Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Open Theism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
    Using the example of the proposition T, the argument that infallible foreknowledge of T entails that you do not answer the telephone freely can be formulated as follows:

    Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism

    (1) God infallibly and timelessly believes T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
    (2) If E is infallibly and timelessly believed, then E is necessary. [Principle of the Necessity]
    (3) It is necessary that God believes T. [1, 2]
    (4) Necessarily, if God infallibly believes T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
    (5) If p is necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
    (6) So it is necessary that T. [3,4,5]
    (7) If it is necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
    (8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
    (9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
    (10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]
    The "Principle of Alternat[iv]e Possibilities" to which you appeal in line 9 is simply the opinion of philosopher Harry Frankfurt. It's not some rule of science which is beyond debate.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by RBerman View Post
      The "Principle of Alternat[iv]e Possibilities" to which you appeal in line 9 is simply the opinion of philosopher Harry Frankfurt. It's not some rule of science which is beyond debate.
      LOL... yeah, except there haven't been any successful challenges to it, and it is widely accepted in the philosophical community, minus the compatiblists.
      Last edited by themuzicman; 03-13-2014, 01:37 PM.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
        LOL... yeah, except there haven't been any successful challenges to it, and it is widely accepted in the philosophical community, minus the compatiblists.
        Lots of ideas have both wide acceptance (i.e. by one portion of a community) and yet also intense debate (i.e. by the community as a whole). You are definitionally correct in noting that the compatibilists are the ones who affirm a notion of "free will" while rejecting Frankfurt's definition. That doesn't seem like a reason to marginalize their viewpoint, however. Defining a subgroup is not the same thing as refuting them, unless you think that "LOL" constitutes an argument, which I hope you do not, despite the frequency with which that retort appears in your replies.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by RBerman View Post
          Lots of ideas have both wide acceptance (i.e. by one portion of a community) and yet also intense debate (i.e. by the community as a whole). You are definitionally correct in noting that the compatibilists are the ones who affirm a notion of "free will" while rejecting Frankfurt's definition. That doesn't seem like a reason to marginalize their viewpoint, however. Defining a subgroup is not the same thing as refuting them, unless you think that "LOL" constitutes an argument, which I hope you do not, despite the frequency with which that retort appears in your replies.
          Well, for the purposes of this argument, it works just fine.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by themuzicman View Post

            Except that you violate the law of non-contradiction.

            Except that your "perspectives"s are contradictory.

            would you mind explaining how?


            Originally posted by themuzicman View Post

            And proven it from within the context of this creation.
            And the JW's 'prove' the trinity doesn't work from the context of this creation. It seems to me that 'proving' things about God from the context of our limited perspective of creation can be a dangerous thing.


            Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
            It would be impossible to speculate on the nature of chronology as God experiences it, other than to say that God must be temporal (because of creation), and He is able to observe creation as its events unfold, and know all that is knowable within creation as it becomes knowable.
            [/QUOTE]

            And yet you have speculated that God experiences our chronology no different than we have....or at least you haven't explained how He experiences it differently.

            The idea that 'He is able to observe creation as its events unfold, and know all that is knowable within creation as it becomes knowable.' which essentially says that He experiences our chronology the same that we do.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
              It is a view that reflects Scripture accurately.

              And it does not deny divine omniscience.
              How can it reflect Scripture accurately when there are passages that teach God knows the future?

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                How can it reflect Scripture accurately when there are passages that teach God knows the future?
                Open theism's answer would be that God does not know the future exhaustively.

                Which passages do you refer to specifically?
                "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                Comment


                • #83
                  Why can't the doctrine of freewill and the concept of God's exhaustive foreknowledge peacefully exist? Why do we conclude that freewill and foreknowledge negate each other? Why can't he know simply because the will is free?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by dacristoy View Post
                    Why can't the doctrine of freewill and the concept of God's exhaustive foreknowledge peacefully exist? Why do we conclude that freewill and foreknowledge negate each other? Why can't he know simply because the will is free?
                    If God has Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge (EDF), if He know exactly what will happen, and exactly when and how it will happen, how is determinism and subsequently fatalism avoided? Isn't that "fate" or "destiny" in a nutshell?
                    "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                    "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
                      would you mind explaining how?
                      It cannot be the case that we have free will from our perspective, and yet we do not have free will from God's perspective. Either we do or we don't.

                      And the JW's 'prove' the trinity doesn't work from the context of this creation. It seems to me that 'proving' things about God from the context of our limited perspective of creation can be a dangerous thing.
                      Except that the topic isn't God's nature, but rather the compatibility of our free will with foreknowledge of what occurs in this universe.

                      So, we'll call this "guilt by association" and "apples and oranges." Two fallacies for the price of one.

                      And yet you have speculated that God experiences our chronology no different than we have....or at least you haven't explained how He experiences it differently.
                      Because the bible only indicates that God is ontologically distinct from creation, and experiences a sequence of events. It doesn't tell us how He experiences His chronology.

