Faith and works

[RickD]

Jac,

This is from the Zane Hodges link you posted:

Here it is: Since Christ effectively died for the sins of the entire world, nobody goes to hell for their sins. They go to hell because they do not have eternal life.

Jac,

Could you expound on this? I think it's a very important part of the article.

[Philip]

We are getting into the issue of preordained or predetermined or foreknowledge of, which has lead many to the view that God has already decided who is in the book of life or not even BEFORE they are born.

From GOD's point of view, He has ALWAYS known ALL who would be in His Book of Life and Who would not - so, for Him, everyone dying in their sins, unforgiven and unsaved is only a matter of this playing out in real time. HE set the standards (faith and belief in the Resurrected Christ) for all those who will ultimately be in it. His will is all meet that standard, but He does not choose FOR them whether or not they will ever repent and have faith - He has provided the pathway (The Cross), allowed us the free will and ability to choose. And He's set the parameters and chosen the fate for each person's choice - reward for those of faith, eternal punishment for the permanently unrepentant. He FIRST chose all who will come to Christ in faith, foreknew precisely who all of those would ultimately be, and LATER, at some point before death, ALL Christians choose Him.

See the below:



Exod. 32:33: "And the LORD said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book." If one dies without forgiveness of their sins their name vanishes out of the record book of life.

Ps. 139:16: "Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." God knows who are his, even before they are born, everyone who lives is written in the book of life.

Phil 4:3 "Paul recognized those who labored with him in the gospel, 'with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life. "

Rev.3:5: "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels." We overcome by our faith which is exhibited by faithfulness.

However we look at the above, from a time perspective, we must realize that a thousand years from now is as was yesterday to the Lord. So, from His perspective, the Book of Life is complete and all the names that it will ultimately include have ALWAYS been known. If God is all-knowing - and He is - there is nothing He cannot know that He will one day do or that we will one day do.

[Mallz]

I don't want to derail this but quick question..

Philip

Exod. 32:33: "And the LORD said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book." If one dies without forgiveness of their sins their name vanishes out of the record book of life.

Doesn't this mean everyone was born (created) saved?

[PaulSacramento]

We are getting into the issue of preordained or predetermined or foreknowledge of, which has lead many to the view that God has already decided who is in the book of life or not even BEFORE they are born.

From GOD's point of view, He has ALWAYS known ALL who would be in His Book of Life and Who would not - so, for Him, everyone dying in their sins, unforgiven and unsaved is only a matter of this playing out in real time. HE set the standards (faith and belief in the Resurrected Christ) for all those who will ultimately be in it. His will is all meet that standard, but He does not choose FOR them whether or not they will ever repent and have faith - He has provided the pathway (The Cross), allowed us the free will and ability to choose. And He's set the parameters and chosen the fate for each person's choice - reward for those of faith, eternal punishment for the permanently unrepentant. He FIRST chose all who will come to Christ in faith, foreknew precisely who all of those would ultimately be, and LATER, at some point before death, ALL Christians choose Him.

See the below:



Exod. 32:33: "And the LORD said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book." If one dies without forgiveness of their sins their name vanishes out of the record book of life.

Ps. 139:16: "Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." God knows who are his, even before they are born, everyone who lives is written in the book of life.

Phil 4:3 "Paul recognized those who labored with him in the gospel, 'with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life. "

Rev.3:5: "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels." We overcome by our faith which is exhibited by faithfulness.

However we look at the above, from a time perspective, we must realize that a thousand years from now is as was yesterday to the Lord. So, from His perspective, the Book of Life is complete and all the names that it will ultimately include have ALWAYS been known. If God is all-knowing - and He is - there is nothing He cannot know that He will one day do or that we will one day do.

Always KNOWING who will be saved and preordaining who will be saved are not the same thing.
The difference is:
God knows who is saved because He knows ( middle knowledge as some would call it) who will believe in Him based on their OWN free will.
As opposed to God DECIDING who will be saved (predestined).

[Philip]

Always KNOWING who will be saved and preordaining who will be saved are not the same thing.

Correct, it's not.

The difference is:
God knows who is saved because He knows ( middle knowledge as some would call it) who will believe in Him based on their OWN free will.
As opposed to God DECIDING who will be saved (predestined).

