BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Vaquero45 said:
This is the problem with the timeless, 'eternal now' view. It is not coherent for a personal being, including God. Will, intellect, emotions, and relations require duration/sequence/succession (time). God anticipates the future and responds to contingencies. Can you imagine the cacophony of a symphony listened to in one second instead of over an hour?
STONE said:
William Lane Craig believes God is atemporal before creation, and temporal after creation.
"Eternal now" means timelessness.
Succession would be endless time/duration and is the antithesis of timelessness.
These views are mutually exclusive and contradictory.
Endless duration does not mean God is not distinct from His creation, nor does it imply a limitation on God. It is simply how personal beings experience reality. Timelessness is incoherent if one is personal.
at least he's half right
at least he's half right
Well, all of us theists can agree that he's at least half right.
-Bob
at least he's half right
godrulz said:
Well, all of us theists can agree that he's at least half right.
-Bob
RightIdea
New member
The OV does hold that the future isn't actually something that God can look at and observe, this is true. However, there are three ways in which God can know the future, and two of them are definite.GuySmiley said:
1. God unconditionally foreordains something. If God unconditionally foreordains something, then who is going to stop Him? He knows this part of the future as settled because He has decreed it, and He is powerful enough to enact it, no matter what anyone else says or does. So, it's not a matter of observing the future. He knows His will, and it will happen, come hell or high water. If God unconditionally foreordains that He's going to drive from Denver to Chicago, then you better get out of His way, cuz He's going there, no matter what! And if necessary, He'll plow through anything in His way, including mountains or whatever. Nothing can stop a supremely powerful God from doing something He unconditionally foreordains. But... only some things are unconditionally foreordained.
2. It is a naturalistic/mechanical system of nature that's free of interference from free will. If human free will isn't involved, then this is also something that is perfectly predictable on God's part. It is thus settled, as well. How a snowflake will fall in the middle of nowhere, or the path a comet will take through our solar system... These things aren't influenced by free will. They are purely mechanical, and perfectly predictable.
3. God is the best predictor. This isn't definite like the other two, but God can know the future to a highly accurate degree. This goes without saying. This isn't completely settled, however, like the first two.
Now, back to our point of contention. The OV agrees that some things in the future are settled. I guarantee Bob agrees with this. The crucifixion and resurrection were unconditional. The future return of Christ, the bodily resurrection, the great white throne judgment, and His throwing Hades and Satan and the wicked into the lake of fire are all definitely going to happen, no matter what free will choices are made by human beings. Many prophecies, however, are very conditional as we all know. So, the OV holds that some of the future is settled, while most of the future is not settled.
Therefore, if Lamerson proves that God foreknew some event in the future, we say no problem! We agree God knows some things definitely about the future! The OV agrees God knows some things definitely about the future.
From the moment mankind fell into sin, God knew that the Son would be sent to die and raise from the dead to reconcile mankind. He definitely knew that about the future; from that point forward that was settled. When God repented of making Saul king, Saul's repentance wasn't genuine. From that point forward, God knew He would never go back again and support Saul being king! He would not repent of the fact that He repented! So, God knew definitely that Saul would not have divine approval for kingship from that day forward. Another thing God definitely knew about the future... another future event that was settled.
Read the title of the debate. The issue is whether God knows everything about your (and by implication, everyone's) future. Everything! Therefore, in order to prove his side, Sam must either prove every single instance of foreknowledge in the Bible was known as definite and settled.... or he must at the very least disprove every single example Bob puts forward of God not knowing some future event as settled. The latter is obviously the only one of the two that Sam can attempt. And this puts Sam automatically on the defensive side of this debate. Sam must prove every case that comes forward.
Bob, on the other hand, has to prove only one single case in which God didn't definitely know a future event, in order to prove his side. If God only knows 99.99999% of your future, then He does not know your "entire" future, does he? So, Bob is inherently on the attack side of this debate. Show just one example of some aspect of the future being open to God, and Bob wins. That's literally all it will take.
Of course, it should go without saying that Bob won't settle for just one, nor should he in the interest of being thorough.
Not at all. As I said above, Sam's side of this debate is that God knows your (and everyone's) future entire. So all it takes is one little detail of the future that God doesn't know... to prove that wrong.
If the issue of the debate was whether the future is entirely open... then you'd be right. But to the best of my knowledge, only Process theologians believe that, and the are outside the pale of Christianity.
