God does not 'see' the non-existent future, but He can bring some of it to pass by His omnicompetence. There is also a difference between proximal, probable prediction based on perfect past/present knowledge, and foreseeing the remote future (from before creation) of free will contingencies. If something may or may not happen, it is only known as possible until it becomes certain at the point of choice.
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
Slogan/motto:
"A day is as a thousand years" is about perspective. Two hours on the highway, to a five year old, seems like an eternity! To a 50 year old trucker, it's just the start of a good morning
Just had a thought. If God knew my entire future, that would have to include His own interaction with me. Acceptance, judgement, love, whatever. Might be a big leap here, but... If God knew that, that would mean He knew His own future? If God already knows His own (entire?) future, (which would be infinite) doesnt that make Him akin to a wind up toy or train on a track? It would mean not only are we like "robots" as the common analogy goes, but wouldnt it put Him in the same position? He would never have a new or original idea, and that would have to be from the infinite past? Am I all wet here?
(that is so irreverent, it is scary to type!)
Jeff
Marge: "Aren't you going to give him the last rites?"
Rev. Lovejoy: "That's Catholic, Marge - you might as well ask me to do a voodoo dance."
"Oh bother" said Pooh, as he chambered the next round.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
tell you what stone, let's see some citations for your point of view
Really, it's as simple as googling or picking up the phone and calling a traditional Jewish synagogue. You don't need to take my word for it simply because I have studied Judaism.
But Israel, which followed after thelaw of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they sought it not by faith, but (sought it) as it were by the works of the law.
Free will is diametrically opposed to manipulation/coercion. Just because God 'manipulates' some things, does not mean He micromanages everything. We have genuine, significant freedom, though not unlimited. God is not the only free moral agent in the universe. We cannot blame God for everything.
Are you saying God will manipulate people to make sure His will and prophecies are accomplished?
How about here:
"Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children and refused to be comforted, because they were not. "Jer 31:15 / Mt 2:18"
But Israel, which followed after thelaw of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they sought it not by faith, but (sought it) as it were by the works of the law.
Slogan/motto:
"A day is as a thousand years" is about perspective. Two hours on the highway, to a five year old, seems like an eternity! To a 50 year old trucker, it's just the start of a good morning
Are you saying God will manipulate people to make sure His will and prophecies are accomplished?
How about here:
"Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children and refused to be comforted, because they were not. "Jer 31:15 / Mt 2:18"
I would have to say that the plagues on Egypt were, at the very least, coercion!
♠
"So if I stand, let me stand on the promise that You will see me
through
And if i can't let me fall on the Grace that first brought me to you"
Just had a thought. If God knew my entire future, that would have to include His own interaction with me. Acceptance, judgement, love, whatever. Might be a big leap here, but... If God knew that, that would mean He knew His own future? If God already knows His own (entire?) future, (which would be infinite) doesnt that make Him akin to a wind up toy or train on a track? It would mean not only are we like "robots" as the common analogy goes, but wouldnt it put Him in the same position? He would never have a new or original idea, and that would have to be from the infinite past? Am I all wet here?
(that is so irreverent, it is scary to type!)
Jeff
This is the problem with the timeless, 'eternal now' view. It is not coherent for a personal being, including God. Will, intellect, emotions, and relations require duration/sequence/succession (time). God anticipates the future and responds to contingencies. Can you imagine the cacophony of a symphony listened to in one second instead of over an hour?
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
I would have to say that the plagues on Egypt were, at the very least, coercion!
Good! What about the Jeremiah Quotation I cited?
But Israel, which followed after thelaw of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they sought it not by faith, but (sought it) as it were by the works of the law.
This is the problem with the timeless, 'eternal now' view. It is not coherent for a personal being, including God. Will, intellect, emotions, and relations require duration/sequence/succession (time). God anticipates the future and responds to contingencies. Can you imagine the cacophony of a symphony listened to in one second instead of over an hour?
I agree Godrulz. But I would tell you both 'eternal now' and time succession occur. God is not limited to the Creation.
But Israel, which followed after thelaw of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they sought it not by faith, but (sought it) as it were by the works of the law.
I agree Godrulz. But I would tell you both 'eternal now' and time succession occur. God is not limited to the Creation.
William Lane Craig believes God is atemporal before creation, and temporal after creation.
"Eternal now" means timelessness.
Succession would be endless time/duration and is the antithesis of timelessness.
These views are mutually exclusive and contradictory.
Endless duration does not mean God is not distinct from His creation, nor does it imply a limitation on God. It is simply how personal beings experience reality. Timelessness is incoherent if one is personal.
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
William Lane Craig believes God is atemporal before creation, and temporal after creation.
Rediculous. How could God be defined by the creation.
But Israel, which followed after thelaw of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they sought it not by faith, but (sought it) as it were by the works of the law.