There is more to this than just God's foreknowledge of a man's future choices, and our salvation is NOT based upon OUR choices, but, ultimately, upon GOD'S choices - which came FIRST! Otherwise, you'd have the wrongful belief that sovereign God is dependent upon man as to that man's eternal destination and who would and who wouldn't be in heaven and hell. This is not to say that God causes one's choices (to accept or reject Him). It all began (for us) with GOD's sovereign choice, which was made in conjunction with His will - which is that He desires that ALL men come to a saving understanding and faith in Him (in Christ). So those He wanted to end up with Him in eternity would also be those who would come to faith and repentance, in obedience to Him and His drawing. This can obviously be resisted as well. Of course, while making Salvation possible through The Cross, He also decided to give us the ability to (merely) RECEIVE (as beggar's reaching BACK to an ALREADY-outstretched hand) that which we cannot earn or buy (Salvation). His will also was that this must be received through faith, and that He would provide the ability to for us to have faith, if we so desire to, if we will not remain resistant of His Spirit. So, He also FIRST gave us free will and the ability to exercise it within the parameters He's allowed. And while God decided the criteria for all that would be saved FIRST, He also foreknew all that would have eventually have that criteria (a mind and heart of faith in Him, in Christ). So God chose ALL of the sovereign aspects of our Salvation, FIRST, and chose to give us a choice in this. He is dependent upon man for nothing - otherwise, He would not be sovereign. Unfortunately, this has been twisted into a wrongful misunderstanding: That both God is sovereign and that He allows (and has made it possible for) us to either accept or reject Him.

Can you now understand how our salvation is not merely based upon God's foreknowledge of a man's ultimate choice (accept or reject), but as to what HE decided FIRST? This is an important aspect of correctly understanding that God IS sovereign, but that in His sovereignty, He has sovereignly decided to allow us to either choose or reject Him - He does not do that for us, but He has made Salvation possible, along with all of the other associated parameters. He does not make someone accept His love if they desire to reject it. That decision was provided and possible to men, but God decided much more before we were ever given that choice and, of course, He has always known what our choice would be. He both foreknew what hearts and minds He wanted to save and precisely ALL that included.

[Kurieuo]

If this is true, and on a Thomistic metaphysic it appears to be, then the answer to how humans can make a choice dependent on God without that choice being absolutely necessarily determined by Him turns out to be the same as how God Himself can make a choice dependent on Himself without His own choice being absolutely necessary. Man, by virtue of being an intelligent creature, can will this rather than that. God, as the First Cause, actualizes it through the man and thus knows that contingency as a contingency as He would any other.

One may try to object by pointing out that this answer appears to make God respond to a person’s choice, thereby violating again God’s aseity. But this fails to recognize that it is the very nature of being to self-determine, whether in God or in man. As such, God, as the First Cause, is simply working out all effects in accordance with their formal nature, just as Thomas suggested.

I want to emphasize what I italicized just above. The distinction between necessity absolutely and by necessity is important. The former is determined. The latter is not. This distinction is why Molinism (in its classical sense) ultimately fails the free will test. Molina himself thought that the reason God knows the future is because He knows us so well that He knows what we will ALWAYS choose in any given circumstance. In other words, Molina understood that we will choose A or B necessarily because of our nature. The only reason we can't predict the future is not because our wills are indeterminate, but because we can't know all the variables at once. But God can, and so He can predict with mathematical certainty what we will always do. So on classical Molinism, the will is determined, and we do what we do absolutely necessarily, just as a triangle having three sides is absolutely necessary. Later Molinists realized the problem and corrected for it, making man's will really indeterminate. But then God cannot know our future based on a knowledge of our nature. Instead, He knows the future because He sees all our possible actions and then chooses to actualize this rather than that world. In other words, God sees in world A I am writing this post and in world B I am not writing this post. And God, apparently wanting me to write this post, actualizes world A. There are two serious problems with this view. [1] The first is that it denies God's aseity, because it makes man's decisions logically prior to God's, insofar as God "looks to see" what I will do and then actualizes a particular world in response to my choices. But that makes God contingent on me. [2] The second problem is that it denies God Himself freedom. And this is the REAL problem, for we see it denies God real sovereignty (and now we are getting back to my point). For here, God has some criteria by which He thinks that World A is "better" than World B. But this means that there is some criterion by which God judges what is "better" than something else. On this point, I think Frederick Copleston's remarks are helpful:

I'm sure you've read up on Molinism, probably more than I have.
However, we had a discussion long ago re: God's middle knowledge.
In that discussion then, as you do here, you couldn't understand how God came by His knowledge on my view.
I feel the argument as you have presented here fails to consider other Molinist positions including mine as stated back then.

