God's Foreknowledge

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 04 March 2010 - 07:45 AM, said:

I would also point to the preponderance of the scriptures that indicate otherwise and do so clearly.

The whole point of one of my earlier posts was that the scriptures are not clear

[thesometimesaint]

I believe Gods' knowledge is absolute, but that doesn't mean that he will force anyone to do anything because of that knowledge. Thus we are truly free to judge for ourselves.

[TOmNossor]

I know this subject has been drummed to death, but I thought of it again during this past Sunday school class when a member was saying that God knew that Abraham would follow through with the sacrifice of Isaac, and so it was really about Abraham learning something, not God.

I had to interrupt when she said that God knows everything that will happen by saying, "I like to think that I surprise God every now and again."

(Greeted by a few nervous titters and quizzical expressions.)

Fortunately, the class did not get derailed on this subject, but I wondered if anybody here agrees with my comment that we can surprise God by what we do.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The instructor posed the question in our class. Someone offered that the test was for Abraham. I responded by saying that surely the test was for Abraham, but that what is important about God

[Brade]

Lord knoweth all things which are to come

he knoweth as well all things which shall befall us

What's unclear here is whether he knows the things "which are to come" and "which shall befall us" because facts about those things exist (future facts if you like) and he knows those future facts or because he himself intends to bring about those things in the sense that I know I will take a shower in the next 10 minutes because I have the power to bring about my shower-taking and I intend to take a shower. Both of those interpretations are consistent with those statements, and thus we'll need something more than merely those statements to tip us one way or another.

In Mormon theology there's also the ever present worry that quantifiers (e.g. 'all', 'every') don't mean what they mean in ordinary discourse. Joseph Smith claimed to have revealed that 'eternal' and 'endless' don't take on their ordinary meanings when talking about hell and punishment. Apparently nobody was aware of that prior to Joseph Smith's putative revelation. What's most surprising, though, is the reason given for using 'eternal' and 'endless' to talk about hell and punishment: God simply wanted folks to take him seriously. That opens a door for those that believe against, let's call it, extreme omniscience.

[Lamanite]

I think God's omniscience is relative. I would assert that he knows the future to a very high probability. Is His foreknowledge absolute? No.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[TOmNossor]

From my standpoint handys, I think he set the parameters for them to follow, he did not tell them, he doesn't know. Where that so, he was in effect gambling with the risk that Adam and Eve would in effect destroy the plan of salvation. I do not think that is possible.

I believe EVERY remotely critical decision by EVERY person throughout all time is like a chess game between God (the Grandmaster) and the person (the 3rd grader). The person is absolutely free to make ANY move that is possible, but God will ALWAYS bring to pass His desired plans. We can chose to be petulant 3rd graders, walk away from God, and choose to not love; but within the

[CV75]

I wondered if anybody here agrees with my comment that we can surprise God by what we do.

Not sure if this is the kind of agreement you are looking for:

God knows/conceptualizes anything we could possibly do, any choice we could possibly make. A simplified example of this is that He knew Adam and Eve could partake of the forbidden fruit (or not); either could have partaken first or simultaneously, with or without conversation between them or with the adversary (with one or both of them separately or together); etc. He knows all the possible situations, events and choices, so I don't think we can surprise Him wen we take a certain choice. He is so aware of all things that we cannot take Him unawares or in anything, for He has already anticipated everything. I think He knows us so well, and everything about life so well, that He can warn us according to our needs so we can avoid predictable / foreseeable problems (to Him anyway) or develop in the ways He knows we need to. So in comparison to our abilities, He is as good as knowing what we will do.

Despite His not being surprised (attacked unexpectedly, taken unawares) by anything we can do, He weeps for His children when they sin and rejoices in His solutions for their salvation (as in His conversation with Enoch in Moses 7). Far from being surprised, He is fully aware of each moment and particle and responds to others' choices and their consequences internally and externally on many levels, preemptively and responsively, as needed. In Moses chapter 7 He did not glory in the outcome of the redemption (verse 63) because He was surprised out of His weeping, but because that is how He responds in faith to the execution and projected outcome of His plan, and presumably even if only one soul is saved. Now I agree He may not know which individuals on this planet will experience the event in verse 63 in the sense that we do not yet see as we are seen, but He does know in the sense of how He sees things, and that He can see every one of us in an exalted state, knowing that, from His end of the bargain, He has done all that is necessary for such to occur. I do not think He will be surprised when we finally do see as we are seen, though some of us will be (some with gladness, some with sadness).

I think we can cause Him to rejoice or weep at any given moment, but not out of surprise, only out of loving empathy.

[Brade]

I believe EVERY remotely critical decision by EVERY person throughout all time is like a chess game between God (the Grandmaster) and the person (the 3rd grader). The person is absolutely free to make ANY move that is possible, but God will ALWAYS bring to pass His desired plans. We can chose to be petulant 3rd graders, walk away from God, and choose to not love; but within the

[TOmNossor]

I think God's omniscience is relative. I would assert that he knows the future to a very high probability. Is His foreknowledge absolute? No.

Big UP!

