If it is necessary that God knows a specific event will happen, then God is as fatalistically determined as everyone else. It certainly seems like God's knowledge of future events isn't necessary, because it is possible that God could have chosen not to create the universe, meaning there would be no future events.
I think what is missing is why God knows a future event is going to happen. The argument seems to miss the instances that God decrees an event. When God does so, then the event must happen or God is not sovereign over everything. Without that how can God issue prophecies and they come true? I'm not saying that I think God decrees everything that happens but there are some things that must happen in order for God to get the results God desires. For example, did God foreknow or did God decree that Israel would be enslaved in Egypt for 400 years. God made this prophecy to Abraham before Isaac was even born. Was this something that could have been avoided? I'd say no. This was something God decreed not just foreknew.
So, in the case of free human actions, we have the ability to act in such a way that determines what God knows in the past. Take the example William Lane Craig likes to use. Jesus prophesied that Peter would deny Him. The moment before Peter denied Jesus, he had the ability to act in such a way that if he did, Jesus would not have prophesied as He did. Peter didn't have the ability to contradict Jesus' prophesy, because Jesus is infallible. However, Peter did have the ability to make it so Jesus would not have prophesied that Peter would deny Him.
Don't get me wrong I like and respect William Lane Craig but this example doesn't seem to work for me. The argument is basically, Jesus would not have had to make the prophecy if Peter had exercised his free will not to deny Christ. What?!!! How??? I just don't understand that. Peter made a free will choice but at the time that Jesus made that prophecy that he would rather die than deny Jesus. That was Peter's decision. When crunch time came and Peter folded (just as we do whenever we compromise with our sinful natures) that was also Peter's decision. The thing is when I look at that scripture it wasn't just prophesied that Peter would cave but that he would also repent and be better. Look at Luke 22:31-34
31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."
33But he replied, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death."
34Jesus answered, "I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me."
Jesus told Peter that he was going to be tested and that he was going to fail that test but he would be restored. We also see that the events were purposely against Peter's will but not God's. This was something that God was going to use to build Peter up for the role he would carry after Jesus' Resurrection.
I think the unasked question in the post that is being posed is did God decree our salvation or did God just foreknow know it? I think the answer is given in Acts 13:48
When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
Brennon's Thoughts: The Theological Fatalist's Modal Fallacy
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vy8ZuQL5XIDCDLNcbuAuwqbqKOcH1UZmiv0rthGWERyenL-9rVp8RrUiVjmZFjv-SfW4Ei-BxYhSShgikMNV5v9iWXAjnf8-SxeIJGfcL5IekZ7zUEnZSUInTt686Mxeeus-g5zxwjefvGlWO61C_b=s0-d)
Marcus, my post wasn't about determinism, but fatalism. Determinism has God knowing the future because He decreed the whole future. Fatalism has things fated to happen because they become necessary as a result of God's infallible foreknowledge. I showed the logical fallacy associated with that.
ReplyDeleteThe argument is basically, Jesus would not have had to make the prophecy if Peter had exercised his free will not to deny Christ.
Well, not just that Jesus wouldn't have had to, but that He wouldn't have at all, because He would have foreknown that Peter wouldn't deny Him.
Jesus told Peter that he was going to be tested and that he was going to fail that test but he would be restored. We also see that the events were purposely against Peter's will but not God's.
But why shouldn't we think that Jesus prophesied this because He actually knew what Peter would freely do? Why think that it was necessary that Peter act this way?
At most, Acts 13:48 would show one instance where God actualized the salvation of some people. But I see no problem with interpreting the verse to say that "those who had been prepared for eternal life believed," since the Greek word tasso could be translated that way. In fact, the context given in v. 46 ("Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.") seems to show that to be the best translation. But I digress.
Thanks for the response, Brennon. I think that is the problem that without determinism all you have is fatalism. No one is in the driver's seat. I'm sorry for misunderstanding the point of your post. I do agree that Jesus would not have made the prophecy at all if Peter would not have denied him, but I don't see how it was a part of Peter's ability because Peter himself never intended to deny Christ.
ReplyDeleteAs for Acts 13:48, I'm wondering what is the difference between being prepared and being appointed? God prepares before he appoints. It's interesting how you view the passage. It seems to me that pointing that Paul and Barnabas said that the Jews who rejected the message rejected it presupposes that they could have accepted but we know that default position for everyone is that we reject the message. In other words, what else could they have done apart from being drawn by the Father?
I think that is the problem that without determinism all you have is fatalism.
ReplyDeleteThat seems like a false dichotomy to me. You could have a world in which some things are determined and some things are not. This is not strict determinism, but there would be some events that are determined by God. In fatalism, something would be in the driver's seat, namely fate.
I'm wondering what is the difference between being prepared and being appointed? God prepares before he appoints.
I think you recognized the difference right there. Preparation is getting ready for something. Appointment is fixing or setting something as true.
It seems to me that pointing that Paul and Barnabas said that the Jews who rejected the message rejected it presupposes that they could have accepted but we know that default position for everyone is that we reject the message. In other words, what else could they have done apart from being drawn by the Father?
Why shouldn't I presuppose they could have accepted it? Why would Paul be so upset with them for rejecting it? To reject something is to presuppose you were offered it, which they plainly were. The word of God had gone to them first, they rejected it.
Brennon, we should not presuppose that they could have accepted the Gospel because no once can come to Christ unless they are drawn by the Father. I see no reason to assume that they were drawn. Paul was upset because those folks were accountable for their unbelief.
ReplyDelete