One on One: Knight and Lonster open up the settled view.

[Nathon Detroit]

In private, in the back halls of TOL...... Lonster expressed an interest in discussing the settled view vs. open view theologies. Not being a theologian quickly put me at a disadvantage, yet as many of you know this is my favorite topic on TOL so I quickly agreed to such a conversation.

Lonster, seems to be a really neat guy, although I admit I am not too familiar with his views on this topic. I guess in a way that will make this discussion that much more fun because it will allow me to get to know a TOL member that I don't really know very well.

We agreed in private that we would keep this discussion light and friendly, I even agreed to keep my dogma in the kennel! :shocked: My only request from Lonster is that we discuss what we believe to be true and not defend positions that others believe but we don't believe ourself.

So where do we start?

Well... I will start by saying I believe God is sovereign. In fact, I believe that God is so sovereign that He has control over His own sovereignty. God can delegate authority. God can give away power if He so chooses. God is sovereign and therefore God has control over His own faculties and power.

Lonster, do you believe that God has complete control over His sovereignty?

 

[Lon]

Complete control over His 'complete control?'

Yes.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Complete control over His 'complete control?'

Yes.

Excellent!

Now, with that in mind could God (if He wanted to) give up some of His power say in the form of freewill an open future etc.

In other words.... do you see any logical or philosophical objection to an open future based on God's attributes (specifically His power)?

Or do you object to the idea of an open future based on something else (possibly biblical material etc.).

 

[Lon]

Thank you for your kind introduction and an opportunity to discuss some of our understandings of Theology. I've appreciated particularly the inviting manner that TOL communicates and draws people. As I've discussed with you and others here a bit on TOL, I've come to a better understanding of the OV. My own theology background would likely be closest to Presbyterian, if that helps. Don't let the degree in Theology be a trepiditious concern (as I'm sure you were just being nice). Your handle on theological discussion is appreciated, and as I've looked over some of your other discussion on TOL, I've appreciated our similar stance on many doctrines and discussion.

Because I see no major hang-ups between OV/CV that wouldn't allow us to appreciate one another as brothers in Christ. Our discussion, I'm hopeful, will allow us to converse meaningfully with one another and get a flavor for our understandings.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Thank you for your kind introduction and an opportunity to discuss some of our understandings of Theology. I've appreciated particularly the inviting manner that TOL communicates and draws people. As I've discussed with you and others here a bit on TOL, I've come to a better understanding of the OV. My own theology background would likely be closest to Presbyterian, if that helps. Don't let the degree in Theology be a trepiditious concern (as I'm sure you were just being nice). Your handle on theological discussion is appreciated, and as I've looked over some of your other discussion on TOL, I've appreciated our similar stance on many doctrines and discussion.

Because I see no major hang-ups between OV/CV that wouldn't allow us to appreciate one another as brothers in Christ. Our discussion, I'm hopeful, will allow us to converse meaningfully with one another and get a flavor for our understandings.

:up:

 

[Lon]

Excellent!

Now, with that in mind could God (if He wanted to) give up some of His power say in the form of freewill an open future etc.

In other words.... do you see any logical or philosophical objection to an open future based on God's attributes (specifically His power)?

Or do you object to the idea of an open future based on something else (possibly biblical material etc.).

Yes, but we need to start discussing understandings at this point to be sure we are the same page. Free-will is a huge bag as I'm sure you appreciate so we'll need to consider this for discussion.

I do not have a logical or philosophical objection as I understand free-will.

Even an Open View future, would have set parameters, you'd agree. What this does is makes an open future only 'so' open. Here is one good point of consideration between OV and CV. We would probably only disagree to a certain level if you will. We both have both an OV and CV to a certain extent as I understand your position. How do you see this?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Free-will is a huge bag as I'm sure you appreciate so we'll need to consider this for discussion.

True. All I am seeking to find out if if you believe the alternative is possible.

For instance... I acknowledge that a settled future would have been possible for God to create (although there is an interesting objection to this but that's for another show). God could have created that way had He wanted to. He could have planned out all of the future and created beings that would have acted out this plan. Of course there would be no freedom of the will but God could have created this way had He wanted to.

