Is The Future Unwritten?

[Annie12]

Is the future really unwritten? I'm not sure if this is a debatable topic... but any clarification would be helpful!

[To Jesus Through Mary]

Yeah, it's debatable for sure... it's been debated for a long time.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregatio_de_Auxiliis

[Annie12]

So what do you think? Do you take the side of the Jesuits or the Dominicans? Why?

[arfink]

There is a fundamental problem with viewing the future as written or unwritten, and that is because, for God, history is not a line.

 

The problem lies in the nature of time, of the difference between human knowing and divine knowing, and the difference between human willing and divine willing.

 

Humans can only experience time as a series of sequential events. We are fundamentally unsure how God "experiences" time if that can even be said. We can't know. Likely He does not have to experience is the same way we do, but in the Incarnation He chose to do so. Without knowing what His experience of time is like it's hard to say.

 

If God experiences time from outside of time then He wouldn't probably be looking at a line. It'd be more like looking at a (admittedly very complex) flow chart. That doesn't require our actions be predetermined. If God experiences time from inside of time then He might be looking at the same linear progression as us. This is very much more problematic, and has never been properly answered in philosophy to my satisfaction, but that's just from my admittedly casual study.

 

Also, God's will is another thing that's pretty mysterious, but we know it cannot overpower human will. Is it possible for Him to know everything we will do? It certainly seems possible. But if we assume He merely knows all possible outcomes of our choices then it still leaves us very free and leaves God omniscient.

 

That's my thoughts, anyway.

[arfink]

Ultimately I do not believe this question will be answerable. That is because it's basically a variation on the "Explanatory Gap" problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_gap

 

Only, instead of trying to explain experiences between humans, which is hard enough, we're trying to do it with God. I basically don't think it's possible to solve it.

 

Here is a very accessible treatment of the Explanatory Gap problem:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evQsOFQju08

[To Jesus Through Mary]

So what do you think? Do you take the side of the Jesuits or the Dominicans? Why?

 

I tend toward the Dominican side of things. Why? for a couple reasons... 1. St Thomas Aquinas is the shiznit. 2. God is all knowing and thus cannot receive any sort of knowledge from experience or otherwise. So we can never surprise God. I don't really say that the future is written already, but that God already knows what the future is. We have to be careful about being fatalistic and saying "well who care what I do, because God already knows if I am going to heaven or hell..."

 

But back to God not receiving knowledge.... Like i should be at the gym right now instead of posting. Now God already knows if I am going to the gym or not, but I have free will to make that choice. God knows what my choice is already because if he did not he would gain knowledge by learning that my choice was to go or not go to the gym. We can say this because we already know that God cannot gain/receive knowledge as he is all knowing. 

 

That is my take on it at any rate. But it is something that I ponder often and my conclusion is still being formed especially the idea of what is human freedom.

 

What do you think? 

Edited February 23, 2013 by To Jesus Through Mary

[arfink]

I tend toward the Dominican side of things. Why? for a couple reasons... 1. St Thomas Aquinas is the shiznit. 2. God is all knowing and thus cannot receive any sort of knowledge from experience or otherwise. So we can never surprise God. So I don't really say that the future is written already, but that God already knows. I wouldn't be fatalistic and say "well who care what I do, because God already knows if I am going to heaven or hell..." But back to not receiving knowledge.... Like i should be at the gym right now instead of posting. Now God already knows if I am going to the gym or not, but I have free will to select that or not. But God knows what my choice is already because if he did not he would gain knowledge by learning that my choice was to go to the gym. But we already know that God cannot gain knowledge as he is all knowing. 

 

That is my take on it at any rate. But it is something that I ponder often and my conclusion is still being formed especially the idea of what is human freedom.

 

What do you think? 

 

The Father and Holy Spirit would certainly have this apply to them, but I don't think the Son would. He became fully man in the Incarnation, and a crucial part of being human (and one of the primary limitations of being human; remember that in his lifetime Jesus had to take these limitations in order to be fully human!) is that your knowledge has to come from experience. We are not born with infused knowledge, it would interfere with the working of our free will. Without a functioning human free will, Jesus' choice to die on the cross for us wouldn't have actually been a proper free choice. So I believe that Jesus probably had to re-learn everything, struggle with doubt and temptation, etc.

 

And so yes, I am making the controversial clam that baby Jesus was not omniscient, though I do not think it diminishes God at all to say that because one Person freely chose this. What an awe-inspiring gift to humanity!

Edited February 23, 2013 by arfink

[To Jesus Through Mary]

There is a fundamental problem with viewing the future as written or unwritten, and that is because, for God, history is not a line.

