[beefalobilly]

Originally Posted by godrulz

William Lane Craig is a Molinistic view. He is not a dummy, and has some good things to say.

It seems to me that Molinism ends up being like determinism in the end.

Rightidea...your thinking and posts are exceptional. I trust you will contribute as often as possible.

Where do you teach? The Denver college associated with Enyart?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm

http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/molinism.htm

(16th-17th century)

I believe alvin plantinga is a molinist as well, and he's no dummy

[Clete]

Originally Posted by CRASH

Maybe someone should check with Bob before calling Hank and proposing another debate - to see what topics Bob is most interested in debating.
It might be better now to get the people over at CSI (and any other ministry) interested in this debate!

While you're right of course that consulting Bob would be the polite thing to do, but keep in mind that it is not exactly likely that Hanegraaf would be at all willing to grant such a debate in the first place and as sentientsynth said, it probably wouldn't take place for more than a year if it took place at all.

And I, of course do not speak for Bob, but judging from attitudes that Bob has displayed in the past conserning debates, he'll take all comers in a public debate and he relishes any opportunity to debate people who are "important". The higher profile the apponent, the better it is for Bob. And while the proposed topic is a bit on the unusual side, I'd be extremely shocked if Bob turned down an opportunity to debate someone as high profile as Hanegraaf on any subject.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Clete]

I just want to state clearly about the Molinist View that I do not consider any of its proponents to be dummies. My complaint about Molinism isn't at all that it is stupid; on the contrary, if anything it's too intellectual. It seems overly complicated and philosophically complex to the point that you just start to get the intuitive sense that somethin' aint right about it.
When reading about it I begin to feel the same way I did when I watched the conspiracy theory movie JFK in that it's just so incredibly complex and convoluted that it stretches credibility to the breaking point. But even so, I certainly would never think that any one who holds to that view and actually understands it to be stupid or a "dummy". Heck, you've gotta have some pretty good brain power just to understand it well enough to even articulate it, never mind believe in it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[beefalobilly]

Originally Posted by Clete

I just want to state clearly about the Molinist View that I do not consider any of its proponents to be dummies. My complaint about Molinism isn't at all that it is stupid, on the contrary, if anything it's too intellectual. It seems overly complicated and philosophically complex to the point that you just start to get the intuitive sence that it's just over the top. When reading about it I begin to feel the same way I did when I watched the conspiracy theory movie JFK in that it's just so incredibly complex and convoluted that it stretches credibility to the breaking point. But even so, I certainly would never think that any one who holds to that view and actually understands it to be stupid or a "dummy". Heck, you've gotta have some pretty good brain power just to understand it well enough to even articulate it, never mind believe in it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Gotcha, I was mainly referring to godrulz statement when I said that since he said something about a molinist also. I personally am unsure of where I stand on the issue, so this debate is of particular interest to me.

[sentientsynth]

Crash,

I'll notify CRI about this debate. Really I think that every theological body should be interested in this debate. It's hot, "in-house," and very interesting. Hey, I'm here.

CRI may take note of it. But if one were to take CRI as a whole, it's thoroughly classical. A recent CRI mag has this article which I found pretty insightful. Somewhat brief, but good.

I have a lot of respect for both Dr. Hanegraaff and Pastor Enyart. It is their mutual Biblical knowledge and personality that leads me to believe that they'd make for an interesting debate. And good for all involved. Dr. Hanegraaff to openly debate the thesis of his recent work. Pastor Enyart to demonstrate why a growing number of Christians are listening to him. And TOL for publicity, hits, etc. A few debates of the order of magnitude as BRX and the hopeful BRXI would make TOL THE place for online discussion, debate, community, etc.

I'd like that. I know some other folks that'll like that. And with the proper planning and execution, it can happen.



SS

[DonW]

Originally Posted by Montana

The question I like asking people is this: “Where does a book originate, at the end of the printing press or in the mind of its author?” They always answer honestly, “In the mind of its Author.” And that’s true for any creation. It originates in the mind of its creator.

God is the creator of earth. If He foreknew every perverted thing that would happen on earth before creating it, then He would have been the author of that perversity. ...

... He did not know what their rebellion would entail.

So sinners authored their own sins and God got an education that He regrets. That is why He repented that He made man.

So your God is a moron?

"Gee, I couldn't imagine that they would do that. Dang, I shoulda made them dumber, so they'd only be a little like Me but with so little reasoning ability that they couldn't think of that stuff."


If sinners author their own sin it does not matter whether God has detailed foreknowledge of the sins. If foreknowledge of free will consequences makes God responsible then any sin that is reasonably foreseeable to His infinite intelligence makes God responsible. We know that before creation God had certain foreknowledge of at least some sins that required the sacrifice of the Lamb. How can God then escape responsibility under your theology?