Slogan/motto:
"A day is as a thousand years" is about perspective. Two hours on the highway, to a five year old, seems like an eternity! To a 50 year old trucker, it's just the start of a good morning
Slogan/motto:
Trust in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection to become conformed to His image.
Reputation:
at least he's half right -
August 4th, 2005, 07:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by godrulz
William Lane Craig (Molinist) proposes that God was atemporal before creation and temporal after creation.
Well, all of us theists can agree that he's at least half right.
-Bob
The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com. You can call weekdays at 5 pm E.T. at 1-800-8Enyart. And you can get BR VIIDoes God Exist?, and BR XThe Open Theism Debate in manuscript form!
RightIdea, I moved this over from the critique thread.
I don't understand how proving Jesus foreknew something doesn't prove Lamerson's case. If Jesus truly foreknew the future, then the future exists, and is knowable, and is closed! Therefore God can have foreknowledge about any event. I don't know OVers that proudly proclaim that God knows many things in the future in a definite sense. Are you speaking about God proclaiming what he'll do in the future? Or do you really mean that God can see the future? Maybe our disagreement is semantics.
The OV does hold that the future isn't actually something that God can look at and observe, this is true. However, there are three ways in which God can know the future, and two of them are definite.
1. God unconditionally foreordains something. If God unconditionally foreordains something, then who is going to stop Him? He knows this part of the future as settled because He has decreed it, and He is powerful enough to enact it, no matter what anyone else says or does. So, it's not a matter of observing the future. He knows His will, and it will happen, come hell or high water. If God unconditionally foreordains that He's going to drive from Denver to Chicago, then you better get out of His way, cuz He's going there, no matter what! And if necessary, He'll plow through anything in His way, including mountains or whatever. Nothing can stop a supremely powerful God from doing something He unconditionally foreordains. But... only some things are unconditionally foreordained.
2. It is a naturalistic/mechanical system of nature that's free of interference from free will. If human free will isn't involved, then this is also something that is perfectly predictable on God's part. It is thus settled, as well. How a snowflake will fall in the middle of nowhere, or the path a comet will take through our solar system... These things aren't influenced by free will. They are purely mechanical, and perfectly predictable.
3. God is the best predictor. This isn't definite like the other two, but God can know the future to a highly accurate degree. This goes without saying. This isn't completely settled, however, like the first two.
Now, back to our point of contention. The OV agrees that some things in the future are settled. I guarantee Bob agrees with this. The crucifixion and resurrection were unconditional. The future return of Christ, the bodily resurrection, the great white throne judgment, and His throwing Hades and Satan and the wicked into the lake of fire are all definitely going to happen, no matter what free will choices are made by human beings. Many prophecies, however, are very conditional as we all know. So, the OV holds that some of the future is settled, while most of the future is not settled.
Therefore, if Lamerson proves that God foreknew some event in the future, we say no problem! We agree God knows some things definitely about the future! The OV agrees God knows some things definitely about the future.
Quote:
Do you believe Lamerson must prove that God knows 100% of all events to take place? What if he only proves that God knows 90% of future events, but the rest Lamerson cant prove? In that case I'd switch to the CV (which I'm not).
From the moment mankind fell into sin, God knew that the Son would be sent to die and raise from the dead to reconcile mankind. He definitely knew that about the future; from that point forward that was settled. When God repented of making Saul king, Saul's repentance wasn't genuine. From that point forward, God knew He would never go back again and support Saul being king! He would not repent of the fact that He repented! So, God knew definitely that Saul would not have divine approval for kingship from that day forward. Another thing God definitely knew about the future... another future event that was settled.
Read the title of the debate. The issue is whether God knows everything about your (and by implication, everyone's) future. Everything! Therefore, in order to prove his side, Sam must either prove every single instance of foreknowledge in the Bible was known as definite and settled.... or he must at the very least disprove every single example Bob puts forward of God not knowing some future event as settled. The latter is obviously the only one of the two that Sam can attempt. And this puts Sam automatically on the defensive side of this debate. Sam must prove every case that comes forward.
Bob, on the other hand, has to prove only one single case in which God didn't definitely know a future event, in order to prove his side. If God only knows 99.99999% of your future, then He does not know your "entire" future, does he? So, Bob is inherently on the attack side of this debate. Show just one example of some aspect of the future being open to God, and Bob wins. That's literally all it will take.
Of course, it should go without saying that Bob won't settle for just one, nor should he in the interest of being thorough.
Quote:
If Sam can prove one example of God having foreknowledge, in the truest sense (not proclaiming an action, then carrying it through) then I think we have inconsistencies in the Bible. To me, either OV or CV is true, and both cannot be true. So we can't have Sam prove 20 cases of foreknowledge, and Bob only prove one, then say Bob is the winner.
Regarding this, notice I used the word 'prove' above, not 'show.'
Greg
Not at all. As I said above, Sam's side of this debate is that God knows your (and everyone's) future entire. So all it takes is one little detail of the future that God doesn't know... to prove that wrong.
