is so great that he is often able to bring some good out of the greatest disasters. This doesn’t disprove the open view at all.

“When sitting across that table from a suffering Christian, it is our duty and privilege to help them lift up their eyes to our Sovereign God, who ordains every circumstance, in whose sovereign care is the only source of true comfort. What a blessing to serve and worship Someone who never makes mistakes, who will right all wrongs, who knows the future perfectly, and who declares with certainty that one day all tears will be wiped away."

Personally, I would say that opposite. What a blessing it is to tell a suffering Christian that God loves them and is suffering with them, that he is there right now with them in their lives trying to help them bring some good out of what has happened. That eventually evil will be destroyed completely and all tears will be wiped away and all things renewed. Why is one any better than the other?

When a murderer kills someone, is it going to comfort the victim’s family to say “this is part of God’s ordained plan, he sovereignly ordained that your relative die in this way. Do not blame the murderer, for he was only carrying out God’s will.” I doubt that would encourage the family to love and praise God. And this has a horrible theological implication: If the murderer was acting according to God’s will, then he was doing nothing wrong, for we ought to act according to God’s will. So we have to say that the evil that was done was against God’s will.


6. Ephesians 1:4 says that God has chosen us before the beginning of the world.
What God choose here is the group, not individuals. He decided that those who lived virtuously (ie “in Christ”) he would bless with “every spiritual blessing”, and they would be adopted as his children etc.


7. If God learns, then it follows that God should change his plans if circumstances require based upon new knowledge.
Exactly: As the dozen or so passages I provided above proved.

However, God cannot be bribed and does not change his mind without good reason. In 1 Samuel 15 where God is “regretting” that he had made Saul king of Israel because Saul has turned away from following God (15:11, 15:35), Saul pleads with God not to do this, but God says he is decided on this and not like a man who can be easily swayed by a little pleading (15:29) in the some way that Saul had been swayed by the people’s pleading to him (15:25). BK has quoted 15:29 in which God says he’s not like a man (Saul) who changes his mind after a little pleading, and taken it out of this context and set it up as a universal rule that God never changes his mind. Clearly this is a really bad distortion of scripture.


8. Psalm 139 describes God as knowing everything about me, including this tidbit "before a word is on my tongue you know it completlely." (Psalm 139:4)

It’s saying that God knows what we’re about to say as we’re about to say it. According to modern science, this ought to be true: Knowledge of what’s going on in our brains is sufficient to predict our words a few seconds in advance. If the verse said that God had knowledge of exactly what we’d say in 20 years time, it would be good proof of full foreknowledge, but as it is it proves nothing more than present knowledge. As BK pointed out the context of this Psalm is about God’s great present knowledge of us, how he is everywhere and knows us completely.


In summary, the eight arguments given were seriously flawed.

Anyone know any other strong Biblical arguments for the existence of God's exhaustive and complete foreknowledge of what will happen?

Yes. There are two (and only two) reasonable Biblical arguments in favour of God’s complete foreknowledge.
A) Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s 3-time denial of him has too many details to be easily explainable using the Open View.
B) Psalm 139:16 – Every one of the days we would live were allocated to us before we were born. (At least according to one interpretation of this verse)
9/19/2005 04:27:00 PM
BK said…
Thank you for your comments, Andrew. I have read your comment and I don't find my comments as seriously flawed as you make them out to be, but rather I have serious disagreement with your responses to what I said. But since I don't want to have unending comments, I will respond to each of your objections in separate blogs at a later time. BTW, I do like the additional arguments at the tail-end of your comments.
9/19/2005 04:58:00 PM
Mickey Sheu said…
Hiya, stumbled upon your blog through the reformed blogroll.

Steve Hays wrote an excellent piece on Open Theism

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/openseason.html

Monergism is a good place to look too.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/foreknowledge.html
9/20/2005 10:22:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

By -
A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that some of the skepticism about the account was unjustified. One argument I made was that the number of children killed in Bethlehem would likely have been no more than 20. Though obviously an act of great evil, the killing of 20 children would be much less likely to be noticed by historians of the time than the slaughter of thousands as later traditions speculated. In response to the post, Peter Kirby asked a few questions. He has patiently waited my response, continuously delayed by work, family, and the completion of my Acts article . Two of the questions had to do with how the amount of 20 was determined. Others with the omission of the account by Luke and the reliability of the tradition recounted by Macrobius. Peter also mentioned that there were other reasons to doubt the story's historicity beyond just the silence of other sources. I ...
Read more

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

By J. P Holding -
Image
I first made this post in 2012, and since then I've made a sort of mini-career out of tracking down bogus quotes like this one (including a video version below). It's a sort of fun microcosm of the way information is mishandled in the Information Age. ** I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. – Mahatma Gandhi A Christian can probably expect to get this quote thrown at them at least once in their lifetime, and waved in their face many more. I had it put to me recently, but my experience with this sort of thing immediately led me to wonder -- is it real? The evidence at this point seems to be no. The first signal of a problem was that anywhere I found it, no source was given. That's often a sign that something is being passed around uncritically. Whether online sources or books, no one seemed to have a source for this quote. A second warning was that the quote has been given more than one context. As ...
Read more

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

By -
A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer: You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels." Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus ...
Read more

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

By -
Stand to Reason has published a list of "talking points" that can be used as a quick reference sheet for answering questions about embryonic stem cell research and why people ought to oppose this procedure. The piece, entitled "Are you against stem cell research and cloning?" give good, concise answers to some of the questions that arise concerning why Christians would oppose this procedure when it supposedly holds such great promise. For example, consider the following from the "talking points": Where do we get human embryonic stem cells? We can only derive human embryonic stem cells by killing a human embryo. Removing its stem cells leaves it with no cells from which to build the organs of its body. What is the embryo? An embryo is a living, whole, human organism (a human being) in the embryonic stage. All the embryo needs to live is a proper environment and adequate nutrition, the very same thing all infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults need. ...
Read more

Tillich, part 2: What does it mean to say "God is Being Itself?"

