ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Clete]

I understand this, but it is a redefining of the word. I'll extend the same to you if you like. Help me out.

Foreknowledge means to know something in advance.

Boy! That was rough!

You shouldn't tax me to such a degree Lon! I might have a break down or something! :freak:

 

[RobE]

Hey Lon and Lee,

I missed this before. Is Muz saying that God has exhaustive foreknowledge? Doesn't it follow that if God knows Z, then God knows A--->Z? 'A' being the first step towards course Z. He must. Now if we look at prophecy where Z is specified let's say that Z = Judas will become reprobate. Then it's a forced conclusion that God knows all the events exhaustively leading up to that moment.

This would be exhaustive definite foreknowledge.

Or

God could simply coerce the outcome.​

We could say that Molina would be proud of Muz since he has now discovered 'middle' knowledge with the aforementioned phrase. It's better then saying God decreed Judas' to become reprobate, since that would make Muz Calvinistic.

God knows all the possible courses of the future, and knows what He will do, should a particular course of the future come to pass.

Muz, don't you see. You have free will co-existing with foreknowledge. At the very least you have God exhaustively foreknowing His own free acts. It's the same thing. Can this be? Maybe you should choose another argument. One which doesn't suggest free will requires foreknowledge to exist.

 

[lee_merrill]

Doesn't it follow that if God knows Z, then God knows A--->Z? 'A' being the first step towards course Z.

Well, it is possible that future event 'Z' is simply seen, just as prophets could see future events--just as I can see a present event without knowing all its causes, but I don't think anyone here is holding that view.

But in any case, yes--this would be foreknowledge of a future free will event in the various examples mentioned here.

At the very least you have God exhaustively foreknowing His own free acts.

Yes, as Jesus chose freely, the cross, which was yet predestined from the time he said "the Son of man will be handed over to be crucified," from the beginning of Jesus setting out to Jerusalem, from the beginning of his ministry, from the foundation of the world.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[RobE]

Well, it is possible that future event 'Z' is simply seen, just as prophets could see future events--just as I can see a present event without knowing all its causes, but I don't think anyone here is holding that view.

But in any case, yes--this would be foreknowledge of a future free will event in the various examples mentioned here.


Yes, as Jesus chose freely, the cross, which was yet predestined from the time he said "the Son of man will be handed over to be crucified," from the beginning of Jesus setting out to Jerusalem, from the beginning of his ministry, from the foundation of the world.

Blessings,
Lee

I'm not ruling out God being atemporal since I don't know for sure. It's quite possible that He is, but it's unarguable for me to say so with no proof. Molina, however, has offered a great proof for foreknowledge which apparently open theism is embracing; unless I'm reading Godrulz and Muz wrong.

 

[godrulz]

I'm not ruling out God being atemporal since I don't know for sure. It's quite possible that He is, but it's unarguable for me to say so with no proof. Molina, however, has offered a great proof for foreknowledge which apparently open theism is embracing; unless I'm reading Godrulz and Muz wrong.

Boyd says his view is neo-Molinism. I do not accept convoluted Molinism, counterfactuals of freedom/middle knowledge, etc. Molinism still believes in EDF, but for different reasons than simple foreknowledge or determinism. William Lane Craig (I respect) champions it, but I think it is still problematic.

My bottom line is that EDF of future free will contingencies is an absurdity/logical impossibility. One cannot have their cake and eat it too.

 

[RobE]

Boyd says his view is neo-Molinism. I do not accept convoluted Molinism, counterfactuals of freedom/middle knowledge, etc. Molinism still believes in EDF, but for different reasons than simple foreknowledge or determinism. William Lane Craig (I respect) champions it, but I think it is still problematic.

My bottom line is that EDF of future free will contingencies is an absurdity/logical impossibility. One cannot have their cake and eat it too.

Your bottom line is attempting to do just that. Foreknowing some free acts and not others. Sounds similar. Unless you want to give up the idea that God foreknew Judas' betrayal and declare that God caused Judas' betayal. I see no choice. I've usually argued the philisophical arguments because open theism still has a chance there. This is the first and last, apparently, theological argument I need present.

 

[godrulz]

Your bottom line is attempting to do just that. Foreknowing some free acts and not others. Sounds similar. Unless you want to give up the idea that God foreknew Judas' betrayal and declare that God caused Judas' betayal. I see no choice. I've usually argued the philisophical arguments because open theism still has a chance there. This is the first and last, apparently, theological argument I need present.

When did you shave your goat? I was going to start a Robe look-a-like thread based on your old picture, but now you do not look like me (I also can't figure out how to get a jpg in a post).

The two motif concept gets around the cake issue. Either I am not explaining myself well, or you are slow to apprehend it. The Judas issue has other explanations that I have hinted at, but not fully developed. When did God foreknow the betrayal? Was it from eternity past or more proximal to the event? Hhmmm. I think you have a false dichotomy. EDF, determinism?? I think there are other options/explanations.

