Is the Future known to God?

[hedrick]

I agree that you can plausibly read the Bible as saying God doesn't have exhaustive knowledge. My problem is actually scientific. I've asked this before but not gotten a response I can make sense of.

Time is part of the universe. If God created the universe, I don't see how he can be within time, since time is something he created. If he's outside time, then it would seem that he sees the whole space-time continuum, which would seem to mean he sees what we think of as the future.

The only way I can see of God not knowing the future is if he's within time. Only within time does "future" mean anything. Now that's probably consistent with the Bible. He could still be the creator of heaven and earth, but if he's within the universe, then he wouldn't have been creating them from nothing. Again, Genesis can be read as not teaching creation from nothing, but I guess that's the picture I always had of creation.

[RBerman]

hindsight

But reasonably predictable from the 500 previous times the Israelites had rejected God. According to your view, not only does God lack EDF, but he's also either forgetful or naive.

His faith was not settled.

What does it mean for faith to be "settled"? Is it some sort of guarantee that one will never be unfaithful in the future?

Exo 32:33 The LORD replied to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book.

Rev 5:5 He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.

If by "God has always known everything about our lives" you mean the book of life has always been settled (ie. before we were created), it is non-sensical for it to change and names be removed

This is one of the zillion places in the Bible that God says that his relationship to people will change based on their behavior. 2 Kings 20, cited by LittleJoe above, is another example of the same.

[yxboom]

But reasonably predictable from the 500 previous times the Israelites had rejected God. According to your view, not only does God lack EDF, but he's also either forgetful or naive.

Once again, spoken after the fact.

Is 5:7 The nation of Israel is the vineyard of the Lord of Heaven’s Armies.
The people of Judah are his pleasant garden.
He expected a crop of justice,
but instead he found oppression.
He expected to find righteousness,
but instead he heard cries of violence.

If you are going to represent someone else's view I would suggest having a clear understanding of it first; otherwise, your assertions are meaningless. You are better suited to knock God's omnipotence and ability to bringing His expectations to pass rather than calling into question if God has Alzheimer's. Using this to disqualify an open future is silly since this matter needs be reconciled with all views who hold to an all-powerful God regardless of how one defines omniscience and so the same may be said of any view of omniscience.

What does it mean for faith to be "settled"? Is it some sort of guarantee that one will never be unfaithful in the future?

tmm addressed that earlier here

This is one of the zillion places in the Bible that God says that his relationship to people will change based on their behavior. 2 Kings 20, cited by LittleJoe above, is another example of the same.

It looks like we are in agreement then.

[RBerman]

Once again, spoken after the fact.

Is 5:7 The nation of Israel is the vineyard of the Lord of Heaven’s Armies.
The people of Judah are his pleasant garden.
He expected a crop of justice,
but instead he found oppression.
He expected to find righteousness,
but instead he heard cries of violence.

If you are going to represent someone else's view I would suggest having a clear understanding of it first; otherwise, your assertions are meaningless. You are better suited to knock God's omnipotence and ability to bringing His expectations to pass rather than calling into question if God has Alzheimer's. Using this to disqualify an open future is silly since this matter needs be reconciled with all views who hold to an all-powerful God regardless of how one defines omniscience and so the same may be said of any view of omniscience.

I am comfortable in my knowledge of Open Theism. But I'm still puzzled why you appeal to the poetry of Isaiah 5 while Muzicman says that the poetry of Psalm 139 can't be appealed to. Perhaps you guys could hold a conference as to whether you want to allow or disallow appeals to poetic passages of Scripture in this discussion.

tmm addressed that earlier here

Here's what Muzicman said: "Absent any other explanation, we can apply this to the obedience of Abraham. God knew what Abraham would do. After the command to Abraham and Abraham's obedience, God can then say that He now knows Abraham's faith by having had the experience of seeing Abraham's faith in action. There is one knowledge of facts; there is another knowledge from an experience."

How would "knowledge from an experience" be more helpful than "knowledge of facts" where a proposition ("Abraham trusts God") is in view? What does God gain from seeing Abraham obey in situation X that's better than knowing that Abraham would obey if he were put in situation X?