Therefore, I don't believe it would have been impossible for God to create a settled future, instead I believe that He DIDN'T create a settled future.

I was merely trying to find out if you believe God has the power to create leaving the future open (even if just partially open).

I say... God created leaving future contingencies a very real possibility (i.e., an open future) because that's the way He wanted things.
Others say... God created a settled future because that is the only possible way God could have created things.

What say ye?

Even an Open View future, would have set parameters, you'd agree. What this does is makes an open future only 'so' open. Here is one good point of consideration between OV and CV. We would probably only disagree to a certain level if you will. We both have both an OV and CV to a certain extent as I understand your position. How do you see this?

I would say that even if the future is partially (or even slightly) open, then by definition the future cannot be settled.

Any disagreement?

 

[Lon]

True. All I am seeking to find out if if you believe the alternative is possible.

For instance... I acknowledge that a settled future would have been possible for God to create (although there is an interesting objection to this but that's for another show). God could have created that way had He wanted to. He could have planned out all of the future and created beings that would have acted out this plan. Of course there would be no freedom of the will but God could have created this way had He wanted to.

Therefore, I don't believe it would have been impossible for God to create a settled future, instead I believe that He DIDN'T create a settled future.

I was merely trying to find out if you believe God has the power to create leaving the future open (even if just partially open).

I say... God created leaving future contingencies a very real possibility (i.e., an open future) because that's the way He wanted things.
Others say... God created a settled future because that is the only possible way God could have created things.

What say ye?

I would say that even if the future is partially (or even slightly) open, then by definition the future cannot be settled.

Any disagreement?

You must appreciate that I'm a little more on the same page with you than a settled view would appear. The settled viewers are not as deterministic against freewill as initially appears (again remember I more on that end, but not to quite the same degree as I'll explain).

In a sense, SV isn't exactly settled, and OV isn't exactly open.

The extreme or hyperview of SV would be very deterministic. While we have logical problems with that idea, it is better understood as the work of a creator or artist. They would say, yes, He knows the colors He is using, the brushes He is using and it doesn't take away from the beauty at all that He knows exactly how the picture is going to turn out based on His own understandings of His ability. How would this relate to free will if we are the paint or the canvas? Free will? (maybe the red can blend a little on the edges, not much).

A lighter degree of this is a play. The Playwright is written, but the actors bring their own inflections and carry the story in their own way so the writer still enjoys watching the play.

A little more freedom, but still a Settled View is that it is somewhat scripted, kind of like those choose your own story. You remember those? You could make a choice and move on to the next page and in effect make your own choice how the story proceeds along, but the author has already predetermined the endings and choices. If God has written a make your own story, we have a certain amount of free choice as we have been presented, within set parameters. Free will is open in a determined way. This is more appealing so far to our free will, because we don't have to go one way but can go a diffferent direction.

A little more freedom is added if you are planning a trip. If I plan a trip, there are only so many ways I can go so there is only so much freedom in my choices but there are quite a few choices. Settled View would probably start having problems here at this last point and OV would start feeling some comfort.

The component that helps bring some meaning to this discussion is foreknowledge. How much? Some of our discussion is assuaged by terms like predictability and intervention, but when the rubber meets the road we tend to have strong clashes over this proposition.
How much does God know? When does He know it? SV says all and always. OV says quite a bit and possibility.

I appreciate both of these perspectives in kind, but at this point I'd be hard pressed. I went to a SV school, but out of this school we have Gary Friesen's work "Decision Making and the Will of God." Interesting no? My suggestions is that we cannot know for certain every proposition for these ideas until more dialogue is processed between these two views. What I'd seen as fairly settled on some aspects (like God relenting) have been sufficiently challenged to bring me to a mediating position. At an extreme I have problems with having 'too' open of a view, as I think it has a hard time explaining scripture regarding prophecy, visions, instances of determinism and intervention, and David's words that God laid his life out and it was known (just to name a few). So at this point I'm more Closed than Open, but still hammering out my theology.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You must appreciate that I'm a little more on the same page with you than a settled view would appear. The settled viewers are not as deterministic against freewill as initially appears (again remember I more on that end, but not to quite the same degree as I'll explain).

