[lee_merrill]

Originally Posted by godrulz

How can God know individuals before they even exist?

How could he create a world out of nothing? How on earth could he do that?

Why would He save some, but damn many more that He could save if He would only will it (your view)?

Because in some he chooses to show his mercy, in others, his wrath. That's a quote, my friend. Muz also would seem to agree that there is reprobation. Yet how would you all explain how God can know a remnant will be saved? Isn't repentance dependent on human choice, according to the Open View?

For some number of people positively being saved is part of "his sentence on earth," and then after a time, "all Israel."

Individuals may or may not come into existence. The ones that do, may or may not come to faith in Christ. These contingencies preclude exhaustive foreknowledge ...

Unless God is more capable than the Open Theists are saying.

Blessings,
Lee

[godrulz]

Creation ex nihilo is based on omnipotence. Issues relating to omniscience must factor in what are possible objects of knowledge. To not know a nothing is not a limitation on omniscience. The future is not yet, a nothing.

[lee_merrill]

Originally Posted by godrulz

The future is not yet, a nothing.

Like what God started with, in creation?

And who are we to say what God can and cannot know?

And how can God know only a remnant will be saved? and how would you explain how God can know a remnant will be saved? Isn't repentance dependent on human choice, according to the Open View? Remember it came down to only Noah once--suppose it did again, and that person rebelled?

Romans 9:27-29 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality." It is just as Isaiah said previously: "Unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah."

[godrulz]

Explicit phrases in Scripture relating to God's knowledge shows that there is an element of uncertainty and openness about the future. This is revelation, consistent with godly reason. You must dismiss these passages to retain your theology. I will not do so since that would be poor exegesis.

Perhaps you have not studied the biblical evidence for Open Theism enough. There are many passages that support its principles that you must water down or ignore to retain your views.

[lee_merrill]

It seems you skipped my questions, Godrulz, this would be your opportunity to give the Open View response.

There are many passages that support its principles that you must water down or ignore to retain your views.

My responses you may find here, if you mean the standard verses!

Blessings,
Lee

[Lon]

Originally Posted by godrulz

Explicit phrases in Scripture relating to God's knowledge shows that there is an element of uncertainty and openness about the future. This is revelation, consistent with godly reason. You must dismiss these passages to retain your theology. I will not do so since that would be poor exegesis.

Perhaps you have not studied the biblical evidence for Open Theism enough. There are many passages that support its principles that you must water down or ignore to retain your views.

What? Like 1Samuel 15? Tell me you have something much more compelling, please. God breathed a heavy sigh, not 'repent,' not 'changed His mind.' Num 23:19 God is consistent, not given to whims. 1Sa 15:29 The caricature of a God made of stone does not complete the Calvinist picture. God is consistent and He says of Himself "I change not." This means, while relational, He is absolutely perfect and consistent Heb 13:8 in the way He deals with us, regardless of our inconsistency.

[RobE]

Originally Posted by Evoken

The Thomist does not say that God merely inspires our consent, as if implying that the consent to perform the salutary act comes solely from ourselves. That is, he doesn't just provides graces and waits for us to consent. There is a way in which the two views of efficacious grace are different.

I'm sure this is only a matter of perception....

NewAdvent.Org

Even Molinism must and does admit that the very idea of efficacious grace includes the free consent of the will, and also that the decree of God to bestow an efficacious grace upon a man involves with metaphysical certainty the free co-operation of the will. From this it follows that God must possess some infallible source of knowledge by means of which he knows from all eternity, with metaphysical certainty, whether in the future the will is going to co-operate with a given grace or to resist it. When the question has assumed this form, it is easy to see that the whole controversy resolves itself into a discussion on the foreknowledge which God has of the free future acts; and thus the two opposing systems on grace are ultimately founded upon the general doctrine on God and His attributes. Both systems are confronted with the wider and deeper question: What is the medium of knowledge (medium in quo) in which God foresees the (absolute or conditioned) free operations of His rational creatures? That there must be such a medium of Divine foreknowledge is evident. The Thomists answer: God foresees the (absolute and conditioned) free acts of man in the eternal decrees of His own will, which with absolute certainty produce prœmovendo as definite prœdeterminationcs ad unum, all (absolute and conditional) free operations. With the same absolute certainty with which He knows His own will, He also foresees clearly and distinctly in the decrees of His will all future acts of man. However, the Molinists maintain that, since, as we remarked above, the predetermining decrees of the Divine Will must logically and necessarily destroy freedom and lead to Determinism, they cannot possibly be the medium in which God infallibly foresees future free acts. Rather these decrees must presuppose a special knowledge (scientia media), in the light of which God infallibly foresees from all eternity what attitude man's will would in any conceivable combination of circumstances assume if this or that particular grace were offered it. And it is only when guided by His infallible foreknowledge that God determines the kind of grace He shall give to man. If, for example, He foresees by means of the scientia media that St. Peter, after his denial of Christ, shall freely co-operate with a certain grace, He decrees to give him this particular grace and none other; the grace thus conferred becomes efficacious in bringing about his repentance. In the case of Judas, on the other hand, God, foreseeing the future resistance of this Apostle to a certain grace of conversion, decreed to allow it, and consequently bestowed upon him a grace which in itself was really sufficient, but remained inefficacious solely on account of the refractory disposition of the Apostle's will. Guided by this scientia media God is left entirely free in the disposition and distribution of grace. On His good pleasure alone it depends to whom He will give the supreme grace of final perseverance, to whom He will refuse it; whom He will receive into Heaven, whom He will exclude from His sight for ever. This doctrine is in perfect harmony with the dogmas of the gratuity of grace, the unequal distribution of efficacious grace, the wise and inscrutable operations of Divine Providence, the absolute impossibility to merit final perseverance, and lastly the immutable predestination to glory or rejection; nay more, it brings these very dogmas into harmony, not only with the infallible foreknowledge of God, but also with the freedom of the created will.