First re: [1].
I do not see how it denies God His aseity if He "sees" what happens.
I think you'd have a hard time tightening any premises in an argument here through to such a conclusion.

However, what is a more solid argument is that God's knowledge in contingent upon humanity's choice and/or action.
If this is the case, then I see a solid argument could perhaps be formed for denying God's omniscience. (see I'm fair when I see a good argument! )
Furthermore, if Divine Simplicity is correct, then making any attribute of God contingent upon humanity would make God partly contingent -- but since in DS there is no parts then God is perhaps fully contingent.
This absurdity means either DS is wrong, or the view that God's knowledge is contingent upon humanity's choices are wrong.

Now, in the past as I do here, I simply say that "knowledge" is an attribute like "goodness" and "righteousness" which are rooted in God's nature.
It's not some "part" of God (in the DS sense) or something that is "contingently had". I'm sure you can see the parallel here to the Euthyphro dilemma.
In fact, I'm surprised given your DS stance that this isn't a position you allow Molinists to take.
Instead you make God's knowledge contingent upon His "seeing".

So to summarise my position here re: [1].
God's doesn't get His knowledge about our actions based upon looking at this "movie reel" and that "movie reel" of how things play out.
Rather, God in virtue of His omniscient nature are the movie reels ad infinitum.
That was my position 10 years ago (maybe 5 maybe I don't know when) when we touched upon this. That is my position now.

AND, if you can't logically comprehend that, well who can really comprehend God's infiniteness?
As far as the infinite is concerned, we're all left scratching our heads as to how something has always existed -- but something must have necessarily so otherwise there would be nothing.

Now re: [2].
If my memory serves me correct, then it is true that Craig adopts some view wherein God elects people to be saved in one world over another.
And that the reason Craig posits why God chooses one world over the other is for the reason that you mention: God has some criteria by which He thinks that World A is "better" than World B.

In fact, I think your use of Frederick actually distracts, or over-complicates this argument that God's selecting one world over another denies God's sovereignty.
To give you another argument, what I find personally disturbing, is it doesn't present a correct picture of God's nature. One of the Good Shepherd doing everything to gain one lost sheep.
A person in World A who might be saved in World B ought to be cheesed off with God that they were skipped. Abandoned.
I can't help but feel I'd be bitter if unsaved when I could have been. For I was looked over.
This creates within me some feelings of abandonment that I don't like feeling about God's good and loving nature.
It is little consolation to me thinking that God is helpless to change matters.
This doesn't make me as an unsaved person feel any better about such matters, but rather stirs up within me feelings that God isn't really a powerful God after all.

NO. I thought long and hard on this when I read over the Molinist position for the first time as presented by Craig.
Craig's position did not sit right with me. I couldn't not accept it. The pandering of God to us humans has to stop somewhere.
Focusing on this argument will make your argument more powerful against I'd dare say the majority of Molinists who likely accept such.
So what is the solution?

Well the issue as I see it (which you correctly identify) ultimately comes down to a denial of God's sovereignty.
We like to stress God's love and goodness above God's sovereignty, and yet ironically it is God acting out His sovereign rights that allow for love and goodness to flourish.

God could bring the "worst" possible world into existence, that is, where the least are saved. And still be good and loving.
God being God -- it is entirely His prerogative to do as He pleases in accordance with His nature.
This (God's sovereignty) is something lost on us today because we like everyone to be at the same level -- even perhaps God.
It is also an advantage I see in the Islamic conception of God where God wills what He wills.
The are many more Muslims with a very respectful sovereign view of God than there are Christians who are diluted in Westernised political correctness even of God.

Sovereignty would be better understood in times of monarchs, but it is a concept largely lost on us today.
Unlike kings who are equal as human, God is rightfully sovereign by nature.
There is no being more powerful than God. No being who comes close to God.