In a sense, SV isn't exactly settled, and OV isn't exactly open.

:sigh:

I was sort of hoping we would not end up in a debate about the definition of words i.e., settled might not mean settled etc.

Words have meaning and settled means settled. At least as far as I am concerned.

The extreme or hyperview of SV would be very deterministic. While we have logical problems with that idea, it is better understood as the work of a creator or artist. They would say, yes, He knows the colors He is using, the brushes He is using and it doesn't take away from the beauty at all that He knows exactly how the picture is going to turn out based on His own understandings of His ability. How would this relate to free will if we are the paint or the canvas? Free will? (maybe the red can blend a little on the edges, not much).

A lighter degree of this is a play. The Playwright is written, but the actors bring their own inflections and carry the story in their own way so the writer still enjoys watching the play.

A little more freedom, but still a Settled View is that it is somewhat scripted, kind of like those choose your own story. You remember those? You could make a choice and move on to the next page and in effect make your own choice how the story proceeds along, but the author has already predetermined the endings and choices. If God has written a make your own story, we have a certain amount of free choice as we have been presented, within set parameters. Free will is open in a determined way. This is more appealing so far to our free will, because we don't have to go one way but can go a diffferent direction.

A little more freedom is added if you are planning a trip. If I plan a trip, there are only so many ways I can go so there is only so much freedom in my choices but there are quite a few choices. Settled View would probably start having problems here at this last point and OV would start feeling some comfort.

The component that helps bring some meaning to this discussion is foreknowledge. How much? Some of our discussion is assuaged by terms like predictability and intervention, but when the rubber meets the road we tend to have strong clashes over this proposition.
How much does God know? When does He know it? SV says all and always. OV says quite a bit and possibility.

I must be misunderstanding you because I don't really see the settled view in any of your above examples.

The settled view as I refer to it in this thread goes something like this....

God exhaustively ordained in meticulous detail all of history at some point in the past. Some argue He ordained history via His divine decree, some argue He settled history via His exhaustive foreknowledge yet either way no event (not even the most insignificant) happens that wasn't known or decreed in advance. There exists no contingency within the settled view as all available contingencies have already been determined/settled beforehand.

For instance, many SV'ers will bring up fulfilled prophecy as an example that God has settled the future i.e., He was able to accurately predict the future because He has settled the future in advance and therefore knows the future.

I would rather cut to the chase.....

Lonster tell me what you believe to be true regarding the past/present/future.

Do you believe that the events that transpire in the ever passing moment were predetermined in advance by God in meticulous detail? (either by direct decree or by exhaustive foreknowledge)

 

[Lon]

:sigh:

I was sort of hoping we would not end up in a debate about the definition of words i.e., settled might not mean settled etc.

Words have meaning and settled means settled. At least as far as I am concerned.

I must be misunderstanding you because I don't really see the settled view in any of your above examples.

The settled view as I refer to it in this thread goes something like this....

God exhaustively ordained in meticulous detail all of history at some point in the past. Some argue He ordained history via His divine decree, some argue He settled history via His exhaustive foreknowledge yet either way no event (not even the most insignificant) happens that wasn't known or decreed in advance. There exists no contingency within the settled view as all available contingencies have already been determined/settled beforehand.

For instance, many SV'ers will bring up fulfilled prophecy as an example that God has settled the future i.e., He was able to accurately predict the future because He has settled the future in advance and therefore knows the future.

I would rather cut to the chase.....

Lonster tell me what you believe to be true regarding the past/present/future.

Do you believe that the events that transpire in the ever passing moment were predetermined in advance by God in meticulous detail? (either by direct decree or by exhaustive foreknowledge)

I'll answer, but let me discuss a few points.