If foreknowledge of sin makes God responsible at what point does this no longer apply? After all, God certainly knew the 9-11 hijackers were going to destroy the WTC Towers even before the planes took off. Therefore, by your reasoning, God was responsible for those thousands of deaths. Every hardened criminal is known to God, so He must then be responsible for every planned violation.

This line of reasoning, carried to its logical conclusion (as you OVers like to say of competing theologies) leads to error.

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by DonW

So your God is a moron?

"Gee, I couldn't imagine that they would do that. Dang, I shoulda made them dumber, so they'd only be a little like Me but with so little reasoning ability that they couldn't think of that stuff."


If sinners author their own sin it does not matter whether God has detailed foreknowledge of the sins. If foreknowledge of free will consequences makes God responsible then any sin that is reasonably foreseeable to His infinite intelligence makes God responsible. We know that before creation God had certain foreknowledge of at least some sins that required the sacrifice of the Lamb. How can God then escape responsibility under your theology?

If foreknowledge of sin makes God responsible at what point does this no longer apply? After all, God certainly knew the 9-11 hijackers were going to destroy the WTC Towers even before the planes took off. Therefore, by your reasoning, God was responsible for those thousands of deaths. Every hardened criminal is known to God, so He must then be responsible for every planned violation.

This line of reasoning, carried to its logical conclusion (as you OVers like to say of competing theologies) leads to error.

Almost. Exhaustive forknowledge is causal, but partial forknowledge is not.

It works a bit like this: exhaustive forknowledge means that the initial cause is responsible for every cause thereafter. Partial forknowledge is no longer responsible from the point of the first unknown event. Simple enough?

[titan]

Originally Posted by Yorzhik

Jeremiah; Don't sweat it. Now that you know, kindly replace any word "calvanist" with the words "one who believes in the closed view" when talking with a person that believes in the open view. Realize, we just do it save on typing.

Just say CVer! Even less typing and no insult implied.

Titan

[titan]

Originally Posted by DonW

So your God is a moron?

"Gee, I couldn't imagine that they would do that. Dang, I shoulda made them dumber, so they'd only be a little like Me but with so little reasoning ability that they couldn't think of that stuff."


If sinners author their own sin it does not matter whether God has detailed foreknowledge of the sins. If foreknowledge of free will consequences makes God responsible then any sin that is reasonably foreseeable to His infinite intelligence makes God responsible. We know that before creation God had certain foreknowledge of at least some sins that required the sacrifice of the Lamb. How can God then escape responsibility under your theology?

If foreknowledge of sin makes God responsible at what point does this no longer apply? After all, God certainly knew the 9-11 hijackers were going to destroy the WTC Towers even before the planes took off. Therefore, by your reasoning, God was responsible for those thousands of deaths. Every hardened criminal is known to God, so He must then be responsible for every planned violation.

This line of reasoning, carried to its logical conclusion (as you OVers like to say of competing theologies) leads to error.

I agree with you that foreknowledge cannot be disproven by "God is good" arguments. Predestination can but not foreknowledge. God may have allowed evil to exist because it was preferable to having no free will. Without free will, God is the only being in the universe, the rest of us would be mere puppets on his hand. Apparently God wanted children rather than puppets. If you want kids you have to agree to change a few diapers.

On the other hand, I find it hard to accomodate exhaustive foreknowledge with free will.
If God knows I will choose A over B, then I never really had the option to choose B did I?

I know I am not God and He is not me. Predestination eliminates the distinction between God and me. As good a definition of "I" as I can come up with is: I am the one who does my actions and thinks my thoughts. If God controls my every action and my every thought, wouldn't he be me? What if he merely knew my every action and thought before I did? Hmmmm.

Titan

[titan]

Originally Posted by Yorzhik

Almost. Exhaustive forknowledge is causal, but partial forknowledge is not.

It works a bit like this: exhaustive forknowledge means that the initial cause is responsible for every cause thereafter. Partial forknowledge is no longer responsible from the point of the first unknown event. Simple enough?

Exhaustive foreknowledge means that God knows everything that is going to happen from the beginning. It says nothing about causation or responsibility. One could say God should have stopped some evil from happening if he knew about it beforehand, but that would only be true if stopping it would not have made matters worse. It is my position that there is something about creating beings with free will that implies those beings will miss the mark. Undoing free will might be the greatest evil of all. Murder kills a body. Destruction of free will kills a soul.

Titan

[chance]

I read Lamerson's second posting and I gotta say.......Lamerson is about to get a big time lesson in historical theology AND Scriptural interpretation from Bob that he has never heard before hanging around all of those Calvinists his entire life.

In fact, let me give links to some great evidence for Bob's claims in this post so he and anyone else can check out the evidence.

