"The discussion often proceeds as if God is bound by time, as we are. But He is the creator of time and as such is not constrained by it.
Wait for it. He will know exactly how God sees time, and it will be logically impossible.
We speak of foreknowledge, as if it is prior knowledge from God’s point of view, as it is from ours
He speaks not of foreknowledge (pro-oida - knowing about beforehand) but of proginosko (to enter into relationship with before hand). So Jeff Doles goes wrong before he starts
When we talk about time and God we do not know what we are talking about.
. But for God, it is simply knowledge with no “before” or “after” about it.
It is not simply 'knowledge about', it is to enter into relationship with before hand. If God has no before or after, how could He use pro- to describe it.? He would be deceiving us.
He can know something as it happens — and it all happens for Him in one moment — without that knowledge being the cause of it happening.
but if before time began He knew something happened, does it happen outside His will?. He wills it to happen or He would stop it. Or is Jeff suggesting He knew about it but could do nothing about it?.
You see what tangles we get into when we try to predicate anything of God?
Knowledge does not equal causality.
In God's case knowledge DOES equal causality. What He knows He wills.
For example, if you and I were sitting together and you turned to me and said something, I would know what you were saying as you were saying it. But my knowledge of you saying it would not be the cause of you saying it.
You and I are not God. He does not gain new knowledge. He certainly knew all things BEFORE the world began. Or are we just a permanent thought in God's mind.
"You would be free to say it or not. Likewise, God’s “foreknowledge” (which to Him is simply knowledge) of what we do, say, think or believe does not require that He be the cause of it.
God's foreknowledge is NOT just knowing about beforehand. That would be prooida. It is His entering into relationship with beforehand.
In His sovereignty God has, for whatever reason, chosen to give us free will.
And just forgot to mention it? Our wills are not free, but biased and prejudiced.
That is a grace.
It is a lie. Adam while 'perfect' may have had free will, but he soon built up prejudices, customs, ideas which militate against free will. No man since Adam has.
And if He has chosen to influence our will by a further grace to turn to Him, it is still, as Lewis says, our will that does so.
Many an atheist would disagree with you. He would say it is not his will. And His grace does not depend on our agreeing. If it did we would have disagreed. What then? Lewis is too clever for his own good.
If we treat the will as anything other than voluntary and free to do or not do otherwise, then we are really not talking about will but determinism.
We may exercise our will 'freely', but we do it with our prejudices, biases, customs, etc. It is not free at all. It is according to our predisposition.
After years of batting the question around I have found no significance to it. With Lewis, I suspect it really is a meaningless question, and agree that perhaps the distinction it makes really is nonsensical after all."
If you mean the question of 'free' will I agree with you. It has no significance and is meaningless.