So you see that Thomists along with Infra-Calvinists see God's knowledge as a result of His decrees; whereas, Molinist's see God's decrees founded on His knowledge. A minor point --- since God's Decree and Knowledge exist atemporally(or simultaneously) within His Divine Person(s).

Are we to claim, just as the 'ots' do that one of God's attributes takes precedence over another?

This becomes a debate over the logical order of events. I should point out that it's man's logical order, not Gods. Who's to say that God is unable to know the end from the beginning?

The Thomist holds that we have from God not only the will to do good (via sufficient grace) but also the actual act to accomplish the good that we will (via efficacious grace), as St. Paul states (Philippians 2:13). Since it is to God that we own all the good in us, there is nothing in us to boast about (Ephesians 2:8-9).

And where does the Molinist claim that man received the ability to do good from?

The Molinist view in contrast, given two men, each being allocated an equal amount of grace, it can come to pass that one man performs a salutary act and the other does not without receiving any further help from God. In this case the good in the man would not be something coming from God but from the man himself.

Well this might be true, but it would be more precise to say that God gives each man the amount of grace needed to be considered sufficient to the task of generating a positive response. The man's own nature, which was provided by God at the moment of conception per His Divine Act, was a Grace in and of itself. Combined these two Graces are sufficient to be effecacious. Neither alone will provide final perseverence. Both from God, neither originating from man. The question becomes, "Will the man exchange all that God has given him(freedom of action) to obtain the pearl of great price?".

This is a critical difference between both systems.

What is the significance of arguing over which attribute precedes the other? Is there an advantage in either system or are they both true like foreknowledge and free will being compatible?

Yes I am sure. Thomists also reject scientia media, which the Molinists accept. The Molinists reject the doctrine of the divine predetermining decrees and physical premotion of the Thomists, both of which I accept.

Absolutely not. Molinists accept predestination as fact and I explained above the 'physical premotion' of the Molinists.

I appreciate your teaching. Are we able to come to a concensus? I would say that the Church was correct in making both views acceptable and valid. Is there any reason to say that the Church was wrong in Her edict?

[RobE]

Originally Posted by godrulz

Tylenol please?

Libertarian free will is a redundancy, but necessary to distinguish genuine free will from determinism or illusory 'compatibilistic' freedom that is not genuine freedom.

I know you feel this is true, but where is the logical proof of it being so? Certainly Greek philosophy isn't blinding your mind's eye.

[RobE]

Originally Posted by godrulz

Creation ex nihilo is based on omnipotence. Issues relating to omniscience must factor in what are possible objects of knowledge. To not know a nothing is not a limitation on omniscience. The future is not yet, a nothing.

So is the 1911 World Series, but I know of it. The passenger pigeon, Abraham Lincoln, and my next paycheck. All not in existence today, but will be or were existent. Things need not exist to be known. Did the Wright brothers have an idea airflight was possible even before it existed?

Come on. Heads out and up! God knew of spaceflight, airflight, and all possibilities prior to their existence.

Rob

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by Lon

What? Like 1Samuel 15? Tell me you have something much more compelling, please. God breathed a heavy sigh, not 'repent,' not 'changed His mind.' Num 23:19 God is consistent, not given to whims. 1Sa 15:29 The caricature of a God made of stone does not complete the Calvinist picture. God is consistent and He says of Himself "I change not." This means, while relational, He is absolutely perfect and consistent Heb 13:8 in the way He deals with us, regardless of our inconsistency.