1st off, I don't know of any SV position that doesn't understand some portion of free will.
This actually puts the SettledView as not Closed, but rather adheres to God's exhaustive knowledge, which is a bit different. In Colossians 3, Christ sustains everything and holds it together. If you are powering every engine that runs by your essence, How exhaustively do you know?

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation,
Col 1:16 for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him — all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers — all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him.


Second: Our freedom is dictated by God so determinism is a truth: Jam 4:13 Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go into this or that town and spend a year there and do business and make a profit."
Jam 4:14 You do not know about tomorrow. What is your life like? For you are a puff of smoke that appears for a short time and then vanishes.
Jam 4:15 You ought to say instead, "If the Lord is willing, then we will live and do this or that."In emphasis, our free will is constrained by God's movement in us:
Phi 2:13 For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.
And there is foreknowing determinism expression in this:
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them.
Foreknowledge is a given factor from scripture for our understanding of God.
Pe 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father by being set apart by the Spirit for obedience and for sprinkling with Jesus Christ's blood. May grace and peace be yours in full measure!

Rom 8:29 because those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters

LQK1: What is the understanding of Foreknowledge? We both agree it exists.

Proposition for this question: Definitition is of utmost importance if we are to understand one another. There can be no meeting of our minds where there is no understanding. I know you understand this. I will respect your time constraints as best as I am able, but in order that we may not talk past one another and that we may give true meaning to this discussion, we need to set our terms in agreement. I would expect this to dissipate over our course of discussion.

KQL: "Do you believe that the events that transpire in the ever passing moment were predetermined in advance by God in meticulous detail?[/B] (either by direct decree or by exhaustive foreknowledge)?"
Answer: I don't know. My theological stance is a qualified 'yes.' The problem here is that I am not God and I do not know the extent of His intimate foreknowledge. Colossians and Psalm 139 allow me to make some conclusive theology regarding His foreknowledge among our other considerations. He is predictive to an accurate fault. He knows our thoughts. He sustains the beat of my heart and every breath of my lung. He knows all of my days.
Psa 139:16 Your eyes saw me when I was inside the womb.
All the days ordained for me
were recorded in your scroll
before one of them came into existence
Kind of like pretaxes I guess. How do we know what to write down when the fiscal year is not even begun? God records David's ordained days ahead of time.
Psa 139:4 Certainly my tongue does not frame a word
without you, O LORD, being thoroughly aware of it.

Psa 139:2 You know my sitting down and my rising up; You understand my thought afar off.
God knows our every thought, and our prethoughts, could He be surprised of our actions?

LQK2: How do you understand these concepts? How do you see them differently?

Foreknowledge and determinism are the difficult components here. We will need to further flesh out these understandings.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I'll answer, but let me discuss a few points.

1st off, I don't know of any SV position that doesn't understand some portion of free will.

I assert that freewill cannot exist in the settled view regardless of what SV'ers claim.

In other words... nobody (not even a SV'er) likes to state that men do not have freewill (it's counter intuitive and flies in the face of the Bible) so SV'ers go to great lengths to defend man's freewill but the logical conclusion of their theology contradicts that.

Listen to what they mean, not what they say.

This actually puts the SettledView as not Closed, but rather adheres to God's exhaustive knowledge, which is a bit different. In Colossians 3, Christ sustains everything and holds it together. If you are powering every engine that runs by your essence, How exhaustively do you know?

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation,
Col 1:16 for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him — all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers — all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him.

God knows everything knowable, no OV'er would state otherwise.

Second: Our freedom is dictated by God so determinism is a truth: Jam 4:13 Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go into this or that town and spend a year there and do business and make a profit."
Jam 4:14 You do not know about tomorrow. What is your life like? For you are a puff of smoke that appears for a short time and then vanishes.
Jam 4:15 You ought to say instead, "If the Lord is willing, then we will live and do this or that."In emphasis, our free will is constrained by God's movement in us:
Phi 2:13 For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.
And there is foreknowing determinism expression in this:
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them.
Foreknowledge is a given factor from scripture for our understanding of God.
Pe 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father by being set apart by the Spirit for obedience and for sprinkling with Jesus Christ's blood. May grace and peace be yours in full measure!