It looks like we are in agreement then.

As far as that goes, yes. We wouldn't expect OT to disagree with historic Christianity about everything.

[themuzicman]

Which makes the Open Theist appeal to Isaiah 5 all the more puzzling. It's just as poetical as Psalm 139.

That doesnt' mean we disregard poetry. It means that we have to understand it as the poet writes it to us. I don't generally appeal to Isaiah 5 for that reason.

You apparently also believe that God didn't know the present condition of Abraham's heart, which surely falls into the category of "things which exist to be known." Is that correct?

The present condition of Abraham's heart with respect to God and his son was unclear, and the test cleared that up.

[themuzicman]

I agree that you can plausibly read the Bible as saying God doesn't have exhaustive knowledge. My problem is actually scientific. I've asked this before but not gotten a response I can make sense of.

Time is part of the universe. If God created the universe, I don't see how he can be within time, since time is something he created. If he's outside time, then it would seem that he sees the whole space-time continuum, which would seem to mean he sees what we think of as the future.

Just because God is outside of time doesn't mean that the entire timeline already exists including all future events. It is quite likely that God is observing the universe expand along the dimension of time as each moment comes into being and time moves forward.

The only way I can see of God not knowing the future is if he's within time. Only within time does "future" mean anything. Now that's probably consistent with the Bible. He could still be the creator of heaven and earth, but if he's within the universe, then he wouldn't have been creating them from nothing. Again, Genesis can be read as not teaching creation from nothing, but I guess that's the picture I always had of creation.

God can still experience his own chronology outside of the universe.

[themuzicman]

I am comfortable in my knowledge of Open Theism. But I'm still puzzled why you appeal to the poetry of Isaiah 5 while Muzicman says that the poetry of Psalm 139 can't be appealed to. Perhaps you guys could hold a conference as to whether you want to allow or disallow appeals to poetic passages of Scripture in this discussion.

I didnt' say it couldn't be appealed to. I said it needed to be understood as poetry, which includes synbolism and hyperbole, which is what this appears to be, given the cotnext.

Here's what Muzicman said: "Absent any other explanation, we can apply this to the obedience of Abraham. God knew what Abraham would do. After the command to Abraham and Abraham's obedience, God can then say that He now knows Abraham's faith by having had the experience of seeing Abraham's faith in action. There is one knowledge of facts; there is another knowledge from an experience."

rthutch said that, not me.

[yxboom]

I am comfortable in my knowledge of Open Theism. But I'm still puzzled why you appeal to the poetry of Isaiah 5 while Muzicman says that the poetry of Psalm 139 can't be appealed to. Perhaps you guys could hold a conference as to whether you want to allow or disallow appeals to poetic passages of Scripture in this discussion.

tmm wrote regarding ps 139:

This specifically is between thought and tongue. However, we also must understand Psalms in the genre of poetry, which is given to symbolism and more importantly hyperbole to communicate truth.

Psalm 139 isn't spoken through a prophet. It is spoken through a poet. Poetry is given to symbolism and hyperbole, and the truth of Psalms is found as art communicates truth, namely through emotion, and not in the individual lines. There are any number of Psalms that must be taken as emotive, or they simply don't harmonize with the rest of Scripture.

Psalm and Isaiah are poetic books that use symbolism to communicate truth. i think it is safe to say we agree that Israel is not literally a vineyard or justice and righteousness are not literally good grapes. Now what truth is being communicated by God doing all He could to solidify and expect one outcome and being distraught when another outcome occurs, if not that God did all He could to solidify and expect one outcome and became distraught when another outcome occurred?
I fail to see any dismissal of Psalms due to being poetic, but simply a notice that Psalms are hyperbolic and are not read in the same manner as 1 Corinthians or Judges. It should be read and understood in light of the literal passages (ie. Gen 22), not replace it. It is perfectly in harmony to understand Psalm 139 as portraying that God knows our hearts so intimately and loves us so personally to know our thoughts before we speak and not deviate or cause confusion with Romans 8:27 which states "And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will." To read Psalm 139 literally and conclude that God has always known our thoughts and intents before we were created causes Romans 8:27 to be taken hyperbolically which is backwards.