Godrulez mentioned the issue of whether God has always been temporal or not, and Craig's position. One of the most absolutely convincing aspects of this overall issue is God's temporality. I used to hold to the Simple Foreknowledge view (I was a covenental Arminian in every sense, including soteriologically). Later, I discovered and embraced the Open View. At first, I thought that Calvinism must be the least feasible of the four views, simply because it's at the opposite end of the spectrum. But now, upon further reflection, I realize that actually, to me at least, Calvinism is the second-most likely of the four views.... with Arminianism a distant last place! Why? The issue of divine temporality.
Neither Molinism nor Calvinism require God to be atemporal and "outside of time." The Arminian view, however, does require this. And the atemporal God and "eternal now" view are, I believe, one of the most illogical and nonsensical concepts in the history of philosophy or theology. And this is highlighted by, among other things, the fact that atemporalists always describe their atemporal God in temporal terms! They cannot escape it! The logical conclusion if this dilemma is this -- either God created the universe, in which case God actually experiences a before-and-after reality, in which case God is temporal..... or God didn't create the universe but is inherently co-existent with creation, and we call this view Process Theology, which is heretical.
The mere creation of the universe itself is proof that God is eternally temporal! The mere use of the term "before time" is illogical and self-contradictory on its face. And yet by necessity the atemporal God made decisions and committed actions "before time." Indeed, God was in fellowship within the Trinity before creation, as Bob is pointing out! Relationship between the members of the godhead; what a wonderful and amazing thing!
I tell you, watch the atemporalists whenever you see them. You will invariably see them describing their God in temporal terms. God responds to this and that, God created the universe, God from the "eternal now" injected Himself into the creation. Really? If God commits and act of any kind or has a thought or makes a decision or begins to have a feeling.... all of these things are inherently temporal. If apart from creation or before Creation God was temporal...? Then God was also totally and completely static, unmoving, unchanging, unthinking, unfeeling, unresponsive, non-acting! In which case how could the Molinist God examine all of the possible worlds having free will, choose one of them and then actualize that universe? Sure sounds like actions and decisions and before-and-after from God's perspective, to me!
The concept of an atemporal God, even if you restrict it to before creation, is illogical and self-contradictory on its face. Unless, of course, you want to embrace Process Theology, in which case, by my guest. :readthis:
I'll try to persuade them to not use green wood.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
Yes, that's what I meant by 'proclaiming an action, and carrying through'. No problem.RightIdea said:
No problem here, I wouldnt think of this as knowing the future, but more like perfect predictability, but its just terminology. But I guess knowing the future does fit if you think about it.
Amen!
And now that I see what you mean, I agree also, they are settled in the sense of the above mentioned methods. I have no problem with that. But not in the sense that God is outside of time and sees those things as finished.
Ok, yes I agree. I was thinking along the lines that if Lamerson proved foreknowledge, outside of the methods you first listed, which I guess I never considered those things as closed events, since they have not happened yet. And since I never considered those type of events as closed future, I responded to you the way I did.
But I think your way of explaining that is more logical and thorough. And after thought, I suppose those type of events are part of a closed future since actually no other outcome is possible. And that is completely compatible with the OV. Thanks for the lesson! :thumb:
This makes sense now.
MOLINISM!! That was the fourth view I couldn't think of and I've only recently heard of it here on TOL. I'd like to learn more about that position.
:crackup:
Greg
GuySmiley
Well-known member
Yes, but I also thought it was the claim of the open view that God knows (as in sees the future) 0% of the future, even though He is powerful enough to make happen what He wants to make happen. I was not thinking along the lines that those events are closed, but thank to RightIdea, I get it that they are closed, and its still compatible with the OV. So yes, Lamerson could show several examples where Jesus knew with certainty, future events, but if he doesn't disprove every example Bob uses, then the CV loses. And Bob only needs to prove one. This is my way of backpeddling!deardelmar said:
Greg
GuySmiley
Well-known member
Someone tried to explain this to me once as the problem with simple foreknowledge. So someone thought up a new foreknowlege theory where God has exhaustive foreknowledge concerning Earth, but somehow not on his plane of the universe. It sounded dumb to me. Maybe someone will enlighten us here.Vaquero45 said:
Greg
elected4ever
New member
God's exhaustive foreknowledge is fact, not theory or dumb. Just because you do not understand is no bases to limit God to the limitation of man. Just because we do not know the future does not limit God's ability to know the future. God is in control not man.GuySmiley said:
STONE said:
It is not that God is defined by creation, but that He is transcendant and immanent. We have history and God has His Story (divine history). The Bible is a revelation of God's history. History must be tensed and temporal, not timeless. God appeared to Moses BEFORE He incarnated as Christ. The death of Christ preceded His resurrection and Second Coming.