Will not vs cannot. In some cases, God will not change His mind no matter what (wisdom). In other cases (Hezekiah, for e.g.), He does change His mind in response to believing prayer.

God has sovereignly chosen reciprocal love relationships and has given us a say-so. He has the ultimate say, but He values relationship more than Dictatorship.

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by RobE

So is the 1911 World Series, but I know of it. The passenger pigeon, Abraham Lincoln, and my next paycheck. All not in existence today, but will be or were existent. Things need not exist to be known. Did the Wright brothers have an idea airflight was possible even before it existed?

Come on. Heads out and up! God knew of spaceflight, airflight, and all possibilities prior to their existence.

Rob

Did God know I would type this gehriogq9-gtq3-98gj-i9gj9gj trillions of years ago? How and why?

The past is fundamentally different than the future or present. The past is fixed and knowable even though it no longer exists. The present is real and is also knowable. The future is a blank slate, not fixed like the past. If you are God looks into the future, we see possibilities, not actualities. Even things God knows about that He will bring to pass by His ability are not actually there yet.

Time is unidirectional. You should look into science, not science fiction.

Molinism is a mess.

[RobE]

Originally Posted by godrulz

Did God know I would type this gehriogq9-gtq3-98gj-i9gj9gj trillions of years ago? How and why?

The past is fundamentally different than the future or present. The past is fixed and knowable even though it no longer exists. The present is real and is also knowable. The future is a blank slate, not fixed like the past. If you are God looks into the future, we see possibilities, not actualities. Even things God knows about that He will bring to pass by His ability are not actually there yet.

Time is unidirectional. You should look into science, not science fiction.

Molinism is a mess.

It's your claim and not mine, that the non-existent is unknowable. Are we able to know that which doesn't exist or not?

Originally Posted by Godrulz

Creation ex nihilo is based on omnipotence. Issues relating to omniscience must factor in what are possible objects of knowledge. To not know a nothing is not a limitation on omniscience. The future is not yet, a nothing.

If so, then it is possible that God knew you would type "gehriogq9-gtq3-98gj-i9gj9gj trillions of years ago".

How? That's what we're trying to figure out.

Why? Because He knows all that is knowable.

Originally Posted by Godrulz

Even things God knows about that He will bring to pass by His ability are not actually there yet.

Things that already happened are not actually here and won't be there. So what!

Yet if they don't come into existence then God didn't know about it according to your ideas, right? OR Does God know about those things which exist and those things which don't exist as well? After all, this would mean that God knew everything possible which was knowable.

What proof do you offer which renders knowledge of contingent actions as false? I've seen the failed proofs offered which strive to render contingent actions false when knowledge is present. Perhaps you are willing to present a proof that knowledge is false when contingency exists.

I'll help you start out.....

If A or ~A then God knows A or ~A.

If A then God knows A.
or
If ~A then God knows ~A.

....or maybe not. See, God's knowledge seems to be contingent as well. Contingent on the action. Hmmm....This is what I've been saying all along.

It seems that if foreknowledge eliminates free action, then free action should exclude foreknowledge by the same right. Have you a proof that this is true?

[Evoken]

Originally Posted by RobE

I'm sure this is only a matter of perception....

Not when it comes to the issue of the intrinsic vs extrinsic nature of efficacious grace. God either determines or is determined. The issue surrounding scientia media is that it introduces a passivity in God that is inconsistent with his pure actuality. If he is determined by how person X will act in a given set of circumstances then not only does the good in person X (his consent to grace) does not comes from Him, but the very movement of the person by which it consents would have to be autonomous and independent of him. Thus, God would be dependent for his knowledge and action on the creature which is contrary to him being both immutable and the unmoved mover, to whom all creaturely movement must fall back to as it's first cause, as St. Thomas affirms. The power of God's grace is also diluted in this view, because as Molina maintains, a person with less grace can eventually perform more good than one with much more grace than the other. So the good in this case does not really comes from God's grace but from the person, who can carry the salutary act without any further help from God, as in the previous example I gave.

So you see that Thomists along with Infra-Calvinists see God's knowledge as a result of His decrees; whereas, Molinist's see God's decrees founded on His knowledge.

Here I think we need to clarify some things to avoid misunderstandings. Both Thomists and Molinists admit the following two distinctions in God's knowledge:

1) Knowledge of simple intelligence by which God knows all that is merely possible.
2) Knowledge of vision by which God knows all things actual.