Here's what Muzicman said: "Absent any other explanation, we can apply this to the obedience of Abraham. God knew what Abraham would do. After the command to Abraham and Abraham's obedience, God can then say that He now knows Abraham's faith by having had the experience of seeing Abraham's faith in action. There is one knowledge of facts; there is another knowledge from an experience."

How would "knowledge from an experience" be more helpful than "knowledge of facts" where a proposition ("Abraham trusts God") is in view? What does God gain from seeing Abraham obey in situation X that's better than knowing that Abraham would obey if he were put in situation X?

It was not tmm who said that but still. Abraham's obedience was not settled. This is way more philosophical; however, the facts regarding Abraham's faith are: Abraham would sacrifice his son and Abraham would not sacrifice his son, both equally true. After his sacrifice there is now actual evidence regarding Abraham's faith and obedience, the fact that Abraham would not sacrifice his son is now false/untrue and that Abraham would sacrifice his son remains true.

As far as that goes, yes. We wouldn't expect OT to disagree with historic Christianity about everything.

fair enough

[RBerman]

Psalm and Isaiah are poetic books that use symbolism to communicate truth. i think it is safe to say we agree that Israel is not literally a vineyard or justice and righteousness are not literally good grapes. Now what truth is being communicated by God doing all He could to solidify and expect one outcome and being distraught when another outcome occurs, if not that God did all He could to solidify and expect one outcome and became distraught when another outcome occurred?
I fail to see any dismissal of Psalms due to being poetic, but simply a notice that Psalms are hyperbolic and are not read in the same manner as 1 Corinthians or Judges. It should be read and understood in light of the literal passages (ie. Gen 22), not replace it. It is perfectly in harmony to understand Psalm 139 as portraying that God knows our hearts so intimately and loves us so personally to know our thoughts before we speak and not deviate or cause confusion with Romans 8:27 which states "And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will." To read Psalm 139 literally and conclude that God has always known our thoughts and intents before we were created causes Romans 8:27 to be taken hyperbolically which is backwards.

That would be fine if you would apply that same hermeneutic to Isaiah 5 and conclude that "God expected..." doesn't need to mean that God was surprised. "Expect" could just as easily mean that God gave commands to the people which were not followed, without any comment on God's ignorance of whether the people would actually obey. (The Hebrew word there simply means "look.") Instead, you're following a selective hermeneutic by which your appeals to Biblical poetry get to be taken seriously, and mine do not.

Abraham's obedience was not settled. This is way more philosophical; however, the facts regarding Abraham's faith are: Abraham would sacrifice his son and Abraham would not sacrifice his son, both equally true. After his sacrifice there is now actual evidence regarding Abraham's faith and obedience, the fact that Abraham would not sacrifice his son is now false/untrue and that Abraham would sacrifice his son remains true.

Neither you nor Muzicman have given a satisfactory explanation of what you think it would mean for Abraham's obedience to be "settled." Is it some sort of guarantee that Abraham will always obey God in the future? You have not explained why an omniscient God is motivated by "actual evidence regarding Abraham's faith and obedience," as if God was unable of knowing Abraham's heart. Now, I'm happy to admit that I don't know why God does lots of things, and the aborted sacrifice of Isaac is one of them. But Muzicman's attempt to distinguish between God's "knowledge of facts" and God's "knowledge of experience" doesn't help, at least when unaccompanied by explanation of how "knowledge of experience" is superior to "knowledge of facts" when a fact such as "Abraham trusts God" is the point at stake. You suggest that "'Abraham would sacrifice his son' and 'Abraham would not sacrifice his son' [are] both equally true." But on what basis do you say that?

[rhutchin]

I agree that you can plausibly read the Bible as saying God doesn't have exhaustive knowledge. My problem is actually scientific. I've asked this before but not gotten a response I can make sense of.

Time is part of the universe. If God created the universe, I don't see how he can be within time, since time is something he created. If he's outside time, then it would seem that he sees the whole space-time continuum, which would seem to mean he sees what we think of as the future.