If the issue of the debate was whether the future is entirely open... then you'd be right. But to the best of my knowledge, only Process theologians believe that, and the are outside the pale of Christianity.
Godrulez mentioned the issue of whether God has always been temporal or not, and Craig's position. One of the most absolutely convincing aspects of this overall issue is God's temporality. I used to hold to the Simple Foreknowledge view (I was a covenental Arminian in every sense, including soteriologically). Later, I discovered and embraced the Open View. At first, I thought that Calvinism must be the least feasible of the four views, simply because it's at the opposite end of the spectrum. But now, upon further reflection, I realize that actually, to me at least, Calvinism is the second-most likely of the four views.... with Arminianism a distant last place! Why? The issue of divine temporality.
Neither Molinism nor Calvinism require God to be atemporal and "outside of time." The Arminian view, however, does require this. And the atemporal God and "eternal now" view are, I believe, one of the most illogical and nonsensical concepts in the history of philosophy or theology. And this is highlighted by, among other things, the fact that atemporalists always describe their atemporal God in temporal terms! They cannot escape it! The logical conclusion if this dilemma is this -- either God created the universe, in which case God actually experiences a before-and-after reality, in which case God is temporal..... or God didn't create the universe but is inherently co-existent with creation, and we call this view Process Theology, which is heretical.
The mere creation of the universe itself is proof that God is eternally temporal! The mere use of the term "before time" is illogical and self-contradictory on its face. And yet by necessity the atemporal God made decisions and committed actions "before time." Indeed, God was in fellowship within the Trinity before creation, as Bob is pointing out! Relationship between the members of the godhead; what a wonderful and amazing thing!
I tell you, watch the atemporalists whenever you see them. You will invariably see them describing their God in temporal terms. God responds to this and that, God created the universe, God from the "eternal now" injected Himself into the creation. Really? If God commits and act of any kind or has a thought or makes a decision or begins to have a feeling.... all of these things are inherently temporal. If apart from creation or before Creation God was temporal...? Then God was also totally and completely static, unmoving, unchanging, unthinking, unfeeling, unresponsive, non-acting! In which case how could the Molinist God examine all of the possible worlds having free will, choose one of them and then actualize that universe? Sure sounds like actions and decisions and before-and-after from God's perspective, to me!
The concept of an atemporal God, even if you restrict it to before creation, is illogical and self-contradictory on its face. Unless, of course, you want to embrace Process Theology, in which case, by my guest.
I'll try to persuade them to not use green wood.
1 Corinthians 13:2
And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.
1. God unconditionally foreordains something. If God unconditionally foreordains something, then who is going to stop Him? He knows this part of the future as settled because He has decreed it, and He is powerful enough to enact it,
Yes, that's what I meant by 'proclaiming an action, and carrying through'. No problem.
Quote:
2. It is a naturalistic/mechanical system of nature that's free of interference from free will.
No problem here, I wouldnt think of this as knowing the future, but more like perfect predictability, but its just terminology. But I guess knowing the future does fit if you think about it.
Quote:
3. God is the best predictor. This isn't definite like the other two, but God can know the future to a highly accurate degree. This goes without saying. This isn't completely settled, however, like the first two.
Amen!
Quote:
Now, back to our point of contention. The OV agrees that some things in the future are settled. I guarantee Bob agrees with this.
And now that I see what you mean, I agree also, they are settled in the sense of the above mentioned methods. I have no problem with that. But not in the sense that God is outside of time and sees those things as finished.
Quote:
Therefore, if Lamerson proves that God foreknew some event in the future, we say no problem! We agree God knows some things definitely about the future! The OV agrees God knows some things definitely about the future.
Ok, yes I agree. I was thinking along the lines that if Lamerson proved foreknowledge, outside of the methods you first listed, which I guess I never considered those things as closed events, since they have not happened yet. And since I never considered those type of events as closed future, I responded to you the way I did.
But I think your way of explaining that is more logical and thorough. And after thought, I suppose those type of events are part of a closed future since actually no other outcome is possible. And that is completely compatible with the OV. Thanks for the lesson!
Quote:
Read the title of the debate. The issue is whether God knows everything about your (and by implication, everyone's) future. Everything! Therefore, in order to prove his side, Sam must either prove every single instance of foreknowledge in the Bible was known as definite and settled.... or he must at the very least disprove every single example Bob puts forward of God not knowing some future event as settled. The latter is obviously the only one of the two that Sam can attempt. And this puts Sam automatically on the defensive side of this debate. Sam must prove every case that comes forward.
This makes sense now.
Quote:
Neither Molinism nor Calvinism require God to be atemporal and "outside of time."
MOLINISM!! That was the fourth view I couldn't think of and I've only recently heard of it here on TOL. I'd like to learn more about that position.
Linear Mode