God can bring events to pass if He so chooses.

Psalms 37:5 Commit your way to the LORD, Trust also in Him, And He shall bring it to pass.

This ability does not require exhaustive knowledge, instead it requires power over His creation. Nobody denies God has the power to bring events to pass.

Even still there are times when God says He will bring and event to pass but changes His mind. What does that tell us about the future being settled or open?

Rom 8:29 because those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters

God predestined that the Body of Christ (corporately) be predestined to be holy and blameless until the day of redemption.

He didn't predestined individuals to become (or NOT become) a member of that Body.

LQK1: What is the understanding of Foreknowledge? We both agree it exists.

God knows everything knowable. God can bring events to pass and therefore He knows what He intends to do. However, God is sovereign therefore He has the ability to change His plans based on future contingencies.

If the settled view is true no real change of plan can actually occur otherwise the future wasn't really settled after all was it?

KQL: "Do you believe that the events that transpire in the ever passing moment were predetermined in advance by God in meticulous detail?[/B] (either by direct decree or by exhaustive foreknowledge)?"
Answer: I don't know. My theological stance is a qualified 'yes.' The problem here is that I am not God and I do not know the extent of His intimate foreknowledge.

I am also not God, but God did leave me His word so I can use His word to determine a great deal about God's attributes and foreknowledge. I submit to you we can know beyond any doubt that the future is not meticulously settled.

God knows our every thought, and our prethoughts, could He be surprised of our actions?

Yet how far in advance?

Does he know our thoughts prior to our conception?

You have referenced Psalms 139. I believe Psalms 139 is in regard to God predetermining our physical formation in the womb (Fetalogy).

Basically it's about how awesome God is and how much he knows about us that we don't, and how He designed our growth from just a sperm and an egg. I don't stretch Psalms 139 beyond all comprehension forcing it to mean He has programmed all my days like a robot is programmed.

Psalms 139:12 Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You, But the night shines as the day; The darkness and the light are both alike to You. 13 For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. 14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. 15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them. 17 How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God! How great is the sum of them!​

God could peek into our DNA while we were still in the womb and know what type of a person we will be, what we will look like, and what our disposition will be. No doubt God used this ability when seeking individuals for tasks.

LQK2: How do you understand these concepts? How do you see them differently?

I assert that if God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the past/present/future there is no such thing as freewill.

I assert that compatiblism is nothing more than a slight of hand/mouth trick to attempt to cover a glaring contradiction and inconsistency.

 

[Lon]

If the settled view is true no real change of plan can actually occur otherwise the future wasn't really settled after all was it?

I believe that they would agree with you here, I do not have a logic problem with their stance, but once we start expressing what God can and cannot do or if it makes sense, I have to say 'let's go to the scriptures and see what it says.'

Yet how far in advance?

I'm a bit surprised on this. I'd believed from the time discussion that OV would not even allow this proponent. If you are able to expound a bit on this understanding, it would be appreciated.

Does he know our thoughts prior to our conception?

This is part of our time discussion, so it really depends on how God actually perceives in view of time. Outside and inside? Outside? Inside? I have always understood that it is both/and.

You have referenced Psalms 139. I believe Psalms 139 is in regard to God predetermining our physical formation in the womb (Fetalogy).

Basically it's about how awesome God is and how much he knows about us that we don't, and how He designed our growth from just a sperm and an egg. I don't stretch Psalms 139 beyond all comprehension forcing it to mean He has programmed all my days like a robot is programmed.

When my kids were younger, because their experiences were so limited, there were very similar patterns in all of them. The first one, we were driving to the doctor all the time, jumping at any cry. We didn't know what to expect. There were not a lot of surpises after our first one. The others developed through similar stages of development. It would not be fair or accurate to say that we weren't overjoyed or appreciative of the following children, even if there were determinisms that followed a pretty close scenario.