Lamanite

I lean towards the view that God has ALL knowledge, but that future contingent actions are not actually things and are thus not actually knowable. God can no more ABSOLUTELY know a future FREE action than can He create a married bachelor or a square circle.

I agree that He knows all possible futures and even the probabilities to a great certainty.

When I count to 3, I can drop or not drop this pen onto the ground. My choice is real. There is a probability that I will do one or the other. I believe it is possible that the chance I would drop it is vanishingly small (because since you cannot see me I would rather not pick it up and

[TOmNossor]

Have you read Robert Kane's work on libertarianism? If not, you might want to. He uses a concept called 'self-forming action' to define his version of libertarianism and it basically has to do with becoming.

I will look into that. Thanks!

Must make choice to walk away from board ...

Must make ...

Charity, TOm

[Lightbearer]

Can we surprise God? I don't think so, or else the scriptures do not mean what they say... We have been down this road so many times it does not take omniscience to figure out what is going to happen. The same people will chime in with the same arguments. I did really like Cold Steel's response. I understand the "predestination" warning alarms that seem to always go off when this subject is broached. However, if you start to limit God's knowledge where does it end? If we could surprise God, then why not Satan? If he could find out some knowledge or law that God did not know existed could Satan somehow conquer God? If so we need to pray "for God" instead of praying to Him! I cannot comprehend a God who does not know ALL THINGS. In fact the scriptures say the exact opposite:

(Abraham 2:7-11) "For I am the Lord thy God; I dwell in heaven; the earth is my footstool; I stretch my hand over the sea, and it obeys my voice; I cause the wind and the fire to be my chariot; I say to the mountains

[Brade]

I actually don't know why I'm putting so much energy into this ambiguity thing because I'm personally not that wed to the idea that the scriptures actually mean what I think they mean. I mean, maybe they do and that'd be nice. But nothing about my limited view of omniscience depends on it. So I'm perfectly happy granting that the scriptures do in fact say that God has the extreme sort of omniscience at issue in this thread. And then I'm comfortable responding by saying that the scripture writers were simply mistaken.

[Lightbearer]

I actually don't know why I'm putting so much energy into this ambiguity thing because I'm personally not that wed to the idea that the scriptures actually mean what I think they mean. I mean, maybe they do and that'd be nice. But nothing about my limited view of omniscience depends on it. So I'm perfectly happy granting that the scriptures do in fact say that God has the extreme sort of omniscience at issue in this thread. And then I'm comfortable responding by saying that the scripture writers were simply mistaken.

So in other words the scripture writers are wrong and you are right? I get it now.

[stelf]

One of the main things that I seem to notice in most people that talk about a lot of philosophy is that they think they're a lot smarter than they actually are. Now I can't say for sure what God foreknowledge actually entails, but I believe what is said in the lecture's on faith. In order for man to have the faith necessary for salvation, he must understand that God knows everything. In my opinion, if we really could "surprise" God, then we couldn't have faith in him. How could I trust anything he has said if there is even the smallest chance that some jerk might mess it all up?

[Brade]

So in other words the scripture writers are wrong and you are right? I get it now.

Yep.

[Ahab]

I sometimes think that at some point God will tell me how impressed he is by what I have done in my life, so that rather than saying:

Well done, my good and faithful servant, friend, and brother.

He will instead say:

Wow! You did it! I knew you could, because I knew it was possible, but Wow! You, and I mean YOU, really did it! Great job! Well done! I

[TOmNossor]

So in other words the scripture writers are wrong and you are right? I get it now.

I am sure Brade

[TOmNossor]

One of the main things that I seem to notice in most people that talk about a lot of philosophy is that they think they're a lot smarter than they actually are. Now I can't say for sure what God foreknowledge actually entails, but I believe what is said in the lecture's on faith. In order for man to have the faith necessary for salvation, he must understand that God knows everything. In my opinion, if we really could "surprise" God, then we couldn't have faith in him. How could I trust anything he has said if there is even the smallest chance that some jerk might mess it all up?

Above, in #2, I suggested that it is you who believe that the future MUST be knowledge. I suggest that perhaps it is not.

Little shots about knowing too much aside though, I think you make a great point. We must be able to have faith that God can do what He has covenanted with us to do.

I believe that claiming that God does not absolutely know the result of ALL choices does not necessitate us lacking faith in God

[mbh26]

So in other words the scripture writers are wrong and you are right? I get it now.

It seemed to me to be well established that the scriptures were not meant to be interpreted as exact empirical scientific facts without any logical contradictions. Most LDS I've met here do not hold to a strict interpretation of the creation story in Genesis as the full detailed truth of what actually happened. Even Brigham Young's idea of what actually happened was not a strict literal interpretation of Genesis. The Hebrew scriptures were clearly not written for that purpose. Line upon line, precept upon precept, doesn't seem like a process in which one is revealed the exact, complete, scientifically accurate, eternal truth free of the prophets own paradigm that he was looking through when he wrote what God revealed to him. We may never get empirical evidence that contradicts this narrow and in my view logically inconsistent interpretation of God's foreknowledge as we have with the discrepancies in the creation story and scientific evidence that has been uncovered. But to me, the results of how the evolution argument has played out, has revealed a lot about how much more broad the interpretation of the scriptures must be to maintain logical consistency.