Your objection is classic and needs to be responded to. I have wrestled with these things for 30 years. I find Boyd's responses adequate. He says it better than I could, so read it from the horse's mouth.

OT does not have all the answers, but I believe it is on the right track and less problematic than Calvinism/determinism or Arminian simple foreknowledge (biblically, logically, philosophically).

 

[RobE]

When did you shave your goat? I was going to start a Robe look-a-like thread based on your old picture, but now you do not look like me (I also can't figure out how to get a jpg in a post).

And I even put my teeth in. I haven't had a goat in two years. The original picture was taken at Ruby Falls in Chattanooga, TN.

The two motif concept gets around the cake issue.

The two motif concept is the cake issue. Motif one = having your cake. Motif two = eating it too. Maybe we should call it motif too for short.

Either I am not explaining myself well, or you are slow to apprehend it.

Haven't you read the posts which point out that I'm a dullard? See one motif is that God foreknows things free will agents do --- which elicits a response from those who think foreknowledge and free will co-existing is an absurdity.

The other motif is that God is unable to know things which free agents do --- which elicits a response from those who think foreknowledge is true.

I would think that open theists must believe the entire future is unknowable because of the countless free acts which will be committed there. Open theism falls at the same place Calvinism does - the foreordination of the reprobate. Makes sense to me. They do have the same common origin - free will and foreknowledge are incompatible.

 

[lee_merrill]

... one motif is that God foreknows things free will agents do --- which elicits a response from those who think foreknowledge and free will co-existing is an absurdity.

The other motif is that God is unable to know things which free agents do --- which elicits a response from those who think foreknowledge is true.

Or prophecy of free-will choices! Well, such certainly are predicted, so then clearly God knows of them, and knowledge acquired right before the decision doesn't undo the knot, the problem is quite plain: knowing a future free decision.

Blessings,
Lee <- Never had a goat, have been woolly, but that made me look a bit sheepish

 

[Nang]

Foreknowledge means to know something in advance.

Boy! That was rough!

You shouldn't tax me to such a degree Lon! I might have a break down or something! :freak:

Can you also define "Godly omniscience," or do you simply deny it?


Nang

 

[Lon]

Actually, he has given man, plants, and animals the ability to procreate. We make cars and children. God does not make computers and kids. We would not have kids if we did not have sex. The virgin conception of Jesus is the exception.

God may make the spirit, but the body will not happen apart from things he built into creation (genes, intercourse, sperm, egg, etc.). He is not omnicausal and does not micromanage our love life. We can also abort a child, contrary to God's will.

Colossians 1 says otherwise. I concur with your point, but it isn't where the buck stops.

 

[Lon]

Foreknowledge means to know something in advance.

Boy! That was rough!

You shouldn't tax me to such a degree Lon! I might have a break down or something! :freak:

Thanks. This is what I told Patman you believed. Now, second question:

Can God know any future act of any man? By this I mean "Know." Does His foreknowledge extend that far or are we still talking about predictive determinism and nothing more?

Another way of clarify is: Do we have actual foreknowledge ever?
What I am asking is can we really know any future event? This definition for foreknowledge in the OV seems to be very different than actual knowing as far as I can tell.

 

[Lon]

If I'm not mistaken, I'm the OVT, here, not you. YOU are incorrect. You state this because you WANT it to be true, not because it is.

Exhaustive, definite Foreknowledge simply means that one knows certainly what will happen before it happens (another issue with atemporality, as it cannot stand "before"). Determinism means that all things are determined by one pre-existent being (usually God). Predictability is just a fancy word for "we're all robots."

I have said (with a proof) that EDF requires determinism, but not that they are the same thing.



You're playing word games. Determinism is the philosophical position that something determines everything that happens, and that there is no free will for any other beings.

What I've described is God using His free will to decide what He will do beforehand, thus foreknowing through His own free will what He will do. That is NOT determinism.

When you're ready to deal with terms as properly defined, you'll get it.

Muz

(sorry, that was your quote which I mishandled in editing).
I just wanted you to explain the difference between my quote and yours and the distinctions.

 

[patman]

Define Pro-gnosis from the Greek for me -you can use my work-or easier: Break down Fore-knowledge and define it for me.
If I am not understanding the actual word correctly. Help me out.

Lon,

There are a lot of things I could say about the predestination passage(s). But you are still stuck on the foreknowledge thing. So let's get to that later.

I still think you want God's foreknowledge to be some knowledge that transcends time as though he was outside of time, looking on it. That is a theory used by S.V.er's to explain how it works.

Scripture doesn't teach this.

Scripture shows that God knows his plans, he knows our (present) actions, and he is powerful. There are other aspects to God. He can use these and his extreme intelligence to see some future events just like you can use your intelligence to foresee your own children's future actions.