Or how about watching a movie. Why is it that some of them we watch over and over again repeatedly? It seems odd to me that in a very deterministic way, they are still fun to watch over again. They still bring up the same emotions. They still ring true on good triumphing over evil. I still enjoy them.

I have a few favorite meals. They do not change at all. I've tasted them before, experience exactly the same flavors and yet, I still completely enjoy them.

I love re-reading books, and indeed my Bible. I've read every letter, but I still love going back and reliving those stories and those truths.

I'd at least like to appreciate determinism from this kind of perception. The bag becomes exponentially full when we start talking about how exhaustive foreknowledge is confining, yet I still enjoy revisiting past experiences. As I look back on some of the standout stories and experiences of my life, there is no doubt that they are absolute now, they cannot be changed. I don't think 'robot' when I look at my past, and in fact think quite the opposite. Frankly, if my every step is predetermined and I have absolutely no choice in anything at all, so what? If this is true, and I'm not saying it is, so what? Has my life been robbed? Have I lost anything precious? What about God? Has He lost anything?
Though I believe in a lot more freedom than this, I am not threatened by the Determinist and his view whatsoever. On the other end of the spectrum, I'm also not threatened by a situation where not much is known by God regarding future events. His involvement with us has meaning in a relational way. He guides us and protects us in intervention, and sets His angels to watch over us and guide our steps. This also has no threat. The only problem, and probably because of my classic training, is that some of the proponents do not blend well with scripture interpretation as I understand them.

I assert that if God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the past/present/future there is no such thing as freewill.

I'm not even sure I could understand exhaustive foreknowlege in such a way as to make any claims for what it can and cannot allow for freewill. My mind is boggled by an ability to grasp eternity past, foreknowlege is like this to me as well. Even if God just knows 'what is knowable' (I'm not sure I grasp all of this statement from your perspective, but I think I get the gist) There is so much that He knows that my mind cannot even traipse or comprehend the extensiveness. If He has exhaustive foreknowlege, as a SV doctrine suggests, my ability to grasp such a thing is exponentially moved from my conception. It would cross dimentional boundaries, time, and perception in possibility that my mind is incapable of grasping. Freewill has boundaries. There is no such thing as exhaustive freewill, because we are finite beings. If God knows the choice I will make when I come to the fork in the road, and He also knows what would have happened if I chose the other fork in the road, At the point of my choosing, I have a free choice, even if God knows which one I will choose. He provided the opportunity for me choose, and how He would respond either way from this view.
How would there be no free choice? I offer my kids choices all the time. Though I do not have exhaustive foreknowledge, I appreciate that I can predict with clear accuracy, which movie they will pick or which dessert they will pick. You might wonder if I am really giving them freechoice if I already know which they will choose, and my answer is yes. The choice is real, and it is theirs. Just because I know what they are going to choose doesn't negate their choice.

I assert that compatiblism is nothing more than a slight of hand/mouth trick to attempt to cover a glaring contradiction and inconsistency.

You have to explain to me the contradiction and inconsistency. I don't see it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I believe that they would agree with you here, I do not have a logic problem with their stance, but once we start expressing what God can and cannot do or if it makes sense, I have to say 'let's go to the scriptures and see what it says.'

I agree with that. :up:

I don't mean to be rude and ignore your post but look how fast these discussions balloon into lengthy time consuming posts. :shocked:

Lets only order from the "bite-size" menu.

I would like to focus on your last comment....

How would there be no free choice? I offer my kids choices all the time. Though I do not have exhaustive foreknowledge, I appreciate that I can predict with clear accuracy, which movie they will pick or which dessert they will pick. You might wonder if I am really giving them freechoice if I already know which they will choose, and my answer is yes. The choice is real, and it is theirs. Just because I know what they are going to choose doesn't negate their choice.


You have to explain to me the contradiction and inconsistency. I don't see it.

The answer is as bright as the sun!

Man does not have exhaustive foreknowledge. (you actually answered the question yourself in your post)

The difference between foreknowledge and exhaustive foreknowledge is like the difference between limited power and omnipotence.