BUT, what of those other worlds?
They're not real. The real one is the one God actualises.
Is someone guilty based upon what they would have done, or guilty based upon the act coming to pass?
We should not forget what is ACTUAL is REAL and anything else is not real.
So we can only be culpable for our free decisions in our real lives that we live in this world.

Therefore God is not culpable based upon what doesn't exist, but it is more rather that we are culpable based upon what does exist.
It is a lot for us to get our heads around, but at the end of the day it comes down to understanding God is Sovereign.
If you don't like that? You know what. Tough. Because God willed it and that's His prerogative in virtue of His Nature (NOT based upon might be best for us).
And it is this Sovereignty that allows any goodness and love to flourish. So in order for God's nature to be culpable here one must argue that God's creative act diminishes such.

I'm not sure where that ultimately sits with you. You might be pleasantly surprised, although I know others might find such a hard line tough.

Really re: Molinism, I see that anyone who believes God is all-knowing has to necessarily be Molinist to an extent.
That is, how can anyone deny God's "middle knowledge" if they believe God is all-knowing?

Whether such plays out to resolve a conflict between God's predestining while keeping intact our free choices is another question.
I believe it does, but Molinists should take care not to deny God His sovereign role as God.

[Philip]

but Molinists should take care not to deny God His sovereign role as God.

No question about that!

[B. W.]

Always KNOWING who will be saved and preordaining who will be saved are not the same thing.

Correct, it's not.

The difference is:
God knows who is saved because He knows ( middle knowledge as some would call it) who will believe in Him based on their OWN free will.
As opposed to God DECIDING who will be saved (predestined).

There is more to this than just God's foreknowledge of a man's future choices, and our salvation is NOT based upon OUR choices, but, ultimately, upon GOD'S choices - which came FIRST!

Phil did you realize what you just said?

There is more to this than just God's foreknowledge of a man's future choices, and our salvation is NOT based upon OUR choices, but, ultimately, upon GOD'S choices - which came FIRST!

You are so close to discovering the answer that if in some small way help you and the Lord to work together a bit more to discover an amazing answer...which is found in how God chose... (Eph 1:4)

How did he?

I mentioned this before on this very forum years ago and folks just did not grasp it's simplicity:

In the Garden after the fall of man, why did God call out to Adam and Eve?

Did God have too?

Since he did, what does his call present to humanity?

What does his call engage in the human mind?

What method does God use in choosing? Gen 3:9,15, Rom 1:18,19,20, Isa 53:1, Isa 59:15,16, John 1:1-14, Isa 43:7, Rom 8:29...

After reading these, if God never initiated a calling out too, would anyone be able to save themselves? That answer is a plain simple NO.

Since God calls in various ways to all, how could he not know the end result that his call will have on all people? Therefore, how does he select, choose in such manner remaining true to Himself in all that he is and does?

Job 34:10,11,12,20,22,23

If God never spoke out to humanity ... what then? ... and the end result would be?
-
-
-

P.S. No snarkiness intended here in what I am about to say and no ill will either. When folks use philosophic systems of reason as tools to help gain a grasp of God, that is okay. However, what happens after a bit of time, the tools become an Idol preventing the sight of God. I have seen many folks so enamored to Thomas Aquinas, or Platonic thought, or Stoicism or the new Philosophies, that these become idols one runs too more than simply running to the Lord to find him. Friends of mine called that philosophic stuff, mind candy whose sugar is so addicting...that one can only hear one sound ignoring God's entire symphonic symphony.

I find the truths in Isa 1:18 a sure thing if we but hear...

[Philip]

BW: Phil did you realize what you just said?

Philip: There is more to this than just God's foreknowledge of a man's future choices, and our salvation is NOT based upon OUR choices, but, ultimately, upon GOD'S choices - which came FIRST!

BW, IF you think I am in any way asserting some form of pre-birth determinism on God's part, as it relates to whether one can or will be saved, then you've misunderstood what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that God's decisions concerning man are all based upon WHO He is and His Holy, just, grace-providing, loving, merciful, and patient character. And that all aspects of what EVERY man is BORN capable of, including said men's ability and God-provided route to choose to receive Him - as opposed to rejecting Him - are all predicated upon and PRIOR to what man's response will be, and thus, ultimately are God provided. Also PRIOR to man, God had His priorities, purposes, motives, and set the ALL parameters, abilities, possible choices and their connected eternal consequences. And so, God IS sovereign over ALL that man's eternal destiny is dependent on. So, our choices as they relate to God, are ALL necessarily God provided, and one of His marvelous provisions is our choice to either choose to receive or reject what He has made possible through the Cross - as this, He has allowed us to decide for ourselves. So, ultimately, even our choice and ability to RECEIVE are also God dependent. And so, in THIS way, where we end up is also dependent upon all things God decided FIRST! The wrongful thinking that our salvation Is solely dependent upon His foreknowledge of OUR future decisions (concerning Him) is unScriptural.