Concerning the historical evidence that Greek pagan philosophy has had a huge impact on the traditional understanding of the doctrine of God, read this article on Augustine's philosophical beliefs and upbringing and how it influenced his reading of Scripture. What Augustine wrote is important since his works were unarguably the biggest influence on church teaching for a long, long time and are still held in high regard by many today. The article detailing Augustine's Greek pagan philosophy and how it controlled his interpretation of Scripture is titled Can God Change Or Be Influenced By Anything?

I noticed Lamerson also brought up Is 40-48. As well as 1 out of 3 passages in 1 Sam 15 that refer to God repenting (he picked the one that says God will not repent regarding a matter and totally ignored the other two that say that He does repent and will not do what He said) That poor old man. The things he will learn from Bob will blow his mind. Can't wait to read Bob's response!

[Delmar]

Originally Posted by Clete

I just want to state clearly about the Molinist View that I do not consider any of its proponents to be dummies. My complaint about Molinism isn't at all that it is stupid; on the contrary, if anything it's too intellectual. It seems overly complicated and philosophically complex to the point that you just start to get the intuitive sense that somethin' aint right about it.
When reading about it I begin to feel the same way I did when I watched the conspiracy theory movie JFK in that it's just so incredibly complex and convoluted that it stretches credibility to the breaking point. But even so, I certainly would never think that any one who holds to that view and actually understands it to be stupid or a "dummy". Heck, you've gotta have some pretty good brain power just to understand it well enough to even articulate it, never mind believe in it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

1 Cr14:33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
I believe that the Bible depicts a God who wants to know and be known by us. Much of the beauty of the open view, for me, is that it isn't rocket surgery to understand it. Knowing God is simply about (to borrow a phrase from Brother Clete) resting in him.

[elected4ever]

Originally Posted by titan

Exhaustive foreknowledge means that God knows everything that is going to happen from the beginning. It says nothing about causation or responsibility. One could say God should have stopped some evil from happening if he knew about it beforehand, but that would only be true if stopping it would not have made matters worse. It is my position that there is something about creating beings with free will that implies those beings will miss the mark. Undoing free will might be the greatest evil of all. Murder kills a body. Destruction of free will kills a soul.

Titan

The false assumption is that just because God knows, that it prevents free choice. Just because God knows we may pick A or B does not mean that God made the choice of A or B for us. The fact is that we do not know if we will pick A or B. That is not the same think as having God pick A or B for us which is what you are implying.

[Berean Todd]

Originally Posted by chance

I read Lamerson's second posting and I gotta say.......Lamerson is about to get a big time lesson in historical theology AND Scriptural interpretation from Bob that he has never heard before hanging around all of those Calvinists his entire life.

In fact, let me give links to some great evidence for Bob's claims in this post so he and anyone else can check out the evidence.

Concerning the historical evidence that Greek pagan philosophy has had a huge impact on the traditional understanding of the doctrine of God, read this article on Augustine's philosophical beliefs and upbringing and how it influenced his reading of Scripture. What Augustine wrote is important since his works were unarguably the biggest influence on church teaching for a long, long time and are still held in high regard by many today. The article detailing Augustine's Greek pagan philosophy and how it controlled his interpretation of Scripture is titled Can God Change Or Be Influenced By Anything?

I noticed Lamerson also brought up Is 40-48. As well as 1 out of 3 passages in 1 Sam 15 that refer to God repenting (he picked the one that says God will not repent regarding a matter and totally ignored the other two that say that He does repent and will not do what He said) That poor old man. The things he will learn from Bob will blow his mind. Can't wait to read Bob's response!

Oh please, Lamerson is killing Enyart right now. Bob wouldn't even respond to Lamerson's points in his first post, and Enyart (like all OVers) has hardly touched on Scripture yet. It's all phillosophical, humanistic BS. Lamerson is OWNING Enyart at this point.

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by elected4ever

The false assumption is that just because God knows, that it prevents free choice. Just because God knows we may pick A or B does not mean that God made the choice of A or B for us. The fact is that we do not know if we will pick A or B. That is not the same think as having God pick A or B for us which is what you are implying.

If we could pick A, B, C,.....Z, then how would God know as a certainty BEFORE we picked? How would He know this from all eternity, before we even exist? How could God know the outcome of the 2010 Superbowl if it has not been played yet? The only way I can think of knowing contingent choices in advance is to control or determine them. Without this, they are uncertain and thus unknowable. Saying God is God does not make it any more coherent. To assume God saw me typing these exact words, mistakes and all (that I just corrected), from all eternity, would assume that the future was already the fixed past. The knowing of a nothing (the future is not yet) is a bald contradiction. The rest of this year is playing out (time is unidirectional) as we speak. December, 2005 is not there to see or know. There are trillions of contingencies that will affect exactly how things pan out. If there is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, things will be different for many people, than if it is thwarted or delayed until next year. God has a history (His story). He is experiencing reality along with us, but to a greater degree (He does not rely on CNN to know what is happening everywhere).