themuzicman
Well-known member
However, you don't need have foreknowledge of every individual to make predictions about the group.
Muz
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
However, you don't need have foreknowledge of every individual to make predictions about the group.
Muz
themuzicman
Well-known member
Exhaustive, definite foreknowledge and free will are incompatible. link
Knowledge of the exact course of events isn't necessary for the prophecy to be fulfilled.
Muz
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Ahh, the internet. In general, persons that rely upon the internet to cherry-pick arguments in hopes of bolstering their own should take heed that they may encounter others who are more informed about the full spectrum of the issues that they are attempting to argue or persuade.
Doesn't anyone read books anymore? :think:
You are attempting to leverage Zagzebski's (the author of the entry at Stanford's site you are leveraging) arguments incorrectly. Her book on the full treatment of the dilemma is a standard text I have used in courses.
The freedom used by Zagzebski in discussing the foreknowledge dilemma is "libertarian" or "incompatabilist" freedom. You may be interested to know that Ms. Zagzebski does not deny that the foreknowledge dilemma could be resolved if she settled for a compatibilist view of freedom. Moreover she notes that the assumption of a temporal God lies behind her argument. Once you move God outside of time, where no "yesterday" exists, the syllogism collapses. For more details, I refer you to her book, The Dilemma of Freedom and Foreknowledge, for more details.
Last edited:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
It's not a prediction.
Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also DID predestinate to BE CONFORMED to the IMAGE of his SON, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
How can something happen to the unit, if the individuals of that unit are not affected?
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
It's pretty clear that those God foreknew would make up the Body were identified
with Jesus Christ, justified with him, and identified in his glorification.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Oh, that.. that happens after we get saved, and it's still conditional.
No, Paul is speaking of those who are already saved. God foreknows that He will save those who believe, and this describes those who believe. There isn't any need to foreknow the individuals who will be glorified.
Muz
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Glorified is past tense, and it's in Christ. His Body is glorified WHEN he is glorified.
RobE
New member
And we see here --- "It doesn't matter what causes the action!" --- the lie which Clete has swallowed whole.
It does matter. If your own will is what causes the action then it remains free. It is only unfree if some outside force causes it!
All actions have preceeding causes. Otherwise, they would not occur.
AMR is not lying as Clete claims. If God foreknows the future and creates it as a reality, then Clete's dishonest belief deduces that God's foreknowledge caused the action. Is there any other interpretation? Will Clete retract his dishonest statement about AMR lying?
RobE
New member
Why do acts of the will have to be completely random to be free?
What we see is RobE's complete inability to use his pea sized brain.
It doesn't matter TO THE ARGUMENT!!!
It can only be your will that causes it if it wasn't determined before you (and thus your will) existed and if your having done otherwise was a real possibility, you blithering idiot!
So what? This is completely irrelevant to the argument.
Oh, yes he is! You're just too stupid to detect it.
Wrong! You might just be stupid enough to not have known this was false when you stated it and so while you are a complete imbecile, I can't rightly accuse you of lying here.
AMR is an intentional liar. I can't remember the last time he engaged the debate in an honest manner. He distorts the Open View at every opportunity and does so intentionally. He is a liar - pure and simple.
No this qualifies as a lie! You know full well that no one has ever suggested any such thing. But that does matter to you at all, does it?
Resting in Him,
Clete
I have often stated that EDF does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that God is the cause of all things that happen but that an argument to the effect could be made. You've hit on that very argument with this post. But in reality when the argument is fully fleshed out what happens is that instead of proving that foreknowledge is causal it proves the Arminian position of simple foreknowledge to be incoherent and therefore false. To take the argument from there and still conclude that foreknowledge is causal would actually be to beg the question. In short, no matter how you slice it, the foreknowledge of a thing does not cause that thing. Indeed, Calvinist and Arminians alike believe that both the cause and the effect are foreknown by God.
Resting in Him,
Clete
philetus re nitpicking
philetus re nitpicking
MAY i SAY WITH GRATITUDE, again, you have put things into perspective. Thank you, Bybee
philetus re nitpicking
How did Christianity survive before the printing press? Before the Enlightenment? Before the academy? Before Sunday School? Before bible dictionaries and commentaries? Modernism has done more to convince Christians (especially in the West) of what they can't possibly know to the point that they have forgotten WHO they CAN know. Our knowledge of God is possible because we have the Holy Spirit to 'remind us' of all that 'Jesus taught and did' and to lead us into all truth. The scriptures and the academy are secondary to the presence of the risen Master of our discipleship. That is neither to minimize nor exaggerate the importance of scripture and teaching and the role the ecclesia might play in discipleship.
As important as it is not to say to little, we must also be careful not to say to much. Before bibles were readily available, the church of necessity held the prominent place of authority. As scripture circulated more widely it became clear to the 'laity' and honest clergy that the church was abusing its authority and the bible became the authority; 'scripture alone' served as the litmus test for checks and balances in knowing the truth. Through 'scientific' methods Modern theologies have done everything they can to strip the scriptures of what is 'unknowable' leaving us with little more than an ancient Palestinian Jew with the big head and a biblical account that is exaggerated by myth. Surely the One who changed water to wine can change our thinking as He disciples us with the help of scripture and the Spirit and the fellowship of believers.
God help us! The remedy is not some knee-jerk reaction that exaggerates the 'Omnis' through proof texting, but an honest faith that humbly seeks understanding in a triune God. 'Faith alone!' Faith in a risen savior who is Lord over all things for the church; Faith that as we open the bible we do so with full expectation that God will speak to us and give us understanding, not merely lead us to a proof text to reinforce our preconceived theologies; Faith that when we gather in His name He is present not as referee, but as Servant of God and servant to man. It is only under the Lordship of Jesus as the final authority in heaven and on earth that scripture and fellowship smooth out and we begin to understand our role as servants of Christ Jesus - being disciples and making disciples.