God is most definitely sovereign in all things, it's just that many misunderstand a key element of what things He has provided man, IN His sovereignty. Make no mistake, if ANY man's rejection of God is the ONLY possible RESPONSE he can have (or has the ABILITY to have) to Him, then it is not such a man's choice, but God has chosen for him (Which is TOTALLY UNScriptural!). And, IF GOD's intention for a man is that he can ONLY choose sin and to resist God, then such a man's sin cannot be his own, and this would also mean that God would have ensured a man's disobedience and eternal rebellion against Him - the VERY thing Scripture repeatedly warns about the consequences of and that He is so angry over.

The above is where theological SYSTEMS ALL fall apart, as they attempt to assert a SYSTEM equal to God or His word. Geisler is known for warning against Christians' wrongful and dangerous elevations of their various systems. God just cannot be put in ANY theological box created or imagined by mortal minds; He won't fit and ALL such boxes leak and stink, in various ways. And, ironically, even Geisler, in his premillennial views, has ascribed to a man-made system. It's just man's tendency to try to make sense of things and put them into neat categories that have a unified understanding and explanation. But as we are not God, this is impossible - even where we may well be close to our understandings.

[LittleHamster]

..

[B. W.]

Philip,

I should have been more clear... Phil, do you realize how close you are to the answer - by your statement? It was meant as a compliment

Suggest folks review the questions I posted with prayer and seek God on this a bit more. The Holy Spirit is our best teacher on this. Again, God initiated and thru his own personal initiated response to us granted us a choice when before there was none. God sees the end from the beginning and beginning to end knowing all; therefore, he already knows the final effect of his initiated response will have on us all. With that, he calls to all... The rest is for you all to wrestle with. Once one sees it, it is so simple. It is us that confuse the matter by thinking in an either Calvin or Arminian sort of way...

Blessings...
-
-
-

[Philip]

Thanks, BW! This is an issue that tore at my soul for years. Finally, about 7 years back, I had disturbing interactions at the church I attended that made me determined to study this in great detail, to get answers and understanding. Geisler was extremely helpful. When it comes to this issue, people love to throw around philosophical terminology that often becomes meaningless smokescreens for its often illogical usage and the ultimate meanings it attempts to obscure. But there are limits as to what language and terminology can mean. Often, when it comes to this issue, we hear terminology used that SOUNDS sophisticated, knowledgeable, intellectual - almost talking about God in the abstract. But when you decipher what they are really saying about God, behind all of the ten-dollar words, is both hideous and unrecognizable of the God Who died for us.

[B. W.]

Thanks, BW! This is an issue that tore at my soul for years. Finally, about 7 years back, I had disturbing interactions at the church I attended that made me determined to study this in great detail, to get answers and understanding. Geisler was extremely helpful. When it comes to this issue, people love to throw around philosophical terminology that often becomes meaningless smokescreens for its often illogical usage and the ultimate meanings it attempts to obscure. But there are limits as to what language and terminology can mean. Often, when it comes to this issue, we hear terminology used that SOUNDS sophisticated, knowledgeable, intellectual - almost talking about God in the abstract. But when you decipher what they are really saying about God, behind all of the ten-dollar words, is both hideous and unrecognizable of the God Who died for us.

Wow, we started with faith and works and moved into predestination! What a topic and good thread to learn from this has been! Great answers PaulS and the others who have written so far on this thread! So nice to see it, so far, not destructing into fighting factions!!! Amen

So let us get back to predestination in regards to topic of - works and faith. With that, what does Romans 8:29 say?

"For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son..." NASB

If then, being transformed, how can anyone really not see any change in one's character, actions, reactions, relationships with others, as they live a transforming life by the inner work of the Holy Spirit?

