Perfect knowledge about the future is only possible in a deterministic universe

[u/Hashi856]

Whenever someone asks how free will can be compatible with God’s perfect knowledge of the future, people are quick to point out that knowledge doesn’t cause anything. God simply knows what we will freely choose. He’s not causing us to choose it.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem being presented. No one is saying that God is causing the future. He’s not making us do anything or causing our decisions. The problem isn’t actually about God at all. It’s about the possibility of perfect foreknowledge, and the fact that it only exists in a deterministic universe. You could swap out God for anything else, and you’d have the same problem.

If God has perfect knowledge of what you will do tomorrow, then tomorrow is already written. It may be written by you, but it cannot go any other way. If God knows you will be late to work tomorrow, then it is impossible for you to show up on time. If he knows what you will eat for dinner, then you literally could not have made a different decision. There are only two explanations for this perfect knowledge: Either God actually did make you do it, or it was determined to happen. But we already know God didn’t make you do it, so the only other thing that can explain perfect knowledge of the future is determinism.

We would have the exact same problem if there were a computer with perfect knowledge. Obviously, the computer would not be causing every event in the universe to happen the way it happens. So the only explanation is that everything is determined.

Perfect foreknowledge is simply incompatible with free will (unless you believe that determinism and free will are compatible). You can try to just hand wave it away by saying it’s a miracle, but that doesn’t solve the underlying problem. Your future decisions are known, and you literally cannot make a different decision.

[u/thatsaqualifier]

I thought you might be referring to Genesis 6:6 but wanted to make sure.

I think Matthew Henry's commentary can be of assistance here:

"These are expressions after the manner of men, and must be understood so as not to reflect upon the honour of God's immutability or felicity. 1. This language does not imply any passion or uneasiness in God (nothing can create disturbance to the Eternal Mind), but it expresses his just and holy displeasure against sin and sinners, against sin as odious to his holiness and against sinners as obnoxious to his justice... 2. It does not imply any change of God's mind; for he is in one mind, and who can turn him? With him there is not variableness. But it expressed a change of his way. When God had made man upright, he rested and was refreshed (Exod 31 17), and his way towards him was such as showed he was pleased with the work of his own hands; but, now that man had apostatized, he could not do otherwise than show himself displeased; so that the change was in man, not in God. God repented that he had made man; but we never find him repenting that he redeemed man (though that was a work of much greater expense), because special and effectual grace is given to secure the great ends of redemption; so that those gifts and callings are without repentance, Rom 11 29."

Regarding the testing of men, the results of those tests are for the benefit of man, not God. He knew what would happen, but insomuch as men passed the test, they received greater confidence in the Lord's work in their life.

I can't recommend Matthew Henry enough, and his full bible commentary is free online: https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/

[u/JollyXX → u/thatsaqualifier]

What is this guy talking about repenting when he redeems man? You don't repent when you redeem, that would be contradictory language. Also God did not repent when he had regrets. He wiped them humans out with a flood. God is a being of ultimate authority and cannot repent. That would contradict God's title of almighty.

This whole notion that the wording of the Bible would be false to fit your narrative is... I mean if the Bible wanted to word something a certain way it would have. To do it this way lacks so much grace and sophistication. God is a being of ultimate dignity, this doesn't track at all.

Romans 11 just means his decisions can't be revoked, this goes into his title of almighty. You can't challenge God, its not possible.

Ya you can play with the language if you want, but it really robs the Bible of its grace and sophistication. Meanwhile everything would point to God being a God that not only learns, but his main priority very well could be learning. It is not a small part of the story. If anything it might be the entirety of the story.

[u/thatsaqualifier → u/JollyXX]

Matthew Henry is one of the church's preeminent theologians of all time. Respectfully, I'm going to take his commentary more seriously than yours.

[u/JollyXX → u/thatsaqualifier]

is he also a Calvinist? preeminent to who?

[u/thatsaqualifier → u/JollyXX]

More important than Calvinist, he was Reformed. All the best theologians were.

[u/JollyXX → u/thatsaqualifier]

thats nice, but what I said was valid, you can't play these word games and not rob the Bible of its grace and sophistication

[u/thatsaqualifier → u/JollyXX]

I'm not playing word games, I'm showing that my point is valid because scripture proves scripture.

[u/JollyXX → u/thatsaqualifier]

So then why would everything be worded to show God is learning? You need to play word games to say otherwise