By -
 In this essay, which is a chapter from the new book I'm now working on, I'm moving toward defining what I think Tillich means exactly by being itself. It's a long journey but an important one. What does Tillich actually mean by “being itself?” Does he mean the same things as other theologians who use the phrase? It’s a mysterious sounding phrase and Tillich never actually comes out and says what he means by it. As I will show there is a reason for this, and I will show what I think that reason in is. In the mean time the task of this chapter is to deduce exactly what Tillich actually means by this phrase. There are three basic possibilities: Three alternatives as to meaning (1) The basic fact that things exist is all that the concept of “God” amounts to. (2) There is a special quality to being, an impersonal aspect” ground of being” or “being itself” and that quality constitutes ‘the divine.’ This possibility excludes God as “king of the universe.” (3) God is b...
Read more

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

By -
We have changed the Christian History page at the CADRE site from the old design to the new one. The focus of the revamped page has expanded, with many new articles: This page provides links to websites and articles relating to Christian history, including theological development, notable figures, contributions of Christianity to society and culture, and the archaeological evidence for the facts of the Bible. We have also added four new articles by Darin Wood, PhD: John Chrysostum: His Life, Legacy, and Influence Dr. Wood provides an informative sketch of Chrysostum's life, as well as an exploration into his writings and impact on church evangelism. The Righteousness of God in the Pauline Corpus Dr. Wood examines the crucial role that righteousness plays in understanding Paul's perspectives on justification, propitiation, expiation, and covenant. The Structure of the Apocalypse Dr. Wood provides an in-depth analysis of the structure (or structures) behind the Book o...
Read more

The Folded Napkin Legend

By J. P Holding -
I wrote about t his "urban legend" a few years ago, but it's typical of the silly urban legends we hear about now and then, such as the idea that the head of Proctor and Gamble went on Oprah to pledge his allegiance to Satanism. Christians are no less gullible for this sort of nonsense than anyone else, and frankly, some seem more gullible to believe anything that they consider "edifying". It's no wonder we're mesmerized by self-comfort tunes like "I Can Only Imagine" that contain about as much useful theology as a thimble. ** The Gospel of John (20:7) tells us that the napkin, which was placed over the face of Jesus, was not just thrown aside like the grave clothes. The Bible takes an entire verse to tell us that the napkin was neatly folded, and was placed at the head of that stony coffin.... In order to understand the significance of the folded napkin, you have to understand a little bit about Hebrew tradition of that day. The fol...
Read more

A Botched Abortion Shows the Lies of Pro-Choice Proponents

By -
One of the classes I teach at the university is a course on Ethics, and I am using a book by Ralph Dolgoff, Donna Harrington and Frank M. Lowenberg entitled " Ethical Decisions for Social Work Practice " as the text. Overall, I think that it is a good Ethics textbook largely because it provides a balanced viewpoint on the need for values in social work. For example, the book makes the argument (without committing to it) that those engaged in social work cannot avoid making value judgments in ethical decisions because trying to do what is right necessarily involves making an value choice. Also, I book notes that some (including me) think it is ethically wrong for a social worker to cover-up her own values when counseling another person because it creates a false (and ultimately unproductive) relationship with the person being counseled. Still, one of the exemplars in the book gave me pause – not because I thought it raised a deep ethical quandary, but because I wondered how ...
Read more

Do you say this of your own accord? (John 18:34, ESV)

By -
Image
One of the most well-known events in Scriptures is Jesus' exchange with Pontius Pilate at his trial as described in John 18. In verse 38 of that chapter, Pilate asks the question that may be the most ironic in the history of the world, "What is truth?" A less known but equally intriguing saying of Jesus from an apologetics viewpoint can be found in Jesus' response to an earlier question in the same trial. It is a question that is not often quoted, but on those rare occasions when it is quoted, Jesus' response is often overlooked as not particularly important or relevant to today's world. However, it is my experience (as well as the experience of many people who have truly spent time studying the Scriptures) that little, if any, of what Jesus said in the Bible lacks significance across time. To best understand the response, it's important to see the response in context. The situation is this: Jesus has been arrested following His betrayal by Judas I...
Read more

A Non-Biblical Historian Accepts the Key "Minimum Facts" Supporting Jesus' Resurrection

By -
In their book, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus , Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona argue for the historical reality of Jesus' bodily resurrection using the "minimum facts" approach. Rather than get bogged down in inerrancy and other debates, they focus on the key facts demonstrating Jesus' resurrection. For them, the key facts are: *Jesus' death by crucifixion. *Disciples' Beliefs that Jesus Appeared. *Conversion of Paul. *Conversion of James. *Empty Tomb. William L. Craig, another significant apologist for the historical bodily resurrection of Jesus likewise focuses, in his accessible The Son Rises , on the empty tomb and Jesus' resurrection appearance. Craig gives special emphasis to Jesus' honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus' appearances to James and Paul and their subsequent commitment to the Christian cause. Craig, Licona, and Habermas argue that these basic facts are generally supported by most of the relevant sc...
Read more