The only way I can see of God not knowing the future is if he's within time. Only within time does "future" mean anything. Now that's probably consistent with the Bible. He could still be the creator of heaven and earth, but if he's within the universe, then he wouldn't have been creating them from nothing. Again, Genesis can be read as not teaching creation from nothing, but I guess that's the picture I always had of creation.

Time is a measurement. The rotation of the earth relative to the sun can be measured as the earth revolving on its axis and revolving around the sun. So, we define a day and a year. As humans, we age and grow older and die and can measure this by the time we have defined.

So can the life of God be measured by time? If God learns new things, as some claim, then time for God would be the measurement between one new thing He learns and the next new thing. God thereby would be bound by time and age as He learns more new things.

Isaiah asks the question, "With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?" (Isaiah 40:14) The answer is, No one. No one has ever taught God anything. Thus, God does not look into the future to see what new thing man can teach Him as some claim. God has knowledge of all that a man does before a man even thinks to do it.

I do not see how a person can read the Bible to say that God doesn't have exhaustive knowledge.

[themuzicman]

Neither you nor Muzicman have given a satisfactory explanation of what you think it would mean for Abraham's obedience to be "settled."

Meaning that at that time, Abraham made the chioce not to withhold his only son from God. Until that test, the question was apparently unclear.

\ Is it some sort of guarantee that Abraham will always obey God in the future?

Nope.

You have not explained why an omniscient God is motivated by "actual evidence regarding Abraham's faith and obedience," as if God was unable of knowing Abraham's heart.

It wasn't a settled matter in Abraham's heart.

Now, I'm happy to admit that I don't know why God does lots of things, and the aborted sacrifice of Isaac is one of them. But Muzicman's attempt to distinguish between God's "knowledge of facts" and God's "knowledge of experience" doesn't help, at least when unaccompanied by explanation of how "knowledge of experience" is superior to "knowledge of facts" when a fact such as "Abraham trusts God" is the point at stake. You suggest that "'Abraham would sacrifice his son' and 'Abraham would not sacrifice his son' [are] both equally true." But on what basis do you say that?

Again, that's rhutch's assertion, not mine. I don't see any point to making such a distinction, especially when one embraced EDF.

[rhutchin]

Psalm 139 isn't spoken through a prophet. It is spoken through a poet.

Psalm 139 is spoken by God through His prophet. The literary genre God uses to convey His word can be poetry.

So, what is emotive or symbolic or hyperbole about these things we read in the Psalm:

"Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD,"

"All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

[RBerman]

Meaning that at that time, Abraham made the choice not to withhold his only son from God. Until that test, the question was apparently unclear... It wasn't a settled matter in Abraham's heart.

You may believe that particular choice was not settled in Abraham's heart until he made it, but we agree that the larger issue of Abraham's trust in God was not, and could not be, definitively settled for all time simply based on Abraham's choice in that time and place. It would not appear that your analysis of this passage offers anything that mine does not. But yours has the additional complications of supposing that God can't know our hearts until we act, and that some future choices are not a proper object of God's knowledge, but others are.

[themuzicman]

Psalm 139 is spoken by God through His prophet. The literary genre God uses to convey His word can be poetry.

So, what is emotive or symbolic or hyperbole about these things we read in the Psalm:

"Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD,"

"All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

It is part of a larger poetic setting. One where all the enemies of God take His name in vain... Something I seriously doubt is directly true.

The point of the poem is the extent to which God knows the author, the author's expression of devotion to God (through hatred of God's enemeies), and a plea to search the author and lead him to everlasting life.

The intent certainly isn't to address exhaustive, definite foreknowledge.

[themuzicman]

Psalm 139 is spoken by God through His prophet. The literary genre God uses to convey His word can be poetry.

So, what is emotive or symbolic or hyperbole about these things we read in the Psalm:

"Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD,"

"All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

It is part of a larger poetic setting. One where all the enemies of God take His name in vain... Something I seriously doubt is directly true.

The point of the poem is the extent to which God knows the author, the author's expression of devotion to God (through hatred of God's enemeies), and a plea to search the author and lead him to everlasting life.

The intent certainly isn't to address exhaustive, definite foreknowledge.