RightIdea
New member
Ipse dixit.elected4ever said:
You can say it all you want. Whether you can back it up biblically is another matter entirely.
Jerry refused to answer the question, so perhaps you can help us out.
When it says 26 times in the Old Testament that God relented/repented/changed His mind.... what does that mean? Keep in mind that in some of these cases, it is God, Himself, speaking and saying He changes His mind, repents, relents, etc. (These are all the same Hebrew word, btw. "Nacham.")
For example, when God told Moses that He would destroy the Israelites and start over with Moses.... was he lying? Or did He intend to do that, but then changed His mind?
elected4ever said:
If God has "exhaustive foreknowledge" would that include His own actions? It would have to, at least in His dealings with us, right? That would mean God's own future, at least concerning us, is already written in stone, and God is reduced to just another puppet following the script in the creation show. And would His "exhaustive foreknowledge" also include the rest of eternity after the second coming? That means the puppet show's script will be followed forever, and God is just along for the ride, no? It doesn't make sense, when we clearly see God interacting with man in the Bible.
For instance, (Exodus 32:9-14) God was going to "consume" all of Israel, save Moses, and start a new nation through Moses, but Moses pleaded with Him, and pointed out that Egypt would mock His action, so God changed His mind by all appearance. A strange thing to put in the Bible if we are suposed to believe God already knew the future. What message could we take from it, other than God was just kidding? I really do not understand your position. Not trying to attack you personally, I'm truely curious how you can accept that belief. I cannot make sense of it.
Jeff
Right I get you now. The other side of the debate has to list all their proof etc but you don't. It's all clear to me now.STONE said:
Good luck!GuySmiley said:
"Middle View" theology or the Molinist View is the most convoluted, confusing mess of wacky logic I've recently come across! (Well, not counting the insanity posted here on TOL by Ecc_3:6.) I still don't understand it well enough to explain it in my own words. If Occam's razor has an ounce of truth to it, Molinism is in big trouble.
Resting in Him,
Clete
RightIdea
New member
I'll take a crack at it (Molinism) to try to help clarify.
Molinism tries to finagle a way to have both meticulous providence and libertarian free will to their fullest effect. It believes that God originally looked at all the possible universes He could create with free will in them. Looked at every one of the trillions and quadrillions of specific versions of how the universe could be from beginning to end.... and then chose one (the "best possible world") and then "actualized" that universe.
Sort of like a movie producer looking through movie scripts, he picks the best one and then he "actualizes" or creates that movie. And in the movie, the characters have free will (in the story) but the producer chose which one out of all possibilities and then made that one happen.
I agree with the observation that it's a convoluted mess of human philosophy. It's named after its founder (duh), who if I recall was a Jesuit monk named Molina. So, some fringe Catholic theologian from a couple hundred years ago.
Wasn't Molina in the early 1800's? I want to say he was; maybe someone can confirm. I know I've seen various Molinists criticize both the Mid-Acts Dispensational view and the Open View as being "new" ... and yet their own view is only a couple centuries old, as well.... almost exactly the same age as the dispensational movement. LOL
Molinism tries to finagle a way to have both meticulous providence and libertarian free will to their fullest effect. It believes that God originally looked at all the possible universes He could create with free will in them. Looked at every one of the trillions and quadrillions of specific versions of how the universe could be from beginning to end.... and then chose one (the "best possible world") and then "actualized" that universe.
Sort of like a movie producer looking through movie scripts, he picks the best one and then he "actualizes" or creates that movie. And in the movie, the characters have free will (in the story) but the producer chose which one out of all possibilities and then made that one happen.
I agree with the observation that it's a convoluted mess of human philosophy. It's named after its founder (duh), who if I recall was a Jesuit monk named Molina. So, some fringe Catholic theologian from a couple hundred years ago.
Wasn't Molina in the early 1800's? I want to say he was; maybe someone can confirm. I know I've seen various Molinists criticize both the Mid-Acts Dispensational view and the Open View as being "new" ... and yet their own view is only a couple centuries old, as well.... almost exactly the same age as the dispensational movement. LOL
RightIdea said:
Well if that's accurate, it's the clearest and simplest explanation I've ever seen! I've read basically three published things on the subject and none of them made any sense to me at all. As soon as I started to think I was following it, the author would take some unexpected left turn and they'd lose me again. Surely if this was remotely close to being the truth it would be dramatically more eloquent than it is. Like I said before Occham's razor would have a field day with this. Of course that doesn't prove it to be wrong but good grief what a stretch one has to make to believe in this stuff!
Resting in Him,
Clete
- Status