It seems you want Foreknowledge to be something way more than it is so you can prove open theism wrong....

 

[godrulz]

Colossians 1 says otherwise. I concur with your point, but it isn't where the buck stops.

Verse? He sustains the universe, but he allows man to procreate. He created man with this ability and nature, but he does not directly force us to have intercourse, right? Will a woman get pregnant if human agency is not involved?

 

[Lon]

Verse? He sustains the universe, but he allows man to procreate. He created man with this ability and nature, but he does not directly force us to have intercourse, right? Will a woman get pregnant if human agency is not involved?

Yes, that is the verse in question. He sustains everything. How far are we going with this discussion? I'm not sure I'm getting anything significant and it feels like a rabbit trail from here.

 

[Lon]

Lon,

There are a lot of things I could say about the predestination passage(s). But you are still stuck on the foreknowledge thing. So let's get to that later.

I still think you want God's foreknowledge to be some knowledge that transcends time as though he was outside of time, looking on it. That is a theory used by S.V.er's to explain how it works.

Scripture doesn't teach this.

Scripture shows that God knows his plans, he knows our (present) actions, and he is powerful. There are other aspects to God. He can use these and his extreme intelligence to see some future events just like you can use your intelligence to foresee your own children's future actions.

It seems you want Foreknowledge to be something way more than it is so you can prove open theism wrong....

And I can't seem to get you to realize you are redefining and watering down the definition we started with:
"Scripture shows that God knows his plans, he knows our (present) actions, and he is powerful. There are other aspects to God. He can use these and his extreme intelligence to see some future events just like you can use your intelligence to foresee your own children's future actions."

You haven't explained or mentioned foreknowledge once.

"...He can use these and his extreme intelligence to see some future events just like you..."

and have watered it down to be nothing like the definition of foreknowledge.

The bottom line here is that OV redefines this word other than pro-gnosis. Predictive-determinism is not foreknowledge. That is what I'm saying. Go back and read that dictionary link. Neither of these terms come up.

Here is the thing: I believe God's Word to be inspired. He'd not have used Pro-gnosis if that isn't what He wanted to convey instead of determine. Bouleuō is a good Greek word for that. Mat 6:8

 

[lee_merrill]

Here is the thing: I believe God's Word to be inspired. He'd not have used Pro-gnosis if that isn't what He wanted to convey instead of determine. Bouleuō is a good Greek word for that. Mat 6:8

And pro-orizo, to determine beforehand, yes, pro-ginosko means "know ahead of time," not pre-determine, nor pre-arrange, nor bring about.

 

[RobE]

:sigh:

I don't get you Rob. You agree with everything, in your own words, then ignore the points you made yourself, and blame me.

See ya on the flip side.:wave2:

I think the problem is that what you see as evil, I see as good. Your glass is half empty and mine is half full. Wouldn't you agree? We both see God as a benign loving Father, but for some reason you find His use of knowledge as a bad thing. I might even say that you see it as an evil thing if He uses it to bring about the best possible future for us. Why it matters to you when this knowledge is acquired I am unable to discover.

I am unable to comprehend why you feel this way at all. The only assumption I'm able to make is that some great personal tragedy has left you with this frame of mind. That for some reason, the world has become a dark and evil place in your mind. The world is good, and the majority of acts done here are good despite your claims to the contrary. It's a lie from the devil that God is able to make evil, His creation is perfect even though He allows evil to exist in it for a time, through His loving mercy.

Since we're both saying the same things, per your above statement; one of us must see God doing evil acts there while the other of us sees loving kindness. Perhaps you can cut and past my words which seem to cause your apparent frustration with me. Teach me. I'm willing to learn. Teach me with my own words, so that I might see what you see.

Your Friend,
Rob Mauldin

 

[Philetus]

Our view of time vs eternity does affect our conclusions on this topic. I agree that atemporality is not defensible logically or biblically. God experiences endless time, not incoherent timelessness. "Eternal now" simultaneity if Platonic and is used to explain simple foreknowledge. If the assumption is flawed, so will be the conclusion.

Time is not a created thing. It is unidirectional. The future is simply not there yet to know like the fixed past, by God's sovereign choice. By creating a non-deterministic, free creation in order to have reciprocal love relationships, God voluntarily, sovereingly chose to limit the extent and nature of His future knowledge. This is not a problem for an omnicompentent God.

If you must cling to EDF, then give up genuine free will in favor of determinism. Give up love, freedom, relationship, but at what price? In our view, God is still omniscient because He knows all that is possible to know. It is not possible to know where Yoda and Darth Vader are in the universe because they do not exist. This is not a limitation on omniscience. God actualized a creation that is partially open, so there is a difference between possible and certain/actual, between past/present/future.

Never been said any better!