[LeSellers]

We say our God is a God of truth and we define truth (or He does) as follows:

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

Without "knowledge", God is not a God of truth.

Lehi

[Jason]

I didn't read the whole thread since, as was noted in the original thread, the topic has been done to death.

For the record, I feel that God cannot be surprised. I feel that if He can successfully predict the names of Joseph Smith Jr. and his father thousands of years before they are born, or the place they would live was settled, or their language even existed that He does have effectively perfect foreknowledge.

All instances of God asking someone something in the scriptures are in my opinion for the benefit of the person being asked, not to fill a gap in God's knowledge.

[stelf]

Above, in #2, I suggested that it is you who believe that the future MUST be knowledge. I suggest that perhaps it is not.

Little shots about knowing too much aside though, I think you make a great point. We must be able to have faith that God can do what He has covenanted with us to do.

I believe that claiming that God does not absolutely know the result of ALL choices does not necessitate us lacking faith in God

[Jeff K.]

It seemed to me to be well established that the scriptures were not meant to be interpreted as exact empirical scientific facts without any logical contradictions. Most LDS I've met here do not hold to a strict interpretation of the creation story in Genesis as the full detailed truth of what actually happened. Even Brigham Young's idea of what actually happened was not a strict literal interpretation of Genesis. The Hebrew scriptures were clearly not written for that purpose. Line upon line, precept upon precept, doesn't seem like a process in which one is revealed the exact, complete, scientifically accurate, eternal truth free of the prophets own paradigm that he was looking through when he wrote what God revealed to him. We may never get empirical evidence that contradicts this narrow and in my view logically inconsistent interpretation of God's foreknowledge as we have with the discrepancies in the creation story and scientific evidence that has been uncovered. But to me, the results of how the evolution argument has played out, has revealed a lot about how much more broad the interpretation of the scriptures must be to maintain logical consistency.

You are incorrect in the extremity of your presumed interpretation, that somehow all scriptures must be open to any and all interpretation, thus making man the arbiter of God's words rather than God the author of words for men. Some parts of the Bible are open to allegorical interpretation, this is very much true. But one must look at those ideas in context, in other words, they often are ambiguous to begin with. However there are places in the Bible that are concrete and definately not open to vague interpretation. And it seems there is one constant involved that makes it absolutely clear that absolute knowledge must exist. It lies within the definition of truth (already mentioned), and how God is the God of truth. It lies within his judgement, which must be done in complete context, which requires the knowledge of truth or things as they were, are and will be. Another is that the plan of salvation may have "surprises" that make God's plan faulty and untenable thus meaning that there might be a superior plan of salvation, or even more to the point, that other plans may indeed be correct while His plan of salvation is wrong (if a mere mortal can surprise God-as has been asserted, then imagine a more complex system as the plan of salvation and how it might also be "surprising". It doesn't make sense.

The list of unequivocal scriptures are not tied to a single time, a single period, a single action, but the unequivocal scriptures exist throughout the Old and New Testaments and the Book of Mormon. Time and time again we have the unequivocal statement that God knows all, not most things, not that He is a good guesser, rather HE knows all that was, is, and will be. That this is repeatedly testified to throughout the writings of various distinct prophets and times. One would have to turn all of their testimonies upon its head and say otherwise.

At best on certain items people speculate while ignoring all of the testimonies of prophets thorugh the ages. It seems somewhat counterintuitive, especially when we do not have an unequivocal statement from prophets that says otherwise, indeed Abraham himself counters the assertion being made by those who assert that God did not know Abraham's mind or choice.

[cksalmon]

I know this subject has been drummed to death, but I thought of it again during this past Sunday school class when a member was saying that God knew that Abraham would follow through with the sacrifice of Isaac, and so it was really about Abraham learning something, not God.

I had to interrupt when she said that God knows everything that will happen by saying, "I like to think that I surprise God every now and again."

Hi Consig--

In my very limited experience, it seems that there is a trend among reflective (or, at least, philosophically minded) LDS to embrace some form of what is known in EV circles as "open theism" (I'm sure you're already aware).

(The Pinnock/Paulsen chapters in Musser and Paulsen's Mormonism in Dialogue with Contemporary Christian Theologies is interesting in this regard.)

It strikes me as quite a consistent position to hold in light of the larger LDS worldview. That is, for incompatibilists who also hold a libertarian view of agency, it seems the best fit. It's logically and intuitively consistent.

That you and Brade come down here is significant, at least to me. (Not that I agree, as you know.)

Best.

cks

EDIT: "a" added to "a libertarian view of agency."

[Brade]

And it seems there is one constant involved that makes it absolutely clear that absolute knowledge must exist. It lies within the definition of truth (already mentioned), and how God is the God of truth.

Jeff, that just doesn't advance your position. The very issue under consideration is exactly what is in the set of true things. Embedded in the concept of knowing is that one can only know true things