 |
| 
Crosswind
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 7
| Posted 2/23/2003 8:01 PM (GMT -6) |   | Can "certainty" and "possibility" co-exist in the mind of God pertaining to a particular event? Maybe my question is not clear, but here's what I mean.
If God knew for certain that an earthquake would hit Tokyo, Japan on March 5, 2003 at 3PM, does God also possess a knowledge of genuine possibility that Japan might not be hit by an earthquake on the same given date and time? IOW, Does God possess a genuine knowledge of possibility that an event might happen other than which He is certain about?
I asked this because I cannot fully understand what the following definition of God's Omniscience means given the EDF perspective:
God's knowledge may be defined as follows: "God fully knows himself and all things actual and possible in one simple and eternal act." - (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 190)
Omniscience. God is infinite in knowledge. He knows himself and all other things perfectly from all eternity, whether they be actual or merely possible, whether they be past, present, or future. He knows things immediately, simultaneously, exhaustively, and truly... He knows all things possible. He knew that Keilah would betray David to Saul if David remained in that vicinity (1 Samuel 23:11ff). Jesus knew that Tyre and Sidon would have repented had they seen the miracles that were done in Bethsaida and Chorazin (Matt. 11:21). He also knew that Sodom and Gomorrah would have been spared had they seen the works that were done in Capernaum (Matt. 11:23ff.; cf. Isaiah 48:18). (Henry C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, p. 81)
The infinity of God may also be considered with respect to objects of knowledge. His understanding is immeasurable (Ps. 147:5)... He sees and knows us totally. He knows every truth, even those not yet discovered by man, for it was he who built tem into creation. And he therefore knows every genuine possibility, even when they seem limitless in number. (Millard J. Erickson, Chrtistian Theology, p. 275)
I doubt that these three theologians' understanding of God possessing knowledge of genuine possibilities is the same with the OV understanding of it since they are also EDF proponents. What do you think they mean when they affirm that God possesses knowledge of genuine possibilities in their definition of God's omniscience? Can one affirm that God possesses EDF and the same time possesses knowledge of genuine possibilities?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/24/2003 1:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Crosswind-
Welcome to the site!
Crosswind: If God knew for certain that an earthquake would hit Tokyo, Japan on March 5, 2003 at 3PM, does God also possess a knowledge of genuine possibility that Japan might not be hit by an earthquake on the same given date and time?
Tom: I don’t think so. If “X will happen” is true, then “X might not happen" is by definition false. This goes for the logical flip side of such statements too. If “X will happen” is true, then it’s also true that “-X will not happen.” If “X might happen" is true, then it’s also true that “X might not happen” (and thus false that "X will happen").
Crosswind: I doubt that these three theologians' understanding of God possessing knowledge of genuine possibilities is the same with the OV understanding of it since they are also EDF proponents.
Tom: I think you’re right.
Crosswind:What do you think they mean when they affirm that God possesses knowledge of genuine possibilities in their definition of God's omniscience? Can one affirm that God possesses EDF and the same time possesses knowledge of genuine possibilities?
Tom: Good question. If they’re not simply confused (which is always possible!  ), then it would be that they admit God knows possibilities in the sense that he knows the different worlds he could have, or might have, created. God could have created world X, Y, or Z, let’s say. These are three possible worlds. But EDF means that each one in itself is defined exclusively in terms of what will certainly happen in the event God actualizes that world. So you have possible sets of certainties. These theologians, I would guess, would admit that God knows possibilities as what might have happened (had he created another sort of world), but EDF means God cannot know possibilities as what might happen (given the world he did create). Possibilities existed up until the (logical) moment that God decided to create a specific world. God’s choice to create then transformed every might be into either a might have been (by virtue of God’s choosing not to actualize that world) or a will be (by virtue of God’s choosing to actualize this specific world).
Make sense?
So when Thiessen says the men of Keilah “would have” surrendered David had he stayed, he is NOT saying that God believed David’s remaining and being surrendered was a possibility in THIS world, the world he created. What he would likely say is that this passage tells us God could have created a world in which David’s remaining in Keilah and being surrendered was certain but that God chose to nullify this possibility by not creating the world in which it exists as a certainty. God chose instead to create a world in which David’s leaving and not being surrendered was certain. Confused?
None of the writers you quoted from believe possibilities are something God chose to LEAVE as what might yet be in THIS world.
Tom 
Love never ends
Edited by - TGB on 02/24/2003 09:08:59 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Crosswind
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 7
| Posted 2/24/2003 6:50 AM (GMT -6) | | TOM: So when Thiessen says the men of Keilah “would have” surrendered David had he stayed, he is NOT saying that God believed David’s remaining and being surrendered was a possibility in THIS world, the world he created. What he would likely say is that this passage tells us God could have created a world in which David’s remaining in Keilah and being surrendered was certain but that God chose to nullify this possibility by not creating the world in which it exists as a certainty. God chose instead to create a world in which David’s leaving and not being surrendered was certain. Confused?
Crosswind: Tom, if That is what Thiessen had in mind, it would seem that when the LORD answered David, "Saul will come down and the men of Keilah will surrender you to Saul," the LORD gave David an answer that He certainly knew wont happen in this specific world He chose to actualize. IOW, there is nothing true in the information He gave to David as far as He Himself is concerned since He certainly knew that the information He gave to David was not really going to actualize. And if that would be the case, then IMO, God was not geneuinely responding to David. I dont know if I am correct with my notions here.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/24/2003 8:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Crosswind-
I think you’re right on. I don’t know what Thiessen would have replied to this specific question. I’m just guessing from the little he says in your quote of him. But you’re right to wonder whether God’s way of describing the future to David in this instance is not disingenuous if it’s also true that God eternally knows that Saul “will not” come down and David “will not” be surrendered.
On the Middle Knowledge view (which I’m still coming to understand), “David remains in Keilah and is surrendered by that town to Saul” is true in one or more worlds, just not this world, the world in which this David is having this conversation with God. In this case I think there’s some justification in wondering whether God is disingenuous here. More than that, how is God not being flat out dishonest? How is God’s mentioning what “would” have transpired had he created a different world than this one able to meaningfully influence David’s deliberation of alternatives in this world? How is one influenced by the consideration of an option one believes is only true in other worlds NOT created by God? Even on Molinist grounds I don’t see how God is not disingenuous.
And, as you point out, God describes Saul’s coming to Keilah and the town’s turning David over to Saul in terms of what “will” happen. This of course doesn’t happen! So we all (determinists, classical Arminians, Molinists, and open viewers alike) have to try to come to terms with how God could say something “will” happen and that event not take place. Here I think the open view is most helpful because God can be understood as describing what really (that is, in this world God created; that is, what is ontologically real in David’s world at the time David deliberates his options) will happen in the event David remains. And note, God never says David will remain. He says Saul will come down and David will be surrendered. This is important, because the conditional is understood to be “if you remain here.” This is the ENTIRE point. Does God believe this conditional is possible in this world, the one God decided to create. I think the open view is the only view that would say it is.
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
Crosswind
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 7
| Posted 2/25/2003 3:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Tom, your thoughts are very helpful. If there are more please share. Thanks a lot.
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:58 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|