 

The problem lies in the nature of time, of the difference between human knowing and divine knowing, and the difference between human willing and divine willing.

 

Humans can only experience time as a series of sequential events. We are fundamentally unsure how God "experiences" time if that can even be said. We can't know. Likely He does not have to experience is the same way we do, but in the Incarnation He chose to do so. Without knowing what His experience of time is like it's hard to say.

 

If God experiences time from outside of time then He wouldn't probably be looking at a line. It'd be more like looking at a (admittedly very complex) flow chart. That doesn't require our actions be predetermined. If God experiences time from inside of time then He might be looking at the same linear progression as us. This is very much more problematic, and has never been properly answered in philosophy to my satisfaction, but that's just from my admittedly casual study.

 

Also, God's will is another thing that's pretty mysterious, but we know it cannot overpower human will. Is it possible for Him to know everything we will do? It certainly seems possible. But if we assume He merely knows all possible outcomes of our choices then it still leaves us very free and leaves God omniscient.

 

That's my thoughts, anyway.

 

God created time though. We know he does not view time as we do as he has no beginning as we do. He is the unmoved Mover. Our concept of time is based on the very idea that we, each on of us, has a beginning and are in a linear way proceeding forward. Moving in the direction of death and eternity. Being moved by God...

[arfink]

God created time though. We know he does not view time as we do as he has no beginning as we do. He is the unmoved Mover. Our concept of time is based on the very idea that we, each on of us, has a beginning and are in a linear way proceeding forward. Moving in the direction of death and eternity. Being moved by God...

 

Of course, and as maker of time He would know all possible routes through it. :)
 

[Guest]

I think God knows all possible outcomes...So we have free will and God gives His grace in every situation yet its up to us to either accept or reject it...So right now I could say I'm sick of life and im going to kill myself...Now God will give His grace so I don't do that but I can reject that grace and kill myself anyways...So ya God would already know if I killed myself but He would also know if I didn't...Its my free will to accept or reject His grace...Although He knows both outcomes...So predestination I guess could be true in some situations because of the great amount of grace sent out by God to a certain indivigual that it would be impossible for that person to reject the grace and goodness of God...Yet on the other hand someone who turns from God their whole life and rejects every amount of grace sent to them would still be doing it out of their own free will...God knows the outcome of them rejecting it their whole life and the path that leads to...Yet He also knows the outcome if that person choses to accept His grace and change the path their on...So in my conclusion God knows all possible outcomes yet doesn't interfere (in most cases) with free will...

Edited February 24, 2013 by Guest

[To Jesus Through Mary]

The Father and Holy Spirit would certainly have this apply to them, but I don't think the Son would. He became fully man in the Incarnation, and a crucial part of being human (and one of the primary limitations of being human; remember that in his lifetime Jesus had to take these limitations in order to be fully human!) is that your knowledge has to come from experience. We are not born with infused knowledge, it would interfere with the working of our free will. Without a functioning human free will, Jesus' choice to die on the cross for us wouldn't have actually been a proper free choice. So I believe that Jesus probably had to re-learn everything, struggle with doubt and temptation, etc.

 

And so yes, I am making the controversial clam that baby Jesus was not omniscient, though I do not think it diminishes God at all to say that because one Person freely chose this. What an awe-inspiring gift to humanity!

 

I disagree with you claim that Jesus did not know everything, as he had the beatific vision. Yes, he was fully human, but he was also fully divine. So he humbled himself to our condition without loosing who he was as God. We also have to remember there are different kinds of knowledge. A friend of mine linked me to this commentary, which is just astounding.

 

Cornelius a Lapide's commentary:

 

 

Ver. 52.—And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. For stature the Greek has ήλικία, “age,” or “proficiency.” See also chap. xii. 25. Both renderings are true and apposite.

To the question whether Jesus really progressed in wisdom and grace, as He did in age and stature, S. Athanasius (Serm. 4 Contra Arianos) and S. Cyril (Thesaurus, l. x.) seem to answer in the affirmative; for they seem to say that the humanity of Christ drew greater wisdom from the Word by degrees, just as the Blessed Virgin and other men and women did.

