spaz said:I'm not sure what is the point of bringing up Plato etc. We are all dealing with philosophy here. predestination is from the Greek word prooridtz which mean God delcalres through foreknowledge. It is not causal.
Philetus said:Consider the conversation of the two thieves on the crosses adjacent to the cross of Jesus. Their brief exchange determined where they spent the rest of the day and all eternity. “Today, you will be with me in paradise” was addressed to only one. No mention is made as to the color of their clothing. It just didn’t matter in the divine scheme of things. Yet, the clothing of Jesus is mentioned and it is a reminder that God is meticulous in orchestrating and bringing His plans to actuality. But, to make the leap that every detail of our lives is meticulously determined by persnickety divine intervention or ‘interference’ (meticulous control and exhaustive foreknowledge) is not Biblical.
RobE said:My use is correct. If someone puts a gun to your head they are attempting to coerce you through threat of violence. If you capitulate then you were coerced. If you don't capitulate you remain uncoerced.
RobE said:Foreknowledge is always a probability until the knowledge is proven to be accurate by the outcome.
RobE said:Rob: The challenge for the O.V. is to prove that God is willing to change the future in such a way that it will impact all of eternity and must also be a change that wasn't planned from the beginning(such a the Christ).
AJ: Please explain why either of these must be true for the open position to be true. I am not saying I doubt you, but why must it be a change that wasn’t planned for, in order for Open Theism to be true?
Your last question first. If it was a 'planned' change then it was considered and therefore known.
RobE said:Your first question last. If the change which God makes doesn't have eternal ramifications then it doesn't change the future at all.
RobE said:Or it proves the sovereignty of God. It depends on which pair of goggles you wear.
RobE said:Rob: The challenge for the O.V. is to prove that God never intended to interfere with man.
AJ: Most OVers believe that God always planned to “interfere with man”, so it is pointless for us to need to prove something we don’t hold to. God always planned to interfere with man by communication, fellowship, love, and interaction. God always planned that if man broke fellowship He would send his son as a means to reconnect that fellowship. However, that God knew exactly which course would come about is where our burden of proof lies … and I think that the OV position does a good job with that burden of proof.
No. Adam's actions HAD to surprise God in the O.V. If God always 'planned' to interfere with man then His plans were foreknown because they became the outcome.
RobE said:Your assertion, "However, that God knew exactly which course would come about is where our burden of proof lies...." is foreknowledge proven.
Yet that raises the question "Who would God have gotten to accomplish the task of Judas which was foretold and how would God have manipulated the man into doing it?"
RobE said:Great post overall, but declaring that exhaustive foreknowledge is not Biblical without any proofs is contradictory to your cause. I would say that meticulous control is not Biblical and shouldn't be confused with knowledge and is a distinction that is universally rejected by those of the O.V.
The Two theives are of great pertinence to this discussion since they parallel the two disciples Peter and Judas when considering how Grace interacts with mankind. How is it that Judas and the 'bad' thief did not seem to have sufficient Grace to overcome their own natures and aquire salvation when Peter and the Good 'thief' had exactly the same environments as their counterparts had and came to salvation?
The answer lies within different modes of Grace, specifically sufficient and effecacious. We've discussed this before when speaking of what part does free will play in the salvation of man. Principally its effect is to change sufficient into effecacious. Cooperation is what it requires.
In response to your overall point. God may very well not want to know the mundane choices that we make everyday including sock color, etc. It however does not preclude Him from knowing it if that is His wish. He does however wish to know the outcomes of His overall plan for creation and salvation is not a mundane choice. So why wouldn't He want to know the outcomes of those choices?
Rob
RobE said:In response to your overall point. God may very well not want to know the mundane choices that we make everyday including sock color, etc. It however does not preclude Him from knowing it if that is His wish. He does however wish to know the outcomes of His overall plan for creation and salvation is not a mundane choice. So why wouldn't He want to know the outcomes of those choices?
Rob
spaz said:It doesn't say in scripture that God has exhaustive forekonwledge just knowledge pertaining to our moral choices.
spaz said:God is eternity the simultaneous possesion of limitless life. As such he is outside time.
As Godrulz has pointed out this is irrational but since that's never stopped any Catholic I've ever known from believing anything I would like for you to try to prove that God is outside of time with Scripture. Not that an inability to do so will be any more convincing than a rational argument but just for the sake of keeping people at least a little bit interested in what you have to say and to show that you are presenting something other than your mere opinion.spaz said:God is eternity the simultaneous possesion of limitless life. As such he is outside time.
godrulz said:There is no strategic advantage to know the outcome of mundane choices from eternity past. Since they are not possible objects of knowledge, God correctly knows them when they are made (actual vs possible/potential). God knows reality as it is. Simple foreknowledge is an assumption, but not a self-evident one. God either knows possible objects of knowledge or not. He cannot not want to know something knowable. His knowledge of the ultimate consummation of human history is based on His ability to intervene as much as necessary. It also does not necessitate that every molecule do exactly what He wants it to. Likewise, He is not set back by not knowing who will win lotteries, sports events, what we all will eat at any given moment, etc. These things have no effect on His plan/project (Second Coming issues are not enhanced or thwarted by my choice of chocolate vs vanilla....if my parents did not come together I would not exist....it was not foreseeable before I was born whether my parents would mate or with someone else...I would then not exist and someone else would have existed...if we are free to marry one of thousands, the procreation outcomes are not certain...predestination or coercion might account for certain knowledge, but at the expense of self-evident freedom).