Molinists add a third type of knowledge which they call scientia media (because it stands between the above two types) by which they claim God knows hypothetical facts that may never become actual but would if certain conditions obtain. So it is not quite accurate to say that Thomists see God's knowledge in general as a result of his decrees because the particular order of things, the creation he actualized is a product of his knowledge. Thomist and Molinists both affirm this. The question around middle knowledge is concerned with the medium by which God knows the free actions of rational creatures. Molinists try to establish God's infallible foreknowledge of this by recourse to scientia media, Thomists consider the above two types of knowledge sufficient to account for this and seek to establish God's infallible foreknowledge by recourse to the divine predetermining decrees and physical premotion, which I explained in a previous post.

Well this might be true, but it would be more precise to say that God gives each man the amount of grace needed to be considered sufficient to the task of generating a positive response.

The question now becomes: why of two men being granted this grace to the amount needed to generate a positive response one performs the salutary act and the other doesn't? The Molinist view would need to admit that the man had some good above the other man that did not come from God and that this good lead him to carry the salutary act. The faculty of making the choice comes from God, that is granted, as he created our nature. But the question is about the choice that is actually made. It is certain that we cannot blame the failure to perform the salutary act on God, it is only the creature that it to blame. However, when the salutary act is done, we cannot credit the creature that did it, but God, because the actual response, which is a good, comes from Him. This is why the Scripture says: "Destruction is thy own, O Israel: thy help is only in me." (Osee 13:9).

Absolutely not. Molinists accept predestination as fact and I explained above the 'physical premotion' of the Molinists.

Of course, Molinists accept predestination, it is a dogma of the faith. My comment was not aimed at the issue of predestination, which both Thomists and Molinists are bound to believe. But since you mention it, there is also another difference between both systems here. While some older Molinists affirmed predestination ante prœvisa merita, that is, prior to any foreseen merits, as Thomists maintain. Molinists have traditionally affirmed that predestination is based on foreseen merits, something I think is the inevitable consequence of scientia media. The same goes for reprobation, they maintain that it is after foreseen demerits. Traditionally Thomists have upheld reprobation prior to any foreseen demerits, which is but the logical consequence of the decree of predestination prior to any foreseen merits. Some newer Thomists unfortunately have shifted from this position and departing from the teaching of St. Thomas now want to hold to the idea of predestination prior to any merits and reprobation after foreseen demerits without accepting scientia media.

Not to diverge too much into the issue of predestination (we can if you want to discuss more about it) but I will just point out that the unconditional reprobation of the Thomists differs from the positive reprobation of the Hyper-Calvinists.

I appreciate your teaching. Are we able to come to a concensus? I would say that the Church was correct in making both views acceptable and valid. Is there any reason to say that the Church was wrong in Her edict?

I appreciate dialoguing with you Are we able to come to a consensus? While I do not agree with Molinism and have my reservations about it. I am bound by the judgement of The Church on this issue, who has prohibited Thomists and Molinists from condemning or accusing each other. So, I neither condemn Molinism nor it's adherents and respect it as being within the bound of orthodoxy. So we are free to agree to disagree as is said and still think of each other as Catholics in good standing.


Evo

[Lon]

Originally Posted by godrulz

Will not vs cannot. In some cases, God will not change His mind no matter what (wisdom). In other cases (Hezekiah, for e.g.), He does change His mind in response to believing prayer.

God has sovereignly chosen reciprocal love relationships and has given us a say-so. He has the ultimate say, but He values relationship more than Dictatorship.

Just like a consistent parent, His answer can easily and often is, "No."

He cannot deny Himself in answering a request and He knows our hearts. He isn't a grand genie that grants wishes. More specifically for OV (the genie was just an absurd extreme to try to bring in a balanced view), God doesn't cater to our whims, but our needs. He has His own agenda for answering our prayers in specific ways. He desires to give us the good He has planned, but He knows best, not we. I've been praying long for a young man a pastor-friend of mine discipled. He is a young father with two babies and a loving wife only married 4 years. At 23 he had invasive cancer. I prayed for God to heal him. Two days ago he died. I believe God has the power to have saved him, but I also believe what Paul wrote: To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, I don't know which is better (Philippians 1).

God is relational, but He does not cease to be consistent to His character. It is this consistency that is crucial to a viable relationship with our Creator.

[godrulz]

Rob agrees that omniscience is knowing everything knowable.

This is not knowable until it happens:



geg-h49gh-j 5 49yu=4yu= uj =4 uyk4ujhjrzzcdh ,jk;l./