According to the Arminian scheme, God is said to foreknow contingent events based on peering into the future.
Now Calvinists (atleast to my knowledge) say that God foreknows events based on the evidence of necessary events. That God knows these are going to determinately happen, so he is said to "foreknow."
[quote:d3edd46684] Loraine Boettner says
Foreordination renders the events certain, [i:d3edd46684]while foreknowledge presupposes that they are certain.[/i:d3edd46684][/quote:d3edd46684]
Because according to Edwards, there needs to be certain [i:d3edd46684]evidence[/i:d3edd46684] to have a certain knowledge of the future.
Now my question is, couldn't God atleast merely know (not necessarily the full connation of biblical foreknowledge) what will happen in the contingent future (pretending it is contingent) just by peering into it?
Does God really need the evidence of "chain of events" to "know" the future or could he "know" it by his omniscience (presupposing that "chain of events" is not taken into account" )
Now Edwards would say no in Part 2 Sect. 12 of "FOTW." But why? I read it but I don't think he really did justice to my question.
I know that the Arminian view does not do justice to the concept of foreknowledge in the Bible, but in what way could the above hypothetical situation be proved wrong?
Is God really dependent on these things to know the future? I know that he does not foreknow in that sense, but supposing all that is invalid (as the Arminians think), could he still foreknow based on the evidence of his own omniscience?
thanks,
Rembrandt
[Edited on 3-2-2004 by rembrandt]
[Edited on 3-2-2004 by rembrandt]
Now Calvinists (atleast to my knowledge) say that God foreknows events based on the evidence of necessary events. That God knows these are going to determinately happen, so he is said to "foreknow."
[quote:d3edd46684] Loraine Boettner says
Foreordination renders the events certain, [i:d3edd46684]while foreknowledge presupposes that they are certain.[/i:d3edd46684][/quote:d3edd46684]
Because according to Edwards, there needs to be certain [i:d3edd46684]evidence[/i:d3edd46684] to have a certain knowledge of the future.
Now my question is, couldn't God atleast merely know (not necessarily the full connation of biblical foreknowledge) what will happen in the contingent future (pretending it is contingent) just by peering into it?
Does God really need the evidence of "chain of events" to "know" the future or could he "know" it by his omniscience (presupposing that "chain of events" is not taken into account" )
Now Edwards would say no in Part 2 Sect. 12 of "FOTW." But why? I read it but I don't think he really did justice to my question.
I know that the Arminian view does not do justice to the concept of foreknowledge in the Bible, but in what way could the above hypothetical situation be proved wrong?
Is God really dependent on these things to know the future? I know that he does not foreknow in that sense, but supposing all that is invalid (as the Arminians think), could he still foreknow based on the evidence of his own omniscience?
thanks,
Rembrandt
[Edited on 3-2-2004 by rembrandt]
[Edited on 3-2-2004 by rembrandt]