Therefore, there will be good works included in which proves our faith in Christ changing us is a true part of the Christian experience. This does not keep us saved but rather a natural change invoked by the Holy Spirit within. It is not an option and will happen. It happens by God leading a Christian into the wilderness to shed their darkness and learning to live in the light of God. We do disservice to believers in Christ by telling them that becoming conformed to the image of His Son involves no outward markers and not necessary due to a fear of works. I do not see the bible teaching this (Eph 2:10) so they stumble during their wilderness experience, struggle alone, and sometimes appear to fall away (but God will draw them back in his time and ways), and we are taught not to give a helping hand to them or others due to fear of works. So is it divinely inspired laziness God desires or truth at work in the inner person, transforming them?

If a person is granted a longer stay in this mortal life as a Christian, they will bear the marks of a changed life and actions and if not, then they were never saved to begin with as they bear clear evidence of not being transformed into what God predestined them to be. While we may not always know who is saved while they travel the wilderness, God knows, 2 Tim 2:19, because they live the 1 John 1:9 way shedding darkness, gaining God's light for all to see.

In Mat 5:14,15,16c Jesus mentions what about living in light? After he says this, then, why do we continue to teach that it is okay to live under the basket? So is it any wonder the world mocks us, Christians lack purpose and meaning in their earthly sojourn stumbling a falling alot, and churchanity is the rule and not the exception?

Now read Rom 8:29-32: "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. 31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?" NKJV

What does the Holy Spirit say to you all? Okay to live under a basket, losing your saltiness due to fear of good works, or shine and be salty? Which are we?
-
-
-

[PaulSacramento]

My view of good works has always been that, once we accept Christ and the HS dwells within us, there starts a process of change that will ONLY be completed in the "life after the life after death", ie: the resurrection.
I believe that the HS in us "speaks" to Us and compels Us to try and do good things out of out sheer love for Christ.
I think that there CAN be visible marks of this change BUT I also accept that we may not be able to see them, only God.
I remember CS Lewis commenting on why there are so many "bad people' in Christianity ( liars, hypocrites, adulterers, etc) and he replied , " Can you imagine how they would be without Christ ?"
I truly think that there is evidence of change when we become Christians and while sometimes we can see that, most of the time it is only for God's "eyes".

[jlay]

First re: [1].
I do not see how it denies God His aseity if He "sees" what happens.
I think you'd have a hard time tightening any premises in an argument here through to such a conclusion.

However, what is a more solid argument is that God's knowledge in contingent upon humanity's choice and/or action.
If this is the case, then I see a solid argument could perhaps be formed for denying God's omniscience. (see I'm fair when I see a good argument! )
Furthermore, if Divine Simplicity is correct, then making any attribute of God contingent upon humanity would make God partly contingent -- but since in DS there is no parts then God is perhaps fully contingent.
This absurdity means either DS is wrong, or the view that God's knowledge is contingent upon humanity's choices are wrong.

I'n certainly not the expert in DS that Jac is, but I see some problems in your comments and how you are painting Jac's position.
I don't see what God's lack of parts has to do with the contingency argument, at least not in this case. We are talking about outcomes being actualized. For God to be contingent He would have to respond or formulate a response dependent on an outcome.
I've used the example of Nineveh.
Which of these statements is true?
-It was always God's will to destroy Nineveh.
-It was always God's will to spare Nineveh.

We know that God decreed the overthrow of Nineveh and we also know that God doesn't lie or change His mind. In other words, there was nothing that the Nineveh could do to create some emotional reaction in God that would then cause him to regret his decision. The problem is that we know God spared Nineveh, and we also know the reason they were spared was that they took heed to Jonah's warning. It was within the will of the King of Nineveh to actualize the outcome.
The fact is that both of these statements are true. It was always God's will to destroy Nineveh and always God's will to spare them. As it was also God's will to send a reluctant preacher to warn Nineveh and allow them the choice to ignore or respond. Both destruction and mercy were potential outcomes and both were completely within the will of God. God wasn't waiting on Nineveh, or even looking into the future, crossing His fingers and hoping He was right. He was working his sovereign will. Man's ability to actualize an outcome doesn't make God contingent.

God's doesn't get His knowledge about our actions based upon looking at this "movie reel" and that "movie reel" of how things play out.

[/quote]
That is an Arminian position and not one I think Jac is defending.