Omniscience and Omnipotence

The question has been posed: How can God be both Omniscient (All-Knowing) and Omnipotent (All-Powerful)? If God knows all things then He has no power to change them, and if He is able to change things, then He is not omniscient. I believe that allowing for human freedom of will solves this problem. Below I will attempt to illustrate (as briefly as possible) a proposed solution for maintaining freedom of the will without compromising Divine Omniscience and/or Sovereignty [Omnipotence].

First, I must declare that I do believe that God knows the future completely and infallibly, that He is Sovereign over all creation (which means that nothing occurs outside of His will), and that salvation is the work of God alone.[1] Turning to Christ (repentance) is not a salvific action—it is merely recognition of the rightful place of God. But (Hallelujah!) God rewards those who repent and believe with eternal life by adopting them as sons. I do not believe as Arminians or Open Theists do, that the future is open or unknowable. My understanding of these positions (which could be flawed), is that since the future is ‘open’ (insomuch as it is not pre-determined, but unfolding as time progresses) then future events cannot be “known” because there is no way to represent the future proposition p with a truth-value (True or False) since it has not happened yet. If there is no truth-value able to be assigned to the proposition (or future events) then it cannot be known. This view relegates God to a “good guesser” at best (namely, that so far He has accurately guessed the things that would transpire, but we have no guarantee that He will continue to do so infallibly), or outright claims that God simply doesn’t know the future. Both outcomes seem to contradict the God of the Bible[2] and should therefore be rejected. So, how then can we allow freedom while still allowing God to know the future?

I propose a system of freedom of the will that is based on God’s will. In this way, it is not that God decrees some things and the rest is up to us … instead, God has decreed that man have freedom of the will. However, this freedom is not without bounds; bounds decided by the will of God. Our freedom does not free us from the sovereignty of God, but is a freedom based within the sovereignty of God. This freedom is limited specifically to the choice to seek God or to not. This yields a range of precisely two possibilities for any given moment, as it relates to each and every individual.[3] This type of creation would allow for propositional knowledge of the future, represented by: “Either A or B.” In this way, there is one option available if the individual denies God (believer or unbeliever) based on the character of the agent and the present circumstances therein, and one option available if the agent seeks God. Of course, there are many logical possibilities at any given time, but these are merely hypothetical and not-actually possible scenarios.

What I mean by the last statement is this: at any given moment it is logically possible that I empty out my bank account, throw all my money into a sewer, then set myself on fire while singing the national anthem. This is a crude analogy, but it makes the point: I have means of transportation suitable to get to the bank, access to the accounts, knowledge of where a sewer is close to a gas station, suitable for obtaining the materials needed to set myself on fire, and a knowledge of the lyrics to the national anthem. This outlandish scenario is logically possible in the sense that it could happen. However, it never would. Although such an absurd scenario may seem obvious that it is not a real possibility at any given moment, there are other scenarios that could be envisioned that are seemingly much closer to being actually possible while still remaining as impossible as the first![4] My contention is that there is no third alternative at any given moment, no matter how sensible or logical it may seem: for any agent they may only choose to do a self-serving act, or a God-serving act. There can be no other alternative. God’s will is un-changing so what He wills for each agent at any given moment is not open for discussion or liable to change. God’s will is God’s will. Similarly, I may like to eat, sleep, watch sports, play cards, and engage in many other activities that are contrary to God’s will for my life at any given moment, but the situation at any given moment will yield one particular action for myself if I choose to indulge me rather than to serve God.[5]

On this model there is, at any given moment for any person, a choice between A or B. Since God has set up the framework, He knows completely and infallibly what both A and B are. While I do deny that God knows what the agent will choose at any given moment, this is not a challenge to His Omniscience. First, God cannot be surprised if I choose A instead of B, or if I choose B instead of A. Both are possible, so God will never be in a situation where He says, “Whoa, didn’t see that coming.” The only way for God to be surprised would be for some third option C, which on this model is impossible. Secondly, even if God does not know if I will choose A or B, there can still be a truth-value assigned to this proposition.

A or B.
A.
_____
True.

OR

A or B.
B.
_____
True.

Further, since God knows the possible course of action of His (deterministically) free creatures, and since His will does not change for His ultimate goals and purposes, He knows His response no matter the choice made. If A then 1; if B then 2. Two biblical examples of this framework in action will be considered.