                      The idea that 'He is able to observe creation as its events unfold, and know all that is knowable within creation as it becomes knowable.' which essentially says that He experiences our chronology the same that we do.
                      That doesn't logically follow. The only thing we can conclude is that God's chronology allows Him to observe ours.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by dacristoy View Post
                        Why can't the doctrine of freewill and the concept of God's exhaustive foreknowledge peacefully exist? Why do we conclude that freewill and foreknowledge negate each other? Why can't he know simply because the will is free?
                        they are logically incompatible

                        Using the example of the proposition T, the argument that infallible foreknowledge of T entails that you do not answer the telephone freely can be formulated as follows:

                        Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism

                        (1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
                        (2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
                        (3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
                        (4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
                        (5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
                        (6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
                        (7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
                        (8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
                        (9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
                        (10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]
                        If you prefer God as timeless, there is a modified version for timelessness in this thread.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
                          I am saying God cannot make a rock too heavy for Him to lift. Jesus telling Peter that he would betray Him 3 times before the cock crowed requires free will action on Peters part, so if Jesus did not know Peter would do it by free will choice then He must be a liar. If Jesus did know then there are two possible reasons, He foreknew it, or He forced Peter to denounce Him.
                          Well, if, given the circumstances, regardless of Peter's choices, Peter will encounter people who will ask him about being with Christ, and Peter's heart is not in a place where he can acknowledge that, then Jesus can know that of the choices Peter will make, among them someone (could be any number of someones) will ask Peter, and Peter will be unable to acknowledge Christ.


                          Omnipotent, and omnisciencent. I do not know what you mean by omniwisdom.
                          All-wise.. .having all wisdom.

                          So, if God is omnipotent, why would He be unable to bring about His will without fixing/foreknowing what will happen?

                          If He doesn't know the future then He's either lieing about His prophecies or He is planning to violate free will to ensure they come true.
                          Or maybe God is powerful enough to bring them about WITHOUT violating free will.

                          Thus the question about omnipotence.

                          Then demonstrate that you're correct instead of saying I'm wrong.
                          Question: Do you think God can bring about prophecy without foreknowledge and fixing everything beforehand?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                            If God has Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge (EDF), if He know exactly what will happen, and exactly when and how it will happen, how is determinism and subsequently fatalism avoided? Isn't that "fate" or "destiny" in a nutshell?
                            Appears to me that you are trying to use foreknowledge and foreordain as synonyms; they are not interchangeable.

                            Foreknowledge:
                            Knowledge of something before it exists or happens; prescience: Did you have any foreknowledge of the scheme?

                            foreordain:
                            1. To ordain or appoint beforehand.
                            2. To predestine; predetermine.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                              Open theism's answer would be that God does not know the future exhaustively.

                              Which passages do you refer to specifically?

                              1. He knows our prayers even before we pray them.
                              a. Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all (Psalm 139:4, NASB).
                              b. So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him. (Matthew 6:8, NASB).

                              2. He knows future events.
                              a. Present your case," the LORD says. "Bring forward your strong arguments," The King of Jacob says. Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; As for the former events, declare what they were, That we may consider them and know their outcome. Or announce to us what is coming; Declare the things that are going to come afterward, That we may know that you are gods; Indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together. Behold, you are of no account, And your work amounts to nothing; He who chooses you is an abomination. "I have aroused one from the north, and he has come; From the rising of the sun he will call on My name; And he will come upon rulers as upon mortar, Even as the potter treads clay." Who has declared this from the beginning, that we might know? Or from former times, that we may say, "He is right!"? Surely there was no one who declared, Surely there was no one who proclaimed, Surely there was no one who heard your words. (Isaiah 41:21-26)
                              b. Behold, the former things have come to pass, Now I declare new things; Before they spring forth I proclaim them to you.(Isaiah 42:9, NASB)
                              c. Gather yourselves and come; Draw near together, you fugitives of the nations; They have no knowledge, Who carry about their wooden idol And pray to a god who cannot save. Declare and set forth your case; Indeed, let them consult together.
                              Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. (Isaiah 45:20-21, NASB)
                              d. Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure' (Isaiah 46:10, NASB)
                              e. I declared the former things long ago And they went forth from My mouth, and I proclaimed them. Suddenly I acted, and they came to pass. Because I know that you are obstinate, And your neck is an iron sinew And your forehead bronze, Therefore I declared them to you long ago, Before they took place I proclaimed them to you, So that you would not say, 'My idol has done them, And my graven image and my molten image have commanded them. (Isaiah 48:3-5, NASB)
                              f. All the nations shall serve him and his son and his grandson until the time of his own land comes; then many nations and great kings will make him their servant. (Jeremiah 27:7, NASB)
                              Last edited by foudroyant; 03-24-2014, 05:11 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
                                All-wise.. .having all wisdom.
                                a. There is no wisdom and no understanding and no counsel against the LORD. (Proverbs 21:30, NASB)
                                b. With Him are wisdom and might; To Him belong counsel and understanding. (Job 12:13, NASB)
                                c. Daniel said, Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever, For wisdom and power belong to Him. (Daniel 2:20, NASB)
                                Last edited by foudroyant; 03-24-2014, 05:17 PM.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X