Exhaustive foreknowledge is knowledge that is.... well.... exhaustive! Without exception. Without contingency. Not missing in any detail, no matter how small (the behavior and movement of every molecule, the size and shape of every snowflake, the choice and thought of every human for all of time). If God has exhaustive foreknowledge nothing could ever happen that wasn't contained within that knowledge. By removing any contingency we therefore remove any possibility of freewill (other than illusionary).

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement and why?

If God has exhaustive foreknowledge nothing could ever happen that wasn't contained within that knowledge.

 

[Lon]

I agree.

Question: Why would exhaustive foreknowledge negate freewill?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I agree.

Question: Why would exhaustive foreknowledge negate freewill?

By agreeing with my statement... "If God has exhaustive foreknowledge nothing could ever happen that wasn't contained within that knowledge." You answer the question yourself.

Think about it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Oh and... did you read the part of my post where I stated.....

Exhaustive foreknowledge is knowledge that is.... well.... exhaustive! Without exception. Without contingency. Not missing in any detail, no matter how small (the behavior and movement of every molecule, the size and shape of every snowflake, the choice and thought of every human for all of time). If God has exhaustive foreknowledge nothing could ever happen that wasn't contained within that knowledge. By removing any contingency we therefore remove any possibility of freewill (other than illusionary).

 

[Lon]

By agreeing with my statement... "If God has exhaustive foreknowledge nothing could ever happen that wasn't contained within that knowledge." You answer the question yourself.

Think about it.

How does knowledge equal determinism? I don't think Aristotle's problem applies logically. http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/freewill2.htm

Knowledge and determinism are separate issues in my mind.

I can know everthing there is to know about x, but I do not have to be the author of x.
If I examine an egg, know everything there is to know about an egg, I am still not a chicken. God's knowledge is infinitely more capable, and He is indeed the author, designer, and sustainer of chickens, but He is not one. In computer programming, the programmer can make a program with an 'if' statement or randomizer string that allows a program to roll a dice and change an outcome. However, because the programmer wrote every word of the program, he knows fairly exhaustively what will happen in those scenarios. If you do not understand what I am saying, make sure to read proposition 3 on that link, for I believe he explains the problem I believe you are having on this dilemma quite well.

Please appreciate that I do not believe in exhaustive foreknowledge, but I don't want to define God's knowledge in a way that exceeds scripture, as I believe there can be a danger from either side of this discussion. I know to a reasonable certaintly that God's knowledge is on points, purposefully selective, or He could not forget my sin, nor could His Holy Spirit be quenched if I believed in exhaustive presence.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

How does knowledge equal determinism?

Knowledge doesn't equal determinism. Exhaustive foreknowledge does. (for reasons already stated, and of course common sense).

Please appreciate that I do not believe in exhaustive foreknowledge,

Excellent! I didn't know you were an Open Theist! :up:

Should I close this thread?

 

[Lon]

Knowledge doesn't equal determinism. Exhaustive foreknowledge does. (for reasons already stated, and of course common sense).

Excellent! I didn't know you were an Open Theist! :up:

Should I close this thread?

LOL, "...killing me Smalls."

If this were the case, the only people that would have a problem between the 2 views would be.....

I'd still appreciate discussing our differences and the differences with the Settled View.

One instance of course is God's understanding of the future, I really believe that scripture demands that God know much of the future in foreknowledge. Though I probably would be seen as a very conservative OV Theist, we still seem to have some discussion.

It was interesting when Gary Friesen wrote his book, "Decision Making and the Will of God," he published right during my junior year. He came into the cafeteria and spoke and took questions from us and even there there was division. Some students were really troubled, some of us were right in the middle somewhere, and the Assemblies kids were estatic!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

How does knowledge equal determinism? I don't think Aristotle's problem applies logically. http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/freewill2.htm

In the link you supplied under proposition three (which you asked that I read) I see absolutely no objection to Open Theism made or even attempted. If anything it's just a statement of how things are and how things transpire. It doesn't even address compatabilism as far as I can tell.

I am not sure why you wanted me to read it but was there a point you thought it made that objected to Open Theism?