ApologeticJedi said:Rather than quibble, let's use your definition for coerced, because your argument breaks down quickly with that definition.
So you believe that free will depends on the outcome? If you give in to threats, then you didn't have free will because you were coerced. However, if you didn't give in, then you have free will. Clearly you can do better. That's a very shaky definition for free will.
AJ said:So you don’t believe that God knows exactly which outcome will come about, but only knows probabilities? … thus the future is not "settled" in how it will play out, but is open? … If so, let me say “Awesome”!! I’d like to be the first to welcome you to the Open View. Perhaps you’ve had this belief for sometime and did not realize what it was called.
AJ said:To believe that the true outcome of the future is undecided is the root behind a group of various views that are grouped together under the label of Open View (as opposed to the Settled View which believes that the exact course of the future is already determined.
But in that case, the future wasn’t settled .. therefore it was open. You are affirming that God didn’t know which future would play out … that is an Open View – whether it was planned or unplanned it was open.
AJ said:I'm glad I asked these questions as it uncovered your confusion as to what we Open Viewers believe. Now some in the Open camp will say that God planned for every contingency in the past, however, some like me will maintain that such was unnecessary, and that God only planned for major shifts and knew He could work ou the minor details as He went ... but both views hold that the future is open and not settled.
AJ said:I think you have built a strawman argument for the Open view because you are unfamiliar with what is being discussed. We do not deny, for instance, that God had a plan to have Jesus save mankind should Adam sin … the disagreement is not that God had a plan for every contingency, but that God did not know which contingency He would need to use.
AJ said:If God changed the winds so that there would be more rain in Oklahoma tomorrow , then He changed the future. ("Tomorrow" is still in the future, right?) It doesn’t matter that the ramifications were not eternal.
AJ said:Where we differ from the Settled view is that the Settled View believes that God knew that Adam would sin and that He would need to use his backup plan. The Open view says that God was prepared with his backup plan but didn’t absolutely know that he would need to use itbut knew it only as one possibility. That's the difference between the two camps.
AJ said:If you believe as I understand you to mean, then you’re beliefs are closer to the open view, you just didn’t know what the open view was so you thought you were against it.
AJ said:The Old Testament prophecies attributed to Judas are usually speaking about something very different. If Judas had not betrayed Christ, no one would have looked to any ancient prophecy and said “This failed to be fulfilled!”. It is like the prophecy that Matthew quotes when Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt. The prophecy that he quotes had nothing to do with Jesus’ parents. Its primary meaning was to an Israel under bondage … Matthew points out a second meaning that had Joseph and Mary not escaped to Egypt would not have been considered “unfulfilled” if they had chosen not to go.
RobE said:Your position is that God didn't plan you or help bring you into existence then?
Rob
spaz said:All these arguments for open theism are from uninformed reason or warped interpretation of Scripture.
spaz said:You can find may verses that speak of an all knowing, all powerfull, limitless God. nowhere does it mentioned "corporate elect" which was some idea cooked up to try to get around serious problems with open theism.
RobE said:In what way? Will isn't the word being debated it is the word 'free' in front of it.
RobE said:This choice would be the outcome I keep speaking of and no O.V.er seems to be able to differentiate outcome from ability. Hence the never ending argument "If God knows the outcome then I had no choices!". And my response "Knowledge doesn't take your abilities away!".
RobE said:As I have said, according to the argument on causality from a linear perspective, foreknowledge must be a probability. If I think something will happen then the probability isn't as well defined as it is when God thinks something will happen. Maybe for me it is a probability of 90 to 1 for/against. In the same situation the same probability for God's knowledge is infinity to 1 or greater! Whatever number is closest to no chance that anything will happen except what God thinks will happen.
RobE said:That 'root' which has been argued for centuries has caused many heresies including Pelagianism, Calvinism, Semi-Pelagianism, etc...
RobE said:Both would be plausible if God foreknew/foreplanned involvement within creation. Exaustive foreknowledge wouldn't be neccesary for the operation within creation, but would be neccessary for the development and implimentation of a plan to produce a desired outcome(s).
I said: “I think you have built a strawman argument for the Open view because you are unfamiliar with what is being discussed. We do not deny, for instance, that God had a plan to have Jesus save mankind should Adam sin … the disagreement is not that God had a plan for every contingency, but that God did not know which contingency He would need to use.”
RobE responded: “This I vehemently disagree with. I believe Jesus was the Plan for creation, not a fail-safe if man couldn't pull it off himself. This is more like Pelagianism where man is able to save himself. Because after all, if man can fall he can get back up without a saviour.”
RobE said:Maybe it is helping to find out why I'm against it. My arguments on this thread have been from the position of Molina.
RobE said:I was speaking to Jesus' own words....
John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.