In the Garden of Eden, God “leaves” to test Adam and Eve. Following the reasoning above God allowed two possibilities while He is “gone.”[6] Scenario A) Adam and Eve tell the Serpent to buzz off because they trust God. Scenario B) Adam and Eve believe the Serpent and disobey God. If A) then everyone lives happily ever after. If B) then God sends His Son to save all who will believe. Unfortunately, scenario B happened, but the good news is that God had a provision and a plan for either case. God’s will and plan never changed; He provides His creatures with the opportunity to make decisions (thus, illustrating their culpability for sinfulness) while never ceasing to have ultimate control.[7]

The second example is from the life of Jonah, a believer. We are told God’s will from the beginning that Jonah is to go to Nineveh and prophesy. Jonah could A) obey and go to Nineveh, or B) not obey (and still go to Nineveh). Since God willed for the Ninevites to hear a prophetic word, and deemed Jonah the man to deliver that message, He was not going to be thwarted. Reading the book of Jonah we see this prophets choice was to disobey God, resulting in a much rockier path to Nineveh than if he had obeyed in the first place. The end result is the same, the Ninevites hear the word from Jonah—only the path traveled to reach that end is different. Simply because God allows His creatures freedom to choose A or B, does not mean that His ultimate ends will not be accomplished. God will bring about His will, no one can thwart His plans. We may make the road harder on ourselves as believers (e.g. Jonah) or unknowingly participate in God’s plan (e.g. Judas), but God remains sovereign even though He allows us the freedom to choose. On this model, God’s claim to know the beginning from the end is in no way challenged. The middle is the only ground that is open; however, the openness of this middle ground is not like the openness of Open Theism or Arminianism. God still knows infallibly and truly everything that we will do, while also knowing the other possibilities. His knowledge is still complete, infallible, and true while also affirming the freedom of man’s will. If man remains free, and God remains sovereign, all the philosophical objections to the end of God being responsible for evil, or subsequent attacks on God’s omniscience and omnipotence (if free will is upheld too strongly) fall by the wayside.

[1] To clarify, I do not believe that I (or anyone else) have done anything worthy of salvation. When I die and awake in Heaven I am completely confident that it will be completely due to the effort of Jesus and the effect of grace in my life. However, the difference between a believer and a non-believer is not that God has chosen one and left the other, but that the believer has sought God while the unbeliever has refused. The call is the same, but the glory gained by God is far greater when the believer seeks Him freely than if they seek Him “freely” (that is, they were eternally decreed that they would seek Him but based on creating the definition Calvinists claim it is “free”). Since salvation is based on Christ, not the individual, it should also be stated that I do not believe salvation can be lost (as is typically held by Arminians). I say all this, because as far as I can tell, I am equally not a Calvinist or an Arminian, and at this time I do not desire to be lumped in with either!
[2] Cf. Isaiah 44:7.
[3] This, I think, is similar to your position of free will as it relates to the believer: namely, as a believer I have the choice to obey God or to not. The difference is I do not believe this freedom exists only for believers. Surely, a non-Spirit guided individual is not able to please God, but on your view there exists two classes of people: 1) un-regenerate people who are incapable of being saved and incapable of pleasing God (who seemingly exist only to irritate both believers and God Himself); and 2) regenerate people who are destined for Heaven, but who are equally capable of irritating God and un-regenerate people. Both groups irritate God with their disobedience, but differ only in their final destination. Perhaps I am missing a component of your view, and I hope that I have not butchered it. However, as presented this was my understanding (which is by no means infallible).
[4] There is more to be said about the ‘deterministic’ quality of man’s internal character, but I will leave this discussion out in the interest of space.
[5] Praise the Lord that my self-seeking now is not nearly as sinful as my self-seeking prior to conversion, however this is only externally. Since anything that is not from faith is sin, when I reject God now and that means I watch football instead of reading my Bible, that act is not actually less sinful than getting drunk since both are a denial of God’s will (albeit one is the denial of a more godly version of me than prior to conversion).
[6] It should be noted that God is not actually gone, since He is omnipresent, but only appears to leave to achieve the intended purpose.
[7] Another crude example may help clarify the issue: when I place my son, Leo, in his playpen he is limited in space and ability. I can then introduce into the playpen whatever toys I think he should be allowed to play with. My sovereignty over the situation is clear; Leo is unable to remove himself from the playpen or to add or remove toys. However, Leo is able to choose what he will do while in the playpen. My sovereignty sets the bounds; his freedom provides the course of his time inside. At no point does His freedom encroach on my sovereignty of the situation, nor would his choosing of any of the toys surprise me that I placed inside. Surprise would only arise if after a few moments I saw him playing with a toy that I had not introduced (that had somehow made it into the pen without my introducing it) or if he removed himself from there without my aid. Both ‘surprising’ scenarios are impossible, even if logically possible.