Nit-picking comes naturally; you were born with it: specks in the eye that become logs with enough mishandled scripture and divided fellowships. The only cure is to be 'born again' - born from above - born of the Spirit and that comes only and entirely by grace through faith.
Philetus
MAY i SAY WITH GRATITUDE, again, you have put things into perspective. Thank you, Bybee
The foreknowledge is primarily corporate. The secondary knowledge of individuals does not happen until they believe and become part of the elect. If they never believed, they would never become part of the group. God can foreknow Israel and the Church because He can ensure causally that they exist. He cannot foreknow with certainty which individuals will eventually join or leave the group if their choices are contingent (unsettled; may or may not happen; possible vs certain) or genuinely free. There is no indication from Scripture that specific individuals are known to be saved or damed in God's mind trillions of years ago. Calvinists believe it is possible due to God's determinism, while you must think it is possible through eternal now foreknowledge or simple foreknowledge. If your assumptions about eternity are flawed, then your conclusions are simply you reading your assumption into the text despite it not saying so explicitly.
Election is in Christ and the Church, not elect vs non-elect individuals apart from their responses in the present, not the remote past.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
To take Romans 8:28-31 at a face value/common sense approach would be to believe that God foreknew the individuals who make up the "whom". You can't take it at face value because you are convinced that it's illogical.
I think we'd all be better off to just believe God and let every man
constructed logic "proof" be a liar.
The Rapture defies logic and the laws of physics, yet you can believe that
To take Romans 8:28-31 at a face value/common sense approach would be to believe that God foreknew the individuals who make up the "whom". You can't take it at face value because you are convinced that it's illogical.
I think we'd all be better off to just believe God and let every man
constructed logic "proof" be a liar.
The Rapture defies logic and the laws of physics, yet you can believe that
The Christological/corporate election is revelation, not just logic. Those believers in Rome were part of the elect, so it does refer to those historical individuals. Future believers like us were not in the context. It is now true of us now that we believed, but it was not true before we were born to make the choice leading to life and addition to the Body.
You are assuming simple foreknowledge and reading that into the text. This is as much logical or philosophical as me assuming that the future is partially open and known as such (based on biblical evidence). Your view is too Calvinistic for my liking. Good day.
The only way you would believe that is if those were the only 4 verses of Scripture you had ever read.
This very sentence is constructed of logic! You cannot escape logic, STP! Your every attempt is a self-defeating dive into a world where no proposition can be declared true or false. Without logic, knowledge is impossible.
The Rapture doesn't defy logic! In what way is the Rapture logically incoherent (i.e. not self-consistent)? Which of the laws of reason does the doctrine violate?The Rapture defies logic and the laws of physics, yet you can believe that
And the Rapture is a super-natural event and so who would expect for it to conform to the laws of physics?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Uh . . .you just introduced a logical contradiction . . .
You are the stupidest person alive!
"you are the stupidest person alive..."
"you are the stupidest person alive..."
This quote made me laugh outloud. When my five kids and assorted neighborhood friends would be playing in our basement, occasionally I'd hear one of them say "you are the stupidest person in the world!" I would hide my smile and say "Now, now, you are friends. Please try to find something nice to say, blah, blah, blah" They'd wait til I went back upstairs and I'd hear someone say "what's her problem?". Such is motherhood.Now, theological debate by adult, knowledgable christians ought, perhaps, to be conducted on a little higher plane???????:sigh:
"you are the stupidest person alive..."
This quote made me laugh outloud. When my five kids and assorted neighborhood friends would be playing in our basement, occasionally I'd hear one of them say "you are the stupidest person in the world!" I would hide my smile and say "Now, now, you are friends. Please try to find something nice to say, blah, blah, blah" They'd wait til I went back upstairs and I'd hear someone say "what's her problem?". Such is motherhood.Now, theological debate by adult, knowledgable christians ought, perhaps, to be conducted on a little higher plane???????:sigh:
"foreknowledge relates to the group.."
"foreknowledge relates to the group.."
If God foreordains everything then our lives are no more valuable than a movie script with God being the writer, casting director, set designer and so on. We become merely hand selected actors in the drama of life and God our only audience. This is so pointless as to be beyond rational belief.
"foreknowledge relates to the group.."
If God foreordains everything then our lives are no more valuable than a movie script with God being the writer, casting director, set designer and so on. We become merely hand selected actors in the drama of life and God our only audience. This is so pointless as to be beyond rational belief.
Philetus
New member
To take Romans 8:28-31 at a face value/common sense approach would be to believe that God foreknew the individuals who make up the "whom". You can't take it at face value because you are convinced that it's illogical.
I think we'd all be better off to just believe God and let every man
constructed logic "proof" be a liar.
The Rapture defies logic and the laws of physics, yet you can believe that
Why not just common sense and face value for all scripture? You seem to think that your particular common sense isn't all that common among those who disagree with you. Hows come?
translation: "I think we'd all be better off to just believe MY VERSION of God and declare everybody a truth teller."
I don't/can't take it at YOUR face value reading simply because (IMHO) that's not what scripture says at all! Moreover, that's not my experience in Christ or my relationship with the Holy Spirit. "By grace;" that's the corporate offer. "Through faith;" that's the individual's response. We can stubbornly reject or with the help of the Spirit accept God's free gift. What could be more face value than that? Seems common enough to make sense to me, regardless the extent to which modern theologies complicate the life (another word comes to mind) out of it.
Maybe Jesus did say, "Its good that I go away so I can send you another/better book." :shut:
So many teachers ....... so few ears. Does the Spirit still speak to the church today?
Philetus
- Status