But the rest of the fathers teach differently. For, from the first instant of His conception, Jesus was, as has been said at v. 40, full of wisdom and grace, this being due to that humanity on account of its hypostatic union with the Word. S. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. 20 in laudem Basilii) says, “He progressed in wisdom before God and men, not that He received any increase, since He was, from the beginning, absolute in grace and wisdom, but these gradually became apparent to men [hitherto] unaware of them.” For, as Theophylact says, “the shining forth of His wisdom is this very progress;” just as the sun, though it always gives the same degree of light, yet is said to increase in light as it unfolds it more and more from morning until midday. It is to be noted that there were in the soul of Christ three kinds of knowledge—(1) beatific, by which He saw God, and all things in God, and so was rendered blessed; (2) knowledge infused by God; (3) experimental knowledge guided by daily use. The two former were implanted in Christ in so perfect a degree from the first moment of His conception that He could not increase them. I assert the same with respect to His habitual grace and glory. So say S. Augustine (De peccat. mor. et rem., 1. iii. c. xxix.), S. Jerome (on the words of Jer. xxxi. 22, “A woman shall compass a man”), S. Athanasius, Cyril, S. Gregory Nazianzen, Bede, and others, S. Thomas and the schoolmen everywhere—for this is required by the hypostatic union.

Christ, therefore, is said to have progressed in wisdom and grace as He progressed in years—1. In the estimation of men, and in outward seeming. For sometimes Scripture speaks according to what is seen outwardly, and the judgment formed by men. So Origen, Theophylact, Nazianzen, S. Athanasius, and Cyril.

2. Christ did really increase in experimental wisdom, for from mere use He acquired experience—“He learned obedience by the things which He suffered” Heb. v. 8.

3. Though Christ did not increase in habitual, yet He did increase in actual and practical wisdom and grace. For, even while yet a child, He daily exerted more and more of the strength of mind and heavenly wisdom that lay hidden in His soul; so that in face and manner, in word and deed, He ever acted with greater and greater modesty, gravity, prudence, sweetness, and piety.

To the objection that Christ is said to have increased in grace before God, S. Thomas (p. iii. Quæst. vii.), answers that Christ increased in grace in Himself, not as regards the habit, but as regards the acts and effects produced by it.

Among other differences between the grace which Christ had, and that which we have, there are the four following:—

1. Christ had grace, as it were, naturally by virtue both of the hypostatic union and of His conception of the Holy Ghost; but with us all grace is undue, gratuitous, adventitious, and supernatural.

2. In us grace (1) wipes out original sin, and whatever actual sins there may be, and so (2) makes us pleasing to God; but in Christ grace existed not only previously to sin, but actually without it, sanctifying Him per Se primo, for from the grace of the union with the Word emanated habitual grace, as rays from the sun, immediately and naturally. So that we are adopted and are called sons of God, but Christ is truly and naturally the Son of God, as S. Hilary (De Trinit., 1. xii.), and Cyril (In Joannem, 1. iii. c. xii.), teach.

3. In us grace is peculiar to the individual, justifying the man in whom it resides; but the grace of Christ is the grace of the Head, and so sanctifying us. For “of His fulness have we all received, and grace for grace” S. John i. 16.

4. Grace increases in us (even in the case of the Blessed Virgin) by good works; but in Christ it did not increase, because, proceeding from the union with the Word, which from the beginning was full and perfect, this fulness of grace, which could not be increased, was given Him at the moment of that union.

Tropologically, Damascene (De fide, 1 iii c. xxii.) says that Christ progresses in wisdom and grace, not in Himself, but in His members, that is, in Christians. For He went on producing greater acts of virtue day by day that He might teach us to do the same. All our life is without ceasing either a progress or a falling off; when it is not becoming better it is becoming worse, as S. Bernard tells us. Ep. 25.

With God and man. “For,” says Theophylact, “it behoves us to please God first and then man.” If we please God He will make us pleasing to men. It is not enough to please man, for this is often false and feigned, nor to please God only, for this is peculiar to oneself and unseen, but we must please “God and man,” that we may show to men that grace by which we are pleasing to God, and so attract them to it. “To God,” says S. Bernard, “we owe our conscience, to our neighbours our good reputation.”

 

Of course, and as maker of time He would know all possible routes through it. :)
 

 

Yes, but if he did not know the route we were going to take he would still be receiving knowledge. It would imply that an all knowing God did not know something, thus receiving knowledge. And then would have the further implication that he was in potency instead of Esse, or perfect Act. 

[Annie12]

Ultimately I do not believe this question will be answerable. That is because it's basically a variation on the "Explanatory Gap" problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_gap

 

Only, instead of trying to explain experiences between humans, which is hard enough, we're trying to do it with God. I basically don't think it's possible to solve it.

 

Here is a very accessible treatment of the Explanatory Gap problem:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evQsOFQju08

 

Its hilarious you oisted that video because I have been showing people that lately because I thought it was so cool! aslo I understand what you are saying but the way I look at it ( I got this from C.S. Lewis) If you are looking at a page with a story typed on it. Our view is like reading the story but God's view is the entire page. But, just because he can see everything that happens doesn't mean that the future is written. It just means he has a better perspective to guide us by because he is perfect and can see everything. Right?